Ito vs. HeyTutor, Inc

The Court finds Plaintiff did not act with substantial justification in substituting irrelevant information for relevant information and providing non-responsive answers in his first set of supplemental responses, thus, necessitating Defendant to file this Motion. Therefore, the request for sanctions is granted. 11 24-01423297 Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

Ito vs. HeyTutor, Inc

12 24-01439966 1) Motion to Compel Production 2) Motion to Compel Production Loera vs. Hoang Motion No. 1:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Khiem Hoang’s Production of Documents at Deposition is CONTINUED to 6/4/26.

In the motion, Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to produce documents in response to Plaintiff’s request for production (RFP) seeking “ALL surveillance movies or photographs which have been taken of the Plaintiff, whether or not those movies/photographs actually depict Plaintiff.”

Defendant objected to the RFP based on attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine and premature disclosure of impeachment evidence.

Defendant contends the motion was premature and improper because there was no attempt to meet and confer via phone, in person, or videoconference before filing the motion as required under the recently amended Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040(a), which provides, “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.”

Defendant further argues Plaintiff failed to move to compel further responses to prior discovery requests seeking the same information and that surveillance (or “sub rosa”) evidence is subject to qualified work product protection.

Plaintiff has not filed a timely reply brief.

Trial is set for 6/15/26.

If this dispute has not been resolved, counsel for the parties are ordered to engage in further efforts to meet and confer consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040, including whether any responsive materials are discoverable under Suezaki v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 166. Plaintiff shall file and serve a supplemental brief, not to exceed five pages, no later than 5/27/26.