Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
25CV129063: FATIMA vs LUCID GROUP, INC. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Iraj Fatima (Plaintiff) CRS# 963369856299 in Department 520
Tentative Ruling - 06/10/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson
The Motion to Compel PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY filed by Iraj Fatima on 03/18/2026 is Granted.
The Motion of Plaintiff Iraj Fatima (Plaintiff) to Compel Further Special Interrogatories is GRANTED in its entirety.
Defendant is ORDERED to provide verified supplemental or amended responses as to SPROGS 14, 38-41, 43 and 61 as detailed in this order within 30 (thirty) days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(1).)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGAL STANDARD
As to Special Interrogatories Nos. 38-40 and 43, the motion is GRANTED. These requests are specific to Defendants Song-Beverly Act policies and procedures. The requested information is relevant to the subject matters alleged in Plaintiffs complaint. (Associated Brewers Dist. Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 586.)
Special Interrogatory No. 41 requests identification of the person(s) involved in Defendants investigation into the subject car, which is akin to a SPROG seeking identification of who assisted in providing the information to respond to the interrogatories. This is information to identify percipient witnesses. The Motion is granted as to SPROG 41.
For SPROGS 14 and 61, it does not appear overly burdensome to require Defendant to identify the technicians and number of days the subject car was out of service for warranty repairs respectively. Accordingly, the Motion is granted as to SPROGS 14 and 61.
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.
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?”
NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the courts final order on June 11, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on June 10, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) 25CV129063: FATIMA vs LUCID GROUP, INC. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Iraj Fatima (Plaintiff) CRS# 963369856299 in Department 520 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.