This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/03/2020 at 06:07:11 (UTC).

DENNIS YANG, ET AL. VS. JIA JIA "JANE" LIN, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 05/09/2018 DENNIS YANG filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against JIA JIA JANE LIN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WILLIAM D. STEWART. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8520

  • Filing Date:

    05/09/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

WILLIAM D. STEWART

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Cross Defendants and Not Classified By Court

YANG DENNIS

YANG LI CHUN LEE

JASPER SPRING INC.

LIN JIA "JANE"

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Not Classified By Court

LIN JIA JIA "JANE"

JASPER SPRING INC.

LIN JIA "JANE"

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

DAVID S. LIN

LIN DAVID SWEI-CHUAN

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP

QUINTANA ANDRES FELIPE

 

Court Documents

Complaint -

7/13/2018: Complaint -

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

10/13/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

10/13/2020: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

8/10/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

8/10/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO DO...)

7/24/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO DO...)

Reply - REPLY TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPEC ROGS, SET 1

7/17/2020: Reply - REPLY TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPEC ROGS, SET 1

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

7/6/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

6/17/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

Separate Statement

5/20/2020: Separate Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE SETTING OF MOTION FILED MAY 20 AND 21, 2020)

5/21/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE SETTING OF MOTION FILED MAY 20 AND 21, 2020)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE SETTING OF MOTION FILED MAY 20 AND 21, 2020) OF 05/21/2020

5/21/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE SETTING OF MOTION FILED MAY 20 AND 21, 2020) OF 05/21/2020

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER JOINT STIPULATION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE

3/4/2020: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER JOINT STIPULATION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE

Order - PROPOSED ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE

3/5/2020: Order - PROPOSED ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE

Substitution of Attorney

5/29/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER DEFENDANTS AND CROSS COMPLAINANTS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AND ORDER STABLISHING ADMISSIONS DUE TO PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS AND CROS-COMP

4/2/2019: Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER DEFENDANTS AND CROSS COMPLAINANTS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AND ORDER STABLISHING ADMISSIONS DUE TO PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS AND CROS-COMP

Case Management Statement -

9/25/2018: Case Management Statement -

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

10/25/2018: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

59 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/03/2021
  • Hearing05/03/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department A at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2021
  • Hearing05/03/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department A at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Dennis Yang (Plaintiff); Li Chun Lee Yang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Dennis Yang (Plaintiff); Li Chun Lee Yang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketAnswer (to First Amended Complaint); Filed by Jasper Spring, Inc. (Defendant); Jia Jia "Jane" Lin (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Dennis Yang (Plaintiff); Li Chun Lee Yang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • DocketAmended Complaint ( (1st)); Filed by Dennis Yang (Plaintiff); Li Chun Lee Yang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
77 More Docket Entries
  • 07/13/2018
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by Jasper Spring, Inc. (Cross-Complainant); Jia Jia "Jane" Lin (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Dennis Yang (Plaintiff); Li Chun Lee Yang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Dennis Yang (Plaintiff); Li Chun Lee Yang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2018
  • DocketRequest For Copies; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Dennis Yang (Plaintiff); Li Chun Lee Yang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Dennis Yang (Plaintiff); Li Chun Lee Yang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Dennis Yang (Plaintiff); Li Chun Lee Yang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC068520    Hearing Date: August 21, 2020    Dept: A

The Superior Court is open under “Here for You | Safe for You” Conditions and Orders

Counsel are urged to use LACourtConnect, the court’s remote appearance technology (audio or video)

If it is indispensable for counsel to be present in court, face masks are mandated (unless a court orders otherwise) and social distancing rules are in force.

Dept. A Burbank protocol for LACourtConnect Appearances.

Video Appearances: Since these are the functional equivalent of a personal appearance in court, no special protocols are in place at this time.

Audio Only Appearances.

  1. Argument is limited to three minutes, unless the court grants a request for additional time.

  2. The reading of argument is feckless and nugatory.

  3. State your name at the beginning of all statements.

  4. Do not speak directly to other counsel without permission of court.

  5. Do not interrupt or attempt to speak over another speaker.

  6. Do not announce your presence until called by your name or case name.

  7. Take a deep breath frequently so that the court may interrupt your presentation, if necessary. (The system does not default to the court unless you are placed on mute by the court or go silent or mute on you own.)

Yang v Lin

Motion for Leave to File FAC

Calendar:

11

Case No.:

EC068520

Hearing Date:

August 21, 2020

Action Filed:

May 09, 2018

Trial Date:

November 09, 2020

MP:

Plaintiffs Dennis Yang; Li Chun Lee Yang

RP:

Defendants Jia Jia “Jane” Lin; Jasper Springs, Inc.

BACKGROUND:

This action arises from an alleged fraudulent scheme carried out by Defendant Jia Jia “Jane” Lin (“Lin”) and her company Jasper Springs, Inc. (“JSI” and collectively the “Defendants”), whereby Defendants induced Plaintiffs Dennis Yang and Li Chun Lee Yang (“Plaintiffs”) to transfer shares in their company, Great Grace USA Inc. d/b/a Green Grace (“GGI”) upon various promises to advance GGI’s business interests in China.

In their May 09, 2018, Complaint, Plaintiffs allege eight (8) causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Fraud, (3) Intentional Misrepresentation, (4) Unjust Enrichment, (5) Negligent Misrepresentation, (6) Recession, (7) Conversion, and (8) Declaratory Relief. Defendants filed their Answer on July 13, 2018, together with a Cross-Complaint predicated on the same series of transactions alleging seven (7) causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (3) Fraud, (4) Intentional Misrepresentation, (5) Negligent Misrepresentation, (6) Defamation, and (7) Declaratory Relief. Plaintiffs filed their Answer to the Cross-Complaint on August 29, 2018.

PRESENTATION:

Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on June 23, 2020, Defendants filed an opposition on August 10, 2020, and Plaintiffs filed a reply on August 12, 2020.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiffs move for an order granting leave to file the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), and to add an additional cause of action sounding in Financial Elder Abuse.

DISCUSSION:

 

Standard of Review

CCP §473(a) permits the Court to grant leave to a party to amend a pleading. The Court’s discretion regarding granting leave to amend is usually exercised liberally to permit amendment of pleadings. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) If a motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend. (Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal. App. 2d 527, 530.)

CRC Rule 3.1324 requires a motion seeking leave to amend to include a copy of the proposed pleadings, to identify the amendments, and to be accompanied by a declaration including the following facts:

2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper;

3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and

4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

Merits

Plaintiffs request leave to amend the operative Complaint to add a financial elder abuse claim to the proposed FAC. Plaintiffs contend the FAC alleges this additional claim based on the same facts and theories already alleged in the operative Complaint, and that such claim is proper because its addition will cause no undue prejudice to Defendants, but that its denial will result in irreparable harm and injury to Plaintiffs.

Defendants argue the instant motion should not be granted because (1) they would be prejudiced in that insufficient time remains before the scheduled trial date on November 09, 2020, whether or not they file a demurrer, to conduct discovery on the new claim; and (2) the motion is untimely, as after two years of litigation and discovery, Plaintiffs knew or should have known the facts and theories raised by the amendment. Defendants further request that the Court continue the trial and pretrial dates if it is inclined to grant the motion so Defendants will have reasonable time to conduct discovery regarding the financial elder abuse claim. Plaintiffs, in their reply brief, offer no objections to a continuance of the trial date, and offer to stipulate to such. (Reply, 4:3-5.)

Defendants' argument that the motion is untimely because Plaintiffs knew or should have known the facts and theories underlying the additional claim is irrelevant. On its own, "[t]he fact that the new matter may have been known to the applicant at the time of filing his original pleading is not sufficient ground for denying the right to amend." (Kroplin v. Huston (1947) 79 Cal.App.2d 332, 340.) Further, regarding Defendants' argument on insufficient time before trial, while "unwarranted delay in presenting [an amendment] may–of itself–be valid reason for denial", (Emerald Bay Community Assn. v. Golden Eagle Ins. Corp. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1097) Plaintiffs are willing to stipulate to a continuance regarding the trial date, which would remedy any prejudice that would result from the granting of the instant motion. Defendants have presented no further arguments supporting their claim of prejudice, and so the Court finds that Defendants fail to sufficiently show prejudice to justify denial of the instant motion.

Accordingly, in keeping with the liberal exercise of discretion to permit amendments, the Court will grant the motion. Pretrial and trial dates will be continued to allow Defendants adequate time and opportunity to file a demurrer and conduct discovery regarding the new claim, and, in any event, under the current orders of the Presiding Judge, no civil case may be set for trial before November 16 or January 4, depending on type. The Court will inquire of the parties at the hearing to determine whether a stipulation can be achieved, or whether the Court needs to continue the trial and pretrial dates on its own motion.

---

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Plaintiffs Dennis Yang; Li Chun Lee Yang's Motion for Leave to Amend came on regularly for hearing on August 21, 2020, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND IS GRANTED ;MOVING PARTY IS TO FILE A FREE-STANDING OF THE AMENDED PLEADING TO ALLOW FOR EASE OF LOCATION IN THE COURT’S DATA BASE.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE

Case Number: EC068520    Hearing Date: July 24, 2020    Dept: A

The Superior Court is re-opening under “Here for You | Safe for You” Conditions and Orders

Counsel are urged to use remote appearance technology such as Court Call or LACourtConnect (when it becomes available on August 3 for Branch Civil)

If it is indispensable for counsel to be present in court, face masks are mandated (unless a court orders otherwise) and social distancing rules are in force.

Yang v Lin

Discovery Motions

Calendar:

09

Case No.:

EC068520

Hearing Date:

July 24, 2019

Action Filed:

May 09, 2018

Trial Date:

November 9, 2020

MP:

Defendants Jia Jia “Jane” Lin; Jasper Springs, Inc.

RP:

Plaintiffs Dennis Yang; Li Chun Lee Yang

BACKGROUND:

This action arises from an alleged fraudulent scheme carried out by Defendant Jia Jia “Jane” Lin (“Lin”) and her company Jasper Springs, Inc. (“JSI” and collectively the “Defendants”), whereby Defendants induced Plaintiffs Dennis Yang and Li Chun Lee Yang ("Li Yang") (and together, “Plaintiffs”) to transfer shares in their company, Great Grace USA Inc. d/b/a Green Grace (“GGI”) upon various promises to advance GGI’s business interests in China.

In their May 09, 2018, Complaint, Plaintiffs allege eight (8) causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Fraud, (3) Intentional Misrepresentation, (4) Unjust Enrichment, (5) Negligent Misrepresentation, (6) Recession, (7) Conversion, and (8) Declaratory Relief.

Defendants filed their Answer on July 13, 2018, together with a Cross-Complaint predicated on the same series of transactions alleging seven (7) causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (3) Fraud, (4) Intentional Misrepresentation, (5) Negligent Misrepresentation, (6) Defamation, and (7) Declaratory Relief. Plaintiffs filed their Answer to the Cross-Complaint on August 29, 2018.

PRESENTATION

Defendants filed the Motion to Compel Further RPD on May 20, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an opposition on July 13, 2020, and no reply has been filed.

Defendants filed the Motion to Compel Further Special Interrogatories on May 20, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an opposition on July 13, 2020, and no reply has been filed.

On June 30, 2020, the Court continued the instant matters scheduled on July 17, 2020, to July 24, 2020, with Plaintiff to give notice.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Defendants move for an order directing Li Yang to provide full and complete responses to Lin's RPD Nos. 4, 5, 6, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and JSI's RPD Nos. 4, 5, 6, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62. Defendants further move for an order directing Li Yang to pay sanctions in the amount of $2,1674.15.

Defendants move for an order directing Li Yang to provide full and complete responses to Lin's Special Interrogatories Nos. 14, 16, 20, 22, 26, 29, 31, 33, 36, 39, 41, 44, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 66, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 101, 102, 104, 105, 107, 108, 110, 111, 113, 114, 116, 118, 119, 121, 122, 124, 126, and 128, and JSI's Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, and 3.

126, 113

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Further RPD

Standard of Review

Code of Civil Procedure §2031.310 provides that a party may bring a motion to compel further to Requests for Production where the responding party provides inadequate, incomplete, or evasive responses, or the objections are too general or without merit. The propounding party must submit a declaration under Code of Civ. Proc. §2016.040 stating facts demonstrating a good faith and reasonable effort to informally resolve all issues raised by the motion. (Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(b)(2).) A motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production must further specifically identify facts showing good cause for the discovery. (Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(b)(1).) The motion must be brought within 45 days of service of the responses or supplemental responses. (Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(c).) Sanctions are mandatory against the party or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further unless the party acted with substantial justification or the circumstances make imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(h).)

CCP § 2031.310(b)(1) requires the movant to set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document described in the request for production or deposition notice. In law and motion practice, factual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations. (Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216, 224 (rejecting facts supporting the production of documents that were in a separate statement because the document was not verified and did not constitute evidence). In Calcor, the Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling the defendant to produce records because the plaintiff had failed to provide specific facts showing good cause for their production. Subsequently, in Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 216 at 224, the court identified the manner for establishing good cause under Calcor: “To establish good cause, a discovery proponent must identify a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.”

Good Cause

The same issue identified in Calcor exists here. The declaration of Defendants' counsel does not include any specific facts showing good cause for the inspection of the documents sought in each of the requests for production at issue. Counsel does not offer any sufficient specific facts regarding the documents sought, the requests for production, or the disputed facts that are of consequence in the action to explain how the discovery sought will tend to prove or disprove the disputed fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact. This does not comply with the requirements of Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(b)(1) as set forth in Calcor and Digital Music.

Accordingly, the Court will deny this motion.

Motion to Compel Further Special Interrogatories

The Court notes that although Jin's Special Interrogatory Nos. 113 and 126 were listed as part of this motion within the Notice section of the instant motion, as well as the Introduction section of the Separate Statement, neither interrogatory is analyzed substantively within the body of either document. The Court thus ignore Nos. 113 and 126.

Standard of Review

Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300 provides for a party to bring a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories where the responding party provides inadequate, incomplete, or evasive responses, or the objections are too general or without merit. The propounding party must submit a declaration under Code of Civil Procedure § 2016.040 stating facts demonstrating a good faith and reasonable effort to informally resolve each issue raised by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).) The motions must be brought within 45 days of service of the responses or supplemental responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).)

Sanctions are mandatory against the party or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further unless the party acted with substantial justification or the circumstances make imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §2030.300, subd. (d).)

Meet and Confer

On review of the Declaration of Quintana, the Court finds that the meet and confer process described is sufficient.

Merits

  1. Lin's Special Interrogatory Nos. 14, 16, 26, 29, 31, 33, 56, 59, 66, 69, 72, 77, 86, 88, 91, 94, 97, 99, 102, 105, 119, 122, and 124; JSI's Special Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, and 3

    Li Yang responded to the above interrogatories with an objection stating that she was not involved in communications concerning the subject matter of said interrogatories, and responded based on information provided by her husband, Dennis Yang. Defendants argue that these answers are improper pursuant to CCP § 2030.220(c), which states "if the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party." Li Yang responded to each of these interrogatories by stating that although she "was not involved in the discussions or communications with Propounding Party, based on information provided by her husband, Plaintiff Dennis Yang, who dealt with and engaged in all communications and business dealings with Propounding Party, she responds. . . ." The Court finds that this response conforms to CCP § 2030.220(c) for each above interrogatory in that Li Yang states she does not have personal knowledge and made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information from her husband, Dennis Yang.

    Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion as to the above special interrogatories.

  2. Lin's Special Interrogatory Nos. 20, 36, 39, 47, 49, 51, 53, 59, 75, 82, 84, 108, 114, 116, and 128

    Li Yang responded to the above interrogatories solely by referencing to other discovery responses she made. Defendants argue it is improper to respond to interrogatories in this manner, citing Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783-84 ("Answers must be complete and responsive. Thus, it is not proper to answer by stating, 'See my deposition,' 'See my pleading,' or 'See the financial statement.'") The Court finds that Li Yang submitted incomplete responses.

    Accordingly, the Court will grant the motion as to the above special interrogatories.

  3. Lin's Special Interrogatory Nos. 22, 41, 44, 55, 58, 61, 68, 71, 74, 79, 90, 93, 96, 101, 104, 107, 110, 113, 118, and 121

    Defendants contend the above special interrogatories ask the respondent to identify each non-privileged oral communication concerning the interrogatory subject matter by identifying the persons communicating, what was said by each, the date and locations of the communication, and whether the communications were by phone or in person. Defendants argue Li Yang responded to the above interrogatories in a manner that failed to identify the date, location, and manner with particularity. On review of the above interrogatories and responses, the Court finds that Li Yang submitted incomplete responses.

    Accordingly, the Court will grant the motion as to the above special interrogatories.

  4. Conclusion

    Grant the motion as to Lin's Special Interrogatory Nos. 20, 22, 36, 39, 41, 44, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 58, 59, 61, 68, 71, 74, 75, 79, 82, 84, 90, 93, 96, 101, 104, 107, 108, 110, 113, 114, 116, 118, 121, and 128. Deny the motion as to Lin's Special Interrogatory Nos. 14, 16, 26, 29, 31, 33, 56, 59, 66, 69, 72, 77, 86, 88, 91, 94, 97, 99, 102, 105, 119, 122, and 123, and JSI's Special Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, and 3.

RULING: below,

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendants' motion to compel came on regularly for hearing on July 24, 2020, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IS DENIED.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES IS GRANTED AS TO JIN'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NOS. 20, 22, 36, 39, 41, 44, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 58, 59, 61, 68, 71, 74, 75, 79, 82, 84, 90, 93, 96, 101, 104, 107, 108, 110, 113, 114, 116, 118, 121, AND 128, AND DENIED AS TO JIN'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NOS. 14, 16, 26, 29, 31, 33, 56, 59, 66, 69, 72, 77, 86, 88, 91, 94, 97, 99, 102, 105, 119, 122, 123, AND JSI'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, AND 3.

SANCTIONS ARE DENIED AS EACH SIDE WAS SUCCESSFUL IN PART AND UNSUCCESSFUL IN PART.