JAN L BROWN JONES ET AL VS. PATRICK SZETO ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC24617626 - December 1, 2025 Hearing date: December 1, 2025 Case number: CGC24617626 Case title: JAN L BROWN JONES ET AL VS. PATRICK SZETO ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24617626 | Case Title: | | JAN L BROWN JONES ET AL VS. PATRICK SZETO ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-12-01 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Patrick And Elaine Szetos Motion To Compel Gary Liu Construction, Inc.'S Responses To Discovery | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for Monday, December 1, 2025, Line 4, DEFENDANTS PATRICK SZETO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE PES REVOCABLE TRUST DATED APRIL 7, 2011, AS AMENDED, ELAINE SZETO'S Notice Of Patrick And Elaine Szetos Motion To Compel Gary Liu Construction, Inc.'S Responses To Discovery

Defendants/cross-complainants Patrick Szeto and Elaine Jaeclyn Szeto's motion to compel discovery responses is GRANTED. The Szetos served the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admission on cross-defendant Gary Liu Construction, Inc. ("GLC"). GLC failed to provide timely responses and have waived all objections. Since GLC provided no response, the Szetos were not obligated to meet and confer. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404; see Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300(b)(1), 2031.310(b)(2), & 2033.290(b)(1). In any event Szeto did attempt to meet and confer in good faith. (Pickolick Decl., pars. 6-8.)

GLC shall provide verified, objection free responses to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production within 15 days of notice of entry of this order. GLC shall provide objection free responses to the requests for admissions by the time of the hearing or the court will deem them admitted. (CCP 2033.280(c).) The court does not find GLC acted with substantial justification in connection with this discovery. GLC shall pay to the Szetos, through counsel, $1,660 as sanctions, payable payment no later than by January 2, 2026. (See Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2023.030, 2030.290(d), 2031.300(c), & 2033.280(c).)

The parties are reminded stacked motions are disfavored. Parties generally may not stack separate motions into a single filing; instead, each distinct motion should typically be presented in a separate, properly captioned document. (See Weil & Brown et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2024) 9:24.3.) ["Each motion or demurrer should normally be set forth in a separate document."].) This rule applies equally to discovery motions. Distinct motions preserve clarity for both opposing parties and the court.

Distinct motions, as well, allow the court to manage its resources (e.g., staggering or deferring motions), which is a compelling interest in oversubscribed courts such as this one. Yes, sometimes a stacked motion is appropriate because the issues are closely related and clarity is preserved. But counsel and parties must use reasonable judgment, recognizing stacked motions are the exception, not the rule. (Part 1 of 2, tentative ruling continues in Part 2 of 2) | |