HONG ZHENG ET AL VS. GLENN FAMA ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Friday, September 11, 2025, line4, PLAINTIFF'S HONG ZHENG, AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE MACRO ROJO TRUST, HONG XIAOs'f Motion To Compel Further Responses To Request For Admissions From Glenn Fama And Kimberly Fama (tentative ruling part 1 of 2)

Plaintiff and cross-defendant Hong Xiao's motion for an order compelling defendants and cross-complainants Gene Fama and Kimberly Fama to provide further responses to Xiao's Requests for Admissions 1-3, 8, and 12-15, and for sanctions, is denied. Sanctions are ordered against Xiao.

The court denies the motion to compel for two reasons. First, the Famas' objection to the meaning of the term "abutment" in each of the RFAs that remain at issue has merit. The RFAs define "abutment" as "the '10 foot abutment' of land as referenced in the October 17 email" which in turn was defined as an email sent by the Famas' counsel. The email was attached as Exhibit 1 to the RFAs. In the version of the RFAs attached as Exhibit B to the Johnson Declaration, there is an Exhibit 1, but it does not define what area is meant by "the 10 foot abutment area."

The original October 17 email appears to attach a plot map, but the plot map is not attached to the RFAs in Exhibit 1. The RFAs are indeed ambiguous as to precisely what land is referenced in the RFAs, especially where it is not defined in the email and therefore exists only in the subjective understanding of the attorney who sent the email. In the context of a dispute that turns on precise metes and bounds measures, the failure to accurately define an area of land in the RFAs is worthy of objection.

Second, Xiao's counsel did not adequately meet and confer. The Famas responded to the RFAs and interposed the objections at issue here on June 12, 2025. (Johnson Dec. para. 3.) The Famas provided verifications on June 24. (Id. para. 4.) Xiao's counsel waited more than a month after receiving verifications, and about six weeks after receiving the objections, to commence meet and confer efforts concerning the objections, and then demanded responses despite the Famas' counsel's travel plans and offer to extend the deadline to move to compel. (Id. para. 5 & Ex. G.) That Xiao needed the responses for a summary adjudication deadline is a problem of counsel's own making that could have been avoided by initiating meet and confer efforts earlier. It does not excuse the failure to meaningfully attempt to resolve this discovery dispute before filing a motion.

"The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." (Code Civ. Proc., section 2033.290, subd. (d).) "Misuses of the discovery process include . . . (i) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery . . . ." (Id., section 2023.010.)