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)

101-125 of 4429 results

HOVHANNES MARKOSYAN VS NAREK PAPUKYAN, ET AL

The motion to compel discovery responses was deemed moot in light of the ruling on the motion for protective order. The court’s tentative ruling was to permit plaintiff ten days to serve responses, but according to the moving and opposition papers, the ruling was evidently modified to permit 30 days to respond.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

EVERFRESH FOOD SERVICES, LLC VS ROSEMEAD HWANG, LLC

Under CRC Rule 3.1030(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.” 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

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

DAT THANH NGUYEN VS THANH-NHAN NGUYEN

Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, in which the California Supreme Court reversed a trial court’s order granting a motion to compel discovery of a plaintiff homeowner’s medical histories in a nuisance and personal injury case against an airport, concluding: “While [plaintiffs] may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing this lawsuit, they are entitled to retain the confidentiality or all unrelated medical or psychotherapeutic treatment

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CONNOLLY VS DEL SOL LIONS FOUNDATION

Based on the dismissal of Premier Food Services Management Group, their Motion to Compel Discovery are taken OFF CALENDAR.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CONNOLLY VS DEL SOL LIONS FOUNDATION

Based on the dismissal of Premier Food Services Management Group, their Motion to Compel Discovery are taken OFF CALENDAR.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CONNOLLY VS DEL SOL LIONS FOUNDATION

Based on the dismissal of Premier Food Services Management Group, their Motion to Compel Discovery are taken OFF CALENDAR.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WALID AMIRI VS MERTIAGE HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE

Accordingly, Defendant’s motions to compel discovery responses are moot. Given the cause of delay, the Court declines to award either terminating sanctions, or monetary sanctions, at this time. It is so ordered. Dated: October , 2020 Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at [email protected] by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

SUPERLINE, INC. VS RADIANT IMAGES, INC.

Plaintiff Superline Inc.’s motions to compel discovery responses are GRANTED. Sanctions are imposed against Defendant Radiant Images Inc. and their counsel of record Benjamin Nachimson of Woolf & Nachimson, LLP in the reduced total amount of $680.00. On February 19, 2020, Plaintiff Superline Inc. filed the instant unlawful detainer action against Defendant Radiant Images Inc.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

VICTORIA VOYNAYA VS LORRAINE ROSA

“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).) The Court finds Defendant is entitled to sanctions for bringing this motion. However, Defendant’s request is unreasonable, especially given the motion is unopposed.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AFFORDABLE HOUSING COALITION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

A party seeking to compel discovery must therefore "set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought...." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); see Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 223.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DENNIS JACKSON, ET AL. VS ALEUT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, ET AL.

.: 19STCV28378 Hearing Date: October 13, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendant Aleut Facilities Support Services, LLC (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiffs Dennis Jackson and Kristen Jackson (“Plaintiffs”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”); and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”).

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ROBERT T. WALSTON, ET AL. VS PSYOP PRODUCTIONS, LLC., A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Defendants may file a motion to compel discovery if they believe Plaintiff’s responses to discovery are deficient. (See Ferrannni Decl. ¶ 4.) Although not argued by Plaintiff, the court also notes that the Agreement was not signed by either Mears or Mueller for Defendants. Rather, the Agreement was signed for Defendants by Bernard Cragg, Chairman of the Board of Managers. Defendants do not address the relevance of this evidence to their fraud defense.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

AUSCENCIO CARRILLO ET AL VS ANALEA PAULE ET AL

.: BC676377 Hearing Date: October 13, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendant Analea Paule (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Miguel Angel Gonzalez (“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 November 26, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

OLGA GUTIERREZ, ET AL. VS NAPOLEON MEJIAUSCANGA

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 09, 2020

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB VS. HILL

Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions Respondent Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s (“Interinsurance Exchange”) unopposed Motions to Compel Discovery Responses and Deem Facts Admitted (Motions Nos. 1 through 7) from claimants Eric Hill and Xiao Hill (collectively, “Claimants”) are GRANTED as follows. Interinsurance Exchange’s Motions are timely because no discovery responses were ever served by Claimants, even after Interinsurance Exchange’s voluntary meet and confer efforts.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB VS. HILL

Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions Respondent Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s (“Interinsurance Exchange”) unopposed Motions to Compel Discovery Responses and Deem Facts Admitted (Motions Nos. 1 through 7) from claimants Eric Hill and Xiao Hill (collectively, “Claimants”) are GRANTED as follows. Interinsurance Exchange’s Motions are timely because no discovery responses were ever served by Claimants, even after Interinsurance Exchange’s voluntary meet and confer efforts.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

KNYSH VS COX

This award is made pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1348 which states, in relevant part, "[t]he 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." The sanctions shall be paid by Osama Alkasabi to Steven Cox on or before November 9, 2020. This is the tentative ruling for a telephonic appearance hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, October 9, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

THORNTON VS STUCKER

The Court may award sanctions in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition was filed or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a).

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

THORNTON VS STUCKER

The Court may award sanctions in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition was filed or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a).

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

KNYSH VS COX

This award is made pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1348 which states, in relevant part, "[t]he 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." The sanctions shall be paid by Osama Alkasabi to Steven Cox on or before November 9, 2020. This is the tentative ruling for a telephonic appearance hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, October 9, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

THORNTON VS STUCKER

The Court may award sanctions in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition was filed or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a).

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

KNYSH VS COX

This award is made pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1348 which states, in relevant part, "[t]he 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." The sanctions shall be paid by Osama Alkasabi to State and Oak Carlsbad, LLP on or before November 9, 2020. This is the tentative ruling for a telephonic appearance hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, October 9, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KNYSH VS COX

This award is made pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1348 which states, in relevant part, "[t]he 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." The sanctions shall be paid by Osama Alkasabi to State and Oak Carlsbad, LLP on or before November 9, 2020. This is the tentative ruling for a telephonic appearance hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, October 9, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

THORNTON VS STUCKER

The Court may award sanctions in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition was filed or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a).

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

THORNTON VS STUCKER

The Court may award sanctions in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition was filed or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a).

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 178     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.