SALHI vs BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC

25CV118164: SALHI vs BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by RAFIHULLAH SALHI (Plaintiff) CRS# 363764040983 in Department 520

Tentative Ruling - 05/28/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson

The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by RAFIHULLAH SALHI on 01/20/2026 is Granted in Part.

The Motion of Plaintiff Rafihullah Salhi (“Plaintiff”) to Compel Further as to Requests for Admission is GRANTED IN PART.

No sanctions are awarded.

PROCEDURAL DEFECTS

Notwithstanding the late filing of Defendant’s Opposition and Plaintiff’s Reply, they shall be considered. (ROA.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGAL STANDARD

Where the party propounding written discovery deems the responses unsatisfactory, the party may move to compel further responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.)

-----------------

(a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b) Each answer shall:

(1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party. (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue. (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.

(c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry 25CV118164: SALHI vs BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by RAFIHULLAH SALHI (Plaintiff) CRS# 363764040983 in Department 520 concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220.)

-----------------

(a) If only a part of a request for admission is objectionable, the remainder of the request shall be answered.

(b) If an objection is made to a request or to a part of a request, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the matter as to which an admission is requested is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.230.)

DISCUSSION

MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS

Section 2016.040 requires such a declaration to “state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” “This rule is designed ‘to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order,’” which “will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes.” (Townsend v.

Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435.) To accomplish this goal, “parties must present to each other the merits of their respective positions with the same candor, specificity, and support during informal negotiations as during the briefing of discovery motions. Only after all the cards have been laid on the table, and a party has meaningfully assessed the relative strengths and weaknesses of its position in light of all available information, can there be a ‘sincere effort’ to resolve the matter.” (Id.)

Defendant complains that Plaintiff failed to adequately meet-and-confer specifically about the subject RFAs in either the single phone call counsel had or Plaintiff’s “subsequent boilerplate letter[.]” (Garcia Decl., ¶¶ 5-8, Ex. C.) Although Plaintiff argues that it exhausted all good faith efforts, Plaintiff concedes that its correspondence only “addresses general deficiencies RFAs 1- 30, which include Nos. 28 and 30[.]” (Reply, p. 1:9-10, fn. 1.)

The parties are reminded as noted in prior orders for motions to compel that they are required to make a “reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the dispute without the need to file a motion, as required.” (See Townsend, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 1439; Obregon v. Superior

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV118164: SALHI vs BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by RAFIHULLAH SALHI (Plaintiff) CRS# 363764040983 in Department 520 Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 432-433.) Despite Plaintiff citing “Defendant’s pattern of obstruction in this case,” Plaintiff has not met its obligation to meet and confer, especially as he expressly mentions almost all other RFAs except the ones at issue in his meet-and-confer letter. (Reply, p.1:18-19; Garcia Decl., Ex. C.) Nevertheless, the Court considers the merits of the motion for judicial efficiency.

MERITS

Plaintiff argues that Defendant must supplement its responses to two of the 30 Requests for Admission (Set One), RFAs 28 and 30, on the grounds that Defendant’s responses are deficient and do not comply with CCP sections 2033.220, 2033.230, and 2033.290(a)(1). (Notice, p. 2:9- 10; Reply, pp. 2:19-5:3.) RFA 28 pertains to whether Defendant maintains an Early Warning Report Manufacturer Account with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which Plaintiff explains is probative to its claims as such information would consist of any consumer complaints and field reports data about similar defects reported to be found in vehicles of the same, year, make, and model. (Separate Statement; Serrano Decl, ¶¶ 12- 13.)

RFA 30 more directly concerns the subject vehicle and whether Defendant took “Key Data” reports on the car. (Ibid.) Defendant argues that the information the requests seek is irrelevant and the requests themselves are overly broad. (Oppo., p. 4:3-14.) Defendant also states that its responses are code-compliant and sanctions are not warranted. (Id. at p. 4:15-25.)

As a case brought based on Song-Beverly Act claims concerning breach of express and implied warranty, the information sought is relevant and discoverable, yet Defendant failed to respond to either RFA, and instead provided evasive boilerplate objections. (Response to Plaintiff’s Separate Statement.)

The RFAs are sufficiently straightforward for Defendant to admit or deny to the extent of its knowledge, especially given that it has the option to admit in part, deny in part, and provide a response that is “reasonably and clearly qualified”. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220(b)(1).)

Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED and the Court orders that Defendant amends and supplements its responses to these requests in compliance with CCP sections 2033.220 and 2033.230. Defendant BMW of North America, LLC (“Defendant”) shall provide codecompliant supplemental responses (to the extent necessary) as detailed in this order within 30 days.

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: Defendant is advised that failure to comply with this Order may result in the imposition of future sanctions, including evidentiary, monetary, or terminating sanctions.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV118164: SALHI vs BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by RAFIHULLAH SALHI (Plaintiff) CRS# 363764040983 in Department 520

NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on May 28, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on May 27, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.

The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.

The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.

ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice that they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.