34-2022-00328443-CL-CL-GDS: First Technology Federal Credit Union vs. Sean Phi Hung Nguyen 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C, located at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse located at 500 G. Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

ID: 16039062174

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Other rulings by Richard C. Miadich Judge Richard C. Miadich dossier Other Motion to Compel Further Responses in SACRAMENTO All SACRAMENTO County rulings Other Contract cases Other granted rulings in SACRAMENTO

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to

. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

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 Courts 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 Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. 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 First Technology Federal Credit Unions (Plaintiff) motion to compel Defendant Sean Phi Hung Nguyen (Defendant) to provide further responses to Plaintiffs First Amended Set of Form Interrogatories and for sanctions is UNOPPOSED and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

On January 17, 2025, Plaintiff, through counsel, served Defendant Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Admission (the RFAs) and Plaintiffs First Set of Form Interrogatories (General). (Decl. James, ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to have the RFAs admitted and to compel responses to the form interrogatories, and the Court ordered Defendant to serve verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiffs form interrogatories (set one) no later than November 18, 2025. (October 28, 2025 Order.)

Defendant served responses to the form interrogatories on November 18, 2025. (Decl. James, Ex. 6.)

Plaintiff asserts that the responses are insufficient. After sending a meet and confer letter seeking further responses, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, nos. 15.1 and 17.1.

The Court construes Defendants failure to oppose the motion as a concession on the merits. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion, it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes that ground].)

Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, nos. 15.1 and 17.1 is GRANTED.

Defendant shall provide further verified code-compliant responses to form interrogatories, set one, nos. 15.1 and 17.1 to Plaintiff no later than July 8, 2026.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.