Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV02077, Date: 2025-04-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23GDCV02077 Hearing Date: April 25, 2025 Dept: E
Case No. 23GDCV02077
Trial Date: UNSET
Case Name: TOM MEHDIKHANI v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, and
DOES 1 – 10, inclusive.
TENTATIVE
RULING – MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RELIEF
REQUESTED¿
“Plaintiff
Tom Mehdikhani ("Plaintiff') will and does hereby move the Court for an
Order to compel Ford Motor Company ("Defendant") to provide further
responses to Plaintiff’s first set of request for documents numbers: 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 17, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 as shown in the separate
statement filed concurrently herewith in this Song-Beverly Warranty Act matter.
The motion is made and brought pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure sections 2031.310. The production requests are relevant to the
subject matter of the action, and Defendant's refusal to respond is without
substantial justification.
This motion will be based on this notice, the points
and authorities set forth below, the attached declaration of Alisa Goukasian,
Esq., the separate statement of request for documents and responses in dispute
filed concurrently herewith, and the complete files and records in this action.”
(Pl. Notice, p. 1-2.)
Preliminary Procedural
Moving
Party: Plaintiff, Tom Mehdikhani
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): No – Plaintiff served all the moving papers to
Defendant via electronic transmission. Although Plaintiff indicates service via
electronic transmission, Plaintiff does not indicate the email address that Plaintiff
served Defendant at. That being said, opposition was submitted by Defendant, so
it is clear that Defendant received Plaintiff’s motion.
Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Proposed Order;
Declaration of Alisa Goukasian; Separate Statement;
Opposition Papers: Opposition; Separate Statement; Jason
M. Richardson Declaration; Proof of Service;
Reply Papers: Reply;
Declaration of Alisa Goukasian
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff,
Tom Mehdikhani, filed the instant action on 10/2/2023 against Defendants, Ford
Motor Company, a Delaware Corporation, and Does 1-10, inclusive.
On 4/22/2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint (FAC.).
Plaintiff’s FAC alleges seven causes of action for: “(1)
Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, (2) Breach of Implied
Warranties Pursuant to Song-Beverly, (3) Violation of Subdivision (B) of Civil
Code Section 1793.2, (4) Violation of Subdivision (A)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2,
(5) Breach of Express Warranty Pursuant to Magnuson-Moss Consumer Warranty Act,
(6) Breach of Implied Warranties Pursuant to Magnuson-Moss Consumer Warranty
Act, and (7) Breach of Express Warranties Pursuant to Commercial Code Section
2313.”
The subject vehicle in this action is a “2018 Ford
Truck F-150.” (FAC, ¶ 2.)
Plaintiff leased the vehicle on or about December 5,
2018. (FAC, ¶ 7.)
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.” (Ibid.)
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).)
“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, neither
party addresses this requirement. The Court to hear argument.
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 met and conferred.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s notice of motion indicates that this
motion pertains to “Plaintiff’s first set of request for documents numbers: 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32. 33[.]” (Pl. Notice, p. 1-2.)
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s notice is somewhat
misleading.
Upon examining Plaintiff’s counsel’s (Alisa Goukasian)
declaration, Plaintiff seeks further responses for the request for documents
located within Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Notice of Deposition of Ford Motor
Company’s Person(s) Most Knowledgeable and Requests for Production of
Documents.
As to request for documents numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
17, 26, 27, 28, and 33, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel further
responses. Defendant’s responses were evasive. Defendant to provide
code-compliant, verified, further responses within 20 days of this Court’s
order.
As to request for documents numbers 20, 21, and 29,
Defendant’s objections were not code-compliant because the objections were not
compliant with 2031.240. The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel further
responses with respect to numbers 20, 21, and 29. Defendant to provide
code-compliant, verified, further responses within 20 days of this Court’s
order.
As to request for documents numbers 31 and 32, the
Court will hear argument.
Sanctions
Neither
party requested sanctions.