Ivan Estrada v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.

arrangement. Despite this ruling, and the Court's prior denials of fees based on the lack of evidence of extraordinary services, Plaintiff once again seeks fees on an additive basis. Plaintiff cannot have it both ways.

Disposition

Plaintiff Shayan Rostam's request for default judgment is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff Shayan Rostam's motion for attorney fees is denied.

9 - Ivan Estrada v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. Plaintiff Ivan Estrada's Motion to Compel Compliance with Court's June 1, 2026 Order and Defendant's Court-Ordered Discovery Responses

Plaintiff Ivan Estrada moves to compel Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. to comply with this Court's June 1, 2026 order, which ordered Defendant to provide further verified responses to RFP request nos. 75, 78 and 82. Plaintiff also moves to compel Defendant to comply with its discovery responses.

First, Plaintiff argues that Defendant provided unverified responses to request nos. 75, 78, and 82 in violation of the Court's prior order. However, on August 12, 2026, Defendant served the required verifications, which it inadvertently omitted from its prior responses. (Payne Decl., P. 15.) The Court finds this verification sufficient. Plaintiff's motion to compel compliance with the Court's order to provide verified responses is moot.

Second, Plaintiff argues that Defendant's unverified responses included statements of compliance; however, Defendant failed to produce any documents. The Court notes an inconsistency between these two requests for relief: If Defendant's unverified responses were tantamount to no responses at all, as Plaintiff argues, compelling Defendant to comply with them would be meaningless. In any event, since this motion was filed, Defendant produced responsive documents to request nos. 75 and 78, and provided a further supplemental response to no. 82, indicating inability to comply with the request. This further supplementation moots Plaintiff's request for relief.

In reply, Plaintiff takes issue with the content of Defendant's amended responses to request nos. 78 and 82. The Court cannot consider the sufficiency of Defendant's amended discovery responses in this motion. Plaintiff brought this as a motion to compel compliance with Defendant's then-existing discovery responses under CCP Sec. 2031.320. Any disputes regarding the sufficiency of the amended responses must be raised through a motion to compel further responses under CCP Sec. 2031.310. This motion must contain the requisite separate statement.

Plaintiff's request for sanctions in the amount of $500 each day Defendant does not comply with its responses after a new ten-day compliance period is denied as moot.

Disposition

Plaintiff Ivan Estrada's motion to compel compliance with court's June 1, 2026 order and Defendant's court-ordered discovery responses is denied.

Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc.'s Motion to Amend or Augment its Expert Witness Designation

Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. moves to amend or augment its expert witness designation. While Plaintiff refused to stipulate to this relief when asked by Defendant, Plaintiff filed no opposition to the instant motion. Plaintiff thus provided no explanation for its refusal to stipulate to the requested relief.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.620 provides: The court shall grant leave to augment or amend an expert witness list or declaration only if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (a) The court has taken into account the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the list of expert witnesses. (b) The court has determined that any party opposing the motion will not be prejudiced in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits. (c) The court has determined either of the following: (1) The moving party would not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined to call that expert witness or have decided to offer the different or additional testimony of that expert witness. (2) The moving party failed to determine to call that expert witness, or to offer the different or additional testimony of that expert witness as a result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and the moving party has done both of the following: (A) Sought leave to augment or amend promptly after deciding to call the expert witness or to offer the different or additional testimony. (B) Promptly thereafter served a copy of the proposed expert witness information concerning the expert or the testimony described in Section 2034.260 on all other parties who have appeared in the action.

Here, Defendant requests to amend its expert designation because all experts previously designated are not available to inspect Plaintiff's vehicle on the dates he is available. Defendant argues that it has attempted to schedule the vehicle inspection on at least five occasions since September 2025. Because of this delay, Defendant has had to engage a third-party engineering company to conduct the vehicle inspection and must substitute the previously designated witnesses, who are no longer available.

The Court finds good cause to allow Defendant to amend its expert designation. Because the vehicle inspection has not occurred, Plaintiff has not relied on Defendant's initial expert designation. There is no evidence that Plaintiff already conducted expert depositions on this issue. In addition, Defendant exercised reasonable diligence and would not have called the substitute witness except for Plaintiff's delays.

Disposition

Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc.'s motion to amend or augment its expert witness designation is granted. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.620(d), Defendant must make the new expert available immediately for deposition. | Home -->)" -->