Ingram vs. Bastidas

or replacement of the vehicle—it addresses the manufacturer’s infrastructure obligations to support warranty repairs. Unless the plaintiff also asserts a claim seeking restitution or replacement based on the manufacturer’s inability to repair the vehicle to conform to express warranties after a reasonable number of attempts under Section 1793.2(d)(2), the mandatory disclosure provisions of Section 871.26 would not apply.

The Court imposes sanctions against Defendant and it’s counsel in the amount of $2,500 pursuant to CA Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26(j)(1).

The Case Management Conference is VACATED, and the Court now sets this matter for a jury trial on January 14, 2028, at 11:00 a.m. in Department C12. Jury fees have been paid.

Plaintiff Radner to give notice.

8. Martinez vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc

25-01452341

Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written)

Plaintiffs Lexi Winslow and Leslie Martinez’s motion to compel the continued deposition of defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Person Most Knowledgeable is granted. To be clear, however, the Court agrees with Honda the PMK is not necessarily Defendant’s Field Technical Specialist Sean M.

The deposition shall occur by September 30, 2026.

Sanctions are denied.

Plaintiff to give notice.

9. Ingram vs. Bastidas

24-01374235

Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written)

Defendants Xavier Chavarin Bastidas and JL Xpress, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Non-Party Mercedes Benz of Long Beach aka Long Beach Eurocars LLC (“MBLB”) to respond to a third-party deposition subpoena is GRANTED in part. (Code Civ. Proc. §2025.480.)

MBLB shall make itself available by October 9, 2026 for a deposition to be taken by remote means of the person most knowledgeable “concerning a slip and fall incident that occurred on or about December 16, 2022, involving Iris Inez Ingram at Mercedes of Long Beach, 2300 E. Spring St., Signal Hill, CA 90755”

The Parties may meet and confer and agree to an alternative date, time, and location for the deposition to take place without further leave of court.

Additionally, within 45 days, but no later than 3 days prior to the date set for the deposition of MBLB’s person most knowledgeable, shall respond to Request for Production of Documents, Request Nos. 1 and 4 narrowed as follows:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

All DOCUMENTS in YOUR file related to the INCIDENT, including but not limited to all photographs, videos, video surveillance, or other images that depict and/or refer to the INCIDENT. Responding Party need not produce any documents that are communications between Responding Party and its attorney or documents generated by Responding Party’s attorneys in the course of litigation of Plaintiff’s claims against Responding Party.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

All COMMUNICATIONS in YOUR file between YOU or YOUR attorneys on the one hand, and IRIS INEZ INGRAM or her attorneys, on the other hand, that refer to the injuries IRIS INEZ INGRAM claimed to have sustained as a result of the INCIDENT. Responding Party need not produce any documents directly referencing the confidential settlement agreement or its terms. Rather, this Request encompasses communications that directly reference the injuries IRIS INEZ INGRAM sustained and any contentions that such injuries relate to the INCIDENT.

MBLB objects to the subpoena and document requests on the grounds of privacy and attorney-client privilege and work-product protection.

The party claiming a violation of the constitutional right of privacy must “[1] establish a legally protected privacy interest, [2] an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, [3] and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552, citing Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35-37). The court must balance whether the invasion of the privacy interest is justified by a competing interest. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, supra., 7 Cal.4th at 38.)

While the party seeking the discovery need not always show a “compelling need” for the discovery, “when a discovery request seeks information implicating the constitutional right of privacy, to order discovery simply upon a showing that the Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 test for relevance has been met is an abuse of discretion.” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 556.) The discovery must be “directly relevant” and it is not enough if the discovery might lead to admissible evidence. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 526, disapproved of on other grounds by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531.)

Here, the facts of the slip and fall incident that took place on MBLB’s premises and the injuries Plaintiff has claimed as a result of that incident are directly relevant to the claims and defenses in this lawsuit and thus are a proper subject of discovery regardless of the privacy interest in preserving the confidentiality of the ultimate settlement of Plaintiff’s claims against MBLB.

The Court has taken into consideration MBLB’s privacy, privilege and work-product objections. The Document requests have been appropriately narrowed to (1) exclude the production of materials subject to attorney client privilege or work product protection and (2) to balance Defendants’ interest in obtaining discovery of information directly relevant to the claims and defenses in this lawsuit with the privacy interests of MBLB and Plaintiff in the confidentiality of the settlement agreement between them.

Moving Party and MBLB’s requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED.

Defendants shall provide notice.

10. Alvarenga vs. Ragen

24-01409779

Motion to Compel Physical/Mental Examination

CONTINUED 11. Patino vs. Gibson

25-01531266

Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories (X2)

OFF CALENDAR