MELJIE vs FCA US, LLC., et al.

25CV004249: MELJIE vs FCA US, LLC., et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures Pursuant to CCP 871.26 in Department 16D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver

25CV004249: MELJIE vs FCA US, LLC., et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures Pursuant to CCP 871.26 in Department 16D

and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff David Meljie’s motion Defendant FCA US, LLC’s initial disclosures pursuant to CCP § 871.26 is denied.

In this Lemon Law action, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to comply with CCP § 871.26. Specifically, Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s compliance with CCP § 871.26(h) which requires a manufacturer to produce specific categories of documents as part of the initial disclosures required by CCP § 871.26(b). The disclosures are required to be made “without awaiting a discovery request.” (CCP § 871.26(b).)

CCP § 871.26(h) requires a manufacturer to produce the following categories of documents as part of its initial disclosures:

(1) Copy of or access to a version of the owner’s manual for a motor vehicle of the same make, model, and year. (2) Any warranties issued in conjunction with the sale of the motor vehicle. (3) Sample brochures published for the motor vehicle. (4) The motor vehicle’s original invoice, if any, to the selling dealer. (5) Sales or lease agreement, if the manufacturer is in possession. (6) Motor vehicle information reports, including build documentation, component information, and delivery details. (7) Entire warranty transaction history for the motor vehicle. (8) Listing of required field actions applicable to the motor vehicle. (9) Published technical service bulletins (“TSBs”) for the same make, model, and year reasonably related to the nonconformities pertaining to the motor vehicle.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV004249: MELJIE vs FCA US, LLC., et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures Pursuant to CCP 871.26 in Department 16D

(10) Published information service bulletins (“ISBs”) for the same make, model, and year reasonably related to the nonconformities pertaining to the motor vehicle. (11) Records relating to communications between the manufacturer or dealership and the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle, including those related to repair orders or claims involving the motor vehicle. (12) Warranty policies and procedure manuals. (13) Service manuals reasonably related to the nonconformities pertaining to the motor vehicle. (14) If a pre-suit restitution or replacement request is made, all call recordings of pre-suit communications with the consumer available at the time of service of the complaint. (15) If a pre-suit restitution or replacement request is made, the manufacturer’s written statement of policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for restitution or replacement pursuant to “Lemon Law” claims. (16) If a pre-suit restitution or replacement request is made, any nonprivileged, prelitigation evaluation. (17) Any warranty extensions or modifications issued by the manufacturer on the motor vehicle.

According to Plaintiff, Defendant failed to produce documents in categories (h)(6)- (h)(10), (h)(12), and (h)(13). (Memo. 7:5-18:4.) Defendant contends in opposition that it complied with the statute and that many of the documents requested in the motion are confidential and proprietary. Defendant also contends that Plaintiff is requesting documents which exceed the scope of the initial disclosures required by CCP § 871.26. Defendant also contends that Plaintiff did not meet and confer prior to filing the motion and simply filed the instant motion six months after Defendant made its initial disclosures.

Here, the Court finds that the motion must be denied. Specifically, while Plaintiff argues that Defendant failed to provide documents in certain categories, Plaintiff has presented insufficient evidence to support those contentions. To that end, Plaintiff’s counsel’s brief declaration contains nine paragraphs, none of which discuss Defendant’s initial disclosures much less prove the inadequacy of thereof. (Yu Decl. ¶¶ 1-9.) Rather, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration does little more than attest to the “true and correct” nature of various documents.

Regardless of their authenticity, the mere existence of these documents do not demonstrate what Defendant, in fact, failed to produce. Plaintiff has simply argued in the motion, without sufficient supporting evidence, that Defendant failed to make certain disclosures. This is insufficient. “It is axiomatic that arguments of counsel are not evidence.” (Porterville Citizens for Responsible Hillside Development v. City of Porterville (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 885, 895, fn. 9.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV004249: MELJIE vs FCA US, LLC., et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures Pursuant to CCP 871.26 in Department 16D

Plaintiff has failed to submit any evidence which would permit the Court to determine that Defendant failed to comply with CCP § 871.26(h).

Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

Given that the motion was denied. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

While not necessary to the Court’s ruling, it will note that CCP § 871.26 does not contain a meet and confer requirement or provide that a manufacturer may simply withhold information required to be disclosed until a protective order is in place.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to notify Defendant’s counsel immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person, via Zoom or by telephone, in the event Defendant’s counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.