On November 30, 2022 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Ventura, Francisco A,
and
Does 1 Through 10,
Ford Motor Company,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ELECTRONICALLY FILED
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IUDD A. GILEFSKY, SB# 198694 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
E-Mail: Judd.Gilefsky@lewisbrisbois.Com SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
ANORA ABRAMOVA, SB# 347560
E-Mail: Anora.Abramova@lewisbrisbois.com 1/23/2024 5:50 PM
633 West 5th 4000
Street, Suite
By: Sergio Villanueva, DEPUTY
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: 213.250.1800
Facsimile: 213.250.7900
Attorneys for Defendant
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
10
11 FRANCISCO A. VENTURA, an individual, Case N0. CIVSB2226889
12 Plaintiff, AssignedforAll Purposes t0:
Hon. David E. Driscoll, Dept. S22
13 vs.
DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR
14 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware COMPANY’S SEPARATE BRIEF RE:
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, INFORMAL DISCOVERY
15 inclusive, CONFERENCE
16 Defendants. Date: January 26, 2024
Time: 10:30 a.m.
17 Dept.: $22
18 Action Filed: November 30, 2022
Trial Date: None Set
19
20 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
21 Pursuant t0 California Code 0f Civil Procedure § 2016.040, and this Court’s November 3,
22 2023 Order, Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant” or “Ford”) submits its Separate Brief
23 re: Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”). Although Plaintiff claims a discovery dispute related
24 to Ford’s document production, Plaintiff continuously failed t0 appear at prior IDC, failed to respond
25 t0 Ford’s meet and confer correspondence, and failed to submit an IDC brief per the Court’s Order.
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD Case No. CIVSB2226889
1350492951 1
&SMrrH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S SEPARATE BRIEF RE: INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a simple single vehicle “Lemon Law” case involving Plaintiff Francisco Ventura’s
(“Plaintiff’) 2020 Ford Escape, bearing VIN No.: 1FMCUOG6XLUA78872 (“Subject Vehicle”).
Plaintiff alleges breach 0f express and implied warranties under the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act arising out of his purchase ofthe save vehicle. Plaintiff claims he presented his vehicle
t0 independently owned and operated Ford dealerships for a variety of issues, including engine,
electrical, emission and transmission defects. Ford’s warranty records demonstrate that the above
presentations were repaired in a reasonable number of repair attempts. Additionally, Plaintiff never
contacted Ford regarding the subject vehicle until Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this case. Despite
10 this simple breach 0f warranty claim, Plaintiff seeks production of documents and information
11 pertaining to various policies and procedures across an unlimited and unreasonable time frame, and
12 perhaps most egregiously, information regarding all vehicles of any type repurchased by Ford
13 despite the fact that this case concerns a 2020 vehicle. Simply stated, the facts 0f this case d0 not
14 support the scope 0f discovery sought.
15 II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
16 A. Discovery History
17 Plaintiff served 150 discovery Requests for Production (“Requests”) t0 Which Ford timely
18 served complete responses or appropriate, well-taken objections to Plaintiffs Requests.
19 (“Abramova Decl.”), at 1] 2.) Ford also served 937 pages of document production to Plaintiff,
20 including but not limited to: repair and service records for the subj ect vehicle in Ford’s possession,
21 the applicable Owner’s Manual, the New Vehicle Limited Warranty Guide, Vehicle Information
22 Report, Warranty Claim History information for the subject vehicle, Field Service Action history,
23 information regarding subject vehicle from “OASIS” and additional warranty 0r n0n-warranty
24 repair records. (Id. at 11 3.)
25 On June 5, 2023, Plaintiff served the same cut-and-paste meet and confer correspondence
26 that Plaintiff’s counsel serves in every case against Ford regarding Ford’s responses to Plaintiff’s
27 written discovery requests, including its responses to the Requests for Production 0f Documents.
28 (1d. at 11 4.)
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD Case No. CIVSB2226889
&SMrrH LLP
1350492951 2
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S SEPARATE BRIEF RE: INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
Document Filed Date
January 23, 2024
Case Filing Date
November 30, 2022
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ELECTRONICALLY FILED SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IUDD A. GILEFSKY, SB# 198694 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO E-Mail: Judd.Gilefsky@lewisbrisbois.Com SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT ANORA ABRAMOVA, SB# 347560 E-Mail: Anora.Abramova@lewisbrisbois.com 1/23/2024 5:50 PM 633 West 5th 4000 Street, Suite By: Sergio Villanueva, DEPUTY Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: 213.250.1800 Facsimile: 213.250.7900 Attorneys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT 10 11 FRANCISCO A. VENTURA, an individual, Case N0. CIVSB2226889 12 Plaintiff, AssignedforAll Purposes t0: Hon. David E. Driscoll, Dept. S22 13 vs. DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR 14 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware COMPANY’S SEPARATE BRIEF RE: Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, INFORMAL DISCOVERY 15 inclusive, CONFERENCE 16 Defendants. Date: January 26, 2024 Time: 10:30 a.m. 17 Dept.: $22 18 Action Filed: November 30, 2022 Trial Date: None Set 19 20 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 21 Pursuant t0 California Code 0f Civil Procedure § 2016.040, and this Court’s November 3, 22 2023 Order, Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant” or “Ford”) submits its Separate Brief 23 re: Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”). Although Plaintiff claims a discovery dispute related 24 to Ford’s document production, Plaintiff continuously failed t0 appear at prior IDC, failed to respond 25 t0 Ford’s meet and confer correspondence, and failed to submit an IDC brief per the Court’s Order. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD Case No. CIVSB2226889 1350492951 1 &SMrrH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S SEPARATE BRIEF RE: INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE I. INTRODUCTION This is a simple single vehicle “Lemon Law” case involving Plaintiff Francisco Ventura’s (“Plaintiff’) 2020 Ford Escape, bearing VIN No.: 1FMCUOG6XLUA78872 (“Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiff alleges breach 0f express and implied warranties under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act arising out of his purchase ofthe save vehicle. Plaintiff claims he presented his vehicle t0 independently owned and operated Ford dealerships for a variety of issues, including engine, electrical, emission and transmission defects. Ford’s warranty records demonstrate that the above presentations were repaired in a reasonable number of repair attempts. Additionally, Plaintiff never contacted Ford regarding the subject vehicle until Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this case. Despite 10 this simple breach 0f warranty claim, Plaintiff seeks production of documents and information 11 pertaining to various policies and procedures across an unlimited and unreasonable time frame, and 12 perhaps most egregiously, information regarding all vehicles of any type repurchased by Ford 13 despite the fact that this case concerns a 2020 vehicle. Simply stated, the facts 0f this case d0 not 14 support the scope 0f discovery sought. 15 II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 16 A. Discovery History 17 Plaintiff served 150 discovery Requests for Production (“Requests”) t0 Which Ford timely 18 served complete responses or appropriate, well-taken objections to Plaintiffs Requests. 19 (“Abramova Decl.”), at 1] 2.) Ford also served 937 pages of document production to Plaintiff, 20 including but not limited to: repair and service records for the subj ect vehicle in Ford’s possession, 21 the applicable Owner’s Manual, the New Vehicle Limited Warranty Guide, Vehicle Information 22 Report, Warranty Claim History information for the subject vehicle, Field Service Action history, 23 information regarding subject vehicle from “OASIS” and additional warranty 0r n0n-warranty 24 repair records. (Id. at 11 3.) 25 On June 5, 2023, Plaintiff served the same cut-and-paste meet and confer correspondence 26 that Plaintiff’s counsel serves in every case against Ford regarding Ford’s responses to Plaintiff’s 27 written discovery requests, including its responses to the Requests for Production 0f Documents. 28 (1d. at 11 4.) LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD Case No. CIVSB2226889 &SMrrH LLP 1350492951 2 ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S SEPARATE BRIEF RE: INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE