Sample: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Contention Interrogatories

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ______________

COUNTY OF _______________

DOE, No. 09876

Plaintiff,

v. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

RESPONSES TO CONTENTION

ROE, INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR

Defendant. SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

________________________/

[Plaintiff or defendant] hereby moves this Honorable court for an order compelling further responses to the interrogatories set forth below and for a further order imposing a monetary sanction in an amount representing the reasonable costs and fees incurred in the preparation of this motion.

I

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case generally arises from [here set forth the general nature of the case, i.e., “an automobile accident that occurred on April 15, 1987”]. In plaintiff’s complaint, plaintiff contends that [here set forth short summary of plaintiff’s contentions]; defendant denies these allegations.

On or about _________, [plaintiff or defendant] served upon [plaintiff or defendant] [plaintiff or defendant]’s contention interrogatories. These interrogatories required the [plaintiff or defendant] to specifically identify each fact upon which [plaintiff’s or defendant’s] [claims or defenses] were based. Moreover, for each such contention, these interrogatories required the identification of each witness having knowledge of such facts, as well as the identification of each documents supporting such [claims or defenses].

On or about ___________, certain responses to these contention interrogatories were received. In general, [plaintiff or defendant] failed to identify the facts upon which [plaintiff’s or defendant’s] [claims or defenses] were based; the responding party contended that these interrogatories impermissibly sought the disclosure of protected attorney work product. Similarly, [plaintiff or defendant] failed to specifically identify persons with knowledge pertaining to relevant facts, including instead a generalized list of individuals who “might” possess such knowledge. Finally, the responding party failed to specifically identify documents pertaining to [these contentions]; responding instead by identifying all documents contained in [identified files, etc.]. As will be demonstrated below, such responses cannot be squared with [plaintiff’s or defendant’s] disclosure obligations set forth by California law. Accordingly, moving party requests this court’s order overruling such objections and compelling further responses to these contention interrogatories.

As...