Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case 22STCV25570 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV25570, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25570 Hearing Date: March 15, 2023 Dept: 39

Amore Jackson, et al v. Ford Motor Company

Case No. 22STCV25570

Order #1 of 3

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to FROG #12.1

Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory Number 12.1, which asks Defendant about the “incident.” Plaintiff defines the incident as “the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding.” (Declaration of Anna H. Galaviz, Exhibit 1, p. 1.) In response, Defendant construed incident to mean “knowledge of the subject vehicle, the allegations in this case, and/or Plaintiffs' alleged concerns with the subject vehicle . . . .” (See Separate Statement, p. 4.) Such a construction of the incident is reasonable. However, Defendant fails to fully answer the FROG as construed. Defendant references “employees or representatives,” but fails to identify those individuals by name, as required. (See Separate Statement, pp. 4-5.)

Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. The Court orders Defendant to identify all “employees or representatives” within sixty (60) days. No further responses is necessary. Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

Order #2 of 3

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to RPDs

Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents. The motion was noticed for hearing on March 16, 2023, but the Court advanced the motion based upon the stipulation of the parties. The motion is granted in part and denied in part. The Court orders Defendant to produce the following documents within sixty (60) days, to the extent they have not been produced already:

1. Purchase and/or lease contract concerning the subject vehicle.

2. Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle.

3. Communications with dealer, factory representative and/or call center concerning the subject vehicle.

4. Warranty claims submitted to and/or approved by Defendant concerning the subject vehicle.

5. Any Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual published by defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, for the date the subject vehicle was purchased to the present.

6. Any internal analysis, investigation, and/or communications regarding the same defects claimed by plaintiff in vehicles of the same year, make and model as the subject vehicle which were sold within the State of California.

7. Any customer complaints regarding the same defects claimed by plaintiff in vehicles of the same year, make and model as the subject vehicle which were sold within the State of California.

8. All policies and/or procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date of purchase to the present.

9. Technical Service Bulletins and/or Recall Notices regarding the same defects claimed by plaintiff in vehicles of the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle which were sold within the State of California.

10. Any documents supporting plaintiff’s claim for incidental and/or consequential damages.

Plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide notice.

Order #3 of 3

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant’s PMK

Plaintiffs move to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable (“PMK”) and production of certain documents. The motion was noticed for hearing on March 30, 2023, but the Court advanced the motion based upon the stipulation of the parties. The motion is granted in part and denied in part. The Court orders the deposition of Defendant’s PMK to occur within 90 days, unless the parties stipulate to a different date. The Court orders the deponent to produce the following documents to the extent they have not been produced already: