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

176-200 of 1488 results

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

LAURIE ANN HUMBERD V. SAV-ON DRUGS, ET AL.

Motion by defendant Nancy Warner NP to compel responses to special interrogatories and for sanctions Motion by defendant Nancy Warner NP to compel responses to form interrogatories and for sanctions Motion by defendant Nancy Warner NP to compel production of documents and for sanctions Motion by defendant Nancy Warner NP for deemed admissions and for sanctions Motion by defendant Jackson and Engberg Medical to compel responses to form interrogatories and for sanctions Motion by defendant Jackson and Engberg

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2019

PEOPLE EX REL. CALONNE V. PINI

TENTATIVE RULING: (1) As set forth herein, the motion of the Pini Defendants to compel production of documents is granted in part. Receiver William J. Hoffman shall produce redacted sale documents, together with the additional information set forth herein regarding the redactions, on or before November 20, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 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 08, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

BLOOMFIELD LAW GROUP, INC, VS. ELISABETH THIERIOT

. § 2031.310, subd. (0) [motion to compel must be filed within 45 days of service of response],) Motion to Reopen Discovery and to Compel Production of Documents Because trial is fast approaching and the matter cannot be resolved within the time remaining, the court, on its own motion, continues the trial date to allow an opportunity for the parties to be prepared for trial. Discovery is currently closed pursuant to the November 19, 2019 trial date.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2019

APACHE PRODUCE IMPORTS, LLC VS COOSEMANS LOS ANGELES, INC.

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 07, 2019

DANIEL LAURIN O'KEEFE, ET AL. V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.

Amtrak seeks to compel production of documents relating to RFP1 request Nos. 9, 10, 37, and 43, and to RFP2 request No. 56. Amtrak also requests an award of monetary sanctions. Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2019

MEIER VS MEIER

MEIER'S unopposed Motion to Compel Production of Documents is GRANTED. Defendants/Cross-Complainants MARCO MEIER and MEIER CONSTRUCTIONS, INC. are to produce additional documents within 20 days of this order. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is DENIED. The interrogatories appear to be the same regarding the three cross-defendants, even though numbered differently.

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2019

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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

Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JACQUELINE WRIGHT VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

On August 22, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to compel production of documents. On September 17, 2019, defense counsel filed a declaration stating Defendant has now served a response and produced documents. Counsel stated a legal assistant made a mistake in not responding earlier. Defendant did not file a reply. As the documents have now been produced, the motion is MOOT.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2019

MAXINE HUGHES VS RESTORE HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER LLC ET A

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS & APPEAR FOR FURTHER DEPOSITION Background On April 3, 2018, Plaintiff Maxine Hughes brought the instant action against Defendants Restore Health and Wellness Center, LLC; Eric Leon; and Does 1 through 50. On February 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

VREJ AINTABLIAN, ET AL. VS LSI GENERAL ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.

Aintablian v LSI General Engineering Motion to Compel Production of Documents (2) Calendar: 04 Case No.: 19GDCV00188 Hearing Date: October 18, 2019 Action Filed: February 14, 2019 Trial Date: Not Set MP: Plaintiffs Vrej Aintablian; George Aintablian RP: Defendant LSI General Engineering & Construction Co.

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MAXINE HUGHES VS RESTORE HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER LLC ET A

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS & APPEAR FOR FURTHER DEPOSITION

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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. ANALYSIS: Plaintiffs “move for an order compelling defendants Urban Street Properties, Inc., Shelter First, LLC and Robert Compean (hereinafter ‘defendants’) to provide a full and complete responses to plaintiffs' Requests for Production, Set Three (3) (‘Motion’).”

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MEIER VS MEIER

MEIER'S unopposed Motion to Compel Production of Documents is GRANTED. Defendants/Cross-Complainants MARCO MEIER and MEIER CONSTRUCTIONS, INC. are to produce additional documents within 20 days of this order. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is also GRANTED. The Court has not received Opposition to this Motion. Further Responses are due within 20 days of this order.

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2019

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

VREJ AINTABLIAN, ET AL. VS LSI GENERAL ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.

Motion to Compel Production of Documents (2) Calendar: 04 Case No.: 19GDCV00188 Hearing Date: October 18, 2019 Action Filed: February 14, 2019 Trial Date: Not Set MP: Plaintiffs Vrej Aintablian; George Aintablian RP: Defendant LSI General Engineering & Construction Co.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BARKER VS. PANDA RESTAURANT

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY KENNETH BARKER * TENTATIVE RULING: * Denied. Responses were timely served on Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s recurring inability to receive legal papers served in this case must be addressed. Appear prepared to discuss alternate service arrangements going forward.

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 2019

GLORIA QUEVEDO VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

.: BC700339 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION Dept. 3 1:30 p.m. October 15, 2019 Plaintiff has noticed the deposition of the City’s PMK on two occasions. Defendant did not serve objections to either notice of deposition, but indicated an inability to appear on the eve of the deposition each time.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2019

BITCLAVE PTE. LTD V. VASILY TROMFIMCHUCK ET AL

Motion to Compel Production of Documents by VC Partners Inc. VC Partners Inc. was served with a subpoena seeking copies of any and all documents relating to VC Partners’ COMUNICATIONS with Vasily Trofimchuck. Documents were withheld by VC Partners Inc. in response to BitClave’s counsel’s admonishment that attorney client privilege documents should not be produced. As a consequence, VC Partners did not make a complete production in response to the deposition subpoena.

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2019

BRIAN DENMARK VS. GAMESCAPE PRIME, LLC

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL ~ PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS [DEFT] GAMESCAPE PRIME, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LLC RULING Defendant's motion to compel further responses from plaintiffs to Form Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 26, 2.7, 8.2, 8.4, 8.7, 8.8, 200,1, 200.3, 200.4, 201.1, 201.3, 201.5, 202.1, 203.1, 205.1, 210.2, 210.3, 210.4, 210.5, 210.6, 212.2. 212.3, 212.4, 212.5, 212.6, and 2127 is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2019

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

SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Production of Documents Moving Party: Monique Kal McClendon, individually and as Guardian ad Litem for Justin Amoray Williams-McClendon Resp. Party: Urban Street Properties, Inc.; Shelter First, LLC; and Robert Compean The motion to compel responses to request for production of documents is MOOT.

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SEREN MOHN VSL GAMESCAPE PRIME, LLC

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPELPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS [DEFT] GAMESCAPE PRIME, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LLC RULING Defendant's motion to compel further responses from plaintiffs to Form Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 216,217, 8.2, 814, 3.7, 8.8, 200.1, 200.3. 200.4, 201,1, 20113, 201.5, 202.1, 203.1, 205.1, 210.2, 210.3, 210.4, 210.5, 2106, 212,2, 2123, 212.4, 2125, 212.6, and 2127 is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 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.