What is a Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents

Recent Rulings on Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents

SEO VS. PARK

Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions X2 ***Motions off calendar***

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

ARDALON FAKHIMI VS ARETE DIGITAL IMAGING, INC.

Legal Standard Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to demand for inspection . . ., the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response if the demanding party deems that (1) [a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) [a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; [or] (3) [a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LUIS GOMEZ, ET AL. VS PATRICK CHAPMAN

.: 18STCV01201 Hearing Date: July 1, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: (1) Defendants’ motion to quash service of summons (2) Susana’s demurrer to the complaint (3) injected arts’ demurrer to the complaint (4) vanderbilt’s demurrer to the complaint (5) AMAG’s motion to compel responses to written discovery (6) AMAG’s motion to compel production of documents at deposition (7) AMAG ‘s motion to compel response to inspection demands (8) Susana’s motion to quash ampac subpoena (9) susana’s motion to quash zambrano

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

LORETTA LOTITO VS CARL LOTITO, ET AL.

(1) MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ON FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PARTITION; (2) MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; (3) MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA (CCP § 1987.1) AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS MOVING PARTY: (1)-(2) Plaintiff Loretta Lotito; (3) Defendant Carl Lotito RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) Defendant Carl Lotito (though not a substantive opposition); (2) No opposition on eCourt as of June 29, 2020; (3) Plaintiff

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

VATCHE PAPAZIAN VS JACK BROWN ET AL

Legal Standard Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (a) 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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROBIN RODARTE, ADMIN VS. ROMERO

(1-2) Motions to Compel Response to RFAs Ruling: Off Calendar – no hearing will be held. Defendant Raul Romero’s Motions to Compel Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One, are CONTINUED TO 7-28-2020, Dept. C11, at 2 pm.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

NICOLE JACKSON VS ROGER FARRAJ

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to demand for inspection . . ., the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response if the demanding party deems that (1) [a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) [a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; [or] (3) [a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

ALEXANDRO FILIPPINI, ET AL. V. SANTA BARBARA COTTAGE HOSPITAL, INC., ET AL.

., Case No. 19CV01826 (Judge Sterne) HEARING DATE: June 29, 2020 MATTER: Motions (12) to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents; Motions (4) that Matters in Requests for Admission be Deemed Admitted; Motions (2) to Compel Response to Request for Statement of Damages; Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel ATTORNEYS: John S. Clifford for Plaintiffs Alexandro Filippini and Stephanie Filippini Steve R.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

M.C. VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL.

Section 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to a demand for production of documents if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2031.310(a)(2).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

MORELLO V. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

Section 2031.310(b)(1) requires the moving papers to set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to show both: (1) relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the document would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and (2) specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial).

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

OLIVIA VAATETE VS ZETA GRAFF

Legal Standard Requests for Production Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, 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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANGIE GARCIA VS RC'S TOWING INC ET AL

Defendants’ Counsel requests $1,110 in sanctions for the motion to compel response to the request for production. Defendants’ hourly rate is $350. Counsel spent 1 hour on the motion and anticipates 2 hours to attend the hearing. Defendants also incurred a $60 filing fee. Defendants are awarded sanctions against Plaintiff in the total amount of $760.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MACKIE VS. GOLDMAN

HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGS. (Michael Hague) / FILED BY BRIAN GOLDMAN M.D. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Continued by Stipulation of the parties to August 27, 2020 at 9 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

MACKIE VS. GOLDMAN

HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (Michael Hague) / FILED BY BRIAN GOLDMAN M.D. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Continued by Stipulation of the parties to August 27, 2020 at 9 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

MACKIE VS GOLDMAN

HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGS (Michael Hague) / FILED BY BRIAN GOLDMAN M.D. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Continued by Stipulation of the parties to August 27, 2020 at 9 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

MACKIE VS. GOLDMAN

HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGS. (Laura Mackie) / FILED BY BRIAN GOLDMAN M.D. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Continued by Stipulation of the parties to August 27, 2020 at 9 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

MACKIE VS. GOLDMAN

HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (Laura Mackie) / FILED BY BRIAN GOLDMAN M.D. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Continued by Stipulation of the parties to August 27, 2020 at 9 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

MACKIE VS. GOLDMAN

HEARING ON MOTION O/FOR ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGS. (Laura Mackie) / FILED BY BRIAN GOLDMAN M.D. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Continued by Stipulation of the parties to August 27, 2020 at 9 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

AGHAJAN MELAMED VS MILLENNIUM BILTMORE HOTEL ET AL

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310. The Court lastly finds that Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) are properly compelled. Plaintiff provided substantive responses to interrogatory numbers 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, and 8.8. However, the substantive responses were not verified. The remaining interrogatories were objected to.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

TRACY AGUIRRE VS WELLS FARGO BANK

Defendant is to file and calendar a separate motion ordering Plaintiff to comply with section 2031.280 through the remedy set forth in section 2031.320 and not section 2031.310 if it wishes to proceed (i.e., Plaintiff still has not produced legible copies of its document production), and the Court will deal with such issue at that time.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DONALD J. BIENVENU, SR. VS FCA US LLC, ET AL.

Legal Standard Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (a) 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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LEILA SAYYADI VS HAMIDREZA REZAEI, ET AL.

On December 12, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motions to compel response to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories; granted Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted their Requests for Admission (“RFA”) and ordered Defendant to pay $3,430 in sanctions. On December 20, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the order to deem admitted. Defendant’s Counsel states that he delivered a response to the RFA before the hearing and therefore the Court should not have deemed them admitted.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

TRACY AGUIRRE VS WELLS FARGO BANK

Legal Standard Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2031.310(b).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DONALD J. BIENVENU, SR. VS FCA US LLC, ET AL.

Legal Standard Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (a) 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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARSHA SPECTOR VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

RELIEF REQUESTED: Defendants move to compel Plaintiff’s response to Request for Production, Set One, together with sanctions in the amount of $1,500.00. DISCUSSION: Standard of Review A motion to compel responses may be brought where a responding party fails to timely respond to written discovery. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.300. No meet and confer is necessary where a party fails to respond to written discovery. See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 906.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 74     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.