| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Notice Of Motion To Compel Deposition Testimony From Defendant Stonestown Shopping Center, L.P.'S Pmq, And Request For Sanctions
Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Thursday, April 02, 2026, Line 5.
2 - Plaintiffs Pei-Ci Lei and Xin-Ming Cai's Motion To Compel Deposition Testimony From Defendant Stonestown Shopping Center, L.P.'s PMQ And Request For Sanctions is DENIED.
The parties are reminded of their duty to meet and confer. Section 2016.040 requires the moving parties demonstrates that they have made a reasonable and good faith effort to resolve discovery dispute informally with the other parties before presenting the dispute to the court for resolution. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040.) The Civil Discovery Act is intended to be self-executing; court involvement is the exception, not the rule. (See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 434, quoting Townsend v.
Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1434 ["[I]t is a 'central precept' of the Civil Discovery Act ... that discovery 'be essentially self-executing[.]' "].) Self-execution of the Discovery Act is possible only if the parties work together and engage in reasonable and good faith efforts to informally resolve the discovery disputes before their presentation to the court.
The deposition shall proceed on April 21, 2026. The parties are ordered promptly to figure out a workable schedule for the MSJ (taking into account Plaintiffs' June trial schedule) and take all necessary steps to effectuate it. Plaintiffs' insistence that Defendants remove their MSJ from the calendar as part of these scheduling discussions was unreasonable, given that the deposition could be scheduled and the MSJ could be briefed and heard in an orderly fashion even with the current trial date. Perhaps the schedule is less than ideal, but the parties need to be reasonable in their efforts to resolve such disputes. PMQ depositions take coordination and attorney time, and counsel must consider such circumstances when addressing scheduling. Sanctions are denied.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) 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 contestdept302tr@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.
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?”
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 contestdept302tr@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 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.