MARCUS LAM v. KELSEY K. IINO

the parties should have known. While it may not be in a settling party's best interest to develop and to present evidence which enlarges his potential liability, such evidence is available if a party later contesting the good faith of a settlement could have obtained it through investigation or discovery prior to or at the time of settlement. On the other hand, evidence which could not reasonably have been produced by a joint tortfeasor with an interest in producing all relevant evidence is not available; such evidence may not be considered in assessing the good faith of a settlement." (Singer Co. v. Superior Ct. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 875, 896-97 (emphasis added) [finding an abuse of discretion where the trial court refused to postpone the good faith hearing until contesting party could "complete pertinent discovery directed" to the Tech-Bilt factors].)

"[I]t would be appropriate for the objecting non-settlor to move for a continuance of the hearing, if necessary, for the purpose of gathering facts, which could include further formal discovery, to support its statutory burden of proof as to all Tech-Bilt factors non-settlors placed in issue in order that the matter can be fully and fairly litigated." (City of Grand Terrace, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at p. 1265.)

The Court thus continues the motion to allow Carrier Johnson to pursue discovery to have an opportunity to meaningfully contest the good faith of the Settlement. "Any other result would reward a settling defendant/tortfeasor for successfully withholding or concealing evidence at the time of the settlement in derogation of its duty to act fairly and in good faith to joint tortfeasors as well as to plaintiff." (Singer, supra, 179 Cal.App.3d at 896.)

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the instant motion to contest is hereby CONTINUED to Tuesday, October 13, 2026 at 8:30am.

Dated this 1st day of September 2026 | | | Hon. Gary D. Roberts Judge of the Superior Court |

STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES MARCUS LAM, an individual, Plaintiff, vs.

KELSEY K. IINO, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION AND CONSOLIDATED ACTION. |))))))))))) | CASE NO.: 25STCV19227 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT KELSEY K. IINO'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT MARCUS LAM, WITH PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Dept. 733 8:30 a.m. September 1, 2026 |

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 1, 2025, Plaintiff Marcus. J. Lam ("Plaintiff" or "Lam") filed a complaint against Defendant Kelsey K. Iino ("Defendant" or "Iino"), alleging causes of action for (1) Undue Influence, (2) Unjust Enrichment, (3) Fraud, (4) Negligent Misrepresentation, (5) Accounting, and (6) Quiet Title.

The complaint alleges the following. Plaintiff and Defendant were in a romantic, monogamous relationship for twelve (12) years. (Compl., P. 1.) In October 2017, Plaintiff and Defendant purchased real property located at 1155 S. Grand Ave., Unit 613, Los Angeles, California 90015, for $1,375,000 ("Subject Property"). (Id. P. 2.) Plaintiff and Defendant both contributed $250,000 toward a down payment to purchase the Subject Property and obtained a loan in the amount of $875,000 as co-borrowers. (Id. P. 3.) On October 5, 2017, a Grant Deed was recorded in the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office as Instrument No. 20171142994, conveying the Subject Property to Plaintiff and Defendant as joint tenants. (Id. P. 4.) On October 5, 2017, a Deed of Trust was recorded in the Los Angeles County's Recorder's Office as Instrument No. 20171142995, securing the $875,000 loan. (Id. P. 5.)

n September 2021, Plaintiff and Defendant decided to refinance the Subject Property to obtain a lower interest rate. Because of Defendant's credit score and debt, Plaintiff refinanced the Subject Property and obtained a loan in the amount of $821,000 in his name only. (Id. P. 5.) Both parties lived in the Subject Property beginning in October 2017 and agreed to share the costs of living expenses--namely, the principal and interest on the home loan, property taxes, home insurance, and the HOA fees. Defendant paid $2,500 per month, and Plaintiff paid $4,000 per month. (Id. P. 8.) However, from mid-2022 through August 2023, Plaintiff made the mortgage payments without any contribution from Defendant, paying $6,500 per month in expenses. (Id. P. 9.)

In September 2023, after 12 years, Plaintiff was unfaithful to the relationship and committed infidelity. (Id. P. 10.) On September 18, 2023, Plaintiff attempted to make amends for his infidelity and offered to give Defendant his interest in the Subject Property. However, Plaintiff immediately reconsidered and told Defendant that he did not want to convey his interest. Defendant told Plaintiff that he could not retract his offer because he "already said it." Plaintiff felt pressured to commit to transferring his interest in the Subject Property to Defendant. (Id. P. 12.)

Also on September 18, 2023, because of immense guilt and pressure, Plaintiff agreed to waive reimbursement from Defendant for the expenses paid on Defendant's during the period from mid-2022 through August 2023. (Id. P. 13.) Defendant immediately drafted an agreement for Defendant's signature on the same day. The agreement states that "Marcus Lam agrees that all equity in the [Subject Property] belongs to Kelsey Iino." The agreement also states that Defendant would agree to pay 50% of the mortgage, including property taxes, and insurance, and half of the HOA fees "for a period up to 365 days from 9/18/2023." (Id. P. 14.)

On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff signed a Grant Deed conveying his interest in the Subject Property to Defendant. (Id. P. 17.) In May 2025, Plaintiff expressed to Defendant that he did not want to convey his interest in the Subject Property, and that he had felt pressured to do so. Defendant responded by way of her attorneys and claimed that Plaintiff no longer had an interest in the Subject Property. (Id. P. 18.) Plaintiff remains as the sole borrower on the mortgage for the Subject Property. (Id. P. 19.)

On July 3, 2025, Defendant Iino filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff Lam, alleging causes of action for (1) Fraud, (2) False Promise, (3) Quiet Title, (4) Breach of Written Contract, (5) Specific Performance, and (6) Declaratory Relief. On July 16, 2026, Iino filed the instant motion to compel the deposition of Lam, along with a production of documents. On August 20, 2026, Lam filed an opposition. On August 21, 2026, Iino filed a reply.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.010.) A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.280, subd. (a).)

California Code of Civil Procedure section¿2025.450, subdivision (a) provides:¿"If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . ., without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for¿inspection any document. . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document . . . described in the deposition notice."

California Code of Civil Procedure section¿2025.450, subdivision (b) provides:¿"A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:¿ The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.¿ The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance."

California Rules of Court also require motions to compel "the production of documents ... at a deposition ...," to be accompanied by a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(5).) "A separate statement is filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)

III. DISCUSSION

Iino seeks to compel Lam's deposition and for the production of 33 categories of documents pursuant to the Notice of served on June 24, 2026. On June 24, 2026, Iino's counsel served a notice of taking the deposition of Lam on July 14, 2026, and included a demand for production of documents. (Forry Decl., P. 6.)

The Notice also requests for the production of documents regarding the communications and agreements between the parties, allegations of medical consultation and/or examinations of Lam, allegations of metal anguish and emotional weakness of Lam, Lam's damages for reimbursement of payments allegedly made by him to Iino, pertinent allegations in Lam's Complaint, and the affirmative defenses in Lam's Answer to Iino's Cross-Complaint. (Id. P. 7.)

After Iino's counsel followed up on July 9, 2026, Lam's counsel states that July 14, 2026, does not work for them and they can do late August. Iino's counsel informed Lam's counsel of potential alternative dates in August. (Id. P. 8.) On July 10, 2026, Lam served an official Objection to the Notice, but failed to provide alternative dates. (Id. P. 10.) The Objection also objected to the requests for documents, in that the requests are "overbroad, unduly burdensome, seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine, seek irrelevant information, are not described with reasonable particularity, or otherwise exceed the permissible scope of discovery." (Id. P. 10, Ex. C.)

During the ex parte application hearing on July 16, 2026, Iino's counsel requested that Lam's counsel provide a date for his deposition and she refused to provide a date certain for Lam's deposition. (Id. P. 12.)

In opposition, Lam asserts that the instant motion is moot because Lam has already submitted to his deposition on August 12, 2026, to which Iino does not dispute. (Abebe Decl., P. 8.) However, Iino contends that Lam did not produce all the documents responsive to the demand for production included in the Motion, specifically with respect to Demand No.

4. Iino also asserts that the imposition of sanctions also remains at issue.

As for Demand No. 4, Iino requested "All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING YOUR response to Form Interrogatory 6.1, and 6.2, served by YOU on February 17, 2026, that "Responding Party was mentally anguished and emotionally weak." As stated above, Lam only provided objections. First, good cause exists to compel the documents requested in this demand because it pertains directly to allegations made by Lam connected to this dispute, which would, if shown, would support his claims. Also, objections must be specific, "boilerplate" objections and "nuisance objections" are inappropriate and even sanctionable. (Korea Data Systems Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court, (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516; Standon Co., Inc. v. Superior Court, (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 902-903.)

Lam also bears the burden of justifying its objections in response to a motion to compel, which he has failed to do. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) Lam provides that "he did not have additional documents in his possession or control that were not already in Defendant counsel's possession" and "he was attempting to obtain documents responsive to demand no. 4 and would produce them to counsel." (See Abebe Decl., P.P. 8-0.) Such representations should have been made in the formal Objection made to the Notice in a Code-compliant manner. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.230.)

However, Lam's counsel represents that "[a]ll parties agreed that Mr. Lam would produce any additional documents [to demand No. 4] once he obtained them and would submit to a second session of his deposition, if necessary." (Abebe Decl., P. 9.) To the extent that there are documents responsive to Iino's Demand No. 4, Lam must produce such documents or risk having them be precluded at trial.

Sanctions

Iino requests $4,454.76 in sanctions against Lam. California Code of Civil Procedure section¿2025.450, subdivision¿(c) provides, "(1) If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction. . . in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust."

The Court does not find sanctions appropriate, as the Court finds that neither party participated in the discovery process in good faith.

IV. CONCLUSION

Thus, Iino's motion to compel the deposition of Lam is DENIED as moot. Iino's accompanying request for production of documents is GRANTED as to Category No.

4. Lam is is to serve verified code compliant responses to Category No. 4 without objection - except attorney client privilege/work product and privacy - within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Iino's accompanying request for sanctions is DENIED.

Dated this 1st day of September 2026 | | | Hon. Gary D. Roberts Judge of the Superior Court | | Home -->)" -->