“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 the responses to it that are at issue.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345(c).)
The separate statement is a very useful tool for the Court to decide discovery disputes; it requires that the dispute be presented on a request-by-request basis with the objections, responses and arguments all in one place. (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345(c).) The separate statement requirement was designed to streamline adjudication of discovery motions, and a failure to file a separate statement is a sufficient basis for denying plaintiff’s motion to compel. (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.)
“Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion:
(Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345(a); BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1270.)
“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. Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference. The separate statement must include--for each discovery request (e.g., each interrogatory, request for admission, deposition question, or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested--the following:
(Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345; Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 892-893; Neary v. Regents of University of California (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1145.)
A trial court is acting well within its discretion to deny a motion to compel discovery on the basis that the mandated separate statement was not provided or the statement provided does not comply with the requirements of the Court Rule. (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.) Although Rule 3.1345 of the California Rules of Court does not explicitly provide a remedy for failure to comply with it, at least one appellate court has cited with approval the trial court’s dropping of a motion to compel discovery where the moving part failed to comply with Rule 335, which was renumbered as Rule 3.1345. (BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1270; Neary v. Regents of University of California (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1145.)
Nature of Proceedings: Motions Compel Further Resp. Deft's Form Interrog (Set 1) to Eric Hvolboll/Req. for Sanctions; to Deft's Req. for Prod. (Set 1) to Eric Hvolboll/Req. for Sanctions; to Deft's Req. for Prod. (St 1) La Paloma Ranch/Req. for Sanctions; Further Resp. to Def MATTER: (1) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Eric P. Hvolboll to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories,...
..RNEYS: Melissa M. Fassett for Plaintiffs La Paloma Ranch, LLC and Eric P. Hvolboll Garrett A. Marshall for Defendant Presbyterian Camp and Conference Centers, Inc. TENTATIVE RULING: Each of defendant’s four motions to compel further discovery responses is denied for failure to comply with Rule 3.1345 of the California Rules of Court regarding the format of discovery motions. Plaintiffs are awar...
Jun 15, 2018
Santa Barbara County, CA
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Answers to Written Discovery Requests. Defendant moves to compel responses to form interrogatories that defendant contends were incomplete in that only partial responses were provided. Defendant further requests $2,365 in monetary sanctions. Plaintiff opposes the motion on the ground that defendant failed to provide a Rule of Court Rule 3.1345 separate statement in sup...
..he information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses that are at issue without resorting to other documents, such as the required separate statement; a separate statement was not required for several of the interrogatories that plaintiff did not respond to in any manner; the purported supplemental responses attached to the opposition are unverified; and even if the v...
May 04, 2017
El Dorado County, CA
Plaintiff Manuel Barraza’s (“Plaintiff”) Special Interrogatories, Set Two, (“Motion”) is Granted in part and Denied in part. Requirements for responding to Special Interrogatories (“SPROG”): “(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered co...
..CP § 2030.220. For motions to compel further responses: “On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted o...
Aug 12, 2019
Orange County, CA
Re: Tina M. Arellano v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., et al. (KC069027) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS Moving Party: Plaintiff Tina M. Arellano Respondent: Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. POS: Moving OK; Opposing OK This is a wrongful foreclosure action involving plaintiff’s residential property loc...
..Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the first, third and fourth causes of action, without leave. A court trial is set for 8/6/18. Plaintiff Tina M. Arellano (“plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”) to provide further responses to her Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One, Nos. 1-...
Oct 02, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Denied. Sanctions denied. Plaintiff alleges that he was injured propped up against his vehicle at a gas station while pumping gas when his vehicle was sideswiped and knocked to the ground by the vehicle of Defendant Amy Jean Self-Sears. As a result of this collision, Plaintiff claims injuries to his neck, right shoulder, back and right leg and according to his statement of damages $14,000,000 in...
..June 13, 2019, to (1) Desert Regional Medical Center (films, meds, and bills). Plaintiff argues that the June 5, 2019 subpoenas are defective in that they are not sufficiently limited in scope; no notice of their withdrawal has been received by Plaintiff; that the June 7, 2019, subpoena is not sufficiently limited in scope; that the June 13, 2019, reissued subpoenas are not sufficiently limited in...
Sep 27, 2019
Riverside County, CA
Case Number: BC462891 TODD MCNAIR VS THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOC ET AL Filing Date: 06/03/2011 Case Type: Defamation (Slander/Libel) (General Jurisdiction) NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND PROCEDURE FOR SUBMISSION WITHOUT HEARING The parties may submit to the tentative ruling without appearing for the hearing if you follow these instructions: (1) If ALL PARTIES (except if no other part...
..court.org, at least one day prior to the hearing date, to advise the Court that ALL PARTIES SUBMIT, also STATING WHICH PARTY WILL GIVE NOTICE, or if NOTICE IS WAIVED; (3) Please refrain from sending individual emails to [email protected] with a request to modify the tentative ruling or indicate one party submits but waiting to hear from the other side, as these emails will not be considered....
Nov 01, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
1-25 of 10000 results
Jul 07, 2021
Butte County, CA
Jul 07, 2021
Butte County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.