“A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345(c).)
The separate statement is a very useful tool for the Court to decide discovery disputes; it requires that the dispute be presented on a request-by-request basis with the objections, responses and arguments all in one place. (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345(c).) The separate statement requirement was designed to streamline adjudication of discovery motions, and a failure to file a separate statement is a sufficient basis for denying plaintiff’s motion to compel. (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.)
“Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion:
(Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345(a); BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1270.)
“The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference. The separate statement must include--for each discovery request (e.g., each interrogatory, request for admission, deposition question, or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested--the following:
(Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345; Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 892-893; Neary v. Regents of University of California (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1145.)
A trial court is acting well within its discretion to deny a motion to compel discovery on the basis that the mandated separate statement was not provided or the statement provided does not comply with the requirements of the Court Rule. (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.) Although Rule 3.1345 of the California Rules of Court does not explicitly provide a remedy for failure to comply with it, at least one appellate court has cited with approval the trial court’s dropping of a motion to compel discovery where the moving part failed to comply with Rule 335, which was renumbered as Rule 3.1345. (BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1270; Neary v. Regents of University of California (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1145.)
Turner did not specify the ultimate material facts as to the economic loss rule as to each plaintiff’s negligence claim in its Separate Statement, instead reciting verbatim deposition testimony and other discovery responses, which left it to the Court the cumbersome task of trying to determine whether Turner established that Plaintiffs only have economic damages. (SSUF 44-61.)
Apr 25, 2026
Orange County, CA
Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Compelling Cross-Complainant Pride Mobility Products Corporation's Further Responses to Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant Superior Mobility, Inc.'s Special Interrogatories, (Set 3) scheduled for 02/11/2021 are continued to 02/16/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring Street Courthouse. The Moving Party is ordered to give notice.
Feb 11, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff provides no reason as to why the meaning of what “full and complete in and of itself” means should be interpreted differently depending on the discovery form. Moreover, while Plaintiff emphasizes that Defendant’s response does not fall within one of the response categories outline in section 2033.220, this ignores the fact that Plaintiff’s discovery requests are not code-complaint.
Jan 22, 2021
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
According to Petitioner, coordination will streamline discovery. Id., 5:23-25. Again, under the particular circumstances here – where one of the two Included Actions has settled and is on the verge of completion – there is no need for unified discovery. Further, the proposed coordination site of Ventura County Superior Court is not more convenient. Plaintiff herself recognizes that all counsel in Chilel and Bernal are located in Los Angeles County.
Jan 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
TENTATIVE RULING DISCOVERY MOTIONS 1/21/2021 REYNOLDS V. AHM 19STCV13678 AS TO ARMY RIDDLESPRIGER: Motion to compel response to form interrogatories: DENIED. The minor has no guardian ad litem. Proceedings may not proceed against a minor plaintiff who does not have a guardian ad litem. AS TO ALAIN COOK: Motion to compel response to form interrogatories set one and two, Motion to compel response to request for production of documents set one: BOTH MOTIONS ARE GRANTED.
Jan 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
However, Respondent requests that, due to the seriousness of the allegations, the parties be given sufficient time to complete expert discovery and designate expert witnesses for the arbitration hearing. (The superior court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and rule on discovery matters arising in an UM arbitration. The arbitrator has no such power. See, Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co., supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at 924-926.)
Jan 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
TENTATIVE RULING DISCOVERY MOTIONS 1/21/2021 REYNOLDS V. AHM 19STCV13678 AS TO ARMY RIDDLESPRIGER: Motion to compel response to form interrogatories: DENIED. The minor has no guardian ad litem. Proceedings may not proceed against a minor plaintiff who does not have a guardian ad litem. AS TO ALAIN COOK: Motion to compel response to form interrogatories set one and two, Motion to compel response to request for production of documents set one: BOTH MOTIONS ARE GRANTED.
Jan 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Long Beach Yellow Cab On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Compelling Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents; Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff scheduled for 01/20/2021, and Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Compelling Plaintiff to Answer Defendants' Interrogatories (Set One) , Without Objection; Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff scheduled
Jan 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff argues there is no risk of prejudice given that no trial date has been set, and discovery is in its infancy. Moreover, Plaintiff argues that these allegations could not have been included in her original Complaint because they had not yet taken place. The Court agrees that no meaningful prejudice will result by granting Plaintiff the requested leave. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. It is so ordered. Dated: January , 2021 Hon. Jon R.
Jan 20, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
However, no informal discovery conference (“IDC”) has been held as to the discovery at issue. The parties are reminded that this court requires an IDC prior to the filing of discovery motions to resolve any issues the parties are unable to resolve on their own. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.080, subd. (a).) The instant motion presents issues that the parties should be able to resolve on their own through good faith meet and confer efforts or with the court’s guidance in an IDC.
Jan 20, 2021
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
SANCTIONS PER CCP 2023.010, DISCOVERY ABUSE AND NO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIFICATION FOR ACTIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,560.00 FOR 5 HOURS X $300 PER HOUR PLUS $60 IN FEES. A CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPEARANCE IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW AND IS AN UNNECESSARY EXPENSE. SANCTIONS ARE AGAINST DEFENDANT REGAN COPELAND AND HER COUNSEL OF RECORD RAFFALOW, BRETOI, LUTZ & STELE AND ARE PAYABLE TO CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNT OF PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS. ON DOCUMENT PRODUCTION, GRANT OR DENY AS NOTED BELOW.
Jan 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant argues the Subpoena seeks documents that are not within the permissible scope of discovery because they contain privileged, private, and confidential information. As to the first request, Defendant argues it does not contain a specific description as is required under Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.410. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s document requests must be limited to the issues brought by Plaintiff in his complaint.
Jan 20, 2021
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Raygoza et al On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Defendants Maria Raygoza, Antonio Raygoza, and Juan Ragoza's Motions to Compel Discovery (Responses to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions) currently set for January 20, 2021 are continued to January 25, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Moving Party is ordered to give notice.
Jan 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The documents that are sought may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence that may be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant had prior knowledge of the alleged defect in Plaintiff’s vehicle, and, violated the Song-Beverly Act by refusing to purchase the vehicle. The documents may also lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to whether Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability by selling to Plaintiff a vehicle with a known defect. For example, in Donlen v.
Jan 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Prior counsel essentially abandoned Plaintiff and failed to serve discovery responses and failed to oppose the motions. In addition, Defendants were not aware of the discovery until after the motion hearing on August 25, 2020. Specifically, prior counsel severely neglected this case by failing to serve discovery responses, failing to oppose the resulting motions to compel, and failing to inform Defendants about the discovery issues until after the motion to deem requests admitted.
Jan 20, 2021
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
Nature of Proceedings: Motion to Stay Discovery/Continue Trial Confirmation Tentative
Jan 19, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
Plaintiff's claim that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable due to its failure to specify responsibility for arbitration costs and discovery procedures must be rejected. Under governing law and as Defendants concede, Defendants are responsible for arbitration costs. Moreover, the parties can rely on the California Arbitration Act and the arbitrator to provide for the discovery necessary for Plaintiff to vitiate his claims. Accordingly, the motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.
Jan 19, 2021
Employment
Wrongful Term
Ventura County, CA
Footnote [1]: In addition to failing to presenting evidence, plaintiff also has not presented a separate statement, identifying which of defendant's proposed material facts he admits or disputes. When a moving party makes the required prima facie showing, failure to file a separate statement may, in the court's discretion, constitute a sufficient ground for granting the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(3); see Buehler v.
Jan 19, 2021
Ventura County, CA
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations because “Plaintiff's Complaint was filed on August 10, 2017 [sic], over three years since the first date of discovery which according to the facts alleged in the complaint was August 8, 2017.” (Demurrer, pp. 5:24-26.)
Jan 19, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The word contentions are to be taken at its ordinary meaning and plaintiff has discovery options available to him clarify the nature of the contentions. A demurrer on the grounds of uncertainty is improper if the issue can easily be cleared up through discovery. Khoury, supra, 14 Cal. App. 4th at 616. Any issue Plaintiff has regarding what cause of action or contentions the affirmative defenses are directed at can also easily be resolved via discovery.
Jan 19, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Uber essentially makes three arguments: (1) discovery is not complete including Deleon-Ramirez’s deposition and there is insufficient substantial evidence for the Court to grant Deleon-Ramirez’s application; (2) Deleon-Ramirez does not meet her burden to show evidence of the settlement agreement, her financial condition and available insurance, and on the subject of liability that is more than a conclusory attorney declaration; and (3) the only evidence before the Court is Plaintiff’s $1,000,000 demand and there
Jan 19, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Due to Mata’s and his counsel’s failure to comply with their discovery obligations, Newhall is also entitled to an order imposing sanctions against Mata and his attorney in the amount of $1,050.00. See CCP 2030.300(d).
Jan 19, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court orders that the parties participate in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) and such IDC will take place on January 19, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. to resolve the issues presented by the Motion. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.
Jan 19, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The motion lacks any form of separate statement (Cal. Rule of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(3)), and instead submits an 81 paragraph declaration identifying an additional 331 page of exhibits of responses and correspondence. The parties agreed to an extension to serve supplemental responses to July 24, 2020. [Declaration of Zareh Keosian, ¶¶ 73-75.] Responses consisting entirely of objections were served on July 24, 2020. [Keosian Decl., ¶ 77.]
Jan 19, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
In addition, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, courts strictly construe a demurrer for uncertainty “because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Demurrers do not lie as to only parts of causes of action where some valid claim is alleged but “must dispose of an entire cause of action to be sustained.” (Poizner v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119.)
Jan 19, 2021
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.