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

151-175 of 1484 results

DARRYL BOLTON VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

(1) MOTION FOR TERMINATING, ISSUE AND/OR EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS; (2) MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS MOVING PARTY: (1) & (2) Plaintiff Darryl Bolton RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) & (2) Defendant General Motors LLC PROOF OF SERVICE: CONTINUE hearing on motion for terminating, issue and evidentiary sanctions; GRANT motion to compel deposition as to Categories Nos. 1 – 18, both 20s, 21 – 24; GRANT motion to compel production of documents

  • Hearing

    Nov 25, 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

THU NGUYET THI NICKI TRAN VS GOLDEN STATE FC LLC ET AL

On October 30, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents. Before the Court is Defendants Golden State FC, LLC, Kuldip Sandhu, and Adam Kozinn’s (“Defendants”) motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, filed on January 22, 2019. ANALYSIS: A. Procedural Issues 1. Request for Judicial Notice Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s complaint. (RJN, p. 2:3-5.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

THU NGUYET THI NICKI TRAN VS GOLDEN STATE FC LLC ET AL

On October 30, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents. Before the Court is Defendants Golden State FC, LLC, Kuldip Sandhu, and Adam Kozinn’s (“Defendants”) motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, filed on January 22, 2019. ANALYSIS: A. Procedural Issues 1. Request for Judicial Notice Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s complaint. (RJN, p. 2:3-5.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

TUCKER VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff's unopposed motion to compel production of documents and the deposition of the Person Most Knowledgeable from Defendant The Regents of the University of California, as modified following Plaintiff's partial withdrawal of this motion [ROA 59], is granted. CCP § 2025.480.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

TUCKER VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff's unopposed motion to compel production of documents and the deposition of the Person Most Knowledgeable from Defendant The Regents of the University of California, as modified following Plaintiff's partial withdrawal of this motion [ROA 59], is granted. CCP § 2025.480.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

TUCKER VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff's unopposed motion to compel production of documents and the deposition of the Person Most Knowledgeable from Defendant The Regents of the University of California, as modified following Plaintiff's partial withdrawal of this motion [ROA 59], is granted. CCP § 2025.480.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CAMPOS-BUCARDO VS STRAND

Defendants' Motion to Compel Production of Documents is GRANTED. Within 20 days of notice of this order, Plaintiff is to respond to the First Set of Request for Production of Documents served on or about May 1, 2019. In addition, plaintiff is to pay sanctions in the amount of $2000 within 20 days of notice of this order. The Court denies the request in the Opposition to reconsider its previous discovery order, as such a request is improper in opposition to a motion to compel.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CAMPOS-BUCARDO VS STRAND

Defendants' Motion to Compel Production of Documents is GRANTED. Within 20 days of notice of this order, Plaintiff is to respond to the First Set of Request for Production of Documents served on or about May 1, 2019. In addition, plaintiff is to pay sanctions in the amount of $2000 within 20 days of notice of this order. The Court denies the request in the Opposition to reconsider its previous discovery order, as such a request is improper in opposition to a motion to compel.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ARMANDO RAMIREZ ET AL VS LAWRENCE FORGIONE ET AL

While plaintiffs do not find defendant’s response believable, the Court has no ability to compel production of documents that the responding party has verified, under penalty of perjury, do not exist or have been lost. Plaintiffs’ original motion sought a further response at least providing information with respect to the identity of the persons who might have custody of the documents, but failed to request such a response during meet and confer efforts prior to filing the motion.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2019

MARTIN V. STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

One 5) By defendant to compel production of documents for Demand for Production, Set No. One Tentative Ruling: Defendant must pay $240.00 to the court by December 17, 2019, for the four additional motions encompassed in their October 8, 2019, filing. In the future, the parties must file and calendar discovery motions separately, as well as pay the proper fee for each. To deny all five motions.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FAITH STOREY VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, ET AL.

., as trustee Responding Party: Plaintiff Faith Storey Motion to Compel Production of Documents The court considered the moving papers and plaintiff’s response. RULING The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered (1) to serve on defendants a verified response without objections to defendants’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and (2) to produce all documents and things in plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, which are responsive to defendants’ request, within 30 days.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MONIQUE KAL MCCLENDON, ET AL. VS URBAN STREET PROPERTIES, INC., ET AL.

On October 4, 2019, the Court (1) granted leave to file an amended and supplemental complaint; (2) denied Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions; (3) granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of documents pursuant to subpoenas and sanctions. On October 24, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to request for production of documents.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ANTHONY HERNANDEZ ET LA VS CHI HUN LEE ET AL

Thus, even if the Court were to grant the motion, the Court would not compel production of documents at the deposition. The motion to compel is denied. The ruling is without prejudice to Defendant’s right to re-notice the motion after properly meeting and conferring. If Defendant wishes to have an order concerning documents, Defendant must show good cause for production of the documents at issue. Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2019

MONIQUE KAL MCCLENDON, ET AL. VS URBAN STREET PROPERTIES, INC., ET AL.

On October 4, 2019, the Court (1) granted leave to file an amended and supplemental complaint; (2) denied Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions; (3) granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of documents pursuant to subpoenas and sanctions. On October 24, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to request for production of documents.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ZEV WEINSTEIN VS ISAAC BLUMBERG, ET AL.,

SC126011 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents Hearing Date 11/15/2019 TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff seeks to compel defendants to produce his email communications from the morning of February 17, 2016. Plaintiff asserts these emails will prove he was working at home that day, contrary to defendants’ assertion that his employment had terminated. On July 25, 2019, plaintiff served defendants with a notice for production of documents at trial under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1987(c).

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2019

APACHE PRODUCE IMPORTS, LLC VS MAUI FRESH INTERNATIONAL, LLC

Plaintiff APACHE PRODUCE IMPORTS, LLC’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Response to Request for Production of Documents (set one) is OFF-CALENDAR. This action is STAYED pursuant to this Court’s Order of October 1, 2019. Moving Party to give Notice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2019

BRADY VS FRIEDLAND

Ruling on Motion to Compel Production of Confidential Settlement Agreement (by Knobbe Martens) The Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Specifically, Confidential Settlement Agreement brought by cross-complainant Knobbe Martens is GRANTED with an award of $3,500.00 in monetary sanctions. The Request for Judicial Notice brought by cross-complainant Knobbe Martens is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code § 452.

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BRADY VS FRIEDLAND

Ruling on Motion to Compel Production of Confidential Settlement Agreement (by Knobbe Martens) The Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Specifically, Confidential Settlement Agreement brought by cross-complainant Knobbe Martens is GRANTED with an award of $3,500.00 in monetary sanctions. The Request for Judicial Notice brought by cross-complainant Knobbe Martens is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code § 452.

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

FORT VS AMERIHOME MORTGAGE COMPANY LLC

Plaintiffs Steven Fort and Linde Fort bring this motion to compel production of documents. Most of the documents sought by plaintiffs are Defendant Amerihome Mortgage Company, LLC's policies and procedures regarding electronic payments, handling consumer disputes regarding payments, processing Qualified Written Requests, reporting to credit bureaus and document retention. Defendant contends that its policies and procedures are confidential and proprietary. The requested documents are clearly relevant.

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

BRADY VS FRIEDLAND

Ruling on Motion to Compel Production of Confidential Settlement Agreement (by Knobbe Martens) The Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Specifically, Confidential Settlement Agreement brought by cross-complainant Knobbe Martens is GRANTED with an award of $3,500.00 in monetary sanctions. The Request for Judicial Notice brought by cross-complainant Knobbe Martens is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code § 452.

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

FORT VS AMERIHOME MORTGAGE COMPANY LLC

Plaintiffs Steven Fort and Linde Fort bring this motion to compel production of documents. Most of the documents sought by plaintiffs are Defendant Amerihome Mortgage Company, LLC's policies and procedures regarding electronic payments, handling consumer disputes regarding payments, processing Qualified Written Requests, reporting to credit bureaus and document retention. Defendant contends that its policies and procedures are confidential and proprietary. The requested documents are clearly relevant.

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CATHERINE ALBERI ET AL VS SSC TARZANA OPERATING COMPANY ET A

A motion to compel production of documents described in a deposition notice must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. (CCP § 2025.450(b)(1).) In other words, the moving party must provide declarations containing specific facts justifying inspection of the documents described in the notice. Courts liberally construe good cause in favor of discovery where facts show the documents are necessary for trial preparation. Discussion Plaintiffs move to compel the deposition of SSC GP’s PMK, Sims.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2019

HORN, BRIAN ET AL VS. HORN, NATHAN

Defendant's Motion to Compel Depositions and Production of Documents is continued to Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. to trail the status conference in relation to the ruling on Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Set Two. No appearances are required on November 13, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2019

DAVID SCHLAIS, AN INDIVIDUAL VS SOHEIL KARIMI, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

.: 19STCV13418 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS; DENYING REQUESTS TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITIONS Dept. 3 1:30 p.m. November 13, 2019 Plaintiff has noticed Defendants, Amaneh Pahmedani and Sattar Karimi’s depositions on multiple occasions. Defendants have not, to date, appeared for depositions. Plaintiff has made numerous attempts to meet and confer, but has been unable to obtain a date from Defendants to appear for the depositions.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 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.