DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
Ho-01501457·orange·Probate·Trust
Hearing 3 months agoDENIED

In the Matter of Stephen Ho

Motion to compel production of accounting records; Motion to compel inspection of property

Hearing date
May 20, 2026
Department
CM05
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$2,250

Parties

PlaintiffStephen Ho
DefendantBradley Ho

Ruling

Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR DEPARTMENT CM05 HON. Judge Ebrahim Baytieh

Date: 05/20/2026 Court Room Rules and Notices

# Case Name Tentative 1 Ho-Probate

Case: Ho-01501457 - Trust

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTIONS TO COMPEL (ROAs 157 and 159)

Stephen Ho, in propria persona (self-represented litigant), has filed a motion to compel production of accounting records (ROA 157) and a motion to compel inspection of property (ROA 159).

There is no evidence before the court that Stephen Ho propounded discovery for production of documents or inspection of land or made any informal request for such information. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010, Stephen Ho may make demand for such discovery directly on the opposing party. Discovery is designed to be self-executing among the parties without the need for court intervention. (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 1431, 1434.)

The court finds sanctions are warranted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010(h) for making motions to compel without substantial justification. Nonetheless, the attorney fee declaration in opposition to these motions does not justify the time expended or the costs incurred. The court imposes reasonable sanctions in the amount of $2,250 against Stephen Ho payable to the Law Office of Sandra Bonds Hickey within 30 days of notice of this ruling, extended for method of service, or on any later date as agreed by the parties in writing.

Counsel for Respondent Bradley Ho is ordered to give notice of this ruling

.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share