Motion for Sanctions
CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0208919 Tentative Ruling on Motion for Sanctions: Plaintiffs Lizet Garcia and Jose Rojas Perez move for an order imposing monetary and evidentiary sanctions against Defendant Ford Motor Company for failure to comply with the initial disclosure and document exchange obligations imposed by Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26(b). Ford opposes the Motion. This lemon law case arises from Plaintiffs' purchase of a 2022 Ford F-150, which Plaintiffs allege Ford failed to repair within a reasonable number of attempts.
This case was filed on October 13, 2025 and is subject to the newly enacted procedural framework under Code of Civil Procedure sections 871.20 through 871.30. Based on the moving papers, it appears Plaintiff received Ford’s Answer on November 17, 2025, establishing an initial disclosure deadline of January 16, 2026. Both parties agree that this is the operative deadline. The Court notes for the record that Ford’s Answer was filed with the Court on May 19, 2026. It includes a proof of service dated November 17, 2025.
Because both parties were operating on the assumption that this Answer had been filed in November 2025, the Court will proceed to the merits of this dispute. No prejudice will result to Ford, who was served in November 2025 and did not object on the grounds that the Answer was not timely filed.
Merits: It is undisputed that Ford did not produce all documents required by Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26(h) by the January 16, 2026 deadline. Ford withheld the warranty policies and procedure manuals and the workshop manual (both parties refer to this as the workshop manual – it is unclear whether this document constitutes the “service manuals” contemplated by the statue at CCP 871.26(h)(13), since the term “workshop manual” does not appear). At minimum, the parties agree that Ford did not timely produce the required warranty policies and procedure manuals required by CCP 871.26(h)(12). Ford conditioned the production of these documents on the entry of a protective order. After a stipulated protective order was entered on May 21, 2025, the documents were produced.
CCP § 871.26 mandates production of the specified documents within 60 days of the answer. Ford's decision to condition production on a protective order is not contemplated by the statute. CCP 871.26(h) provides the defendant or manufacturer shall provide the listed documents to all other parties pursuant to given timelines. Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) “all other discovery shall be stayed until mediation is concluded.” CCP 871.26(e). Additionally, Ford has not presented evidence that it timely sought a stipulated protective order which was refused prior to the initial disclosures deadline.
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 Declaration of Kenneth Hollenbeck provides that Ford sought a stipulation for protective order at some unspecified time. Then, Ford emailed Plaintiff an unmodified model protective order on April 23, 2026, which Plaintiff signed on April 24, 2026. This is well after the January 16, 2026 deadline. No specific information is provided regarding why this was not sought earlier. No meet and confer correspondence is attached. Ford’s explanation for the delay does not support a finding of good cause to excuse timely production.
CCP § 871.26 (j)(1), monetary sanctions are mandatory where, as here, a party has failed to comply and cannot demonstrate good cause. The Court will therefore impose sanctions of $2,500.00 on GM, payable within 15 business days of notice of entry of order.
The Court declines to require the sanctioned attorneys report to the state bar, or to impose evidentiary sanctions at this time. CCP § 871.26(j)(4) mandates evidentiary sanctions for a
manufacturer's "repeated noncompliance" with subdivisions (b), (c), or (d). The record before the Court reflects a single episode of noncompliance with subdivision (b).
The Motion is GRANTED in part, as detailed above. The proposed order will be modified.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. VS. ZAPATA