MOTION OF PLAINTIFF GUOXIONG MA TO MODIFY COURT ORDER REGARDING THIRD-PARTY DOCUMENTS PRODUCED PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA
24CV066869: MA vs SUSHI GO GO, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other MOTION OF PLAINTIFF GUOXIONG MA TO MODIFY COURT ORDER REGARDING THIRD-PARTY DOCUMENTS PRODUCED PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA CRS# 000092054831 in Department 520
Tentative Ruling - 06/10/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson
The Motion of Plaintiff Guoxiong Ma (Plaintiff) to Modify Court Order is CONTINUED TO July 10, 2026 for the reasons herein. The parties' requests for sanctions in connection with the Motion are denied.
PROCEDURAL DEFECTS
As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Memorandum of Points and Authorities is misleadingly titled Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint in the Register of Actions.
To the extent that Defendant is not serving lead counsel with documents, Defendant shall do so moving forward.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Defendants Request for Judicial Notice is granted as to the Register of Actions in this case. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) However, the Court does not take judicial notice of the truth of any of the facts asserted in the matters noticed. (See Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1413 n. 7; Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 882.) Plaintiffs objection is overruled.
DISCUSSION
Although Plaintiff frames his Motion as one seeking to modify the Courts April 16, 2025 Order Denying Defendants Motion for Protective Order, it is, in effect, Plaintiffs own Motion for a Protective Order. (MPA, p. 1:22-24.) In lieu of including specific revisions, Plaintiff instead includes a proposed protective order, allegedly from the (United States) Northern District of California in its place. (Proposed Order ¶ 2; Zuromski Decl., Ex. B.) Defendant fails to address this or respond except to argue that, if the Order were to be modified, it must be done in a process which would protect Defendants personal financial transactions from the eyes of Plaintiff and the public. (Oppo., p. 8:24-25.)
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?”
Plaintiff argues that the modification is necessary because the existing order forbids him from discussing or providing any direction to their forensic account[ant][sic]. (MPA, p. 6:10-12.) 24CV066869: MA vs SUSHI GO GO, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other MOTION OF PLAINTIFF GUOXIONG MA TO MODIFY COURT ORDER REGARDING THIRD-PARTY DOCUMENTS PRODUCED PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA CRS# 000092054831 in Department 520 However, paragraph 4 of the Order in question states LORRAINE AHO is authorized to only consult with and advise Plaintiffs counsel Justin Hsiang about findings upon review of the files received from Financial Institutions, which is not, as Plaintiff asserts, a prohibition on discussing the documents being reviewed by the accountant. (Zuromski Decl., Ex.
A., ¶ 4.) Neither party addresses what/which stage of review encompasses the forensic accountant. Notwithstanding the fact that this Motion is more properly brought as a Motion for Protective Order, in light of judicial efficiency and the fact that Defendant does not appear particularly opposed to a protective order, the Court is inclined to grant the Motion without requiring Plaintiff to file another motion.
However, the parties are to meet and confer in advance of the July 10, 2026 continuance to determine if the Proposed Protective Order is reasonable and consistent with California law, and sufficient to safeguard private information as is necessary to address Defendants concerns.
The parties shall file a joint status update regarding what remains in dispute of no more than five (5) pages no later than July 6, 2026