MARIA JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

CASE NO.: 25NWCV01742 HEARING: 08/18/2026 @ 10:30 AM #10 TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Plaintiffs Maria Jimenez and Victoria Elias's motion to compel further responses to requests for production, set one is CONTINUED to Tuesday, August 25, 2026 at 9:30 AM.

II. Supplemental briefing and/or supplemental separate statements clarifying what remains at issue are due by August 20, 2026. See below for a detailed ruling. Moving party to give notice.

Plaintiffs Maria Jimenez and Victoria Elias (Plaintiffs) move to compel further responses from Defendant Ford Motor Company (Defendant) to requests for production (RPDs), set one.

Background

On May 14, 2025, Plaintiffs this lemon law action against Defendants Ford Motor Company, Ted Jones Ford, Inc. dba Ken Grody Ford Buena Park, and Does 1 through 10. The complaint alleges Plaintiffs experienced defects and nonconformities to warranty with their 2022 Ford Bronco, VIN: 3FMCR9B66NRE15996. (Complaint, P.P. 16, 17.) The complaint asserts three causes of action: (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act - breach of express warranty, (2) violation of the Song-Beverly Act section 1793.2, and (3) negligent repair.

On July 30, 2026 and on August 7, 2026, Plaintiffs filed Stipulated Protective Orders.

Discussion

Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant to serve further responses to RPDs, set one, nos. 16-18, 20-30, 45-46, 47, 49-54, and 55-59. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant unilaterally conditioned production on a protective order among other arguments.

On August 5, 2026, Defendant filed its opposition. In the opposition, Defendant states that Plaintiffs filed a stipulated protective order on July 30, 2026 and "[o]n July 28, 2026, and August 6, 2026, Ford produced confidential documents subject to the protective order." (Perez Decl., P.P. 14-15.)

In reply, Plaintiffs appear to acknowledge Defendant's supplemental production. However, neither party clarifies what has been supplemented and if the supplementation renders any issues moot. Since Plaintiffs initially argued that all of Defendant's responses unilaterally conditioned production on a protective order and the parties have since entered into a protective order, the Court seeks clarity on what arguments remain and what arguments are moot.

Given the scope of discovery at issue, the Court finds a continuance warranted to resolve this issue. The Court notes that there is another discovery motion scheduled to be heard on August 25, 2026. The Court continues this motion to that date and orders supplemental briefing and/or supplemental separate statements clarifying what, if anything, remains at issue following the Stipulated Protective Orders and supplemental production.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion to compel further responses to requests for production, set one is CONTINUED to Tuesday, August 25, 2026 at 9:30 AM. Supplemental briefing and/or supplemental separate statements clarifying what remains at issue are due by August 20, 2026. If the same issue is raised in the motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, supplemental briefing is also due on August 20, 2026. If the parties request more time, the parties can request a further continuance of either motion during this hearing.

Case Number: 25NWCV02598 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: P DARSHAN PRAVIN SEDANI v. LYFT, INC., ET AL.