Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses, for Order Deeming Truth of Facts, and for an Award of Sanctions.
Plaintiff’s counsel declares: on October 2, 2019 requests for production, set three, and requests for admission, set three, were served on defendant; despite a request for responses and production, defendant failed to provide any responses to the discovery propounded; and defendant has taken no action in response to the court’s January 3, 2020 discovery order. Plaintiff moves to compel production of documents without objections and to deem admitted requests for admission. Plaintiff further requests an award of monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,950 and the terminating sanction of striking defendant’s answer and entry of defendant’s default.
The proofs of service in the court’s file declare that on January 30, 2020 notice of the hearing and copies of the moving papers were served by mail on defense counsel. At the time this ruling was prepared, there was no opposition to the moti
Hearing Date
June 15, 2020
Type
BREACH OF CONTRACT - UNLIMITED
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses, for Order Deeming Truth of Facts, and for an Award of Sanctions.
Plaintiff’s counsel declares: on October 2, 2019 requests for production, set three, and requests for admission, set three, were served on defendant; despite a request for responses and production, defendant failed to provide any responses to the discovery propounded; and defendant has taken no action in response to the court’s January 3, 2020 discovery order. Plaintiff moves to compel production of documents without objections and to deem admitted requests for admission. Plaintiff further requests an award of monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,950 and the terminating sanction of striking defendant’s answer and entry of defendant’s default.
The proofs of service in the court’s file declare that on January 30, 2020 notice of the hearing and copies of the moving papers were served by mail on defense counsel. At the time this ruling was prepared, there was no opposition to the moti