Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.310 provides:

1. On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:
1. A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.
2. A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
3. An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

(Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(a) (takes effect 01/01/2020); see also Calcor Space Facility v. Super. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224 (rejecting facts supporting the production of documents that were in a separate statement because the document was not verified and did not constitute evidence).)

How to Structure the Motion

The moving party must state “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1).) “The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(2).)

The procedure for the format of compelling documents is laid out in California Rules of Court, 3.1345.

“A separate statement is not required when no response has been provided to the request for discovery.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345(b).)

“A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response.... The separate statement must include... the following:

1. The text of the request, interrogatory, question, or inspection demand;
2. The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers;
3. A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute;
4. If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it;
5. If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to a particular discovery request is deemed necessary are based on the response to some other discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set forth; and
6. If the pleadings, other documents in the file, or other items of discovery are relevant to the motion, the party relying on them must summarize each relevant document.”

(Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345(c).)

The Court’s Decision

Section 2031.310 authorizes the Court to order a party to serve a further response when the responses contain unmerited objections. Under California law, the objecting party has the burden of justifying its objections when the propounding party requests that the Court order further responses. (Coy v. Super. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Monetary Sanctions

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1348(a); see also Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(a).)

If the motion is granted, the Court shall impose monetary sanctions, “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(h).)

Statute of Limitations

Motions to compel further responses to requests for productions of documents require that the motion be filed within 45 days. By delaying the filing of the motion the party waives the right to compel further responses. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(c) (takes effect 01/01/2020); see Sperber v. Robinson (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 736, 7454.) The 45-day time limit is mandatory and “jurisdictional”. (Sexton v. Super. Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) The deadline runs from the date the verified response is served, not from the date originally set for production or inspection. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(c); see Standon Co., Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 903.)