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)

151-175 of 4367 results

DELEBERTO VS LAXSON

The Court is confused as to which issues, if any, remain to be adjudicated in connection with plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses from defendant Southern California Discount Tire Co., Inc. The parties are invited to appear (by video or telephone) at the Sept. 11, 2020 hearing at 1:30 pm to identify and address any unresolved issues.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SONIA DE LEON VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

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.”).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JOSE C. MAGALLANES, ET AL. VS UNITED PACIFIC CAPITAL INVESTMENT, LLC., ET AL.

The motions to compel discovery are continued. The Court will discuss an appropriate date at the case management conference. Next dates:

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KARI DAVISON VS ARVIS DAVARPANAH

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files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”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 March 12, 2019, Defendant served a notice of taking Plaintiff’s deposition. (Beck Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

JOSE M. GALLARDO VS. MARIA LUZ ELENA CHRISTOPHER

] #9 TENTATIVE ORDER Defendant Christopher’s motions to compel discovery responses and to deem facts admitted are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file responses to form interrogatories without objections within 20 days. The truth of the matters in Defendant’s request for admissions is deemed admitted. Reduced sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff in the reasonable sum of $1,500.00, payable within 30 days. Moving Party to give NOTICE.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY VS VALAZA INTERNATIONAL LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery Date of Hearing: September 8, 2020 Trial Date: None set. Department: W Case No.: 19VECV00416 Moving Party: Plaintiff Chicago Title Insurance Company Responding Party: No opposition. BACKGROUND This action arises out of a dispute regarding certain property located at 21921 Ybarra Road, Woodland Hills, California 91364. Plaintiff alleges the property was owned by Steven Schaffer.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

REGINA TOMLINSON PERRY AND ROGER BRIAN PERRY

Respondent’s request for order to compel discovery is granted. Petitioner shall file and serve full and complete code compliant responses, without objections, within one week of the date of this order. Respondent’s request for sanctions is deferred until the time of trial. Respondent is ordered to personally appear via Zoom for the OSC re Contempt and will be arraigned at that time. The parties are ordered to be prepared to address the status of the Cheltenham property.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

WILMA JANICE OKAMOTO-VAUGHN VS AUSTIN MICHAEL GERMAN

Motion to Compel Discovery Responses: Appearance is required. The matter will be heard remotely by telephone at its scheduled date and time: (209)992-5590 Bridge# 6939 Pin# 3892

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

SOCAL LIEN SOLUTIONS LLC VS MAGNOLIA BLOOM LLC, ET AL.

.: 19CHLC30998 Hearing Date: September 4, 2020 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES; REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS Defendant/Cross-Complainant Peter Hosharian (“Hosharian”) filed 3 motions to compel responses from Cross-Complainant Mesrop Mike Manjikian (“Manjikian”) for: (1) Form Interrogatories (“FROG”); (2) Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”); and (3) Requests for Admissions (“RFA”).

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

B.M.M. VS CODY BACA

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR COMPEL DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, FILED BY B.M.M. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Hearing off calendar per fax of counsel.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

PEOPLEREADY, INC., A WASHINGTON CORPORATION VS TINO SANTHON, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery Date of Hearing: September 3, 2020 Trial Date: None set. Department: W Case No.: 19VECV01783 Moving Party: Plaintiff PeopleReady, Inc. Responding Party: No opposition. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges they entered into an agreement wherein Plaintiff with Defendant Santhon in which agreed to provide temporary employees to Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ELIZABETH DOR VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (LACMTA), ET AL.

.: 19STCV45949 Hearing Date: September 3, 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

    Sep 03, 2020

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC VS ALVAREZ

Defendant Lydia Alvarez's unopposed motion to compel discovery from Vince Dixon Ford, Inc. (Ford) is GRANTED. Ford will respond fully and completely to Defendant's deposition subpoena and produce all requested business records within its possession, custody or control, within fifteen (15) days of service of the Court's order on this motion. Inasmuch as Ford failed to provide any response at all to the subpoena, all objections are waived.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

RODOLFO A. PINEDA, ET AL. VS JOANNA OTERO

SERVICE: [X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK (both) [X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK (both) [X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK (both) Motions to Compel Discovery Responses OPPOSITION: Filed on August 21, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None REPLY: Filed on August 25, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None Motion to Strike OPPOSITION: Filed on March 17, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None REPLY: Filed on March 20, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None ANALYSIS: Background On January 25, 2019, Plaintiffs Rodolfo

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

ALEJANDRA THORPE VS 459 SOUTH OAKHURST, L.L.C.

Even if a party does not oppose the motion and/or the party serves responses, the Court has discretion to impose sanctions under CRC Rule 3.1348, which 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.” See also Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC VS ALVAREZ

Defendant Lydia Alvarez's unopposed motion to compel discovery from Vince Dixon Ford, Inc. (Ford) is GRANTED. Ford will respond fully and completely to Defendant's deposition subpoena and produce all requested business records within its possession, custody or control, within fifteen (15) days of service of the Court's order on this motion. Inasmuch as Ford failed to provide any response at all to the subpoena, all objections are waived.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

SAMANTHA QUINONEZ VS GOODWILL STORE & DONATION CENTER, ET AL.

.: 19STCV13036 Hearing Date: September 2, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendant Goodwill Store & Donation Center (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Samantha Quinonez (“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 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LOTHENBACH V. STUART

(Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses to Defendant’s Request for Production Set Number One (Opposition) filed on 8-19-20; 8:7-10.) The Fraud cause of action alleged in the Second Amended Complaint (SAC), filed on 6-11-19 under ROA No. 194, is not before the court. As a result, the allegations of unfaithfulness (SAC, ¶¶27 and 28) are no longer at issue.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

ARTHUR PATTERSON III V. CITY OF PASO ROBLES

(California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348 [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.])

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

BANGA VS. SEPHORA

HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FILED BY SEPHORA USA, INC. * TENTATIVE RULING: * The court has been notified that this motion has been withdrawn.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

KAREN ESPINOZA, ET AL. VS COMMERCIAL CARTAGE INC.

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

    Aug 31, 2020

CHRISTOPHER MARTINEZ VS HANLON ENTERPRISES, INC.

Furthermore, the Court finds that an award of sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel for filing the June 13, 2019 motion to compel discovery is unwarranted. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

MARIA WILMINDA-SICO, ET AL. VS VICTORIA DO LEE

PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant Lee seeks the court to compel discovery responses to: (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One, from Plaintiff Wilminda-Sico; (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One, from Plaintiff Wilminda-Sico; (3) Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, from Plaintiff Wilminda-Sico; (4) Form Interrogatories, Set One, from Plaintiff Lamson; (5) Special Interrogatories, Set One, from Plaintiff Lamson; and (6) Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, from Plaintiff Lamson

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

ADRINE MOUSAKHANIAN VS UNITED VALET PARKING, ET AL.

PARTY’S REQUEST Plaintiff seeks the Court to compel discovery responses to: (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One, from Defendant United Valet; (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One, from Defendant United Valet; (3) Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, from Defendant United Valet. Plaintiff further seeks the Court to deem Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted as to Defendant United Valet.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

BRANDI NICOLE MAPLES VS KAYLA LYNN BELL

.: 19STCV37066 Hearing Date: August 31, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendant Kayla Lynn Bell (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Brandi Nicole Maples (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Request for Productions of Documents, Set One (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”); and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”). Plaintiff’s counsel, Stacey R.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 175     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.