§Why CasetextPricing

Motion_to_compel_answers_to_interrogatories

Motion

6 Cited authorities

  1. Saxena v. Goffney

    159 Cal.App.4th 316 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 240 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing verdict for plaintiff on battery claim where special verdict form did not require jury to make a finding of the absence of consent

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

    148 Cal.App.4th 390 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 77 times
    Addressing the filing of untimely interrogatory responses with a motion to compel pending

  3. Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates

    36 Cal.App.4th 393 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 17 times

    Docket No. G013481. June 30, 1995. Appeal from Superior Court of Orange County, No. 634768, Greer H. Stroud, Referee, and William F. Rylaarsdam, Judge. COUNSEL Peter L. Recchia and Stephen I. Blanchfill for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Swanson Dowdall, Swanson Gieser and Jim P. Mahacek for Defendants and Respondents. OPINION SILLS, P.J. INTRODUCTION The law governing the consequences for failing to respond to requests for admission may be the most unforgiving in civil procedure. There is no relief

  4. 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

  5. Section 2030.290 - Failure to serve timely response; motion for order compelling response

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290   Cited 82 times
    Mandating sanctions "against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust"

  6. Rule 3.1345 - Format of discovery motions

    Cal. R. 3.1345   Cited 35 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;