JIA CHEN ET AL VS. CE-GH URBANITE FUND 2, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Thursday, October 23, 2025, Line 2. 1 - PLAINTIFFS JIA CHEN, WENJI CHEN, XUAN CHEN, SHOUCHUN HONG, LIANG KONG, LYU MENG, PACIFIC SUN RESOURCES INC, A BVI BUSINESS COMPANY, LIXIN QIU, JIE SHEN, HUAQING SUN, AND ZHONGWEI ZHU's Motion To Compel Further Responses To Form Interrogatories (Set One) And Request For Sanctions.

Plaintiffs Jia Chen et al. initially moved to compel further responses to certain of their form interrogatories and for sanctions against defendant CE-GH Urbanite Fund 2, LLC (CE-GH). The motion is granted in part and denied in part as stated herein.

This case concerns an alleged breach of a loan contract arising out of real estate investments. After the discovery at issue was served, on June 26, 2025, the court narrowed the case by granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings on a professional negligence claim. Plaintiffs filed the present motion on July 24, 2025. After the motion was filed, the parties engaged in further meet and confer efforts, and CE-GH provided supplemental responses to the form interrogatories at issue. Plaintiffs' reply brief states that they are now satisfied with the responses but seek sanctions.

Discovery is supposed to be self-executing. A filed motion demands the court's resources and attention. For that and other reasons, service of compliant responses does not moot a request for sanctions. (See Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348, subd. (a) ["The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed."]; cf. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408.)

CE-GH's objections to the form interrogatories lacked substantial justification and Plaintiffs' meet and confer efforts were to no avail. The court concludes that it was the filing of the motion that led CE-GH to amend, a misuse of the discovery process. The court orders CE-GH to pay $1900 to Plaintiffs within 30 days of notice of entry of this order.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CVA) | |