Q: Is another Meet and Confer required by law, if additional time was allotted to provide further responses?

A: If the opposing party has not done anything or complied with the agreement, there is nothing else to meet and confer. Nevertheless, judges appreciate efforts to work out disputes so another meet and confer could help.

A: In California, if a party has agreed to provide further responses within a specified time frame during a meet and confer discussion regarding a motion to compel, and the party fails to provide substantive further responses by the agreed-upon deadline, another meet and confer is not explicitly required by law before filing the motion to compel.

According to the California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2016.040:

"A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion."

Once a party has made a good faith attempt to resolve the discovery dispute through a meet and confer discussion, and the opposing party fails to provide the agreed-upon further responses within the specified time, the moving party has likely satisfied the meet and confer requirement.

However, it is generally considered a best practice to make additional attempts to resolve the issue before filing the motion to compel, as courts prefer parties to exhaust all reasonable efforts to resolve disputes before involving the court.

If the moving party decides to file the motion to compel without further meet and confer discussions, they should include a detailed declaration outlining the initial meet and confer efforts, the agreed-upon deadline for further responses, and the opposing party's failure to provide substantive responses by that deadline. This demonstrates to the court that the moving party has made a good faith effort to resolve the issue before seeking court intervention.