California's 45-day motion-to-compel deadline: when it applies, and when it doesn't

California procedure · Last verified August 17, 2026

California has two motions that both get called "motion to compel," and only one of them has a 45-day deadline. Treating them as one rule either invents a deadline that doesn't exist or misses one that does.

Which motion is which

No response was served. The motion is to compel a response: CCP 2030.290(b) for interrogatories, CCP 2031.300(b) for inspection demands. Nothing in those sections imposes a time limit on bringing the motion, and the missed deadline has already waived the other side's objections. This is the subject of the missed-deadline guide.

A response was served, and it's inadequate. The motion is to compel a further response: CCP 2030.300 for interrogatories, CCP 2031.310 for inspection demands, CCP 2033.290 for requests for admission. These carry the 45 days.

The 45 days, and what starts it

CCP 2030.300(c), for interrogatories:

Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.

CCP 2031.310(c) and CCP 2033.290(c) are parallel for inspection demands and requests for admission.

Four things are packed into that sentence.

**Notice must be given within 45 days.** The trigger is giving notice of the motion, not obtaining a hearing date.

**The clock runs from service of the verified response.** An unverified response — one served without the signed verification the Act requires — does not start the 45 days. In practice, an unverified response is treated as no response at all for this purpose, which pushes the situation into the other motion.

A supplemental verified response restarts it. Each supplemental verified response starts a fresh 45 days as to what it covers.

Written agreement can extend it. The parties may agree in writing to a "specific later date." The statute requires that it be in writing and that it be a specific date — an open-ended agreement to extend doesn't fit the text.

The consequence is waiver, not delay. Missing it means the propounding party "waives any right to compel a further response." Not a discretionary bar. Waiver.

If the response was served by mail, the extension provisions of CCP 1013 apply to the 45 days in the ordinary way, since this is a period to act after service of a paper in a pending case.

What the motion has to contain

Grounds. CCP 2030.300(a) allows a motion for a further response where an answer is evasive or incomplete; the exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or its specification inadequate; or an objection is without merit or too general. CCP 2031.310(a) uses parallel grounds for inspection demands — an incomplete statement of compliance, an inadequate, incomplete or evasive representation of inability to comply, or a meritless or overly general objection. CCP 2033.290(a) covers evasive or incomplete answers and meritless or overly general objections to requests for admission.

Good cause, for documents only. CCP 2031.310(b)(1): a motion for further responses to an inspection demand "shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought." That requirement appears in the inspection-demand section and not in the interrogatory or admission sections.

A meet and confer declaration. CCP 2030.300(b)(1), 2031.310(b)(2) and 2033.290(b)(1) all require one under Section 2016.040.

CCP 2016.040 defines it: a declaration "shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion."

Note the two limits inside that definition. The attempt must address each issue presented by the motion, and the permitted modes are in person, by telephone or by videoconference — a single unanswered letter is a thin foundation for a declaration in those terms.

CCP 2016.040(b) adds a requirement that is easy to overlook: the declaration must also state whether the moving party has met and conferred, including by electronic communication, regarding retention of a certified shorthand reporter to report the hearing. The subdivision doesn't prevent retaining one.

The separate statement — or an outline instead. A separate statement is required by the California Rules of Court. But each of the three sections now contains the same alternative:

In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.

That is a permission for the court, not an election for the moving party. The separate statement remains the default, and older guidance describing it as an absolute prerequisite is out of date on the existence of the alternative, though not on its being the safer course.

Sanctions

CCP 2030.300(d): the court "shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust."

The sanction runs against whoever loses — the moving party who brings a bad motion and the responding party who defends a bad response are equally exposed.

CCP 2030.300(e): if a party then fails to obey an order compelling a further response, the court may make orders that are just, including an issue sanction, an evidence sanction or a terminating sanction, in lieu of or in addition to a monetary sanction.

What the 45 days does not cover

The deadline governs motions to compel further responses. It doesn't reach:

a motion to compel a response where none was served (CCP 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b));
a motion for an order that requests for admission be deemed admitted where no response was served (CCP 2033.280(b));
compliance with a response that promised production and then didn't produce — CCP 2031.320 addresses that situation separately.

The practical sequence

Once a verified response arrives, the calendar is fixed and short. Meet and confer has to happen inside the 45 days, in a form Section 2016.040 recognizes, with enough specificity to cover every issue the motion will raise — and notice of the motion has to be given before the 45th day, or the right is gone.

Written agreements extending the date are expressly authorized, and they are the ordinary way this is managed. They need to be in writing and to name a specific date.

Where these rules live

This page explains what the statutes say. It isn't legal advice.

How this guide is sourced. Every procedural statement here is drawn from the text of the rules named above, each of which is reproduced verbatim on its own page on this site. Quoted rule language appears in quotation marks or block quotes; everything else is original writing. Last verified August 17, 2026.

This page explains what the rules say. It is legal information, not legal advice, and it cannot tell you how a rule applies to your situation. Deadlines are often short and some are not extendable — if the outcome matters, talk to a lawyer or your court’s self-help center.