AVILA vs FCA US, LLC., et al.

25CV116289: AVILA vs FCA US, LLC., et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 871.26 and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $2500; filed by ALBA L AVILA (Plaintiff) CRS# 660950854619 in Department 24

Tentative Ruling - 08/31/2026 Rebekah Evenson

The Motion to Compel MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TOCALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 871.26 AND REQUEST FORMONETARY SANCTIONS filed by ALBA L AVILA on 06/15/2026 is Granted in Part.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26 and Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED, IN PART, as follows.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant did not fully comply with the requirement under Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26(h) to produce all documents specified in that section. Defendant appears to concede it has not produced all responsive documents, and that there are additional responsive documents that “could be produced” under a stipulated protective order. (See opposition brief, page 5, lines 26-28; see also the Declaration of Jacky Wang, Exhibit C, page 4 lines 5-6.) The Court already entered a Stipulated Protective Order in this case on November 18, 2025.

The Court declines to enter an order compelling Defendant to produce any documents specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26(h). No language in section 871.26 suggests that the remedy for a purported failure to (fully) comply with the statute is a motion to compel production of additional documents.

The Court also observes that no language in section 871.26 suggests that a party’s response must be verified. Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.090(a)(5) is a separate and distinct statutory provision from section 871.26, and neither one incorporates the other.

However, based on Defendant’s apparent implicit concession that it has not produced all documents specified to section 871.26(h), Plaintiff is awarded sanctions of $2,500 against Defendant pursuant to section 871.26(j)(1). The Court does not find good cause for Defendant’s apparent failure to produce some specified documents in the absence of a protective order, particularly because the Court already entered a stipulated protective order in this case nearly a year ago.

PLEASE NOTE that if anyone contests this tentative ruling, counsel must appear in Department 24 in person (not by Zoom.)