DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2024-01392566·orange·Civil·General Civil
Hearing 13 days agoGRANTED

DUONG VS. NGUYEN

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

Hearing date
Aug 11, 2026
Department
C32
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$860

Parties

PlaintiffDuong Thuy Duong
DefendantPhuong Nguyen

Ruling

# 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.

Request No. 61: Defendant failed to respond to this Request and has waived all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share