MCGANN vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., et al.

25CV112554: MCGANN vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., et al. 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by CHRISTOPHER MCGANN (Plaintiff) CRS# 994161697415 in Department 517

Tentative Ruling - 05/27/2026 Keith Fong

The Motion to Compel MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 1, 3, 5, 7, AND 14 filed by CHRISTOPHER MCGANN on 04/16/2026 is Granted.

Plaintiff Christopher McGann’s unopposed motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, and 14 is GRANTED.

This is a lemon law case. Plaintiff Christopher McGann (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action on February 20, 2025 for violations of the Song-Beverly Act against Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“Defendant”).

On May 21, 2025, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories on Defendant. (Conn Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. A.) Pursuant to mutually agreeable extensions, Defendant served unsigned responses and objections on July 16, 2025. (Id. ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred thereafter. (Conn Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendant served signed responses on August 28, 2025. (Id. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff further met and conferred regarding Defendant’s responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, and 14. (Id. ¶ 8.) The parties continued to meet and confer, and an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) with the Court took place on March 5, 2026. (Id. ¶¶ 9-15, 18.) Following the IDC, Defendant would provide outstanding discovery responses by April 2, 2026. (Id. ¶ 19, Exh. I.) Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendant did not provide further responses to the Special Interrogatories. (Id. ¶ 21.)

Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to his Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, and 14. The discovery requests information about Defendant’s employees who (1) communicated with Plaintiff regarding Plaintiff’s vehicle; (2) drove Plaintiff’s vehicle; (3) repaired or worked on Plaintiff’s vehicle; and (4) communicated with Defendant’s authorized dealerships regarding Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s vehicle. The requests also seek information regarding the transit company that delivered Plaintiff’s vehicle to the dealership that sold the car to Plaintiff. Despite proper notice and service of the motions, there is no opposition on file from Defendant.

Discovery tests the pleadings and allows a party to determine what his or her opponent’s contentions are and what facts he or she relies upon to support his or her contentions. (Burke v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 281