Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses
After a party provides objection-heavy or incomplete discovery responses, the requesting party may move to compel further responses under CCP §2030.300 (interrogatories), §2031.310 (document requests), or §2033.290 (RFAs). Judges evaluate whether the objections are well-founded or used as a shield. This page specifically tracks "further responses" motions — distinct from motions to compel initial responses.
Outcome breakdown
- Granted1,011 (41%)
- Continued449 (18%)
- Denied411 (17%)
- Other330 (13%)
- Off calendar132 (5%)
- Granted in part94 (4%)
- Unspecified24 (1%)
- Moot18 (1%)
- Gombu, LLC vs. Do Builder and Design, Inc.23-01367281Orange County·Civil·Judge Andre Manssourian·Aug 28, 2026CONTINUED
- Latrice Allen, as Administrator of the Estate of Ernest L. Allen, Sr. v. PHH Mortgage Service, et al.25STCV32836Los Angeles County·Civil·Judge Rolf M. Treu·Aug 27, 2026DENIED
- Elise Okolita v. Ascental, Inc., et al.25STCV07823Los Angeles County·Civil·Aug 26, 2026GRANTED
- MARTIN MORALES VS. BAIANO SUNSET, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET ALCGC26632846San Francisco County·Civil·Judge Joseph M. Quinn·Aug 25, 2026GRANTED
- JAILYN ROBATEAU; and JUSTUS HARRIS v. FOOD 4 LESS HOLDINGS, INC.24CMCV00614Los Angeles County·Civil·Judge Unknown·Aug 25, 2026GRANTED IN PART
- Robert Ames vs AMICA MUTUAL INS CO.25STCV24211Los Angeles County·Civil·Aug 25, 2026DENIED
- Angel Venegas Gomez v. FCA US, LLC, et al.24STCV30123Los Angeles County·Civil·Aug 25, 2026DENIED
- Timothy Silva vs Ryan Purkait25CV01202Santa Barbara County·Civil·Judge Colleen Sterne·Aug 24, 2026CONTINUED
- Josefina De Lopez vs Efrain Sanchez22CV-03414Merced County·Civil·Judge Stephanie L. Jamieson·Aug 24, 2026DENIED AS MOOT; Monetary sanctions GRANTED in amount of $275 for each motion ($825 total)
- ANN P. JOHN v. JACE VARGHESE; VEENA VARGHESECIVSB2426754San Bernardino County·Civil·Judge Nicole Quintana Winter·Aug 24, 2026MOOT; Plaintiff's request for sanctions DENIED; Defendants' request for sanctions DENIED
- Raafat S. Iskander and Koharik T. Iskander v. GE Holdings Limited Liability Company23VECV00587Los Angeles County·Civil·Aug 24, 2026VOIDS
- Supply & Demand, Inc. v. Anthony Kaye, et al.25STCV31438Los Angeles County·Civil·Aug 24, 2026Granted in part, denied in part. Sanctions of $11,289 awarded to Plaintiff.
- Wicker v. IMAX Corporation. et al.25STCV11898Los Angeles County·Civil·Aug 24, 2026Denied in part, granted in part.
- Mondragon v. Bodega Latina Corporation23STCV20228Los Angeles County·Civil·Judge Unknown·Aug 24, 2026GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART
- ROSA VARGAS vs WELCOMELAXMI LLC, et al.25STCV03181Los Angeles County·Civil·Judge Unknown·Aug 24, 2026GRANTED
- EQUITY GROWTH ASSET MANAGEMENT VS. WACO SEPPO ET ALCUD25679289San Francisco County·Civil·Judge Charles F. Haines·Aug 24, 2026OFF CALENDAR. Settlement agreement on file.
- LAST BRAND, INC. VS. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC. ET ALCGC26636315San Francisco County·Civil·Aug 24, 2026CONTINUED
- LAST BRAND, INC. VS. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC. ET ALCGC26636315San Francisco County·Civil·Aug 24, 2026Continued to August 27, 2026 to join the additional discovery motion.
- LAST BRAND, INC. VS. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC. ET ALCGC26636315San Francisco County·Civil·Aug 24, 2026CONTINUED
- FERNANDO MARTINEZ RAMIREZ, et al. vs FCA US LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY2025CUBC050885Ventura County·Civil·Judge Unspecified·Aug 24, 2026Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is DENIED. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Neither party is awarded sanctions.
- Nunez vs. California Automobile Insurance Company30-2026-01538632Orange County·ComplexCivil·Judge David A. Hoffer·Aug 24, 2026GRANTED
- REYNOLDS vs BERNHARDT, et al.24CV018092Sacramento County·Civil·Aug 24, 2026DROPPED for defective service
- EMBAYE vs OAKTOWN PARKING, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP23CV032657Alameda County·Civil·Judge Joscelyn Jones·Aug 24, 2026CONTINUED
- IN RE: NATHANIEL ORMONDCPF26519730San Francisco County·Civil·Judge Harold E. Kahn·Aug 24, 2026Petitioner's petition to compel and request for sanctions is denied as moot without prejudice. Treasury Prime's request for sanctions is granted in part; Petitioner must pay $2,290.
- BRIGID ACUNA VS. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET ALCGC25630898San Francisco County·Civil·Judge Harold E. Kahn·Aug 24, 2026Motion to compel further answer to form interrogatory 15.1 is granted and request for monetary sanctions is denied.
Related motion types
Frequently asked questions
What is a motions to compel further discovery responses in California?+
After a party provides objection-heavy or incomplete discovery responses, the requesting party may move to compel further responses under CCP §2030.300 (interrogatories), §2031.310 (document requests), or §2033.290 (RFAs). Judges evaluate whether the objections are well-founded or used as a shield. This page specifically tracks "further responses" motions — distinct from motions to compel initial responses.
How often are motions to compel further discovery responses granted in California Superior Court?+
DecisionDepot tracks grant rates, denial rates, and outcome breakdowns for motions to compel further discovery responses across 34+ California Superior Court counties. The live statistics on this page are derived from every indexed tentative ruling matching this motion type — updated continuously as new rulings arrive.