Tsukahara v. The Estate of Soren Mangseth Dixon, et al.

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. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Todd Nelson CRS# 103782968898 in Department 517

Tentative Ruling - 08/25/2026 Keith Fong

[JL] CASE NAME and NO.: 25CV120058 Tsukahara v. The Estate of Soren Mangseth Dixon, et al. MOTION: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses

HEARING DATE: August 27, 2026 DEPT: 517 JUDICIAL OFFICER: Fong

PROPOSED TENTATIVE

Plaintiffs Todd Nelson, individually and as Successor-in-Interest of Decedent, Jack Nelson, and Stannye Nelson’s 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 Tesla’s 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’ 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. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Todd Nelson CRS# 103782968898 in Department 517 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 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 Court’s intervention and formal resolution pursuant to Court order.

The motion was heard on August 13, 2026. The Court published a tentative ruling prior to the hearing, which was timely contested. At the hearing, the Court indicated that it was prepared to adopt the tentative as to the door release issue. In turn, Tesla requested that the Court specify the models at issue regarding that particular discovery. As to the SD card, the Court indicated that it agreed that translated data should be produced. Tesla expressed concern that the disclosure of all data from the card would disclose sensitive research and development (R&D) information. Plaintiffs argued that this concern was not appropriately raised in the papers. The Court directed the parties to further meet and confer, submit further letter briefing, and continued the hearing.

The Court now addresses the remaining issues as outlined in the parties’ joint letter brief of August 6, 2026, as well as the briefs submitted on August 19 and 20, 2026.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[A] civil litigant’s 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

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. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Todd Nelson CRS# 103782968898 in Department 517 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 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 Court’s 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 Tesla’s notice concerning, the interior release systems (including design decisions occurring prior to 2019) shall be produced regardless of vehicle model or year.

Tesla agrees that the information for door release systems shall include all releases of the Model S, Model X, Model 3, Model Y, and Cybertruck.

The parties dispute whether the scope should include Tesla vehicles sold within or outside of the United States. Foreign vehicle models are subject to different regulatory and legal requirements than Tesla is required to adhere to here. As such, the scope shall be limited to vehicles sold within the United States.

The parties further dispute whether the time scope should be limited to before the subject incident, or after. Plaintiffs contend that post-crash conduct may be circumstantial evidence of Tesla’s thought process prior to the crash including its response to reported incidents. As Tesla’s remedial actions may be relevant to the claims and defenses in this litigation, the Court agrees that the time scope is not limited to before the subject incident.

Crash Data Translation (RPD Nos. 1-2, 8)

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. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Todd Nelson CRS# 103782968898 in Department 517 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 Vehicle’s 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 court’s 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.

The prior tentative ruling directed Tesla to 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. Tesla argued at the hearing that compliance with this directive would require production of highly sensitive data relating to R&D issues that are not relevant to the case.

Plaintiffs contend that they should be permitted to review everything related to the 7-15 minute time period between when Jack Nelson entered the subject Cybertruck, to when it stopped recording data after the crash. Plaintiffs argue that Tesla may not withhold data as to undefined R&D signals subject to Tesla’s certification as to the matters withheld.

Tesla’s letter brief attaches a declaration from Dzuy Cao, a manager with the Tesla Artificial Intelligence group. Cao states that the R&D signals are highly sensitive and proprietary to Tesla, and used by Tesla engineers for internal engineering and future product development purposes. Cao further states that R&D signals collect data regarding potential future vehicle features and are used solely for internal engineering and future product development purposes, and are otherwise unrelated to vehicle collisions and are not reviewed for collision analysis. Cao states that the R&D signals “represent a fluid universal of data and signals that can be created, deployed, identified, updated, or changed at any given moment by Tesla’s engineering teams.” (Cal Decl. ¶ 9.)

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. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Todd Nelson CRS# 103782968898 in Department 517

Tesla’s contention that the R&D signals are not relevant to the instant action applies an improper standard. (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.App.2d 407, 421.) Relevancy of the subject matter does not depend nor is it restricted to the issues formally raised in the pleadings. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 551.)

Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established good cause to produce signals recorded for the Subject Vehicle for the drive cycle beginning when Jack Nelson entered the vehicle and ending when the data recording ceased, in a format usable to Plaintiffs. If Tesla withholds any documents or information as R&D information, Tesla shall produce a privilege log to identify the withheld items with sufficient information pursuant to C.C.P. § 2031.240. Tesla may seek modification of the protective order as necessary to address concerns regarding the nature of this production; the parties are encouraged to meet and confer to stipulate to any such modification to avoid further motion practice.

RFP No. 3 – Engineering Databases

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.)

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. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Todd Nelson CRS# 103782968898 in Department 517 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 of the date of this order’s 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 Nelson’s 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.

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. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Todd Nelson CRS# 103782968898 in Department 517

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 https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16181989812

Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 One tap mobile +16692545252,,16181989812# US (San Jose) 16692161590,,16181989812# US +(San Jose)

IF APPEARING BY ZOOM, VIDEO MUST BE ENABLED. THE COURT DOES NOT ALLOW APPEARANCES BY PHONE WITHOUT PRIOR LEAVE OF COURT.

Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose) +1 551 285 1373 US

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. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Todd Nelson CRS# 103782968898 in Department 517 +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