What is a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (CCP § 2030.300)?

Useful Resources for Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (CCP § 2030.300)

Recent Rulings on Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (CCP § 2030.300)

DORIS ANN WARNER VS LONG BEACH YELLOW CAB CORPORATION, INC., ET AL.

Long Beach Yellow Cab On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Compelling Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents; Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff scheduled for 01/20/2021, and Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Compelling Plaintiff to Answer Defendants' Interrogatories (Set One) , Without Objection; Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff scheduled

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

STEPHANIE JIMENEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL VS ANTONIO RAYGOZA, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Raygoza et al On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Defendants Maria Raygoza, Antonio Raygoza, and Juan Ragoza's Motions to Compel Discovery (Responses to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions) currently set for January 20, 2021 are continued to January 25, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Moving Party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

LUBIN ROCHA VS MARIA LOPEZ

A hearing on the motions to compel discovery was scheduled for January 21, 2020. The motions were unopposed and neither party appeared at the hearing, but Defendant submitted to the Court’s tentative ruling via email. (1/21/20 Minute Order.) The Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel and ordered Plaintiff to pay sanctions of $555.00 within thirty (30) days of notice of the order. (Id.) Defendant was ordered to give notice. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

ADRIAN MADDEN VS GURUCUL SOLUTIONS, LLC

A trial court is well within its discretion to deny a motion to compel discovery for failure to include a separate statement in compliance with the California Rules of Court. (See Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.) 2.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JAVIER A. MARIN VS EDWARD LEE

.: 20STCV07658 Hearing Date: January 15, 2021 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendant Edward Lee (“Defendant”) moves to deem the matters specified in the Requests for Admission, Set One (“RFAs”). Plaintiff’s responses were thus due no later than June 23, 2020. As of the filing date of these motions, Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

VIGEN SARKISSIAN VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ET AL.

Under CRC Rule 3.1348(a): “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice. Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990, 2nd Dist.) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LAURA LUBINSKY VS MYLES JOSEF ZAKHEIM, O.D., ET AL.

.: 19STCV29065 Hearing Date: January 15, 2021 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendants Myles Josef Zakheim, O.D. and Dr. Myles Josef Zakheim, O.D., Optometric Corporation (“Defendants”) move to compel responses from Plaintiff Laura Lubinsky (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, set one (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, set one (“FROG”); and (3) Special Interrogatories, set one (“SROG”).

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

TEDDY CANNON, AN INDIVIDUAL VS. BELLUM ENTERTAINMENT LLC

Under CRC Rule 3.1348(a): “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice. Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

LEWALLYN V. YOUNG

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Response TENTATIVE RULING #3: UPON REQUEST OF THE MOVING PARTY, THIS MATTER IS DROPPED FROM THE CALENDAR.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

VIGEN SARKISSIAN VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ET AL.

Under CRC Rule 3.1348(a): “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice. Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990, 2nd Dist.) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LISA GOODRICH VS GUILLERMO EDUARDO PADILLA JR ET AL

A trial court’s determination of a motion to compel discovery cannot be overturned in the absence of an abuse of discretion. 2,022 Ranch v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1387. With respect to attorney-client privilege, “if the privilege does not appear as a matter of law, the appellate court may not disturb the lower court’s findings if there is substantial evidence to support them.” Id.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

ANIL SHARMA VS. ZAMINDARI TRUST, ET AL

TENTATIVE RULING 1/14/2021 LC102618 SHARMA V ZAMINDARI TRUST MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO FILING A MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY. Cross-Defendant, Raffi Abkarian an Individual dba Raffi Abkarian & Associates moves the court for an order compelling Silvia Arvayo, Gul Jaisinghani and the Zamindari Trust to answer discovery. Trial was set 9/9/2019. It was continued by stipulation and order to 11/4/2019. The stipulation did not continue the discovery cutoff.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

JOSE GUEVARA, ET AL. VS WALTER J RODE, ET AL.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ARE GRANTED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED. Background On August 21, 2019, the instant action was filed. On January 16, 2020, Plaintiffs Ana Peraza; Deisy Guevara; Victor Guevara; Robert Guevara; and Karen Guevara, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Ana Peraza filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants Walter J. Rode; W.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ADRIAN MADDEN VS GURUCUL SOLUTIONS, LLC

A trial court is well within its discretion to deny a motion to compel discovery for failure to include a separate statement in compliance with the California Rules of Court. (See Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ADRIAN MADDEN VS GURUCUL SOLUTIONS, LLC

A trial court is well within its discretion to deny a motion to compel discovery for failure to include a separate statement in compliance with the California Rules of Court. (See Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JAVIER A. MARIN VS EDWARD LEE

.: 20STCV07658 Hearing Date: January 14, 2021 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendant Edward Lee (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Javier A. Marin (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, set one (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, set one (“FROG”); and (2) Special Interrogatories, set one (“SROG”). Defendant served the written discovery on Plaintiff by electronic transmission on May 22, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

DAVID GREENSTEIN VS PREFERRED HOTEL GROUP INC ET AL

Defendant cannot obtain summary judgment on that theory by opposing a motion to compel. Discovery into Huntley’s ADA compliance in the hotel’s gym – including statements in advertising touting such compliance – is relevant to the subject matter of the litigation and is discoverable.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

ADRIAN MADDEN VS GURUCUL SOLUTIONS, LLC

A trial court is well within its discretion to deny a motion to compel discovery for failure to include a separate statement in compliance with the California Rules of Court. (See Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NORMANDIE COMMUNITY WORSHIP CENTER VS ANTOINETTE BROOKS, ET AL.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a) [“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”].)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

OGANES CHAMICHYAN VS ASHOT SINDOYAN

.: 18STCV09907 Hearing Date: January 13, 2021 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Plaintiff Oganes Chamichyan (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel responses from Defendant Ashot Sindoyan (“Defendant”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, set one (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, set one (“FROG”); and (3) Special Interrogatories, set one (“SROG”). Plaintiff served the written discovery on Defendant on October 26, 2019 by mail.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

WILLIAM P GLAVIN, INDIVIDUALLY, ET AL. VS BRIAN ANTLEY

Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” Plaintiffs request $4,390 in sanctions against defendant. The court finds that $710 ($325/hr. x 2 hrs., filing fee) is a reasonable amount to be awarded against defendant.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

HABIB VEERA VS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH ET AL

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” The City’s request for $558.00 in sanctions for this straight-forward motion is unreasonable.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

ALMAS & SON, LLC VS JESUS BUGARIN, ET AL.

.: 20STCV00861 Hearing Date: January 12, 2021 Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is GRANTED. On January 8, 2020, Plaintiff Almas and Son LLC (Plaintiff) filed suit against Jesus Bugarin and Prestige Smoke Shop, alleging a cause of action for unlawful detainer. Plaintiff now moves to compel Defendant to response to its form interrogatories.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

ALMA DELIA JIMENEZ VILLEGAS, ET AL. VS VANESSA MARIE VENTURA

Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Discovery Responses on October 14, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed. Due to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the written discovery, the Motion is GRANTED as to the Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, to Request for Production of Documents, Set One within twenty (20) days’ service of this Order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BBBB BONDING VS. ELITE

HEARING ON MOTION RE DISCOVERY MATTERS FILED BY JAMILAH EL ELITE * TENTATIVE RULING: * This Motion to Compel Discovery is CONTINUED until March 15, 2020 to be heard in conjunction with the Case Management Conference as well as hearing on Defense Motion to Stay this case due to a related case pending in Alameda court.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 183     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.