Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV01257, Date: 2025-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV01257    Hearing Date: January 30, 2025    Dept: E

Hearing Date: 01/30/2025 – 8:30am
Case No. 23GDCV01257
Trial Date: 04/06/2026
Case Name: MARIA DEL CARMEN SANDOVAL, an individual, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation and BIG VALLEY FORD, INC., a Delaware Corporation d/b/a BIG VALLEY FORD LINCOLN, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

TENTATIVE RULING – MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RFPs

RELIEF REQUESTED¿ 
Plaintiff MARIA DEL CARMEN SANDOVAL (“Plaintiff”) will, and hereby does move for an order to strike Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY’s (“Defendant”) objections and compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, Request Nos. 2, and 4 through 59 (collectively, the “RFPs”).

Plaintiff seeks an order striking Defendant’s meritless objections and compelling further responses and production of all responsive documents within ten (10) calendar days from entry of this Court’s Order as to Plaintiff´s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, Request Nos. 2, and 4 through 59.

Preliminary Procedural
Moving Party: Plaintiff, Maria Del Carmen Sandoval
Responding Party: Defendant, Ford Motor Company

16/21 Day Lapse (CCP § 12c and § 1005(b)): Ok
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300(c)): Ok
Correct Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a, § 1013b): Ok

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Separate Statement; Decl. Gregory Sogoyan; Proposed Order

Opposition Papers: Opposition; Separate Statement; Declaration of John Isaac Southerland

Reply Papers: Reply

BACKGROUND
On 06/20/2023, Plaintiff, Maria Del Carmen Sandoval, filed the instant action against Defendants, Ford Motor Company, a Delaware Corporation, and Big Valley Ford, Inc., a Delaware Corporation d/b/a Big Valley Ford Lincoln, and Does 1-10, inclusive.

The first three causes of action in Plaintiff’s Complaint – the causes of action based on the Song-Beverly Act – are alleged against Defendant, Ford Motor Company.

The fourth cause of action for negligent repair is alleged against Defendant, Big Valley Ford Lincoln.

The instant action pertains to Plaintiff’s May 8th, 2022 purchase of a 2022 Ford Explorer.

Plaintiff alleges that the subject vehicle was delivered to Plaintiff with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but limited to, structural, emission, steering, and suspension system defects. (Compl. ¶ 11.)

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Under CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action..., if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  The Section specifically provides that “[d]iscovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action,” and that discovery “may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”

CCP § 2031.310(a) provides that a party demanding a document inspection may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that:

“(1)   A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

  (2)   A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

  (3)   An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” 

(CCP § 2031.310(a).)

Under CCP § 2031.310(b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” 

“In the more specific context of a demand for production of a tangible thing, the party who asks the trial court to compel production must show “good cause” for the request—but unless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, that burden is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)

PROCEDURAL ANALYSIS

45-Day Requirement
Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand. (CCP § 2031.310(c).)

Here, Plaintiff’s motion is timely.

Meet and Confer
“The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP § 2031.310(b)(2).)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred. (Sogoyan Decl. ¶¶ 20-24.)

TENTATIVE RULING

As to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 59, this Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses. Defendant’s objections are overruled. Defendant is ordered to provide code-compliant, further responses within ten calendar days from entry of this Court’s order.

As to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, numbers 23, 36, and 37, this Court tentatively plans to DENY Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses.

Under CCP § 2031.310(b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” 

“In the more specific context of a demand for production of a tangible thing, the party who asks the trial court to compel production must show “good cause” for the request—but unless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, that burden is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)

Plaintiff has the burden to establish good cause/relevancy. Plaintiff’s subject vehicle is a 2022 Ford Explorer. Requests 23, 36, and 37 are not limited to any year, period of time, or specific model of a vehicle.

As to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, numbers 47 and 50, this Court will hear argument.

Sanctions
Neither party requested sanctions.