Esther Mayora vs Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 13 Honorable Daniel T. Nishigaya R. Belligan, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2240

DATE: June 10, 2026 TIME: 9:00 & 9:01 A.M. TO CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING, YOU MUST CALL (408) 808-6856 BEFORE 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY PRIOR TO THE HEARING. You must also inform all other sides to the issue before 4:00 P.M. the day prior to the hearing that you plan to contest the ruling. The Court will not hear argument, and the tentative ruling will be adopted if these notifications are not made. (Cal. Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1); Civil Local Rule 8.D.)

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 2 21CV391881 Amir Weiner et al vs Matthew Carpenter Motion: Seal Records et al The unopposed and renewed motion is GRANTED. The Court finds that (1) there is an overriding interest supporting sealing of the records; (2) there is a substantial probability that the interest will be prejudiced absent sealing; (3) the sealing order under the circumstances is narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest; and (4) there is no less restrictive means of meeting that interest.

Defendant and Cross-Defendant Matthew Ming Carpenter shall prepare and submit the final order, accompanied by the necessary Form EFS-020, within 10 days of the date of the hearing. LINE 3 24CV450793 Esther Mayora vs Volkswagen Group of Motion: Compel Deposition America, Inc. Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 3 for tentative ruling. LINE 4 24CV453955 Vincent Marino, Jr. vs County of Santa Hearing: Demurrer Clara et al Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 4 for tentative ruling.

Calendar Line 3

Case Name: Esther Mayora vs Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Case No.: 24CV450793

Plaintiff has filed a late opposition to Defendant’s motion for an order compelling Plaintiff to appear for deposition by remote electronic means and to produce documents or in the alternative continue trial. To some extent, the Court understands the confusion. Subsequent to the filing of the motion, the Court, by separate application, did continue the trial date. The order continuing trial, however, was based on Defendant’s request that the Court either advance the hearing on this motion or continue the trial. The Court continued the trial. The Court did not advance the hearing on this motion, thereby leaving this motion on calendar for June 10, 2026.

Although, Defendant did not withdraw the instant motion as moot, under the circumstances here, the Court finds that it is moot. The Court is aware that as a part of a separate stipulation and proposed order, the parties indicated that “Plaintiff’s counsel is in the process of confirming earliest availability to produce Plaintiff for deposition.” Trial is now set for February 16, 2027. So long as Plaintiff, in good faith, properly sits for deposition within the parameters of the currently set trial date, Court involvement should not be necessary.