Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV38166, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling
The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.
Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.
Case Number: 21STCV38166 Hearing Date: December 19, 2022 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for
Production (Sets One and Two) Against Defendant Blake Sing Hon and Request for
Sanctions
Moving Party: Plaintiffs
Chen Feng and Zhen Zhong Cao
Resp. Party: Defendant Blake Sing Hon and Nominal Defendant LV Cheyenne LLC
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs’ Special
Interrogatories (Set One) Against Defendant Blake Sing Hon and Request for
Sanctions
Moving Party: Plaintiffs
Chen Feng and Zhen Zhong Cao
Resp. Party: Defendant Blake Sing Hon and Nominal Defendant LV Cheyenne LLC
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for
Production (Sets One and Two) Against Nominal Defendant LV Cheyenne LLC and
Request for Sanctions
Moving Party: Plaintiffs
Chen Feng and Zhen Zhong Cao
Resp. Party: Defendant Blake Sing Hon and Nominal Defendant LV Cheyenne LLC
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs’ Special
Interrogatories (Set One) Against Nominal Defendant LV Cheyenne LLC and Request
for Sanctions
Moving Party: Plaintiffs
Chen Feng and Zhen Zhong Cao
Resp. Party: Defendant Blake Sing Hon and Nominal Defendant LV Cheyenne LLC
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Defendants’ Depositions and Request for Sanctions
Moving Party: Plaintiffs
Chen Feng and Zhen Zhong Cao
Resp. Party: Defendant Blake Sing Hon and Nominal Defendant LV Cheyenne LLC
Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel Further SROGs Against Defendant and Motion to
Compel Further SROGs Against Nominal Defendant are GRANTED. Defendant and
Nominal Defendant have 30 days from the issuance of this Order to serve
responses on Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel Further RPDs Against Defendant and Motion to
Compel Further RPDs Against Nominal Defendant are GRANTED. The Court grants in
full the Motions as to RPDs 14, 29 through 41, and 45 through 55. The Court
also grants RPDs 26, 27, 43, and 44, as limited below:
·
RPD 26: Granted as to the
production of Nominal Defendant’s tax returns from 2007 through 2016.
·
RPD 27: Granted as to the
production of Nominal Defendant’s K-1s from 2007 through 2016.
·
RPD 29: Granted as to production of Nominal
Defendant’s detailed general ledger from 2007 through August 31, 2002.
·
RPD 43: Granted as to documents
sufficient to show Nominal Defendant’s loan payment history for loans made from
2007 to the current date.
·
RPD 44: Granted as to Nominal
Defendant’s 2007 Cathay Bank loan agreement.
Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel Depositions is GRANTED. Defendant Hon shall be made available
for deposition within 30 days of the issuance of this Order.
Sanctions
are AWARDED for Plaintiffs and against Defendants and their Counsel, jointly
and severally, in the total amount of $8,000.00.
BACKGROUND:
On October 15, 2021, Plaintiff Chen Feng and
Zhen Zhong Cao, suing individually and derivatively on behalf of LV Cheyenne
LLC, filed their Complaint against Defendant Blake Sing Hon and Nominal
Defendant LV Cheyenne LLC on various causes of action.
On December 8, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their First
Amended Derivative Complaint against Defendant and Nominal Defendant on the
following causes of action:
(1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty;
(2) Constructive Fraud;
(3) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and
Fair Dealing;
(4) Waste of Corporate Assets;
(5) Unjust Enrichment;
(6) Accounting;
(7) Recovery of Improper Distributions;
(8) Enforcement of California Corporate Code
section 17708.08; and
(9) Declaratory Relief.
On August 5, 2022, Defendant filed his Answer.
On August 19, 2022, Defendant filed his
Amended Answer.
On November 15, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the
following motions:
(1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to
Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production (Sets One and Two) Against Defendant Blake
Sing Hon and Request for Sanctions (“Motion to Compel Further RPDs Against
Defendant”);
(2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to
Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories (Set One) Against Defendant Blake Sing Hon
and Request for Sanctions (“Motion to Compel Further SROGs Against Defendant”);
(3) Motion to Compel Further Responses to
Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production (Sets One and Two) Against Nominal
Defendant LV Cheyenne LLC and Request for Sanctions (“Motion to Compel Further
RPDs Against Nominal Defendant”);
(4) Motion to Compel Further Responses to
Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories (Set One) Against Nominal Defendant LV
Cheyenne LLC and Request for Sanctions (“Motion to Compel Further SROGs Against
Nominal Defendant”); and
(5) Motion
to Compel Defendants’ Depositions and Request for Sanctions (“Motion to Compel
Depositions”).
Plaintiffs concurrently filed Separate
Statements with each of the Motions (except for the Motion to Compel
Depositions), as well as a Declaration and a Proposed Order.
Defendant and Nominal Defendant filed:
(1) Combined Opposition of Defendant Blake Sing
Hon and Nominal Defendant LV Cheyenne LLC to Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel
Defendants’ Further Responses to Requests for Production (“Combined Opposition
to Requests for RPDs”);
(2) Combined Opposition of Defendant Blake Sing
Hon and Nominal Defendant LV Cheyenne LLC to Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel
Defendants’ Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (“Combined
Opposition to Requests for SROGs”); and
(3) Combined Opposition of Defendant Blake Sing
Hon and Nominal Defendant LV Cheyenne LLC to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Depositions (“Combined Opposition to Motion to Compel Depositions”).
Defendant and Nominal Defendant concurrently
filed two Declarations and their Evidentiary Objections.
On December 12, 2022, Plaintiffs filed: (1)
Reply in Support of the Motions to Compel Further Responses to Requests for
Production (Sets One and Two) (“RPD Reply”); (2) Reply in Support of the
Motions to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories (Set
One) (“SROG Reply”); and (3) Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Defendants’ Depositions (“Deposition Reply”).
ANALYSIS:
For clarity and ease
of consideration, the Court first considers the Evidentiary Objections. The
Court then separates its analysis into sections considering the Motion to
Compel Depositions separately from the other four Motions.
I.
Evidentiary Objections
Defendant and Nominal Defendant filed two Evidentiary
Objections to Plaintiffs’ Declaration. The Court OVERRULES both Evidentiary
Objections.
II.
Motions to Compel Further Responses to RPDs and SROGs
A. Legal Standard
A motion to compel further responses to
requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause
justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) “To establish ‘good cause,’ the burden is on the
moving party to show both: [¶] Relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the
information in the documents would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the
case); and [¶] Specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information
is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial.)
[Citations.] [¶] The fact that there is no alternative source for the
information sought is an important factor in establishing ‘good cause’ for
inspection. But it is not essential in every case.” (Edmon & Karnow,
California Practice Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶
8:1495.6.) “For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might
reasonably assist a party in
evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’
[Citation] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is
discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation]
These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” (Gonzales v.
Super. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)
“If ‘good cause’ is shown by the moving
party, the burden is then on the responding party to justify any objections
made to document disclosure (the same as on motions to compel answers to
interrogatories or deposition questions).” (Edmon & Karnow, supra,
at ¶ 8:1496.)
B.
Discussion
1. Requests for Production of Documents
Plaintiffs move the Court to compel Defendant
and Nominal Defendant to provide further responses to the following Requests
for Production. (While Plaintiffs compel Defendant and Nominal Defendant in
separate motions, the requests are identical as to both Defendant and Nominal
Defendant.)
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
All DOCUMENTS RELATED TO the expenses paid by
the COMPANY since January 1, 2017.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:
ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO COMPANY’S tax
returns from 2007 through 2016 including each year’s respective K-1s.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27:
ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO COMPANY’S K-1s for
years 2007-2016
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29:
ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO COMPANY’S detailed
general ledger from 2007 through August 31, 2022.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:
A complete copy of COMPANY’S QuickBooks
electronic file in its native format with metadata for the time-period January
1, 2007 to present.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:
A complete copy of COMPANY’S QuickBooks
backup electronic file in its native format with metadata from January 1, 2007
to present.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32:
All DOCUMENTS RELATED TO COMPANY’S bank
records showing the disposition of the October 7, 2021 withdrawal in the amount
of $150,000 out of Cathay Bank account x3108.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33:
All DOCUMENTS RELATED TO COMPANY’S bank
records showing the disposition of Check Number 1834 in the amount of $50,000
out of Cathay Bank account x3108 on November 19, 2021.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34:
All DOCUMENTS RELATED TO COMPANY’S bank
records showing the disposition of Check Number 1835 in the amount of $140,000
out of Cathay Bank account x3108 on January 4, 2022.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35:
All DOCUMENTS RELATED TO COMPANY’S bank
records showing the disposition of Check Number 104009385 in the amount of
$17,754.33 out of Cathay Bank account x3108 on March 23, 2022.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36:
All DOCUMENTS RELATED TO COMPANY’S new
checking account, which was opened with Cathay Bank at the end of 2021,
including but not limited to, all bank statements, copies of checks and records
of deposits for this account from the date opened through present.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37:
ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO “Consulting
Services” for which payment was made to Kenneth Wan, including but not limited
to invoices showing the services performed.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38:
ALL COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO the “Consulting
Services” for which payment was made to Kenneth Wan.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39:
ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO COMPANY’S negative
rental income of $31,490.58 in December 2014 as reflected in Hon 00164.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40:
ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO the refund check
number #1509 dated 12/2/2014 in the amount of $48,000 which was paid to S&S
Supplies.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41:
All DOCUMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO
the reduction in the contributions by Sun Yin as reflected in the COMPANY’S
2013 journal entry (see Hon 00139 through Hon 00187).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43:
All DOCUMENTS RELATED TO COMPANY’S loan
payment history for all loans through the current date.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44:
All DOCUMENTS RELATED TO COMPANY’S 2007
Cathay Bank loan, including but not limited to a copy of the 2007 Cathay Bank
loan agreement.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45:
All invoices for the payment to S&S
Supplies made on March 3, 2008 by check number 1022 in the amount of $4,769.27.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46:
All invoices for the payment to S&S
Supplies made on February 2, 2011 in the amount of $500 by check number 1240.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47:
All invoices for the payment to S&S
Supplies made on November 13, 2012 in the amount of $648.62 by check number
1372.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48:
All invoices for the payment to S&S
Supplies made on December 11, 2012 in the amount of $2,413.40 by check number
1377.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49:
All invoices for the payment to S&S
Supplies made on January 13, 2014 in the amount of $9,520.95 by check number
1452.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50:
All DOCUMENTS evidencing the source of the
$50,000 deposit to account 3108 on May 29, 2018.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51:
All DOCUMENTS evidencing the source of the
$50,000 deposit to account 3108 on August 14, 2018.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52:
All DOCUMENTS evidencing the source of the
$50,000 deposit to account 3108 on August 29, 2018.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53:
All DOCUMENTS evidencing the source of the
$100,000 deposit to account 3108 on January 8, 2019.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54:
All DOCUMENTS evidencing the source of the
$10,000 deposit to account 3108 on May 7, 2019.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55:
All DOCUMENTS RELATED TO insurance
reimbursements to S&S Brothers.
(Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Further RPDs
Against Defendant; Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Further
RPDs Against Nominal Defendant.)
2.
Special Interrogatories
Plaintiffs move the Court to compel Defendant
and Nominal Defendant to provide further responses to the following Special
Interrogatories. (While Plaintiffs compel Defendant and Nominal Defendant in
separate motions, the requests are identical as to both Defendant and Nominal
Defendant.)
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
IDENTIFY all of the COMPANY'S current
liabilities.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
DESCRIBE IN DETAIL all liabilities that
the COMPANY has incurred since January 1, 2017.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS RELATED TO the
liabilities that the COMPANY has incurred since January 1, 2017.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS RELATED TO the
expenses that the COMPANY has paid since January 1, 2017.
(Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Further SROGs
Against Defendant; Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Further
SROGs Against Nominal Defendant.)
3.
Analysis
a.
Requests for Production
Plaintiffs
argue that Defendant and Nominal Defendant have withheld documents that should
have been produced. (Motion to Compel Further RPDs Against Defendant, p.
7:21–23; Motion to Compel Further RPDs Against Nominal Defendant, p. 7:25–26.)
Defendants
argue the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion because the Motions fail to
affirmatively establish good cause and the Separate Statements are defective.
(Combined Opposition to Requests for RPDs, pp. 3:20, 5:7–9.)
Plaintiffs
reply that Plaintiffs have met the good cause requirement and their Separate
Statements comply with all requirements. (RPD Reply, pp. 3:10–11, 5:1–2.)
The
Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause for the Court to
compel further production responses and that any procedural issues with
Plaintiffs’ Separate Statements are negligible.
However,
the Court does agree with Defendant and Nominal Defendant that some of
Plaintiffs’ requests for production are overbroad. This is especially the case
with the requests that use the phrase “relating to,” as that phrase tends to
make requests vague and overbroad.
The
Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further RPDs
Against Defendant and Motion to Compel Further RPDs Against Nominal Defendant.
The Court grants in full the Motions as to RPDs 14, 30 through 41, and 45
through 55. The Court also grants RPDs 26, 27, 29, 43, and 44, as limited
below:
·
RPD 26: Granted as to Nominal
Defendant’s tax returns from 2007 through 2016.
·
RPD 27: Granted as to Nominal
Defendant’s K-1s from 2007 through 2016.
·
RPD 29: Granted as to production of Nominal Defendant’s
detailed general ledger from 2007 through August 31, 2002.
·
RPD 43: Granted as to
documents sufficient to show Nominal Defendant’s loan payment history for loans
made from 2007 to the current date.
·
RPD 44: Granted as to Nominal
Defendant’s 2007 Cathay Bank loan agreement.
b.
Special
Interrogatories
Plaintiffs
argue that Defendant and Nominal Defendant have only produced responses
containing information through March 31, 2022 instead of responses that are
current. (SROG Reply, p. 2:2–12.) Plaintiffs argue that current responses are
required because the underlying action involves the alleged self-dealing of
Defendant Hon. (Id.)
Defendant
and Nominal Defendant argue that these Motions should be denied because
Plaintiffs’ Separate Statements are defective, Defendant and Nominal Defendant
complied with their discovery burdens, and the Parties have never met and
conferred regarding the Special Interrogatories. (Combined Opposition to
Requests for SROGs, pp. 4:5–6, 5:20–22.)
The
Court does not agree with Defendant’s and Nominal Defendant’s arguments.
Specifically, the Parties’ respective Counsel have met and conferred (including
as recently as October 28, 2022), the discovery responses are insufficient in
that they are not current, and any procedural issues with the Separate
Statements are negligible. (Decl. Adams, ¶ 48.)
After
considering the papers, the Court finds that it would be appropriate to compel
Defendant and Nominal Defendant to produce further responses to the Special
Interrogatories listed above.
The
Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further SROGs
Against Defendant and Motion to Compel Further SROGs Against Nominal Defendant.
Defendant and Nominal Defendant have 30 days from the issuance of this Order to
serve responses on Plaintiffs.
III.
Motion to Compel
Depositions
A.
Legal Standard
Any party may obtain discovery, subject to
restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party
to the action.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)¿A properly-served deposition
notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend
and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and
copying.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)¿¿
“If the deponent named is not a natural person, the
deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on
which examination is requested. In that event, the deponent shall designate and
produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents,
employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to
those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to
the deponent.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.230.)
“If, after service of a deposition notice, a
party . . . fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to
produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice,
the party giving notice may move for an order compelling deponent’s attendance
and testimony, and the production . . . of any document . . . described in the
deposition notice.”¿¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)¿The motion must
set forth both facts showing good cause justifying the demand for any documents
and a meet and confer declaration.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1), (b)(2).) “Implicit in the requirement that counsel
contact the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance is a requirement that
counsel listen to the reasons offered and make a good faith attempt to resolve
the issue,” including by rescheduling. (Leko v. Cornerstone Bldg. Inspection
Serv. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1124.)
B.
Analysis
Plaintiffs
move the Court to compel Defendant Hon to appear for a deposition, both in his individual
capacity and as the person most knowledgeable on behalf of Nominal Defendant.
(Motion to Compel Depositions, p. 1:7–10.) Plaintiffs argue that they need the
Court to compel Defendant Hon to appear because Defendants have avoided
deposition for more than three months. (Id. at pp. 5:5–11, 5:25–26.)
Defendant
and Nominal Defendant argue that they would like to proceed with the
depositions as soon as possible, and that the reason why a reason a recent
deposition of Defendant Hon did not occur is because Counsel Krol “contracted a
severe upper respiratory infection and lost the ability to speak.” (Combined
Opposition to Motion to Compel Depositions, pp. 2:5–13, 3:2; Decl. Krol, ¶ 2.)
Plaintiffs
reply that Defendant and Nominal Defendant have still failed to provide
Plaintiffs with alternative deposition dates. (Deposition Reply, p. 1:13–15.)
The
Court finds that it is unreasonable for Plaintiffs to wait for more than three
months to obtain Defendant Hon’s deposition, both in his individual capacity and
in his capacity as Nominal Defendant’s person most knowledgeable.
The
Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Depositions. Defendant Hon shall be
made available for deposition within 30 days of the issuance of this Order.
IV.
Sanctions
The
Court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney
who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a deposition, a motion
to compel interrogatories, and/or a motion to compel production of documents,
unless the Court finds that the one subject to sanction acted with substantial
justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction
unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.450, subd. (g)(1), 2030.290, subd. (c),
2031.300, subd. (c).)
Defendant
and Nominal Defendant have unsuccessfully opposed all five of the discovery
motions discussed at issue. In addition, the Court does not have evidence
before it that indicates Defendant, Nominal Defendant, or their Counsel acted
with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition
of sanctions unjust. Thus, the Court must impose monetary sanctions.
Plaintiffs
request sanctions against Defendant, Nominal Defendant, and their Counsel,
jointly and severally in the total amount of $27,350.00. (See, for example, Motion
to Compel Depositions, p. 1:19–27.)
Plaintiffs’
Counsel declares the following: (1) that three attorneys worked on this matter,
who are respectively paid $450 per hour (a partner with 17 years of
experience), $425 per hour (another attorney with 17 years of experience), and
$300 per hour (an associate with 2 years of experience); (2) that the partner
anticipates spending a total of 25 hours on these discovery issues, including
18 hours in connection with meet and confer efforts and 5.5 hours to prepare
Plaintiffs’ reply papers; (3) that the other attorney spent 28 hours on these
discovery items; (4) that the associate spent 14 hours on these discovery
items; and (5) that the costs incurred for these five motions are $420.33.
The
Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Counsels’ hourly rates and incurred costs are
reasonable. However, the Court does not find it to be reasonable that Counsel
spent 67 hours on these discovery motions.
The
Court awards sanctions for Plaintiffs and against Defendants and their Counsel,
jointly and severally, in the total amount of $8,000.00.
V.
Conclusion
Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel Further SROGs Against Defendant and Motion to
Compel Further SROGs Against Nominal Defendant are GRANTED. Defendant and
Nominal Defendant have 30 days from the issuance of this Order to serve
responses on Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel Further RPDs Against Defendant and Motion to
Compel Further RPDs Against Nominal Defendant are GRANTED. The Court grants in
full the Motions as to RPDs 14, 30 through 41, and 45 through 55. The Court
also grants RPDs 26, 27, 43, and 44, as limited below:
·
RPD 26: Granted as to production
of Nominal Defendant’s tax returns from 2007 through
2016.
·
RPD 27: Granted as to production
of Nominal Defendant’s K-1s from 2007 through 2016.
·
RPD 29: Granted as to production of Nominal Defendant’s
detailed general ledger from 2007 through August 31, 2002.
·
RPD 43: Granted as to
documents sufficient to show Nominal Defendant’s loan payment history for loans
made from 2007 to the current date.
·
RPD 44: Granted as to Nominal
Defendant’s 2007 Cathay Bank loan agreement.
Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel Depositions is GRANTED. Defendant Hon shall be made available
for deposition within 30 days of the issuance of this Order.
Sanctions
are AWARDED for Plaintiffs and against Defendants and their Counsel, jointly
and severally, in the total amount of $8,000.00.