CHANG H. AHN ET AL VS. BUCHALTER, ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC23606831 - September 4, 2025 Hearing date: September 4, 2025 Case number: CGC23606831 Case title: CHANG H. AHN ET AL VS. BUCHALTER, ET AL Case Number: | | CGC23606831 | Case Title: | | CHANG H. AHN ET AL VS. BUCHALTER, ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-09-04 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For Protective Order Terminating, Or, In The Alternatvie, Limiting The Scope Of Deposition Of Counsel, Mark Choi And Request For Monetary Sanctions;Memorandum Of Points And Authorities | Rulings: | | Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Thursday, September 4, 2025, line 2, DEFENDANT HR E&I, INC.'S Motion For Protective Order Terminating, Or, In The Alternatvie, Limiting The Scope Of Deposition Of Counsel, Mark Choi And Request For Monetary Sanctions (tentative ruling part 1 of 2)

Buchalter PC has noticed the deposition of Mark Choi, counsel for defendant HR E&I Co., Ltd., the judgment debtor in this action. Choi now moves for a protective order to protect HR E&I's privilege; Choi also seeks sanctions.

The motion is granted on grounds not briefed by the parties: Buchalter has proceeded by way of a deposition subpoena and notice of deposition under Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 2025.220 et seq. (Choi Dec. Ex. 2.) The Civil Discovery Act "applies to discovery in aid of enforcement of a money judgment only to the extent provided in Article 1 (commencing with Section 708.010) of Chapter 6 of Title 9 of Part 2." (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 2016.070.)

There is no provision in the judgment enforcement statutes allowing depositions upon notice; rather, a party must seek an order of examination from the court for an oral examination of either the judgment debtor or of third parties claimed to be in possession of assets of the judgment debtor. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 708.110, 708.120.)

Here, Buchalter obtained an order on February 18, 2025, confirming an arbitration award entered in its favor. That order is not styled as a separate final judgment. But all parties have treated it like a final judgment: Buchalter has not submitted a separate proposed judgment for endorsement, and has filed a memorandum of costs, which is filed after entry of judgment. (Mem. of Costs, Mar. 6, 2025; Rule of Court 3.1700, subd. (a).) HR E&I has filed a notice of appeal stating that its appeal is from a final judgment entered February 18, 2025. (Notice of Appeal, Feb. 26, 2025.) For purposes of this motion, then, both parties have treated the February 18, 2025 order as a final judgment.

Post-judgment discovery procedures therefore apply, and they are not the same as pre-judgment discovery procedures. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 2016.070.) Choi's motion for protective order is granted without prejudice to Buchalter's seeking an order of examination.

Both parties seek sanctions. The court finds both parties' positions to lack substantial justification and does not award sanctions. Because the court's tentative is based on a ground not raised by the parties, the court will allow supplemental briefing if either party seeks the opportunity to brief the applicability of 708.110 and 708.120 in lieu of 2025.220. (end of tentative ruling part 1, see part 2) = (302/CVA) | |