BRIDGET N. RUIZ VS. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Tuesday, September 2, 2025, Line 3 [Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling].

PLAINTIFF BRIDGET RUIZ's Motion To Compel Further Responses To Plaintiff's Request For Production Of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff Bridget N. Ruiz seeks an order compelling Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC to make further responses to her Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Request Nos. 8, 13, 15-22, 23-29, 30, and 31. The court grants relief in part and continues the matter for further hearing to October 15, 2025.

Ruiz met and conferred with Jaguar by phone on June 13, 2025 following Jaguar's responses to the disputed RFPs, and Jaguar's counsel represented that she would notify Ruiz whether Jaguar would amend the week of July 7. By July 11, Jaguar had not responded. Ruiz attempted to file her motion to compel on July 14, 2025 but the filing was rejected by the clerk of the court. (Enav Reply Dec. Ex. 2.) Ruiz's July 14 filing was served on Jaguar. (Enav Reply Dec. Ex. 1.) On July 15, 2025, Jaguar's counsel represented for the first time that Jaguar would amend its responses. (Enav Dec. para. 11.) On July 22, 2025, Ruiz refiled her motion but did not update any of the information included in her moving papers, including that Jaguar by then had represented it would amend.

Both counsel have fallen short in their discharge of their duty of candor to the court. Ruiz's July 22 filing should have included the material fact that Jaguar had, by then, represented it would amend. Jaguar's opposition criticizes this omission but omits the material fact that at the time Jaguar represented it would amend, it had already received a service copy of Ruiz's motion to compel. Moreover, the court concludes that both parties have engaged in a misuse of the discovery process, Jaguar by failing to timely respond to Ruiz's meet and confer efforts and Ruiz by making a motion to compel before the amendment and informal resolution efforts were concluded.

Ruiz continues to contend that Jaguar's responses are deficient. The court orders Jaguar to make further response to RFPs 30 and 31 by producing (1) customer complaints concerning coolant leaks or difficulties opening the rear door for vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle; and (2) 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. [End of Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling]. =(301/CVA) | |