SEVAN L KEVORKIAN VS. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC. ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Thursday, September 18, 2025, Line 5. [Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling.] PLAINTIFF SEVAN KEVORKIAN's Motion To Compel Further Responses To Plaintiff's Requests For Production Of Documents, Set One, And Request For Monetary Sanctions.

Plaintiff Sevan Kevorkian moves to compel further responses to specified requests for production of documents and for sanctions. For the reasons stated herein the motion is largely denied and the court orders Kevorkian to pay sanctions to the court.

For the following RFPs, the motion is denied because Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC amended its responses prior to the filing of the motion and Kevorkian has not met and conferred about the amended responses: Nos. 1-3, 7, 89, 91, 100, 116-119, 141, and 142.

For the following RFPs, the motion is denied because each request is not relevant and is disproportionate to the needs of the case: Nos. 15-16, 23-24, 27, 29-30, 39-40, 51, 52, 61-62, 67-68, 71-74, 81-82, and 114-115. These RFPs seek a broad swath of documents concerning engine and electrical issues. Kevorkian's motion does not set out specific facts showing good cause to produce internal documents concerning engine or electrical defects or engine or electrical issues where Kevorkian's repair history within the warranty period relates to window and coolant issues.

Jaguar's objections to RFP No. 93 lack merit; Jaguar shall provide responsive documents within 30 days of entry of this order.

For RFP Nos. 135 and 136, each request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is overbroad. Generally it is improper to phrase a discovery request in terms of another litigation. No further response is ordered.

Kevorkian seeks sanctions. Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.310, subdivision (h), states that "the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust."

The court concludes that Kevorkian is unsuccessful on this motion because he has obtained only a small fraction of the relief sought, and that the motion lacked substantial justification. In particular, moving on 13 RFPs that are moot because the defendant amended its answer burdens the court with unnecessary filings. For each RFP where the court has denied relief, the court concludes that Kevorkian's motion lacked substantial justification.