C. L. VS. MOBILITY HOLDINGS, LIMITED ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC24614489 - September 1, 2026 Hearing date: September 1, 2026 Case number: CGC24614489 Case title: C. L. VS. MOBILITY HOLDINGS, LIMITED ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24614489 | Case Title: | | C. L. VS. MOBILITY HOLDINGS, LIMITED ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-09-01 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion To Compel The Deposition Of Mobility Holding'S Employees, Hon, Hse, Lyn, Caplan And Its Pmq Regarding Product Specifications | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for September 1, 2026, line 8. PLAINTIFF C. L., BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, AIMEE LEIFER'S Motion to Compel the Deposition of Mobility Holding's Employees, Hon, Hse, Lyn, Caplan and its PMQ Regarding Product Specifications.

Plaintiff C.L.'s motion to compel depositions of certain Mobility Holdings employee witnesses is granted in part and denied in part. With respect to employees Luke Hse, Daniel Caplen, and Eric Lyn, and an additional person most qualified concerning product specifications, C.L. shows good cause and Mobility Holdings' burden objections lack merit in light of the continued trial date and C.L.'s proposal to take remote depositions at a time convenient to the overseas witnesses. A party is not generally limited to a single deposition of a PMQ.

With respect to employee Josh Hon, the court denies the motion. Under the apex doctrine, "it amounts to an abuse of discretion to withhold a protective order when a plaintiff seeks to depose a corporate president, or corporate officer at the apex of the corporate hierarchy, absent a reasonable indication of the officer's personal knowledge of the case and absent exhaustion of less intrusive discovery methods." (Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1287.) Hon is the CEO of Mobility. C.L. describes (but does not provide under seal) an email with Hon; even assuming this is evidence of Hon's personal or unique knowledge, C.L. does not show that he has attempted and exhausted less intrusive discovery methods.

The parties shall meet and confer to schedule the ordered depositions within 30 days of notice of entry of order. No sanctions are awarded; both parties acted with substantial justification.

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) | |