Sean D. Pieraccini v. FCA US, LLC, et al.

6 9:00 2 24CV448627 Sean D. Pieraccini v. FCA US, LLC, et al.

Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Compliance with Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and for Sanctions.

See Line 2 below for complete tentative ruling. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal order.

9:00 3 25CV457205 Capital One, N.A. v. Alain P. Dela Rosa

Order on Plaintiff’s Motion that the Truth of All Specified Facts in the Requests for Admission, Set One, be deemed Admitted by Defendant.

See Line 3 below for complete tentative ruling. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal order.

9:00 4 25CV461649 Abhishek Aggarwal v. Rivian, LLC, et al.

Order on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Civil Action

See Line 4 below for complete tentative ruling. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal order.

14 Line 2 Case Name: Sean D. Pieraccini v. FCA US, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 24CV448627

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Plaintiff Sean D. Pieraccini (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant FCA US, LLC’s (“FCA” or “Defendant”) compliance with Defendant’s own response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“RFPs”) within 5 days. Notice of Motion (the “Motion”) at 1:5-7. (filed March 18, 2026). Plaintiff also requests that the Court impose a monetary sanction against Defendant in the amount of $1,155.00 for Defendant’s failure to comply with its own Responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs, which forced Plaintiff to file this Motion. Id. at 1:14-17.

The Motion came on for hearing on May 15, 2026, at 9:00 AM in Department 16. After reviewing all the papers and the record, and giving counsel for all parties the full and fair opportunity to be heard, the Court finds and rules as follows.

Resolution of this Motion is straightforward.

On November 26, 2024, Plaintiff served the RFPs on Defendant. Declaration of Breana Rucker In Support of Motion (the “Rucker Decl. ”) at ¶ 4 & Ex. 1 thereto (filed: March 18, 2026).

Under our Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant had a duty to provide Code- Compliant responses to these RFPs. To be Code Compliant, Defendants’ responses to the RFPs must comply with C.C.P. §§ 2031.210-2031.230 by stating:

(a) Plaintiff will comply with the RFP —and then produce the documents and items requested;

(b) Plaintiff is unable to comply with the RFP because the requested documents and items have never existed; or

(c) after diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff is are unable to comply because the requested documents and items no longer exist or are no longer in his possession.

C.C.P. §§ 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230 (emphasis added).

On January 27, 2025, Defendant served its Responses to the RFPs. Rucker Decl. at

15 ¶ 5 & Ex. 2 thereto. The discovery dispute raised by this Motion is over Defendant ’s Responses to RFPs Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 106, and 139. Id.

The Court has carefully reviewed Defendant ’s Responses to RFPs Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 106, and 139, which are partially Code-Compliant under Section 2031.210(a) in that Defendant does promise for each of these “to comply in full with this request and produce all responsive documents within its possession, custody, or control. ” Rucker Decl., Ex.

2. So far, so good. If Defendant had kept its promise, there would be no discovery dispute.

But the serious problem Defendant has is that it broke its promise and duty to produce all documents responsive to these RFPs by failing to produce any documents responsive to these RFPs. Rucker Decl. at ¶ 6. The Court finds and rules that this is a serious misuse of the discovery process by Defendant, which the undersigned Judge will neither excuse nor tolerate.

Not only has Defendant failed to produce a single document responsive to RFPs Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 106, and 139, Defendant has also failed to file any Opposition to this Motion. Under Rule of Court 8.54(c): “A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.” CRC Rule 8.54(c).

So the Motion is GRANTED. Specifically the Court ORDERS Defendant FCA US, LLC, by noon on May 22, 2026, to produce to Plaintiff all documents responsive to RFPs Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 106, and 139 within Defendant’s possession, custody, or control.

Regarding the mandatory monetary sanction sought by Plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure 2031.320(b), the Court has authority and discretion under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.030(a) to impose a reasonable sanction against Defendant here: “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” C.C.P. § 2023.030(a) (emphasis added).

Lest there be any doubt, the Court reads Section 2023.010(d) to mean that failing to timely “respond . . . to an authorized method of discovery” like RFPs is a “misuse of the discovery process” (C.C.P. § 2023.010(d)) subject to a reasonable sanction under Section 2023.030(a). Here, Defendant misused and abused the discovery process by violating its promise and duty to produce all documents responsive to these RFPs by failing to produce any documents responsive these RFPs.

For a monetary sanction Plaintiff requests $1,155.00 for 3.0 hours of attorney work for this Motion at a billable rate of $385.00 per hour. Rucker Decl. at ¶ 16. In light of the prevailing rates in the relevant market, the Court finds and rules that that this bil lable rate sought of $385.00 per hour is reasonable. The Court also finds and rules that the numb er

16 of 3.0 hours sought is reasonable for the time that Plaintiff ’s attorney was forced to spend on this Motion because of Defendant ’s breach of its promise to produce responsive documents. Under these circumstances —coupled with the fact that trial is fast approaching on June 1, 2026 —Plaintiff was fully justified in filing this Motion when Plaintiff filed it on March 18, 2026.

So Plaintiff ’s request for a monetary sanction of $1,155.00 is reasonable and GRANTED. Accordingly, by noon on May 22, 2026, the Court ORDERS Defendant FCA US, LLC to pay Plaintiff a monetary sanction of $1,155.00 for Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees for this Motion.

Conclusion & Order

Accordingly, Plaintiff ’s Motion is GRANTED in all respects. Specifically, the Court ORDERS Defendant FCA US, LLC:

1. By noon on May 22, 2026, Defendant FCA US, LLC must produce to Plaintiff all responsive documents to RFPs Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 106, and 139; and

2. By noon on May 22, 2026, Defendant FCA US, LLC must pay Plaintiff a monetary sanction of $1,155.00.00 for Plaintiff ’s reasonable attorneys’ fees for this Motion.

Nota Bene: Defendant FCA US, LLC is put on NOTICE that if it fails to comply with this ORDER by noon on May 22, 2026, then Defendant FCA US, LLC will be subject to further escalating sanctions, including monetary and non-monetary sanctions su ch as evidentiary, issue, and terminating sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure Secti on 2031.310(i).

All parties and counsel are further put on NOTICE that there will be no delay or continuance of the June 1, 2026 trial by jury. So all parties, all counsel, and al l witnesses had best ready for trial.

SO ORDERED.

Date: May 15, 2026 Hon. Vincent I. Parrett Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara

17 Line 3 Case Name: Capital One, N.A. v. Alain P. Dela Rosa

Case No.: 25CV457205

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Plaintiff Capital One, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) moves for an Order under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2023.010 et seq. and 2033.280 that the truth of all specified facts in the Request for Admissions, Set One (“RFAs”) propounded by Plaintiff on Defendant Alain P. Dela Rosa (“Defendant”) on April 1, 2025, be deemed admitted by Defendant. Notice of Motion (the “Motion”) at 1:26-2:2 (filed Oct. 3, 2025). The Motion is made on the ground that Defendant failed to serve timely responses to the RFAs to Defendant. Id. at 2:2-4.

The Motion came on for hearing on May 15, 2026, at 9:00 AM in Department 16. After reviewing all the papers and the record, and giving counsel for all parties the full and fair opportunity to be heard, the Court finds and rules as follows.

Plaintiff served the Requests for Admission, Set One, on Defendant on April 1, 2025. Declaration of attorney Gregory Parks In Support of Motion (“Parks Decl. ”) at ¶ 2.

Defendant never responded to the Requests for Admission, Set One, Parks Decl. at ¶ 3, in spite of Defendant’s obligation to respond to them under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.240.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, because Defendant failed to respond to the Requests for Admission, Set One, Plaintiff moves for an Order deeming admitted by Defendant the truth of each matter in the Requests for Admission, Set One. C.C.P. 2033.280(b).

The Motion is well supported by the law, well supported by the facts set forth in the Langedyk Declaration, and reasonable in all respects.

Moreover, Defendant failed to file any Opposition to the Motion. Under Rule of Court 8.54(c): “A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.” CRC Rule 8.54(c).

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion in all respects. Specifically, it is hereby ORDERED that the truth of all specified facts in the Requests for Admission, Set One, served on Defendant Alain P. Dela Rosa on April 1, 2025, is deemed admitted b y Defendant Alain P. Dela Rosa.