Motion to Intervene & Stay Discovery
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230
DATE: 05/27/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 21CV389381 Dee Sheslter MOTION: LEAVE TO FILE v. Shelly Koning Please control click or scroll down to Line 1 LINE 2 23CV413944 Xiufeng Xie MOTION: SANCTIONS v. Doe, et al - Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Motion for Sanctions Doe v. Xiufeng Xie Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 authorizes sanctions for actions or tactics undertaken in bad faith that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. Defendant/Cross-Complainant has not made the requisite showing to warrant the imposition of sanctions under the statute.
Although the Court finds that Defendant/Cross-Complainant has now made a sufficient showing supporting protections pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 367.3, the Court does not find that Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant knowingly violated those protections or otherwise acted in a manner warranting sanctions.
Accordingly, the motion for sanctions is DENIED.
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant shall prepare and submit the final proposed order, together with the required EFS-020 forms, within 7 days of the hearing date. LINE 3 24CV430700 Metropolis System MOTION TO INTERVENE & STAY DISCOVERY LLC v. Cryptic Labs LLC Please control click or scroll down to Line 3
Calendar Line 3
Non-party Republic of Palau’s Motion to Intervene and Stay Discovery Deadlines “for the limited purpose of protecting its interests in protecting particularly sensitive documents related to its Program from discovery.”
The Court has read and considered the moving papers, declarations, and opposition thereto. The Court finds that the moving party has not established a sufficient basis for intervention under Code of Civil Procedure section 387. The Republic has not demonstrated a direct and immediate interest in the subject matter of this litigation warranting intervention, nor has it shown that disposition of the action will impair its ability to protect a legally cognizable interest.
The motion is unsupported by competent evidence. No declaration from an authorized official of the Republic of Palau has been submitted establishing the nature of the asserted sovereign interest, the specific documents at issue, the basis for any claimed confidentiality protections, or why existing procedures are inadequate to protect any legitimate interests.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The Court has previously determined that confidentiality concerns relating to discovery may be addressed through an appropriate protective order. The Republic of Palau has not demonstrated why such measures are insufficient.
The Court also notes that this action involves a dispute pending between private litigants in California and has been pending since February 2024. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery on November 14, 2025. The instant motion was filed only after the Court ordered compliance and appears directed principally toward forestalling discovery obligations already adjudicated by the Court. The Court subsequently denied Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery on March 27, 2026.
To the extent the current motion relies upon generalized assertions of foreign sovereign interests, the Court finds such assertions insufficient on the present record to warrant intervention or a stay of discovery in this action, particularly where the discovery concerns appear related to commercial dealings implicated in litigation between private parties in California. Principles of international comity do not divest this Court of its authority to manage discovery and adjudicate disputes properly before it.
The request for intervention and stay of discovery is DENIED.
Plaintiff to prepare the final proposed order, accompanied by the necessary Forms EFS-020, within 7 days of the date of the hearing.