MUJADADI vs TEAM VOLKSWAGEN OF HAYWARD CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

22CV006954: MUJADADI vs TEAM VOLKSWAGEN OF HAYWARD CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Team Volkswagen of Hayward (Cross-Complainant) CRS# 322703411488 in Department 16

Tentative Ruling - 05/27/2026 Victoria Kolakowski

The hearing on Team Volkswagen of Hayward Corp.'s Motion to Compel Further Responses to document requests and special interrogatories is further continued to June 9, 2026, at 2:30 p.m.

I.

Background

Jahid Mujadadi1 filed a Complaint against his former employers, including Team VW, alleging causes of action for religious-based discrimination and wrongful termination in violation of public policy, among others. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 3, 14–125, Feb. 14, 2022.) In response, Team VW (and one other) filed a Second Amended Cross-Complaint against Jahid. (2d Am. Cross-Compl., Dec. 22, 2022.) As relevant here, Team VW alleged that it terminated Jahid partly because he failed to perform his duties as a general manager, embezzled funds from Team VW to fund ice cream businesses, and traded stocks while on duty at Team VW. (Id. ¶¶ 10–19, 22–27.)

In February 2025, Team VW served Jahid with a second set of document requests and special interrogatories. (Prada Decl. Supp. Mot. ¶ 2, May 1, 2026; see also id. Exs. 1, 2 (providing requests).) In March and May 2025, Jahid served his objections to the document requests and responses to the special interrogatories, respectively. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 10; see also id. Exs. 8, 9 (providing initial responses).) In June 2025, Team VW sent Jahid a letter detailing what it perceived were meritless objections. (Id. ¶ 11; see also id. Ex. 10 (providing letter).) In August 2025, after a remote conference between the parties, Jahid provided further responses. (Id. ¶ 13; see also id. Exs. 12, 13 (providing amended responses).)

In late September 2025, Team VW served another letter detailing what it still perceived were meritless objections and deficient responses. (Id. ¶ 15; see also id. Ex. 14 (providing second letter).) The parties then attended an informal discovery conference in October 2025. (Id. ¶ 16.)

In October 2025, Team VW moved to compel further responses to document requests and special interrogatories, and for a $1,810.00 sanction upon Jahid and his counsel. (Mot., Oct. 24, 2025.) Jahid opposed. (Opp’n, May 12, 2026.)

II.

Discussion

On its own motion, the Court finds it appropriate and necessary for a referee to “hear and determine any and all discovery motions and disputes relevant to discovery in the action and to report findings and make a recommendation thereon.” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 639(a)(5); see also Taggares v. Super. Ct. (1998) 62 Cal. App. 4th 94, 105 (holding that a “court should not make blanket orders directing all discovery motions to a discovery referee except in the unusual case where a majority of factors favoring reference are present”).)

Here, two factors are present. First, 22CV006954: MUJADADI vs TEAM VOLKSWAGEN OF HAYWARD CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Team Volkswagen of Hayward (Cross-Complainant) CRS# 322703411488 in Department 16 this Motion is one of five currently before the Court. And while several of the motions have significant overlap, the Court must still review each filing independently. And second, the issues raised by the parties in their briefing show that this discovery dispute is only one in a continuum of discovery disputes, beginning in January 2025.

The Court has issued rulings that should have allowed the parties to better inform their discussions, adjust their positions, and resolve their discovery disputes. Still, the disputes continue. The Court infers that the parties are entrenched in their respective positions and that their discovery disputes are unlikely to be resolved without supervision.

Altogether, the parties’ discovery disputes have consumed significant amount of the Court’s time and its limited (and underfunded) resources. (See id. at 106 (“Where one or more of the above factors unduly impact the court's time and/or limited resources, the court is clearly within its discretion to make an appropriate reference.”).) Accordingly, appointment of a referee is necessary because a referee will more effectively—and, importantly, proactively—supervise and manage the discovery proceedings, promptly hear discovery disputes, and issue recommendations to the Court.

The Court is inclined to order that the parties share the costs of the referee equally unless the referee finds that one party has unreasonably caused the specific discovery dispute before the referee.

The Court continues the hearing to permit the parties time to confer on whether they consent to appointment of a referee to hear and determine all discovery motions and disputes relevant to discovery in this action and the related actions.

The parties must further confer on the nomination of a qualified discovery referee. If the parties do not agree on a referee, the parties must follow the procedure provided by section 640 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

III. Orders The hearing on the Motion is continued to June 9, 2026, at 2:30 p.m.

The parties must submit a joint statement no later than June 1, 2026, addressing whether they consent to appointment of a discovery referee, and naming their referee if agreed upon by the parties or their proposed nominees if they do not agree. 1 The Court refers to Abdul, Jahid, and Soliman Mujadadi by their first name for clarity’s

sake as the Court is hearing several motions to compel responses that concern the brothers. The Court intends no disrespect.

***

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV006954: MUJADADI vs TEAM VOLKSWAGEN OF HAYWARD CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Team Volkswagen of Hayward (Cross-Complainant) CRS# 322703411488 in Department 16

The Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Team Volkswagen of Hayward (Cross-Complainant) CRS# 322703411488 scheduled for 05/28/2026 is continued to 06/09/2026 at 02:30 PM in Department 16 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.

The Court orders counsel to obtain a copy of this order from the eCourt portal.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

How Do I Contest a Tentative Ruling? Find your case in eCourt at https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov/ using “Case Search” or “Calendar Search” (after you log in) Select the Tentative Rulings Tab Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" Enter your name and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue. Select "Proceed"

You must also notify the department via email (Dept16@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and opposing parties by no later than 4:00 PM, one court day before the scheduled hearing.

Please provide this information to any opposing parties.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE HEARING/CONFERENCE WILL BE IN- PERSON WITH THE OPTION TO APPEAR REMOTELY.

COUNSEL AND PARTIES MAY APPEAR EITHER IN-PERSON IN DEPARTMENT 16 AT THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING OR BY REMOTELY THROUGH THE ZOOM PLATFORM. ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 16 IS BELOW.

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16024053017 Meeting ID: 160 2405 3017