Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00008351-CU-PL-CTL, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 04, 2024

04/05/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Product Liability Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00008351-CU-PL-CTL PECK VS VINCE DIXON FORD INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

The court will hear from the parties regarding its comments set forth below and whether this matter should be continued to May 3, 2024, to coincide with Defendants Ford Motor Company and Ken Grody Ford's motion for entry of a protective order.

First, whether or not the court ultimately grants, in whole or in part, Plaintiffs Jason and Allanah Peck's motion to compel, it is highly unlikely the court will award sanctions, given the history of meet and confer communications and efforts to resolve the issues without need for a motion.

Second, a central issue in relation to Plaintiffs' document requests is a protective order. The parties appear to agree that a protective order is warranted but disagree on its form. Plaintiffs desire a protective order that mirrors the LASC Model Order, whereas Defendants seek a modified LASC Model Order. Defendant has identified certain responsive documents as confidential (such as its internal Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual for 2023), and refused to produce them absent entry of a protective order. The court agrees a protective order should be entered, but absent a stipulation by the parties, is inclined to wait until Defendant's motion has been fully briefed and heard before deciding on its form.

Finally, it appears that even if a protective order is entered, Defendants intend to limit their production to 2023, when Plaintiffs filed suit. However, the year of filing suit is not the proper limit on scope; rather, the applicable year is when Defendant failed to confirm the vehicle to its warranty and refused to replace or repurchase the vehicle. If this occurred in 2022 (it is very unlikely it occurred in 2021, considering the vehicle was purchased in November 2021), then applicable policies and procedures should also be produced for that year.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3031949  9