DIEGO VASQUEZ ET AL VS. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Thursday, October 2, 2025, line 4 PLAINTIFFS DIEGO VASQUEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, JUAN VASQUEZ'S Motion To Compel Further Responses To Plaintiffs Request For Production Of Documents, Set Two (tentative ruling part 1 of 2) Diego Vasquez and Juan Vasquez move to compel further responses to their 131 requests for production of documents to Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC. The motion is granted in part and denied in part. The Vasquezes appear to have pasted their separate statement sections about "reasons to compel further response" from another brief; the language they quote from Defendant's statement of compliance does not appear in the statement of compliance and makes reference to a different car company's responses.

The Vasquezes' 131 requests for production are disproportionate to the needs of this case. The court orders Jaguar to produce the following documents within 20 days of entry of this order.

1. Purchase and/or lease contract concerning the subject vehicle.

2. Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle.

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

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

5. Any Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual published by defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, for the date the subject vehicle was purchased to the present.

6. Any internal analysis and/or investigation regarding defects claimed by plaintiff in vehicles for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle.

7. Documents that evidence any policy and/or procedure used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date of purchase to the present 8. Other customers' complaints similar to the alleged defects claimed by plaintiff, limited to vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle.

9. Technical Service Bulletins and/or Recall Notices for vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle, whether mentioned in the repair history of the subject vehicle or not. Beyond these categories, Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of setting forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (See Code Civ. Proc., section 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) The motion is therefore otherwise denied. (end of tentative ruling part 1 see part 2) = (301/CVA) | |