What is a Motion for Order Shortening Time to Respond to Discovery Calendar?

A party may move to shorten the time to respond to discovery through a "Motion for Order Shortening Time to Respond to Discovery." The normal discovery timeline and standard of review for the aforementioned motion are provided below.

Normal Discovery Timeline

Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2024.020, the discovery cut off and the cut off for motions seeking discovery responses is based on the initial trial date. A party on whom written discovery has been served, must provide an initial verified response within 30 days of service. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a)). An extra five days will be allotted where service occurs by mail. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1013).

Failure to respond in a timely manner results in the waiver of objections, including those objections based on attorney-client privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a)). By failing to respond, the offending party waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a)).

Standard of Review

A propounding party may move the Court for an order shortening time to respond to propounded discovery under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a), and 2033.250(a). The court will review the motion under those code sections.

Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.260

(a) Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.

Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.260

(a) Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared in the action, unless on motion of the party making the demand, the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the party to whom the demand has been directed, the court has extended the time for response.

Code of Civ. Proc. § 2033.250

(a) Within 30 days after service of requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared, unless on motion of the requesting party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.

Useful Rulings on Motion for Order Shortening Time to Respond to Discovery Calendar

Recent Rulings on Motion for Order Shortening Time to Respond to Discovery Calendar

FABIO FAJARDO VS CALIFORNIA TD SPECIALISTS

On review, the Court concludes that good cause does not exist to shorten time to respond to discovery. First, the Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to include the proposed discovery requests. making it impossible for the Court to evaluate whether the discovery is narrowly tailored. Second, Plaintiff’s arguments make reference to irreparable injuries more specifically detailed in an accompanying preliminary injunction motion – but no preliminary injunction motion has been received by the Court.

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ROBERT SCOTT SHTOFMAN VS BERNICE CHINYERE IVOKO ET AL

If plaintiffs need more time to respond to discovery, the court assumes that defendants would grant a reasonable extension for plaintiffs to respond. Plaintiffs chose to bring this action, and as such, plaintiffs are required to respond to reasonable discovery request. As stated previously, whether this case is complex or not, plaintiffs are still required to respond to discovery. Accordingly, the Court is not inclined to find that this matter is complex. The motion is therefore DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Apr 23, 2018

LAURA SHAPIRO ET AL VS MORAD BEN NEMAN ET AL

If plaintiffs need more time to respond to discovery, the court assumes that defendants would grant a reasonable extension for plaintiffs to respond. Plaintiffs chose to bring this action, and as such, plaintiffs are required to respond to reasonable discovery request. As stated previously, whether this case is complex or not, plaintiffs are still required to respond to discovery. Accordingly, the Court is not inclined to find that this matter is complex. The motion is therefore DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Apr 20, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.