Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set Three
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
Case No. CU24-07285
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set Three
Plaintiff ANTHONY SMITH’s motion to compel Defendant HARSHAD B. WADHAR, M.D.’s further responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production, set three, is denied. Defendant served his responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production by mail on August 20, 2025, giving Plaintiff fifty days to move to compel further responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1013, 2031.310, subd. (c).) This set Plaintiff’s motion deadline at October 9, 2025. Plaintiff did not file his motion – even measured from the time that he submitted the motion to prison authorities per the “prison mailbox rule” – until October 21, 2025.
MARSHALL TUBBS vs. COUNTY OF SOLANO GENERAL SERVICES; ET AL.
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?”