What is a Motion to Compel Production of Documents?

The demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance if the responding party “fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party's statement of compliance....” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.320(a); see also Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(a) (“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action... fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”).)

How to Structure the Motion

If a motion seeks to order the deponent to produce documents listed in the deposition notice, then the motion must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electrically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(b)(1).)

A party demanding the production of document to move for an order to compel further responses if:

  1. a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete,
  2. a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, and
  3. an objection in the response is without merit or too general.

...The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.

(Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.310)

The California Rules of Court do not require the moving party to file a separate statement in connection with the distinct motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 to compel the deponent to appear for examination. (Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).)

Response

The Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.260(a) provides that within 30 days after service of a demand for production of documents the party to whom the demand was directed shall serve a written response to the party making the demand. The Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.250(a) provides that the response shall be verified. Further, the Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.280(b) requires the party to whom the demand for production was directed to produce the requested documents by the date specified in the demand unless an objection has been made to that date.

Useful Rulings on Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Recent Rulings on Motion to Compel Production of Documents

126-150 of 1484 results

ADRIAN M. AGUILAR VS TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

CONCLUSION AND ORDER Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, Inc.’s motion to compel production of documents is granted pursuant to CCP §2025.480. Plaintiff is ordered to produce the documents identified in Defendant’s request for production in the third notice of taking Plaintiff’s deposition, without objections, within fifteen (15) days of notice of this order.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SEMPER V. CASTILLO

Plaintiff also moved to compel production of documents pursuant to the notice of deposition. A motion to compel documents must “set forth specific facts showing good cause” justifying the production. (Code Civ. Proc. §2025.450, subd. (b)(1).) Neither the memorandum of points and authorities, nor the accompanying declaration in support thereof, makes any mention of good cause or specific facts justifying the production at issue here.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

SEMPER V. CASTILLO

Motions: By Plaintiff Mark Semper to: ∙ Compel Production of Documents from Defendant Andrea Castillo ∙ Compel Depositions of Nika Semper and Natalia Semper ∙ Compel Depositions of Linda Stubbs and Lauren Semper Ruling: To deny the motion to compel production of documents from Defendant Andrea Castillo.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

CA LABOR COMMISSIONER VS. SHASTA CO TOWING

Plaintiff further requests sanctions in the amount of $4,800.00 for the preparation and litigation of the Motion to Compel Production of Documents.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2019

CA LABOR COMMISSIONER VS. SHASTA CO TOWING

Plaintiff further requests sanctions in the amount of $4,800.00 for the preparation and litigation of the Motion to Compel Production of Documents.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2019

HASSAN VS. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition of PMK, to compel production of documents at deposition, and for sanctions. Motion granted. (CCP 2025.450(a), (b).) Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is ordered to produce its person(s) most knowledgeable as to each category identified in plaintiff’s deposition notice, on 12-30-19 at 10:00 AM, at the offices of plaintiff’s counsel (11845 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1270, Los Angeles, CA 90064), which deposition will continue day to day until completed.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2019

KARESH V. SWIDER

MOTIONS TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Defendant Tustin Unified School District’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff Parri Karesh’s production of documents is granted. Defendant Tustin Unified School District’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff Tracy Karesh’s production of documents is also granted. Defendant’s requests for production of documents relate to Plaintiffs’ damages and causes of action. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) Plaintiffs state responsive documents will be produced.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2019

FENN TERMITE AND PEST CONTROL INC. VS SHELTON

Motion to Compel Production of Documents Fenn never provided any response to the document production. Once again, Fenn attempts to justify the failure to respond by arguing that the requests were duplicative of earlier discovery. If so, Fenn could have brought a motion for a protective order as it said it was going to do. No motion was filed, and responses were required under the statutory scheme. The motion to compel responses to the document production request is granted.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2019

FENN TERMITE AND PEST CONTROL INC. VS SHELTON

Motion to Compel Production of Documents Fenn never provided any response to the document production. Once again, Fenn attempts to justify the failure to respond by arguing that the requests were duplicative of earlier discovery. If so, Fenn could have brought a motion for a protective order as it said it was going to do. No motion was filed, and responses were required under the statutory scheme. The motion to compel responses to the document production request is granted.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2019

JEAN- PIERRE FABRE VS DISNEY CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND INTERACTIVE MEDIA, INC,

19GDCV00006 JEAN- PIERRE FABRE vs DISNEY CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND INTERACTIVE MEDIA Plaintiff’s (1) Motion for Relief from Late Posting of Jury Fees, (2) Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Set One, and for Sanctions, and (3) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and for Sanctions TENTATIVE RULINGS: Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Late Posting of Jury Fees is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BRODY BRUCKLACHER VS BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTH COUNTY

Plaintiff Brody Brucklacher brings this motion to compel production of documents against Defendant Boys & Girls Club of South County. Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 4 seeks "all documents that evidence the names and ages of children who were in attendance on the date of the incident at your Imperial Beach location." Defendant produced two documents, both of which are non-responsive and over-inclusive. The documents are the monthly attendance list for the month of September 2017.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

DAVID FRITH SMITH VS RANK CORNELL

A party moving to compel production of documents at a deposition “must be accompanied by a separate statement.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) The moving party must also include reasons why further discovery should be ordered: legal or factual arguments why the responses given were incomplete or nonresponsive, or the objections invalid. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).) The responding party has the burden to justify objections in response to a motion filed to compel. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2019

ASHLEY PEREZ VS FCI LENDER SERVICES, INC, ET AL.

Defendant FCI Lender Services’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED. It is undisputed that plaintiff agreed to produce non-privileged documents in response to requests 15 and 16 and later produced redacted documents with a privilege log.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

EDUARDO E RIVAS VS VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS ET AL

On August 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents. On November 25, 2019, Defendants filed an opposition. Legal Standard Where there has been no timely response to a CCP § 2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2031.300.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DAVID FRANCIS VS RICHARD ERWIN MANSKER

Motion to Compel Production of Documents at Trial Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed. BACKGROUND On May 8, 2018, Plaintiff David Francis (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Richard Erwin Mansker (“Defendant”) alleging assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Ralph Act and Bane Act for an altercation that occurred on February 18, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

FIELD TIME TARGET & TRAINING, LLC V. CARINGELLA, ET AL.

Defendant Craig Caringella’s motion to compel production of documents from Plaintiff Field Time Target & Training, LLC and request for sanctions is denied. Dismissal was entered on October 21, 2019. (ROA 245.) As a result, the court lacks jurisdiction to rule on Defendant’s motion. (See Sanabria v. Embrey (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 422, 425; Paniagua v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

KARESH, ET AL. V. SWIDER, ET AL.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Defendant Tustin Unified School District’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff Parri Karesh’s production of documents is granted. Defendant Tustin Unified School District’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff Tracy Karesh’s production of documents is also granted. Defendant’s requests for production of documents relate to Plaintiffs’ damages and causes of action. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) Plaintiffs state responsive documents will be produced.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

DOE V. TUSTIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Motion to Compel (Production of Documents—Set One) The defendants filed a motion to compel defendant Mike Patrick Thomas, a self-represented litigant, to serve verified responses to the Request for Production of Documents (Set One). The motion is unopposed. The motion is GRANTED. Verified responses shall be served within 20 days. Sanctions in the amount of $225 are ORDERED to be paid by Thomas to the moving parties within 20 days. 3.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

DOE V. TUSTIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Motion to Compel (Production of Documents—Set One) The defendants filed a motion to compel defendant Mike Patrick Thomas, a self-represented litigant, to serve verified responses to the Request for Production of Documents (Set One). The motion is unopposed. The motion is GRANTED. Verified responses shall be served within 20 days. Sanctions in the amount of $225 are ORDERED to be paid by Thomas to the moving parties within 20 days. 3.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

EVELYN BAKIC ET AL VS JMF DEVELOPMENT LLC

Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents is DENIED as to requests nos. 5, 24, 36, 40, 43, 52, 60, and 73-75, and GRANTED as to the remaining requests. Sanctions A court shall impose monetary sanctions if the motion to compel is granted, unless the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or other circumstances would make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(g)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KENNETH KAPLAN VS. BAKER EQUITY, LLC ET.AL.

SC129602 Motion to Compel Production of Documents Hearing Date 12/3/2019 Background On July 16, 2019 cross-complainant Farbod Youshei served cross-defendant Joseph Youshaei with requests for production of documents. To date, Joseph has not responded. Cross-complainant now moves to compel responses and for monetary sanctions. Merits Under Cal. Code of Civ.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

RAFAEL CANTHARIMOY VS ALFRED BAKSHI ET AL

At this time, Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to appear at deposition, to compel production of documents at deposition, and seeks to recover sanctions. The motion to compel is granted. CCP §2025.450(a) requires the Court to grant a motion to compel deposition unless the deponent has served a valid objection to the notice of deposition. Plaintiff did not object to the notice of deposition, but did not appear. Of note, any opposition to the motion was due on or before 11/15/19.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2019

SHEILA GIANELLI VS MARK SCHWARTZ

Nature of Proceedings: 2 Motions to Compel TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants’ motion to compel production of documents is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to produce all documents contained in the binder that she brought with her to her deposition. The documents shall be produced on or before December 4, 2019. Defendants’ motion to compel deposition testimony of plaintiff is granted in part and denied in part, as set forth herein.

  • Hearing

    Nov 27, 2019

LISA KNAPP V. DIESTEL TURKEY RANCH

Diestel Turkey Ranch Motion: Compel production of documents; request for sanctions Moving party: Plaintiff Motion filed: October 15, 2019 Tentative ruling: Because a phone outage adversely affected the ability of Defendant’s counsel to be heard on the issue that is the subject of the instant motion at the informal discovery conference that was held on October 8, 2019, the hearing set for November 26, 2019, will be converted to an informal discovery conference regarding Plaintiff’s Request No. 5 in her Request

  • Hearing

    Nov 26, 2019

U.S. BANK TRUST VS. SELLS

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall provide responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Six, within 20 days of service of notice of entry of order. Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $1127.50, which reflects 3 hours for preparation of the motion (at $305/hour), 0.5 hours for appearance at the motion hearing, and the $60 motion filing fee.

  • Hearing

    Nov 25, 2019

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 60     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.