Gomez v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.

has waived any objections it may have had to that discovery. Tesla thus must provide Sedaghati with objection-free responses to the SROGs, FROGs, and RFPs. And because Tesla has not responsed to the RFAs, the matters in them are deemed admitted, per Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).

Tesla has filed a motion for an order seeking relief from waiver of its objections to the discovery that Sedaghati propounded; the motion is set for hearing on December 1, 2026. The Court is advancing Tesla's motion to today and denying it.

For a party to obtain relief from a waiver of its objections to discovery based on a failure to timely respond to the discovery, the party must show that (1) its failure to respond on time was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect and (2) it has subsequently served responses to the discovery that substantially comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.290, subd. (a) [interrogatories]; Sec. 2033.300, subdivision (a) [requests for production of documents]; 2033.280, subdivision (a) [requests for admission].)

Even if Tesla's failure to respond to the discovery that Sedaghati propounded by the November 14, 2025 due date reflects a mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect stemming from Tesla's understanding of what was said about a possible extension of the due date in the phone conversation with Sedaghati's counsel that day, Tesla would not be entitled to relief from a waiver of its objections to the discovery. That is because (as indicated above), Tesla has offered no evidence whatsoever that it has subsequently provided any responses to the discovery.

("Gomez") sued Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. ("Toyota) under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act ("the SBA") breaches of the express and implied warranties associated with a motor vehicle that Toyota distributed and that Gomez purchased.

Pending before the Court is Gomez's motion for an order compelling Toyota to provide further responses to requests for production of documents that Gomez propounded on Toyota. In resolving disputes over plaintiffs' requests to defendant automobile manufacturers/distributors for the production of documents in SBA cases, this Court has relied on the template set forth below as a guide on what is discoverable.

1. The Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual published by Defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, from the date of purchase of the subject vehicle to the present.

2. Any internal analysis or investigation regarding defects alleged in plaintiff's complaint in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle purchased in California. This includes Recall Notices and Technical Service Bulletins.

3. Policies and procedures used to evaluate customer complaints relating to defects alleged in plaintiff's complaint in vehicles purchased in California of the same year, make and model as the subject vehicle.

4. Policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date of purchase to the present.

5. Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle.

6. Communications with dealer, factory representative and/or call center concerning the subject vehicle.

7. Warranty claims submitted and/or approved by Defendant concerning the subject vehicle.

The Court directs counsel for Gomez and Toyota to meet and confer regarding this template as a way to resolve their discovery dispute. The Court is continuing the hearing on Gomez's motion to January 25, 2027 at 8:30. The case is already on the Court's calendar that day for other matters. At least one week prior to the continued hearing date, the parties shall file a joint status report on which requests for production of document remain at issue for the Court to resolve in the wake of the template-based meet and confer efforts that the Court is directing.

Case Number: 26STCV01670 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: 517

The Court is granting Defendant's motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's claims in this action. The action is stayed pending the completion of the arbitration. The Court will explain the basis for this ruling at the hearing on Defendant's motion today.

Case Number: 26STCV09564 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: 517

Pending before the Court is the Defendants' demurrer to the Plaintiff's initial Complaint. The Court is overruling the demurrer on mootness grounds. The initial Complaint is no longer the Plaintiff's operative pleading. It was superseded by the filing of a First Amended Complaint ("the FAC") on March 26, 2026. Defendants filed their demurrer to the initial Complaint more than a month later, on April 29, 2026. Defendants explain in their reply brief that they demurred to the initial Complaint because they were not served with the FAC and thus were unaware of its existence until Plaintiff referenced it in the opposition to the demurrer. Be that as it may, the demurrer before the Court today has been rendered moot by the filing of the FAC. If Plaintiff has yet to serve the FAC on Defendants, it obviously must do so.

The Court is advancing to today the case management conference that is set for October 5, 2026 and continuing it to December 8, 2026 at 8:30. If Defendants decide to demur to the FAC, they may reserve December 8, 2026 as the hearing date for it. If Defendants are able to secure an earlier hearing date for the demurrer, that is fine with the Court.

Case Number: BC701615 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: 517

Pending before the Court is the motion of Defendant Philip Layfield under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.285, subdivision (d)(1) for a determination of the validity of the assertion by Defendants Joseph Barrett and the Barrett Law Firm that certain documents that were disclosed in this litigation are subject to the attorney-client privilege and should be "clawed back." The Court is denying Layfield's motion on the ground that it is untimely. The Court will explain the basis for this ruling at the hearing on the motion today. | Home -->)" -->