Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set Three; Request for Sanctions
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
JUNE 15, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 14 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________
02:00 PM 24-CIV-07441 NORBERTO RODRIGUEZ ZAVALA VS. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL. LINE 5
NORBERTO RODRIGUEZ ZAVALA ALEXANDER KHOUBIAN VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. LAURA C. PRATT
PLAINTIFF: NORBERTO RODRIGUEZ ZAVALA’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTFOR DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET THREE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
TENTATIVE RULING:
Both parties are to APPEAR through counsel. As to Defendants, it SHALL be the lead trial attorney responsible for the matter.
It appears the Defendant violated the Court’s March 2, 2026 Order, at a minimum, by failing to file and serve a supplemental brief. It is also of note that it appears that the Defendant also has violated the Court’s May 18, 2026 Order related to other discovery motions by, at a minimum failing to email the Civil Commissioner regarding the parties dispute regarding those other motions. These apparent failures are of significant concern to the Court, especially in light of Plaintiff’s evidence that Defendant failed to respond to emails that might have rendered this Motion moot. And Defendant’s apparent violation of the Court’s March 2, 2026 Order has also made it more difficult for the Court to address the instant motion.
However, based on the supplemental submission by the Plaintiff, the Court is tentatively granting Plaintiff’s Motion and compel further verified code-complaint responses (and additional production if additional documents exist) to Requests for Production 14, 15, 34, 35, 37, 40 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 73 and 74 (narrowed as described on page 3, line 14 through page 4 line 7 of Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief) and Order Defendant to reimburse Plaintiff $5,650 for the cost of bringing this motion.
The Court is tentatively denying the motion to compel at to Requests for Production 54, 58 and 65 as they do appear overbroad. As to 59 and 66, Defendant can withhold documents that contain private information of third parties that cannot be readily redacted AND were subject to a protective Order and/or that are privileged (but if Defendant withholds any documents it must provide a privilege log).
Within ten (10) days of this Order, Defendant shall serve amended responses and any privilege log.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept.11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.
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?”
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the California Rules of Court. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be efiled only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.