Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/motion-to-compel-production-of-documents-22/5
Timestamp: 2020-08-13 02:49:01
Document Index: 482943599

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2031', '§ 1987', '§2025', '§ 1987', '§ 2031', '§2031', '§2020']

101-125 of 1484 results
Accordingly, Plaintiff Cenigent Health Enhancement Medical Institute’s motion to compel production of documents from third parties in response to business records subpoena is DENIED AS MOOT. Moving party to give notice, unless waived. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 23, 2020 ___________________________________ Randolph M.
Motion to Compel Defendant's unopposed motion to compel production of documents is GRANTED. Defendant served requests for production of documents ("RFPs) to Plaintiff on September 27, 2018. (Declaration of Lowhurst, ¶ 2 and Ex. A.) Plaintiff's responses were initially due on November 1, 2018. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260.) Plaintiff asked for and Defendant granted multiple extensions. Plaintiff served no response.
.: 19STCV04471 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. January 22, 2020 Defendant has noticed Plaintiff’s deposition on multiple occasions. Plaintiff failed to appear at her properly noticed deposition on 11/14/19, and has not responded to communication attempting to reschedule the deposition.
BMC Stock Holding Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Intaktics, Inc.; Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 1987.1, §2025.480. The witness, Intaktics, Inc., is ordered to comply with the deposition subpoena for production of business records served on 10/9/19 within 20 days. Declaration of Matthew Mejia, ¶ 4, Ex. 1. The court may compel a witness’s compliance with a subpoena. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1.
Koon’s cell phone, or to compel production of documents at a deposition in July 2018 based on requests accompanying Mr. Alcala’s deposition notice, when plaintiff appears to have learned that Mr. Alcala was never asked by anyone at Caltrans to search for text messages related to plaintiff. (Phan Decl., ¶ 12.)
Further, a motion to compel production of documents must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) As to the proper rate of reimbursement, it is equivalent to “the reasonable and customary value of their services.” (Children’s Hospital Central California v. Blue Cross of California (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1274.)
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL — PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS [PLTF] BRIAN DENMARK RULING This matter was referred to the discovery facilitator program pursuant to Local Rule 1.13B. Thus, the court expects the matter will be resolved through facilitation. No party has ﬁled its Declaration ofNon-Resolution with the court, as required by Local Rule 1.13 (H)(1).
TRIAL DATE: July 7, 2020 PROOF OF SERVICE: OK MOTION: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Second Deposition of Defendants Affiliated Witnesses Mary Carnes and Matt Ikemoto and to Compel Production of Documents at Depositions; OPPOSITION: None as of January 8, 2020 (was due December 31, 2019) REPLY: N/A TENTATIVE: Plaintiffs’ motion to compel a second session of Carnes and Ikemoto’s deposition and further production of documents at deposition is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is denied.
Defendant Cell Crete Corp. moves to compel production of documents and an award of $1,345 in monetary sanctions. The proofs of service declare that on November 14, 2019 defendant/cross-complainant Cell Crete Corp. served notice of the hearing and the moving papers on plaintiff/cross-defendant Weber General Engineering and Suretec Indemnity Co. by mail. There is no opposition to the motion in the court’s file.
ENTRY VENTURES INC V. THE TEAM GROUP LLC
Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Entry Ventures The Team Group's motion to compel production of documents from Entry Ventures is granted. Entry Ventures shall produce all requested documents by Jan. 24, 2020.
VERNON DECK V HEATHER SUMMERBY
The Court denies the motion to compel production of documents and other request of Petitioner Vernon Deck and issues this tentative ruling so that the parties may meet and confer prior to the set January 8, 2020 hearing date in an effort to avoid the cost and expense of appearing in person or by way of Court Call on January 8, 2020, if they choose to so.
Timeliness of the Motion to Compel LADPH argues that, by agreement of counsel, the last day for Private Plaintiffs to move to compel production of documents demanded in the subpoena was 30 days after LADPH’s last production of documents, or October 18, 2019.
KARLA DE LA TORRE VS STEPHEN LENNON ET AL
CCP §2031.310 requires a party to show “good cause” when moving to compel production of documents from a party to the action. There is, however, no similar “good cause” requirement when a deposition subpoena is propounded on a non-party. A subpoena for the production of business records need not be accompanied by an affidavit or declaration showing good cause for production of the records. CCP §2020.410(c).
CENTAUR HOLDINGS II UNITED STATES INC VS XL INSURANCE AMERICA INC.
Motion to Compel Production of Documents by 3rd Party McLarens Plaintiff separately moves to compel production of documents from McLarens, who is not a party to this dispute. Plaintiff subpoenaed documents from McLarens. McLarens responded to the subpoena and, among other things, withheld documents on privilege grounds.
PARKER V. CHAMNESS BIODEGRADABLES, LLC
Parker and Ennovus Group, LLC Against Defendant Chamness Technology, Inc. for an Order (1) To Compel Answers, Without Objections, to Form Interrogatories; (2) To Compel Production of Documents and Written Responses to Demand For Production and Inspection of Documents and Things, Set No. 1; (3) Award Monetary Sanctions Against Chamness Technology Inc. 2. Motion of Plaintiffs Leonard M.
ERIC DAVIS VS. MERCED CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Motion to Compel Response to Request for Production of Documents The motion by Defendant Merced City School District to compel production of documents is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion to compel production of communications between Plaintiff and Laura Torres is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide unreacted copies and metadata for all text messages between Plaintiff and Laura Torres by January 9, 2020.
Plaintiff moves to compel production of documents from third parties New Hope Fertility Center and Dr. John Zhang. TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Cenigent Health Enhancement Medical Institute’s motion to compel production of documents from third parties in response to business records subpoena is CONTINUED to January 23, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. If Defendants object to any particular requests in the third-party subpoenas, they are to file a separate statement explaining their objections by January 9, 2020.
CENTAUR HOLDINGS II UNITED STATES INC. VS XL INSURANCE AMERICA INC.
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION BY MCLARENS Plaintiff separately moves to compel production of documents from McLarens, who is not a party to this dispute on the ground that McLarens, from whom documents were subpoenaed withheld documents on privilege grounds without serving written objections or providing a privilege log. The motion is not accompanied by a separate statement in violation of Rule 3.1345(a)(5).
LYNETTE ASUR ET AL VS WALTER ALEXANDER BARRIOS-GIRON ET AL
Motion to Compel Production of Documents at Trial Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed. BACKGROUND On August 2, 2016, Plaintiffs Lynette Asur and Meir Asur filed a complaint against Defendant Walter Alexander Barrios-Giron, Eduardo Vicente Barrios, and Edmundo Escobar for negligence arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on August 5, 2014.