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

TENNANT V. PACIFIC KITCHEN BATH & FLOORING, INC.

1) Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories 2) Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories 3) Motion to Compel Production 4) Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions The motions by Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Jennifer Tennant (“Plaintiff”), to compel responses by Defendant/Cross-Complainant Pacific Kitchen Bath & Flooring, Inc.

  • Hearing

NAZARYAN V. FEMTOMETRIX

1) Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories (ROA# 391) 2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (ROA#398) 3) Motion to Compel Production (ROA#385) 4) Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions (ROA#398) 5) Motion to Seal (ROA#394) Discovery Motions Defendant Femtometrix, Inc.’s motions for orders compelling plaintiff Hovik Nazaryan to provide further responses to special interrogatories, form interrogatories, no. 17.1, requests for production, and requests for admission

  • Hearing

FAYLOR V. GLASSER

Moving parties requested an award of $17,797.50, under the general discovery sanction statutes (CCP sections 2023.010, 2023.030, 2023.040), CCP section 2030.300 (further responses to interrogatories) and CCP section 2031.310 (further responses to demands). (Mot. at 18-19.) The court finds monetary sanctions are warranted. Based on the court’s review of the meet and confer efforts, the briefing and the time sheets, the court further finds that an award of $5,872.50 is reasonable.

  • Hearing

MARY CRUZ CRESPO VS NORA FLORES, ET AL.

Supplemental Response to Request for Production Number 109: “Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds it is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive as to the definition of the term ‘RELATING TO.’ Responding Party further objects to this request on the grounds it uses a defined term, i.e., ‘TERMINATION,’ without providing a definition.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CONKEY VS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE

RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents brought by Plaintiff is DENIED. It appears from the briefing that Plaintiff has received copies of certain documents from Defendant that were sent from Defendant to Plaintiff during the time that the insurance claim was being processed.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CONKEY VS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE

RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents brought by Plaintiff is DENIED. It appears from the briefing that Plaintiff has received copies of certain documents from Defendant that were sent from Defendant to Plaintiff during the time that the insurance claim was being processed.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MARSHALL MCQUEEN, JR VS OFFICE DEPOT

C/O: 03-16-21 NOTICE: OK MOTION C/O: 02-31-21 TRIAL DATE: 04-15-21 PROCEEDINGS: (1) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (2) MOTION TO COMPEL A FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, NO. 3, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS MOVING PARTY: Defendant Office Depot, Inc. RESP.

  • Hearing

CONKEY VS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE

RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents brought by Plaintiff is DENIED. It appears from the briefing that Plaintiff has received copies of certain documents from Defendant that were sent from Defendant to Plaintiff during the time that the insurance claim was being processed.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CONKEY VS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE

RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents brought by Plaintiff is DENIED. It appears from the briefing that Plaintiff has received copies of certain documents from Defendant that were sent from Defendant to Plaintiff during the time that the insurance claim was being processed.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ROMEO S. DELA CRUZ, ET AL. VS SP+, ET AL.

November 18, 2020 Plaintiff Lilian Dela Cruz seeks a further response to Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”) No. 25, which seeks “All accident or incident reports, including but not limited to traffic collision reports, relating to the INCIDENT.”

  • Hearing

BALBOA CAPITAL CORPORATION V. ALBERTINE OMANI M.D.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, provides in part, “(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. [¶] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general

  • Hearing

STEPHEN EIGES VS ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT

Hearing Date: November 17, 2020 (continued from October 2, 2020) Moving Parties: Plaintiff Stephen Eiges Responding Party: Defendant The Albert Gross Limited Partnership (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (3) Motion to Compel Responses and Production in Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set One (4) Motion to Compel to Deem Request for Admissions, Set One, Admitted The court considered the moving

  • Hearing

MARCUS MARQUEZ VS SHAMMAS INVESTMENT LLC

Legal Standard Requests for Production of Documents 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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STEPHEN EIGES VS ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT

Hearing Date: November 17, 2020 (continued from October 2, 2020) Moving Parties: Plaintiff Stephen Eiges Responding Party: Defendant The Albert Gross Limited Partnership (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (3) Motion to Compel Responses and Production in Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set One (4) Motion to Compel to Deem Request for Admissions, Set One, Admitted The court considered the moving

  • Hearing

THE VERSAILLES HOA VS. ROLFES

Steinbrecher is GRANTED. (5) Cross-Defendant The Versailles Homeowners Association’s Motion to Compel Response to Request for Production of Documents (Set 1) to Cross-Complainant, Rosemary C. Steinbrecher is GRANTED. (6) Cross-Defendant The Versailles Homeowners Association’s Motion to Compel Response to Request for Production of Documents (Set 2) to Cross-Complainant, Rosemary C.

  • Hearing

SHORNIKOV VS. LAKE ALHAMBRA

HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION FILED BY PLAINTIFF * TENTATIVE RULING: * The Plaintiff in this case has once again prematurely filed a motion to compel discovery. This time the motion is entitled a Motion to Compel the Defendant to Respond to a Request for Production of Documents or Things - Set #2. Plaintiff’s motion was filed on September 17, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

FORMOSA FABRIC INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS OMID LAVI, ET AL.

Discussion Timeliness of Motion Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (c) and section 2030.300, subdivision (c) a motion to compel further responses to inspection demands or interrogatories 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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

VERONICA ARAIZA LOPEZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

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

CASS VS. BONILLA

The Motion also complies with all procedural requirements under section 2031.310 (i.e. meet and confer declaration and separate statement). Furthermore, Plaintiff filed a substantive response, which the Court finds that waives any irregularity or defect in the notice. (See Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 697, opposition to the motion on its merits is a waiver of any defects or irregularities.) Requests for Production: Pursuant to Code Civ.

  • Hearing

GEIGER VS SUNWOOD PACIFIC RIDGE LLC

Section 2031.310(h) speaks to an unsuccessful opposition to a motion to compel and, in this case, the court agrees that Intervenor's motion to compel has become moot. Intervenor's sanctions request is not moot. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348 allows the court to award sanctions "even though . . . the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed." Cal. R. Ct. 3.1348(a).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LENHERT VS LAKRITZ

As an initial matter, the court directs Defendant to provide a further response to Request for Production No. 27. Defendant's response is facially non-evasive; however, it is not Code-compliant. If Defendant contends that it does not possess documents responsive to the request, it must augment its response to state that it engaged in a diligent search and reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with the demand. See Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2031.230.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DANIEL TURCIOS VS SEA PORT CARE CENTER L P ET AL

The Motion to Deem Admitted is GRANTED. 2) Barry Friedman: GRANTED as to all 5 Motions Motions to Compel Response to: 1 FROG-Employment, 2) FROG, 3) SROG, 4) RFD, 5) and Deem Admitted On March 17, 2020, Plaintiff propounded his first set of Form Interrogatories (Employment), Form Interrogatories (General), Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions on Friedman. On April 17, 2020, Friedman’s counsel served blurry and illegible responses.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LENHERT VS LAKRITZ

As an initial matter, the court directs Defendant to provide a further response to Request for Production No. 27. Defendant's response is facially non-evasive; however, it is not Code-compliant. If Defendant contends that it does not possess documents responsive to the request, it must augment its response to state that it engaged in a diligent search and reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with the demand. See Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2031.230.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

RICE VS FCA US LLC

Discussion Plaintiff moves to compel compliance with the Court's earlier discovery order under the authority provided in CCP section 2031.310. That section permits the Court to make orders it deems just when a party fails to obey an order compelling further responses, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, a terminating sanction, or a monetary sanction.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BAKER VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA OF TRANSPORTATION

(1) Motion to Compel Production (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Irogs (3) Motion to Compel Response to RFAs (4) Motion to Compel Answers to Form Irogs Tentative Ruling: (1) Plaintiff Jeffery Baker’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set 12 (Nos. 237, 243) is GRANTED. Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause, and Defendant fails to justify its objections.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 87     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.