Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents; Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
CV-22-000411 - PEREZ, AMALIA vs KAUR, BALJINDER - Plaintiff's Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - DENIED, without prejudice.
Given Plaintiff's Counsel's failure to comply on two occasions with the Court's order requiring service on his client at the client's last known address, this motion is now hereby denied without prejudice.
CV-23-006729 - LUSBY, KARI vs YOUNG, CARTER - a) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Seven, to Kari Lusby - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion; b) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Six, to Kari Lusby - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion.
a) CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion. The Court is of the view that the parties will benefit from further good faith meet and confer in view of Plaintiff's Amended Responses, Defendant's recent submission of a "Consent for Release of Information" to Plaintiff as well as Plaintiff's asserted privacy concerns. Accordingly, the parties are hereby ordered to meet and confer in good faith "either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion." (Civ.
Proc. Code Sec. 2016.040). The parties are also reminded that discovery is meant to be self-executing, and that argument is not the same as informal negotiation. Furthermore, a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277). This matter is therefore continued to 30 th June 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.
No later than June 24th, 2026, the parties shall file a joint status statement, or separate statements not exceeding five (5) pages if a joint statement cannot be prepared, advising the Court whether the discovery disputes have been resolved or narrowed and identifying any issues that remain for adjudication.
b) CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion. The Court is of the view that the parties will benefit from further good faith meet and confer in view of Plaintiff's Amended Responses, Defendant's recent submission of a "Consent for Release of Information" to Plaintiff as well as Plaintiff's asserted privacy concerns. Accordingly, the parties are hereby ordered to meet and confer in good faith "either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion." (Civ.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Proc. Code Sec. 2016.040). The parties are also reminded that discovery is meant to be self-executing, and that argument is not the same as informal negotiation. Furthermore, a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277). This matter is therefore continued to 30 th June 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.
No later than June 24, 2026, the parties shall file a joint status statement, or separate statements not exceeding five (5) pages if a joint statement cannot be prepared, advising the Court whether the discovery disputes have been resolved or narrowed and identifying any issues that remain for adjudication
CV-24-009962 - THE AGRI GROUP INC vs LEAVITT, BURNS D - Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default - GRANTED.
The Court finds, to the extent that service of the motion papers herein was by mail, service was complete when the motion papers were deposited in the mail on February 4, 2026, per Defendant's proof of service filed with the Court. The present motion is therefore considered made on February 4, 2026, four days prior to the 2/8/26 6-month deadline and is therefore timely. (Stasz v. Eisenberg, (2010)190 Cal.App.4th 1032).
The Court finds that Defendant's Motion provides grounds for the grant of the requested relief based on Defendant's mistake or excusable neglect and is supported by Defendant's Proposed Answer. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 473 (b); Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2016), 244 Cal.App.4th 918, on remand 2016 WL 6902896; N.G. v. Cnty. of San Diego, (2020) 59 Cal. App. 5th 63; Kramer v. Traditional Escrow, Inc., (2020) 56 Cal. App. 5th 13; Maynard v. Brandon, (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 364).