MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION
# Case Name Tentative
1. DIXON VS. FCA US, LLC 2024-0142826 MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION
Plaintiff Tamara Dawn Dixon’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Responses to Requests for Production is CONTINUED to 9/15/26 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. C32. The Court finds this discovery dispute can be resolved through additional meet and confer efforts. Thus, it ORDERS the parties to engage in additional efforts within 28 calendar days of this order. The parties are ordered to file a joint statement of remaining issues, including a description of the additional meet and confer efforts, not to exceed 10 pages, no later than calendar 9 days before the hearing.
2. DUONG VS. NGUYEN 2024-01392566 MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION
Plaintiff Duong Thuy Duong’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED. Defendant Phuong Nguyen is ORDERED to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (set three) without objections within 20 days of this order. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a).) Defendant is ORDERED to pay $860 in sanctions within 20 days of this order. Defendant failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (set three), which were served on February 3, 2026. Thus, Defendant failed to timely serve responses and did not request an extension in violation of Code Civil Procedure section 2031.260.
3. FELTON VS. AI’S NEW YORK CAFÉ 2024-01423563 MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION
Plaintiff Michael Felton’s motion to compel defendant Al’s New York CafØ to serve further responses to Requests for Production of Documents and responsive documents, Set One, Request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 61, 65, 66, 67, and 68 is GRANTED.
Request Nos. 5, 9, 10-14, 19-23, 29, 30-39, 65-68: Defendant responded to these Requests by stating it “will produce all documents within its possession, custody and control.” However, to date, Defendant has not produced any responsive documents.
Defendant is ORDERED to produce all documents responsive to Request Nos. 5, 9, 10-14, 19-23, 29, 30-39, 65-68 within 20-days of notice of this ruling.
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?”
Request No. 61: Defendant failed to respond to this Request and has waived all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)
Defendant is ORDERED to provide a response without objections and produce all documents responsive to Request No. 61 within 20 days of notice of this ruling.
Request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 17, 40, 41, 42, and 43: Defendant responded to these Requests by stating that no responsive documents exist.
Defendant’s responses fail to satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230, which requires that a representation of inability to comply “affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand,” and “specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.”
Defendant is ORDERED to provide a further response to Request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 17, 40, 41, 42, and 43 which complies with section 2031.300 within 20 days of notice of this ruling.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $1,600.00, reflecting four hours of counsel’s time at $400/hour, payable within 30 days.
Plaintiff to give notice.
4. CINEMATIC CAPITAL CORP. VS. SAID 2023-01343920 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
Defendant Mohamed Said’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, set one, is DENIED. Defendant and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ORDERED to pay sanctions in the amount of $2,500. Defendant seeks to compel further responses to 11 interrogatories which have already been supplemented. The Court finds the issues addressed in the Motion have been resolved through the supplemental responses. Defendant fails to address the supplemental responses in his Motion despite attaching them as an exhibit. Defendant provides no reason why additional information beyond what was provided in the supplemental responses is warranted. Thus, the Court finds Defendant’s Motion is without substantial justification and sanctions are warranted against him and counsel. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(d).)