Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
25CV120058: TSUKAHARA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF DECEDENT, KRYSTA MICHELLE TSUKAHARA, et al. vs THE ESTATE OF SOREN MANGSETH DIXON, et al. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Todd Nelson CRS# 103782968898 in Department 517
Tentative Ruling - 08/11/2026 Keith Fong
The Motion to Compel PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT TESLA, INC. RE FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE filed by TODD NELSON, individually and as Successor-in-Interest of Decedent, Jack Nelson, STANNYE NELSON on 03/02/2026 is Granted in Part.
Plaintiffs Todd Nelson, individually and as Successor-in-Interest of Decedent, Jack Nelson, and Stannye Nelsons Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART.
BACKGROUND
This matter is a consolidated action regarding products liability and wrongful death.
On October 7, 2025, Plaintiff Todd Nelson, individually and as the Successor-in-Interest of Decedent, Jack Nelson, and Stannye Nelson (the Nelson Plaintiffs) initiated an action, alleging Negligent Design/Manufacture, Strict Products Liability, and Negligent Failure to Recall or Retrofit against Tesla; and Negligence against Dixon and Patterson. The Nelson Plaintiffs contend that Jack Nelson died in a traffic collision as a result of defects in the crashworthiness and door release mechanisms of a Cybertruck driven by Soren Mangseth Dixson and owned by Charles Patterson.
On November 14, 2025, the Nelson Plaintiffs served Tesla with Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents. Tesla served verified objections and responses on December 31, 2025. The parties met and conferred thereafter regarding Teslas responses and pending protective orders that would impact the responsive documents produced. On May 28, 2026, the Court granted in part the parties motions for protective orders. As such, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to compel for the parties to meet and confer as to the remaining disputes in light of the entry of the parties stipulated protective order on June 22, 2026.
The parties submitted a joint letter brief on or about July 1, 2026 and advised that Tesla would serve further amended responses. The hearing was further continued pursuant to the parties request to allow for review of the amended responses and potential further narrowing of the disputed issues.
The parties submitted a second joint letter brief on or about August 6, 2026. Tesla served further amended responses and takes the position that the parties have reached informal agreements such 25CV120058: TSUKAHARA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF DECEDENT, KRYSTA MICHELLE TSUKAHARA, et al. vs THE ESTATE OF SOREN MANGSETH DIXON, et al. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Todd Nelson CRS# 103782968898 in Department 517 that there is no further resolution required by the Court. Tesla stands by certain objections relating to undue burden and outside the scope of reasonable discovery as to certain categories. Plaintiffs contend that there remains disputes that require the Courts intervention and formal resolution pursuant to Court order.
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 Court now addresses the remaining issues as outlined in the parties joint letter brief of August 6, 2026.
LEGAL STANDARD
[A] civil litigants right to discovery is broad. (Yelp Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1, 15.) [A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (C.C.P. § 2017.010.) For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 591.)
DISCUSSION
Resolved Issues
Through their meet-and-confer efforts, the parties resolved numerous disputes by agreement but disagree whether those agreements should be included in a court order. Tesla takes the position that no order is necessary as to these resolved matters. Tesla offers no compelling reason against reducing its agreements to an order, which is no different in substance from a stipulation and order. Memorializing the parties agreements as an order provides certainty to the parties and will likely avoid confusion and unnecessary conflict and motion practice. Accordingly, the parties agreements resolving disputed discovery requests are incorporated into and made enforceable by this Order as an order compelling inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under C.C.P. § 2031.320(c).
Scope Door Release Systems (RPD Nos. 10-12, 15-21, 23-25; Special Interrogatories Nos. 19, 21, 23, 25)
These discovery requests relate to information relating to the door release systems in Tesla vehicles. Tesla agrees to produce responsive, non-privileged (1) exterior door release systems for all generations and all model years of Tesla Model S, Model X, Model 3, Model Y, and Cybertruck vehicles; and (2) interior first-row and second-row release systems for Tesla Model 3, Model Y, and Cybertruck vehicles from 2019 through the date of the incident. Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
25CV120058: TSUKAHARA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF DECEDENT, KRYSTA MICHELLE TSUKAHARA, et al. vs THE ESTATE OF SOREN MANGSETH DIXON, et al. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Todd Nelson CRS# 103782968898 in Department 517 appear to dispute only the latter category, and contend that the documents should be produced regardless of vehicle model or year.
As discussed in the Courts June 22, 2026 Order, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that there is likely overlap across Tesla vehicles in the design of and technology used in those systems. (6/22/26 Order p. 2.) The Court further agrees with Plaintiffs that, because the Model S and Model X were equipped with interior rear mechanical releases before 2019, the related design and notice analysis predates 2019 and is relevant to Plaintiffs claims. Accordingly, responsive, non-privileged documents relating to the design of, and Teslas notice concerning, the interior release systems (including design decisions occurring prior to 2019) shall be produced regardless of vehicle model or year.
Crash Data Translation (RPD Nos. 1-2, 8)
Plaintiffs request information and data concerning the subject incident that was recorded or transmitted by the Subject Vehicle. Tesla objects to the request to the extent that Plaintiffs require Tesla to translate thousands of signals and alerts that may be both customer-facing and internal for every drive cycle contained in the Subject Vehicles SD Card. Tesla contends that the request is overbroad and unduly burdensome, and a substantial amount of data would be produced, including data that would not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Tesla proffers to produce the entirety of the raw SD Card data from the Subject Vehicle in untranslated form.
An objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549.) The party opposing discovery is obligated to supply the basis for a courts determination that discovery should be limited if the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Id.)
Here, Tesla fails to establish the quantum of work required to produce the crash data sought; Tesla provides no information as to the burden, expense, or intrusiveness that would occur if production was compelled. While Tesla offers to produce untranslated data, Plaintiffs note that only Tesla interpret such data, and production of untranslated data would prove unusable by Plaintiffs.
Tesla shall produce the entirety of the SD Card data from the Subject Vehicle for the time frame from which Jack Nelson entered the Subject Vehicle to when the SD Card stopped collecting data, in a translated format usable to Plaintiffs.
RFP No. 3 Engineering Databases
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
25CV120058: TSUKAHARA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF DECEDENT, KRYSTA MICHELLE TSUKAHARA, et al. vs THE ESTATE OF SOREN MANGSETH DIXON, et al. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Todd Nelson CRS# 103782968898 in Department 517 Plaintiffs seek Confluence/Toolbox materials, and other responsive engineering repository documents. Tesla agrees to conduct a supplemental investigation to identify the existence of any further responsive, non-privileged materials and produce such documents. If Tesla does not determine that there are further responsive documents, Tesla must so state in a verified response.
Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-17, 23-25 re: C.C.P. § 2030.230
The parties disagree that where Tesla has invoked C.C.P. § 2030.230 in response to certain interrogatories, whether Tesla must state that it has produced all documents from which the answer to the interrogatory can be derived or ascertained and identify the documents with specificity.
Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (C.C.P. § 2030.220(a).) When a party relies on Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 it must specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained ... in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. (C.C.P. § 2030.230.) A party who makes recourse to this section declares that the information in the specified records is true, accurate, and complete, and that no other information is available to the answering party. ... A broad statement that the information is available from a mass of documents is insufficient. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 784.)
As to Special Interrogatory No. 8, Tesla has agreed to amend its response to provide a narrative answer identifying the responsive individuals. That concession effectively moots the dispute as to that interrogatory.
For the remaining interrogatories that Tesla continues to answer by reference to produced documents, Tesla shall: (1) identify the responsive documents by Bates number in sufficient detail that Plaintiffs can locate and identify the responsive information as readily as the responding party can, rather than by reference to an undifferentiated block of documents; and (2) confirm in a verified response that the identified documents contain all responsive information and that no responsive, non-privileged information has been withheld. These requirements flow from C.C.P. § 2030.230 as construed by Deyo and impose no obligation beyond what invoking the document-reference option already entails.
Supplemental Production Deadline
The parties dispute the deadline upon which Tesla must produce responsive documents. Tesla offers a rolling production of documents, with substantial completion within three months, or 90 days, from the date of the instant order. Plaintiffs seek supplemental production within 45 days
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
25CV120058: TSUKAHARA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF DECEDENT, KRYSTA MICHELLE TSUKAHARA, et al. vs THE ESTATE OF SOREN MANGSETH DIXON, et al. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Todd Nelson CRS# 103782968898 in Department 517 of the date of this orders issuance.
The Court acknowledges that the meet and confer efforts has expanded the universe of responsive documents to be produced by Tesla. Nevertheless, the Court finds that 50 days from the date of entry of this Order to be a reasonable time for production to be complete. The parties may agree to extend this deadline as required.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs Todd Nelson, individually and as Successor-in-Interest of Decedent, Jack Nelson, and Stannye Nelsons Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART.
Tesla shall provide further, amended responses and produce responsive documents pursuant to this Order within 50 days of the date of this Order.
HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?
THROUGH ECOURT
Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select "Search" 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select "Proceed"
BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4pm (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing.
BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.
ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 517 IS BELOW.
Join ZoomGov Meeting
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
25CV120058: TSUKAHARA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF DECEDENT, KRYSTA MICHELLE TSUKAHARA, et al. vs THE ESTATE OF SOREN MANGSETH DIXON, et al. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Todd Nelson CRS# 103782968898 in Department 517 https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16181989812
Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 One tap mobile +16692545252,,16181989812# US (San Jose) 16692161590,,16181989812# US +(San Jose)
Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose) +1 551 285 1373 US +1 646 828 7666 US (New York) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 Find your local number: https://www.zoomgov.com/u/ad6x1ZH23d
Join by SIP 16181989812@sip.zoomgov.com
Join by H.323 161.199.138.10 (US West) 161.199.136.10 (US East) Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812