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

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 these 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 Propounded Discovery

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

1-25 of 10000 results

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Turner did not specify the ultimate material facts as to the economic loss rule as to each plaintiff’s negligence claim in its Separate Statement, instead reciting verbatim deposition testimony and other discovery responses, which left it to the Court the cumbersome task of trying to determine whether Turner established that Plaintiffs only have economic damages. (SSUF 44-61.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

CATHAY BANK VS ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION

Plaintiffs Cathay Bank and Robb Evans & Associates LLC (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) move for leave to conduct discovery into the financial condition of Defendant Ace and Defendant JMI (collectively, the “Defendants”) pursuant to Civil Code section 3295(c): No pretrial discovery by the plaintiff shall be permitted with respect to the evidence referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) unless the court enters an order permitting such discovery pursuant to this subdivision.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

MANUEL ALEJANDRE VS CAL-VILLA ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(d) provides: “The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders: (1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. (2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

However, unsupported attorney’s fee allegations need not be stricken pursuant to a motion to strike, since later discovery may reveal a basis for their recovery. (Camenisch v. Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1689, 1699.) Additionally, pursuant to Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ARMEN G KOJIKIAN ET AL VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

Counsel represents that the parties engaged in investigation and discovery in this matter.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

MARIA PIERRE VS ALISSA FISHER, ET AL.

Fisher et al. 20STCV06003 In the personal injury courts, before a hearing may be held on a motion to compel further responses to discovery, the moving party must first seek an Informal Discovery Conference with the court. Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures, Central District, ¶¶ 12-13, effective 9/26/18. The court’s file does not indicate that the moving party requested or that the parties participated in an IDC prior to the hearing date.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

RE: PET’N TO DECLARE THE 2007 RESTATEMENT OF TRUST & 2019 INSTRUCTIONS FILED ON 05/26/20 BY RHONDA BRINK

GERARD SMITS MATTHEW B TALBOT LOUIS C SMITS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances D'AYONA N JEROME JON CHRISTOPHER WEIR DON JEROME LAURA M HEARNE NAUSTACHIA GREEN CAROLYN D CAIN SHAWNA CARITA CARNATION FILED ON 01/16/20 BY JOHN F KLEIN PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE -- See also Line # 21 -- Need appearances to report status, including 9-22-2020 order to meet and confer, and discovery.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ISABEL C., ET AL. V. CARPINTERIA COMMUNITY CHURCH, ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Amend Order Permitting Deft to Conduct Discovery; Motion Amend Permitting Deft to Conduct Discovery into Pltf Sierra Saragosa; Motion Compel Tentative

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

MATTER OF ROY J. MUNGER REVOCABLE TRUST

Despite all pleadings having been addressed by the two evidentiary hearings, further discovery is alleged to be necessary by the beneficiary litigants.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Judge Jed Beebe
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

TONY WATSON, ET AL. VS CAMI AUTOMOTIVE, INC, ET AL.

The court concludes that video depositions are sufficient for all parties to meet their right to discovery as well as their right to representation by counsel. Nonetheless, the court understands the parties’ concerns regarding the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and orders the parties to meet and confer to find conditions acceptable to both parties to proceed with the deposition remotely for public safety.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

HARVEY KREITENBERG, ET AL. VS MICHAEL ROSENBERG, ET AL.

Motion for Protective Order Defendant Michael Rosenberg moves “for an order that he need not answer the RFPs on the grounds that the discovery was improperly served as will be determined by the Motion to Quash Service of Summons.” (Motion for Protective Order, p. 2:10-12.) As indicated above, the Court’s denied the motion to quash the service of summons on Michael Rosenberg. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant Michael Rosenberg’s motion for protective order. IV.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

TONY WATSON, ET AL. VS CAMI AUTOMOTIVE, INC, ET AL.

Alternatively, California counsel may go to the deponent's state and use, e.g., the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act, adopted by 42 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands (see www.uniformlaws.org). (Cal. Prac Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial Ch. 8E-8.) Plaintiff relies on Toyota Motor Corp., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th 1107, in arguing the court cannot compel a foreign non-resident to travel to California for his or her deposition.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JORGE BOLANOS VS MARGARET WITHERSPOON, ET AL.

Defendant served the discovery at issue by mail on February 7, 2020. Defendant granted Plaintiff an extension of time to respond to April 13, 2020. As of the filing date of these motions, Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not opposed the motions, and there is nothing in the record suggesting that Plaintiff has complied with his discovery obligations.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

PAULA KLEIN VS PQ ENCINO BAKERY, INC. DBA LE PAIN QUOTIEN, ET AL.

Defendant served the written discovery electronically on May 19, 2020, meaning that Plaintiff’s responses were due no later than June 22, 2020. As of the filing date of these motions, Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, and there is nothing in the record suggesting that she has complied with her discovery obligations.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BELOV VS. IRAHETA

Discovery concerning the employer providing workers compensation for Plaintiff is stayed until after November 17, 2020. The stay does not apply to any other discovery. A corporation does not have a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 886. However, under Lab. Code, § 3700.5 (a), there is potential liability for the individual defendants. Self-Insurers' Security Fund v. ESIS, Inc. (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1148, 1158–1159.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

AMIR BIBIYAN VS ANTHONY FREYDREK AGHILIAN

The Court shall hold an Informal Discovery Conference on December 2, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. unless Plaintiff remains a self-represented party, in which case the Court will vacate that date. The Court continues all hearings on the pending motions to compel further responses to December 11, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. The Court orders Counsel to serve a copy of this order, as well as a copy of the Court’s order on Form MC-053, upon all parties of record, as well as her client within ten (10) days.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

PAVEL ZAMOSHNIKOV VS. CODE COMPLIANCE OF CITY OF SACRAMENTO

He also states he tried to depose City staff but was refused, and he asks “what kind of a lawsuit is it without the option of open discovery?” Discovery in writ proceedings is extremely limited. (Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 93, 102.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

ANNA MARIA PATTERSON VS NANCI ROBERTSON

On September 16, 2020, Patterson filed an ex parte application for trial setting preference pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 36 or alternatively to shorten time. The ex parte application was opposed by Robertson. On September 17, the court shortened time on Patterson’s motion, setting this hearing. Pursuant to the court’s order, Patterson filed her brief in support of the motion on September 21, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ESMOND VS. THE RICHARD F. CRAWFORD COMPANY

The four discovery motions set for today have been continued to December 4, 2020 by Stipulation and Order. The moving party is ordered to give notice of the ruling.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

MARIA GUZMAN VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Subsequently, in Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the Court identified the manner for establishing good cause under Calcor: “To establish good cause, a discovery proponent must identify a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ARTHUR AMBARACHYAN VS GEORGE PLAVJIAN, ET AL.

Kakoian argues that Plaintiff should engage in less intrusive means of discovery such as propounding written discovery or interrogatories, Mr. Kakoian is not a party to the action such that interrogatories or requests for admission may not be propounded on him directly. Further, it does not appear that deposition subpoenas for production of documents would be particularly useful, as Plaintiff appears to seek the course of events and background of the third loan from Mr.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AJA STEEN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS IHS GLOBAL INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

Motions to compel a non-party to produce documents must set forth facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought. (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GLENDA JOHNSON VS JEREMY NEWMAN, ET AL.

“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) “In general, ‘demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.’” (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

630 SOUTH GRAND AVE LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ARDASHIR FAROKHIRAD, ET AL.

On April 22, 2020, Chammas wrote to McDougall, wherein he advised McDougall that responses to the subject discovery were overdue and requested that verified responses be provided by May 22, 2020. (Id., ¶9, Exh. D.) On May 16, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel Kitty Xie (“Xie”) met and conferred with McDougall, requesting verified responses. (Id., ¶10, Exh. E.) On May 21, 2020, McDougall wrote back and gave the same blanket objections to the subject discovery. (Id., ¶11, Exh. F.) The motion is denied as moot.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

APNE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS VALOT ASSATOUR ASSATOURIAN

Motion to compel discovery responses Defendant shall provide code-compliant responses without objection to the four discovery devices within twenty days of notice and pay sanctions to counsel for plaintiff the sum of $740.00

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.