In California, what is the law that authorizes the moving party of motion for protective order not to comply with the discovery in question?
<p>Some attorneys say so (e.g. <a href="https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-the-discovery-process-halted-when-a-motion-for--3637798.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-the-discovery-process-halted-when-a-motion-for--3637798.html</a>), but when I looked into the statute (CCP 2030.090, 2031.060, 2033.080), I never found anything that &quot;stays&quot; the discovery pending the hearing of motion for protective order, or explicitly states that the moving party does not ned to comply with the discovery until the motion is ruled.</p>
<p>This is especially important for &quot;request of admissions&quot; because the lack of response would enable the propounding party to move the Court to deem every request as if they were admitted.</p>
<p>Lack of response to request for production of documents / interrogatories also almost guarantee a compel / sanction motion to be granted.</p>
<p>Which means, if the party seeking protective order just want to be safe, they would need to respond to the (supposedly unreasonable) discovery anyway, even if the response is just a whole bunch of objections. Moreover, some objections have to be very specific (e.g. exactly why something is over-burdensome, what effort would it take, etc.), which means it would be a lot of work to formulate a bullet-proof response. Wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of motion for protective order?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>it would be a lot of work to formulate a bullet-proof response. Wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of motion for protective order?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No. The purpose of objections --and of motions for protective order-- is not to avoid doing &quot;a lot of work&quot;, but to protect information the party considers unreasonable or which ought to be protected from discovery. Elaborating on an objection to interrogatories and/or requests does not provide the information sought to be discovered. Therefore, objections do not defeat the purpose of a motion for protective order.</p>
<p>The difference (or one difference) between a motion for protective order and an objection is that the adversary can overcome the objection by rephrasing the interrogatory or request, whereas a protective order is intended to preclude all attempts to skirt the substance of that order.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I never found anything that &quot;stays&quot; the discovery pending the hearing of motion for protective order</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Because there is no need to. Complying with the discovery request would render the motion for protective order a moot issue. Therefore, it is understood that that particular item of discovery essentially would be stayed while the judge has the occasion to rule on the matter.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This is especially important for &quot;request of admissions&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There are three possible answers to each item in a request of admissions: Admission, denial, or objection. Since <em>objections</em> are allowed (with the proper justification therefor), there is no need to stay discovery. The party just needs to file his responses within the deadline. Moving for a protective order is an odd, and seemingly useless, way to address requests for admissions.</p>

california litigation discovery motion