CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC vs KOREAN FARM, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

22CV018811: CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC vs KOREAN FARM, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order Continued from June 26, 2026 in Department 520

Tentative Ruling - 09/09/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson

The Motion for Protective Order filed by Rhee Bros., Inc., a Maryland Corporation on 04/06/2026 is Granted in Part.

The Court is in receipt of the parties' proposed orders submitted on August 7, 2026. The Court will review the proposed orders and issue an order. The matter is continued to September 11, 2026 for entry of order only.

Prior tentative ruling is printed below without modification:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Motion of Defendant Rhee Bros, LLC (“Defendant”) for Protective Order as to the Deposition Notice of the Person Most Qualified is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted as to Exhibit 1, which consists of a California court record. (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.) BACKGROUND This motion concerns Topics 1-37 and 40-62, and Requests Nos. 1-54 and 56-78. (Berlin Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 11; Amended Proposed Order.)

In other words, because by Defendant’s representation, Plaintiff agreed to withdraw Topics 3, 38 and 39; and Request 3 and 55, Defendant effectively seeks to produce a PMQ with none of the original topics and requests due to proposed limitations placed on all remaining topics and requests. (Reply, p. 3:3-4, 4:6-9, fn. 4; Amended Proposed Order.) Defendant indicates ‘no proposed revision’ as to Topics 5, 13, 51, 57-60; and Requests 4, 10-21, and 77-78, thereby presumably seeking to strike them altogether.

Defendant argues that the overreaching issues are based on (1) unrelated products (Topics 2, 11, 14, 26–28, 35–37, 42, 47 and Requests 2, 22–27, 36, 38, 40, 45–47, 52–54, 58, 66, and 73); (2) unrelated time (Topics 1, 6-37, 40-62 and Requests 1, 5–54, 56–78); and (3) unrelated place (Topics 5, 9–12, 14, 22–28, 30–31, 33–37, 40–44, 47–48, 51–55, 59–62, and Requests 3, 22–47, 50–54, 56–59, 63–67, 70–73, 75–76, 78) with some overlap among the categories. (Reply, pp. 3:22-4:4.) 22CV018811: CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC vs KOREAN FARM, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order Continued from June 26, 2026 in Department 520 LEGAL STANDARD Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (a).) The court, for good cause shown, may issue a protective order which may include that “the deposition not be taken at all”, “the scope of the examination be limited to certain matters” or that “certain of the writings or tangible things designated in the deposition notice not be produced . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subds. (b)(1); (b)(10); (b)(11).) The issuance and formulation of protective orders are largely discretionary. (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 316–317.)

Judges have broad discretion in controlling the course of discovery and in making the various decisions necessitated by discovery proceedings. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.) In determining whether to issue a protective order, the trial court must weigh the competing needs and interests of the parties in regulating pretrial discovery. (Ibid.) The party seeking a protective order has the burden of showing good cause for the order sought. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) “The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”(Code Civ.

Proc., § 2017.020, subd. (a).) Misuses of discovery include employing discovery in a manner that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (c).)

Generally, a deponent seeking a protective order will be required to show that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness involved in [the discovery procedure] clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Emerson Elec. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1110.)

The court may impose terms or conditions on which the deposition may proceed. (CCP 2025.420(c).)

DISCUSSION

Under C.C.P. § 2025.230, if the PMQ Notice sufficiently describes the matters on which questions will be asked, the business entity is under a duty to designate and produce the officers, directors, managing agents or employees "most qualified" to testify on its behalf having knowledge of such matters, and must testify "to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the" entity. (C.C.P. § 2025.230; see also Maldonado v. Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1396.)

If, at the deposition, the requesting party asks questions outside the scope of the categories listed, then the business entity is not responsible for the fact that the witness may not be prepared to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV018811: CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC vs KOREAN FARM, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order Continued from June 26, 2026 in Department 520 answer the questions and may not have any knowledge (other than his or her own) as to such questions. Nevertheless, this does not preclude the witness from responding based on the knowledge available to him or her, and does not preclude the examining party from asking the question, subject to the deponent's right to move for a protective order if this tactic is so prolonged or excessive as to reflect that the examiner's intent is to subject the deponent to undue burden, oppression or annoyance. (See, e.g., Stewart v.

Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1015.) Some latitude in this area is important, and objections based on scope - - or interrupting the deposition to move for a protective order -- are more likely to prolong the deposition and waste the parties' (and the Court's) resources than allowing the questions. (See id.; Detoy, supra, 196 F.R.D. at p. 367.) Generally, "deponents [should] not be prevented by counsel from answering a question unless it pertains to privileged matters or deposing counsel's conduct has reached a stage where suspension is warranted." (Stewart, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 1015.)

The Court notes that of the 140 topics and requests, Defendant does not agree with a single one as drafted. While this may seem contrary to its claim that it is not making a “blanket refusal to submit to any discovery,” the Court finds Defendant's proposed revisions reasonable, especially in light of the fact that it is unclear how Plaintiff responded on June 17, 2026 in its meet and confer correspondence to them. (Berlin Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, Ex. 4.)

Here, Defendant has shown that there is good cause to issue a protective order as it relates to the scope of questions to prevent unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. In the Reply Declaration, Robin Rhee, the President of Rhee Bros LLC attests to the fact that because of the historical number of products approximating 8,000 products, it would take at least 16,000 hours "to search for, locate, and compile the documents and information” sought. (Rhee Decl. ¶ 5.)

Thus, Defendant is entitled to most of the relief requested. However, the Motion is DENIED as to the topics and requests for which it offers no proposed revisions, including Topics 5, 13, 57-60; and Requests 4, 10-21, and 77-78, as Defendant failed to meet its burden in showing that they fall within any of the three categories. It is also DENIED as to Topics 10, 40, 56, and 67; and GRANTED IN PART and DENIED in PART as to Requests 1-2, 5, 7-9, 22-40, 42, 44-47, 49-54, 56, 60-66, and 68-72. No limiter of “sufficient to identify” shall replace “refer or relate to all” but the limitation to the relevant period and subject products may stand.

The same is true for Requests 41.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. No sanctions are awarded against either party.

The Hearing on Motion for Protective Order Continued from 6-26 scheduled for 09/10/2026 is continued to 09/11/2026 at 10:45 AM in Department 520 at Hayward Hall of Justice.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV018811: CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC vs KOREAN FARM, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order Continued from June 26, 2026 in Department 520 NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on September 10, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on September 9, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or self- represented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.

The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.

The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.

ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.