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 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that effective April 13, 2026, this department has moved to the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye courthouse located at 500 G Street in Sacramento, CA 95814. All hearings noticed for Department 25 will be heard in Department 8D of the new courthouse. Parties who wish to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, and (2) advise opposing counsel of the request.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, the tentative ruling shall become 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. If a hearing is requested, the Court assumes that all parties will appear remotely via Zoom unless the Court orders inperson attendance.

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

25CV017430: DEL VALLE vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 8D

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be 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

TENTATIVE RULING

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 ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

Plaintiff served the at issue discovery requests on October 6, 2025. (Hozven Decl., ¶ 20.) Defendant served responses on December 19, 2025. (Id., ¶ 21.)

Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to requests for production, set one, nos. 1-31. Defendant opposes.

This matter was previously continued from July 6, 2026 to permit the parties to engage in further meet-and-confer efforts. The parties filed a joint statement on August 26, 2026, asserting that their dispute has been resolved with respect to request nos. 8, 10, 12, and 31. Accordingly, the parties require judicial resolution of request nos. 1-7, 9, 11, 13-30.

Discussion

Defendant opposes the instant motion arguing that: (1) Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith; (2) Plaintiff has failed to establish good cause; (3) Defendant has already produced responsive documents; and (4) request nos. 30 and 31 are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV017430: DEL VALLE vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 8D

As set forth below, the Court finds Plaintiff’s meet-and-confer efforts to be sufficient for the purposes of the instant motion and finds that Plaintiff has established good cause.

To the extent that Defendant argues that the motion should be denied because Defendant has already produced responsive documents, this does not respond to Plaintiff’s arguments that Defendant failed to provide code-compliant responses. Accordingly, Defendant has failed to substantively oppose the motion with respect to request nos. 1-7, 9-11, and 13-29. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion “it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes” that ground].) Accordingly, the motion to compel is GRANTED as to request nos. 1-7, 9-11, and 13-29.

Meet-and-Confer Efforts

Following service of Defendant’s responses on December 19, 2025, Plaintiff sent a meet-and-confer letter on January 5, 2026 setting forth the perceived deficiencies in Defendant’s responses. (Hozven Decl., ¶¶ 21, 24.) Plaintiff sent another letter on January 12, 2026, having received no response to the first. (Hozven Decl., ¶ 25.) Defendant responded by letter on January 12, 2026, stating that Defendant would stand by its objections. (Hozven Decl., ¶ 29.)

This matter was previously continued to permit the parties to further meet and confer, in compliance with recent revisions to Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040, which requires meet-and-confer efforts to be conducted either in person or via telephone/videoconference, rather than by the mere exchange of letters or emails. The parties filed a joint statement on August 26, 2026, representing that the parties met and conferred and were able to resolve a number of the requests at issue.

The Court finds the meet-and-confer efforts to be sufficient for the purposes of the instant motion.

Good Cause

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has failed to make a showing of good cause necessary to support an order compelling further responses to requests for production.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(b)(1) requires that a motion to compel further

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV017430: DEL VALLE vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 8D

responses to requests for production of documents must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (See also Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223-224.)

Plaintiffs’ Request for documents can be broken into the following categories: (1) Documents regarding the Subject Vehicle; (2) Defendant’s warranty and repurchase policies, procedures, and practices; and (3) Defendant’s knowledge of the same or similar defects in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel's declaration and the moving papers are sufficient to show good cause. The requests either relate directly to the Subject Vehicle or to Defendant's knowledge, investigation, analysis, and communications regarding the same defects or same parts as the Subject Vehicle.

Request No. 30

As set forth above, Defendant does not substantively oppose the instant motion with respect to any requests other than nos. 30 and 31. The parties have since come to a resolution with respect to request no.

31. Accordingly, the only request pending resolution is request no.

30.

Request for Production no. 30: All DOCUMENTS, in the form of a list or compilation, of other Customer Complaints in YOUR electronically stored information of database(s) that are SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR to complaints made by Plaintiff with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE in other 2023 Audi Q7 vehicles.

(Definitions omitted.)

Defendant responded:

VWGoA objects to this request on grounds that Plaintiff has not designated the items being sought for production by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item (CCP § 2031.030 (c)(1)). VWGoA also objects on grounds that the request is overbroad, vague and ambiguous, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and irrelevant or only peripherally related to any issues in this case,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV017430: DEL VALLE vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 8D

see, e.g., MacQuiddy v. Mercedes-Benz USA (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1045-46 (affirming court's denial of motion to compel discovery only “peripherally related to” the core issue of Song-Beverly claim, including “other customer complaints”). See Velasco v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (C.D.Cal. June 13, 2019, No. 2:18-cv-07880-MWF (SKx)) 2019 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 222387, at *2 (denying Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of documents relating to vehicles of the same make, model, and year as his that also have the same “Engine Defect”); Putman v.

BMW of N. Am., LLC (C.D.Cal. May 14, 2018, No. CV-17-3485-JAK (KSx)) 2018 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 22712, at *10-13 (denying Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of documents “relating to all 2012 BMW 750Li Sedans equipped with N63 engines and all 2012 BMW vehicles equipped with the N63 engine” that had “Engine Defect” or “Oil Consumption Defect,” because in part, the requests, even if arguably relevant in the individual lawsuit about a single vehicle, was facially overbroad); Koeper v. BMW of N. Am., LLC (C.D.Cal.

May 21, 2018, No. CV 17-6154-VAP (JPRx)) 2018 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 227558, at *3-6 (denying Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of documents, which sought “nationwide, classlike discovery” in a Song-Beverly Act case). VWGoA also objects on grounds that the request is vague as to time, unduly burdensome, and violates the privacy rights, interests, and/or expectations of individuals who are not parties to this lawsuit; it invades the attorney-client privilege, seeks documents that constitute protected attorney work product, is invasive of the trade secret privilege, and seeks confidential and proprietary business information, disclosure of which would damage VWGoA's competitive position in the marketplace.

Plaintiff argues that further response to request no. 30 is warranted because documents pertaining to the same defect are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. In opposition, Defendant argues that its liability is limited to Plaintiff’s vehicle and that discovery into other vehicles with the same defect has routinely been denied and that there is no caselaw which would support the position that a manufacturer should be analyzing other claims in making a repurchase decision in order to avoid a civil penalty.

The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to information about the same defects regarding other identical (same year, make, model, sold in California) vehicles. In the discovery context, information is relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. [citations omitted] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV017430: DEL VALLE vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 8D

[court's emphasis].) In fact, evidence regarding other vehicles with similar defects as Plaintiffs’ could potentially be admissible at trial in a lemon law action. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154; see also Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 971.) Here, for example, the subject documents could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding Defendant's knowledge of the same defects, and that Defendant lacks the means to fix the defects and nevertheless refuses to repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Such information would certainly be relevant to Plaintiff’s claim for civil penalties under Civil Code section 1794(c) given that Plaintiff must show a willful failure by Defendant in complying with its obligations under the Song-Beverly Act. Further, documents related to the warranty and repurchase policies could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding Defendant's compliance with the Song-Beverly Act. However, the expansive documents sought here are not all relevant to the instant action.

Therefore, the Court limits these requests to seek documents pertaining to identical Audi Q7 vehicles of the same year, make, model, sold in California.

All other objections are overruled, as the party seeking to resist discovery based upon objections, Defendant has the burden to justify its objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 220-221].)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to request for production no. 30 is GRANTED, in part.

Production of Documents

To the extent Plaintiff also purports to seek an order compelling Defendant’s production of documents responsive to the subject requests, the motion must be denied because Plaintiff did not file a motion to compel compliance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320(a), as Plaintiff’s notice of motion states that Plaintiff seeks only to compel further responses, not production of documents.

Disposition

In sum, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED, in part as to request for production nos. 1-7, 9, 11, and 13-30. In light of the Court's rulings here, Defendant shall serve further verified responses, as limited to the Subject Vehicle and other identical (same year, make, model, sold in California) Audi Q7 vehicles, to Plaintiff's request for

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV017430: DEL VALLE vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 8D

production of documents, set one by no later than October 9, 2026.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.