Kui Ma vs Hau-Ching Liao, et. al.

LINE CASE NO. CASE TITLE TENTATIVE RULING 9:00 20CV366946 Rajesh Raghani vs. Defendant moves this court to grant relief from previous order to deem admissions 1 Samir Maharjan, as true. Defendant cites that hisan mother passed away in April 2022 and his father et.al. passed away in November 2022 and he was in a period of one year religious mourning in Nepal. However the request for admissions by plaintiff were not filed until November 30 2023, one year after the unfortunate events. This court finds that Defendant’s failure to answer does not constitute excusable neglect.

Defendant’s motion is DENIED. 9:00 22CV408165 Andrew Mo vs Defendant moves this court to reconsider its earlier ruling calculating the tolling 2-3 Samsumg Research statute incorrectly. Court disagrees. CCP section 1008 does not permit a party to America, Inc. withhold and alternating argument, lose, and then select to litigate the issue in a motion for reconsideration. There are no new facts presented here by the Defendant. In fact, Defendant originally made the argument that CCP section 356 did not apply, but now argues that the section applies and the tolling statute was miscalculated by court.

It is late in the day to bring up this new theory, even if the tolling numbers were incorrect. Defendant’s motion to reconsider Plaintiff’s demurrer motion is DENIED. Defendant’s motion to reconsider Plaintiff’s motion to lift stay on discovery is DENIED.

9:00 23CV410155 Kui Ma vs Hau-Ching Defendant Liao filed a motion for terminating sanctions on April 14, 2026 against 4 Liao, et. al. Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant. Neither Plaintiff nor Cross-Defendant filed answers opposing Defendant Liao’s motion. Defendant Liao’s motion is GRANTED. 9:00 24CV436120 Kelly Maycock vs. Plaintiff petitions this court to Compel Further Discovery Responses and 5 Matthew Santiago, Document Production. Plaintiff’s RFP 49-51, 57, and 58 all are requests for et.al. communications regarding Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s petition to Compel Further Discovery Responses as to RFP 49-51, 57 and 58 are overbroad and vague. Plaintiff’s petition to Compel Further Discovery Responses as to RFP 49-51, 57 and 58 are DENIED. Plaintiff’s requests for RFP 52-54 require documents relating to attorney work product and is therefore privileged. This court does not find the recent case Paknard persuasive as the discovery dealt with a third party investigation while UPS completed an internal report and provided documents to Plaintitiff Plaintiff’s petition to Compel Further Discovery Responses as to RFP 52- 54 are DENIED.

RFP 55 seeks communication regarding grievances against Defendant Santiago. Court finds this request relevant. Plaintiff’s petition to Compel Further Discovery Responses as to RFP 55 is GRANTED. RFP 59 seeks communications regarding elimination of Mr. Santiago’s position. Plaintiff’s petition to Compel Further Discovery as to RFP 59 is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s petition to Compel Further Discovery as to RFP 60-61 (request for native versions of investigative reports and interview notes) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s petition to Compel Further Discovery as to RFP 63-66 for investigative reports and interviews covering Plaintiff’s sexual harassment claims is relevant and is GRANTED.