§Why CasetextPricing

Motion To Compel Answers To Request For Admissions

Motion

15 Cited authorities

  1. Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp.

    56 Cal.App.4th 618 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 107 times
    Holding that because objections to requests for admissions were unchallenged by a motion to compel a further response, the denial of sanctions was proper

  2. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants

    148 Cal.App.4th 390 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 75 times
    Addressing the filing of untimely interrogatory responses with a motion to compel pending

  3. Garcia v. Hyster Co.

    28 Cal.App.4th 724 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 56 times
    Holding that where detailed statutes did not expressly provide "for the award of costs in favor of a prevailing defendant against a plaintiff in intervention for any period preceding the filing of the complaint in intervention," such costs would not be allowed

  4. Smith v. Circle P Ranch Co.

    87 Cal.App.3d 267 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 50 times
    In Smith v. Circle P Ranch Co. (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 267, 272, the court set forth the basic elements of unity of interest, making it discretionary for the court to grant costs to a prevailing defendant: "Section 1032, subdivision (b), establishes two requirements which must be met to determine which defendants are entitled to mandatory recovery of an award of costs in those cases where there are several defendants and plaintiff fails to recover judgment against all.

  5. Leach v. Superior Court

    111 Cal.App.3d 902 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 11 times

    Docket No. 19929. November 7, 1980. COUNSEL Harrison Smith, D.D. Hughmanick, James L. Stoelker, John R. Mullen and Daniel McLoughlin for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Lee A. Lopez for Real Parties in Interest. OPINION PUGLIA, P.J. Petitioners are defendants in a quiet title action pending in the respondent superior court. By this application for a writ of mandate, they seek review of the trial court's order denying their motion to compel responses to interrogatories and for sanctions

  6. Holguin v. Superior Court

    22 Cal.App.3d 812 (Cal. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Docket No. 38600. January 12, 1972. COUNSEL Ronald M. Sohigian and Samuel Shore for Petitioners. Robert E. Cartwright, Edward I. Pollock, Theodore A. Horn, Marvin E. Lewis, William H. Lally, Joseph W. Cotchett, Leonard Sack and Elmer Low as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Bonne, Jones Bridges, Bruce J. Bonne, Horvitz Minikes, Ellis J. Horvitz and Morton Minikes for Real Parties in Interest. OPINION KAUS, P.J. In this mandate proceeding petitioners ("plaintiffs")

  7. Section 2023.030 - Sanctions for misuse of discovery process

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030   Cited 508 times
    Providing for sanctions "[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method"

  8. Section 2023.010 - Misuses of discovery process

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010   Cited 363 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Defining unsuccessful and unjustified opposition to a motion to compel as a misuse of the discovery process

  9. Section 2033.420 - Motion to pay reasonable expenses

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.420   Cited 220 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Requesting party may not recover cost-of-proof expenses under § 2033.420 incurred in proving the truth of a denied request for admission unless it "thereafter proves . . . the truth of that matter"

  10. Section 2030.300 - Motion for order compelling further response

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300   Cited 119 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Propounding party may move for an order compelling further response if answer is evasive or incomplete, or if an objection is without merit or too general

  11. Section 2033.010 - Generally

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.010   Cited 78 times
    Permitting requests concerning "the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact"

  12. Section 2033.280 - Failure to timely serve response

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280   Cited 77 times
    Mandating sanctions "on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated motion [to deem the requests admitted]"

  13. Section 2033.220 - Answers

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220   Cited 39 times
    Allowing reasonable and clear qualification

  14. Section 2030.280 - Filing with court; retention of originals by propounding party

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.280   Cited 1 times

    (a) The interrogatories and the response thereto shall not be filed with the court. (b) The propounding party shall retain both the original of the interrogatories, with the original proof of service affixed to them, and the original of the sworn response until six months after final disposition of the action. At that time, both originals may be destroyed, unless the court on motion of any party and for good cause shown orders that the originals be preserved for a longer period. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code

  15. Rule 3.1345 - Format of discovery motions

    Cal. R. 3.1345   Cited 34 times

    (a) Separate statement required Except as provided in (b), any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: (1) To compel further responses to requests for admission; (2) To compel further responses to interrogatories; (3) To compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things; (4) To compel answers at a deposition;