KUN WANG VS. UBER TECHNOLOGY INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC24617601 - September 9, 2026 Hearing date: September 9, 2026 Case number: CGC24617601 Case title: KUN WANG VS. UBER TECHNOLOGY INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24617601 | Case Title: | | KUN WANG VS. UBER TECHNOLOGY INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-09-09 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion By Plaintiff To Compel Defendant Carlos Zambrano Blanco, To Provide Responses To Form Interrogatories Set One And Request For Monetary Sanctions In The Amount Of $1260.00 Against Defendant And/Or Its Counsel Of Record Jueun Park Esq Memorandum Of Points And Authorities; Declaration Of Jerome P.

Bellotti | Rulings: | | Matter on calendar for Wednesday, September 09, 2026, Line 5, PLAINTIFF KUN WANG's Motion To Compel Defendant Carlos Zambrano Blanco, To Provide Responses To Form Interrogatories Set One And Request For Monetary Sanctions In The Amount Of $1260.00 Against Defendant And/Or Its Counsel Of Record Jueun Park Esq.

1 - Plaintiff Kun Wang's motion to compel defendant Carlos Zambrano Blanco to respond to form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, is granted as stated herein. Wang served discovery, to which Blanco has not responded. Blanco opposes on the ground that counsel has been unable to locate him. This is not a proper ground to refuse discovery; rather, it is Blanco's obligation as a duly-served defendant to remain in contact with counsel and respond to discovery authorized by statute. Counsel proposes no alternative that would permit Wang to obtain information about Blanco's defenses and facts known to Blanco.

Blanco is ordered to serve complete, verified, objection-free responses to the subject discovery within 10 days of notice of entry of this order. Failure to submit to an authorized method of discovery lacks substantial justification. Blanco shall pay reasonable sanctions of $1260 to Wang within 30 days of notice of entry of this order. The sanctions order does not run against Blanco's counsel; such an order would be proper only if Blanco's counsel "advis[ed]" the discovery conduct. (Code Civ. Proc., 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Wang offers no basis for the court to conclude that Blanco's counsel advised the conduct.

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). | |