NICE WAVE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, A HONG KONG CORPORATION VS. MICHAEL TZU-WEN WANG, ET AL

5/14/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 16 of 26

2:00 PM LINE: 5 23-CIV-05934 NICE WAVE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, A HONG KONG CORPORATION VS. MICHAEL TZU- WEN WANG, ET AL

NICE WAVE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, A HONG KONG CORPORATION CHRISTOPHER D BEATTY MICHAEL TZU-WEN WANG OLIVER M. GOLD

NICE WAVE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO FONG KO & ASSOCIATES LLP AND DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Nice Wave International Limited’s motion to compel compliance with deposition subpoenas to non-parties Fong Ko & Associates LLP and Johnson Fong is GRANTED.

The record shows that the subpoenas were previously enforced, Fong did not serve timely objections, and Fong’s later productions do not establish full compliance. Although Fong produced additional documents after the motion was filed, Nice Wave has shown that the January 26, 2026 production appears facially incomplete, including because it consisted of only limited email chains and documents for limited entities, while other productions reflect additional communications involving Fong’s email domain. Fong also has not provided deposition dates.

Fong Ko & Associates LLP and Johnson Fong shall conduct a diligent search, produce all nonprivileged responsive documents, and provide deposition dates within 10 calendar days. They shall also serve a declaration describing the search performed, including the custodians searched, sources searched, and search terms or methodology used.

Nice Wave’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART in the reduced amount of $4,500.00. Sanctions are warranted because the motion was necessitated by delayed and incomplete compliance after a prior enforcement order. Sanctions shall be paid within 30 days.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with this ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide notice of the ruling to all appearing parties as required by law. The Court further directs the parties’ attention to revised Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) (eff. Jan. 1, 2024) regarding the form of proposed orders.