ALEXANDER XUE VS. ROUND ONE ENTERTAINMENT INC

Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Monday, June 09, 2025, line 3, PLAINTIFF ALEXANDER XUE'S Motion To Compel Further Responses To Demands For Inspection And For Sanctions (tentative ruling part 1, see part 2) Hearing required.

The court's tentative appears below. Plaintiff Alexander Xue moves to compel further responses from defendant Round One Entertainment, Inc. to Xue's first round of document demands. Xue's document demands are quite broad. Round One submitted initial responses that did not comply strictly with CCP 2031.240, and in particular did not specify what documents would be produced and what categories of documents would be withheld pursuant to objection.

In subsequent meet and confer efforts, Round One offered to produce significant categories of documents provided a protective order was in place. Round One attempted to negotiate a protective order, to which Xue was initially amenable, but Xue later declined and refused to negotiate.

The court continues this matter for hearing to September 12, 2025. The parties are ordered to meet and confer about a protective order, but no more than one session of telephonic or in person meet-and-confer effort is required by this order. The court will entertain a motion or ex parte motion for protective order if necessary. Round One is ordered to make its proffered initial production within 10 days after a protective order issues. Round One is cautioned not to delay getting its protective order in place through a motion if necessary so that production has been made and further informal resolution efforts can occur before the continued hearing date.

Xue shall advise the court of what, if any, remains in dispute concerning this motion by supplemental briefing of no more than 10 pages, filed ten court days in advance of the continued hearing date. Round One may respond in supplemental briefing of no more than 10 pages, filed five court days in advance of the continued hearing date.

Both parties seek sanctions. As a pro per litigant, Xue is not entitled to receive an award tantamount to fees but may recover his costs. (See Kravitz v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1017 ["A pro se litigant cannot recover attorney's fees as a discovery sanction, but he can recover the 'reasonable expenses' he has 'incurred,' including photocopying, computer-assisted legal research, and other identifiable and allocable costs"].) The court defers consideration of sanctions to the continued hearing.