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

201-225 of 1488 results

STEPP VS. DANVILLE GARDEN

HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY DANVILLE GARDEN SHOPPING CENTER * TENTATIVE RULING: * Granted in part, denied in part. Defendant and Cross-Complainant Danville Garden Shopping Center, Inc. (“Danville Garden”) moves to compel production of documents pursuant to a deposition subpoena for production of documents served on non-party Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”). Danville Garden also seeks sanctions.

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

MISHEAL MCCOY ET AL VS MAUREEN OJOSE ET AL

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).) The Court has reviewed the “meet and confer” declaration attached to the moving papers and finds that both sets of parties failed engage in meaningful meet and confer discussions in attempting to schedule Plaintiffs’ depositions.

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SUBODH SAH VS ELMAZ NOURI

On March 13, 2019, the Court ordered Defendant to produce documents requested in Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents and also ordered Defendant to supply reasons as to denials to the form interrogatories. (Minute Order 03/13/2019.) On April 11, 2019, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for reconsideration. On April 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint (“SAC”) against Defendant for (1) common counts and (2) conversion.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2019

SCOTT RESNICK VS LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL S. TRAYLOR

PETITION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS IN ACTION PENDING OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA (CCP §§ 2023.030, 2025.480) TENTATIVE RULING: For the reasons stated below, the Court is inclined to GRANT Petitioner Scott Resnick’s Petition to Compel Production of Documents Pursuant to Subpoena for Production of Business Records in Action Pending Outside of California.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BOLDS VS. NORTH STATE GROCERY, INC.

Tentative Ruling on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Response to Records Subpoena: Plaintiff, Jasmine Bolds move to compel compliance with a subpoena issued to third party, Wausau Business Insurance Company (hereinafter “Wausau”) for the production of documents. Defendant, North State Grocery, Inc. opposes the motion. No opposition has been filed by Wausau.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2019

HOLLY WRIGHT, ET AL. V. PAUL ALEXANDER DASILVA, ET AL.

In moving to compel production of documents responsive to this RPD, plaintiff Jeremy Wright contends responsive documents will show the close business connection between the DaSilva Dairy defendants and their veterinarian. As discussed above, DaSilva contends he was not acting in the course and scope of employment at the time of the incident and was instead driving to his friend’s house with plans to watch a sporting event. The friend, Dr. Steine, served as the DaSilva Dairy defendants’ veterinarian.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2019

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

JON BARKER VS CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER CO.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Moving Party: Defendant California-American Water Company (Amend) Plaintiff John Barker (Compel) Responding Party: Plaintiff John Barker (Amend) Defendant Robert Brkich Construction Corp.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2019

OPENIANO VS. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC

Plaintiffs Renato Openiano and Maria Openiano's Motion to Compel Production of Documents Sets No. 3 and 4 and Request for Monetary Sanctions is denied. Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden that further responses to the requests for the production are reasonable or warranted. In addition, Plaintiffs' separate statement does not comply with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345. Plaintiffs' request for sanctions is denied.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

OPENIANO VS. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC

Plaintiffs Renato Openiano and Maria Openiano's Motion to Compel Production of Documents Sets No. 3 and 4 and Request for Monetary Sanctions is denied. Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden that further responses to the requests for the production are reasonable or warranted. In addition, Plaintiffs' separate statement does not comply with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345. Plaintiffs' request for sanctions is denied.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ALEJANDRA ARVAYO VS VALLARTA FOOD ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL

In responses to Defendant’s objection to the production of this Incident Report, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel production of documents at deposition on August 28, 2019. Defendant and Plaintiff each filed an opposition and a reply on September 13, 2019. 2. Analysis Motions to Compel Responses to Deposition Subpoenas Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s production of documents at deposition.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

OSAGIE EMMANUEL EDOGUN VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN

Additionally, plaintiff states that the motion to compel production of documents is moot, since he has already produced documents responsive to all defendant’s requests in the deposition notice. Defendant does not respond to this assertion. The motion is DENIED. No sanctions will be awarded.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MONA ISRAWI VS TARONE B CATHCART ET AL

At this time, Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and to compel production of documents at deposition. The motion to compel is granted. CCP §2025.450 requires the Court to compel the deposition unless it finds Plaintiff served a valid objection “under §2025.410.” Plaintiff’s only objection to the notice of deposition was that the date was not available. This is not an objection “under §2025.410.” Of note, any opposition to the motion was due on or before 9/12/19.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2019

HANSEN V. TANG

Further, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (filed on 7-1-19 and scheduled for hearing on 10-1-19), Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents (filed on 7-1-19 and scheduled for hearing on 10-1-19), and Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted (filed on 7-1-19 and scheduled for hearing on 10-1-19) is off calendar.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2019

IN THE MATTER OF THE VARIECE S. WILKS TRUST

Motion to Compel Production of Documents and for Monetary Sanctions PREGRANT ORDER Counsel to appear. The court finds all notices have been given as required by law. The motion to compel is granted. Respondent shall provide all of the requested documents to Petitioner’s counsel no later than September 26, 2019. Respondent shall pay sanctions in the amount of $ 3,566.00 within 30 days.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2019

FILIPPINI WEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC. V. MAX BARIL, ET AL.

Order: The court denies plaintiff Filippini Wealth Management, Inc.’s motion to compel production of documents and request for a monetary sanction.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2019

FLORENZ STOREY VS TIMOTHY J. COYKENDALL ET AL.

Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Set Two is granted. Verified responses due without objection by October 18, 2019. 2. Defendant's Motion to Compel to Special Interrogatories, Set Two is granted. Verified responses due without objection by October 18, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2019

G.M. VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Plaintiff now moves to compel production of documents (i.e., related to Ms. Nix and A.N.) identified in the subpoena, arguing that Welf. & Inst. Code § 827 does not apply because CFLC is a private corporation, the juvenile court has already determined that documents maintained by a private foster family agency are not part of the “juvenile case file,” that CFLC is withholding responsive documents not related to any minors, and the subpoena is not defective.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2019

TONGTAI MACHINE AND TOOL CO., LTD. V. NANO SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.

Nano requests monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §2025.480(j), which refers to motions to compel deposition answers and to compel production of documents pursuant to a deposition notice and is thus inapplicable here. Monetary sanctions in relation to motions to compel further responses to SIs and RFPDs are governed by CCP §§2030.300(d) and 2031.310(h) respectively.

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2019

SHERRIE ANDERSON V. COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE COMPANY, ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Compel Production of Documents (Set Two) Tentative

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2019

SHERRIE ANDERSON V. COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE COMPANY, ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Compel Production of Documents (Set Two) Motion to compel production of documents ATTORNEYS: John C. Eck of Griffith & Thornburgh, LLP for plaintiff Jana S. Johnston / Lisa Faye Petak of Mullen & Henzell LLP for defendants Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co., Susan Burns, Susan Conger, and Kathleen Marvin RULING: The motion is granted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2019

ALLEN VS. LINKUS ENTERPRISES, LLC ET AL

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice: Plaintiff requests judicial notice of all pleadings in Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Motion to Compel Answers to Specially Prepared Interrogatories (seven separate pleadings comprising over 100 pages of pleadings and exhibits).

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2019

ALLEN VS. LINKUS ENTERPRISES, LLC ET AL

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice: Plaintiff requests judicial notice of all pleadings in Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Motion to Compel Answers to Specially Prepared Interrogatories (seven separate pleadings comprising over 100 pages of pleadings and exhibits).

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2019

MATTHEW DABABNEH VS. CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY

Proc Before Trial, 8:1115.1, p. 8F-61; see id. 8:532.10(2) 8E-37 [noting requirement of separate statement for motion to compel production of documents at deposition].) The case law is in accord. "We conclude that because Plaintiffs did not comply with the requirements of former rule 335 [now 3.1345], the trial court was well within its discretion to deny the motion to compel discovery on that basis." (M/7/s v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2019

MATTHEW DABABNEH VS. CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY

Before Trial, 8:1115.1, p. 8F-61; see id. 8:532.10(2) 8E-37 [noting requirement of separate statement for motion to compel production of documents at deposition].) The case law is in accord. "We conclude that because Plaintiffs did not comply with the requirements of former rule 335 [now 3.1345], the trial court was well within its discretion to deny the motion to compel discovery on that basis." (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2019

GINA MINERVINI VS CLARA SENECA, ET AL.

On September 11, 2019, the parties held an Informal Discovery Conference with the Court and resolved their discovery issues contained in Plaintiff’s motion to compel form interrogatories, motion to compel special interrogatories, motion to compel production of documents. These motions were therefore taken OFF CALENDAR.

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  « 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.