Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
24CV066869: MA vs SUSHI GO GO, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other.; filed by Guoxiong Ma (Plaintiff) CRS# A-66869- 020 in Department 520
Tentative Ruling - 08/11/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson
The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses is GRANTED as to each request that is the subject of the motion. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $3660.00, payable to Plaintiff forthwith (immediately) - and no later than August 31, 2026.
The Court will address the categories in the motion below. The Court will provide guidance that the parties should utilize to respond to all pending discovery requests and/or to assess whether a complete, further response has been provided.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form Interrogatories - 8.4, 15.1, and 17.1 - code compliant responses due by August 25, 2026
Defendant must answer "each answer in a response to interrogatories . . . as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits." CCP section 2030.220. Further, "if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible" and "if the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party." CCP section 2030.220 (b) and (c).
It does not appear that Defendant has answered in a "complete" or "straightforward" manner, answered to the "extent possible", or made a "reasonable and good faith effort to obtain information. For example, for No. 8.4 - State your monthly income at the time of the INCIDENT and how the amount was calculated - Defendant may be able to state the income he received for particular months or provide an estimate (with information on which the estimate is based). Further if "incident" is unclear, Defendant can provide a time period for the income that he can confirm.
In other words, additional, relevant information likely exists and Defendant's response does not confirm that he "does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory . . . but [has made] a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations . . . ." CCP section 2030.220 (b) and (c).
Defendant can provide further responses for 15.1 and 17.1 as well. It is possible that the response provided (repeatedly for the affirmative defenses, for example) is a complete response. However, Defendant shall explicitly confirm compliance with the relevant code provisions that 24CV066869: MA vs SUSHI GO GO, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other.; filed by Guoxiong Ma (Plaintiff) CRS# A-66869- 020 in Department 520 such response is full and complete.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Further, if Defendant requires additional definition of the word "operation," Plaintiff shall provide the definition and Defendant shall promptly respond. The Court does not believe that "operation" is vague or uncertain in this context, but if further definition will enable Defendant to provide a response forthwith, Plaintiff shall endeavor to do so.
Special Interrogatories - 6-7, 23, 32, 35, 38, 41, and 43 - code compliant responses due by September 1, 2026
Defendant is directed to the guidance provided by the Court for Form Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions.
In addition, it appears that Defendant did not reference CCP section 2030.230 in response to any of the interrogatories at issue. Plaintiff must provide a code compliant further response that is concise and provides a response to the specific requests at issue. If a compilation or summary is necessary and Defendant seeks to rely on section 2030.230, Defendant shall provide the information required under section 2030.230 in sufficient detail that would be necessary for Plaintiff to "locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained . . . [and] the responding party shall then afford to the propounding party a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them." CCP section 2030.230.
It is unclear that Defendant has waived this response and code reference simply because he did not initially raise it.
Request for Production of Documents - 48, 55, 74, 76, 77, 79, 82, 84, and 86 - service of index and Exhibit B due by August 18, 2025; all other code compliant responses due by August 25, 2026; any additional documents to be produced by September 1, 2026
Defendant must respond to each request - there is no response for Nos. 74 and 76.
Defendant has indicated that an index has been prepared that will enable Plaintiff to understand which documents (identified by bates number) are responsive to which document requests. Defendant shall produce the index.
There is an "Exhibit B" that is an attachment to the responses for production of documents. Defendant shall produce the Exhibit B.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
24CV066869: MA vs SUSHI GO GO, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other.; filed by Guoxiong Ma (Plaintiff) CRS# A-66869- 020 in Department 520 It is insufficient to respond to requests by stating only that documents were previously provided, requests are duplicative, and/or that an entire document production (including every single page) is responsive (unless each page is, in fact, responsive). It is also insufficient to refer by reference to "entire discovery," "the complaint" (or other pleading), or a "deposition". Defendant must identify with specificity the page, bates number, document (by title), or other identifying measure when stating or referencing responsive documents. CCP section 2031.280.
Defendant is directed to CCP section 2031.010, et seq.; CCP section 2031.210; CCP section 2031.230; CCP section 2031.240; CCP section 2031.280.
Defendant must explicitly articulate full and complete compliance with the provisions of these code sections: for example, that "a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand . . . or whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party" (CCP section 2031.230) and "If only part of an item or category of item in a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category" (CCP section 2031.240).
Request for Admissions - 4, 38, 41, 47, 50, 51, and 52 - code compliant responses due by August 25, 2026
Defendant must admit as much of the request that can be admitted and fully comply with CCP section 2030.210 - "Each response shall answer the substance of the requested admission."
Defendant must respond "as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits" - CCP section 2033.220(a).
Defendant must respond and "admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party [and then] deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue" - CCP section 2033.220(b).
It is insufficient for Defendant to respond to a request of his own choosing - he must respond to the request presented, in the manner required by the code.
Sanctions
Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $3660.00, payable forthwith (immediately) -
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
24CV066869: MA vs SUSHI GO GO, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other.; filed by Guoxiong Ma (Plaintiff) CRS# A-66869- 020 in Department 520 and no later than August 31, 2026.
Defendant argues that it has substantially complied with the code and met and conferred diligently. The Court disagrees that there is substantial compliance. It is improper to refer to prior discovery in whole, leave blank requests, fail to serve the index and/or exhibits that Defendant confirms are responsive, and/or to respond to requests as they have been "modified" by Defendant. For these reasons sanctions are awarded - albeit in a reduced amount - because the Court does find that there were efforts to meet and confer in good faith. However, the Court will be less inclined to reduce sanctions going forward if similar non-compliance with straightforward code sections persists.