Motion to Compel Discovery Responses; Motion to Compel Attendance at Depositions
CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0208714 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Compel Discovery Responses: Plaintiffs move for an order compelling each Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs’ (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One; (2) Request for Admissions, Set One; (3) Form Interrogatories, Set One; and (4) Special Interrogatories, Set One. Defendants oppose the motion to the extent that Defendants’ objections are well founded and should not be compelled.
A party has thirty days after service to respond to a Request for Production, Request for Admissions, or Special Interrogatories. CCP §§ 2031.260(a), 2033.250(a), and 2030.260(a). Not providing a timely response to propounded discovery results in a waiver of objections. CCP §§ 2031.300(a). 2033.280(a), and 2030.290(a). If a party to whom a discovery request is directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding discovery may move for an order compelling a response. CCP §§ 2031.300(b) and 2030.290(c).
“Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914; Appleton v. Superior Ct. (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 636.
Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses when no responses have been provided does not require the propounding party to demonstrate good cause or that it satisfied a meet-and-confer requirement. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390
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?”
Plaintiffs have presented evidence that each set of discovery was propounded to Defendants through counsel on November 11, 2025, and that Defendants sought three extensions. Defendants served unverified and incomplete responses on February 23, 2026. Extensive meet and confer communications took place and Plaintiffs’ counsel ultimately set a deadline for receipt of responses by close of business May 25, 2026. Defendants acknowledge that amended verified responses have not yet been served. Failure to timely serve discovery responses results in a waiver of objections, including based on privilege or work product protection.
CCP §§ 2030.290(a); 2031.300. Plaintiffs have established that the discovery is relevant and that there is good cause for further production. Plaintiff is entitled to sanctions, but none were requested and no basis has been provided for the Court to determine a reasonable amount. Therefore, no sanctions will be imposed.
The Motion is GRANTED. Defendants are ORDERED to provide verified discovery responses within ten days of the service of the Notice of Entry of Order. Objections are waived. Plaintiffs provided a proposed order that will be modified to reflect the Court’s ruling.
APPELBAUM, ET AL. VS. MARQUIS CARE AT SHASTA, ET AL. CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0208714 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Compel Attendance at Depositions: Plaintiffs’ move for an order compelling Defendants to provide dates certain for the depositions of seven witnesses pursuant to Plaintiffs’ properly served Notice of Taking Videotaped Depositions and Request for Production of Documents within three days of the date of the order granting this motion. Defendants do not oppose the motion but request thirty days to provide dates certain and that the first four witnesses who had direct involvement in the decedent’s care be deposed first, with the remaining three witnesses to follow.
A party may move for an order compelling a deponent’s attendance and testimony, if, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action without having served a valid objection fails to appear for examination or proceed with it. CCP 2025.450(a). Here, Plaintiffs have provided evidence that Defendants depositions have been properly noticed. Defendants have failed to provide available dates and meet and confer efforts have been unsuccessful. Defendant’s request regarding the sequence of depositions is reasonable; however, the request for 2
30 days to provide dates certain is not reasonable considering the Notice of Taking Videotaped Depositions and Request for Production of Documents was served on March 26, 2026.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Attendance at Depositions is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to provide dates certain for all seven witnesses depositions within fifteen (15) days of service of Notice of Entry of Order. Rose Hervegault, Lauri Cruz, Jerilyn Baucum, and Cynthia Bradley are to be deposed first, with the Vice President of Operations, Regional Director of Clinical Operations, and Regional Clinical Nurse to follow. A proposed order has been lodged and will be modified to reflect the Court’s ruling.
AXIOM REPERTORY THEATRE VS. CHARITY ONE INSURANCE AGENCY, ET AL.