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

GRASSANO VS. FCA US LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions filed by Vincenta Grassano on 7/13/20 Off Calendar

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

BAIRES VS. ORANGE COAST AUTO GROUP, LLC

Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions 4. Motion to Compel Production all filed by Moris Baires on 6/3/20 and 6/2/20 5. Status Conference Off Calendar

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

KAREN LUU VS CARMEN RANGEL, ET AL.

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

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LAKESHORE INVESTMENT LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS NOW SOLUTIONS INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff, however, neither requested nor was granted permission from the court to omit a separate statement, as is required under rule 3.1345(b)(2) and section 2031.310(b)(3). The court expects the parties to comply fully with all statutory requirements and court rules. Ordinarily, the court would continue the motion to allow Plaintiff to file a separate statement.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. VS EMPIRE CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION, INC.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel response to plaintiff’s first set of demand for production of documents is moot. No sanctions. If “all” sides submit to the tentative ruling, please email the Clerk in Department G at: [email protected] CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. v. EMPIRE CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION, INC., et al. CASE NO.: 19NWCV00396 HEARING: 9/22/20 JUDGE: JOHN A. TORRIBIO #2 TENTATIVE ORDER I.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

SEAN O?BRIEN, ET AL. VS DOWNTOWN LA LAW GROUP, LLP, A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.

The 45-day requirement of section 2031.310(c) is mandatory and jurisdictional in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on a motion to compel further responses to discovery other than to deny the motion. Sexton v. Superior Court, 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1410 (1997). Defendant DTLA served its responses on April 14, 2020, by mail and by e-mail. Bechtel Decl. Ex. B.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BEYER VS. ALI

Plaintiff has not served a corrected response to Request for Production, Set One. (Id. at 12.) As a result of his failure to serve timely responses, Plaintiff has “waive[d] any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a).) OCMMC’s request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiff shall pay sanctions in the amount of $292.50 to Defendant Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center within 30 days of service of notice of ruling.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

MIDLAND ENTERTAINMENT LLC VS HYDRA GROUP LLC ET AL

Third Floor moves for a further response to Request for Production No. 33, which asks for documents related to the settlement of a “Singer Action.” (Separate Statement.) Third Floor maintains that the Singer action occurred when Michael Singer, one of Midland’s investors, filed suit against Midland making allegations that are similar to the allegations of Third Floor’s own cross-complaint, namely that Midland diverted funds that should have been used for the Hydra investment. (Motion at p. 1.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BRET BOCCHIERI VS FARMERS INSURANCE

If a motion to compel response is filed, the court “shall” impose a monetary sanction against the losing party unless it finds that party made or opposed the motion “with substantial justification” or other reasons make the sanction “unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) With respect to the requests for admission, “it is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response . . necessitated this motion. (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ALEJANDRA TORRES VS STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES

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

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GIOVINGO V. PACIFICA REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC.

Motion: By Plaintiff to Compel a Further Response to Requests for Admission, or Alternatively, to Deem Admissions Admitted, to Compel Further Response to Request for Production, to Compel Further Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1, and for Monetary Sanctions Tentative Ruling: To deny motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions and the motion to deem the admissions admitted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PIAZZA V. THE IRVINE COMPANY APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.

Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions All CONTINUED to November 2, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. to permit the Court and parties to conduct an Informal Discovery Conference.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

VINCENT DEROSA, ET AL. VS K9 LOFT INC., ET AL.

On June 26, 2020, the Court ordered defendant K9 Loft Inc. to provide a further verified response to Request for Production, Set One, No. 29. In the same order, the Court ordered defendant Afshin Sabouri to provide a further verified response to Request for Production, Set One, No. 22. The Court also ordered defendant Harmony Noennich, who had failed to provide any responses, to serve verified responses to the first sets of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB VS. HILL

Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions This matter is continued. Clerk to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

JACOBS V. MARION, ET AL.

Section 2031.310, subdivision (b)(1), requires the moving papers to set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

CARMEN LIZA VS CKE RESTAURANTS HOLDINGS INC

Timeliness of Motions Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (c), a motion to compel further responses to inspection demands must be filed within 45 days of service of the verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, with additional time allowed for the manner of service. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1013, subd. (a); 2031.310, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ROUSH, ET AL. V. FCA US, LLC

Section 2031.310, subdivision (b)(1), requires the moving papers to set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

FARBOD MELAMED VS PARALLAX HEALTH SCIENCES INC ET AL

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to Request for Production (RFP) No. 139. Discussion RFP No. 139 requests: ALL non-privileged WRITINGS which discuss, refer to, relate to, or concern the sale of pharmaceutical products by Roxsan Pharmacy, Inc. to States in which Roxsan Pharmacy, Inc. was not licensed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

WNG CONSTRUCTION JV, INC. VS. AAA SOLAR ELECTRIC, INC.

Requests for production of documents Legal authority Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), a court may order a party to serve a further response to a demand for inspection when the court finds 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) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FARBOD MELAMED VS PARALLAX HEALTH SCIENCES INC ET AL

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to Request for Production (RFP) No. 139. Discussion RFP No. 139 requests: ALL non-privileged WRITINGS which discuss, refer to, relate to, or concern the sale of pharmaceutical products by Roxsan Pharmacy, Inc. to States in which Roxsan Pharmacy, Inc. was not licensed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ETC BAR INC VS. PATHOMRIT

Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions ***Motions continued to 10/8/2020***

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

PLANNET CONSULTING VS. HOWARD

Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories Plaintiff Plannet Consulting, LLC (“Plannet”) seeks an order compelling defendant Allan Howard (“Howard”) to serve verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 15 days. Plannet also seeks $5,500 in monetary sanctions against Howard and his attorneys of record.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

FARBOD MELAMED VS PARALLAX HEALTH SCIENCES INC ET AL

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to Request for Production (RFP) No. 139. Discussion RFP No. 139 requests: ALL non-privileged WRITINGS which discuss, refer to, relate to, or concern the sale of pharmaceutical products by Roxsan Pharmacy, Inc. to States in which Roxsan Pharmacy, Inc. was not licensed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JUSTIN ORTIZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

The 45-day requirement of section 2031.310(c) is mandatory and jurisdictional in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on a motion to compel further responses to discovery other than to deny the motion. Sexton v. Superior Court, 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1410 (1997). Defendant served its responses on March 11, 2020, by personal service. Malek Decl. Exs. J, K. Plaintiff filed the subject motions on April 10, 2020, which was within 45 days of the response, and the motions are timely.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

ESTATE OF ALFRED ANDREOLI

Any issues with Petitioners’ responses may be pursued by a motion to compel further responses under section 2031.310. d. Sanctions: Although the notice of motion reports that the motion requests sanctions, the notice does not identify against whom sanctions are sought or the amount of the sanctions request.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 82     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.