Response Reply

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.February 21, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ. (SBN 219230) OTIS R. HAYES III, ESQ. (SBN 304037) THE BARRY LAW FIRM 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1270W Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: 310.684.5859 Facsimile: 310.862.4539 Attorneys for Plaintiff, SCOTT JU ANG SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA - DOWNTOWN SUPERIOR COURT Case No. 20CV363961 SCOTT JUANG, an individual, Plaintiff, V. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER THIRD AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NOS. 4 AND 14 Date: March 25, 2021 LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company; Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: 8 and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. I. Action Filed: February 21, 2020 Trial Date: None Assigned for all purposes to the Hon. Sunil R. Kulkarni in Dept. 8 INTRODUCTION 22 JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, (JLRNA") has managed to say 23 nothing in its four-page Opposition. JLRNA argues that Plaintiffs Motion should be denied because 24 Defendant served verified responses, in which it made a statement of inability to respond under Code 25 of Civil Procedure section 2033.220(b)(3) and (C). JLRNA's insistence that its responses are 26 appropriate is belied by the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, the case law interpreting 27 the applicable provisions and the text of the very responses at issue. JLRNA's claim that it produced 28 responsive documents and responded to Form Interrogatory No 17.1 and each of the subparts, -1- PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER THIRD AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NOS. 4 AND 14 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 3/18/2021 10:40 AM Reviewed By: R. Nguyen Case #20CV363961 Envelope: 6060115 20CV363961 Santa Clara - Civil R. Nguyen 1 identifying documents and persons with knowledge to the best of its ability is far from the truth. 2 JLRNA failed to produce a single name of a technician who performed repairs on Plaintiffs vehicle. 3 JLRNA it must properly respond to Requests for Admission when it has the evidence from 4 which to provide conclusive admissions or denials but which JLRNA refuses to provide. That is the 5 gravamen of plaintiffs motion. JLRNA's responses feign ignorance for the sake of providing evasive 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 responses. II. EACH OF THE REQUESTS AT ISSUE ADDRESSES A COMPONENT OF PLAINTIFF'S CASE Each of the Requests at issue addresses a specific factual component of plaintiffs case. The Requests address basic issues such as: whether the subject vehicle contained a nonconformity that substantially impaired the use, value, or safety of the subject vehicle to the Plaintiff ( a key element of an express warranty claim and necessary to establish entitlement to a remedy); that Defendant conducted an investigation and/or inquiry into whether Plaintiffs vehicle should be repurchased (addressing one of JLRNA's affirmative defenses). JLRNA's claims that these Requests are overly broad is disingenuous and a glaring abuse of discovery. As the Court is aware, Requests for Admission are not "true" discovery and thus are not discovery devices, per se. Burch v. Gombos (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 352, 359. They are designed to set to rest, triable issues of fact with the ultimate goal of expediting trial and the unnecessary expenses of proof at trial. Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423; St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4 th 762; Hillman v. Stultz (1968), 263 Cal.App.2d 848,885. ("They were enacted to eliminate the necessity of putting on formal proof of essentially uncontroverted facts, not as a substitute for trial of genuinely disputed facts."). Accordingly, when a litigant "toys" with the process by evading a factual proposition by avoiding or discounting the materials that provide the response to such requests such that the real issues are revealed, it defeats the purpose and the function of the requests and unduly forces plaintiff to waste time, money and energy proving factual propositions that can and should be admitted during pre-trial discovery. That is the situation here. Each of the requests at issue can be conclusively admitted ( or denied) based on the information available to JLRNA. That information consists of dealer records, internal company records and materials and even expert information. How JLRNA responds to these -2- PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER THIRD AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NOS. 4 AND 14 1 Requests will determine how plaintiff needs to prove his case at the time of trial. Defendant's refusal 2 to answer these Requests is simply indefensible. 3 Plaintiffs Request Nos. 4 and 14 are asking for an admission or denial based on what JLRNA 4 knows at this point; these Requests are specifically based on the service history and internal 5 documents and other information, not what JLRNA will learn later, if anything, in the process of 6 discovery. JLRNA claimed in its responses to the Requests for Admission that it had insufficient 7 information upon which to admit or deny the request because it had neither deposed the plaintiff nor 8 inspected the subject vehicle. How JLRNA believes that a vehicle inspection or the deposition of the 9 plaintiff will help it conclusively admit or deny whether the subject vehicle contained a 10 nonconformity or if an investigation was conducted into whether Plaintiffs vehicle should be 11 repurchased is baffling. 12 Accordingly, JLRNA cannot "plead ignorance" to these Requests since the information is 13 under its control" Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782 [Emphasis added.] Further, the 14 Code of Civil Procedure provides that an inability to respond which is essentially what JLRNA's 15 response is, can only be truly stated where there is a verifiable true lack of information available to 16 the responding party. See, C.C.P. § 2033.220(c). Consequently, JLRNA's responses to Requests 17 Nos. 4 and 14 are evasive, unresponsive and do not comply with the Code. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 III. CONCLUSION JLRNA has failed to show any substantive ground for denying plaintiffs motion. The motion should be granted. Date: March 18, 2021 By: --...,,..-"·-"" ,,,,✓~----- DA VI N/A , 'Q. OTIS R.,:/A YES III, ESQ. Attorntfys for Plaintiff, SCOTT JUANG -3- PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER THIRD AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NOS. 4 AND 14 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 4 JUANG V. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC CASE# 20CV363961 5 6 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 11845 W. Olympic 7 Boulevard, Suite 1270, Los Angeles, CA 90064. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [] 16 17 18 [] 19 20 21 22 [] On March 18, 2021, I served the following described as: PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER THIRD AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NOS. 4 AND 14 Service was made in the below ascribed manner, on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed to: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST (MAIL) I am "readily familiar" with the legal department's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. (OVERNIGHT DELIVERY MAIL) I caused the above described document to be served on the interested parties noted below by GSO Delivery Service in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier in a facility which is deposited with the GSO Delivery Service in our building on the same day, in the ordinary course of business with delivery fees paid or provided for. (PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused the above described document to be personally served on the interested parties noted below. 23 24 [X] (ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I caused such document to be delivered by electronic transmission to the addresses and offices of the addressee listed on the Service List. 25 [X] (ST ATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California 26 27 28 that the above is true and correct. Executed on the 18th of March 2021, at Los Angeles, California. Jazmine Daniels NAME PROOF OF SERVICE 1 SERVICE LIST 2 3 JUANG V. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC CASE # 20CV363961 4 5 Matthew C. Wolf, Esq. mwolf@tfwvlaw.com 6 Turner Friedman Wolf & VanDenburg, LLP 7 800 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 710 Los Angeles, CA 9001 7 8 CC: lvandenburg@tfwvlaw.com 9 dgreen~tfwvlaw.com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Attorneys for Defendant, JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC PROOF OF SERVICE