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)

76-100 of 4339 results

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

ERIC BELLINGER VS ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS INC 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 $1,514 for each motion against plaintiffs and attorney of record.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

BRYAN CHRISTOPHER GOFF VS MIKE DAVIS ET AL

.: BC707833 Hearing Date: September 25, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendants Mike Davis and Worldwide Real Estate Development LLC (“Defendants”) move to compel responses from Plaintiff Bryan Christopher Goff (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”); and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”). Plaintiff moves to deem admitted specified in Requests for Admissions, Set One (“RFA”).

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

HSIEH V. LIN

Under Filing and Motions Fees: defendants may recover: a) Ex-Parte Application to Specially Set MSC $60 and court reporter fee $30; b) Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date $60; c)Motion to Compel Discovery Responses $60 and court reporter fee $30; d) Motion to Consolidate $60; e) Motion for Sanctions $60 and court reporter fees $30; f) Ex Parte Application re Motion for OSC re Sanctions $60; f) Demurrer $900 and court reporter fee $30; g) Motion for Sanctions $60; Under Deposition Costs: defendants may

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

MITCHELL VS CHULA VISTA PAROLE

(1) MOTION TO REQUEST/COMPEL DISCOVERY by plaintiff Kenyatta Quinn Mitchell is DENIED. Plaintiff has not shown that defendant was timely served with this motion or with discovery and has failed to respond. (See, California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2017.010 et. seq. for discovery procedures; also The Rutter Group, Civil Procedure Before Trial section 8:23 et. seq.) Moreover, plaintiff has not shown that defendant has been served with the summons and complaint and thus discovery may be premature.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MITCHELL VS CHULA VISTA PAROLE

(1) MOTION TO REQUEST/COMPEL DISCOVERY by plaintiff Kenyatta Quinn Mitchell is DENIED. Plaintiff has not shown that defendant was timely served with this motion or with discovery and has failed to respond. (See, California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2017.010 et. seq. for discovery procedures; also The Rutter Group, Civil Procedure Before Trial section 8:23 et. seq.) Moreover, plaintiff has not shown that defendant has been served with the summons and complaint and thus discovery may be premature.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS CHELSEA BRAUN

.: 20STCV20070 Hearing Date: September 24, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to compel discovery responses Petitioner State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Petitioner”) moves to compel responses from Respondent Chelsea Braun (“Respondent”) to Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”). Petitioner served the RPD on Respondent by mail on December 10, 2019. Petitioner granted Respondent multiple extensions of time to respond to March 26, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WILLIAM WADDLE VS VINCENT TORRES, ET AL.

Rather, in Mills, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery because the plaintiffs in that case did not set forth the full response to each interrogatory and requests for production at issue and the section purporting to set forth statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses was “extremely confusing” and did not comply with the requirements of the California Rules of Court.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RITA CADLE VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

.: 20STCV03804 Hearing Date: September 24, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Rita Cadle (“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

    Sep 24, 2020

JOSHUA JOHNSON ET AL VS JOSE LIMA ESPINA

.: BC713801 Hearing Date: September 23, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendant Jose Lima Espina (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiffs Joshua Johnson, Faith Johnson, and Brihtsy Atlan (“Plaintiffs”) 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 Plaintiffs on September 27, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

BRINA WASHINGTON, ET AL. VS VANETTA N MOSBY, 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.” Defendants request sanctions against plaintiff in the total amount of $2,520 for both motions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DELARA NASSERI VS CAROLINE ZEYTUNTSYAN

.: 19STCV35171 Hearing Date: September 22, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendant Caroline Zeytuntsyan (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Delara Nasseri (“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 via email on March 27, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

KEVIN HUDDLESTON, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS BALUBHAI PATEL, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407; CRC 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 … the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”).) In opposition, Defendants assert imposition of sanctions would be unjust due to Defendants’ counsel’s extreme backlog due to his and his family’s medical issues. (Opposition, pg. 8.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MONTIEL V. NEWPORT FOOT AND ANKLE CENTER, INC.

Plaintiff’s (Yolanda Montiel) Motion to Reconsider/Revoke/Amend and/or Modify the Court’s February 4, 2020 Order Ruling re: Motions to Compel Discovery (Motion), filed on 2-14-20 under ROA No. 337, is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

KIM VS SK CUISINE CORPORATION

Tentative Ruling on Motion to Compel Discovery Kim v. SK Cuisine, Case No. 2018-53297 Sept. 25, 2020, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture. This case arises out of the parties' efforts to open and operate a sushi restaurant, Full Moon, in the Gaslamp Quarter of San Diego. The venture evidently suffered from extensive construction delays and cost overruns.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KIM VS SK CUISINE CORPORATION

Tentative Ruling on Motion to Compel Discovery Kim v. SK Cuisine, Case No. 2018-53297 Sept. 25, 2020, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture. This case arises out of the parties' efforts to open and operate a sushi restaurant, Full Moon, in the Gaslamp Quarter of San Diego. The venture evidently suffered from extensive construction delays and cost overruns.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RENA SHULTZ VS THE KROGER COMPANY DBA RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

.: 20STCV05147 Hearing Date: September 21, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendant Alpha Beta Company (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Rena Shultz (“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 on March 3, 202, by mail. Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by April 7, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KIMBERLY BOUSSARD VS CHARLES SHORTER

Alternatively, if Defendant can produce evidence that they properly gave notice of the subject hearing date as ordered, the court rules as follows: Between 7/22/20 to 7/24/20, Defendant filed the following nine motions to compel discovery responses: motions to compel (1) form interrogatories, (2) special interrogatories and (3) request for production of documents against Plaintiff Lucia Ruvalcaba; motions to compel (4) form interrogatories, (5) special interrogatories and (6) request for production of documents

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

ABRAHAMS VS. HAMPTON

HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT FILED BY HARRY ABRAHAMS * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses from defendant Hampton, and to deem matters admitted, is granted in part. The motion is denied insofar as it requests that matters be deemed admitted. Hampton has served responses to the requests for admission before the hearing date of the motion. As for the other discovery, however, the motion is granted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

FRANCISCO ROCHA VS ERIC CHAPMAN 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 Ray Consulting requests sanctions against defendant Lemoli and/or its attorneys in the total amount $1,605. The court denies the request for sanctions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SORMEH ATTARZADEH VS NOAH HENRY GIBSON

.: BC720805 Hearing Date: September 18, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendant Noah Henry Gibson (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Sormeh Attarzadeh (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”), and (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”). Defendant served the discovery at issue on Plaintiff by mail on June 28, 2019. Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by August 2, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

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

.: 19STCV29065 Hearing Date: September 18, 2020 [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

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 174     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.