Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/motion-to-compel-production-of-documents-22/6
Timestamp: 2020-08-13 02:33:56
Document Index: 393986021

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

126-150 of 1484 results
ADRIAN M. AGUILAR VS TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
CONCLUSION AND ORDER Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, Inc.’s motion to compel production of documents is granted pursuant to CCP §2025.480. Plaintiff is ordered to produce the documents identified in Defendant’s request for production in the third notice of taking Plaintiff’s deposition, without objections, within fifteen (15) days of notice of this order.
Plaintiff also moved to compel production of documents pursuant to the notice of deposition. A motion to compel documents must “set forth specific facts showing good cause” justifying the production. (Code Civ. Proc. §2025.450, subd. (b)(1).) Neither the memorandum of points and authorities, nor the accompanying declaration in support thereof, makes any mention of good cause or specific facts justifying the production at issue here.
Motions: By Plaintiff Mark Semper to: ∙ Compel Production of Documents from Defendant Andrea Castillo ∙ Compel Depositions of Nika Semper and Natalia Semper ∙ Compel Depositions of Linda Stubbs and Lauren Semper Ruling: To deny the motion to compel production of documents from Defendant Andrea Castillo.
Plaintiff further requests sanctions in the amount of $4,800.00 for the preparation and litigation of the Motion to Compel Production of Documents.
HASSAN VS. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition of PMK, to compel production of documents at deposition, and for sanctions. Motion granted. (CCP 2025.450(a), (b).) Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is ordered to produce its person(s) most knowledgeable as to each category identified in plaintiff’s deposition notice, on 12-30-19 at 10:00 AM, at the offices of plaintiff’s counsel (11845 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1270, Los Angeles, CA 90064), which deposition will continue day to day until completed.
KARESH V. SWIDER
MOTIONS TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Defendant Tustin Unified School District’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff Parri Karesh’s production of documents is granted. Defendant Tustin Unified School District’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff Tracy Karesh’s production of documents is also granted. Defendant’s requests for production of documents relate to Plaintiffs’ damages and causes of action. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) Plaintiffs state responsive documents will be produced.
FENN TERMITE AND PEST CONTROL INC. VS SHELTON
Motion to Compel Production of Documents Fenn never provided any response to the document production. Once again, Fenn attempts to justify the failure to respond by arguing that the requests were duplicative of earlier discovery. If so, Fenn could have brought a motion for a protective order as it said it was going to do. No motion was filed, and responses were required under the statutory scheme. The motion to compel responses to the document production request is granted.
JEAN- PIERRE FABRE VS DISNEY CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND INTERACTIVE MEDIA, INC,
19GDCV00006 JEAN- PIERRE FABRE vs DISNEY CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND INTERACTIVE MEDIA Plaintiff’s (1) Motion for Relief from Late Posting of Jury Fees, (2) Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Set One, and for Sanctions, and (3) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and for Sanctions TENTATIVE RULINGS: Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Late Posting of Jury Fees is DENIED.
BRODY BRUCKLACHER VS BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTH COUNTY
Plaintiff Brody Brucklacher brings this motion to compel production of documents against Defendant Boys & Girls Club of South County. Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 4 seeks "all documents that evidence the names and ages of children who were in attendance on the date of the incident at your Imperial Beach location." Defendant produced two documents, both of which are non-responsive and over-inclusive. The documents are the monthly attendance list for the month of September 2017.
A party moving to compel production of documents at a deposition “must be accompanied by a separate statement.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) The moving party must also include reasons why further discovery should be ordered: legal or factual arguments why the responses given were incomplete or nonresponsive, or the objections invalid. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).) The responding party has the burden to justify objections in response to a motion filed to compel. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v.
Defendant FCI Lender Services’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED. It is undisputed that plaintiff agreed to produce non-privileged documents in response to requests 15 and 16 and later produced redacted documents with a privilege log.
EDUARDO E RIVAS VS VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS ET AL
On August 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents. On November 25, 2019, Defendants filed an opposition. Legal Standard Where there has been no timely response to a CCP § 2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2031.300.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.
DAVID FRANCIS VS RICHARD ERWIN MANSKER
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 May 8, 2018, Plaintiff David Francis (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Richard Erwin Mansker (“Defendant”) alleging assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Ralph Act and Bane Act for an altercation that occurred on February 18, 2018.
FIELD TIME TARGET & TRAINING, LLC V. CARINGELLA, ET AL.
Defendant Craig Caringella’s motion to compel production of documents from Plaintiff Field Time Target & Training, LLC and request for sanctions is denied. Dismissal was entered on October 21, 2019. (ROA 245.) As a result, the court lacks jurisdiction to rule on Defendant’s motion. (See Sanabria v. Embrey (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 422, 425; Paniagua v.
KARESH, ET AL. V. SWIDER, ET AL.
Motion to Compel (Production of Documents—Set One) The defendants filed a motion to compel defendant Mike Patrick Thomas, a self-represented litigant, to serve verified responses to the Request for Production of Documents (Set One). The motion is unopposed. The motion is GRANTED. Verified responses shall be served within 20 days. Sanctions in the amount of $225 are ORDERED to be paid by Thomas to the moving parties within 20 days. 3.
EVELYN BAKIC ET AL VS JMF DEVELOPMENT LLC
Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents is DENIED as to requests nos. 5, 24, 36, 40, 43, 52, 60, and 73-75, and GRANTED as to the remaining requests. Sanctions A court shall impose monetary sanctions if the motion to compel is granted, unless the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or other circumstances would make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(g)(1).)
SC129602 Motion to Compel Production of Documents Hearing Date 12/3/2019 Background On July 16, 2019 cross-complainant Farbod Youshei served cross-defendant Joseph Youshaei with requests for production of documents. To date, Joseph has not responded. Cross-complainant now moves to compel responses and for monetary sanctions. Merits Under Cal. Code of Civ.
RAFAEL CANTHARIMOY VS ALFRED BAKSHI ET AL
At this time, Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to appear at deposition, to compel production of documents at deposition, and seeks to recover sanctions. The motion to compel is granted. CCP §2025.450(a) requires the Court to grant a motion to compel deposition unless the deponent has served a valid objection to the notice of deposition. Plaintiff did not object to the notice of deposition, but did not appear. Of note, any opposition to the motion was due on or before 11/15/19.
SHEILA GIANELLI VS MARK SCHWARTZ
Nature of Proceedings: 2 Motions to Compel TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants’ motion to compel production of documents is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to produce all documents contained in the binder that she brought with her to her deposition. The documents shall be produced on or before December 4, 2019. Defendants’ motion to compel deposition testimony of plaintiff is granted in part and denied in part, as set forth herein.
Diestel Turkey Ranch Motion: Compel production of documents; request for sanctions Moving party: Plaintiff Motion filed: October 15, 2019 Tentative ruling: Because a phone outage adversely affected the ability of Defendant’s counsel to be heard on the issue that is the subject of the instant motion at the informal discovery conference that was held on October 8, 2019, the hearing set for November 26, 2019, will be converted to an informal discovery conference regarding Plaintiff’s Request No. 5 in her Request