DEFENDANTS LINDA YEE AND DERRICK YEE'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES (SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES)
Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Wednesday, September 10, 2025, line 12, DEFENDANTS LINDA YEE AND DERRICK YEE'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES (SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES)
Defendants Linda Yee and Derrick Yee's motion to compel responses to their first set of form interrogatories, first set of special interrogatories, and request for production of documents is granted. Plaintiff Connie Wong is ordered to provide substantive responses within 20 days of entry of this order. Wong is further ordered to commence production of responsive documents within 20 days of entry of this order but if the production is voluminous she may make a rolling production that shall be concluded within 50 days of entry of this order.
The Yees served the discovery on June 4, 2025. (Wasserman Dec. Ex. 4.) Wong objected largely on the basis that her motion to transfer venue was pending and she should not be required to respond until the motion was resolved. (Id. Ex. 5.) The court takes judicial notice of other orders entered in the case and notes the minute order of August 29, 2025, denying Wong's motion to transfer venue. Regardless of whether Wong's objections were proper when made, they have no continuing force because the motion to transfer venue has now been resolved.
Neither party seeks sanctions. The relevant discovery statutes say that the court "shall" order monetary sanctions against a party who makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories or requests for production unless the nonprevailing party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make imposition of sanctions unjust. (See Code Civ. Proc., sections 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.300, subd. (c).) Wong has unsuccessfully opposed this motion but in light of all the circumstances in this case including that the Yees have not sought sanctions, the court does not award sanctions.
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.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
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. = (302/CVA) | |