LI, et al. vs CHEN

LEGAL STANDARD

It is a central precept of the Civil Discovery Act that discovery be essentially self-executing. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 434.) Parties are entitled to cast a wide net under the Civil Discovery Act. (Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 733, 739, fn. 4.) Information is discoverable if it will reasonably assist in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, and/ or facilitating settlement. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 591.) California law authorizes discovery to obtain information necessary to plead a cause of action. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 551.) In seeking discovery, the strength or weakness of claims is immaterial, and the relevancy of the subject matter does not depend nor is it restricted to the issues formally raised in the pleadings. (Id.)

A party may move to compel compliance with a subpoena requiring the taking of a deposition. (C.C.P. § 1987.1.)

While sensitive financial information may be protected by the right to privacy, this right is also balanced by the opposing party's need for such information and its relevance to the issues in the case. (Alch v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1431) Where possible, courts are to consider alternative orders imposing partial limitations rather than outright denial of discovery. (Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 658.) The party asserting a privacy interest bears the burden to establish its extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing, must weigh the countervailing interests the opposing parties identifies. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.)

“Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” constitutes misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subd. (d).) The Court “may impose a monetary sanction” for misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).) “If a monetary sanction is authorized,” the Court “shall impose that sanction 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.” (Ibid.)

DISCUSSION

Deposition of Long Chang Chow

Despite proper service and notice, there is no opposition on file from Chow. The party construes Chow’s failure to oppose the motion as a concession as to its merits. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1410.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV095244: LI, et al. vs CHEN 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by LANCASTER INVESTMENT COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, a California limited liability company (Plaintiff) + CRS# 298679160339 in Department 517

Defendant opposes the motion on the ground that the deposition is not relevant to the claims or defenses at issue in this litigation. Defendant contends that the checks between Defendant and Chow pre-date the claims alleged in the operative Complaint. Defendant contends that the deposition will violate her right to financial privacy.

There is no motion to quash on file from either Chow or Defendant to quash the deposition subpoena. There is nothing in the record before the Court to support the delay of Chow’s deposition. Relevance is not the focus in discovery; the question is whether the information will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs are entitled to determine if payments from Chow to Defendant will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding Plaintiffs’ claims of misappropriation of senior-assisted facility fees.

Defendant claims that the deposition will violate her right to financial privacy. While Defendant does have such a right, the claims at issue in this litigation relate to the parties’ finances and misappropriation of funds. Moreover, any privacy concerns can be addressed by a protective order to address confidential sensitive information. Further, any concerns regarding confidentiality, privacy, and an overbreadth in scope of questioning may be properly addressed at the deposition.

Lastly, Defendant’s argument regarding Civil Code § 3295 is inapplicable here as it relates to pre-trial discovery of a defendant’s financial condition in the context of punitive damages.

Plaintiff establishes good cause to compel Chow to comply with the deposition subpoena. The motion to compel is GRANTED.

Chow is ORDERED to sit for deposition by or before July 31, 2026.

Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents

Defendant does not contend that her responses and objections are sufficient and instead contends that Plaintiffs failed to properly meet and confer prior to bringing the instant motion. Defendant contends that the motion is unnecessary as the parties could have resolved the matter informally. However, Defendant concedes that the parties engaged in meet and confer phone calls regarding the discovery responses, and that Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter, asserting that it was not brought in good faith. (McDonnell Decl. ¶¶ 8-13.)

Defendant’s boilerplate, copy and pasted objections with no substantive responses addressed to all special interrogatories and request for production of documents are evasive, non-responsive, and improper. Objections based on Civil Code § 3295 are inapplicable. Objections based on undue burden are unsupported by any showing of the quantum of work required to respond. Objections based on Plaintiff’s standing rely upon legal conclusions that have not yet been

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV095244: LI, et al. vs CHEN 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by LANCASTER INVESTMENT COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, a California limited liability company (Plaintiff) + CRS# 298679160339 in Department 517 determined as the subject of pending motions.

Pursuant to the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide full and complete, verified further responses and responsive documents, without objections, to Plaintiffs’ second set of Special Interrogatories and second set of Request for Production of Documents by July 13, 2026. Any documents withheld pursuant to any privilege shall be identified in a privilege log. The parties are encouraged to enter into a stipulated protective order to address any concerns regarding privacy and/or confidential information.

Sanctions

Plaintiffs seek sanctions of $3,360 against Chow pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.440(b), which authorizes, but does not require, a court to impose sanctions on a deponent who is served with a deposition subpoena but fails to attend a deposition.

Plaintiffs further seek sanctions of $5,010 against Plaintiffs for fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion to compel. Counsel states that his hourly rate is $550 per hour, and he incurred 6 hours preparing the instant motion, and anticipates an additional 3 hours for opposition, reply, and hearing. (Wu Decl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs incurred filing fees of $60.00.

The Court exercises its discretion and declines to award fees against Mr. Chow.

As to the motion to compel, the Court finds that it is a straightforward, non-complex discovery motion and a reasonable time for the motion is 4 hours. Counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable. As such, the Court awards Plaintiffs $2,260 ((550 x 4) + $60). Defendant shall pay Plaintiffs $2,260 by July 31, 2026.

CONCLUSION

The motion to compel the deposition of Mr. Chow is GRANTED.

The motion to compel further responses to the second set of special interrogatories and request for production of documents is GRANTED.

The parties and witnesses are advised that failure to comply with this Order may result in the imposition of future sanctions, including evidentiary, monetary, or terminating sanctions. (See C.C.P. § 2025.450(h).)

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV095244: LI, et al. vs CHEN 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by LANCASTER INVESTMENT COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, a California limited liability company (Plaintiff) + CRS# 298679160339 in Department 517 THROUGH ECOURT

Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select "Search" 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select "Proceed"

BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4pm (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.

ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 517 IS BELOW.

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16181989812

Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 One tap mobile +16692545252,,16181989812# US (San Jose) 16692161590,,16181989812# US +(San Jose)

Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose) +1 551 285 1373 US +1 646 828 7666 US (New York) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 Find your local number: https://www.zoomgov.com/u/ad6x1ZH23d

Join by SIP 16181989812@sip.zoomgov.com

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV095244: LI, et al. vs CHEN 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by LANCASTER INVESTMENT COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, a California limited liability company (Plaintiff) + CRS# 298679160339 in Department 517 Join by H.323 161.199.138.10 (US West) 161.199.136.10 (US East) Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812