What is a Motion to Compel Production of Documents?

The demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance if the responding party “fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party's statement of compliance....” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.320(a); see also Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(a) (“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action... fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”).)

How to Structure the Motion

If a motion seeks to order the deponent to produce documents listed in the deposition notice, then the motion must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electrically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(b)(1).)

A party demanding the production of document to move for an order to compel further responses if:

  1. a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete,
  2. a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, and
  3. an objection in the response is without merit or too general.

...The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.

(Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.310)

The California Rules of Court do not require the moving party to file a separate statement in connection with the distinct motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 to compel the deponent to appear for examination. (Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).)

Response

The Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.260(a) provides that within 30 days after service of a demand for production of documents the party to whom the demand was directed shall serve a written response to the party making the demand. The Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.250(a) provides that the response shall be verified. Further, the Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.280(b) requires the party to whom the demand for production was directed to produce the requested documents by the date specified in the demand unless an objection has been made to that date.

Useful Rulings on Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Recent Rulings on Motion to Compel Production of Documents

ALIREZA BADINFEKR VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

.: BC704669 Hearing Date: September 18, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to compel production of documents NOTICE Judge Goorvitch was sworn-in as a Superior Court Judge on December 15, 2015. Prior to that time, Judge Goorvitch made the following campaign contributions to Michael N. Feuer: (1) $100 to Mr. Feuer’s 2008 campaign for the 42nd Assembly District on or about November 9, 2007; (2) $100 to Mr.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

LINDA DUNN BOERUM, ET AL. VS. COSTA DEL SOL BOAT SLIP..ET AL

It appears Defendants are conflating the standard for a motion to compel a further response with the standard for a motion to compel production of documents. These two motions are governed by different code sections – CCP §2031.310 governs a motion to compel further responses, while §2031.320 governs a motion to compel production. The Court finds Plaintiffs’ responses are sufficient; the only issue remaining is whether compliance is sufficient.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ESTATE OF ALFRED ANDREOLI

Motion to Compel Production of Documents Motion to Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories Motion to Quash Subpoena for Production of Business Records This matter concerns a dispute over ownership of certain stocks which belonged to Alfred Andreoli (“Decedent”) at the time of his death, on June 17, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

HARTOUNI V. BIRIA

Based on the Notice of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy by Defendant Hassan Biria (filed on 9-2-20 under ROA No. 60), Plaintiff’s (Linda Hartouni) Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories (filed on 2-24-20 under ROA No. 32, and scheduled for hearing on 9-8-20) and Motion to Compel Production of Documents (filed on 2-24-20 under ROA No. 38, and scheduled for hearing on 9-29-20) are off calendar. Further, the court vacates the 11-6-20 Mandatory Settlement Conference and the 2-19-21 Trial.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

CCC DEPUTY SHERIFFS VS. CCC

HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION, et al. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Counsel to appear, in person and in the courtroom, at 10:00 a.m. Unless the parties are reporting a resolution or mooting of the discovery dispute, CourtCall will not be used. All attorneys or principals appearing will be masked and will observe proper social distancing.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

PEOPLE EX REL. CALONNE V. PINI

Pini (Judge Sterne) Case No. 17CV00718 Hearing Date: September 11, 2020 HEARING: (1) Motion of Defendants to Compel Production of Documents at Deposition of Nancy Daniels (2) Motion of Defendants to Compel Production of Documents at Deposition of Chris Neilson ATTORNEYS: For Receiver William J. Hoffman: Fernando Landa, Sean M. Gaffney, Jamie Altman Buggy, CGS3 LLP For Plaintiff People of the State of California ex rel. Ariel Pierre Calonne: Ariel Pierre Calonne, John S.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

ROBERTSON V. FCA US, INC.

A good cause requirement exists to compel production of documents. (CCP 2031.310(b); Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 550.) A fact specific showing justifying the discovery is required. Fishing expeditions are less permissible. (Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial ¶ 8:1495.1 - .9 (Rutter Group 2020) A demanding party has to reasonably particularize each category of item. CCP §2031.030(c)(1). This means from standpoint of the person subjected to producing the materials.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

SCHWARTZ VS. GHC OF NEWPORT BEACH, LLC

Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written) filed by Plaintiff Bonnie Schwartz Plaintiff Bonnie Schwartz, by and through her successor in interest, Joshua Schwartz motion to compel production of documents and further responses from Defendant GHC of Newport Beach, LLC dba Newport Nursing and Rehabilitation Center’s Person Most Knowledgeable is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to Topics 3 and 15, and Requests for Production 1-12; denied as to Topics 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 14.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

DORIS COLEMAN ET AL VS METRO ET AL

Motions to compel production of documents pursuant to a subpoena issued to a nonparty must be personally served on the non-party. (Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.1346.) The proof of service indicates the motion was served only on the parties to the action and not the subpoenaed non-party. Accordingly, the motion is procedurally defective. Moving party is ordered to give notice. NOTE: PARTIES MUST APPEAR THIS DATE AS A TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE IS ALSO SET ON CALENDAR FOR THIS DATE.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

CITY OF DANA POINT V. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECOVERY CENTER

production of documents, resolved – by the parties’ meet and confer efforts.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

CENTAUR HOLDINGS II UNITED STATES INC. VS XL INSURANCE AMERICA INC.

Defendant XL (“XL”) Insurance America Inc.’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Non-Party Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. (“AJG”) 2. Status Conference Defendant XL moves for an order compelling third-party AJG to produce all documents, pursuant to a deposition subpoena, that were withheld or redacted, in their full unredacted form. It also seeks sanctions in the sum of $4,314.50. The motion is denied.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

SAN DIEGO PATIENTS COOPERATIVE CORPORATION INC VS RAZUKI INVESTMENTS LLC

s motion to compel production of documents pursuant to subpoena of documents to non-party Far West Management, Inc. is continued to October 30, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. Both parties concede there were documents produced since the motion was filed. The parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith, and prepare a joint separate statement setting forth what remains at issue. The joint separate statement shall be filed by October 19, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

MINH VAN NGUYEN VS BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Motions to compel production of documents pursuant to a subpoena issued to a nonparty must be personally served on the non-party. (Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.1346.) The proof of service indicates the motion was served only on the Plaintiff and not the subpoenaed party. Accordingly, the motion is procedurally defective. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

ARAUJO VS. SUPER CENTER CONCEPTS, INC.

Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1406-1410 [applying rule to motions to compel production of documents].) The deadline is jurisdictional insofar as it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

JANNETTE VERBERA VS ARPINEH KESHISHIAN, ET AL.

Plaintiff also requests sanctions and seeks to compel production of documents. The court continued the hearing for this motion from August 18, 2020 to August 25, 2020 at 8:30 am and gave notice to all parties. (Minute Order 3/13/20.) On August 12, 2020, Defendant filed an opposition indicating that it had produced documents. On August 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PAVEL LYUBOVNY VS. NORTHRIDGE CAREGIVERS CO-OP, INC., ET AL

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Date: 8/21/20 (3:30 p.m.) Case: Pavel Lyubovny et al. v. Northridge Caregivers Co-op, Inc. et al. (LC107566) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs Pavel Lyubovny and Michael Chtivelman’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents is DENIED. On August 16, 2018, plaintiffs’ prior counsel served a first set of requests for production on only defendant Northridge Caregivers Co-Op, Inc. (“Northridge”). (Kritzer Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. 1.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

JORGE QUINTERO V. DANIEL OREGEL

Motions: by Plaintiff for Reconsideration of a Court Order dated March 18, 2020, RE: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Furthers Responses to Special Interrogatories and to Compel Production of Documents, and for Sanctions related thereto Tentative Ruling: To deny. Explanation: California Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a), allows a party to move for reconsideration of a prior order based on new or different facts or a change in law. (Torres v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

TOBIAS V. TOBIAS

“Given the symmetry of section 2030, subdivision (l) and 2031, subdivision (l), we conclude that the time within which to make a motion to compel production of documents is mandatory and jurisdictional just as it is for motions to compel further answers to interrogatories. ¶ We agree with the qualification expressed in Standon Co. v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

MORCOM V. NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER

Motion to Compel (Production of Documents) The motion of the plaintiff to compel defendant Garrett Pickard to serve further responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) Nos. 1, 2, and 5 is DENIED. The corporate documents sought relate to the other defendant—Newport Aquatic Center. As the responses make clear, defendant Garrett Pickard is an employee of the Newport Aquatic Center and has no responsibility to maintain the corporate documents.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST INC VS CITIZEN JANE PRODUCTION

The appellate court in its opinion, certified for publication and filed on January 3, 2020, denied Dalessandro and Levine’s petition challenging the motion for compel production of documents and affirmed the imposition of $3,456.70 in sanctions against Levine.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON, LLP VS ALY ABDELRAHIM

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents pursuant to Deposition Subpoena against Indeed, Inc. is DENIED. Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff in the amount of $3,486.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST INC VS CITIZEN JANE PRODUCTION

The appellate court in its opinion, certified for publication and filed on January 3, 2020, denied Dalessandro and Levine’s petition challenging the motion for compel production of documents and affirmed the imposition of $3,456.70 in sanctions against Levine.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON, LLP VS ALY ABDELRAHIM

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents pursuant to Deposition Subpoena served on GlassDoor, Inc., filed December 13, 2019, Res. ID 03493175104; 7. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents pursuant to Deposition Subpoena served on Indeed, Inc. filed December 13, 2019, Res. ID 200243550987; 8. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents pursuant to Deposition Subpoena served on Yelp, Inc., filed December 13, 2019, Res. ID 829516209888; 9.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

HENRY POE VS PIONEER MEDICAL GROUP INC ET AL

Compel Production of Documents Defendants request a court order compelling Plaintiff to produce documents responsive to the document requests in the deposition notice at the deposition. As pointed out by Plaintiff, the latest notice of deposition did not include a request for production of documents. It is thus unclear what documents Defendants are seeking to compel production of.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST INC VS CITIZEN JANE PRODUCTION

The appellate court in its opinion, certified for publication and filed on January 3, 2020, denied Dalessandro and Levine’s petition challenging the motion for compel production of documents and affirmed the imposition of $3,456.70 in sanctions against Levine.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 61     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.