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 filed by Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc (Plaintiff) CRS# 052748248054 in Department 520

Tentative Ruling - 09/10/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson

The Motion for Protective Order filed by Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc on 07/01/2026 is Denied.

The Motion of Plaintiff Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) for Protective Order Withdrawing Deposition Subpoena to Plaintiff’s Experts is DENIED.

The parties discussed the subpoenas and deposition notices for the experts at length during the hearing. The parties agreed on three dates for depositions for three experts. Defendants agreed to not pursue the pending subpoenas for documents without first meeting and conferring if the three depositions do not proceed as agreed (or documents are not timely produced). In addition, the parties agreed to meet and confer and submit a joint status report no later than September 23, 2026 regarding scheduling of the remaining six experts for deposition.

This underlying motion for protective order is, thus, denied to the extent consistent with this order above, the minutes in the matter, and the oral discussion at the hearing.

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

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is granted as to Exhibits A through E. (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (c), (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.)

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(a).) “The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Id., subd. (b).) “The issuance and formulation of protective orders are to a large extent discretionary.” (Nativi v.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 316.) “[T]he burden is on the party seeking the protective order to show good cause for whatever order is sought.” (Id. at p. 22CV018811: CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC vs KOREAN FARM, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order filed by Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc (Plaintiff) CRS# 052748248054 in Department 520 318.)

“After the setting of the initial trial date for the action, any party may obtain discovery by demanding that all parties simultaneously exchange information concerning each other's expert trial witnesses ....” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.210.) “On receipt of an expert witness list from a party, any other party may take the deposition of any person on the list.” (Id., § 2034.410.)

“Code of Civil Procedure section 2034 prescribes a detailed legislative scheme for discovery of expert witnesses, including parties. It establishes the times and conditions for such discovery.” (County of L.A. v. Superior Court (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1446, 1456.) Under Section 2034, “expert witnesses may be deposed only on receipt of an expert witness list.” (Ibid.)

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer Efforts

The declaration submitted with this motion does not satisfy the meet-and-confer requirement. On June 19, 2026, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendants Defendants Rhee Bros, LLC and Korean Farm, LLC (“Defendants”) objecting to Defendants’ deposition subpoenas for production of business records on Plaintiff’s retained experts. (Yeroushalmi Decl., Ex. F.) However, as Defendants point out, it does not reference as a basis the alleged untimeliness of the subpoenas. (Oppo., pp. 10:23-11:4.) Regardless of the reason why Plaintiff failed to raise its premature expert discovery argument prior to this motion, this letter does not constitute a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the dispute without the need to file a motion, as required. (See Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439; Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 432-433.)

Notwithstanding this defect, the Court has reviewed the motion on the merits on this occasion, but Plaintiff is reminded to comply with all local rules, California rules of Court and statutory requirements going forward in this litigation.

Substance

As an initial matter, the Court notes that this motion is not limited to the nine deposition subpoenas as to Plaintiff’s retained experts, but also “any other subpoenas for business records that Defendants have filed or may file to CAG’s experts in this case.” (MPA, p. 2:13-15.) This is too vague and the Court therefore declines to consider any other subpoena besides the nine expressly referenced.

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 filed by Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc (Plaintiff) CRS# 052748248054 in Department 520

Timeliness

In compliance with CCP section 2034.220, Defendants served their demands for exchange of expert witness information on Plaintiff on March 6, 2026. (Berlin Decl., Ex. A.) On March 26, 2026, Plaintiff served in response its witness designation for testifying experts. (Berlin Decl., Ex. B.) On March 31, 2026, Defendants served Notices of Deposition for each of the nine experts. (Berlin Decl., Ex. E.) After Plaintiff served objections in response and the parties could not agree on the logistics, Defendants thereafter served the subject deposition subpoenas throughout June and July 2026. (Berlin Decl., ¶ 17; Yeroushalmi Decl., Exs. A-D.) It appears that only one is domiciled in California – Walter Meneses while others are domiciled in other states. (Berlin Decl., Ex. B; Oppo., p. 13:15, fn. 1.)

On March 30, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date and Related Deadlines, including Discovery Closure Deadlines, continuing the trial to October 2, 2026 and indicating that all discovery deadlines would be continued with said new trial date. (ROA.)

On August 13, 2026, Plaintiff served another witness designation for testifying experts with the same experts. (Berlin Decl., ¶ 21, Ex. N.) On August 14, 2026, Defendants served deposition notices on all the nine experts, seeking the same documents as sought in the subpoenas. (Berlin Decl., ¶ 22, Ex. O.)

Defendants argue that in Plaintiff’s re-serving of a second expert witness designation, Plaintiff’s untimeliness challenge to the subpoenas is moot. The Court agrees. More importantly, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to issue a protective order as to subpoenas that were issued in other states. Thus, the Court can only consider the deposition subpoena as to Dr. Meneses. Plaintiff offers no argument in support of why the subpoena for business records is improper, and instead focuses on other experts. (Reply, pp. 6:9-7:24.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. Sanctions are also denied as are Defendants’ excessive cross-request for sanctions.

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

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 filed by Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc (Plaintiff) CRS# 052748248054 in Department 520 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.