DEL VALLE vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION

25CV017430: DEL VALLE vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 8D, located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes 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. 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

25CV017430: DEL VALLE vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 8D

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

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Plaintiff’s counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom as stated in the introductory notice to today’s tentative rulings), in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Plaintiff Brittin Alexandra Del Valle’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production from Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“Defendant”) is CONTINUED to September 9, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in this department to permit the parties to engage in further meet-and-confer efforts (and to meet the procedural prerequisites to filing this motion, which may obviate the need for such a motion).

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV017430: DEL VALLE vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 8D

At the outset, the Court must remind counsel that given the number of motions such as this which must be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough judicial resources available to resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved informally. This serves to highlight the critical need for all counsel's legitimate, reasonable and good faith meet-and-confer efforts before filing any discovery motion. Although it dealt with a motion to compel answers to deposition questions, the decision of Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431 is instructive in that it clarifies that the meet-and-confer process is not intended to be some perfunctory formality but rather it “requires...a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Id., at 1438.)

Having reviewed the moving and opposing papers, and the numerous discovery requests that the parties dispute, and the further supplementation of document production, it is apparent to the Court that the Parties have not complied with the requirements of the recently revised Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040[1], which requires meet-and-confer efforts to be made “either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference.” (Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040(a).) As such, such meet— and-confer attempts are required, and it appears further progress could be made if counsel continues to engage in the meet-and-confer process in good faith.

Counsel for the parties are thus ordered to engage in the meet-and-confer process in order to resolve or substantially narrow their discovery dispute. In order to encourage a meaningful dialogue and improve the prospects for resolution and consistent with recent revisions to Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040, the meet-and-confer efforts shall be conducted either in person or via telephone/videoconference, rather than by the mere exchange of letters or emails.

In resuming the meet-and-confer process, the parties should be guided by the observation(s) that: (1) in general, in Lemon Law cases, the Court permits discovery relating to information regarding the same type of defects for vehicles of the same year, make, and model sold in California (see Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26); (2) motions are generally not rendered moot by the service of responsive documents, as Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.5 specifically provides that a motion is deemed made at the time it is filed and served; (3) where a party has not yet agreed to produce documents, the Court generally cannot compel production of particular those documents; and (4) to the extent a party is withholding any documents based on

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV017430: DEL VALLE vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 8D

privilege, it must produce a privilege log.

Counsel shall meet and confer in person no later than August 19, 2026. After thoroughly meeting and conferring in an attempt to resolve each and every discovery request that the motion currently encompasses, and no later than August 26, 2026, counsel shall file a joint statement indicating which discovery requests have been resolved, and which requests (if any) remain outstanding. For each outstanding request, counsel shall set forth in the joint statement their respective positions, citing the relevant facts and authorities. Boilerplate or cut-and-paste arguments are strongly discouraged. The joint statement shall be no longer than ten pages in total.

[1] The Court notes that the revised version of section 2016.040 is effective January 1,

2026, and the pending motion was filed on February 2, 2026.