Genshlea v. FCA US LLC

Case: Genshlea v. FCA US LLC Case No. CV2025-1542 Hearing Date: August 13, 2026 Department Fourteen 9:00 a.m.

Motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories:

Plaintiff Joseph Genshlea’s motion to compel further response to special interrogatories set one from defendant FCA US LLC is GRANTED IN PART. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300.) As to its response to interrogatory no. 26, defendant has failed to justify its objections. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.) As to the other responses to interrogatories, the Court finds defendant’s responses sufficient. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1288; Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., LLC (S.D.Cal. 2019) 328 F.R.D. 557, 566.)

Therefore, defendant is DIRECTED to serve a further response to no. 26 by September 3, 2026.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).) As the Court is only ordering a further response to one interrogatory, it finds that defendant acted with substantial justification in opposing the motion. (Ibid.)

The notice of motion does not provide notice of this Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 11.2(b). Counsel for moving party, or the moving party if unrepresented by counsel, is ordered to notify the opposing party or parties immediately of the tentative ruling system.

If no hearing is requested, and no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

Motion to compel further responses to request for production:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to request for production set one from defendant FCA US LLC is GRANTED IN PART. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.) First, as to request for production no. 18, plaintiff has failed to show that it met and conferred with defendant as to this request before filing this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (b)(2), 2016.040, subd. (a); Meagle decl., ¶¶ 5 & 7, Exhibits C & D; see also Graham decl., ¶¶ 5-6, Exhibits B & C.) Second, as to request for production no. 19, plaintiff articulated good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand, and defendant has failed to justify its objections. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal. 2d 210, 220-221.) Finally, as to the other responses to requests for production, plaintiff failed to show good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); see Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1288; see also Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., LLC (S.D.Cal. 2019) 328 F.R.D. 557, 566.) Therefore, defendant is DIRECTED to serve a further response and responsive documents to no. 19 by September 3, 2026.

3 of 6

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) As the Court is only ordering a further response to one request for production, it finds that defendant acted with substantial justification in opposing the motion. (Ibid.)

The notice of motion does not provide notice of this Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 11.2(b). Counsel for moving party, or the moving party if unrepresented by counsel, is ordered to notify the opposing party or parties immediately of the tentative ruling system.

If no hearing is requested, and no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

4 of 6