DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV116942·alameda·Civil·Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
Hearing todayGRANTED IN PART

BECERRA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

Motion to Compel Discovery

Hearing date
Aug 18, 2026
Department
518
Prevailing
Moving Party
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Monetary amounts referenced

$1,660$1,400$60

Parties

PlaintiffVeronica Martinez Becerra
DefendantAmerican Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Ruling

25CV116942: BECERRA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. (Defendant) CRS# 467679877858 in Department 518

Tentative Ruling - 08/13/2026 Mark Fickes

The Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion filed by AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. on 07/27/2026 is Granted in Part.

This case involves claims alleged under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act brought by Plaintiff Veronica Martinez Becerra against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Honda”)

On July 3, 2026, Honda served the first notice of deposition on Plaintiff. (Vault Decl. ¶ 3, ex. A.) Plaintiff’s deposition was noticed for July 15, 20256. Honda emailed Plaintiff twice to confirm whether this date would work. (Vault decl. ¶¶ 4 – 5, ex. B.)

On July 13, 2026, Plaintiff responded that only July 29, 31, or August 7, 2026 would work, Honda accepted July 29, 2026. (Vault Decl. ¶¶ 6 – 7, ex. B.) The amended deposition notice was sent on July 14, 2026. (Vault Decl., ex. C.)

On July 24, 2026, Plaintiff served objections and the same day Honda corresponded with Plaintiff’s counsel to confirm the objections were sent in error. (Vault Decl. 8 – 9, Exs. D – E.) During this communication, Plaintiff requested the deposition be on August 5, 2026. (Id. at ex. E.)

On July 24, 2026 Plaintiff served the amended notice of deposition and informed Plaintiff that they would be filing this motion since trial was quickly approaching. (Vault Decl. ¶ 11, ex. F.)

On July 27, 2026, Honda filed this motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and request sanctions in the amount of $1,660.

On July 30, 2026, Honda filed a motion to advance the hearing which was granted on August 4, 2026.

This motion is unopposed.

It is unclear if the deposition occurred on August 5, 2026; however, since there is no opposition and this motion has not been withdrawn, it is presumed that the deposition did not occur.

Trial is currently set for September 8, 2026.

Discovery tests the pleadings and allows a party to determine what the opponent’s contentions are and what facts she relies upon to support her contentions. (Burke v. Superior Court of 25CV116942: BECERRA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. (Defendant) CRS# 467679877858 in Department 518 Sacramento County (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 281.) Honda shows good cause to compel Plaintiff’s deposition especially since Plaintiff is no longer in possession of the car. (MPA p. 4.)

Honda’s discovery request is relevant to the issues raised in the complaint and is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Thus, the Court construes Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion as a concession that the motion is meritorious. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1410.)

ORDER

Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff Veronica Martinez Becerra is ORDERED to sit for deposition on or before August 21, 2026.

Honda’s request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Honda stated that Counsel spent 1.5 hours preparing this motion, expected to spend 1.5 hours reviewing and responding to the opposition, and one hour attending the hearing. Since the motion was not opposed, the Court awards reasonable fees in the amount of $1,400 (3.5 hours at an hourly rate of $400 per hour.) along with the $60 motion fee. Plaintiff shall pay $1,400 in monetary sanctions to Honda no later than September 18, 2026.

---

PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

First, the party must notify Department 518, by email at Dept518@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Please note the Court does not permit remote appearances for motions for summary judgment that are contested. If you contest a Motion for Summary Judgment, you must appear in person.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV116942: BECERRA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. (Defendant) CRS# 467679877858 in Department 518 For all other motions (unless otherwise noted in the tentative ruling), Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application. TO CONNECT TO ZOOM: Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.

Topic: Department 518's Personal Meeting Room

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984

Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984

One tap mobile +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)

---

Dial by your location • +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)

Cited authorities

Extracting citations 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?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share