Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23GDCV02094, Date: 2025-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV02094    Hearing Date: April 10, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

         Plaintiff Mario Carrillo (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order striking objections asserted by defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”) and compelling the testimony of its Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) pertaining to Matters for Examination Nos. 1 through 34 and production of documents pursuant to Request for Production of Documents (“RFP”) Nos. 1 through 17.

          The action arises from Plaintiff’s purchase of a new 2020 Ford Explorer (“Subject Vehicle”) on August 18, 2020. Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s RFPs on the grounds that the deposition notice “does not comply with the Court’s Addendum to Case Management Conference Order” (“CMO”) and contends that Plaintiff is limited to a PMK deposition on five matters of examination. Defendant also contends that Plaintiff is limited to requesting 12 categories of documents listed on the CMO. Defendant misconstrues the CMO by treating it as a strict limitation on discovery rather than as a set of guidelines intended to guide the parties in discovery.

          Nevertheless, some of the matters for examination included in the deposition are too broad. Therefore, Defendant is only ordered to produce a PMK in response to Matter Nos. 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, 14, 16, 19, 21-24, 26, 29, 31-34.

          Matter No. 4: DENIED because requiring a PMK to review warranty history reports for all vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle that were repurchased or replaced would be unduly burdensome. (Southerland Decl., ¶¶ 19-27.)

          Matter Nos. 5, 10, 13, 15, 17-18, 27-28: DENIED as overbroad because these matters involve communications between unnamed parties.  

Matter Nos. 20, 30: DENIED because “[m]atters concerning any fixed in response” to the alleged defects in vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle is vague and unintelligible.    

          Matter No. 25: Denied as irrelevant because no issues regarding document preservation have been identified.

The Court rules on the motion to compel the production of documents in response of RFP Nos. 1 through 17 as follows:

          RFP Nos. 1 and 2: GRANT.

          RFP No. 3: DENY. Plaintiff fails to show good cause for documents used prior to his purchase of the Subject Vehicle to evaluate consumers’ requests for repurchases pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act (“SBA”).

          RFP No. 4: GRANT in part; warranty repair histories relating to the subject vehicle only need to be produced for the repairs to defects claimed to be at issue in this litigation.

          RFP Nos. 5-6: GRANTED.

          RFP Nos. 7-10, 12-17: GRANTED in part; no emails need to be searched or produced.

RFP No. 11: DENIED.

The Court sustains Defendant’s objections based on the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine so long as Defendant provides a privilege log.

Dated this 10th day of April 2025

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.