| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and Request for Monetary Sanctions
May 22, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar
HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________
9:00 AM Line 4 23-CIV-04970 GARRETT A. DUNWOODY VS. FCA US, LLC
GARRETT A. DUNWOODY TIONNA CARVALHO FCA US, LLC ALI AZEMOON
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and Request for Monetary Sanctions
TENTATIVE RULING:
Initially, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion filed on November 18, 2025, stated that the instant matter was set before the Honorable Jeffrey Finigan. However, effective September 22, 2025, by order of the Presiding Judge pursuant to San Mateo County Superior Court Local Rule 3.200(a), this matter was reassigned for all purposes, including the instant hearing, to the Honorable Michael L. Mau, Department 20, and (per the Notice of Hearing Location Change) is located at 1050 Mission Road, South San Francisco, CA 94080, Courtroom L. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110 [the Notice “must specify” the location of the hearing].)
The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”) brought by Plaintiff Garrett A. Dunwoody, is DENIED.
The Court has reviewed the moving and opposing papers, as well as subsequent developments in the Court’s records. In particular, at the most recent IDC, the Court noted that:
With a document production made on 02/23/2026, the issues initially presented in this IDC appear to have largely been resolved. Nonetheless, counsel shall continue to meet and confer with regard to the following: (1) Plaintiff’s request to have a brief statement confirming the nature of redactions in documents that do not relate to any claims of privilege; (2) Plaintiff’s request for ESI herein and whether such would be appropriate in this instance; and (3) Plaintiff’s request for documents relating to separate lawsuits, including class actions, if applicable (Request for Production Nos. 133-134). With regard to (3), Defendant has declined at this time to make any production, and the Commissioner tends to view these requests as unduly burdensome.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
(Minute Order, IDC, March 19, 2026.)
May 22, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 14 HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ Further, Defendant’s counsel declares that:
Based on information and belief, on January 7, 2026 FCA US served a nonconfidential document production consisting of pages Bates Number 000001-001791l and then served a second production of confidential documents, on February 23, 2026, Bates 001792- 002003. In these productions, FCA US produced: 1). Warranty Claim Records related to the Subject Vehicle; 2). Repair Order Records; 3). Monroney Label; 4). VIP Summary Report; 5). Customer Call Logs (CAIRs); 6). Sales Brochure; 7). Warranty Booklet; 8). Glove Box Documents; 9). Technical Service Bulletins; 10). Copies of applicable recalls and customer safety notices; 11). FCA US CA arbitration documents; 12). FCA’s 2023 Warranty Administration Manual; 13). 2024 Dealer Policy Manual.
(Gruzman Decl., ¶ 6.)
Thus, it appears even more strongly as though the issues raised in the Motion have been fully resolved in the six months since the Motion was filed, and that this Motion was expected to have been and apparently should have been formally withdrawn. While Plaintiff has not filed a notice of withdrawal of the Motion, he also has not filed any Reply, thus Defendant’s Opposition is uncontroverted and is well-taken. Thus, the Motion is DENIED.
The Court finds in light of the above procedural history, the imposition of sanctions on either party would be unjust.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept20@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the CRC. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be filed or e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.