MOTION TO COMPEL: ANSWER/RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
or exhibits/mutually agreeable trial dates within 6 months of the TSC as required by PS1 Law and Motion Rules. Failure to file can/will result in sanctions without further notice and the Court picking a firm trial date that will not be moved absent good cause.
The Status Hearing re Completion of Partition Sale set for 6.12.26 is vacated.
3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL: RAIZ VS VOLVO CARS ANSWER/RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION
USA, LLC OF DOCUMENTS BY BAYLEY A RAIZ, JAMES R DUNAGAN Tentative Ruling: A party may file a motion compelling further responses to requests for production if it finds the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.)
In a motion to compel further responses as to document requests, the moving party must state specific facts demonstrating good cause justifying the discovery sought. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2031.310(b)(1).) To establish good cause, the moving party must demonstrate relevance and specific facts justifying discovery. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (Guess? Inc.) (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) The burden to show good cause for production “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (Tbg Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)
For requests for production, a response must contain a statement of compliance, an inability to comply, or an objection. (Civ. Pro. Code, § 2031.210(a).) A statement of compliance shall state that the production “will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Id. at § 2031.220.) A statement of inability of compliance shall include state that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made to comply, the reason for the inability to comply, and the name and address of any person/organization that may have the documents. (Id. at § 2031.230.)
To the extent that Defendant asserts trade secret and other privileges, Defendant fails to provide any evidence to support the privileges. The party asserting the privilege must present facts supporting a prima facie claim of privilege; only then does the opposing party have the burden of showing that the privilege does not apply, an exception applies, or there was a waiver. (
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?”
Request No. 9 asks for all recalls and technical service bulletins (TSBs) that were issued for the subject vehicle. Defendant agreed to comply with the request “in full”. Otherwise, Defendant stated it was overbroad, burdensome, and raised other objections. Here, however, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause. Plaintiffs fail to explain why they need information for every recall, TSB, etc. rather than those related to the specific defects at issue.
No. 17 asks for manuals and publications for warranty repairs. No. 53 asks for warranty policy and procedure manuals issued to dealers. Both are relevant to determining the issues related to the defects and Defendant’s policy and procedure for handling defects. Defendant contends that these are privileged and overbroad, but has agreed to produce documents. Plaintiffs, in reply, concede that some documents have been produced but contend that Defendant should produce a code-compliant response without objections and a privilege log, if applicable.
No. 16 asks for communication between Defendant and dealer or service/repair facilities regarding the subject vehicle. In response, Defendant asserted objections and narrowed the request to “pre-litigation communications” and claimed that no responsive documents exist. This is insufficient. Defendant needs to provide a code-compliant response and/or substantiate its objections.
No. 54 asks for workshop manuals specifying diagnosis and repair procedures for vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause as to why she needs the entire manual. Here, the core issue is whether Defendant complied with the Song-Beverly Act by making a reasonable number of repair attempts, not a line-by-line evaluation of the technical manual.
No. 61 seeks plans, policies, programs, or measure for “warranty buyback reduction goals”. Defendant argues that the phrase “warranty buyback reduction goals” is ambiguous as it is not defined. Plaintiffs have the burden to reasonably particularize the categories of documents sought.
No. 62 asks for documents on goals to reduce repurchase costs, including warranty trend reports. The “warranty trend reports” may show that Defendant was aware of a higher failure rate for the specific components at issue in Plaintiff’s vehicle, which supports a finding of knowledge and willfulness. Civil Code section 1794(c), authorizes a civil penalty in lemon law cases “[i]f the buyer establishes that the failure to comply was willful.” A violation is willful if the manufacturer knew of its obligations but intentionally failed to fulfill them. (Schreidel v. American Honda Motor Co. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1249-1250.)
In Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, the defendant car company argued that the court erred when it denied a motion in limine to preclude evidence of “other vehicles” and non-warranty repairs. The appellate court rejected the argument:
[The expert’s] “other vehicle” testimony ... did not concern simply other vehicles. It was limited to the transmission model Ford installed in plaintiff’s truck and other vehicles. [The expert] described what Ford itself had done to notify dealers and technicians about problems with this transmission model. Thus, everything about which he testified that applied to other vehicles applied equally to plaintiff’s vehicle. Such evidence certainly was probative and not unduly prejudicial.
(Id. at 154.) While the question in Donlen was one of admissibility, the case is instructive with regard to the relevance of information concerning other vehicles.
In Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 971, the defendant was ordered during discovery to produce documents regarding other similar complaints. Although Doppes was not a discovery decision, it does indicate that such information regarding prior complaints is relevant to the litigation. That is, to the extent the court in Doppes held that such similar complaints were deemed admissible in evidence at trial, necessarily the same types of documents—similar complaints—would fit within the broader scope of discovery under section 2017.010. As such, information regarding similar defect trends in other vehicles is relevant and good cause exists for said documents.
As to no. 59, Plaintiffs in their reply state that they are no longer moving to compel a further response to no.
59.
Motion to Compel Further Reponses to Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED as to numbers 16, 17, 53 and 62.
Motion to Compel Further Reponses to Request for Production of Documents is DENIED as to numbers 9, 54 and 61.
The Motion is MOOT as to number 59.
Defendant to provide further responses and/or a privileged log, if applicable, within 30 days.
No sanctions are awarded.
The Trial Setting Conference is continued from 6.23.26 to 8.24.26. The Order to Show Cause re TSC declaration is vacated.
4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 2ND LITTLE VS ROCKET TITLE AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR BREACH CVPS2508295 INSURANCE OF CONTRACT/WARRANTY OF AUDREY LITTLE BY AUDREY LITTLE Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling. The motion is vacated. A third amended complaint was filed following the court sustaining demurrers to the 2nd Amended complaint on 5.28.26. The court is setting an Order to Show Cause re Third Amended Complaint for 7.02.26.
Plaintiff has filed two documents labelled Third Amendment, one on 5.29.26 just after the court’s ruling on the demurrer, and another on 6.03.26. Parties are directed to be prepared to discuss this issue as well as the scheduling of future motions including Plaintiff’s motions for summary adjudication and discovery motions.