ALI vs OX SECURITIES PTY LTD, et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Plaintiff in pro per Mohamed Saleem Mubarak Ali (“Plaintiff”) has filed two motions to compel compliance with subpoena that are set for hearing on today’s calendar. The first was filed on March 11, 2026 and involves a subpoena served on nonparty Visa Global Services, Inc. (“Visa Global”). The second was filed on April 21, 2026 and involves a subpoena served on nonparty The Currency Cloud, Inc. (“Currency Cloud”). The two nonparty entities are referred to collectively herein as “Visa.” The Court addresses both motions in a single ruling.

Plaintiff is admonished that his manner of filing documents in this case and in relation to these motions in particular has made it difficult for the Court to follow the chronology of events. For

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016435: ALI vs OX SECURITIES PTY LTD, et al. 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena in Department 8C

future motions, Plaintiff is directed to file documents in an orderly fashion and in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure, the California Rules of Court, and this Court’s Local Rules.

Plaintiff is also admonished for filing a grossly oversized reply on June 8, 2026. The reply brief exceeds 30 pages and includes over 60 pages of exhibits that are not authenticated by a declaration. Additionally, on June 3, 2026, one day after Visa filed its opposition, Plaintiff filed a four-page supplemental declaration containing argument that responds to arguments in the opposition. A reply brief may not exceed 10 pages. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d).) It is improper to make arguments in a declaration. (Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 639; In re Marriage of Heggie (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 28, 30, fn. 3.)

Background

Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant Ox Securities Pty Ltd. (“Defendant”) on July 9, 2025. The Complaint includes causes of action for fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. On July 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) that alleges causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, unfair business practices, civil conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The FAC added additional defendants: Ox Securities Limited (SV); Ridge Capital Solutions LLC; and Damascus LLC dba Ridge Capital Solutions. Plaintiff’s claims arise from allegations that he invested $575,000 with Defendant in reliance on various representations of significant returns. Plaintiff alleges that his attempts to withdraw funds were blocked and that his entire investment was eventually depleted.

No defendant has appeared in this matter.

The subpoena to Visa Global was issued and served on February 19, 2026. The subpoena sought documents related to Defendant’s account with Visa Global and any funds held by Visa Global on Defendant’s behalf. The documents were to be delivered to the deposition officer on March 8, 2026. On March 6, 2026, Visa Global served objections and responses to the subpoena. No documents were produced on the compliance date. Plaintiff contacted Visa Global via email on March 10, 2026 to meet and confer and also attempted to meet and confer via telephone on March 9, 2026, but no response was received to either attempt before the first motion was filed on March 11, 2026.

The subpoena to Currency Cloud was issued on December 31, 2025 and served on February 4, 2026. The subpoena sought several similar categories of documents as the subpoena to Visa Global with respect to Defendant’s account with Currency Cloud. The documents were to be delivered to the deposition officer by February 25, 2026. Plaintiff’s moving papers are unclear,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016435: ALI vs OX SECURITIES PTY LTD, et al. 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena in Department 8C

but it appears that after the subpoena was served, counsel for Visa contacted Plaintiff and asserted that Currency Cloud is nonoperational and that the subpoena needed to be served on Visa Global instead. Plaintiff asserts that he served the subpoena on Visa Global but that no documents were produced on the compliance date.

Visa has filed a single opposition to both motions. In its opposition, Visa contends that it produced responsive documents to Plaintiff. Visa also notes that on May 21, 2026 Plaintiff filed some or all of the documents that were produced in violation of a confidentiality agreement between Plaintiff and Visa, and Plaintiff has filed a motion to seal in relation to the May 21, 2026 filing. It is not clear when Visa produced these documents, but it appears it was on or shortly before May 21. Additionally, Visa asserts that it does not possess documents showing some of the information Plaintiff has sought during this process.

After Visa produced documents, Plaintiff emailed Visa’s counsel on May 28, 2026 and demanded that Visa produce further documents “[t]o comply with the subpoena.” (Lopez-Oneal Decl., Exh. 6, p. 3.) On June 2, 2026, Visa sent a response to Plaintiff’s additional requests objecting on various grounds, including confidentiality and the fact that Plaintiff had violated the confidentiality agreement with the May 21 filing. Later on June 2, Plaintiff sent another email stating that the records previously produced indicated that some of the funds associated with Defendant were transferred to a bank in China, and thus Plaintiff requested Visa provide the bank account number for the Chinese bank that received the funds.

Visa responded that day by objecting to the request on the basis of confidentiality. On the merits of Plaintiff’s motions, Visa contends that it should not be compelled to produce further documents in response to Plaintiff’s follow-up requests on May 28 and June 2, and that Plaintiff’s demand that Visa reproduce documents in a different format places an undue burden on Visa.

On June 3, 2026, one day after Visa filed its opposition, Plaintiff filed a declaration that essentially contends that Visa’ production of documents to date is incomplete based on unspecified evidence in the produced documents referencing account activity that was not otherwise included in the production. (See Ali Decl. filed 6/3/26, ¶ 17.) Plaintiff also contends that the relevance of the information being withheld outweighs confidentiality concerns.

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion with respect to the subpoena to Visa Global asserts that no objections were made. However, as evidenced by Visa’s opposition, objections were served on March 6, 2026. With respect to the subpoena to Currency Cloud, there is no evidence that formal objections were ever served. However, Plaintiff’s motion states, albeit without evidence, that after this subpoena was served, Visa’s counsel asserted that Currency Cloud is nonoperational and that the subpoena needed to be served on Visa Global instead. Plaintiff further indicates that he proceeded to serve the subpoena on Visa Global.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016435: ALI vs OX SECURITIES PTY LTD, et al. 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena in Department 8C

Discussion

“A deposition subpoena that commands only the production of business records for copying shall designate the business records to be produced either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item, and shall specify the form in which any electronically stored information is to be produced, if a particular form is desired.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2020.410(a).) A party may move to compel compliance with a subpoena requiring the production of documents. (Code Civ.

Proc. § 1987.1(a).) Further, Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480(a) provides, “If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(a), emphasis added.)

Upon closer review of the register of actions in this case, it appears that the subpoena to Currency Cloud was withdrawn. Plaintiff’s moving papers make vague references to this issue but without specific evidence or argument. However, on April 20, 2026, the Court denied Plaintiff’s prior motion to compel compliance without prejudice filed on January 27, 2026. The motion related to the same subpoena issued to Currency Cloud but served on an earlier date and with a production date of February 4, 2026.

The Court’s ruling denying the motion was based on the evidence submitted by Visa showing that Plaintiff had agreed to withdraw the subpoena in an email dated February 20, 2026. Given the date of production has passed for the first service of the subpoena on Currency Cloud, and the service of the subpoena at issue in this motion had occurred by February 20, 2026, the Court finds that the withdrawal applied to both services of the subpoena. Plaintiff’s arguments that the withdrawal was not effective are rejected for lack of evidence and lack of supporting authority.

Thus, the motion with respect to the Currency Cloud subpoena is DENIED without prejudice on the basis that Plaintiff withdrew the subpoena.

Regarding the subpoena served on Visa Global, the Court finds that Visa produced responsive documents. Plaintiff’s subsequent requests for additional information after the documents were produced go beyond the scope of the requests in the subpoenas. Indeed, the requests do not seek specific documents but instead ask for information in the form of document requests. (See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2020.410(a) [requiring a subpoena for business records to specifically describe each individual document or reasonably particularize each category of documents], 2025.480(a) [authorizing motion to compel compliance where deponent fails to produce document “that is specified in the deposition subpoena”].)

Plaintiff has not shown that the documents produced do not comply with the requests. Nor has Plaintiff established that the production is incomplete. While Plaintiff generally refers to information in the production that leads him to believe other responsive documents exist, Plaintiff fails to connect this assertion to any particular requests, and the Court is unable to determine whether the information Plaintiff contends is being withheld is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016435: ALI vs OX SECURITIES PTY LTD, et al. 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena in Department 8C

indeed encompassed within any of the requests. Regarding Visa’s assertions of confidentiality objections, the Court finds the objections to be proper in light of the sensitive financial information sought and Plaintiff’s prior apparent violation of the parties’ confidentiality agreement. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion with respect to the Visa Global subpoena is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to Plaintiff reissuing and re-serving a new subpoena with requests that specify the documents or categories of documents sought.[1]

Disposition

Plaintiff’s motions to compel compliance are DENIED.

Since the motions are denied on the merits, Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are DENIED. Visa did not request sanctions with its opposition.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

[1] Plaintiff’s motion is also defective for lack of a separate statement. “Any motion involving the content of a

discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) This rule contains a non-exhaustive list of motions that requires a separate statement, which includes a motion “[t]o compel or quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition[.]” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(5).)