DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC22602294·sf·Civil·Discovery
Hearing 11 months agoThe court notes stacked discovery motions are disfavored; Plaintiff is ordered to prepare a proposed order.

YINGQIAN WANG VS. IAN PHELPS ET AL

PLAINTIFF YINGQIAN WANG MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR AN AWARD OF SANCTIONS

Hearing date
Oct 1, 2025
Department
302
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffYINGQIAN WANG
DefendantIAN PHELPS

Attorneys

ALEXANDER GORMANfor Plaintiff

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC22602294 - October 1, 2025 Hearing date: October 1, 2025 Case number: CGC22602294 Case title: YINGQIAN WANG VS. IAN PHELPS ET AL Case Number: | | CGC22602294 | Case Title: | | YINGQIAN WANG VS. IAN PHELPS ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-01 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | PLAINTIFF YINGQIAN WANG MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR AN AWARD OF SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER GORMAN (ADDED TO CALENDAR FOR TENTATIVE RULING ENTRY PURPOSES 2 OF 2) | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for Wednesday, October 1, 2025, Line 1, PLAINTIFF YINGQIAN WANG MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR AN AWARD OF SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER GORMAN (ADDED TO CALENDAR FOR TENTATIVE RULING ENTRY PURPOSES 2 of 2)

Plaintiff is advised stacked discovery motions are strongly disfavored in all cases. Going forward, stacked motions, such as this one, may be ordered off calendar in favor of individual motions focused each on a single discovery vehicle (e.g., Frogs, SRogs, RFPs, RFAs, deposition notice) addressed to a single, specific party. Indeed, here, Plaintiff's requests for relief would have been better presented had they not been stacked because Plaintiff could have focused each request on the appropriate statute and relevant standards, including the provisions regarding sanctions. Plaintiff is ordered to prepare a proposed order which repeats the above text verbatim and email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the time set for hearing.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) 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 contestdept302tr@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.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion 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. =(302/JMQ) | |

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