Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Document Production and Continued Deposition
Jian Loar v. Xiaolan Liu
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Document Production and Continued Deposition
Hearing Date: April 24, 2026
Defendant Xiaolan Liu (“Defendant”) moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Jian Loar (“Plaintiff”) to produce documents responsive to Defendant’s Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents (“Deposition Notice”) and to appear for her deposition. Defendant also requests monetary sanctions of $1,857.50 against Plaintiff and her attorneys for their abuse of the discovery process.
As detailed below, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. [Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2025.460 and 2025.480.] Plaintiff shall produce documents responsive to the Deposition Notice’s Request for Production (“Demand”) Nos. 3, 9, 13, and 16. The document production shall occur when the deposition resumes. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480, subd. (i).] Plaintiff shall also appear to finish her deposition so counsel can examine her about the documents produced. The continued deposition shall be scheduled for a mutually convenient date within 30 days of the Court’s order. Lastly, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Monetary sanctions of $1,250 are awarded to Defendant and against Plaintiff and her attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days of the Court’s order.
Factual and Procedural Background.
This lawsuit stems from a motor vehicle collision between the parties on October 28, 2024. To discover evidence regarding Plaintiff’s physical injuries, medical treatment, and wage loss—all of which are relevant to this case—Defendant noticed Plaintiff’s deposition. [Defense Capabianco Decl. at ¶¶ 7-8 and attached Exh. A.] The Deposition Notice requested the production of documents related to 16 categories. [Deposition Notice, Exh. A to Defense Capabianco Decl. at 2:8-5:11.]
Plaintiff was deposed on December 29, 2025. [Defense Capabianco Decl. at ¶ 9 and Exh. B.] Defendant contends that the deposition remained incomplete because Plaintiff did not search for documents responsive to the Deposition Notice’s demand for production of documents. [Id. at ¶ 10 and Exh. C.] This includes Defendant’s demand for Plaintiff to produce a copy of her health insurance card. [Deposition Notice, Exh. A to Defense Capabianco Decl. at Demand No. 13; Plaintiff’s Depo., Exh. B to Defense Capabianco Decl. at 21:14-18.] The next day, Defendant emailed Plaintiff to follow up on the additional documents requested in Demand Nos. 3, 9, and 16. [Meet and Confer Correspondence, Exh. C to Defense Capabianco Decl. at 2.] Plaintiff responded promptly, saying, “Sounds good, we’ll reach out and gather.” [Id. at 3.]
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?”
Nearly two months later, on February 18, 2026, Defendant checked in regarding the production of documents. Plaintiff replied, “we served RFP responses recently with the requested documents.” [Meet and Confer Correspondence, Exh. C to Defense Capabianco Decl. at 2-3.] These “RFP responses” related to Defendant’s Request for Production, Set Two, which was served on February 2, 2026. [RFP Responses, Exh. B to Plaintiff’s Tomkinson Decl.] This second set of requests aimed to obtain (i) communications from Blue Cross or other insurers about denied payments, and (ii) materials prepared by Plaintiff’s students, commenting on Plaintiff’s teaching ability from two years before the incident up to now. [Ibid.]
Defendant contended that the documents produced with Plaintiff’s “RFP responses” do not respond to Demand Nos. 3, 9, 13, and 16 of the Deposition Notice. [Meet and Confer Correspondence, Exh. C to Defense Capabianco Decl. at 1-2.]
The parties could not resolve the issue during the meet-and-confer process. [Meet and Confer Correspondence, Exh. C to Defense Capabianco Decl. at 1-2.] On February 27, 2026, Defendant filed and served this motion. [Id.]
Legal Standard.
In California, any party can request discovery by conducting an oral deposition of any individual, including a party. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.010.] Sections 1 2025.210 to 2025.280 specify what should be included in a deposition notice, along with details on the timing, location, and serving procedures for depositions.
A deposition notice requires any party deponent to attend and testify, as well as produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible items for inspection and copying. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.280, subd. (a).] If a deponent does not answer a question or produce a document under their control as specified in the deposition notice or subpoena, the requesting party may adjourn the deposition or proceed with other questions without losing the right to later seek an order to compel the answer or production. [Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2025.460, subd. (e).] Similarly, if a deponent fails to produce a document, electronically stored information, or tangible item under the same conditions, the requesting party can file a motion with the court to require production. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480, subd. (a).]
The motion must be filed within 60 days after the deposition record is completed and must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480, subd. (b).] “If the court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or the production be made upon resumption of the deposition.” [Id. at subd. (i).]
When a motion to compel is granted, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court 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. § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).] Misuses
1 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 2
of the discovery process includes “[f]ailing to respond to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” [Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subd. (d).] Where a party or attorney has engaged in misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a monetary sanction in the amount of “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” [Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).]
Document Production.
Demand Nos. 3, 9, 13, and 16 request documents different from those that Plaintiff provided with her “RFA responses” on February 2, 2026. Therefore, an order compelling Plaintiff to produce documents responsive to those Demands is warranted.
Demand No. 3 seeks “Any and all DOCUMENTS which set forth or establish [Plaintiff’s] past, present and future loss of earnings or income, which you claim to have suffered as a result of the SUBJECT ACCIDENT.” [Deposition Demand, Exh. A to Defense Capabianco Decl. at 3:20-22.] Plaintiff testified that she had pay-related information and records reflecting her sick leave use on her computer, which were not available for production on that day. [Plaintiff’s Depo., Exh. B to Defense Capabianco Decl. at 15:24-17:11.] Plaintiff has yet to produce those documents.
Demand No. 9 requests the production of “Any and all DOCUMENTS which identify any limitation on [Plaintiff’s] ability to perform work as a result of the SUBJECT ACCIDENT.” [Deposition Demand, Exh. A to Defense Capabianco Decl. at 4:18-20.] In response, Plaintiff provided her medical records. [Plaintiff’s Response to Deposition Notice, Exh. A to Plaintiff’s Tomkinson Decl. at 9:16-23.] However, the transcript of Plaintiff’s deposition at page 21, lines 4 through 13, indicates that Plaintiff may have additional responsive documents. Plaintiff must produce any responsive documents that have not already been produced.
Demand No. 13 requests a copy of Plaintiff’s “health insurance card.” [Deposition Demand, Exh. A to Defense Capabianco Decl. at 5:1-2.] Plaintiff testified that she sent a copy of her “Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance card” to “Skylar,” who is presumably the litigation secretary for Plaintiff’s counsel, Skylar Christie. [Plaintiff’s Depo., Exh. B to Defense Capabianco Decl. at 21:14-18; see Exhs. A-B and D to Plaintiff’s Tomkinson Decl.] Plaintiff has not provided a copy of that insurance card to Defendant.
Demand No. 16 relates to “[a]ll correspondence, including but not limited to letters, text messages, emails, or other form of written or electronic communication, [Plaintiff] sent to, or received from, [Defendant], from the date of the SUBJECT ACCIDENT to the present.” [Deposition Demand, Exh. A to Defense Capabianco Decl. at 5:8-11.] In her response to Demand No. 16, Plaintiff stated she was “unable to comply because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in [her] possession, custody, or control.” [Plaintiff’s Response to Deposition Notice, Exh.
A to Plaintiff’s Tomkinson Decl. at 12:26-13:8.] During her deposition, Plaintiff confirmed she does have correspondence relevant to Demand No. 16: “I told [Defendant] that I do not bear any hatred or ill feelings about this accident.” [Plaintiff’s Depo.,
Exh. B to Defense Capabianco Decl. at 24:9-17.] However, Plaintiff has not produced any documents in response to Demand No.
16.
Therefore, Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED, and Plaintiff shall produce documents responsive to Demand Nos. 3, 9, 13, and 16. The document production shall occur upon the resumption of the deposition. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480, subd. (i).]
Continued Deposition.
Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to appear for her deposition is GRANTED. If Plaintiff produced the documents responsive to Demand Nos. 3, 9, 13, and 16 during the deposition, Defendant would have had the opportunity to examine her about each document. Plaintiff provides no authority to support its argument that the Court should require Defendant to make a “concrete showing that another oral examination is necessary and justified, rather than merely convenient.” [Opp. at 5:25-28.]
Plaintiff is ordered to appear for a deposition for examination with original documents responsive to Demand Nos. 3, 9, 13, and 16, to be noticed for a mutually convenient date within 30 days of the Court’s order. Counsel will be allowed to proceed with the deposition, including, but not limited to, examination on all matters related to the at-issue Demands.
Monetary Sanctions.
Monetary sanctions are justified, and Plaintiff did not provide substantial justification for a different ruling. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480, subd. (j).] First, Plaintiff contends that Defendant wrongly claims she “failed to look for documents.” [Opp. at 7:3-5.] Instead, Plaintiff asserts that “the deposition transcript shows a witness with some language and comprehension difficulty trying to answer document questions in real time.” [Ibid.] However, Plaintiff’s counsel should have reviewed the Deposition Notice, including each Demand, with her beforehand and identified all responsive documents to ensure they were produced at the deposition as noticed.
Second, Plaintiff argues that sanctions are unwarranted because her counsel promised to work with her to obtain the records she identified at deposition, including the wage documents on her computer and a copy of her insurance card. Yet, Plaintiff has not produced any documents responsive to Demand Nos. 3, 9, 13, and 16, despite admitting she has them.
Defendant seeks $1,857.50 in sanctions, including: (i) $225 hourly rate for 7.7 hours of associate Caroline Rogers’ work related to the motion; and (ii) $250 hourly rate for partner Jennifer Capabianco’s 0.5 hours on similar tasks. The hourly rates are deemed reasonable. Regarding the billed hours, 0.5 hours for Ms. Capabianco and 5 hours for Ms. Rogers are appropriate. Therefore, the request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff and her counsel are jointly and severally ordered to pay Defendant $1,250 in sanctions within 30 days of the order.
Conclusion.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff must produce documents responsive to Demand Nos. 3, 9, 13, and 16 when her deposition resumes. [Code Civ. Proc.
§ 2025.480, subd. (i).] The continuation of Plaintiff’s deposition will be noticed for a mutually convenient date within 30 days of the Court’s order. Counsel is allowed to proceed with the deposition, including but not limited to examining all matters related to the at-issue Demands.
Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Monetary sanctions of $1,250 are awarded to Defendant and against Plaintiff and her attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days of the Court’s order.
Defendant shall prepare the Proposed Order consistent with this Tentative Ruling.
NOTE RE TENTATIVE RULING
This tentative ruling becomes the court’s order, and no hearing shall be held unless one of the parties contests it by following Rule 3.1308 of the California Rules of Court and Monterey County Local Rule 7.9. Those parties wishing to present an oral argument must notify all other parties and the Court no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing; otherwise, NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE PERMITTED, AND THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL BECOME THE ORDER OF THE COURT AND THE HEARING VACATED. You must notify the court by email or by calling the Calendar Department at 831-647-5800, extension 3040, before 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing.
5