TRY ME!
California Motion Filing Timeline
Summary
In California, parties have 45 calendar days to file a motion to compel after receiving discovery responses or objections. If served by mail, this period extends to 50 days. Always verify with local court rules or consult a legal professional for specific cases.Full Conversation
In California, a party has * court or calendar days from the service of the discovery response or objections to file a motion to compel further responses.
In California, the timeframe to file a motion to compel further responses after receiving discovery objections or responses is indeed 45 days. This *-day period is typically counted as calendar days unless specified otherwise in local rules or by the court. It's crucial to verify whether local rules might affect this timeline. If you need further clarification or have a specific case in mind, let me know!
In California, a party has * court or calendar days from the service of the discovery response or objections to file a motion to compel further responses. if the party has requested service by mail does these 45 days become 50 days?
In California, if you're served with discovery responses or objections by mail, you typically get an additional 5 days to file a motion to compel. This means the * calendar days would extend to * calendar days. However, it's always a good idea to check local court rules or consult with a legal professional for your specific case.
Is there any other detail or question you have regarding this process?
Is there any other detail or question you have regarding this process?
What is difference between motion to compel discovery vs motion to compel further discovery?
Case Rating: *
A "motion to compel discovery" is generally filed when a party refuses to provide discovery responses or fails to produce documents or information. A "motion to compel further discovery" is filed when the responses provided are inadequate or incomplete, and further responses or information are necessary.
Do you have any other questions about this process?
A "motion to compel discovery" is generally filed when a party refuses to provide discovery responses or fails to produce documents or information. A "motion to compel further discovery" is filed when the responses provided are inadequate or incomplete, and further responses or information are necessary.
Do you have any other questions about this process?
In california What is difference between motion to compel discovery vs motion to compel further discovery when defendant serves objections?
Case Rating: *
In California:
- Motion to Compel Discovery: Filed when a party fails to respond or provide discovery.
- Motion to Compel Further Discovery: Filed when responses are inadequate or incomplete, requiring further information despite objections.
Would you like more information on any specific aspect?
In California:
- Motion to Compel Discovery: Filed when a party fails to respond or provide discovery.
- Motion to Compel Further Discovery: Filed when responses are inadequate or incomplete, requiring further information despite objections.
Would you like more information on any specific aspect?
True or False: In California Defendant served deficient responses and objects on October *, *, plus 5 days for service by mail. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s *-day window to file a Motion to Compel Further Responses remains open until December *, *
Case Rating: *
False. If the defendant served deficient responses and objections by mail on October *, *, the plaintiff would have 50 days (45 days plus * for mail service) to file a Motion to Compel Further Responses. This means the deadline would be December *, *, assuming no local rules alter this timeframe.
False. If the defendant served deficient responses and objections by mail on October *, *, the plaintiff would have 50 days (45 days plus * for mail service) to file a Motion to Compel Further Responses. This means the deadline would be December *, *, assuming no local rules alter this timeframe.
True or False: In California Defendant served deficient responses and objects on October *, *, plus 5 days for service by mail. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s *-day window to file a Motion to Compel Further Responses remains open until December *, *
Case Rating: *
False. In California, if the defendant served deficient responses and objections by mail on October *, *, the plaintiff would have 50 days (45 days plus * additional days for mail service) to file a Motion to Compel Further Responses. This extends the deadline to December *, *, not December *, *.
False. In California, if the defendant served deficient responses and objections by mail on October *, *, the plaintiff would have 50 days (45 days plus * additional days for mail service) to file a Motion to Compel Further Responses. This extends the deadline to December *, *, not December *, *.
In California Why is motion to compel further discovery dates so backed up?
Case Rating: *
The backlog for motions to compel further discovery in California can be attributed to several factors:
- High volume of cases and limited court resources.
- Complexity and time-consuming nature of discovery disputes.
- Scheduling conflicts and prioritization of urgent matters.
If you need more details, feel free to ask!
The backlog for motions to compel further discovery in California can be attributed to several factors:
- High volume of cases and limited court resources.
- Complexity and time-consuming nature of discovery disputes.
- Scheduling conflicts and prioritization of urgent matters.
If you need more details, feel free to ask!
True or false section *.* governs motions for further responses to special interrogatories not Code of Civil Procedure section *.*
Case Rating: *
True. Section *.* of the California Code of Civil Procedure governs motions for further responses to special interrogatories, while Section *.* relates to initial responses to interrogatories. Let me know if you need further clarification on this!
True. Section *.* of the California Code of Civil Procedure governs motions for further responses to special interrogatories, while Section *.* relates to initial responses to interrogatories. Let me know if you need further clarification on this!
In california if Plaintiff doesn't serve notice to compel a full * court days before the court date what does judge do?
Case Rating: *
In California, if a plaintiff fails to serve notice to compel a full * court days before the court date, the judge may:
- Deny the motion due to improper notice.
- Continue the hearing to a later date to allow proper notice.
- Consider other factors such as prejudice to the opposing party.
Would you like more information on court procedures or have another question?
In California, if a plaintiff fails to serve notice to compel a full * court days before the court date, the judge may:
- Deny the motion due to improper notice.
- Continue the hearing to a later date to allow proper notice.
- Consider other factors such as prejudice to the opposing party.
Would you like more information on court procedures or have another question?
True or False: The broad scope of discovery is a bedrock principle in California. (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (*) * Cal.2d *, *.) Discovery is permitted as to any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the action, a standard far broader than the issues raised by the pleadings. (Code Civ. Proc., § *.*.)
Case Rating: *
True. The broad scope of discovery is indeed a bedrock principle in California. Discovery is permitted as to any matter that is not privileged and is relevant to the subject matter of the action, which is broader than the issues raised by the pleadings, as per Code Civ. Proc., § *.*.
True. The broad scope of discovery is indeed a bedrock principle in California. Discovery is permitted as to any matter that is not privileged and is relevant to the subject matter of the action, which is broader than the issues raised by the pleadings, as per Code Civ. Proc., § *.*.
True or False: The broad scope of discovery is a bedrock principle in California. (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (*) * Cal.2d *, *.) Discovery is permitted as to any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the action, a standard far broader than the issues raised by the pleadings. (Code Civ. Proc., § *.*.) And this applies to production of document as well as special interrogatories.
Case Rating: *
True. The broad scope of discovery in California allows discovery of any matter not privileged and relevant to the subject matter of the action, which is broader than the issues raised by the pleadings. This principle applies to both the production of documents and special interrogatories.
True. The broad scope of discovery in California allows discovery of any matter not privileged and relevant to the subject matter of the action, which is broader than the issues raised by the pleadings. This principle applies to both the production of documents and special interrogatories.
True or False: A party objecting on the basis of burden must make a particularized showing with competent evidence of the “quantum of work required.” (Williams v. Superior Court (*) * Cal.5th *, *.)
Case Rating: *
True. In the case of Williams v. Superior Court (*), a party objecting on the basis of burden must provide a particularized showing with competent evidence of the "quantum of work required" to support their objection.
If you have any more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
True. In the case of Williams v. Superior Court (*), a party objecting on the basis of burden must provide a particularized showing with competent evidence of the "quantum of work required" to support their objection.
If you have any more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
True or False: To sustain an objection of undue burden, the objecting party must make a particularized showing of the “quantum of work required,” not just a general complaint. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (*) * Cal.2d *, *)
Case Rating: *
True. To sustain an objection of undue burden, the objecting party must provide a particularized showing of the "quantum of work required," rather than a general complaint, as per West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (*) * Cal.2d *, *.
True. To sustain an objection of undue burden, the objecting party must provide a particularized showing of the "quantum of work required," rather than a general complaint, as per West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (*) * Cal.2d *, *.
True or False: The appropriate remedy for legitimate confidentiality concerns is a protective order, not a wholesale refusal to provide relevant information. (Raymond Handling Concepts Corp. v. Superior Court (*) * Cal.App.4th *, *.)
Case Rating: *
True. The appropriate remedy for legitimate confidentiality concerns is a protective order, not a wholesale refusal to provide relevant information, as established in Raymond Handling Concepts Corp. v. Superior Court (*) * Cal.App.4th *, *.
If you have more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
True. The appropriate remedy for legitimate confidentiality concerns is a protective order, not a wholesale refusal to provide relevant information, as established in Raymond Handling Concepts Corp. v. Superior Court (*) * Cal.App.4th *, *.
If you have more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
True or False: An objection that is not stated with specificity is waived. (Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court (*) * Cal.App.4th *, *).
Case Rating: *
True. In Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court (*), the court held that objections must be stated with specificity, or they may be deemed waived. If you need further clarification on this topic, feel free to ask!
True. In Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court (*), the court held that objections must be stated with specificity, or they may be deemed waived. If you need further clarification on this topic, feel free to ask!
what are some of the California laws that discourage tortorious contract intervention
Case Rating: *
In California, tortious interference with contract is a legal claim where a person intentionally disrupts a contractual relationship. Some laws and principles that discourage such behavior include:
- Intent Requirement: The interference must be intentional.
- Justification Defense: The defendant must lack a legitimate reason for interfering.
- Economic Interest: Protects parties' economic interests in contractual relationships.
Would you like more details on any of these points?
In California, tortious interference with contract is a legal claim where a person intentionally disrupts a contractual relationship. Some laws and principles that discourage such behavior include:
- Intent Requirement: The interference must be intentional.
- Justification Defense: The defendant must lack a legitimate reason for interfering.
- Economic Interest: Protects parties' economic interests in contractual relationships.
Would you like more details on any of these points?
yes
Case Rating: *
In California, tortious interference with contract laws are designed to prevent unjustified disruption of contractual relationships. Here’s more detail on the principles:
- Intent Requirement: The interference must be intentional and deliberate.
- Justification Defense: Defendants can argue they had a legitimate reason for their actions.
- Economic Interest: Protects parties’ economic interests in existing contracts.
If you need further clarification or have another question, feel free to ask!
In California, tortious interference with contract laws are designed to prevent unjustified disruption of contractual relationships. Here’s more detail on the principles:
- Intent Requirement: The interference must be intentional and deliberate.
- Justification Defense: Defendants can argue they had a legitimate reason for their actions.
- Economic Interest: Protects parties’ economic interests in existing contracts.
If you need further clarification or have another question, feel free to ask!
Start a new chat