Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Useful Rulings on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Recent Rulings on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

KEVIN T. SMITH VS PATRICK PHILIP

Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding interrogatories and RPDs, deeming the RFAs admitted, and imposing sanctions. Defendant’s motions to compel are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs, without objections, within ten days. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a),(b), 2031.300(a),(b).) Defendant’s motion to deem RFAs admitted is also granted. (CCP §2033.280(b).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

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

If the parties do not email the Court’s clerk before the hearing time to request a hearing, they will waive the right to be heard and shall submit to this tentative order, which shall issue. TENTATIVE ORDER Defendant PQ Encino Bakery, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Paula Klein (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set Two (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, Set Two (“FROG”); and (2) Special Interrogatories, Set Two (“SROG”).

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SOLEDAD GOMEZ VS RODOLFO SEGUNDO ULLOA

Defendant filed the instant motions to compel on 5/15/20, and seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions. Defendant’s motions are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs, without objections, within ten days. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a), (b), 2031.300(a),(b).) Sanctions are mandatory. (CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

LUIS TORRES VS RENE BUENO, ET AL.

On May 22, 2020, Defendant United filed motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300. On May 22, 2020, the Court scheduled Defendant United’s discovery motions to be heard on October 1, 2020. Trial is set for July 29, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

JIMENEZ VS. NIEHAUS

Motion for Order Compelling Response to Form Interrogatories (ROA 50) 2. Motion for Order Compelling Response to Special Interrogatories (ROA 49) 3.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

CALVIN KIM MD VS BILLY BEEZ USA LLC ET AL

(See Opp. to Special Interrogatories Motion, p.3:1-2; Opp. to Documents Motion, p.3:2-3). While Defendant contends that responses will be provided before the hearing, the opposition concedes that verifications from the client still need to be obtained. (See Opp. to Special Interrogatories Motion, p.2:26-28; Opp. to Documents Motion, p.2:27-p.3:1). The Court notes that Defendant requests some sort of ruling on its responses which have not yet been served, if Plaintiff deems them to be inadequate.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

JOHN MILLER, ET AL. VS MARTIN D. GROSS, ET AL.

This motion should have been reserved and filed as two separate motions: (1) motion to compel responses to form interrogatories; and (2) motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, and requests sanctions. Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

ANNABELLE ARANAS RENOJO VS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

The three Motions to Compel Responses Without Objections to Respondent’s Demand for Production of Documents, Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories; Request for Sanctions are GRANTED. Claimant Annabelle Aranas Renojo is ordered to provide responses without objection within 15 days of notice of this order. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290; 2031.300). Respondent’s request for imposition of sanctions is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

STOLL, NUSSBAUM & POLAKOV, APC VS HUDSON 11601 WILSHIRE L.L.C.

Plaintiff Stoll, Nussbaum & Polakov’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Special Interrogatories, and Form Interrogatories from Defendant Hudson 11601 Wilshire, LLC are DENIED. MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER “Any party may obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010(a).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KOREA RESOLUTION & COLLECTION CORPORATION VS HAK IM

Plaintiff’s unopposed motions to compel Defendant Kyung Im to provide responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Requests for Production (Set Two) are granted. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to deem Requests for Admission (Set Two) admitted against Kyung Im is granted. Kyung Im is ordered to provide responses within 10 days. Plaintiff’s unopposed requests for monetary sanctions against Kyung Im are granted in the reduced total amount $500.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

GOD VS 4106 ROSEWOOD CORPORATION

Defendant seeks $420.00 for the motion to compel responses to form interrogatories (FROG Motion, p. 2:4-6); $420.00 for the motion to compel responses to request for production of documents (RFPD Motion, p. 2:7-9); $420.00 for the motion to compel responses to special interrogatories (SROG Motion, p. 2:7-9); and $510.00 for the motion to deem request for admissions admitted (RFA Motion, p. 2:10-11.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ADAM SEVIM V. MARISSA HUDSON, ET AL.

Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (served on Marissa) 4. Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (served on Seaside) 5. Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production, Set One (served on Marissa) 6. Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production, Set One (served on Seaside) 7. Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One Admitted (served on Marissa) 8.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

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

Patel Responding Party: None Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant’s Discovery Requests The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed. RULING The motion is GRANTED. Moving party is ordered to pay additional filing fee of $120. Plaintiff Project One-Fifty, LP is ordered to serve on defendant Ashok B. Patel verified responses without objections to defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Admission, Set One, within 15 days.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

GOD VS 4106 ROSEWOOD CORPORATION

Defendant seeks $420.00 for the motion to compel responses to form interrogatories (FROG Motion, p. 2:4-6); $420.00 for the motion to compel responses to request for production of documents (RFPD Motion, p. 2:7-9); $420.00 for the motion to compel responses to special interrogatories (SROG Motion, p. 2:7-9); and $510.00 for the motion to deem request for admissions admitted (RFA Motion, p. 2:10-11.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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

TOMAS PICKETT, ET AL. VS HERTZ CLAIM MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,, ET AL.

On May 1, 2020, Defendants Hertz Corp. and Hertz Claim filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Dion Pickett’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions; (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Dion Pickett’s Responses to Request for Identification and Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions; and (3) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Dion Pickett’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanction (collectively, the “Discovery Motions”).

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BRANDI TRIGUEROS VS MCDONALDS RESTAURANTS OF CALIFORNIA INC

Procedural History On April 2, 2020, Defendant served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories, Set Three and Requests for Production, Set Three. (Declaration of Jessica M. Iglesias in Support of Motion to Compel (“Iglesias MTC Decl.”), ¶¶ 8-9, Exhibits F-G.) Further, Defendant served Plaintiff with Requests for Admissions, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set Four on April 17, 2020. (Iglesias MTC Decl. ¶¶ 10-11, Exhibits H-I.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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

Defendants City View ALF, Inc.’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from Plaintiffs, Mary Hughes, George Dailinger, and Estate of Prudenica Dailinger, and to Requests for Production from Estate of Prudencia Dailinger, and Motion to Compel Execution of Authorization for Release of Medicare and Medi-Cal Records are adjudicated as follows: GRANTED as to the Special Interrogatories issued to Mary Hughes GRANTED as to the Special Interrogatories issued to George Dailinger GRANTED as

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

AUTUMN MATZAT VS VH PROPERTY CORP

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs, without objections, within ten days. (CCP §§2030.290(a),(b), 2031.300(a),(b).) Sanctions are mandatory. (CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).) Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $370/motion. Defense Counsel bills at the rate of $185/hour. The Court awards one hour to prepare each form motion to compel. The Court awards one hour of appearance time, but only awards the time once.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

SCANLAN VS BORTHWICK

Before the Court are 3 Motions to Compel filed by Plaintiff Scanlan, LLC (as to Form Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission, all Set One) and an additional Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff Tuasivi Jeffrey Scanlan as to Special Interrogatories, Set One. The Motions are GRANTED. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the discovery at issue was served on 4/3/20, but no responses were ever provided, even though defense counsel expressly agreed to respond by late June 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

MONESHIA BRANCH, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS MAURICE JACKSON, AN INDIVIDUAL

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.290) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Maurice Jackson’s (1) Motion To Compel Plaintiff Moneshia Branch’s Verified Responses To Form And Special Interrogatories, Set One And Request For Sanctions; (2) Motion To Compel Plaintiff Ruth Agnew’s Verified Responses To Form And Special Interrogatories, Set One And Request For Sanctions; (3) Motion To Compel Plaintiff Moneshia Branch’s Verified Responses

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NANCEE WATERHOUSE VS THE VONS COMPANIES, INC.

In its order of March 9, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production that Defendant served on Plaintiff within 30 days of notice of the order. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to appear for deposition within 30 days of notice of the order. Defendant served Plaintiff with notice of the ruling by mail on March 11, 2020. Plaintiff thus had until April 15, 2020 to comply with this Court’s order.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SAMI NOMIR VS BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL.

Defendant, Greater LA Escrow, Inc. moves to compel responses to Special Interrogatories (set one). Defendant served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories on July 16, 2019. No responses have been received. Defendants’ motion to compel is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to special interrogatories, without objections, within ten days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a-b).) Defendant requests monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

MONESHIA BRANCH, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS MAURICE JACKSON, AN INDIVIDUAL

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.290) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Maurice Jackson’s (1) Motion To Compel Plaintiff Moneshia Branch’s Verified Responses To Form And Special Interrogatories, Set One And Request For Sanctions; (2) Motion To Compel Plaintiff Ruth Agnew’s Verified Responses To Form And Special Interrogatories, Set One And Request For Sanctions; (3) Motion To Compel Plaintiff Moneshia Branch’s Verified Responses

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COLLECTION SERVICE, INC. VS CHARLES ALAN LATHAM AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND

F-47 Date: 9/28/20 TRIAL DATE: 3/19/21 Case #19CHCV00306 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES (Special Interrogatories, Set 1) Motion filed on 7/15/20. MOVING PARTY: Defendant Charles Alan Latham RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Northern California Collection Service Inc.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 171     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.