ANGELA AQUINO-SALES ET AL VS. ALEXANDER ZEBEDIAH HARKEN ET AL

Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Wednesday January 07, 2026, Line 2.

1 - Defendant Ajay Hsu Martin's motion for protective order and stay of discovery is DENIED.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420, the Court may issue a protective order or stay discovery, but only upon a showing of good cause. Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that such relief is necessary to prevent unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden. These remedies are extraordinary and are not intended to categorically shield a party from discovery. (In re Providian Credit Card Cases (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 292, 298-299.)

Defendant failed to meet its burden of demonstrating good cause for entry of a protective order. Defendant's sole basis for seeking both a protective order and a discovery stay is the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. While the privilege is an important constitutional protection, it does not permit a blanket refusal to participate in discovery. To justify either form of relief he now requests, Defendant must demonstrate a reasonable fear of prosecution based on a real and appreciable risk, not speculative or hypothetical concerns. (Troy v. Superior Court (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1011; United States v. Jones (10th Cir. 1983) 703 F.2d 473, 476.)

Defendant presents no evidence of pending criminal charges or an active or threatened criminal investigation. There is no indication that law enforcement has initiated proceedings or that prosecution is imminent. Under these circumstances, the asserted risk of self-incrimination is speculative and does not justify either a protective order or a stay of discovery. (In re Marriage of Sachs (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1144, 1149-1152.)

The court has considered Defendant's Fifth Amendment concerns and balanced them against Plaintiff's right to obtain discovery necessary to prosecute this action. ON this record, the balance tips decisively in favor of Plaintiff. In the absence of a concrete risk of criminal prosecution, granting a protective order or staying discovery is unwarranted.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include