SALHI vs BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

“[D]iscovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved... if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) 25CV118164: SALHI vs BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by RAFIHULLAH SALHI (Plaintiff) CRS# 279000911381 in Department 520 DISCUSSION

MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS

Section 2016.040 requires such a declaration to “state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” “This rule is designed ‘to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order,’” which “will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes.” (Townsend v.

Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435.) To accomplish this goal, “parties must present to each other the merits of their respective positions with the same candor, specificity, and support during informal negotiations as during the briefing of discovery motions. Only after all the cards have been laid on the table, and a party has meaningfully assessed the relative strengths and weaknesses of its position in light of all available information, can there be a ‘sincere effort’ to resolve the matter.” (Id.)

Defendant complains that Plaintiff failed to adequately meet-andconfer, specifically about RFPs 8-22, 30 and 31 in his “boilerplate letter[.]” (Oppo., p. 2:10-12, 25-27; Garcia Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, Ex. C.) Plaintiff argues that it exhausted all good faith efforts but makes no mention about Defendant’s offer to stipulate to a protective order to address Defendant’s concerns about confidential documents. (Reply, p. 1:6-9; Garcia Decl., ¶ 5.)

The parties are reminded as noted in prior orders for motions to compel that they are required to make a “reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the dispute without the need to file a motion, as required.” (See Townsend, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 1439; Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 432-433.) Based on the November 5, 2025 meet-and-confer letter, Plaintiff has not entirely met its obligation to meet and confer, particularly as to RFP No. 32. (Garcia Decl., Ex. C.) In the letter, Plaintiff describes the categories of the requests and asserts in a general and conclusory manner how they are all relevant to his claims without specifically identifying any of the subject RFPs besides RFPs 30 and 31. (Ibid.) Nevertheless, the Court considers the merits of the motion for judicial efficiency.

MERITS

The Court finds that the definitions and categories of documents sought are not overreaching but described with reasonable particularity and directly relevant to this litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2017.010; 2031.030, subd. (c).) The categories are largely for the purpose of (1) relating to Defendant’s discussions, internal investigations and analyses of Plaintiff’s car defects based on Defendant’s warranty, and corresponding policies and procedures; and (2) establishing that Defendant previously knew of the defects based on similar issues for vehicles of the same year, make and model but nevertheless refused to repurchase the vehicle.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV118164: SALHI vs BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by RAFIHULLAH SALHI (Plaintiff) CRS# 279000911381 in Department 520

Defendant generally objects to each on similar bases that they are vague and/or overly broad and subject to attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. (Defendant’s Response to Separate Statement.) Defendant indicates that it has already produced responsive documents for RFPs 12, 15-22, and 31. The same is true for RFPs 7-11, 13-14, and 32 subject to a stipulated protective order, which has since been filed on May 4, 2026 for the Court to approve. (Ibid.)

For RFPs 8, 15-22 and 31, the Court cannot compel documents that may not exist; Defendant indicates that it is unable to comply because after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, “no such documents have ever existed” made under penalty of perjury must be accepted by Plaintiff, regardless of whether Plaintiff believes that there are additional documents or not. However, for RFP 12, for finality purposes, Defendants should affirm that after a diligent search, no documents exist, without reserving the right to supplement later. Plaintiff has the option to seek supplementary documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.050.)

The motion is DENIED as to RFPs 8, 15-22 and 31; it is GRANTED as to RFP 12.

As the parties have agreed to a stipulated protective order, Defendant should be able to amend its responses and produce corresponding documents to RFPs 7, 9-11, 14, and 32. The motion is GRANTED as to RFPs 7, 9-11, 14, and 32.

RFPs 13 and 30 simply include objections only without an indication of willingness to produce responsive documents with a protective order. The motion is therefore GRANTED as to RFPs 13 and 30.

Defendant appears to respond to RFP 32 with a qualifier, in indicating that it “will comply . . . in full” and that it will produce “service records received from Peter Pan BMW”. To the extent that Defendant means that the only documents that “evidence, refer, or relate to any ‘Key Data’ report[sic] taken for the SUBJECT VEHICLE” consist of service records from Peter Pan BMW, Defendant shall so state. The Motion is GRANTED as to RFP 32.

Thus, the Court finds that there is good cause to GRANT IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further RFPs.

A privilege log is not optional. To the extent that Defendant seeks to withhold any responsive documents on the basis of privilege or confidentiality, Defendant shall provide a detailed privilege log that identifies with particularity the legal basis for the party’s claim of privilege as well as facts sufficient for the court to determine whether the asserted privilege applies. (Catalina

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV118164: SALHI vs BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by RAFIHULLAH SALHI (Plaintiff) CRS# 279000911381 in Department 520 Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1130; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240.)

----------------------------------------------------

For these reasons, code-compliant responses to RFPs (Set One) 7, 9-14, 30 and 32 shall be provided to Plaintiff within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.280, subd. (a); 2031.310, subd. (a)(1).)

The Motion is DENIED as to RFPs 8, 15-22 and 31.

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: Defendant is advised that failure to comply with this Order may result in the imposition of future sanctions, including evidentiary, monetary, or terminating sanctions.

NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on May 28, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on May 27, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.

The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.

The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.

ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice that they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.