Xiufeng Xie v. Jane Doe; Simorphy Design and Investment, et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230

DATE: 08/12/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 23CV413944 Xiufeng Xie MOTION TO COMPEL v. Jane Doe; Simorphy Design and Investment, Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 1 et al. LINE 2 23CV416938 Bharat DePatel MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT/ADJUDICATION v. Dilip Patel et al Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 2

LINE 3 25CV456689 Richard Chamberlain MOTION TO COMPEL v. City of Campbell et al.

LINE 4 25CV464505 JP Morgan Chase Bank MOTION TO VACATE v. Holly Reyes Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 4 LINE 5 25CV467320 Thanh Trun Nguyen DEFAULT PROVE-UP V Phuong Anh Nguyen Continued to August 30, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 18 LINE 6 25CV474909 Brendan Patrick MOTION TO DISMISS McCloskey v. City of San Jose et al Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 6 LINE 7 25CV475239 Anusha Ramachandra MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS & DECLARATORY RELIEF v. Surakshith Narasegowda Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 7 LINE 8 26CV487361 Guideone Insurance Co PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION & STAY PROCEEDINGS v. Quickbooks Online Payroll, Inc. Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 8 LINE 9 26CV491068 Lan Lam DEMURRER & MOTION TO STRIKE v. LINE 10 Sabri Gurbuz Demurrer to FAC is Unopposed and Sustained with 15 days leave to Amend; Motion to Strike is Moot

Calendar Line 1 Case Name: Xiufeng Xie v. Jane Doe; Simorphy Design and Investment et al. Case No.: 23CV413944

MOTION TO COMPEL

1. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 23, 2025, Defendant and Cross-Complainant Jane Doe (“Defendant”) served Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Xiufeng Xie (“Plaintiff”) with Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission, Set One.

After Plaintiff was granted an extension, Plaintiff served responses on February 13, 2026. The parties thereafter engaged in meet-and-confer efforts from February 17 through March 12, 2026, including written correspondence and a telephone conference. The parties agreed in writing to extend the deadline for Defendant’s motion to compel to April 30, 2026. Plaintiff subsequently served amended responses to certain Requests for Production on April 9, 2026.

Defendant filed the present motion on April 30, 2026. Plaintiff filed an opposition on July 30, 2026. Defendant filed a reply on July 30 2026 and another reply on August 5, 2026. The court declines to consider the supplemental reply. The applicable briefing schedule does not provide for a second reply as a matter of right, and Defendant did not obtain leave to file additional briefing. The matter is now before the Court.

2. APPLICABLE LAW

A party may move for an order compelling further responses to interrogatories when an answer is evasive or incomplete or an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) A party may move for further responses to a demand for inspection when a statement of compliance is incomplete, a representation of inability to comply is inadequate or evasive, or an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) A party may move for a further response to a request for admission when an answer is evasive or incomplete or an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a).)

Discovery responses must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.220, subd. (a), 2031.210, 2033.220.) Evasive or incomplete responses are treated as failures to respond. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.220, subd. (a), 2033.220.)

A motion to compel further responses must also comply with the applicable procedural requirements. Among other things, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 requires a separate statement for motions to compel further responses to interrogatories, inspection demands, and requests for admission. The separate statement must be full and complete and must provide all information necessary to understand each disputed discovery request and response without requiring the Court to consult another document. It must include the text of the request, the text of each response or objection, and the factual and legal reasons for compelling a further response as to each matter in dispute. Material may not be incorporated by reference. (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).) The requirement is substantive, not merely stylistic. In Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court was within its discretion to deny a motion to compel where the separate statement grouped discovery requests, truncated the responses, and improperly relied upon other documents to supply the full requests and responses.

The motion must also be brought within the applicable 45-day period, unless the parties agree in writing to a later date. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c), 2033.290, subd. (c).) The 45-day period runs from service of the response or any supplemental response.

3. SEPARATE STATEMENT

Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s motion should be denied because the Separate Statement fails to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c). The Court agrees.

Rule 3.1345(c) requires a separate statement that is “full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response.” The rule further requires, for each discovery request at issue, the text of the request, the text of each response or objection, and a statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling a further response. Material may not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference.

Here, the Separate Statement does not consistently reproduce Plaintiff’s actual discovery requests and responses. Instead, as Plaintiff demonstrates, Defendant in multiple instances summarizes or selectively quotes Plaintiff’s responses rather than setting them out in full. The Separate Statement likewise groups multiple Requests for Production together and does not set forth the text of each individual demand and each corresponding response.

This is not a minor formatting defect. The Court must be able to determine, from the Separate Statement itself, precisely what was asked, what was answered or objected to, and why the response is allegedly deficient. The Separate Statement does not satisfy that requirement.

Mills v. U.S. Bank, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at page 893, is instructive. There, the moving party grouped discovery requests and provided only portions of the responses, while relying on other documents for the complete responses. The Court of Appeal concluded that this failed to comply with the separate-statement requirement and held that the trial court was within its discretion to deny the motion on that basis.

The same problem exists here. Although the Court recognizes Defendant’s substantial meetand-confer efforts and the extensive factual material submitted in support of the motion, those efforts do not cure a deficient separate statement. The separate statement is intended to permit the Court to adjudicate each disputed discovery response efficiently and without reconstructing the dispute from the underlying discovery, declarations, and exhibits.

Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion to deny the motion based on Defendant’s failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c). The Court therefore does not reach the substantive merits of the individual discovery disputes.

4. TIMELINESS

The motion is timely. Plaintiff served the original responses on February 13, 2026, and the parties agreed in writing to extend Defendant’s deadline to April 30, 2026. Defendant filed the motion on April 30, 2026.

Plaintiff also served amended responses to certain Requests for Production on April 9, 2026. To the extent Defendant challenges those amended responses, the motion was filed within 45 days of their service. Accordingly, the Court does not find the motion untimely on the present record. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)

5. SANCTIONS

The Discovery Act generally requires monetary sanctions against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses unless the Court finds that the party acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h), 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Here, the motion is being denied because of a procedural deficiency in the Separate Statement rather than because the Court has determined that Defendant’s underlying discovery positions lack merit. The record also reflects substantial meet-and-confer efforts, a written extension of the motion deadline, and genuine disputes concerning the adequacy of Plaintiff’s discovery responses.

Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Defendant acted with substantial justification in bringing the motion. The Court likewise finds that Plaintiff was substantially justified in opposing it. Accordingly, no monetary sanctions are imposed.

DISPOSITION

Defendant Jane Doe’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; Form Interrogatories, Set One; Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; and Requests for Admission, Set One is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).

The Court does not reach the substantive merits of the disputed discovery responses.

No monetary sanctions are imposed.

Plaintiff to prepare the final proposed order, accompanied by the necessary Form EFS-020 within 7 days of the hearing.

- oo0oo -