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

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

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

JORGE BOLANOS VS MARGARET WITHERSPOON, ET AL.

.: 19STCV46818 Hearing Date: October 5, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses NOTICE Department #32 will be dark for motions. The parties are ordered to email the Court’s clerk at [email protected] to inform the clerk whether they are submitting on the Court’s tentative or whether they are requesting a hearing. If any party requests a hearing, one will be scheduled.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

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

.: 19STCV37309 Hearing Date: October 5, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses NOTICE Department #32 will be dark for motions. The parties are ordered to email the Court’s clerk at [email protected] to inform the clerk whether they are submitting on the Court’s tentative or whether they are requesting a hearing. If any party requests a hearing, one will be scheduled.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

LUIS TORRES VS RENE BUENO, ET AL.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “[t]he 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files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”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

    Oct 01, 2020

CHAD SNOW, ET AL. VS TARA FOLEY

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “[t]he 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files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” DISCUSSION On July 19, 2019, Defendant served Form Interrogatories and Request for Production (All Set One) on Plaintiffs by U.S. mail.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

DAVID JIMENEZ VS SYUZANNA KARAPETYAN

.: BC692232 Hearing Date: September 30, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendant Syuzanna Karapetyan (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Samantha Quinonez (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One; (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One; and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One. The discovery was served by mail on December 27, 2019, meaning that responses were due on or before January 31, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

EISNER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS JEFFREY BERNSTEIN, ET AL.

Sanctions: GRANTED “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though . . . the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (CRC, Rule 3.1348(a).) Plaintiff requests $1,559.50 in sanctions for the motions. Defendants contend that only $520 should be awarded.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

PROJECT ONE-FIFTY, LP VS ASHOK B. PATEL, ET AL.

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.” Defendant requests sanctions against plaintiff and/or its counsel in the amount of $6,370.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

GOD VS 4106 ROSEWOOD CORPORATION

Motions to Compel Discovery Responses A. Legal Standard For a motion to compel, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 906.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LEE ROSSUM VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT

Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 “established that a criminal defendant could compel discovery of certain relevant information in the personnel files of police officers by making general allegations which establish some cause of discovery of that information and by showing how it would support a defense to the charge against him.” (Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1018-1019, internal quotation marks omitted).

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LI TIAN VS JUAN ZAVALA, ET AL.

.: 19STCV01615 Hearing Date: September 30, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendants Juan Zavala and Bit Fleet Services, Inc. (“Defendant”) move to compel responses from Plaintiff Li Tian (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”); and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”). Defendant served the written discovery on Plaintiff by mail on February 10, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

DENIZ IRIAJEN VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

.: 20STCV04247 Hearing Date: September 30, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses NOTICE The Court posts this tentative order two days in advance of the hearing. Any party who does not appear at the hearing—either in person or remotely via LACourtConnect—shall waive the right to be heard and shall submit to this tentative order.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GOD VS 4106 ROSEWOOD CORPORATION

Motions to Compel Discovery Responses A. Legal Standard For a motion to compel, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 906.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CRESCENT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED VS. ERIC HARR, ET AL

The court continued the hearing on the motion to September 29, 2020 and noted that it expected the motion to be ready for hearing on that date “or if discovery remains outstanding, that plaintiff will have filed the appropriate discovery motion," Plaintiff now makes another request for a continuance and indicates it has filed motions to compel discovery responses from Ashkar and Har‘r, The motions are currently calendared January 5, 2021, Harr and Ashkar oppose the request for another continuance asserting that

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

ESTATE OF PRUDENCIA DAILINGER, A DECEASED INDIVIDUAL THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR GEORGE DALINGER, ET AL. VS CITY VIEW ALF, INC., ET AL.

Superior Court (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 777, 781 [“[T]he power to compel discovery is circumscribed by statute and a trial court is without jurisdiction to compel a party to perform acts that are beyond the pale of the discovery act.”]; Holm v. Superior Court (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1241, 1247 [“[T]he courts are without power to expand the methods of civil discovery beyond those authorized by statute.”].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CIRIA A GONZALEZ CORDERO VS LAUREN ALEXA MELENDEZ

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “[t]he 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

    Sep 29, 2020

GILBERT CAHATOL, JR., ET AL. VS VANESSA RAMIREZ

.: 19STCV22133 Hearing Date: September 29, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Plaintiffs Gilbert Cahatol, Jr. and Shekinah Diel (“Plaintiffs”) move to compel responses from Defendant Vanessa Ramirez (“Defendant”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”) and (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”). Plaintiffs also move to deem admitted matters specified in Requests for Admissions, Set One (“RFA”).

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

EVON TAWADROUS VS FARSHAD MALEKMEHR, ET AL.

.: 19STCV40654 Hearing Date: September 28, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendant Farshad Malekmehr, M.D. (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Evon Tawadrous (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”); and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”). Defendant served the written discovery on Plaintiff by mail on February 6, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

BEACH FRONT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC ET AL VS PLY GEM PACIFIC WINDOWS CORPORATION ET AL

“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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).) In the prior tentative the court stated: “Plaintiffs have provided no opposition or other response to this motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

SCHEIN VS SAN DIEGO SPORTS MEDICINE AND FAMILY HEALTH CENTER

In late February 2020, defendants scheduled and filed a single motion to compel discovery, which was set for hearing in May of 2020. ROA 11-13. Fate then intervened. On March 17, 2020, the Presiding Judge of the SDSC signed, with the consent of the Chief Justice, the first in a series of administrative orders closing the SDSC for all but emergency matters due to the coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

MARIE MCGINNIS VS RICHARD GABRIEL, ET AL.

Motion to compel discovery No opposition GRANT: Plaintiff is ordered to provide code-compliant responses without objections within twenty days of notice and to pay $460.00 to counsel for moving party.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

EMMANUEL CASTILLO VS RLM TRUCKING INC ET AL

.: BC717970 Hearing Date: September 25, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Plaintiff Emmanuel Castillo (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel responses from Defendants Gildan Active Wear, Inc., and Alstyle Apparel and Activewear to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One; (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One; and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

SOCORRO COBARRUVIAS VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ET

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 1/13/20 Ruling on Motions to Compel Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s 1/13/20 Rulings concerning motions to compel discovery directed at Plaintiff. The Court was scheduled to hear Defendant’s motions to compel on 1/13/20. Prior to the hearing, the Court issued a tentative ruling. There were no appearances at the hearing, and the Court adopted its tentative ruling.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS. TRAN

Code §11580.2(f) to compel discovery (FRogs, RPD, depos) in a UIM action to terminate the UIM arbitration based upon claimant Nguyen’s repeated discovery abuses. On 09/09/16, petitioner caused to be served by mail on Attorney Alex Benedict a set of form interrogatories and a request for production of documents. Nguyen served unverified responses to both. On 08/20/18, petitioner caused to be served by mail on Attorney Alex Benedict a deposition notice for Nguyen. The deposition was continued to 01/09/20.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

VEHANOOSH GRIGORIAN VS. ALEX MEGEREDCHIAN ET AL

It also appears that the other action will likely resolve or narrow some of the issues involved in this matter, including issues of damages in this legal malpractice action and damages, which would impact the scope of discovery to be permitted in this matter and consequently consideration of any motions to compel discovery, such as the motions now before the court.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 172     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.