What is a Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents

Recent Rulings on Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents

BEYER VS. ALI

Plaintiff has not served a corrected response to Request for Production, Set One. (Id. at 12.) As a result of his failure to serve timely responses, Plaintiff has “waive[d] any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a).) OCMMC’s request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiff shall pay sanctions in the amount of $292.50 to Defendant Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center within 30 days of service of notice of ruling.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

MIDLAND ENTERTAINMENT LLC VS HYDRA GROUP LLC ET AL

Third Floor moves for a further response to Request for Production No. 33, which asks for documents related to the settlement of a “Singer Action.” (Separate Statement.) Third Floor maintains that the Singer action occurred when Michael Singer, one of Midland’s investors, filed suit against Midland making allegations that are similar to the allegations of Third Floor’s own cross-complaint, namely that Midland diverted funds that should have been used for the Hydra investment. (Motion at p. 1.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BRET BOCCHIERI VS FARMERS INSURANCE

If a motion to compel response is filed, the court “shall” impose a monetary sanction against the losing party unless it finds that party made or opposed the motion “with substantial justification” or other reasons make the sanction “unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) With respect to the requests for admission, “it is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response . . necessitated this motion. (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

PIAZZA V. THE IRVINE COMPANY APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.

Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions All CONTINUED to November 2, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. to permit the Court and parties to conduct an Informal Discovery Conference.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

VINCENT DEROSA, ET AL. VS K9 LOFT INC., ET AL.

On June 26, 2020, the Court ordered defendant K9 Loft Inc. to provide a further verified response to Request for Production, Set One, No. 29. In the same order, the Court ordered defendant Afshin Sabouri to provide a further verified response to Request for Production, Set One, No. 22. The Court also ordered defendant Harmony Noennich, who had failed to provide any responses, to serve verified responses to the first sets of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB VS. HILL

Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions This matter is continued. Clerk to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

JACOBS V. MARION, ET AL.

Section 2031.310, subdivision (b)(1), requires the moving papers to set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

ROUSH, ET AL. V. FCA US, LLC

Section 2031.310, subdivision (b)(1), requires the moving papers to set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

CARMEN LIZA VS CKE RESTAURANTS HOLDINGS INC

Timeliness of Motions Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (c), a motion to compel further responses to inspection demands must be filed within 45 days of service of the verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, with additional time allowed for the manner of service. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1013, subd. (a); 2031.310, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

FARBOD MELAMED VS PARALLAX HEALTH SCIENCES INC ET AL

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to Request for Production (RFP) No. 139. Discussion RFP No. 139 requests: ALL non-privileged WRITINGS which discuss, refer to, relate to, or concern the sale of pharmaceutical products by Roxsan Pharmacy, Inc. to States in which Roxsan Pharmacy, Inc. was not licensed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

WNG CONSTRUCTION JV, INC. VS. AAA SOLAR ELECTRIC, INC.

Requests for production of documents Legal authority Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), a court may order a party to serve a further response to a demand for inspection when the court finds that: “(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete[;] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive[; or] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FARBOD MELAMED VS PARALLAX HEALTH SCIENCES INC ET AL

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to Request for Production (RFP) No. 139. Discussion RFP No. 139 requests: ALL non-privileged WRITINGS which discuss, refer to, relate to, or concern the sale of pharmaceutical products by Roxsan Pharmacy, Inc. to States in which Roxsan Pharmacy, Inc. was not licensed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PLANNET CONSULTING VS. HOWARD

Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories Plaintiff Plannet Consulting, LLC (“Plannet”) seeks an order compelling defendant Allan Howard (“Howard”) to serve verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 15 days. Plannet also seeks $5,500 in monetary sanctions against Howard and his attorneys of record.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

ETC BAR INC VS. PATHOMRIT

Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions ***Motions continued to 10/8/2020***

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

FARBOD MELAMED VS PARALLAX HEALTH SCIENCES INC ET AL

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to Request for Production (RFP) No. 139. Discussion RFP No. 139 requests: ALL non-privileged WRITINGS which discuss, refer to, relate to, or concern the sale of pharmaceutical products by Roxsan Pharmacy, Inc. to States in which Roxsan Pharmacy, Inc. was not licensed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JUSTIN ORTIZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

The 45-day requirement of section 2031.310(c) is mandatory and jurisdictional in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on a motion to compel further responses to discovery other than to deny the motion. Sexton v. Superior Court, 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1410 (1997). Defendant served its responses on March 11, 2020, by personal service. Malek Decl. Exs. J, K. Plaintiff filed the subject motions on April 10, 2020, which was within 45 days of the response, and the motions are timely.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

ESTATE OF ALFRED ANDREOLI

Any issues with Petitioners’ responses may be pursued by a motion to compel further responses under section 2031.310. d. Sanctions: Although the notice of motion reports that the motion requests sanctions, the notice does not identify against whom sanctions are sought or the amount of the sanctions request.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

PACIFIC WESTERN BANK VS EAGLE SOLUTIONS INC

Failure to timely do so may result in a motion to compel response to such document demand as well as a monetary sanction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300. G. In Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court, 162 Cal. App. 3d 686 (1984) (Pacers), the court held: "Where, as here, a defendant's silence is constitutionally guaranteed, the court should weigh the parties' competing interests with a view toward accommodating the interests of both parties, if possible.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PACIFIC WESTERN BANK VS EAGLE SOLUTIONS INC

Failure to timely do so may result in a motion to compel response to such document demand as well as a monetary sanction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300. G. In Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court, 162 Cal. App. 3d 686 (1984) (Pacers), the court held: "Where, as here, a defendant's silence is constitutionally guaranteed, the court should weigh the parties' competing interests with a view toward accommodating the interests of both parties, if possible.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VATCHE PAPAZIAN VS JACK BROWN ET AL

Legal Standard Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ABRAHAM CURAMMENG VS JACQUELINE BOCKAR

Plaintiff has established good cause for a further response to Request for Production Nos. 7-36. Request Nos. 7-13 seek documents relating to contentions made in Defendant’s cross-complaint. Request Nos. 14-36 request documents relating to Defendant’s claims for damages and injuries in her cross-complaint. The burden now shifts to Defendant to justify why her objections are valid or why a further response is not necessary. As stated above, Defendant did not address Plaintiff’s Motion on the merits.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANTONIETTE S. DE ANDA VS JENGIO PORTFOLIO GROUP, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Jengio Portfolio Group, LLC, et al. (19PSCV00558) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff Antoniette De Anda’s MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO Responding Party: Defendant, Jengio Portfolio Group, LLC Tentative Ruling Plaintiff Antoniette De Anda’s Motion to Compel Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two is DENIED as MOOT.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CRISTINA N. LOVE V. ROBERT MCINERNEY, ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Compel Response to Statement of Damages; Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories Set One and Request for Production of Documents and Sanctions The motions are moot, the only issue before the court are the parties' reciprocal requests for sanctions. Tentative ruling: no sanctions to be imposed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

CRISTINA N. LOVE V. ROBERT MCINERNEY, ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Compel Response to Statement of Damages; Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories Set One and Request for Production of Documents and Sanctions Tentative

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

AQUINO VS. COYOTE GRILL INC.

Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions all filed by Coyote Grill NO TENTATIVE

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 82     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.