DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
24CV439572·santaclara·Civil·Consumer Warranty
DENIED

Abhishek Srivastava v. BMW of North America, LLC et al.

Motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories

Hearing date
May 14, 2026
Department
10
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Motion to Compel Further Responses

Parties

PlaintiffAbhishek Srivastava
DefendantBMW of North America, LLC

Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210

DATE: May 14, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

9:00 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 25CV466752 Menachem Hahn et Click LINE 1 or scroll down for ruling. al. v. Yu Cao et al. Line 2 25CV466752 Menachem Hahn et Click LINE 1 or scroll down for ruling. al. v. Yu Cao et al. Line 3 24CV439572 Abhishek Srivastava Plaintiff Abhishek Srivastava’s motion to compel further responses to v. BMW of North special interrogatories, set one. Notice is proper and the motion is America, LLC et al. opposed by defendant BMW of North America, LLC. Plaintiff moves to compel supplemental responses to special interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, and 4, which all seek information about what happened after plaintiff’s vehicle was delivered to BMW of Mountain View (including information about changes to the vehicle and inspections of the vehicle). Defendant’s response referred plaintiff to service records from BMW of Mountain View that defendant has apparently produced in discovery. Defendant also indicated it would “produce the Warranty Vehicle Inquiry.” Defendant indicated it did not have further information responsive to the interrogatories. Defendant thereafter apparently supplemented its production with further records (including a confidential field report and additional service records). Plaintiff appears to conflate defendant and BMW of Mountain View, but they are distinct entities. Defendant’s responses are code-compliant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) The motion to compel is DENIED. The court will prepare the order.

2

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share