NAMBA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al.

24CV017829: NAMBA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that effective April 13, 2026, this department has moved to the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye courthouse located at 500 G Street in Sacramento, CA 95814. All hearings noticed for Department 25 will be heard in Department 8D of the new courthouse. Parties who wish to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, and (2) advise opposing counsel of the request.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, the tentative ruling shall become the final order of the Court. The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Court assumes that all parties will appear remotely via Zoom unless the Court orders inperson attendance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.

Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

24CV017829: NAMBA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 8D

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Kenneth Jay Namba’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Issue and Evidentiary Sanctions is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This Lemon Law action arises out of Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2023 Honda CR-V, VIN 7FARS6H90PE036214 (the “Vehicle”). Plaintiff brings causes of action for violations of the Song-Beverly Act against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Defendant”).

On June 15, 2026, this Court granted, in part, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents. The Court’s minute order granted the motion with respect to requests for production nos. 26, 27, 29, and 30, with verified amended responses to be served by no later than June 29, 2026.

Defendant served verified amended responses June 29, 2026. (Conn Decl., ¶ 20.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s amended responses were insufficient, as Defendant’s further responses represented that it had no documents responsive to the requests. (Conn Decl., ¶ 20, Exh. H.)

Plaintiff now moves for issue, and/or evidentiary sanctions on the basis that Defendant has failed to comply with the Court’s June 15, 2026 order. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks the following orders:

• Honda is precluded from introducing any evidence to dispute that the Subject Vehicle had a defect covered by the written warranty that substantially impaired the Subject Vehicle’s use, value, or safety to a reasonable buyer in Plaintiff’s situation;

• It is established that Defendant American Honda Motor Company or its authorized repair facilities failed to repair the Subject Vehicle to match the written warranty after a reasonable number of attempts.

• It is established that American Honda Motor Company’s conduct was “willful.” And to the extent that the trier of fact determines that American Honda Motor Company breached its warranty, it is established that American Honda Motor Company is liable for a civil penalty of two times actual damages.

(Notice of Motion at p. 2:7-16.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017829: NAMBA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 8D

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is denied as the evidence provided therein is not relevant to the instant motion.

Legal Standard

For misuse of the discovery process, including where a party has disobeyed a court order to provide discovery, the Court may impose a monetary sanction, an issue sanction, or an evidentiary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010, 2023.030.) The Court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate sanctions under the factual circumstances before it. (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 12.) “The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks but the court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of the discovery but to impose punishment.” (Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal. App. 2d 300, 304.)

“The penalty should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 793.) The discovery sanction cannot put the propounding party in a better position than they would have been in if they had received the discovery. (Puritan Insurance Co. v Superior Court (1985) 171 Cal. App.3d 877, 884.) The Court may decline to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of the discovery process if the party subject to the sanction “acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a).)

“Although not expressly required by statute, courts have noted that, absent unusual circumstances, nonmonetary sanctions are warranted only if a party willfully fails to comply with a court order.” (Aghaian v. Minassian (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 603, 618–619) “[T]wo facts are generally prerequisite to the imposition of a nonmonetary sanction. There must be a failure to comply with a court order and the failure must be willful.” Lee v. Lee (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1559; see R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496 [“Only two facts are absolutely prerequisite to imposition of the sanction: (1) there must be a failure to comply, conceded here by appellant; and (2) the failure must be willful.”] (quoting Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525); Calvert Fire Ins. Co. v. Cropper (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 901, 904.)

Discussion

Plaintiff claims that Defendant failed to comply with the Court’s June 15, 2026 order, as Defendant has failed to produce any responsive documents to request for production no. 26 and no.

27.

Request No. 26

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017829: NAMBA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 8D

Request No. 26 provides:

Produce a list of customer complaints in YOUR electronically stored information database that are substantially similar to the defects claimed by PLAINTIFF (i.e., Advanced Driver Assistance System (“ADAS”) defects), in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the SUBJECT VEHICLE. This list shall include the last six of the VIN, date of repair visit, dealership or other reporting location, and text of the other customers’ reported complaint, but shall not include the other customers’ names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, or other personal identifying information.

(emphasis added.)

Through its June 15, 2026 Minute Order the Court granted the motion to compel to the extent it is limited “to information about the same defects regarding other identical (same year, make, model, sold in California) 2023 Honda CR-V vehicles,” (Minute Order, dated 6/15/26, at p. 5.)

Defendant served a further response to Request No. 26, as follows:

Pursuant to the Court’s ruling of June 15, 2026, AHM provides the following further response: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, AHM has no documents responsive to this request in its possession, custody, or control regarding California purchased 2023 Honda CR-V Hybrid vehicles. In conducting its search of electronically stored information for customer complaints concerning Advanced Driver Assistance System conditions in vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle, AHM utilized the following search terms: lane assist error message, LKAS error message, lane departure warning does not work, back up warning system not operating, back up warning system not functioning, back up warning system does not chime, lane departure system not operating, lane departure system not working error, lane departure struggles recognizing curve, road departure mitigation not working, road departure mitigation malfunction, road departure mitigation does not work, road departure mitigation requires correction to steering, lane keep assist issues see dealer, lane departure see dealer, drifts into opposing lanes with lane keep assist, blind spot warning lit up, blind spot warning with no other cars around, object approaching warning with no object, lane departure system caused vehicle to veer, lane departure warning comes on while driving in center of lane, lane departure warning illuminated while driving, when driving over hill or hump lane departure light comes on, lane departure deactivation, when decelerating car accelerated on its own, accelerates on its own, accelerated on its own, lane keep warning comes on randomly, lane keep assist warning and forced vehicle, lane keep assist forced

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017829: NAMBA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 8D

vehicle, adaptive cruise control set at 60 mph following a vehicle and accelerate on its own, ACC set at mph following vehicle and accelerates on its own, traffic sign recognition malfunction, cross traffic monitor malfunction, cross traffic monitor does not work, rear vehicle approach detector does not work, rear vehicle object detector does not work, blind spot monitor intermittently not operating, blind spot information system not operating, some driver assist systems cannot operate, brake warning indicator comes on with no vehicles. Based on this search, AHM did not locate any responsive customer complaints.

(Conn Decl., ¶ 20, Ex. H, p. 2:24-3:23.)

Plaintiff argues that it is not possible that no such documents exist, as, inter alia, there is a pending class action lawsuit alleging a number of the same issues as well as other individual complaints filed in various courts relating to the same “Sensing Defect.” Plaintiff also argues that it has found similar customer complaints in the NHTSA database. Further, Plaintiff asserts that his own lawsuit/complaint was not found.

As noted by Defendant, the plain language of the request seeks “customer complaints” that are in Defendant’s “electronically stored information database.” As such, this does not necessarily include complaints that may be found in the NHTSA database or complaints filed in various courts to the extent that those same complaints were not made in a way that would bring them into Defendant’s database. As such, Plaintiff’s citation to other lawsuits or complaints in the NHTSA documents do not demonstrate that Defendant did not conduct a search of its database. Further, Defendant provided in its response the search terms it used in conducting a search of its electronically stored information database.

Based on the information before it, the Court does not find that there is a willful failure to comply with the Court’s orders. The Court notes that Defendant appears to have taken steps to ensure transparency in its response by providing the search terms used. Likewise, Defendant has also explained that its understanding of the Court’s Order limited the search to “other identical *same year, make, model, sold in California) 2023 Honda CR-V vehicle: was to include all 2023 CR-V Hybrid vehicles sold in California. While Plaintiff takes issue with the search terms that were expressly provided by Defendant as well as limits to Hybrid models, the Court does not find that the search terms used or such a limitation to Hybrid models demonstrates willful disobedience with the Court’s June 16, 2026 Minute Order.[1]

Request No. 27

Request No. 27 provides:

Product all DOCUMENTS concerning any internal analysis or investigation by YOU CONCERNING the defects claimed by PLAINTIFF (i.e., Advanced Driver

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017829: NAMBA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 8D

Assistance System (“ADAS”) defects), in vehicles for the same year, make, and model of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

As noted in the Court’s June 15, 2026 Minute Order, “Plaintiff agree[d] to limit the scope of the requests with respect to any investigation to ‘the underlying investigation and analysis that led to Honda issuing its July 2025 American Honda Position Statement Regarding POST- COLLISION DIAGNOSTIC SCAN AND CALIBRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR HONDA AND ACURA VEHICLES.’ (Joint State., p. 6:8-10.)” (Minute Order, dated 6/15/26, at p. 5 (emphasis added).)

Defendant served a further response to Request No. 27, as follows:

Pursuant to the Court’s ruling of June 15, 2026, AHM provides the following further response: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and limited to any underlying internal investigation and analysis that led to the July 2025 POST?COLLISION DIAGNOSTIC SCAN AND CALIBRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR HONDA AND ACURA VEHICLES as agreed to by Plaintiff, AHM states that it has no documents in its possession, custody, or control responsive to this request. The referenced document is a position statement directed to all Honda and Acura vehicles setting forth recommended post-collision diagnostic and calibration procedures and provides general technical background regarding vehicle electronic systems; it does not identify, reference, or rely upon any underlying internal investigation or analysis.

(Conn Decl., ¶ 20, Ex. H, p. 4:24-5:5.)

While Plaintiff references this request throughout the memorandum of points and authorities, Plaintiff does not clearly set forth why he believes that Defendant’s response constitutes willful disobedience with the Court’s order.

Indeed, Defendant explained in the response that the “referenced document . . . does not identify, reference, or rely upon any underlying internal investigation or analysis.” This appears consistent with Defendant’s representation to Plaintiff prior to the Court’s June 15, 2026 Order. As such, based on the record before it, the Court does not find that Defendant’s response amounts to willful disobedience.

In sum, the Court finds that the drastic remedy of issue sanctions is not appropriate under the circumstances. “The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks but the court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of the discovery but to impose punishment.” (Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal. App. 2d 300, 304.) “The penalty should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017829: NAMBA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 8D

required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 793)

There is nothing before the Court which shows that Defendant has failed to cooperate with the Court’s order, much less that such a failure was willful. This is not a situation where Defendant has failed to provide amended responses pursuant to the Court’s order. The Court further notes that, while there have been four prior discovery motions in this matter, two of them were continued to ensure sufficient meet and confer efforts were completed (which resolved disputes regarding certain requests). None of them resulted in monetary sanctions. One of the motions concluded in a mixed result. Nevertheless, having reviewed all the conduct at issue, including all conduct expressly raised in this motion, the Court does not find that the record before it supports the relief requested by Plaintiff through this motion.

Disposition

Accordingly, the motion is denied in its entirety.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

[1] The Court notes that Plaintiff does not bring a motion to compel further responses based on

this purported failure to properly respond.