NANCY GOLDEN vs FCA US, LLC, et al.

2025CUBC038151: NANCY GOLDEN vs FCA US, LLC, et al.

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling production of the documents identified in section 871.26, subdivisions (h)(6), (h)(7), (h)(8), (h)(9), (h)(10), (h)(12), and (h)(13), which are: • “Motor vehicle information reports, including build documentation, component information, and delivery details.” (Id., subd. (h)(6).) • “Entire warranty transaction history for the motor vehicle.” (Id., subd. (h)(7).) • “Listing of required field actions applicable to the motor vehicle.” (Id., subd. (h)(8).) • “Published technical service bulletins (‘TSBs’) for the same make, model, and year reasonably related to the nonconformities pertaining to the motor vehicle.” (Id., subd. (h)(9).) • “Published information service bulletins (‘ISBs’) for the same make, model, and year reasonably related to the nonconformities pertaining to the motor vehicle.” (Id., subd. (h)(10).) • “Warranty policies and procedure manuals.” (Id., subd. (h)(12).) • “Service manuals reasonably related to the nonconformities pertaining to the motor vehicle.” (Id., subd. (h)(13).)

Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint on May 2, 2025. Hence, the initial disclosures were due July 1, 2025, 60 days later. (Code Civ. Proc., § 871.26, subd. (b).) There is no dispute about the due date. (Opp. at 1:12-14.)

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not produced various types of documents. (Motion at 5:12-18, 7:9 – 15:18.) Defendant responds that it made an initial disclosure production on June 20, 2025, producing extensive records relating to the vehicle at issue, including repairs orders, warranty claim records, vehicle information reports, sales documents, applicable recalls, applicable technical service bulletins, and other related records. (Rivera Decl., ¶¶ 9-10; Opp. at 1:17-20, 2:13 – 3:3.) Some documents were apparently withheld due to confidentiality concerns, as a result of which a proposed protective order, based on the model protective order of the Los Angeles Superior Court, was provided to Plaintiff’s counsel with the initial disclosures. (Id., ¶¶ 11-12; Opp. at 1:21-28.)

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s counsel did not meet and confer about the protective order but rather remained silent for six months then filed the instant motion.

Section 871.26 uses mandatory language (“shall, without awaiting a discovery request, provide”) and mandates compliance within a strict time frame (“within 60 days after the filing of the answer”). Further, section 871.26 does not contain language permitting the withholding of any of the documents specified in subdivision (h) on any grounds. There is no dispute that not all documents have been produced. By implication, Defendant would have produced additional documents sooner upon Plaintiff’s counsel’s execution of the protective order if Defendant’s argument is to be believed.

A review of the register of actions for the case shows that the Court signed a proposed protective order on June 1, 2026, which was filed the next day. A review of the document shows, however, that it was signed by Plaintiff’s counsel on July 18, 2025, but was not signed by defense counsel until May 29, 2026. This belies Defendant’s claim that it was Plaintiff who ignored the protective order for six months. There is no evidence before the Court that Defendant has produced, since the signing of the protective order, any additional documents that Plaintiff seeks.

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion.

2025CUBC038151: NANCY GOLDEN vs FCA US, LLC, et al.

Sanctions

“Unless the party failing to comply with this section shows good cause, notwithstanding any other law and in addition to any other sanctions imposed pursuant to this chapter, a court shall impose sanctions as follows: (1) A one-thousand-five-hundred-dollar ($1,500) sanction against the plaintiff’s attorney or two-thousand-five-hundred-dollar ($2,500) sanction against the defense attorney respectively, paid within 15 business days for failure to comply with the document production requirements as prescribed in subdivision (b).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 871.26, subd. (j)(1).)

Defendant argues that sanctions are not warranted. It produced more than 1,000 pages before the July 1, 2025 deadline and would have produced the confidential documents sooner but for Plaintiff’s counsel’s refusal to return the stipulation. But it appears Defendant continued to withhold additional documents without a statutory basis for withholding them. Further, as set forth above, it appears that Defendant, not Plaintiff, delayed signing the protective order. Defense counsel’s declaration does not assert that additional documents have been produced since the signing of the protective order. Consequently, the request for sanctions of $2,500 against Defendant’s counsel, Rosewaldorf LLP, is granted. Sanctions are to be paid within 15 business days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 871.26, subd. (j)(1).)

Counsel for Plaintiff is to give notice of the Court’s ruling.

3