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

SVETLANA KAZARIAN ET AL VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BLAISE VERDI VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Plaintiff asserts that good cause exists to compel production of documents responsive to the RFP at issue because these requests seek documents relevant to investigating whether BMW had notice of oil leak and oil consumption defects in other similar vehicles and whether BMW failed to act despite this knowledge. BMW objects that these RFPs on the grounds that the RFPs are not properly categorized, that responding would be unduly burdensome and expensive, and that the RFPs are overbroad as to time and scope.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

CRISTINA ACEVEDO VS ONIKA TANYA MARAJ, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents is GRANTED. Sanctions are imposed against Defendants’ counsel of record, jointly and severally. On April 2, 2019, Plaintiff Cristina Acevedo brought the instant breach of contract action against Defendant Onika Maraj, Pink Personality LLC (“PPL”), Pink Personality Inc. (“PPI”), and Pink Friday Productions LLC (“PFPL”).

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CAROL ANN HOWARD AS TRUSTEE OF THE ANDREW MILLS TRUST VS ALBENCE & ASSOCIATES APC

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, and Further Responses to Requests for Admission is also DENIED. (ROA 230.) Plaintiff's request for judicial notice, inaccurately labeled a "joint" request, of the Stipulation for Settlement filed in Howard v. Mills, Case No. 37-2019-00046864, is granted. The court takes judicial notice only of the existence of this record, and not the truth of any matters stated therein. (See Bennett v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SUZANNAH TAYLOR V. MISSION PLUMBING, ET AL.

Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 (filing deadline for motion to compel production of documents is mandatory and jurisdictional) and Professional Career Colleges v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 490, 494 (“it would be an absurdity to say that a party who fails to meet the time limits [for a motion to compel] may avoid the consequences of his delay and lack of diligence by propounding the same question again”), but the Court disagrees.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

SABAHI, IRAJ VS. JENSEN, LESLIE

L&K ENTERPRISES INC – Defendant Hisun Motor Corp USA’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Cerna Transport Inc – CONTINUED to September 11, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24, pursuant to the parties’ joint request. CV-18-004854 – MORENO, MARIAH RITA VS. CLOWERS, JANELLE LYNNE – Plaintiffs Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – DENIED, without prejudice. The proof of service is incomplete in that no date of service is specified.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

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. On February 10, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to allow extensive oral voir dire. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to seal motions in limine, trial briefs, and related exhibits, filed on March 20, 2020. ANALYSIS: A party that requests that a record or portion of a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing it.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HTL AUTOMOTIVE INC VS PACIFIC LIFT AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY INC

On June 1, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel production of documents at the deposition of HTL’s PMK Hooman Nissani. On July 8, 2020, HTL filed a request for continuance because the Secretary of State suspended them. Due to HTL’s suspension by the Tax Board, the Court will continue the instant motion to September 28, 2020 at 8:30 a.m., to allow Plaintiff to correct this issue.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

WHITTAKER VS. LAGO

A motion to compel production of documents pursuant to deposition notice must show “good cause” for the production of documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(b)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

CAMACHO VS. JLG INDUSTRIES, INC.

The court denies the motion to compel production of documents at this time (albeit there is nothing improper is requesting production in connection with this deposition). Plaintiffs may renew this motion after the deposition, with a separate statement and a record of (i) what Sunbelt has and has not produced and (ii) meet and confer attempts for the specific requests. Plaintiffs are awarded monetary sanctions of $7,785.00.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

WILLIAMS ET AL. V. BREWER ET AL.

Rule of Court 3.1345(a)(5), requires a separate statement for any motion to compel production of documents at a deposition. Given the extremely broad scope of the subpoena, the court is not comfortable granting the motion where there is no showing specific to all of the records sought. The motion is denied without prejudice because it does appear that production of some records from Dr. Hellwig would be warranted.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TERESA FRAME VS LANCE JAY ROBBINS ET AL

But the Court notes that Frame is not seeking to compel production of documents, she is seeking sanctions for Defendants’ failure to produce those documents pursuant to the Stipulated Order and the Discovery Plan Order.[1] Both orders required Defendants to serve responsive documents by December 24, 2019.[2] The documents were apparently served on July 21, 2020. (Reply, p. 4: 9-12.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RICK WILSON ET AL VS STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

A party seeking to compel production of documents must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought.” (Id.) “[F]actual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations.” (Id.) “[I]nformation is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.” (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ANDREA SCHERBEN VS MAN ON THE MOON PRODUCTIONS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION INC, ET AL.

On October 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents from third party AT&T Mobility, LLC (“AT&T”), initially scheduled for hearing for November 4, 2019. Defendants filed an Opposition on October 22, 2019. On November 1, 2019, the hearing was vacated by the Court.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WILLIAM M. DORFMAN DDS VS PATTI CANTOR ET AL

Kosdon D.D.S.’s motion to compel production of documents and further deposition of Sennette Beltran. The court denies Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions. The court orders plaintiff William M. Dorfman to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 28, 2020 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

JALOMO V. ECLIPSE MESSENGER SERVICE, INC.

(Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Third Deposition of Defendant Eclipse Messenger Service, Inc.’s Person Most Knowledgeable (Opposition) filed on 3-11-20 under ROA No. 197; 2:12-13.) Although this argument was viable before the court closure, the Orange County Superior Court’s 5-29-20 Third Administrative Order No. 20/06 (Admin. Order) extended the discovery deadlines on civil cases. Paragraph 9(a) of the Admin.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

ALL FOR HEALTH ET AL VS ANAHIT NSHANYAN ET AL

In addition, while the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel production of documents set forth in the Notices of Deposition, the Court did not set a deadline for such production, and as such, production would be at the scheduled depositions, which have yet to occur or be scheduled. Moreover, the evidence submitted suggests any failure to comply with the Court ordered deposition was not willful.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

EDWIN D. CALDERON VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Plaintiff contends that a further response to each of these requests is warranted because courts in lemon law cases routinely compel production of documents concerning other vehicles if these documents concern defects commonly alleged by consumers. (Separate Statement in Support of Motion at pp. 30-32.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

LOUISE HOLLAND VS DANA CARL DENTZEL ET AL

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that while Defendants move to seal the entire court file, Defendants have indicated that the court file consists of a complaint, a motion to strike, an amended complaint, and a motion to compel production of documents. (Motion, p. 6:18-20.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

ALONZO VS CCS SERVICES INC

Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents and request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. Preliminary Matters Defendants' request for judicial notice of the minute orders in this case is unnecessary and misleading. Although defendant labels each document a "minute order," most of the documents are simply minutes -- not orders. Only Exhibits A and D are court orders.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ALONZO VS CCS SERVICES INC

Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents and request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. Preliminary Matters Defendants' request for judicial notice of the minute orders in this case is unnecessary and misleading. Although defendant labels each document a "minute order," most of the documents are simply minutes -- not orders. Only Exhibits A and D are court orders.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CP MARGUERITE MV, LLC VS. O’NEILL

In addition, a motion to compel production of documents at a deposition requires a separate statement in compliance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a)(5),(c). Based on the foregoing, defendants do not show that Landlord failed to appear for deposition or failed to produce documents at deposition, nor do defendants set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying production of documents. Rather, the papers submitted indicate that the deposition occurred on 6/10/20.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

KHANINE V. YOUSEFF

The unopposed motions of the plaintiff to compel defendant William McKenna to serve answers, without objections, to three discovery motions—(1) to compel answers to form interrogatories, (2) to compel production of documents, and (3) to deem requests for admissions admitted—are GRANTED. Defendant William McKenna is ORDERED to provide answers, without objections, to the form interrogatories within 30 days. (ROA 55.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

SEAN BROCKETT VS THE SALVATION ARMY, ET AL.

Hearing Date: July 20, 2029 Moving Parties: Plaintiff Sean Brockett Responding Party: Defendant The Salvation Army Motion (1) for Appointment of a Discovery Referee, or in the alternative, to Compel the Continued Deposition(s) of Salvation Army’s Person Most Qualified; (2) to Compel Production of Documents at Said Deposition The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. RULING The motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SALGADO V. OREMOR OF TUSTIN, INC.

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Plaintiff moves to compel the production of documents at the deposition of the PMK of Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Ronald Cooney. The Motion is granted in part and denied in part, as set forth below. To summarize: the Motion is GRANTED as to Requests 5, 8, 15, and 19-22. It is GRANTED IN PART as to Request No. 14. And it is DENIED as to the remainder, including Nos. 16, 17, 18, 23-37.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

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.