ZHANG, AN INDIVIDUAL vs COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION, et al.

25CV005200: ZHANG, AN INDIVIDUAL vs COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Answers to Deposition Questions and Production of Documents in Department 16D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-3056 by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-servicestranscripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore

25CV005200: ZHANG, AN INDIVIDUAL vs COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Answers to Deposition Questions and Production of Documents in Department 16D

list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Xiumin Zhang’s motion to compel answers to deposition questions and production of documents is denied.

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s Person Most Qualified to answer deposition questions which Plaintiff claims Defendant’s counsel improperly instructed he not answer and to produce documents which Plaintiff claims should have been produced at the deposition.

Defendant opposes the motion on numerous grounds. Defendant’s first argument is that the motion should be denied because Plaintiff failed to meet and confer. The Court need only address this argument as it is dispositive.

Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel an email on April 27, 2026, regarding Defendant’s responses to the requests for production in the PMQ deposition notice. (Behnamjou Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 2) The deposition occurred that day. On April 29, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel sent another email addressing Defendant’s amended responses to requests for production nos. 3, 4, 6, and 10 in the PMQ deposition notice. The email also stated that “you also instructed Mr. Schmidt not to answer several questions (including as to the identity of Costco‘s employee-witness) based on objections other than privacy or attorney client privilege, which is improper under Stewart v.

Colonial Western Agency, Inc., 87 Cal.App.4th 1006 (2001).” (Id. ¶ 5. Exh. 2.) Plaintiff’s counsel stated that a motion to compel would be filed unless Defendant agreed by May 1, 2026, to amend the responses to the requests and to produce the PMQ for further deposition regarding questions that the PMQ was instructed not to answer. (Id.) This motion followed.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005200: ZHANG, AN INDIVIDUAL vs COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Answers to Deposition Questions and Production of Documents in Department 16D

A motion to compel further deposition testimony and to compel document production “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP § 2025.480(b).) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.” (CCP § 2016.040(a) [emphasis added].) The Discovery Act “requires that there be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Clement v.

Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.) The rule is designed to encourage parties to work out their differences and lessen financial expenditures and burdens upon the parties and the court. (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431,1435.) “‘[A] reasonable and good faith effort at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with [opposing] counsel.... Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Clement, supra. 177 Cal.App.4th at 1294 [quoting Townsend, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at 1439].)

The meet and confer process requires “a serious attempt to obtain an ‘informal resolution of each issue.’” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439.) “[T]he law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Id. at 1439.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff entirely failed to comply with the above meet-and-confer requirements. First, Plaintiff only used email to communicate with Defendant’s counsel. However, CCP § 2016.040(a) specifically requires that the meet-and-confer be conducted “in person, by telephone, or by videoconference.” (CCP § 2016.040(a) [emphasis added].) The recent amendment to this statute (effective January 1, 2026) was specifically enacted to prevent counsel from communicating solely by email as Plaintiff’s counsel did here. On this basis alone, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to properly meet and confer.

While the Court need not proceed further, it notes that even if the same substance of Plaintiff’s written correspondence had been communicated in person, by telephone, or by video conference, it fails to demonstrate that Plaintiff actually engaged in a “good faith” meet-and-confer process and fails to establish efforts were made to obtain an informal resolution of “each issue” presented by this motion as required by the Code and related case law. To that end, Plaintiff failed to specifically identify any of the deposition questions that Defendant’s PMQ purportedly failed to answer.

Plaintiff only indicated that the PMQ did not answer “several questions (including as to the identity of Costco‘s employee-witness) based on objections other than privacy or attorney client privilege, Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc., 87 Cal.App.4th 1006 (2001).” (Behnamjou Decl. ¶ 5. Exh. 2.) However, the instant motion involves 16 questions as to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005200: ZHANG, AN INDIVIDUAL vs COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Answers to Deposition Questions and Production of Documents in Department 16D

which Plaintiff seeks further deposition testimony. Yet Plaintiff did not identify any of the specific questions in the email or the specific objections. Additionally, the email only vaguely referred to questions not involving the attorney-client privilege objection and yet the motion seeks to address questions as to which the attorney-client privilege objection was raised despite the fact that Plaintiff never referred to such questions in the email. Further, Plaintiff demanded that Defendant agree to comply, by May 1, 2026, only two days after the April 29, 2026 email, in order to avoid a motion to compel. The April 29, 2026, email did not invite a response to Plaintiff’s contentions and simply demanded that Defendant capitulate to the demands. This demonstrates a lack of interest in engaging in a genuine meet-and-confer effort, effectively making a formal motion inevitable.

Not only did Plaintiff fail to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, but even the email correspondence was insufficient. Plaintiff failed to address “each issue” presented by the motion and demanded compliance with Plaintiff’s demands within two days. Plaintiff did not satisfy the meet-and-confer requirement under law. “The Discovery Act makes no exception based upon one's speculation that the prospect of informal resolution may be bleak.” (Townsend, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at 1438.) The Court concludes that Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer prior to filing the instant motion. On this basis, the motion is denied. (Townsend, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at 1439 [court has discretion to deny motion to compel based on failure to meet and confer].)

No sanctions were requested by either side and none are awarded.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to notify Defendant’s counsel immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person, via Zoom, or by telephone, in the event Defendant’s counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.