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)

DEBORAH J WALTRIP VS AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.

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files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”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 $1,360 in sanctions against plaintiff for both the motions.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

YONG HUN LEE, ET AL. VS JACOB RAFAEL MARTINEZ

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files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”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 28, 2020

ANGELA HOLQUIN VS FOOD 4 LESS CALIFORNIA, INC.

PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant originally sought the court to compel discovery responses to: (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One; (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One; (3) Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One. Since Plaintiff did not serve her responses to the discovery demands until after these instant motions were filed, Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,340.00 against Plaintiff and Plaintiffs’ attorney, Shaun J.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ARAD GOUDARZI VS LESLIE PETTIS, ET AL.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (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files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” DISCUSSION This is not the first discovery motion in this action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC VS PLATINUM LUXURY MOTORS INC, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

The Court further ordered that counsel give notice of the scheduled hearing for Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery. To date, no Proof of Service of the Order has been filed and there is no indication Defendant himself has been served with the moving papers that were originally served on counsel.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LEONARD TYRONE HIBBLER, AN INDIVIDUAL VS WILBUR NOBUO SATO, AN INDIVIDUAL, 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 26, 2020

JACINTA POOK VS FIVE POINTS PLAZA, LLC

Motions to Compel Discovery Responses Defendant presents evidence that it served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents by mail on February 14, 2020. (Motions, Kim Decl., Exh. A.) Responses were due by March 18, 2020. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, 2031.250.) Despite defense counsel sending a meet and confer letter, to date, Plaintiff has not served responses to the discovery requests. (Id. at ¶6 and Exh. B.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HEE YOUNG BAI VS IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Jurisdiction to resolve discovery disputes (including the issuance of any orders to compel discovery) is vested in the superior court (a) in the proper county for the filing of a lawsuit against the uninsured motorist for bodily injury arising from the accident or (b) in any county specified in the policy as a proper county for arbitration or action on the policy. (See Ins.C. §11580.2(f)(1), (2); Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 921-26.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

HEE YOUNG BAI VS IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Jurisdiction to resolve discovery disputes (including the issuance of any orders to compel discovery) is vested in the superior court (a) in the proper county for the filing of a lawsuit against the uninsured motorist for bodily injury arising from the accident or (b) in any county specified in the policy as a proper county for arbitration or action on the policy. (See Ins.C. §11580.2(f)(1), (2); Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 921-26.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

LARA WHITTEN VS DR RICHARD L JACOBSON DDS 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).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ESPERANZA MOLINA VS FOREST LAWN MORTUARY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, 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.” Here, defendant has provided evasive responses to discovery, made objections it has failed to justify, and made the motions necessary.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

TINA ZHENG MA VS YAN LIU DBA ABC CONSTRUCTION, ET AL.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (2) [CCP §§ 2030.290(b); 2031.300(b)] Date: 10/23/20 (8:30 AM) Case: Tina Zheng Ma v. Yan Liu et al. (19GDCV00099) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Tina Zheng’s Motions to Compel Initial Responses to Pre-Trial Interrogatories and Pre-Trial Requests for Production are DENIED as moot. As an initial matter, the Court notes its surprise and concern regarding the instant motions by plaintiff for additional discovery.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC VS RICHARDSON OBER PC., 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) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

BRYAN BITHELL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

On September 23, 2020, the court filed an order granting defendant’s ex parte application for an order striking plaintiff’s Notice of Ruling Regarding Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses, and ordered stricken the Notice of Ruling and Notice of Errata, and amended its March 6, 2020 minute order to reflect that the court’s tentative ruling of that date was changed to reflect that responses were due within thirty days of the March 6, 2020 hearing, the motion to deem RFAs admitted was denied, and responses

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

GITI SHOUSHANI VS SHAVER KORFF CASTRONOVO LLP, ET AL.

.: 19STCV38436 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY VERIFICATIONS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS Date: October 23, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Eve Korff and Shaver Korff Castronovo LLP RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Giti Shoushani The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) arising from alleged legal malpractice in Ochoa v. Shoushani, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

CHRISTOPHER DUNBAR VS SHELLY MARIE TRIGG

UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Discovery Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions Numbered 1-11, 16-21 filed on behalf of Christopher Dunbar as Trustee for the Chris & Paige Dunbar Family Trust is DENIED. The Court finds the objections that the requests are not full and complete in and of themselves are valid and they are SUSTAINED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

BESMIR KRAJA VS MARIE BARTOLI 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 22, 2020

PALEMON MENDOZA GATICA ET AL. VS TONG VAN VOONG ET AL.

To attend the remote hearing with Judge Kronlund in Dept. 10-D: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # and Pin # as follows: Bridge # 6940 Pin # 3782 Tentative Ruling Defendant Natosha Marie Estremera's motion to compel discovery and for monetary sanctions is Granted. CCP sections 2030.290, 2030.010, 2031.010, 2031.300, 2023.030. No opposition filed.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

MARIA MANZANO VS MATHIAS MORGAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY

Ct. 3.1348(a) ("The court may award sanctions . . . 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 court must impose monetary sanctions against Defendant unless it finds that she "acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2033.290(d). Defendant bears the burden of proof on that issue. See Doe v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARIA MANZANO VS MATHIAS MORGAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY

Ct. 3.1348(a) ("The court may award sanctions . . . 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 court must impose monetary sanctions against Defendant unless it finds that it "acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2031.310(h). Defendant bears the burden of proof on that issue. See Doe v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARIA MANZANO VS MATHIAS MORGAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY

Ct. 3.1348(a) ("The court may award sanctions . . . 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 court must impose monetary sanctions against Defendant unless it finds that it "acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2030.300(d). Defendant bears the burden of proof on that issue. See Doe v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARIA MANZANO VS MATHIAS MORGAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY

Ct. 3.1348(a) ("The court may award sanctions . . . 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 court must impose monetary sanctions against Defendant unless it finds that she "acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2031.310(h). Defendant bears the burden of proof on that issue. See Doe v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARCOS JUAREZ VS CARRILLO

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 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARCOS JUAREZ VS CARRILLO

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 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARCOS JUAREZ VS CARRILLO

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 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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.