AMERICAN FUND MANAGEMENT ONE LP, A CALIFORNIA VS. ANDERS FUNG ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Friday, September 11, 2025, line 5 DEFENDANTS ANDERS FUNG, AN INDIVIDUAL, MARGARET NG, PARAMOUNT ESTATE LLC'S Motion To Compel Further Responses To Discovery And For Monetary Sanctions To Be Imposed On Plaintiff And Its Counsel Of Record (tentative ruling part 1 of 2) Defendants Anders Fung, Margaret Ng, and Paramount Estate LLC's motion for an order compelling plaintiff American Bay Area Fund Management LLC's further responses to defendants' second set of special interrogatories, and for sanctions against plaintiff and its counsel, is granted in part and denied in part.

For the following special interrogatories, the court does not order further responses: Nos. 94, 96, 98. For these interrogatories, plaintiff initially objected to the interrogatory as compound. This objection lacks merit and relies on an evasive reading of the interrogatory. But plaintiff's response further referred defendants to documents with a 33-page range as providing a response. Defendants offer no analysis to the court that the documents at ABAFM Diamond 00293 - 00326 do not provide the requested information, and defendants' separate statement does not address Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 2030.230 or the propriety of plaintiff's resort to that method of responding to interrogatories.

The court does not order any further relief. For the following special interrogatories, plaintiff's response is incomplete and evasive, and plaintiff must answer on the basis of its present knowledge: Nos. 99, 100, 103, 106, 108, 112, 113, 116, 117. The fact that discovery is not complete or plaintiff may learn further information is insufficient reason to avoid answering discovery. For those responses where plaintiff identifies Anders Fung, Margaret Ng and Xiao Jing Si as people with knowledge, plaintiff must identify all persons whom it believes have relevant information or state that there is no one else it is presently able to identify.

For the following special interrogatories, plaintiff objected to the request as premature and/or compound but nonetheless provided a substantive response: 101, 102, 105, 107, 109, 114, 120. No further response is ordered. Special interrogatory No. 104 is badly drafted. No further response is ordered. Special interrogatory No. 110 is duplicative of 106. No further response is ordered. The court finds that defendants' meet and confer efforts were sufficient. Both parties seek sanctions. "The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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.