Jesus Alvarado v. Jason Young, et al.

The challenged requests in the deposition subpoenas for Hahn and Rallis seek business records and testimony from Defendants' former counsel in a previous case and current counsel in a related case. (See 8/3/2026 Mashoof Decl., Exhs. 1-2.)

"Depositions of opposing counsel are presumptively improper, severely restricted, and require extremely good cause--a high standard." (Carehouse Convalescent Hospital v. Super. Ct. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1558, 1562, cleaned up.)

"California applies a three-prong test in considering the propriety of attorney depositions. First, does the proponent have other practicable means to obtain the information? Second, is the information crucial to the preparation of the case? Third, is the information subject to a privilege?" (Id. at 1563.)

CMBG does not address in its opposition whether it has other practicable means to obtain the information sought, does not assert that the information is crucial to its case, and does not claim that the information is not subject to privilege. (See Opp., pp. 11-13; see also Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215, stating that "[c]ontentions are waived when a party fails to support them with reasoned argument and citations to authority.")

Thus, the court finds the deposition subpoenas seek information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. Therefore, the motion to quash deposition subpoenas as to Hahn and Rallis is GRANTED.

Since the court decides this motion on the issue of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, the parties' arguments as to relevance are HELD IN ABEYANCE.

Additionally, since both parties addressed issues related to the disqualification of counsel Dean Rallis, Esq.'s, and pursuant to CMBG's request, the court will SET an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISQUALIFICATION OF COUNSEL.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the motion to quash subpoena and for protective order as to nonparty Investment Property Exchange, Inc. is DENIED. The court orders compliance with the deposition subpoena subject to a protective order executed by the parties.

The motion to quash subpoena and for protective order as to nonparties Hutchinson & Bloodgood, LLP and Eckenrod Tax & Accounting Services, LLP is GRANTED.

The motion to quash subpoena and for protective order as to nonparties Hahn & Hahn, LLP and Dean G. Rallis, Esq. is GRANTED.

An ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISQUALIFICATION OF COUNSEL is SET for a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).

Jason Young's Motion Re: Plaintiff Jesus Alvarado's Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Evidentiary, Issue, and Monetary Sanctions Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

Defendant Jason Young's Motion Re: Plaintiff Jesus Alvarado's Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Evidentiary, Issue, and Monetary Sanctions Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

Defendant Jason Young's Motion for Order Deeming Admitted Requests for Admission, Set One, and Request for Evidentiary, Issue, and Monetary Sanctions Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

Defendant Jason Young's Motion Re: Plaintiff Jesus Alvarado's Deposition and Request for Evidentiary, Issue, Terminating, and Monetary Sanctions Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

Defendant Jason Young's Motion Re: Plaintiff Jesus Alvarado's Responses to Requests for Production, Set Two, and Request for Evidentiary, Issue, Terminating, and Monetary Sanctions Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Jason Young's Motion Re: Plaintiff Jesus Alvarado's Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, is GRANTED. The Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. The Request for Evidentiary and Issue Sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Defendant Jason Young's Motion Re: Plaintiff Jesus Alvarado's Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. The Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. The Request for Evidentiary and Issue Sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Defendant Jason Young's Motion for Order Deeming Admitted Requests for Admission, Set One, is GRANTED. The Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. The Request for Evidentiary and Issue Sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Defendant Jason Young's Motion Re: Plaintiff Jesus Alvarado's Deposition and Request for Evidentiary, Issue, Terminating, and Monetary Sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Defendant Jason Young's Motion Re: Plaintiff Jesus Alvarado's Responses to Requests for Production, Set Two, is GRANTED. The Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. The Request for Evidentiary, Issue, and Terminating Sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff Jesus Alvarado is ordered to serve verified responses to Defendant's discovery, without objections, in ten (10) days. Defendant Jason Young is AWARDED sanctions in the amount of $550.00, payable in thirty (30) days.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle collision. On March 30, 2024, defendants Jason Young (Young) and 7-Eleven, Inc. (7-Eleven) allegedly collided their motor vehicle into that of plaintiff Jesus Alvarado (Alvarado), injuring him.

On April 9, 2025, Alvarado filed the Complaint, alleging causes of action for (1) motor vehicle and (2) general negligence.

On April 6, 2026, the court conducted an informal discovery conference and directed Alvarado to provide verified responses.

On April 28 and 29, 2026, Young filed these discovery motions, which are unopposed.

This case is set for a case management conference (further)/trial setting conference and a hearing on the motions on August 27, 2026.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND REQUESTS FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Defendant Young moves to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents and deem the truth of matters specified. (Young does not move to compel Alvarado's deposition.) For the following reasons, the motions and requests for monetary sanctions are GRANTED.

Legal Standard

A propounding party may file a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or to requests for production, or a motion to deem admitted matters specified in a request for admissions, if a response has not been received. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 2030.290, subd. (b); 2031.300, subd. (b); 2033.280, subd. (b).)

A response must be provided within 30 days of service, but if responses are untimely, the responding party waives objections. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 2030.260, subd. (a); 2030.290, subd. (a); 2031.260, subd. (a); 2031.300, subd. (a); 2033.280, subd. (a).)

Monetary sanctions are mandatory as against any party who fails "to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery," "who unsuccessfully . . . opposes a motion to compel [discovery]," or whose failure to serve a timely response necessitated a motion to deem request for admissions as admitted, unless the court finds "the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 2023.010, subd. (d); 2023.030, subd. (a); 2025.450, subd. (g)(1); 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c); 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Justification is "substantial" if it is "clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law and fact." (Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434.)

The court may award sanctions in favor of a party seeking to compel discovery even though no opposition was filed, the opposition was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

While the imposition of sanctions is mandatory, the court "has discretion to reduce the amount of fees and costs requested as a discovery sanction in order to reach a reasonable award." (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.)

Discussion

Defendant Young served Plaintiff Alvarado with Form Interrogatories, Set Two; Special Interrogatories, Set One; Requests for Admission, Set One; and Requests for Production, Set Two on February 18, 2026. (Gonzalez-McCaulley Decl. Re: FROGS, Set Two, P. 2; Gonzalez-McCaulley Decl. Re: SROGS, Set One, P. 3; Gonzalez-McCaulley Decl. Re: RFA, Set One, P. 3; Gonzalez-McCaulley Decl. Re: RFP, Set Two, P. 3.)

Alvarado's counsel informed Young that Alvarado was in immigration detention on March 3, 2026. (See Gonzalez-McCaulley Decl. Re: FROGS, Set Two, P. 4.)

Nevertheless, Alvarado failed to serve responses before the deadline, and the court directed Alvarado to serve verified responses at the informal discovery conference on April 6, 2026. (See 4/6/2026 Min. Order, p. 1.)

Despite the court's direction, Alvarado failed to serve timely verified responses. Accordingly, Defendant's motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two; Special Interrogatories, Set One; Requests for Admission, Set One; and Requests for Production, Set Two are GRANTED.

Since Alvarado failed to serve responses to Young's discovery requests, the Code of Civil Procedure requires that the court impose monetary sanctions. Young's counsel charges a rate of $250 per hour. (See Gonzalez-McCaulley Decl. Re: RFP, Set Two, P. 13.)

Based on counsel's representations, the court estimates that counsel reasonably spent 1.2 hours in connection with preparing these discovery motions and 1 hour to appear at the hearing on these motions, which 2.2 hours. (See Gonzalez-McCaulley Decl. Re: RFP, Set Two, P. 13.) The rate of $250 multiplied by 2.2 hours equals $550.00. Therefore, the requests for monetary sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $550.00.

REQUESTS FOR EVIDENTIARY, ISSUE, AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS

In addition to the monetary sanctions, Defendant Young requests evidentiary, issue, and terminating sanctions. For the following reasons, the requests for nonmonetary sanctions are DENIED.

Legal Standard

The court may impose a monetary sanction, issue sanction, evidence sanction, terminating sanction, or contempt sanction on a party who engages in conduct that misuses the discovery process. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2023.030.)

Misuse of the discovery process includes "[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery" and "[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).)

Because the purpose of sanctions is remedial and not punitive, sanctions should "serve to remedy the harm caused to the party suffering the discovery misconduct." (Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 57, 74.)

"Discovery sanctions must be tailored in order to remedy the offending party's discovery abuse, should not give the aggrieved party more than what it is entitled to, and should not be used to punish the offending party." (Karlsson v. Ford Motor Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1217.)

"[A]bsent unusual circumstances, nonmonetary sanctions are¿warranted only if a party willfully fails to comply with a court order." (Aghaian v. Minassian (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 603, 618-619.)

Terminating sanctions should only be ordered when there has been previous noncompliance and it appears a less severe sanction would not be effective. (Link v. Cater (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1326.)

Discussion

Defendant correctly asserts that Plaintiff Alvarado failed to comply with discovery, a misuse of the discovery process. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2023.010, subd. (d).)

However, the court finds there is no indication that Alvarado willfully failed to comply with a court order or that monetary sanctions would be ineffective. Thus, the record does not support the imposition of nonmonetary sanctions at this time. (See Aghaian, supra, 64 Cal.App.5th at 618-619; see also Link, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at 1326.) Therefore, the requests for nonmonetary sanctions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the motions re: Form Interrogatories, Set Two; Special Interrogatories, Set One; Requests for Admission, Set One; and Requests for Production, Set Two are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to Defendant's discovery, without objections, in ten (10) days.

The requests for monetary sanctions are GRANTED. Defendant Jason Young is AWARDED sanctions in the amount of $550.00. Monetary sanctions are due and payable in thirty (30) days.

T he requests for evidentiary, issue, and terminating sanctions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Case Number: 26PSCV01523 Hearing Date: August 27, 2026 Dept: G

Plaintiff/Petitioner Xiaodi Xu's Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Plaintiff/Claimant Weiqi Han, a Minor Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff/Petitioner Xiaodi Xu's Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Plaintiff/Claimant Weiqi Han, a Minor is CONTINUED.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle collision. On June 18, 2024, defendant Adrian Anthony Espinoza (Espinoza), an employee of defendants J C Tuckmar, Inc. (J C Tuckmar) and Joseph B. Volk (Volk) allegedly collided his vehicle into that containing plaintiff/petitioner Xiaodi Xu (Xu) and his minor child, plaintiff/claimant Weiqi Han (Han).

On April 28, 2026, Xu and Han (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed the Complaint. On June 9, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the operative Amended Complaint, alleging causes of action for (1) motor vehicle and (2) general negligence.

On July 20, 2026, the parties informed the court that they settled the case. On August 3, 2026, Xu filed this petition for approval of minor's compromise, which is unopposed. The petition is set for hearing on August 27, 2026.

ANALYSIS

Xu seeks the court's approval of a settlement reached between all parties. For the following reasons, the petition is CONTINUED.

Legal Standard

An enforceable settlement of a minor's or incompetent's claim can only be consummated with court approval. (Prob. Code, Sec.Sec. 2504, 3500, 3600 et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 372.)

For this purpose, a petition for approval must be presented to the court, and until it is granted, there is no final settlement. (Scruton v. Korean Air Lines Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1596, 1603-1606.) Any settlement agreement therefore is voidable by the minor's guardian ad litem.