Jie Liu v. F4 Aesthetics Studio Inc. dba Orient Retreat Spa, et al.

CASE NO.: 25NNCV04316 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE Dept. 3 8:30 a.m. August 26, 2026 | |)

| | Plaintiff Jie Liu ("Plaintiff") moves for an order compelling defendant Zhang Yanyan ("Defendant") to provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, and 40, production of all responsive documents, a Bates-numbered production with a document index, and a complete privilege log, along with monetary sanctions. The motion is unopposed.

Plaintiff demonstrates good cause for the documents sought because they relate to her employment claims, such as her personnel file, compensation and payroll records, commission policy documents, communications relating to her termination, records of workplace complaints, meeting agendas and minutes, scheduling and timekeeping records, and communications with third parties about her employment.

On a motion to compel further responses, the objecting party has the burden of justifying its objections and showing why a further response is not needed. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.) Defendant did not oppose this motion and did not justify her objections or show why further responses should not be ordered.

Defendant does not dispute that her statements of her inability to comply with Plaintiff's document requests are insufficient because they do not specify whether the demanded documents never existed, were destroyed, or are in another's possession, and to identify any known custodian. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.230.) Furthermore, Defendant does not dispute that her production fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a) and because she did not label the produced documents to correspond with Plaintiff's document requests.

Nevertheless, Plaintiff's motion can only be granted in part because Plaintiff has no basis for demanding Defendant produce documents that are Bates labeled. Additionally, Plaintiff does not identify any request to which Defendant is objecting based on privilege; therefore, Plaintiff has not shown that a privilege log is necessary. Last, the request for sanctions in the notice of motion is defective because it does not identify the person, party, or attorney against whom the sanction is sought. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2023.040.)

Accordingly, the motion to compel further is GRANTED in part and Defendant is ordered to provide further responses, without objections, to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, and 40, and to produce all responsive documents. The documents produced must be organized to correspond with Plaintiff's document requests. Further responses and responsive documents must be provided within 20 days. Plaintiff to give notice.

Dated this 26th day of August 2026 | |

| William A. Crowfoot Judge of the Superior Court |

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Case Number: 25NNCV06903 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT GANG YANG, Plaintiff(s), vs. ANNE CHUI, et al., Defendant(s). |))))))))))) |