SALEEM BUQEILEH VS. Z&L PROPERTIES, INC.

May 15, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 3 HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ specified matters; the burden is on the entity to produce the appropriate witnesses, and if the designated individual lacks personal knowledge of all the information sought, they are required to obtain the necessary information from others within the organization. (Maldonado v. Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1390.)

As all parties are aware, (see Dec. 10, 2025 Order), Defendant’s current CEO, Benn Chou, appeared for a deposition on March 25, 2025, apparently in response to the PMK deposition notice. Mr. Chou testified that he became CEO on June 1st, 2024, and therefore has limited knowledge about Plaintiff’s prior employment with the company. Mr. Chou testified that a former employee named Claire Chou, who previously worked in Defendant’s Human Resources department, would be most qualified to testify regarding two of the topics in the PMK deposition notice, and that Defendant’s former CEO, Frank Cui, would be the person most knowledgeable regarding several other topics in the PMK deposition notice.

Benn Chou’s May 4, 2026 declaration states that after his March 2025 deposition, he attempted to contact the prior CEO, Frank Chiu, to obtain information from him or to ask him to testify in a deposition but was unable to contact him. Mr. Chou’s declaration states, however, that he was able to contact former HR employee Claire Chou, and that following their conversation, Claire Chou agreed to appear for deposition.

It appears that, although Claire Chou agreed to appear for deposition personally, she did not agree to appear as Defendant’s PMK. Before Ms. Chou’s deposition took place, the attorneys exchanged a series of emails, in which Defendant’s counsel (Henry Yu) stated that Ms. Chou has limited knowledge. (See Thiagaraj Decl., Ex. C [Mr. Yu’s Dec. 16, 2025 email to Plaintiff’s counsel, stating that although Ms. Chou agreed to a deposition, “upon conferring with Ms. Chou on the matter, we understand [that her] testimony is limited to what she personally handled and the information available after reasonable inquiry; Ms.

Chou was not involved in any decision-making processes; and Ms. Chou is not being designated as a substitute for unavailable historical decision-makers.”]); see also Mr. Yu’s Jan. 7, 2025 email to Plaintiff’s counsel, stating: “the PMK provided was suggested by Mr. Benn Chou, and we are producing Ms. Claire Chou, who is willing to testify for matters related to the case, as well as informing you of her limited role and knowledge.”])

Ultimately, however, Defendant’s counsel indicated that Ms. Chou was appearing as a PMK. But during Claire Chou’s Feb. 2026 deposition, she denied agreeing to appear as a PMK on any of the deposition topics.

Based on the evidence presented, good cause exists to compel Defendant Z&L to identify a PMK on each of the six topics identified in the PMK deposition notice, and to produce the PMK(s) for deposition. Defendant has not complied with the PMK deposition notice, because although both CEO Ben Chou and Ms. Chou both appeared for deposition, neither of them agreed to testify as Defendant’s PMK.

Within 10 days of this Order, Defendant shall identify to Plaintiff, in writing, a PMK on each of the six topics in the PMK deposition notice. The same person may be identified for all topics, or multiple persons may be identified. Defendant shall then make the PMK(s) available for deposition within the following 20 days, unless a later deposition date is agreed to by Plaintiff.

If Defendant identifies CEO Benn Chou as the PMK, the fact that Mr. Chou was already deposed does not prevent Plaintiff from deposing him again as PMK, because in his prior deposition, he did not agree to testify as a PMK.

May 15, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 4 HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ Considering this is now the second motion to compel a PMK, the Court addresses the following issues that appear to remain in this present dispute. A PMK notice is pursuant to the requirements of CCP Section 2025.230, which reads:

If the deponent named is not a natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. In that event, the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent. CCP § 2025.230.

Plaintiff’s April 10, 2024 Notice of Deposition of PMK on Defendant Z&L Properties with its six listed topics, complies with Section 2025.230, i.e. the categories are reasonable and particularized. Defendant Z&L is thus required to designate and produce its PMK on those six listed topics “to the extent of any information known or reasonably available.” Id. Fundamentally, this motion is being granted because Defendant has still not designated a PMK. If CEO Ben Chou is designated as the PMK, he must testify as PMK to (a) any information he knows, or (b) as reasonably available (i.e. he must research records of and accessible by Z&L to educate himself, and be prepared to testify as to the actual steps he took to at least try and so educate himself).

Under (a) or (b), it is quite possible (and perhaps likely) that CEO Ben Chou may have very little factual testimony to add to his prior testimony, but Plaintiff is entitled to confirm that on the record. What neither party has addressed, is that the “code applies by its language only to current officers, directors, managing agents or employees. ‘Persons formerly affiliated with a party (e.g. former officers or employees) are not required to attend a deposition unless subpoenaed.’” Maldonado v.

Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1398 (citations omitted).

Request for Production of Documents

Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of the documents requested in the PMK deposition notice is GRANTED. Although Defendant’s Opposition argues that no further responsive documents exist, Defendant has not had a PMK so attest, nor has it produced a sworn declaration clearly stating, for each category of requested documents, that Defendant has already produced all responsive documents.

The PMK deposition notice seeks the following seven (7) categories of documents:

(1) All documents, including emails, handwritten or typed notes, that describe or reflect the job responsibilities of Plaintiff from February 2021 to May 2022; (2) All documents, including emails, handwritten or typed notes, that form the basis for Defendant’s decision to eliminate Plaintiff’s position; (3) All documents, including emails, handwritten or typed notes that form the basis for Defendant’s decision to hire a Director of Sales in or around April or May 2022; (4) All documents, including emails, handwritten or typed notes, that describe or reflect the job responsibilities of the Director of Sales; (5) All documents, including emails, handwritten or typed notes, that describe or reflect the reporting structure of Plaintiff’s position at Defendant from February 2021 through May 2022; (6) All documents, including emails, handwritten or typed notes, that form the basis for Defendant’s decision to not offer Plaintiff the opportunity to move to any open position at Defendant in or around May 2022; and, (7) All documents, including emails, handwritten or typed notes, that describe or reflect all open positions at Defendant from March 2022 through December 2022. (May 4, 2025 Thiagaraj Decl., Ex. A.)

On July 1, 2025, following Benn Chou’s March 25, 2025 deposition, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of the documents sought in the deposition notice. On Dec. 10, 2025, the Court granted

May 15, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 5 HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of the documents. (See Dec. 10, 2025 Order.) On Dec. 16, 2025, Defendant produced 54 documents to Plaintiff, apparently in response to the Court’s Dec. 16, 2025 Order. (March 11, 2026 Thiagaraj Decl., ¶ 12.)

Defendant’s May 4, 2025 Opposition brief argues that Defendant has already produced all responsive documents in its possession, custody, and control, and therefore, Defendant has nothing further to produce. The May 4, 2026 Declaration of Benn Chou, however, is less clear. Mr. Chou’s declaration seems to suggest that all responsive documents have been produced, but this should be clarified once and for all.

Within 10 days of this Order, Defendant shall produce to Plaintiff all documents in its possession, custody, or control that are responsive to the document requests in the PMK deposition notice which have not previously been produced, and serve a sworn declaration stating specifically, that for each of the seven (7) categories of requested documents, that Defendant, after conducting a diligent search, has produced all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control.

Plaintiff’s request for terminating, issue and/or evidentiary sanctions is denied due to improper notice

Plaintiff’s March 11, 2026 Notice of Motion does not mention a request for terminating, issue and/or evidentiary sanctions. The California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110 states:

A notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.

Weil & Brown’s the Rutter Group: Civ. Proc. Before Trial provides:

[9:38] Statement of relief sought and grounds: The notice of motion must state in the first paragraph exactly what relief is sought and why (what grounds). [CCP § 1010; CRC 3.1110(a); see People v. American Sur. Ins. Co. (1999) 75 CA4th 719, 726 (citing text)] The court generally cannot grant different relief, or relief on different grounds, than stated in the notice of motion. [See People v. American Sur. Ins. Co., supra, 75 CA4th at 726; Luri v. Greenwald (2003) 107 CA4th 1119, 1124.)

While courts sometimes overlook an omission in the notice if the supporting papers make clear the grounds for the relief sought (see Luri v. Greenwald, supra,107 Cal.App.4th at 1125), here, in Plaintiff’s March 11, 2026 MPAs, although Plaintiff cites authority stating that courts have discretion to award issue and/or evidentiary sanctions, Plaintiff did not propose any specific issue and/evidentiary sanctions.

Instead, the MPAs state:

“Plaintiff also requests that the Court issue either issue, evidence or terminating sanctions for Defendant’s willful failure to obey the Court’s order and willful misuse of the discovery process ..... Plaintiff ... requests that the Court issue either issue, evidence or terminating sanctions ...”

(March 11, 2026 MPAs at 14.) On March 11, 2026, together with the moving papers, Plaintiff also lodged a proposed Order that requests $17,609 in attorneys’ fees and costs, but the proposed Order, as with the MPAs, did not identify any specific issue and/or evidentiary sanctions being sought. Only in Plaintiff’s May 8, 2026 Reply brief did Plaintiff, for the first time, propose several specific issue and/or evidentiary sanctions. (Reply at 8-9.) Proposing specific issue sanctions for the first time in a

May 15, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 6 HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ Reply brief, even if the request otherwise has merit, creates due process concerns. For this reason, the request for terminating, issue, and/or evidentiary sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant’s counsel is denied

Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions against both Defendant and Defendant’s counsel. Although Defendant has not complied with the PMK deposition notice, and did not comply with the Court’s Dec. 10, 2025 Order, the Motion does not make clear whether this failure is the fault of Defendant’s counsel, as opposed to the client. Accordingly, the request for monetary sanctions against Defense counsel is denied.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant Z&L is granted-in-part

Where a motion to compel a deposition is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(g)(1).)

Plaintiff requests a rather excessive amount (about $17,000) in monetary sanctions to reimburse Plaintiff for attorney time (at $825/hr.) associated with this motion to compel, and for time spent attending Claire Chou’s deposition, plus a $1,109 court reporter invoice for Ms. Chou’s deposition, and a $700 translator invoice for Ms. Chou’s deposition. (Thiagaraj Decl., ¶¶20-24).

The Court notes that it previously granted $5,000 in monetary sanctions against Defendant in its prior (and related) Dec. 10, 2025 Order.

As explained above, Defendant has not complied with its obligation to produce a PMK for deposition on any of the six deposition topics. Even after the Court issued its Dec. 10, 2025 Order, Defendant produced another witness (Claire Chou), who testified that she had not agreed to testify as a PMK, had not seen the deposition notice, and had not searched for any documents. Diligently following this prior Order, would have avoided this present motion.

The Court finds the requested dollar amount of monetary sanctions excessive, but in its discretion, grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant Z&L Properties, Inc. in the amount of $7,500. These sanctions are in addition to the $5,000 in sanctions previously issued against Defendant Z&L in the Court’s Dec. 10, 2025. In arriving at this dollar amount of monetary sanctions, the Court has considered (and included) the $700 interpreter invoice and $1,109 court reporter invoice. (See March 11, 2026 Emily Thiagaraj Decl., ¶¶20, 24.)

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept20@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the CRC. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be filed or e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.