Motion Compel

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 3, 2020

.bUJN \OOOQO 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21' 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ. (SBN 219230) Electronically Filed ELIZABETH QUINN, ESQ. (SBN 208919) by Superior Court of CA, ERIK WHITMAN, ESQ. (SBN 297397) County of Santa Clara, THE BARRY LAW FIRM on 1/28/2021 4:00 PM LOS Angeles, CA 90064 case #Zocv364578 Telephone: 3 1 0.684.5859 Facsimile: 310.862.4539 Envelope: 5735167 Attorneys for Plaintiff, BRYAN THUERK SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA BRYAN THUERK, an individual, Case NO. gocv364578 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION Plaintiff, AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, V_ INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORY NOS. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1, AND 17.1; MEMORANDUM OF - - POINTS & AUTHOIUTIES; Em MgTQRS fiME$Eé 11110;}: cal??? DECLARATION 0F ERIK WHITMAN , OYPOFa 10“» an ng = WITH EXHIBITS mcluswe, [Concurrently Filed with Plaintiff’s CRC Defendants- 3. I345 Separate Statement ofltems in Dispute in support thereof] Date: 6-1 ‘21 Time: 9:00 a.m. 9:008m Dept: ‘21 Dept. 19 Action Filed: March 3, 2020 Trial Date: None Assignedfor allpurposes t0 the Honorable Thang N. Barrett in Dept. 21 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 6-1 -21 19 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that 0n , 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 2‘1 0f the Santa Clara County Superior Court, located at 161 North First Street, San Jose, CA 951 13, -1- PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORY NOS. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1, AND 17.1; NIEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ERIK H. WHITMAN WITH EXHIBITS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Bryan Thuerk (“Plaintiff”) Will move this Court for an Order compelling Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. (“D€fendant” or “KMA”) t0 provide verified, further responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1, and 17.1. This Motion is made pursuant t0 California Code ofCivil Procedure §§ 2030.010, 2030.030 and 2030.290 on the grounds that Defendant has, Without substantial justification, failed t0 provide full and complete responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1, and 17.1 despite Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts. For warranty repairs performed on the Plaintiff’s vehicle, KMA has knowledge regarding every KMA authorized technician who performed those repairs. However, KMA did not identify those individuals in its responses. KMA claims it has no knowledge regarding its own representatives who have information regarding Plaintiff s Song-Beverly claims. Absent a Court Order, Defendant has n0 intention to comply. This Motion is based 0n the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the attached Declaration 0f Erik Whitman, Esq. and the exhibits attached thereto, the supporting Separate Statement under Rule 3.1345 0f the Rules of Court, the records 0n file With the Court and upon such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing 0f this motion. Date: January 28, 2021 THE BARRY LAW FIRM DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ. ELIZABETH QUINN, ESQ. ERIK H. WHITMAN, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff, BRYAN THUERK -2- PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORY NOS. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1, AND 17.1; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ERIK H. WHITMAN WITH EXHIBITS \OOOQQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 > 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION This Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Lemon Law”) lawsuit stems from Plaintiff Bryan Thuerk purchase 0f a 2019 Kia Stinger, VIN KNAEZSLA9K605 1 1 10, (“Subject Vehicle” 0r “Vehicle”). The Vehicle was manufactured and warranted by Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. (“KMA”). Along with the purchase of the Vehicle, Defendant expressly warranted t0 fix 0r repair any defects in workmanship 0r materials for five (5) years or 60,000 miles. Shortly after purchase, Plaintiff began t0 experience significant problems with the Vehicle. As a result 0f persistent manufacturing defects that KMA’S authorized dealerships were unable t0 repair, and KMA’S failure to timely investigate 0r meaningfully respond t0 Plaintiff’s concerns in compliance with the Song-Beverly Act, Plaintiff was left with no Viable options but to file suit. Regarding warranty repairs performed 0n the Plaintiff’s vehicle, KMA has knowledge regarding every KMA authorized technician who performed those rapairs. However, KMA did not identify those individuals in its responses. KMA only objected t0 the interrogatories as being improper or premature. Absent a Court Order, Defendant has n0 intention t0 comply. Plaintiff s suit alleges breach 0f warranty claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty. Act and requests that the Subject Vehicle be repurchased, that Plaintiff be awarded appropriate damages and attorneys” fees as allowed by the statute, and requests a civil penalty in an amount not t0 exceed two times the amount 0f Plaintiff s actual damages as allowed by the statute. II. NATURE OF THE DISPUTE AND RELIEF SOUGHT KMA refuses t0 provide full and complete responses to items in a standard set 0f Judicial Council Form Interrogatories. Form Interrogatories are the most basic form of written discovery permitted under the Code 0f Civil Procedure. KMA is thumbing its nose at this discovery by providing evasive responses t0 inquiries that are seeking witness information critical to Plaintiff’s case. KMA has no substantial justification for its refusal. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an Order compelling KMA to provide verified, further responses t0 Form Interrogatory Nos. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1, and 17.1. /// -3- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORY NOS. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1, AND 17.1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25‘ 26 27 28 III. THIS MOTION IS TIMELY AND PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT Plaintiff’s motion is timely. Plaintiff received Defendant’s unverified responses t0 Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, 0n July 16, 2020, as indicated on the proof of service for KMA’S responses. See, Exhibit 2. However, verifications for these responses were absent and were never received. On November 10, 2020, Defendant served unverified supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s discovery, as indicated on the proof of service for KMA’s supplemental responses. See Exhibit 2. On December 9, 2020, Defendant KMA mailed the corresponding verifications t0 their supplemental responses. Pursuant to Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 and amended section 2030.300 (c) of the California Code 0f Civil Procedure, KMA’S unverified responses are legally ineffective until the verifications are provided. Thus, the 45-day deadline in which t0 file a motion t0 compel further responses is not triggered until verifications are served.‘ As such, this motion is timely filed. IV. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BASIS FOR RELIEF SOUGHT On June 11, 2020, Plaintiff served KMA With a set 0f Form Interrogatories. See, Exhibit 1. Timely, verified responses were due 0n 0r before July 14, 2020. Unverified responses were received by Plaintiff’s counsel’s offica on July 16, 2020. See, Exhibit 2. N0 verifications were received at any time after KMA’s responses were served. On July 30, 2020, Plaintiff sent KMA a meet and confer letter highlighting various deficiencies ofKMA’s discovery responses relating to each of the discovery items, pointed out that KMA failed to provide any documents, and requested verified further responses. By way of this letter, Plaintiff requested a privilege 10g regarding the privilege objections contained within KMA’s discovery responses. To date, KMA has not served a privilege 10g. See, Exhibit 3. When n0 response was received from KMA, on September 29, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a follow-up correspondence to defense counsel asking them to produce further verified responses within seven (7) days 0f the letter. See, Exhibit 4. Again, no response was received from 1 In light oprpleton v. Superior Court, supra, this important clarification t0 the Discovery Act was the result of AB 1183 which amended Code 0f Civil Procedure sections 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), and 2033.290(c) to reflect that motions to compel further responses from interrogatories, inspection demands, or requests for admissions d0 not need take filed until 4S davq after vprifiprl reqnnnqeq are <23 'Pd AR 1 183 became 12w nn hm? 7L7m 3 MEMORANDUM 6F POINTS 3 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORY NOS. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1, AND 17.1 .p flO‘xU} 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 KMA 0r their attorneys. On November 10, 2020, Defendant KMA served unverified further responses to written discovery. See, Exhibit 5. On December 9, 2020, Defendant KMA mailed the verifications t0 their further responses t0 written discovery. See, Exhibit 6. On January 4, 2021, Plaintiff served a meet and confer letter, addressing the deficiencies in KMA’s responses, and supplemental responses, t0 Plaintiff’s written discovery. See, Exhibit 7. No response was received. T0 date, KMA never responded to Plaintiff‘s substantive meet and confer letter or follow- ups regarding deficiencies in KMA’S responses and never provided any document production. KMA has made its position clear. This is nearly the exact same history and discovery games displayed in almost all 0f the cases between this defense firm and Plaintiff s counsel’s firm. Based upon this history and KMA’S refusal t0 amend its discovery response, Plaintiff firmly believes that any further efforts to informally resolve this discovery dispute without Court intervention Will be futile. KMA has failed to provide supplemental responses and complete documents, and therefm‘e invited the filing 0f this motion. Plaintiff was forced t0 file this motion in order t0 preserve and enforce his discovery rights. V. KMA SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORY NOS. 1.1, 12.1. 15.1, AND 17.1. California Code osz'vz'Z Procedure § 2030.300 provides in pertinent part: “(a) On receipt of a response t0 interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer t0 a particular interrogatory is evasive 0r incomplete. (2) An exercise 0f the option t0 produce documents is unwarranted 0r the required specification of those documents is inadequate.” *** -5- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F PLAINTIFF’S MOTION T0 COMPEL DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INCJS FURTHER RESPONSES T0 FORM INTERROGATORY NOS. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1, AND 17.1 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 As fully detailed in Plaintiff’s accompanying Rule 3.1345 Separate Statement, KMA should be required t0 provide further responses t0 items 1.1, 12.1, 15.1, and 17.1 of Plaintiffs Form Interrogatories. KMA’s failure to provide full and complete responses t0 these interrogatories is without substantial justification. There is n0 justifiable basis for KMA’s apparent refusal to provide appropriate and complete responses With the information requested. VI. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue an Order compelling Defendant t0 provide Code-compliant verified, further supplemental responses to Form Interrogatory N0. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1, and 17.1, as demonstrated in the supporting Separate Statement. Date: January 28, 2021 THE BARRY LAW FIRM «WW? [a /:«// ,y ”Mjw i “5‘4” fit?“ {x} " ffWWW “ fl/ZMMW.%m~ a, J/ By: / DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ. ELIZABETH QUINN, ESQ. ERIK WHITMAN, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff, BRYAN THUERK -6- MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F PLAINTIFF’S MOTION T0 COMPEL DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INCJS FURTHER RESPONSES T0 FORM INTERROGATORY Nos. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1, AND 17.1 DECLARATION ARATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF ERIK WHITMAN I, Erik Whitman, declare: 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before this court in the State of California and I am an associate with The Barry Law Firm, attorneys 0f record for the Plaintiff Bryan Thuerk. I maka this Declaration in support 0f Plaintiff‘s Motion t0 Compel Kia Motors America, Inc.’s (“KMA”) Further Responses t0 Form Interrogatory Nos. 1.1, 12.1, 15.1, and 17.1. I am familiar with all activities and all proceedings in this case. Accordingly, if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the following based upon my own personal knowledge. 2. This is a lemon law case arising from Plaintiff’s purchase 0f a 2019 Kia Stinger, VIN KNAEZSLA9K6051110, (“Subject Vehicle” 0r “‘Vehicle”). The Vehicle was manufactured and warranted by Kia Motors America, Inc. Along With the purchase of the Vehicle, KMA expressly warranted to fix 0r repair any defects in workmanship or materials for five (5) years 0r 60,000 miles. 3. Because of the persistent nonconformities in the Vehicle that KMA’s dealerships were unable to repair, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit. 4. On June 11, 2020, my office served KMA With a set 0f Form Interrogatories. Attached as Exhibit 1 is true and correct copies 0f the Interrogatories at issue in this motion. 5. Timely, verified responses were due on or before July 16, 2020. Unverified responses were received by my office 0n July 16, 2020. Attached as Exhibit 2 is true and correct copies 0f KMA’S responses to the Interrogatories. 6. On July 30, 2020, Plaintiff sent KMA’s counsel a meet and confer letter highlighting various deficiencies 0f KMA’S discovery resp0nses relating t0 each 0f the discovery items, identified a KMA’s failure to provide any documents, and requested verified further responses. By way of this letter, Plaintiff requested a privilege log regarding the privilege objections contained within KMA’S discovery responses. T0 date, KMA has not served a privilege 10g. This letter further identified a number of items for Which KMA had failed to provide Code-compliant responses, including its responses t0 Plaintiff s Form Interrogatories, Set One. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy 0f this letter. -1- DECLARATION OF ERIK WHITMAN 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. When n0 response was received from KMA, 0n September 29, 2020, Plaintiff‘s counsel sent a follow-up correspondence t0 defense counsel inviting them to meet and confer. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy 0f the follow-up correspondence sent t0 defense counsel. 8. On November 10, 2020, Defendant KMA served unverified further responses to written discovery. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy 0f Defendant KMA’S further responses as served. 9. On December 9, 2020, Defendant KMA mailed the verifications to their further responses t0 written discovery. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy 0f Defendant KMA’S mailed verifications. 10. On January 4, 2021, Plaintiff served a meet and confer letter, addressing the deficiencies in KMA’S responses, and supplemental responses, to Plaintiff’s written discovery. Attached as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy 0f Plaintiff s meet and confer letter. 11. KMA has yet t0 produce any privilege 10g or proposed stipulated protective order as requested by Plaintiff. 12. To date, KMA never substantively responded to Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts 0r follow-ups regarding deficiencies in KMA’S responses t0 Plaintiff” s Form Interrogatories, Set One, and never provided any document production. KMA has made its position clear. This is nearly the exact same history and discovery games displayed in almost all of the cases between this defense firm and Plaintiff s counsel’s firm. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// -2- DECLARATION OF ERIK WHITMAN \OOONQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13. Accordingly, it is clear that any further efforts t0 informally resolve this discovery dispute without Court intervention will be futile and the Court’s assistance is needed. As a result 0f KMA’S failure to provide further, verified responses, Plaintiff was forced t0 file this motion t0 protect his discovery rights. I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws 0f the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 28th day 0f January 2020, in Los Angeles, California. 51:12 z Erik Whitman, Esq. -3- DECLARATION 0F ERIK WHITMAN EXHIBIT 1 T DlSC-OO‘I ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): David N. Barry, Esq. (SBN 219230) _The Barry Law Firm 11845 W. Olympic Blvd‘, Suite 1270 Los Angeles, CA 90064 TELEPHONE No; (310) 684-5859 FAX No, (Optional): (3 1 O) 862-4539 E-MAlL ADDRESS (Optionax): dbarry@mylemonrights.com ATTORNEY FOR (Name); Plaintiff, Bryan Thuerk SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Santa Clara 191 North First Street San Jose, CA 951 13 SHORT TITLE OF CASE: Thuerk V. Kia Motors America, Inc. Asking Party: Bryan Thuerk Answering Party: Kia Motors America, Inc. Set No.: One (1) FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL CASE NUMBER: 20CV364578 Sec. 1. Instructions to AH Parties (a) interrogatories are written questions prepared by a party to an action that are sent to any other party in the action to be answered under oath. The interrogatories below are form interrogatories approved for use in civil cases. (b) For time limitations, requirements for service on other parties, and other details, see Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.010--2030.41O and the cases construing those sections. (c) These form interrogatories do not change existing law relating to interrogatories nor do they affect an answering party’s right to assert any privilege or make any objection. Sec. 2. Instructions to the Asking Party (a) These interrogatories are designed for optional use by parties in unlimited civil cases where the amount demanded exceeds $25,000. Separate interrogatories, Form InterrogatorieswLimited Civil Cases (Economic Litigation) (form DiSC-OO4), which have no subparts, are designed for use in limited civil cases where the amount demanded is $25,000 or less; however, those interrogatories may also be used in unlimited civil cases. (b) Check the box next to each interrogatory that you want the answering party to answer. Use care in choosing those interrogatories that are applicable to the case. (c) You may insert your own definition of INCIDENT in Section 4, but only where the action arises from a course of conduct or a series of events occurring over a period of time. (d) The interrogatories in section 16.0, Defendant’s Contentions-Personal Injury, should not be used until the defendant has had a reasonable opportunity to conduct an investigation or discovery of plaintiff’s injuries and damages. (e) Additional interrogatories may be attached. Sec. 3. Instructions to the Answering Party (a) An answer or other appropriate response must be given to each interrogatory checked by the asking party. (b) As a general rule, within 30 days after you are served with these interrogatories, you must serve your responses on the asking party and serve copies of your responses on all other parties to the action who have appeared. See Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.260-2030270 for details. Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Councal of Caiifomia DISC-Om {Rev January 1, 2008] (c) Each answer must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to you, including the information possessed by your attorneys or agents, permits. If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, answer it to the extent possible. (d) If you do not have enough personal knowledge to fully answer an interrogatory, say so, but make a reasonable and good faith effort to get the information by asking other persons or organizations, unless the information is equally available to the asking party. (e) Whenever an interrogatory may be answered by referring to a document, the document may be attached as an exhibit t0 the response and referred to in the response. If the document has more than one page, refer to the page and section where the answer to the interrogatory can be found. (f) Whenever an address and telephone number for the same person are requested in more than one interrogatory, you are required to furnish them in answering only the first interrogatory asking for that information. (g) If you are asserting a privilege or making an objection t0 an interrogatory, you must specificaily assert the privilege 0r state the objection in your written response (h) Your answers to these interrogatories must be verified, dated, and signed. You may wish to use the following form at the end of your answers: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing answers are true and correct, FORM lNTERROGATORIES-GENERAL (DA TE) (SIGMA TURE) Sec. 4. Definitions Words in BOLDFACE CAPITALS in these interrogatories are defined as follows: (a) (Check one of the following):m (1) INCIDENT includes the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding. Page 1 of 8 Code ofCivil Procedure, §§ 20300102030410. 2033.710 www. courtinfoA cago v E] (2) INCIDENT means (insert your definition here or on a separate, attached sheet labeled “Sec. 4(8)(2)”)-‘ (b) YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF includes you, your agents, your employees, your insurance companies, their agents, th 5r employees, your attorneys, your accountants, your investigators, and anyone else acting on your behalf. (c) PERSON includes a natural person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business, trust, limited liability company, corporation, or public entity. (d) DOCUMENT means a writing, as defined in Evidence Code section 250, and includes the original or a copy of handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostats, photographs, electronically stored information, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing and form of communicating or representaiion, inciuding letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations of them. (e) HEALTH CARE PROVIDER includes any PERSON referred to in Code of Civil Procedure section 667.7(e)(3). (f) ADDRESS means the street address, including the city, state, and zip code. Sec. 5. Interrogatories The following interrogatories have been approved by the Judiciai Council under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.710: CONTENTS 1.0 identity of Persons Answering These lnterrogatories 2.0 General Background informationmlndividual 3.0 General Background !nformation--Business Entity 4.0 Insurance 5.0 [Reserved] 6.0 Physical, Mental, or Emotional Injuries 7.0 Property Damage 8.0 Loss of Income or Earning Capacity 9.0 Other Damages 10.0 Medical History 11.0 Other Claims and Previous Claims 12.0 Investigatioaneneral 13.0 lnvestigation~8urveillance 14.0 Statutory or Regulatory Violations 15.0 Denials and Special or Affirmative Defenses 16.0 Defendant’s Contentions Personal Injury 17.0 Responses to Request far A missions 18.0 [Reserved] 19.0 [Reserved] 20.0 How the Incident Occurredeotor Vehicle 25.0 [Reserved] 30.0 [Reserved] 40.0 [Reserved] 50.0 Contract 60.0 [Reserved] 70.0 Unlawful Detainer [See separate form DISC-003] 101 .O Economic Litigation [See separate form DISC-004] 200.0 Employment Law [See separate form D/SC-OOZ] Family Law [See separate form FL-145] DlSC-001 1.0 Identity of Persons Answering These Interrogatories m 1.1 State the name, ADDRESS, telephone number, and relationship to you of each PERSON who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to’these interrogatories. (Do not identify anyone who simply typed or reproduced the responses.) 2.0 Genera! Background Information-individual [:1 2.1 State: (a) your name; (b) every name you have used in the past; and (c) the dates you used each name. [j 2.2 State the date and place of your birth. D 2.3 At the time of the INCIDENT, did you have a driver's license? 1f so state: (a) the state 0r other issuing entity; (b) the Iicense number and type; (c) the date of issuance; and (d) all restrictions. D 2.4 Atthetime ofthe INCIDENT,ded you have any other permit or license for the operation ofa motorvehicle? If so, state: (a) the state or other issuing entity; (b) the license number and type; (c) the date of issuance; and (d) all restrictions. D 2.5 State: (a) your present residence ADDRESS; (b) your residence ADDRESSES for the past five years; and (c) the dates you iived at each ADDRESS. E] 2.6 State: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of your present employer or place of self-employment; and (b) the name, ADDRESS, dates of empioymem, job title, and nature of work for each empioyer or self-empioyment you have had from five years before the INCIDENT until today. E 2A7 State: (a) the name and ADDRESS of each school or other academic orvocationai institution you have attended, beginning with high schooi; (b) the dates you attended; (c) the highest grade level you have completed; and (d) the degrees received. D 2.8 Have you ever been convicted of a feiony? If so, for each conviction sta e: (a) the city and state where you were convicted; (b) the date of conviction; (C) the offense; and (d) the court and case number. D 2.9 Can you speak English with ease? If not, what language and dialect do you normally use? [j 2.10 Can you read and write English with ease? If not, what language and dialect do you normally use? DISC-OO1 [Rev. January 1, 2008] FORM INTERROGATORIES~GENERAL Page 2 of a 9.0 Other Damages [:3 9.1 Arethere any other damages thatyou attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each item of damage state: (a) the nature; b) the date it occurred; c) the amount; and d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON t0 whom an obligation was incurred. ( ( ( m 9.2 Do any DOCUMENTS support the existence or amount of any item 0f damages claimed in interrogatory 9.1? If so, describe each document and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT. 10.0 MedicalHistory D 10.1 At any time before the INCIDENT did you have com- plaints or injuries that involved the same part of your body ciaimed to have been injured in the INCIDENT? If so; for each state: (a) a description of the complaint or injury; (b) the dates it began and ended; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER whom you consulted or who examined or treated you. D 10.2 List all physical, mental, and emotional disabilities you had immediateiy before the INCIDENT. (You may omit mental or emotional disabilities unless you attribute any mental or emotional injury to the INCIDENT.) E] 10.3 At any time after the iNCiDENT, did you sustain injuries of the kind for which you are now claiming damages? If so, for each incident giving rise to an injury state: (a) the date and the place it occurred; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any other PERSON involved; (c) the nature 0f any injuries you sustained; (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER who you consulted or who examined or treated you; and (e) the nature of the treatment and its duration. 11.0 Other Claims and Previous Claims [:3 11.1 Except for this action, in the past 1O years have you filed an action or made a written claim or demand for compensataon for your persona! injuries? 1f so, fer each action, claim, or demand state: (a) the date, time, and place and location (ciosest street ADDRESS orintersection)ofthe INCIDENT giving rise to the action, claim, or demand; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON against whom the claim or demand was made or the action filed; 'Dlsc-oo1 (c) the court, names ofthe parties, and case number of any action filed; (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any attorney representing you; (e) whether the ciaim or action has been resolved or is pending; and (f) a description of the injury. 11.2 m the past 1O years have you made a written Claim or demand for workers’ compensation benefits? If so, for each claim or demand state: (a) the date, time, and place ofthe iNClDENT giving rise to the claim; _ (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of your employer at the time of the injury; (C) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the workers’ compensation insurer and the claim number; (d) the period of time during which you received workers’ compensation benefits; (e) a description ofthe injury; (f) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER who provided services; and (g) the case number at the Workers’ Compensation Appeais Board. 12.0 Investigation-General m 12.1 State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual: (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT; (b) who made any statement at the scene ofthe iNCIDENT; (c) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and (d) who YOU 0R ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034). 12.2 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTiNG ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual concerning the lNCIDENT? If so, for each individua! state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and teIephone number of the individual interviewed; (b) the date of the interview; and (C) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who conducted the interview. 12.3 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING 0N YOUR BEHALF obtained a written or recorded statement from any individuai concerning the iNCiDENT? if so, for each statement state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and tetephone number of the individual from whom the statement was obtained; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who obtained the statement; (c) the date the statement was obtained; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original statement or a copy. 0180-001 IRev- January 1. 20081 FORM INTERROGATORIESM-GENERAL Page s of e m 12.4 Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF know of any photographs, films, or videotapes depicting any place, object, or individual concerning the INCIDENT or plaintiff‘s injuries? If so, state: (a) the number of photographs or feet 0f film or videotape; (b) the places, objects, orpersons photographed, filmed, or videotaped; (c) the date the photographs, films, or videotapes were taken; (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual takingthe photographs,films, or videotapes; and (e) the name, ADDRESS, and teiephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of the photographs, films, or videotapes. m 12.5 Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF know of any diagram, reproduction, or model 0f any place or thing (except for items developed by expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210- 2034310) concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each item state: (a) the type (i.e., diagram, reproduction, or model); (b) the subject matter; and (C) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has it. m 12.6 Was a report made by any PERSON concerning the INCIDENT? if so, state: (a) the name, title, identification number, and employer of the PERSON who made the report; (b) the date and type of report made; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON for whom the report was made; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of the report. M 12.7 Have You 0R ANYONE ACTING 0N YOUR BEHALF inspected the scene 0f the INCIDENT? If so, for each inspection state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual making the inspection (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-2034310); and (b) the date of the inspection. 13.0 lnvestigation-Surveillance m 13.1 Have YOU 0R ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF conducted surveillance of any individual invoived in the INCIDENT or any party to this action? 1f so, for each sur- veillance state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and tekphone number of the individual or party; (b) the time, date, and place ofthe surveillance; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who conducted the surveillance; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of any surveillance photograph, film, or videotape. . DlSC-001m 13.2 Has a written report been prepared on the surveillance? lf so, for each written report state: (a) thetitle; (b) the date; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number 0f the individual who prepared the report; and (d) the name,ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy. 14.0 Statutory or Regulatory Violations E] 14.1 Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF contend that any PERSON involved in the INCIDENT vfiolated any statute, ordinance, or regulation and that the vioiation was a Iegal (proximate) cause of the INCIDENT? If so, identify the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON and the statute, ordinance, or regulation that was violated. D 14.2 Was any PERSON cited or charged with a violation of any statute, ordinance, or reguiation as a result of this INCIDENT? if so, for each PERSON state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and tetephone number ofthe PERSON; (b) the statute, ordinance, or regulation allegediy violated; (c) whetherthe PERSON entered a plea in response to the citation or charge and, if so, the plea entered; and (d) the name and ADDRESS of the court or administrative agency, names of the parties, and case number. 15.0 Denials and Special or Affirmative Defenses m 15.1 Identify each denial of a material aHegation and each special or affirmative defense in your pleadings and for each: (a) state all facts upon which you base the denial or specie! or affirmative defense; (b) state the names, ADDRESSES, and te!ephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (c) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your denial or special or affirmative defense, and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT. 16.0 Defendant’s Contentions-Personal Injury D 16.1 Do you contend that any PERSON, other than you or plaintiff, contributed to the occurrence of the INCIDENT or the injuries or damages claimed by plaintiff? If so, for each PERSON: (a) statethe name,ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON; (b) state all facts upon which you base your contenfion; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. [j 16.2 Do you contend that plaintiff was not injured in the INCIDENT? If so: (a) state all facts upon which you base your contention; (b) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (c) identify all DOCUMENTS and othertangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. DlSC-OO1 [Rev. January 1, 2008) FORM lNTERROGATORIES-GENERAL Page 6 of 8 [:1 16.3 Do you contend that the injuries or the extent of the injuries claimed by plaintiff as disciosed in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were not caused by the INCIDENT? If so, for each injury: (a) identifyit; (b) state all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and othertangiblethingsthat support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. C] 16.4 Do you contend that any of the services furnished by any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER claimed by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were not due to the INCIDENT? If so: (a) identify each service; (b) state an facts upon which you base your contention; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangiblethings that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. [:1 16.5 Do you contend that any of the costs of services furnished by any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER ciaimed as damages by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were not necessary or unreasonable? If so: (a) identify each cost; (b) state all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) statethe names,ADDRESSES, andtelephone numbers of ail PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (d) identify ail DOCUMENTS and othertangiblethingsthat support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. E 1‘66 Do you con‘tend that any part of the toss of earnings or income claimed by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case was unreasonable or was not caused by the INCIDENT? If so: (a) identify each part of the loss; (b) state all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (d) identify ail DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. {j 16.7 Do you contend that any of the property damage claimed by plaintiff in discovery Proceedings thus far in this case was not caused by the INCIDENT? If so: (a) identify each item of property damage; (b) state all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) statethe names,ADDRESSES, andtelephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. _ DlSC-001 D 16.8 Do you contend that any of the costs of repairing the property damage claimed by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were unreasonabie? If so: (a) identify each cost item; (b) state all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge ofthe facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. E) 16.9 Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF have any DOCUMENT (for example, insurance bureau index reports) concerning claims for personal injuries made before or after the INCIDENT by a plaintiff in this case? if so, for each plaintiff state: (a) the source 0f each DOCUMENT; (b) the date each claim arose; (c) the nature of each claim; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT. D 16.10 Do YOU 0R ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF have any DOCUMENT concerning the past or present physical, mental, or emotional condition of any plaintiff in this case from a HEALTH CARE PROVIDER not previously identified (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-2034.310)? If so, for each plaintiff state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and teiephone number ofeach HEALTH CARE PROVIDER; (b) a description of each DOCUMENT; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and teiephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT. 17.0 Responses to Request for Admissions m 17.1 ls your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) state the number ofthe request; (b) state all facts upon which you base your response; (c) statethe names, ADDRESSES, andtelephone numbers of an PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. 18.0 [Reserved] 19.0 [Reserved] 20.0 How the Incident Occurred-Motor Vehicle D 20.1 State the date, time, and place of the INCIDENT (Closest street ADDRESS or intersection). E] 20.2 Foreach vehicle involved in the INCIDENT, state: (a) the year, make, model, and license number; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the dfiven DISC-OO1 (Rev. January 1, 2008] FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL Page 7 of 8 .bUJN \OOO‘QO‘xL/x 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA THUERK V. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. CASE # 20CV364578 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State 0f California. I am over the age 0f eighteen (1 8) years and not a party t0 the Within action; my business address is: 11845 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1270, Los Angeles, CA 90064. On June 11, 2020, I served the following described as: PLAINTIFF BRYAN THUERK’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION WITH DECLARATION OF DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ.; REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES WITH DECLARATION OF DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ.; FORM INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. 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 enveiope addressed t0: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST [X] (MAIL) I am "readily familiar" With the legal department’s practice for collection and processingof correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal service 0n that same day in the ordinary course 0f business. I am aware that 0n motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date 0r postage meter date is moré than one day after the date 0f deposit for mailing in affidavit. [] (OVERNIGHT DELIVERY MAIL) I caused the above described document t0 be served on the interested parties noted below by GSO Delivery Service in an envelope 0r package designated by the express service carrier in a facility which is deposited with the GSO Delivery Service in our building 0n the same day, in the ordinary course 0f business with delivery fees paid 0r provided for. (PED 0m“ A L SERVICE) I c "sed tue aueve described document t0 be1\L)Ul VI’Xr-H L...I 0n he interested parties noted below. [X] (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I caused such document t0 be delivered by electronic transmission t0 the addresses and offices 0f the addressee listed 0n the Service List. [X] (STATE) I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws of the State 0f California that the above is true and correct. Executed 0n the 11th 0f June 2020, at Los Angeles, California. ii ; m «N i Jazmlne Damels {§ij {g i: 9k, ‘- \~:;;;s..w’” NAME SIGNATURE PROOF OF SERVICE £11 h DJ N \OOO\JO\ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST THUERK V. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. CASE # 20CV364578 Danielle N. Duarte, Esq. danielle@lehrmanlawgroup=com Lehrrnan Law Group 12121 Wilshire B1Vd., Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90025 CC: klehrman@1ehrmanlawgroup.com dvillegas@lehrmanlawgroup.Com Attorneys for Defendant, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. PROOF OF SERVICE EXHIBIT 2 T AWN \OOOQQLI} 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEHRMAN LAW GROUP KATE S. LEHRMAN [Bar No. 123050] JACQUELINE BRUCE CHINERY [Bar No. 187544] DANIELLE N. DUARTE [Bar No. 308402] 12 1 21 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90025 (310) 917-4500 (310) 917-5677 (FAX) Attorneys for Defendant SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNLA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA BRYAN THUERK, an individual, ) Case N0. 20CV364578 ) [Filedz March 3, 2020] Plaintiff, ) ) Hon. Thang M. Barrett V. ) Dept. 21 ) KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, a ) California Corporation; and DOES 1 ) DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, through 20, inclusive, ) INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S ) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Defendants. ) ) § ) DISCOVERY CUT-OFF: NONE ) MOTION CUT-OFF: NONE ) TRIAL DATE: NONE PROPOUNDING PARTY : PlaintiffBRIAN THUERK RESPONDING PARTY : Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. SET NO. : ONE Pursuant t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.010, et seq., Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. (“KMA”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby responds t0 Plaintiff s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One. 301 .224.DND - 00498104.D0CX 1 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOQONUI-PUJNH N N N N [\J N N N N r-a h-l r-A r-A r-A )-¢ >-a p-A b-A p-A 00 fl O\ L11 A OJ N '-‘ O \O 00 fl Q L11 h U3 N *-" O PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS The subject 0f Plaintiffs Complaint is a 2019 Kia Stinger, VIN: KNAEZSLA9K6051 1 10, Which was purchased/leased 0n or about April 8, 2019. KMA did not design or manufacture the subj ect vehicle. KMA obj ects to Plaintiff s Interrogatories t0 the extent that they seek information concerning products other than the subject product in suit, vehicle components, systems 0r characteristics that are not described or identified with reasonable particularity in the Complaint and Which are not the subject of Plaintiff” s defect allegations. Such Interrogatories are overly broad, unduly burdensome and seek information that is not relevant 0r reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence in this case. KMA objects t0 Plaintiff s Interrogatories to the extent that they may call for the production 0f proprietary information, trade secrets 0r other confidential business and commercial information, public dissemination of which would place KMA at a commercial disadvantage. KMA objects to Plaintiff s Interrogatories t0 the extent that these Interrogatories can be interpreted t0 seek information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the consulting expert privilege or the work-product doctrine. In responding to these Interrogatories, KMA assumes that Plaintiff does not seek information or documents protected by the attorney/client privilege or work product doctrine, and KMA hereby preserves all such privileges. KMA objects to the instructions and definitions in Plaintiff’s Interrogatories t0 the extent that they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seek to impose duties 0r requirements beyond those required by the Code 0f Civil Procedure. KMA further obj ects t0 Plaintiff” s Interrogatories to the extent that they seek “any” or “all” records or documents 0f a particular description 0r designation. KMA is only required t0 make a diligent search of records kept in the ordinary course 0f business and those locations likely to contain relevant information and has done so. /// /// 301.224.DND - OO498104.DOCX 2 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOQQUI-bUJNfi-d NNNNNNNNNh-‘r-av-AHHHL-tr-Hb-d OOflQm-hUJNF-‘OKOOOQO‘xm-DUJNF-‘O Finally, neither the failure to specifically mention a general objection in any response nor the specification 0f any other objection shall be deemed a waiver of any obj ections to that Interrogatory. Without waiving the foregoing obj ections, and incorporating them into each 0f the following requests, KMA responds to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories as follows: RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1: State the name, ADDRESS, telephone number, and relationship t0 you 0r each PERSON who prepared or assisted in the preparation 0f the responses t0 these interrogatories (D0 not identifi/ anyone who simply typed 0r reproduced the responses.) RESPONSE: These Interrogatories have been propounded t0 a corporate defendant, and thus, are the corporate responses from information available to KMA. Counsel for KMA assisted in the preparation of these responses, based upon information compiled by counsel for KMA and by KMA through its counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 3.1: Are you a corporation? If so state: (a) the name stated in the current articles of incorporation; (b) all other names used by the corpo‘ration during the past 10 years and the dates each was used; (c) the date and place of incorporation; (d) the ADDRESS 0f the principal place 0f business; and (e) Whether you are qualified t0 d0 business in California. RESPONSE: Yes. (a) Kia Motors America, 1110.; (b) None; (c) 10/21/1992, California; 301 .224.DND - 00498104.D0CX 3 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AWN \OOOQONU} 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 period of time and cannot be treated as one or more related events. Subject to and without waiving these objections, KMA states that is self-insured t0 cover the alleged damages asserted by Plaintiff in this action. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.2 Are you self-insured under any statute for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of the INCIDENT? If so, specify the statute. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “incident” is vague and ambiguous as there is no single incident; the subject matter of this lawsuit took place over a period 0f time and cannot be treated as one or more related events. Subject to and without waiving these objections, KMA states that is self-insured t0 cover the alleged damages asserted by Plaintiff in this action. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.1: State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number 0f each individual: (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT; (b) Who made any statement at the scene 0f the INCIDENT; (c) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and (d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge 0f the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034). RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory as follows: 1. The term “incident” is vague and ambiguous as there is n0 single incident as this case involves the purchase, use and repair of a vehicle. Plaintiff has asserted claims under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act and thus, the only issues relate to the conformance of the subj ect vehicle to the applicable warranty. 301.224.DND - 00498104.DOCX 5 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AWN \OOOQQU‘I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 2. This interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege. 3. This interrogatory seeks information protected by the work-product doctrine. 4. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 5. This interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure 0f expert information. INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2; Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number 0f the individual interviewed; (b) the date 0f the interview; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number 0f the PERSON who conducted the interview. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects t0 this Interrogatory as fOHOWS: 1. The term “incident” is vague and ambiguous as there is n0 single incident as this case involves the purchase, use and repair of a vehicle. Plaintiff has asserted claims under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act and thus, the only issues relate t0 the conformance of the subject vehicle to the applicable warranty. 2. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.3 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF Obtained a written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each statement state: (a) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual from whom the statement was obtained; (b) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual Who obtained the statement; (c) The date the statement was obtained; and 301.224.DND - 00498104.DOCX 6 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE .bUJN \DOOQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who prepared the report; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original 0r a copy. RESPONSE; KMA obj ects t0 this Interrogatory as follows: 1. The term “incident” is vague and ambiguous as there is no single incident as this case involves the purchase, use and repair 0f a vehicle. Plaintiff has asserted claims under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act and thus, the only issues relate to the conformance of the subject vehicle t0 the applicable warranty. 2. This interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege. 3. This interrogatory seeks information protected by the work-product doctrine. 4. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 5. This interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure of expert information. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 15.1 Identify each denial 0f a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in your pleadings and for each: (a) State all facts upon which you base the denial 0r special or affirmative defense; (b) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone number 0f each PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (c) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your denial 0r special 0r affirmative defense, and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON Who has each DOCUMENT. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this lnterrogatory as calling for information protected by the attorney- client privilege and work product doctrine. This interrogatory further seeks information protected by the work-product doctrine. KMA further objects to this interrogatory 0n the grounds that it 301.224.DND - 00498104D0CX 1 1 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOflChUi-PUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. Further, this interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure of expert information. KMA further obj ects t0 this Interrogatory as impermissible, in that it seeks to shift the burden of proof to KMA and requires KMA to prove a negative, which is impossible. KMA further obj ects t0 this Interrogatory as overly broad and improper in its attempt t0 “tie down” KMA to state “all facts” upon which “each denial 0f the material allegation” upon Which plaintiff” s unverified Complaint is premised. As the California Supreme Court stated in Burke v. Superior Court (1 969) 7’1 Cal.2d 276, 282-83, the better practice is t0 inquire whether a party makes a certain contention and then t0 inquire with respect t0 the facts upon which that contention is based. (See also Flora Crane Service, Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 767.) KMA’s investigation and discovery is ongoing and is not complete as of the date of responding t0 these requests. Therefore, this response is limited t0 the information presently available to KMA. Moreover, KMA has had insufficient time t0 determine all facts t0 support special and/or affirmative defenses included in the pleadings. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1 Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) state the number 0f the request; (b) state all facts upon which you base your response; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Request 0n the following grounds: 1. This interrogatory is overly broad, and therefore is unjustly burdensome and 301 .224.DND - 00498104.Docx 12 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE bUJN \OOOQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 oppressive. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure of materials which are not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 3. information. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.1 For each agreement alleged in the pleadings: (a) (b) (C) (d) (6) (f) RESPONSE: identify each DOCUMENT that is part of the agreement and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number 0f each PERSON Who has the DOCUMENT; state each part 0f the agreement not in writing, the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON agreeing to that provision, and the date that part 0f the agreement was made; Identify all DOCUMENTS that evidence any part of the agreement not in writing and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number 0f each PERSON who has the DOCUMENT. Identify all DOCUMENTS that are part 0f any modification to the agreement, and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON Who has the DOCUMENT; State each modification not in writing, the date, and the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON agreeing t0 the modification, and the date the modification was made; Identify all DOCUMENTS that evidence any modification of the agreement not in writing and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON Who has the DOCUMENT. KMA objects to this Request on the following grounds: 301 .224.DND - 00498104DOCX 13 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOQONUI-hUJNH N N [\J N IQ N N N [\J r-d r-d p-a b-A r-A v-a >--A r-A r-A r-A 00 fl C\ U‘I b U) N H O \O 00 Q C\ {J} g U) N I--‘ O FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.6 Is any agreement alleged in the pleadings ambiguous? If so, identify each ambiguous agreement and state why it is ambiguous. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects t0 this Request 0n the following grounds: 1. This interrogatory is overly broad, and therefore is unjustly burdensome and oppressive. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure of materials Which are not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. DATED: July 16, 2020 LEHRMAN LAW GROUP KATE S. LEHRMAN JACQUELINE BRUCE CHINERY DANIELLE DUARTE By: /s/ ®anie[[e (Duarte Danielle Duarte Attorneys for Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. 301 .224.DND - 00498104DOCX 16 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE bWN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 \DOOQONU} PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ' ) ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State 0f California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 12121 Wilshire B1Vd., Suite 1300, Los Angeles, CA 90025. On July 16, 2020, I served, in the manner indicated below, the foregoing document described as: DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 0n the interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof, enclosed in sealed envelopes, at Los Angeles, CA addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST [] BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I caused such envelopes t0 be delivered by courier, with next day service, t0 the offices 0f the addressees. (C.C.P. § 1013(c)(d).) BY FACSIMILE: (C.C.P. § 1013(e)(t).) BY MAIL: I caused to be delivered by U.S. mail by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated above. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice 0f collection and processing documents for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course 0f business. [1 BY PERSONAL SERVICE; I caused such envelopes t0 be delivered by hand to the offices 0f the addressees. (C.C.P. § 101 1(a)(b).) BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: Itransmitted such document from Los Angeles, California, t0 the electronic mail address maintained by the person(s) 0n the SERVICE LIST as last indicated by that person on a document that he or she has filed in the above-entitled cause and served on this party. (C.C.P. § 1010.6(a)(6).) Per agreement and per state and local stay at home Orders re COVID19. [XX] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State 0f California that the above is true and correct. Executed 0n July 16, 2020, at Los Angeles, California. /s/ 7661mm f. M534 Theresa L. May 301 .224.DND - 00498104.D0CX 17 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AWN \OOOVONUI 1o 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE LIST KIA MOTORS AMERICA. INC./THUERK, BRYAN (K070-224X301 .224) Case No. 20CV364578 Page 1 David N. Barry, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff THE BARRY LAW FIRM BRYAN THUERK 11845 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 1270 Los Angeles, CA 90064 (310) 684-5859 (310) 862-4539 (FAX) dbarerDmx/Iemenrights.com Jeramy Templin: jtemplin@mylemonrights.com Mela Kelly: mkelly@mylemonrights.com Ivy Flores: iflores@mylem0nrights.com 301 .224.DND - 00498104.D0CX 18 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE EXHIBIT 3 T Main Office 11845 W. Olympic Boulevard Suite 1270 Los Angeles, California 90064 THE BARRY LAW FIRM Telephone (310) 684-5859 ♦ Facsimile (310) 862-4539 tcandiotti@mylemonrights.com July 30, 2020 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL: DanieHe(a;Jehrmanlawgroup.com Danielle N. Duarte, Esq. Lehrman Law Group 12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Re: Bryan Thuerk v. Kia Motors America, Inc. Case No: 20CV364578 Dear Ms. Duarte: I am in receipt of your client, Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc.' s unverified responses to Plaintiff's first set of discovery requests, served by electronic mail on July 16, 2020. This letter serves as my effort to meet and confer with you to informally resolve discovery disputes created by deficiencies in those responses, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure, including whether your client intends to verify these discovery responses. As you know, unverified response are tantamount to no response at all. See, Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 Code of Civil Procedure §2030.300. Therefore, please provide Code-compliant verifications to Defendant's original discovery responses within seven (7) days of the date of this letter. In addition to the lack of verifications, Plaintiff would like to address deficiencies in the served responses. As a reminder, the discovery act is broadly interpreted. Greyhound Corp. v. Super. Ct. (Clay) (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 384. Generally, "any party may obtain discovery regarding any subject matter involved ... if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." CCP § 2017.010. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES "INCIDENT" is defined on page one of the Judicial Council of California's approved Form Interrogatories as follows: "INCIDENT includes the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding. " The definition is plain and straightforward, and there is nothing vague, ambiguous, or overbroad about it in Plaintiffs discovery in this case, thus, Defendant's frequent objection to the contrary in its responses is not well taken. Defendant's response to Form Interrogatory 1.1, which asks you to state the name, address, telephone number, and relationship to you of each person who prepared or assisted in the preparation of these interrogatories, is not code-compliant. Defendant's response is as follows: "KlvfA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. In responding to this request, KMA presumes Plaintiff'does not seek the discovery of attorney/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery of the attorney work product of either in-house or outside counsel. KMA 's responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. This request seeks disclosure of materials which are not reasonable related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." It is axiomatic that an individual at KMA must have compiled the information on behalf of KMA (and your office). In accomplishing this task, this individual must have corresponded with individuals that have admissible knowledge of the facts in this case. Plaintiff is entitled to those facts and the testimony of those percipient witnesses and responsive documents. Defendant's "overly broad, vague, and ambiguous" objection is not well taken. Defendant and its counsel know perfectly well what this interrogatory is seeking, especially considering it is the very first question on the most commonly used discovery, and is written verbatim in every case that it is used in, as it uses language that has been approved by the Judicial Counsel of California. Finally, "vague and ambiguous" is not proper unless the question is so unintelligible that is impossible to answer in good faith. Cembrook v. Superior Court (Sterling Drug, Inc.) (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423,428. Kia can certainly develop some kind of answer to question. This question is clear, extraordinarily common, and should be understood by a routine defendant like Kia Motors America, Inc. You, as learned counsel, know this, and accordingly, should work with your client to deliver a code-compliant response. 2 Additionally, a court will not sustain an "overbroad" objection unless the objecting party can substantiate it. "Even wide-ranging discovery requests are permitted because discovery is designed to elicit all facts." See, Burke v. Superior Court (1969), 71 26 Cal.2d 276,285. Therefore, a further response is necessary identifying the individuals who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses. Next, Defendant KMA's response to Form Interrogatory 12.1 is incomplete. This Interrogatory asks KMA to provide the name, address and telephone number of all witnesses who have knowledge related to the allegations in the Complaint. In response to this Interrogatory, KMA listed a series of objections that are likely made in bad faith and/or are unsubstantiated. Plaintiffs counsel hopes that Defendant does not mean to be insulting and that this was simply an error. Nonetheless, Plaintiff will address each of those objections in tum. The term "INCIDENT" is defined above, using the Judicial Council of California's definition. Surely, Defendant isn't choosing to ignore the guidance of the Judicial Council. Plaintiff does not seek to invade the attorney client or work-product privilege. However, such an objection cannot be sustained without a privilege log. Thus, Defendant should either withdraw this objection or produce a privilege log, and a further response is requested. Similarly, the proper way to address confidentiality concerns is to propose a protective order. Please submit a protective order or withdrawn this objection. Plaintiff looks forward to either of these actions. Plaintiff does not seek expert information yet, at this point. Kia should not disclose experts at this point. This interrogatory seeks factual information held by percipient witnesses, which is certainly discoverable at this point in litigation. Plaintiff is entitled to the identity, by full name and address ( as called for by the interrogatory) of the percipient witnesses. Clearly, that information is relevant and readily obtainable by Kia as the work was performed by a KMA-authorized facility. Put more simply, this particular Interrogatory calls for KMA to identify those individuals that KMA intends to call at the time of trial. Here, if KMA intends to potentially call a witness to testify at trial, Plaintiff is entitled to depose that individual. Any attempt to argue that the KMA- authorized dealerships are "third parties" not related to KMA is merely an attempt to obfuscate the issue. Plaintiff does not have the ability to take his vehicle to any service facility to have it repaired under the warranty. Plaintiff must take the vehicle to a KMA-authorized service center- one that certainly has an ongoing operating agreement with KMA. Defendant KMA's relationship with its associated service centers is not arm's-length. As mentioned previously, in order to obtain the identity of the servicing technicians, arguably, KMA merely places a phone call to the dealership. Plaintiff would be required to direct a subpoena duces tecum to the dealership with the hopes of obtaining sufficient identifying information to later serve a deposition subpoena. Plaintiff cannot merely serve the servicing technicians with a subpoena for personal appearance to testify based on the technician identification number alone. Notwithstanding the issue of Plaintiff would be unable to properly 3 identify the individual for the subpoena itself, Plaintiff cannot effectuate service of the subpoena on the individual if the person's identity is unknown. See, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2020.220(b )(2) (Providing that personal service is required to command attendance.) It is undeniable that the Plaintiff is entitled to obtain that information in his trial preparation. It is equally undeniable that the court, if called upon to intervene, will not believe that requiring KMA to contact its own dealers for material information is unduly burdensome to the extent where Kia can rely on Section 2030.230 in formulating its response, keeping in mind that "all discovery imposes some burden on the responding party." West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 407, 418. A further response is therefore required. Moving right along, Defendant's response to Form Interrogatory 15.1 is deficient as well. Form Interrogatory 15.1 asks you to identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in your pleadings and for each: (a) State all facts upon which you base the denial or a special or affirmative defense; (b) State the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of those facts; and ( c) Identify all documents and other tangible things that support your denial or a special or affirmative defense, and state the name, address, and telephone number of the person who has each document. Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. pled multiple affirmative defenses. However, a review the response to Form Interrogatory 15 .1 utterly fails to fully comply with the subpart requirements for each of your separate affirmative defenses. Defendant simply stated the same boilerplate objections that it stated in response to Form Interrogatory 1. 1 and 12.1. Burke and West Pico Furniture Co. apply here as well, to Defendant's overly broad, and unjustly burdensome and oppressive objections. They should be withdrawn without further substantiation. Additionally, this interrogatory is only about Defendant's affirmative defenses, presumably how it intends to defend itself against Plaintiffs complaint. If Defendant finds arguing its case to be too burdensome, perhaps it should withdraw its Answer and submit to Plaintiff what he prayed for in his complaint. There is no point of continuing this litigation if Defendant will not even try to support its defenses, especially considering one of those defenses is that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action. Instead of wasting everyone's time, Defendant can simply withdraw its answer if it has nothing to support it and does not intend to find anything to support it. If Defendant does not have facts, witnesses, or documents to support a specific affirmative defense, then it should withdraw those defenses accordingly. Otherwise, a further response is necessary because the current response is devoid of the content sought in this Interrogatory. Defendant's argument that this interrogatory seeks information not reasonably related to the subject matter is clearly in error. This question is about Defendant's affirmative defenses, which alone makes discoverable. Please withdraw this erroneous objection. 4 Defendant's confidentiality objection is improper for the same reasons as addressed above. Defendant should propose a protective order instead of raising this objection. For all these reasons, a further response to Form Interrogatory 15 .1 is required. The response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 is also deficient. For each and every response to a Request for Admission that is not an unqualified admission, you are to state the number of the request, all facts upon which you base your response, the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all persons that have knowledge of those facts, identify all documents and other tangible things that support your response, and the name, address and telephone number of the person who has each document or thing. Instead, you have used the same objections as you used to For Interrogatory 15 .1, and they should be withdrawn for similar reasons. Additionally, the code requires that you answer separately, as to each Request for Admission that is not an unqualified admission. Please format your answer to be code-compliant. Thus, a further, verified response is required. In summary, Plaintiff expects further, verified responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 1. 1, 12.1, 15.1,and 17.1. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Requests for Admission are not "true" discovery. Requests for admission 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.4th 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 the materials that provides the response to such requests, 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 readily admitted. A party "cam1ot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control." Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782 [Emphasis added.] [If a party is unable to fully answer it should set forth the efforts made to secure the information.] Id. Request No. 1 asks Defendant to admit that "Plaintiff purchased the SUBJECT VEHICLE." Defendant's objection as "vague and ambiguous" is improper. The Defendant can answer as it understands the Request, in the spirit of Cembrook. Defendant fails to substantiate its "overly broad" objection under Burke. Finally, Defendant's objection that the Request is "argumentative" is bewildering. Plaintiff would find it very hard to believe that Defendant intends to argue that Plaintiff did not "purchase" the Vehicle under any reasonable interpretation 5 of the word "purchase." Plaintiffs request here is not argumentative. If anything, Defendant's use of the term "argumentative" here is argumentative. In addition to Request No. 1, Defendant makes the same "vague and ambiguous" objections in Response to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions No. 2 - 17, and 21 - 44. Both KMA and Lehrman Law Group are sophisticated organizations that can answer of these Requests according to the code and in good faith, in the spirit of Cembrook. Not doing so just wastes everyone's time, including the courts, which typically do not biess such nuisance objections. Please withdraw these objections and answer according to your best interpretation of the requests, in the spirit of Cembrook. Speaking of the Code, it requires that the responding party: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonable 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. A party "cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control." Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771,782 [Emphasis added.] The whole point of discovery is to take the "game element" out of trial. Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355. See also, Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771,782. [If a party is unable to fully answer it should set forth the efforts made to secure the information.] KMA, being in the chain of commerce leading up to Plaintiffs purchase of the subject vehicle possesses sufficient information to respond to this Request in good faith. Finally, Defendant made another "overly broad" objection to Request No. 1, and did not attempt to substantiate it under Burke, and West Pico Furniture Co. Defendant also made these objections in response to Request Nos. 2, 4 - 9, 11 - 14, 15 - 17, and 21 - 26. Please substantiate these objections or withdraw them and provide a further response. For these reasons a further response is therefore required to Request for Admission No. 1. Request No. 2 asked Defendant to admit that the subject vehicle was a new motor vehicle, for purposes of Song-Beverly Warranty Act. Defendant must further respond to No. 2 to admit or deny that the subject vehicle was new for purposes of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, for the same reasons it must submit a further response to Request for Admission No. 1. An interrogatory is "argumentative" if it is a question that masquerades as a fact and is indeed not meant to be answered. [insert citation from toolbox.] That is clearly not the case here; Plaintiff is seeking KMA contention as to whether the Vehicle was a "new motor vehicle" for purposes of the Song-Beverly Act. For similar reasons, Defendant's "argumentative" objections as to Request Nos. 4 - 6, 8 -10, 16, 21, 23 -26. 6 Plaintiffs issues with Defendant's Response to Request for Admission No. 3 has already been addressed. Defendant should provide a verified, code-compliant, answer, accordingly to its understanding of the Request. In its Response to Request for Admission No. 4, in addition to nuisance objections that have already been addressed, Defendant makes "presupposes" and "assumes facts" objections. An interrogatory assumes facts if it is meant to elicit an unintentional admission. Objections to these questions are primarily meant to protect witnesses testifying at trial. Such objections are not proper in response to written interrogatory because a substantive response can be written in such a way as to avoid any unintentional admissions. For example, Defendant can say that it "contends that the Vehicle never had a nonconformity" and then proceed to give a code-compliant response. As such, Plaintiff asks that Defendant withdraw these objections and answer the Request accordingly. This also applies to Request Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 21, and 23. As to No. 9, a very simple Request asking Defendant to admit that is was aware of its restitution or replacement obligations under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, the answer is wholly nonresponsive to the Request. Arguably, KMA has been involved in numerous litigation matters involving Song-Beverly, and additionally has provided restitution to consumers and/or repurchased their vehicles. Nitpicking objections as to vagueness and ambiguity are rarely sustained by the courts and are only sustained when the request is completely unintelligible. A party has a duty to answer if "the nature of the information sought is apparent." Deyo at 783. KMA's response to this Request is clearly not straight forward, as required by the Code and warrants a further response that is Code compliant. Please provide a simple admission or denial to Request for Admission No. 9 without rewriting Plaintiffs Request. Defendant's discoverability objection to Request No. 12 is not well taken. Damages are a critical element in any lawsuit, and certainly evidence informing the existence and amount of damages is discoverable. Anything that would allow a party to prepare for trial in this matter is discoverable. Lipton v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 611. Any question as to discoverability is resolved in favor of allowing discovery. Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 9. Plaintiff respectfully asks that Defendant withdraw this frivolous objection and provide a code-compliant response. Requests for Admissions Nos. 17, 18, 19, and 20, relate to whether Defendant noted any evidence of misuse or abuse of the subject vehicle by Plaintiff, whether Defendant's service file contains notations involving suspected misuse or abuse of the subject vehicle, whether Defendant is currently unaware of any evidence of misuse or abuse of the subject vehicle by the Plaintiff, and whether Plaintiff caused damage to the subject vehicle by misusing or abusing it. Defendant claimed that after a reasonable inquiry, the information presently known or readily obtainable is insufficient to admit or deny these Requests, but failed to explain what was involved, if anything, in its "reasonable inquiry." The responses are disingenuous, inadequate, and simply evasive. 7 Defendant has placed these facts directly at issue by asserting Affirmative Defenses in its Answer that contend that Plaintiff and/or others are responsible for any alleged damages due to misuse and abuse by Plaintiff and/or others and related claims. Therefore, Plaintiff has an absolute right to discover facts relating to these defenses. A party 11cannot plead ignorance to infom1ation which can be obtained from sources under his control." Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771,782 [Emphasis added.] [Ifa party is unable to fully answer it should set forth the efforts made to secure the information.] These Requests are straightforward and relate to the past; either Kia noted that there was misuse or abuse, or it did not. Defendant's responses given are blatant attempts to avoid responding and may be considered an abuse of discovery should Plaintiff be required to seek judicial intervention. An inability to respond can only be stated where there is a true lack of information available to the responding party. Defendant raised attorney-client and/or work product privilege concerns in its Reponses to Request Nos. 14 and 23. Please withdraw these objections and provide a further response, or produce a privilege log. In addition to objections that have already been addressed, Defendant has stated, in Response to Request for Admission No. 15, stated that Defendant's awareness of its Song-Beverly obligations is not reasonably calculated to lead to the admission of admissible evidence. This Request is clearly related to the civil penalty component of the Song-Beverly Act, of which Defendant's awareness is a crucial aspect. As such, Plaintiff asks that Defendant withdraw this objection. In response to Requests for Admission Nos. 17-20 and 27-44, in addition to other objections that Plaintiff has already addressed, Defendant objects that these Requests seek premature expert opinion. Plaintiff does not seek expert testimony here, and merely asks for Defendant's contentions as to these issues, in an effort to limit issues that the parties will have to litigate. If Defendant has a contention either way, it should say so, and as such, further responses are required. In response to Request for Admission No. 22, Defendant KMA objects to this request as being vague, ambiguous, overly broad, an incomplete hypothetical, assumes facts not in evidence and improperly seeks a legal conclusion. KMA cannot admit or deny this request on the grounds that it is unintelligible, vague, and ambiguous. KMA's objections are meritless and boilerplate. Defendant KMA has a duty to respond if the nature of the Request is understood, and this Request is straightforward. This information is germane to whether or not KMA complied with the requirements of the Song-Beverly Act, and whether civil penalties are warranted. Accordingly, KMA must provide a response to this request without objection. Plaintiffs Request for Admission No. 24 asked Defendant to admit that Plaintiff is defined as a qualifying CONSUMER as defined for purposes of the Song Beverly Warranty Act. Defendant asserted boilerplate objections, and claimed that this is unintelligible, vague and ambiguous. 8 As stated at the beginning of this section, Requests for Admission are not 11true" discovery. Requests for admission 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.4th 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 the materials that provides the response to such requests, 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 readily admitted. Yet, that is exactly what Defendant has improperly done here. A further response to Request for Admission No. 24 is necessary. Plaintiff respectfully asks for further, verified responses to each of the propounded Requests for Admission. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Plaintiff's Special Interrogatory No. 1 asks Defendant to identify all persons who were consulted or provided answers to these interrogatories. For the same reasons discussed in relation to Fom1 Interrogatory No. 1.1, defendant's response is insufficient, and a further response is necessary to cure the deficiencies. Defendant's response to Special Interrogatory No. 2 makes the same frivolous objections, and a further response, or at least a protective order, is required. Special Interrogatory Nos. 3 - 6 are all related to Special Interrogatory No 2., which does not have a substantive response, and only contains the same objections as those used in Special Interrogatory No. 2. Thus, once Defendant provides a substantive response to Special Interrogatory No. 2, it should also provide further responses to Special Inte1rngatory Nos. 3 - 6. Defendant's response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, states overly broad, vague and ambiguous, attorney-client and work product privilege, not reasonably calculated, CCP 2030.060(f), and confidentiality objections. Overly broad has been addressed above, and Defendant should answer, in accordance with Burke. "Vague and ambiguous" has also been addressed, and Defendant should answer in accordance with Cembrook. Defendant's "not reasonably calculated" objections should be overruled. Discoverability standards are very liberally applied, and is far broader than admissibility at trial. Anything that would allow a party to prepare for trial in this matter is discoverable. Lipton, 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 611. Any question as to discoverability is resolved in favor of allowing discovery. Glenfed Dev. Corp., 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 9. Clearly, admissible evidence could be contained in the communications this Special Interrogatory seeks to uncover. Additionally, Special Interrogatory No. 7 is a yes or no question and thus cannot be compound. Finally, if Defendant has legitimate privilege concerns, it should propose a protective order. Thus, a further response is required. 9 Similarly, further responses are required for Interrogatory Nos. 8, 9, 10, and 11, since they relate to Special Interrogatory No. 7. Defendant's responses are deficient for the same reasons as discussed in No. 7. In response to Special Interrogatory No. 14, in addition to objections that Plaintiff has already addressed, Defendant states that Plaintiff has equal ability to identify all persons who performed warranty repairs on the Vehicle. Defendant, as the provider of the warranty of the Vehicle, knows all the information of these technicians. All they have to do is perform a VIN search, and the provide the information to Plaintiff. Plaintiff cannot find this information with the ease that Defendant can. This case is a breach of warranty case and the persons who performed the warranty repairs are therefore percipient witnesses. Defendant's evasive tactics are not well taken. Please further respond to identify the persons who performed the warranty repairs upon the subject vehicle. A further and complete response to No. 14 is hereby demanded. Defendant's responses to the remainder of Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories are repetitive and evasive, and identical to ones already discussed. As such, they should be withdrawn, and further responses should be provided. Special Interrogatory No. 25 asks KMA to identify all persons responsible for its customer relations department in the region having jurisdiction over Plaintiffs complaints, and Special Interrogatory No. 26 asks Defendant to identify the person(s) who is most knowledgeable regarding Defendant's warranty policies, including but not limited to policies that Defendant may have had regarding the replacement or reimbursement of allegedly defective automobiles, respectively. Defendant deflected these and did not provide answers responsive to the Interrogatories. Instead, Defendant asserted the same boilerplate objections. Plaintiff is entitled to the identifies of these key witnesses who oversee its customer relations department. A further response is necessary. As a matter of statutory law, witness information is not protected. "Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter ... . " [Emphasis added]. C.C.P. §§2017.010; 2030.0l0(a); Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4 th 1539; 1536-1547. Next, Defendant does not have the right to choose how Plaintiff conducts his discovery. As long as Plaintiff propounds discovery properly pursuant to the Code, as Plaintiff has done, then Defendant has an obligation to respond properly. Defendant cannot decide that Plaintiff should choose a different method, and when Plaintiff does, only then will Defendant appropriately respond. This is insufficient and Defendant has failed to provide any legal authorities to support its position with respect to these two Interrogatories. Defendant has failed to provide a complete and straightforward response setting forth "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." C.C.P. § 2030.220 (a), (b). Thus, a further response is requested to Nos. 25 and 26. 10 Special Interrogatory No. 27 asks Defendant to list all Special Service Messages and/or TSBs that relate to each nonconformity in the subject vehicle, as alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint filed in this action. Defendant asserted the same boilerplate objections, all of which should be denied for reasons previously discussed. The Discovery Act is broadly interpreted. Greyhound Corp. v. Super. Ct. (Clay) ( 1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 384. Generally, "any party may obtain discovery regarding any subject matter involved ... if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." CCP § 2017.010. Plaintiff is entitled to a list of all of the TSBs and/or special service messages that relate to all of his allegations in the Complaint, not limited to those that Defendant considers related. A further response is required to No. 27. Special Interrogatory Nos. 28, 29, and 30 asks if KMA contends that the nonconformity in the Subject Vehicle does not substantially impair the value, use, or safety of the Subject Vehicle, state all facts that support your contention, and identify all documents that support your contention. Defendant raised the same objections and stated that it cannot answer because discovery is ongoing. Plaintiff is entitled to KMA' s straightforward responses, according to the information it currently has. Special Interrogatory Nos. 29 and 30 ask KMA to state all the facts and produce all documents that support its contention if it answered the Special Interrogatory affirmatively. KMA simply responds, Complete and further responses are necessary. Defendant made the same objections to Special Interrogatory 31, but Plaintiff 1 s nonetheless entitled to an answer according to Defendant's best knowledge. Regarding Special Interrogatory Nos. 33 through 36, you advise Plaintiff to "See KMA's response to Interrogatory No. 32, above. KMA's attempted responses are wholly nonresponsive to the Interrogatories as propounded. The Interrogatories as propounded asked KMA whether it complied with their warranty obligations under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, and whether Defendants were able to repair all of the nonconformities and conform the vehicle to the express warranty. Nothing more, nothing less. These are, without a doubt, the most rudimentary of contention inte1TOgatories. KMA' s attempt to muddy the waters with the introduction of additional terms are a red herring and a blatant attempt to avoid responding to the Interrogatories as propounded. Either KMA complied with its obligations or it did not. Either KMA can support its claims or it cannot. Plaintiff is entitled to answers. Further responses are required for Special Interrogatory Nos. 32 - 36. Special Interrogatory makes the same boilerplate and/or objections in response to Special Interrogatory No. 37. These objections should be withdrawn, and a further response should be provided. 11 Special Interrogatory No. 38 concerns whether a written warranty was provided to the Plaintiff at the time of sale of the subject vehicle. Defendant's objections are the same boilerplate and frivolous objections that have been previously used and also include that the Interrogatory is irrelevant, immaterial, calls for a legal conclusion, and is unintelligible. These objections are not well taken. Deyo v. Kilbourne stands for the proposition that "vague and ambiguous objections are valid only if the question or request is totally unintelligible. Otherwise, the responding party has a duty to answer if 'the nature of the information sought is apparent."' See Id. at 783. Clearly, KMA is aware of the nature of the information being sought and has a duty to respond in good faith. A further response that fully responds to the Interrogatory as propounded is required. For reasons addressed above, a further response is also required for Special Interrogatory No. 39. This is a Song-Beverly Warranty Act lawsuit. It is axiomatic that warranties are relevant. Please provide a further response. Special Interrogatory No. 40 asks for witness information. This Interrogatory asks Defendant to identify individuals within Defendant's company who are responsible for ensuring that Defendant complies with Song-Beverly. Plaintiffs entire lawsuit is premised on allegations that Defendant violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to know who the individuals are within Defendant's company that are responsible for making sure Defendant complies with California law. If no such individual(s) exist(s), then Defendant must indicate this under oath. Defendant's boilerplate and unsubstantiated objections should be withdrawn. As such, a further response is required. Special Interrogatory No. 41 refers to Special Interrogatory No. 40 for its answer. This is nonresponsive and deficient. For the reasons stated above, a further response is necessary. As to No. 42, after objections, Defendant asserted attorney-client privilege. Please explain how and why this objection applies here, provide a privilege log, or otherwise respond fully. Similarly, Special Interrogatory No. 43 deals with identification of key witnesses, yet Defendant failed to answer, but instead raised the same boilerplate and frivolous objections. Defendant is obligated to identify these witnesses. The same applies to Special Interrogatory No. 44. Further responses are therefore required. Further responses to Special Interrogatory No. 45 are also necessary because Defendant has not produced a privilege log. Defendant's response to Special Interrogatory No. 46 is nonresponsive. This particular interrogatory calls for KMA to state the number of repair attempts that they were afforded. For the same reasons discussed previously, a broad reference to documents produced is unacceptable. This is a contention interrogatory, entirely proper. Surely KMA already performed this calculation and simply prefers not to provide an answer. 12 No. 47 seeks Defendant's definition of "non-conformity." Defendant responded with all objections and a claim that this improperly seeks a legal conclusion. Plaintiff contends that Defendant must answer this if Defendant wishes to defend its client in this case, particularly because Defendant has said elsewhere that "non-conformity" is vague and ambiguous. The existing response is a bad faith evasive tactic. A further response is required. With respect to No. 48, Defendant's boilerplate objections are not substantiated as applied, and the fact that this may seek a legal conclusion does not make it objectionable. The information sought is relevant and Plaintiffs are entitled to a substantive response. Similarly, in response to Nos. 49 and 50, Defendant asserted unsubstantiated objections only and failed to give any substantive responses. Please provide legal authorities to support Defendant's position that these are Code compliant responses to relevant and nonprivileged Interrogatories. Plaintiff contends that they are not and thus, Defendant must further respond with substantive answers. Special Interrogatory No. 51 asks Defendant to list all technical service bulletins that are applicable to the subject vehicle, including any that were superseded. Defendant's response only includes the same boilerplate and frivolous objections that Defendant has used previously. This is the discovery stage, and Plaintiff is entitled to a list of all TSBs relating to this vehicle, including those superseded. Defendant's knowledge of known defects that affect its vehicles is relevant. Defendant may not condition its response on arbitrary requirements of its own making. Accordingly, a further response is necessary. Special Interrogatory No. 52 ask to explain in detail the process by which a technical service bulletin is recalled or suspended. Defendant claims that the request is overly broad, immaterial, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It further alleges that this is an abuse of discovery by Plaintiff because Plaintiff did not even identify any TSB. How can Plaintiff possibly identify the TSBs when Defendant will not provide a complete list or produce the full set of those that apply to the subject vehicle? Therefore, a further response is necessary. Special Interrogatory No. 53 asks Defendant to state the number of days the vehicle was out of service for warranty repairs. There are no privileges or substantiated objections that apply. The total number of "down days" is essential to determining if the lemon law presumption applies. The dealer repair orders do not provide the response because the open and close dates on a dealer's repair orders are often inaccurate and thus do not accurately reflect out-of-service time; in fact, repair orders remain open due to circumstances not reflected in the documents alluded to. As such, the records identified do not answer the question and so the response on its face is incomplete and non-responsive. The appropriate information is readily available to Defendant; it can obtain it by contacting its authorized dealer. Defendant is required to provide answers that are "as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits." Defendant's duty also encompasses the requirement that it make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information sought by the interrogatory, except where that information is readily available to the propounding party. Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal. App.4th 13 1496, 1504. This includes referring to all sources of information that are under the party's control. California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(a), (b ). To be certain, information related to work performed by Defendant-authorized service centers is under the control of Defendant, and Defendant is clearly able to ascertain which Defendant-authorized service centers performed warranty repairs on the subject vehicle. A further response is required to No. 53. Plaintiff respectfully asks for further, verified responses to each of the propounded Special Interrogatories. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS As a preliminary note, none of Defendant's Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents are Code-compliant. A document response must consist of: ( 1) an agreement to comply, stating whether production or inspection will be allowed "in whole or in part" and that all documents or things in the possession, custody, or control of the respondent, as to which no objection is made, will be included, by the date set for inspection (unless informally extended in writing, or the designed timing is subject to objection); (2) a representation of inability to comply, with a specification of any person believed or known to have possession of documents; or, (3) objections and specifications of withheld documents. Code of Civil Procedure §§2031.210 (a), 2031.220, 2031.270, and 2031.280(b ); Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2012) ,r,r 8:1469-9:1474. All of Defendant's Responses must be supplemented to comply with the Code. None of Defendant's responses had any language even close to what is required by the code. Defendant's responses exclusively consisted of objections. Moreover, Defendant's document production in this case is entirely deficient. Defendant produced no documents, and has only used the same frivolous, unsubstantiated, and boilerplate objections. Clearly, Defendant must acknowledge the obvious deficiency of a non-existent document production. Again, all of these objections should be overruled for reasons that have already been addressed in this letter. Time and again throughout these objections, Defendant raised concerns based on confidentiality and trade secrets, and has not proposed a protective order when it is Defendant who has the burden of seeking a protective order and substantiating why documents it claims are privileged require protection. Until it does so, there is no reason why Defendant should not produce the requested documents, which Plaintiff contends do not meet the minimum threshold for protection anyway. Plaintiff objects to Defendant's conditioning the production of documents on the execution of a Stipulated Proposed Protective Order. Pursuant to CCP sections 2016.040 and 2031.060(a), this serves as Plaintiffs effort to informally resolve this matter. The following discussions provide prima facie evidence of good cause for the production of the documents sought by Plaintiff in this case. See, C CP. § 2031.31 0(b )(1) [ A motion for an order compelling a further response to a production request "shall set forth specific facts 14 showing good cause justifying the discovery sought..."] Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court ( 1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117. Unless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, the moving party's burden is met simply by a showing or relevance. TBG Insurance Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443; Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002), 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98. Request for Production No. 1 seeks production of all repair orders including front and back of each page, handwritten notes, hard cards, accounting copies regarding, pertaining to, or relating to the subject vehicle. Defendant has produced very little in this regard and certainly not all variations or versions of all involved repair orders. These are clearly relevant and nonprivileged documents in a Song-Beverly case alleging breach of implied and express warranties. Further responses and production are necessary. For the same reasons stated above, Defendant must also provide further responses and production to Request or Production No. 2. Request for Production Nos. 3 and 4 ask for all warranty repair documents regarding, pertaining, or relating to the subject vehicle, and all warranty reimbursement documents applicable to the subject vehicle, respectively. Defendant's confidentiality concerns can be resolved with a protective order, but Defendant has yet to produce a protective order for review.' Therefore, further responses with an accompanying document production are necessary. Request Nos. 5 and 6 seek all warranty documents applicable to the subject vehicle and all documents related to any examination, test, or inspection performed with respect to the subject vehicle. For the same reasons as above, a further response and responsive document production is necessary. Request Nos. 7 and 8 seek pre-delivery preparation related documents, and any service, adjustments, repairs, or restorations to the subject vehicle prior to delivery to Plaintiff, respectively. Defendant's response to each made the same boilerplate objections, and thus, a further responses and an accompanying document production is necessary. Request for Production No. 9 seeks production of all recall documents regarding, pertaining, or relating to the subject vehicle, including but not limited to, service bulletins and/or technical service bulletins. Defendant's objections, like those above, are not well taken and should be withdrawn. Please produce all service bulletins. As for Request for Production No. 10, Defendant's objections are similarly unsubstantiated, discoverability is very broad, and Defendant is required to answer according the documents it does have. Anything that would allow a party to prepare for trial in this matter is discoverable. Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 611. Any question as to discoverability is resolved in favor of allowing discovery. Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 9. As such, a further response and accompanying document production is required. With respect to Nos. 11 and 12, a further response and document production is necessary for the same reasons as stated above. Wide-ranging discovery responses are permitted because discovery is meant to elicit all facts. Burke. 15 In response to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents No. 13 seeking production of all statements taken by Defendant or anyone acting on its behalf from any person with respect to the subject vehicle, Defendant makes the same unsubstantiated objections and never submitted a proposed protective order. Thus, the need for such an order has not been substantiated in any way, and Plaintiff is entitled to the documents sought. A further production ls necessary. Request for Production Nos. 14 and 15 seek production of all documents evidencing any communications regarding the subject vehicle and/or communications between Plaintiff and Defendant. First of all, as has been repeated, Defendant has not produced a document production, and if there are any privileged documents that Defendant is withholding based upon privilege, then Plaintiff is entitled to a privilege log to assess whether protection is appropriate. Please provide a privilege log, or otherwise clarify your responses to indicate clearly that no responsive documents, privileged or not are being withheld from Plaintiff. For the same reasons as discussed to varying degrees above, a further response with production of documents to Request No. 16, 17, and 18 is necessary. Request for Production No. 19 asks Defendant to produce the complete Service File with respect to the Subject Vehicle. No Service file/records were produced. A further response with responsive document production is necessary. Request for Production No. 20 asks Defendant to produce the complete Sales and Service Accounting File. Again, no sales records were produced. A further response with responsive document production is necessary. For Request for Production No. 21, however, Defendant failed to produce the sales and service records and the Warranty History Inquiry. Please produce these documents, as well as any documents responsive to Request for Production No. 22. Request for Production No. 23 asks for Defendant's "complete file relating specifically to the subject vehicle, including but not limited to, deal jacket." Defendant "objects to this request because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous, and "presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attorney/ client communications, nor does Plaintiff seeks the discovery of the attorney work product of either in-house or outside counsel." Defendant has failed to properly respond to this request. Please explain how these objections contain any merit. Produce the referenced documents that Defendant failed to produce including the sales and service records and Warranty History Inquiry, as well as any documents responsive to Request for Production Nos. 24 29, all of which raise the same frivolous and boilerplate objections. For Request for Production Nos. 30, as explained previously in this letter, the burden is on the party seeking protection to substantiate the need for protection and seek an order if necessary. Defendant failed to justify the need for one so far. Please further respond and produce all responsive documents. 16 Request for Production No. 31 asks for all documents relating to the customer call center, including but not limited to, all flow charts, processes, and/or scripts. Defendant's response is not responsive to the Request and for that reason a further response is sought, as well as for Request for Production No. 32. Defendant's objections claiming material that is confidential, proprietary, and protected by trade secrets are not supported by the requisite showing. A party claiming confidentiality protections must show good cause for the need in terms of a protective order. Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4 th 261, 318. Defendant must show that the information sought actually contains confidential commercial information (not otherwise known to others in the pertinent field) and that its dissemination would injure Defendant. See Id Kia has not shown that the information sought is generally unknown to other auto manufacturers or others similarly situated who could gain an advantage from its use, nor shown that any harm would result to Defendant from such use. Therefore, conclusory allegations and objection not sufficient. Defendant failed to include or refer to any privilege logs or similar documents describing the allegedly confidential documents. See, Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181. The purpose of a privilege log is to provide a specific factual description of documents in support of substantiating a claim of privilege in connection with a request for document production. Since these responses include no details or enumeration of allegedly confidential documents, Plaintiff cannot evaluate Kia's entitlement to these asserted protections. These documents are clearly relevant as they evidence Kia Motors America, Inc.' s policies and procedures for evaluating whether or not a customer's vehicle qualifies for repurchase under Song-Beverly. Whether or not Defendant willfully violated Song-Beverly is relevant to the potential for a civil penalty of up to two times Plaintiffs actual damages pursuant to Civil Code § 1794( c ). Accordingly, a further response is necessary. Request for Production No. 33 asks for all documents related to the technical hotline. Defendant again asserted boilerplate objections, and failed to propose a protective order. As discussed in relation to Request for Production Nos. 30, 31, and 32, this is unacceptable. Further responses and production are necessary. Request for Production No. 34 asks for all documents related to efforts by you to reduce the number of repeat repair attempts for a customer. Defendant's objections are with merit and it has not been shown how this request seeks confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information. Clearly, manufacturers and warranty defense lawyers know what a "repeat repair attempt" is, as it is a term regularly used in the context of Song-Beverly cases. Therefore, a further response is necessary. I also note that you have objected to Request for Production No. 35 which asks for all documents related to efforts by you to reduce the number of reacquired vehicles as well as Request for Production No. 36 which asks for all documents related to repeat repair procedures for remedying customer concerns. Clearly this information is relevant as Plaintiff is entitled to efforts by Defendant to repair the subject vehicle. Further responses with document production are required. All the other boilerplate objections that Defendant has repeated in these responses have been soundly addressed elsewhere in this letter. 17 Request for Production Nos. 37 through 42 seek documents evidencing, relating, or referring to complaints by owners of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle regarding any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the subject vehicle to you or your authorized repair facility for repair, and production of all surveys, reports, summaries, or other documents in which owners of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle have reported to you any of the specific problems. Defendant asserted numerous objections on the grounds that each Request is overiy broad, vague, and ambiguous, and not properly limited in time and scope, irrelevant, seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information, and does not specify with reasonable particularity what is sought. Defendant's objections are without merit, and ce1iainly no justification to refuse to produce the requested relevant documents. The discovery act is broadly interpreted. Greyhound Corp. v. Super. Ct. (Clay) ( 1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 384. Generally, "any party may obtain discovery regarding any subject matter involved ... if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." CCP § 2017.010. Given the broad standard of discovery within the state of California, Plaintiff confidently contends that Defendant's knowledge of other individuals complaining of the same defects or conditions for which Plaintiff presented the vehicle are relevant. In West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 407, the Supreme Court discussed the meaning of the terms "burden" and "oppression." The Court held that burden alone is an insufficient basis to object to discovery because all discovery imposes some burden on the responding party. See, Id at 417, 418. In addition, any objection based upon burden "must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required" to respond to the discovery. See, Id. at 417. Similarly, an objection based on oppression must be based on a showing "either of an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the results sought." See, Id. Information about other similar vehicle complaints may demonstrate a defect or nonconformity, or show when it arose, and may also demonstrate Defendant's knowledge of widespread warranty problems and Kia's failure to act despite this knowledge. The Court of Appeals recently addressed a manufacturer's argument that evidence of other vehicles was prejudicial and irrelevant. See, Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138. The Court held: "other vehicles testimony was not unduly prejudicial. It did not concern simply other vehicles. It was limited to the ( defective component) in Plaintiffs truck and other vehicles. (Plaintiffs expert) described what Ford itself had done to notify dealers and technicians about problems with this ( defective component) model. Thus, everything about which he testified that applied to other vehicles applied equally to Plaintiffs vehicle. Such evidence certainly was probative and not unduly prejudicial." See, Id. at 154. Donlen is not an outlier case. In Doppes v. Bentley Motors Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 697, the trial ordered production of "repair invoices or other records of odor reduction work and/or odor repair on all Bentleys for model years 1999 to 2006, all documents recording 18 approval for installation of odor reduction kits for model years 1999 to 2006, all documents denying approval for installation of odor reduction kits for model years 1999 to 2006, any correspondence ( other than email) from Bentley dealers to Bentley USA or UK regarding customer odor complaints, .. and all other documents of any description referring or relating to the odor problem or complaints of odor in Bentley automobiles for model years 1999 to 2006. 11 The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's orders. Additionally, information about other similar vehicle complaints are relevant to refute Defendant's claims that Plaintiff or others, aside from Defendant, are responsible for the vehicle's problems, as alleged in Defendant's affirmative defenses claiming that Plaintiff and/or others misused or abused the vehicle, or engaged in unauthorized or unreasonable use of the subject vehicle. Under any interpretation, the documents that Plaintiff seeks are "reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence," which is the standard that governs here. Accordingly, the documents sought by Plaintiff are certainly discoverable, as they are "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." CCP § 2017. 01 0; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402. Plaintiff may also prove that Defendant willfully refused to buy back the vehicle despite knowing that it was legally obligated to do so, and if so, the Court may impose civil penalties against Defendant. Further responses and production are therefore needed for Request Nos. 37 through 42. Next, Requests for Production Nos. 43 and 44 seek the Pinpoint tests including codes retrieved, and the wiring diagrams for any systems related to the subject vehicle's concerns, respectively. Defendant asserted objections and privilege claims for each but failed to provide privilege logs or fully explain the objections. These documents are necessary for Plaintiffs experts to assess and understand the claims and defenses involved in the case for the specific problems and concerns involved. Please further respond and produce the documents. Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents, No. 45, seeks production of all documents related to repair procedures performed on the subject vehicle. Defendant continues use the same frivolous objections. This is obviously nonresponsive to Plaintiffs Request. Repair procedures include all instructions, directives, guidelines, procedures for how to actually fix the vehicle. Plaintiff seeks only those documents related to repair procedures that were actually performed on the subject vehicle. Please review Plaintiffs Request No. 45 carefully and provide a further response and corresponding production of documents. Request Nos. 46 and 47 seek the As-Built data and the VIN digit breakdown documents. Like Nos. 43 and 44, Defendant's responses are insufficient, and these documents are relevant and nonprivileged. Thus, further responses and production should be forthcoming. Plaintiffs Requests for Production, Nos. 48 and 49, seek all TSBs, and recalls, applicable to the subject vehicle. Defendant has not produced a single TSB or recall in this case and Plaintiff is entitled to the full set of those that apply to the subject vehicle, whether or not they were performed. This is the discovery stage and the standard of relevance is broad, as discussed earlier. 19 Request Nos. 50 and 51 seek any repair 0r diagnostic procedures that were consulted during the completion of repairs 0n the vehicle, in addition t0 repair procedures that were actually performed. In response t0 these requests, Defendant has raised the same frivolous objections that have been soundly addressed throughout this letter. Please withdraw your obj ections and provide further responses and accompanying document production. As such, Plaintiff expects further, verified responses t0 the Requests for Production propounded 0n Defendant. Thank you. REQUESTED ACTION Please provide further, verified responses within seven (7) days of the date 0f this letter. If you require additional time t0 respond, then please advise and I will accommodate any reasonable request and postpone consideration 0f filing any motions t0 compel. As you know, Plaintiff does not yet have a deadline t0 file motions since you have yet t0 serve verifications. If, however, Defendant fails to provide further responses as requested herein, 0r t0 otherwise respond, then Plaintiff Will have n0 other alternative but t0 file motions to compel, reserving all rights t0 seek costs and sanctions as appropriate. I hope to avoid burdening the court with any discovery disputes and therefore, I 100k forward t0 resolving this directly without court intervention. Very Truly Yours, THE BARRY LAW FIRM L/?j’ Vflfl/fi’ Troy R. Candiotti, Esq. EXHIBIT 4 T THE Main Office BARRY 11845 \X Olympic Boulevard Suite 1270 LAW Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone (310) 6846859 O Facsimik (310) 862-4539 FIR l \/| tcaudiotti@mylemonrights.com September 29, 2020 VIA U.S. MAIL AND E-MAIL TO: DANIELLE@LEHRMANLAWGROUP.COM Danielle N. Duane, Esq. Lehrman Law Group 12121 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Re: Bryan Thuerk v. Kia Motors America, Inc. Case N0: 20CV3645 78 Dear Ms. Duarte: This letter serves as a follow-up t0 my July 30, 2020 meet and confer letter t0 you regarding Defendant’s deficient discovery responses, and lack 0f verifications, t0 Plaintiff's first set 0f written discovery responses. Despite my July 30, 2020 letter requesting verifications and a response within seven (7) days 0f the date 0f that letter, I still have not heard from you. Please note that ifI d0 not receive a response within 7 days from the date of this letter, I must then assume Defendant is not interested in resolving this discovery dispute informally. Consequently, Plaintiff will be forced t0 file Motions t0 Compel Further Responses and a Request for Sanctions. I hope this will not be necessary. I 100k forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Very Truly Yours, THE BARRY LAW FIRM g Troy R. Candiotti, Esq. CC: klehrman@lehnnanlawgroup.com dvillegas@lehrmanlawgr0up.com EXHIBIT 5 B T AWN \OOOQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEHRMAN LAW GROUP KATE S. LEHRMAN [Bar N0. 123050] JACQUELINE BRUCE CHINERY [Bar No. 187544] DANIELLE N. DUARTE [Bar No. 308402] 12121 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90025 (310) 917-4500 (310) 917-5677 (FAX) Attorneys for Defendant SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA BRYAN THUERK, an individual, ) Case N0. 20CV364578 ) [Filedz March 3, 2020] Plaintiff, ) ) Hon. Thang M. Barrett V. ) Dept. 21 ) IGA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, a ) California Corporation; and DOES 1 ) DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, through 20, inclusive, ) INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO ) PLAINTIFF’S FORM Defendants. ) INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE ) g ) DISCOVERY CUT-OFF: NONE ) MOTION CUT-OFF: NONE ) TRIAL DATE: NONE PROPOUNDING PARTY: PlaintiffBRIAN THUERK RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. SET NO.: ONE Pursuant t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.010, et seq., Defendant Kia Meters America, Inc. (“KMA”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby filrther responds t0 Plaintiff s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One. /// /// 301 .224.DND - 00529957.D0CX 1 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE hUJN \OWQONUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS The subject of Plaintiff’s Complaint is a 2019 Kia Stinger, VIN: KNAEZSLA9K6051 1 10, which was purchésed/leased 0n 0r about April 8, 2019. KMA did not design or manufacture the subject vehicle. KMA objects to Plaintiff s Interrogatories t0 the extent that they seek information concerning products other than the subject product in suit, vehicle components, systems or characteristics that are not described 0r identified With reasonable particularity in the Complaint and which are not the subject of Plaintiff s defect allegations. Such Interrogatories are overly broad, unduly burdensome and seek information that is not relevant 0r reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 0f admissible evidence in this case. KMA objects to Plaintiff” s Interrogatories t0 the extent that they may call for the production of proprietary information, trade secrets 0r other confidential business and commercial information, public dissemination 0f Which would place KMA at a commercial disadvantage. KMA objects to Plaintiff s Interrogatories to the extent that these Intermgatories can be interpreted t0 seek information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the consulting expert privilege 0r the work-product doctrine. In responding to these Interrogatories, KMA assumes that Plaintiff does not seek information or documents protected by the attomey/client privilege 0r work product doctrine, and KMA hereby preserves all such privileges. KMA objects to the instructions and definitions in Plaintiff’s Interrogatories to the extent that they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seek to impose duties 0r requirements beyond those required by the Code of Civil Procedure. KMA further objects to Plaintiff” s Interrogatories t0 the extent that they seek “any” or “all” records or documents of a particular description or designation. KMA is only required t0 make a diligent search of records kept in the ordinary course of business and those locations likely t0 contain relevant information and has done so. /// /// 301.224.DND - 00529957.DOCX 2 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOQONUI-bWN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Finally, neither the failure to specifically mention a general objection in any response nor the specification of any other objection shall be deemed a waiver of any objections to that Interrogatory. Without waiving the foregoing objections, and incorporating them into each 0f the following requests, KMA responds to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories as follows: FURTHER RESPONSES T0 FORM INTERROGATORIES FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.1: State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual: (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT; (b) who made any statement at the scene 0f the INCIDENT; (c) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and (d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge 0f the INCIDENT (except for expert Witnesses covered by Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2034).W KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory as follows: 1. The term “incident” is vague and ambiguous as there is n0 single incident as this case involves the purchase, use and repair of a vehicle. Plaintiff has asserted claims under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act and thus, the only issues relate t0 the conformance of the subject vehicle to the applicable warranty. 2. This interrogatory seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege. 3. This interrogatory seeks information protected by the work-product doctrine. 4. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 5. This interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure of expert information. /// 301 .224.DND - 00529957.DOCX 3 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE KOOOflaUl-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHy-ar-tr-AHr-av-‘Hr-A WQQMbWchomflam-bWNF-‘O FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and Without waiving its previously asserted objection, KMA further responds as follows: KMA states that witnesses which are known at this time may include the following persons: (a-c) Brian Thuerk, Capitol Kia, located at 755 Capitol Expressway Automall, San Jose, CA 95136; Stevens Creek Kia, located at 3566 Stevens Creek Blvd, San Jose, CA 95 1 17 and Winn Kia of Fremont, located at 5633 John Muir Dr., Newark, CA 94560. Service advisers and technicians at Capitol Kia, whose identities are unknown at this time, but who KMA believes include Capitol Kia Service Advisers Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte and Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357. Pursuant t0 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, which may provide information from Which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained. The originals 0f these records are believed to be in Plaintiff” s possession. Service advisers and technicians at Stevens Creek Kia, Whose identities are unknown at this time but who KMA believes include Steven Creek Kia Service Adviser Daniel Garcia- Marez and Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99. Pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, which may provide information from Which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained. The originals 0f these records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. Service advisors and technicians at Winn Kia of Fremont, whose identities are unknown at this time but who KMA believes include Winn Kia 0f Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny” and Winn Kia 0f Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100. Pursuant t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiffto Winn Kia ofFremont invoice no. 338097, which may provide information from which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained. The originals ofthese records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. KMA's investigation and discovery are continuing and KMA has not been afforded an 301.224.DND - 00529957.DOCX 4 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOQQUI-RUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 opportunity to inspect the subject vehicle 0r depose the Plaintiff. KMA reserves the right t0 amend this response. INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2: Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number 0f the individual interviewed; (b) the date 0f the interview; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number 0f the PERSON who conducted the interview. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory as follows: 1. The term “incident” is vague and ambiguous as there is no single incident as this case involves the purchase, use and repair 0f a vehicle. Plaintiff has asserted claims under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act and thus, the only issues relate to the conformance of the subject vehicle t0 the applicable warranty. 2. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. FURTHER RESPONSE: Without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA filrther responds as follows: N0. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and KMA reserves the right to amend this response. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.3 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF obtained a written 0r recorded statement from any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each statement state: (a) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual fiom whom the statement was obtained; (b) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number 0f the individual who obtained the statement; (c) The date the statement was obtained; and 301.224.DND - 00529957.DOCX 5 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE UI-bUJN \OOOQON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 vehicle to the applicable warranty. 2. This interrogatory seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege. 3. This interrogatory seeks information protected by the work-product doctrine. 4. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 5. This interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure 0f expert information. FURTHER RESPONSE: Without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA filrther responds as follows: No. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and KMA reserves the right to amend this response. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 15.1 Identify each denial of a material allegation and each special 0r affirmative defense in your pleadings and for each: (a) State all facts upon which you base the denial 0r special or affirmative defense; (b) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone number 0f each PERSONS who have knowledge 0f those facts; and (c) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your denial 0r special 0r affirmative defense, and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number 0f the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory as calling for information protected by the attorney- client privilege and work product doctrine. This interrogatory further seeks information protected by the work-product doctrine. KMA further objects t0 this interrogatory 0n the grounds that it seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. Further, this interrogatory seeks the premature disclo sure of expert information. KMA further objects to this Interrogatory as impermissible, in that it seeks to shift the burden 0fproof t0 KMA and requires KMA t0 prove a negative, Which is impossible. KMA further objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and iInprOper in its attempt to “tie down” KMA to state “all facts” upon which “each denial of the material allegation” upon 301.224.DND - 00529957.DOCX 1 1 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE A KOOOflmm 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 which plaintiff s unverified Complaint is premised. As the California Supreme Court stated in Burke v. Superior Court (1 969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 282-83, the better practice is to inquire whether a party makes a certain contention and then to inquire With respect t0 the facts upon Which that contention is based. (See also Flora Crane Service, Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Ca1.App.2d 767.) KMA’S investigation and discovery is ongoing and is not complete as 0f the date of responding t0 these requests. Therefore, this response is limited to the information presently available to KMA. Moreover, KMA has had insufficient time to determine all facts to support special and/or affirmative defenses included in the pleadings. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject t0 the aforementioned objections and Without waiver thereof: General Denial (a) In order to prevail 0n his Song-Beverly causes 0f action, Plaintiff must show there was a defect in material and workmanship in the vehicle that was not repaired in a reasonable number of attempts, which substantially impaired the use, value or safety 0f the vehicle. (Civ. Code, § 1793.2, subd. (d).) At this time, KMA has not located any “complaint” that was not repaired in a reasonable number 0f repair attempts. Additionally, to KMA’S knowledge, the SUBJECT VEHICLE has not caused damage or injury t0 any person 0r entity. Further, to the extent that the subject vehicle does not qualify as a “new motor vehicle” under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. (b) Brian Thuerk, Capitol Kia, located at 755 Capitol Expressway Automall, San Jose, CA 95136; Stevens Creek Kia, located at 3566 Stevens Creek B1Vd., San. Jose, CA 95117 and Winn Kia ofFremont, located at 5633 John Muir Dr., Newark, CA 94560. Service advisers and technicians at Capitol Kia, whose identities are unknown at this time, but Who KMA believes include Capitol Kia Service Advisors Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte and Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357. Pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, which may provide information fiom which the sales associate(s), service 301.224.DND - 00529957.D0CX 12 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE .bUJN \OOOQONUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 advisers” and technicians’ identities may be ascertained. The originals of these records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. Service advisors and technicians at Stevens Creek Kia, whose identities are unknown at this time but who KMA believes include Steven Creek Kia Service Adviser Daniel Garcia- Marez and Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99. Pursuant t0 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Which may provide infcrmation fiom which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained. The originals of these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff s possession. Service advisers and technicians at Winn Kia of Fremont, Whose identities are unknown at this time but who KMA believes include Winn Kia of Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny” and Winn Kia of Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100. Pursuant t0 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 Winn Kia of Fremont invoice n0. 338097, Which may provide information fiom which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians” identities may be ascertained. The originals of these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff“ s possession. (c) The Warranty and Consumer Information Manual for the subject vehicle, the purchase contract, and service records the Warranty History Inquiry, the Consumer Assistance Case Center Reports and the Techline Assistance Case Center Reports. The Warranty History Inquiry, the Consumer Assistance Case Center Reports and the Techline Assistance Case Center Reports Will only be produced if Plaintiff agrees t0 the entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case. 1. First Affirmative Defense (a) The date 0f purchase, miles 0n the subject vehicle at the date of purchase, complaints made to KMA’s authorized repair facilities, the dates the subject vehicle was delivered to KMA’s authorized repair facilities, the inspection, service, or repairs performed by KMA’S authorized repair facilities, the dates the subject vehicle was returned to Plaintiff, the mileage 0n the dates the subject vehicle was presented to KMA’s authorized repair facilities, the dates and substance 0f any communications with KMA and/or its authorized service facilities, 301 .224.DND - 00529957.D0CX 13 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOQQUIhUJNp-A NNNNNNNNNb-‘r-Ar-Ar-AHr-Ap-Ar-Ar-dr-d and the terms of the warranty including length, coverage and exclusions, all as set forth verbatim in the service records, and Warranty and Consumer Information Manual. Setting forth these facts would necessitate the preparation or the making 0f a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary. Accordingly, pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the service records and Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, copies 0f which are in Plaintiff’s possession. KMA’s documents contain confidential and proprietary information, and will be produced if Plaintiff agrees t0 the entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case. Additionally, to KMA’s knowledge, the subject vehicle has not caused damage or injury t0 any person 0r entity. (b) Brian Thuerk, Capitol Kia, located at 755 Capitol Expressway Automall, San Jose, CA 95136; Stevens Creek Kia, located at 3566 Stevens Creek B1Vd., San Jose, CA 951 17 and Winn Kia of Fremont, located at 5633 John Muir Dr., Newark, CA 94560. Pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which may provide information fiom Which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisors Micah Caplan and Eli Duane, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Adviser Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia of Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia 0f Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). (c) Purchase agreement, Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia 0f Fremont invoice n0. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance _ Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry Will be produced pursuant to the entry of a protective order. /// /// /// 301.224.DND - 00529957.DOCX 14 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOQONUI-PWNr-A NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OOQONM-hWNHOKOOOflmm-bWNr-‘O 2. Second Affirmative Defense (a) The date ofpurchase, miles 0n the subject vehicle at the date ofpurchase, complaints made to KMA’S authorized repair facilities, the dates the subject vehicle was delivered t0 KMA’s authorized repair facilities, the inspection, service, or repairs performed by KMA’S authorized repair facilities, the dates the subject vehicle was returned to Plaintiff, the mileage 0n the dates the subject vehicle was presented t0 KMA’S authorized repair facilities, the dates and substance of any communications With KMA and/or its authorized service facilities, and the terms of the warranty including length, coverage and exclusions, all as set forth verbatim in the service records, and Warranty and Consumer Information Manual. Setting forth these facts would necessitate the preparation 0r the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, 0r summary. Accordingly, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the service records and Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, copies 0fwhich are in Plaintiff’s possession. KMA’S documents contain confidential and proprietary information, and will be produced if Plaintiff agrees t0 the entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case. Additionally, to KMA’S knowledge, the subject vehicle has not caused damage 0r injury t0 any person or entity. (b) Brian Thuerk, Capitol Kia, located at 755 Capitol Expressway Automall, San Jose, CA 95136; Stevens Creek Kia, located at 3566 Stevens Creek B1Vd., San Jose, CA 95117 and Winn Kia of Fremont, located at 5633 John Muir Dr., Newark, CA 94560. Pursuant t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which may provide information fiom Which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisers Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Adviser Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia of Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia of Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). /// /// 301 .224.DND - 00529957.D0CX 15 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE LWN \OOOQCJNLA 1o 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (c) Purchase agreement, Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia 0f Fremont invoice n0. 338097, the Warrémty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry Will be produced pursuant to the entry 0f a protective order. 3. Third Affirmative Defense (a-c) The remedies for a cause 0f action under the Song-Beverly Warranty Consumer Act are set forth in the statute and recovery for physical and emotional injury are not included therein. (See, e.g., Gu v. BMW ofNorth America, LLC (2005) 132 Ca1.App.4th 195, 207; Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz ofNorth America, Inc. (1994) 23 Ca1.App.4th 174, 187.) 4. Fourth Affirmative Defense (a-c) At this time, KMA has not located facts, witnesses 0r documents regarding this affirmative defense. KMA’S investigation and discovery are continuing and KMA reserves the right t0 supplement and/or amend this Response. 5. Fifth Affirmative Defense (a-c) At this time, KMA has not located facts, Witnesses 0r documents regarding this affirmative defense. KMA’S investigation and discovery are continuing and KMA reserves the right to supplement and/or amend this Response. 6. Sixth Affirmative Defense (a-c) At this time, KMA has not located facts, witnesses 0r documents regarding this affirmative defense. KMA’s investigation and discovery are continuing and KMA reserves the right to supplement and/or amend this Response. 7. Seventh Affirmative Defense (a-c) At this time, KMA has not located facts, witnesses or documents regarding this affirmative defense. KMA’s investigation and discovery are continuing and KMA reserves the right to supplement and/or amend this Response. 8. Eighth Affirmative Defense 301 .224.DND - 00529957.D0CX 16 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOQO‘xUl-bWN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (a-c) At this time, KMA has not located facts, witnesses or documents regarding this affirmative defense. KMA’s investigation and discovery are continuing and KMA reserves the right t0 supplement and/or amend this Response. 9. Ninth Affirmative Defense (a-c) At this time, KMA has not located facts, witnesses or documents regarding this affirmative defense. KMA’s investigation and discovery are continuing and KMA reserves the right t0 supplement and/or amend this Response. 10. Tenth Affirmative Defense (a) The date 0f purchase, miles 0n the subject vehicle at the date 0f purchase, complaints made to KMA’S authorized repair facilities, the dates the subject vehicle was delivered t0 KMA’s authorized repair facilities, the inspection, service, 0r repairs performed by KMA’S authorized repair facilities, the dates the subject vehicle was returned to Plaintiff, the mileage 0n the dates the subject vehicle was presented to KMA’S authorized repair facilities, the dates and substance 0f any communications with KMA and/or its authorized service facilities, and the terms of the warranty including length, coverage and exclusions, all as set forth verbatim in the service records, and Warranty and Consumer Information Manual. Setting forth these facts would necessitate the preparation or the making 0f a compilation, abstract, audit, 0r summary. Accordingly, pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the service records and Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, copies 0f which are in Plaintiff’s possession. KMA’s documents contain confidential and proprietary information, and Will be produced if Plaintiff agrees to the entry 0f an appropriate Protective Order in this case. Additionally, to KMA’S knowledge, the subject vehicle has not caused damage or injury to any person 0r entity. (b) Brian Thuerk, Capitol Kia, located at 755 Capitol Expressway Automall, San Jose, CA 95136; Stevens Creek Kia, located at 3566 Stevens Creek B1Vd., San Jose, CA 95117 and Winn Kia of Fremont, located at 5633 John Muir Dr., Newark, CA 94560. /// /// 301.224.DND - 00529957.D0CX 17 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OWQQNU‘I&UJl\Jb-A NNNNNNNNNr-ir-Ar-Ar-AHHp-ar-tr-Ar-d OOQONthWNHOOOOQONUI-pUJNP-‘O Pursuant t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which may provide information fiom which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians” identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisors Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Advisor Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 999 Winn Kia of Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia of Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). (c) Purchase agreement, Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia 0f Fremont invoice no. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry Will be produced pursuant t0 the entry of a protective order. 11. Eleventh Affirmative Defense (a-c) KMA refers Plaintiff t0 Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d). KMA’s investigation and discovery are continuing and KMA reserves the right to supplement and/or amend this Response. 12. Twelfth Affirmative Defense (a) KMA maintains a qualified third-party dispute resolution process. KMA has not located any documents 0r evidence to show that Plaintiff utilized the third-party dispute resolution process before Plaintiff filed the lawsuit. Further responding, pursuant to the service records, to the extent verified, Plaintiff s complaints were resolved in a reasonable number of repair attempts. KMA is not aware of any complaints that have not been repaired. (b) Brian Thuerk, Capitol Kia, located at 755 Capitol Expressway Automall, San Jose, CA 95136; Stevens Creek Kia, located at 3566 Stevens Creek B1Vd., San Jose, CA 951 17 and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, located at 5633 John Muir Dr., Newark, CA 94560. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, 301 .224.DND - 00529957.D0CX 18 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOflChUI-PUJNH NNNNNNNNNHb-AHr-ap-xp-‘Hy-Ar-Ar-a OOQOM-pUJNHO\DOOQO\M$WN’-‘O which may provide information from which the sales associate(s), service advisers” and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisers Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Adviser Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia of Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia of Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). (c) Purchase agreement, Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia 0f Fremont invoice no. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry Will be produced pursuant to the entry of a protective order. 13. Thirteenth Affirmative Defense (a-c) At this time, KMA has not located facts, witnesses 0r documents regarding this affirmative defense. KMA’S investigation and discovery are continuing and KMA reserves the right t0 supplement and/or amend this Response. 14. Fourteenth Affirmative Defense (a) KMA maintains a qualified third-party dispute resolution process. KMA has not located any documents 0r evidence t0 show that Plaintiff utilized the third-party dispute resolution process before Plaintiff filed the lawsuit. Further responding, pursuant t0 the service records, to the extent verified, Plaintiff s complaints were resolved in a reasonable number 0f repair attempts. KMA is not aware 0f any complaints that have not been repaired. (b) Brian Thuerk, Capitol Kia, located at 755 Capitol Expressway Automall, San Jose, CA 95136; Stevens Creek Kia, located at 3566 Stevens Creek B1Vd., San Jose, CA 951 17 and Winn Kia of Fremont, located at 5633 John Muir Dr., Newark, CA 94560. Pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which may provide information fiom Which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisers Micah Caplan 301.224.DND - 00529957.DOCX 19 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE .bUJN \OOOQONUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Advisor Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia 0f Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia 0f Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). (c) Purchase agreement, Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia 0f Fremont invoice no. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual? Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry will be produced pursuant t0 the entry 0f a protective order. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1 Is your response t0 each request for admission served With these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) state the number of the request; (b) state all facts upon Which you base your response; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers 0f all PERSONS Who have knowledge 0f those facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Request 0n the following grounds: 1. This interrogatory is overly broad, and therefore is unjustly burdensome and oppressive. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure 0f materials which are not reasonably related t0 the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated t0 lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 301 .224.DND - 00529957.D0CX 20 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AWN \OOONONM 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: 1. (a) Request 2 (b)-(d) A reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in this request has been made, and the information known 0r readily obtainable is insufficient t0 enable KMA t0 admit the matter. KMA lacks sufficient information t0 admit or deny if the vehicle was a "new motor vehicle" pursuant t0 the Song-Beverly Act as KMA has not deposed Plaintiff. 2. (a) Request 4 (b)-(d) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which show that there was n0 defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety 0f the vehicle that could not be repaired within a reasonable number 0f attempts. In addition, KMA refers t0 the complaint for the instant action. The originals of these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff s possession. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0fFremont, which may provide informatien fmm Which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisers Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 7967 1, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Advisor Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia 0f Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia of Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals 0f these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff’s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia ofFremont invoice n0. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry will be produced pursuant Ito the entry 0f a protective order. 301.224.DND - 00529957.DOCX 21 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE QWN \OOOQQU‘I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. (a) Request 5 (b)-(d) KMA denies the vehicle had a non-conforrnity. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which show that there was no defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value 0r safety 0f the vehicle that could not be repaired within a reasonable number 0f attempts. In addition, KMA refers to the complaint for the instant action. The originals of these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff s possession. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which may provide information fiom Which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisers Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Advisor Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia 0f Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia of Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals 0f these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia of Fremont invoice n0. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Informatien Manual, Tachlina Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry will be produced pursuant t0 the entry of a protective order. 4. (a) Request 6 (b)-(d) KMA denies the vehicle had a non-conformity. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia ofFremont, which show that there was n0 defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value 0r safety of the vehicle that could not be repaired within a reasonable number of attempts. In addition, KMA refers to the complaint for the instant action. The originals of these records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. Pursuant to» Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the 301.224.DND - 00529957DOCX 22 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 \DOOQO‘xm-RUJN sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, Which may provide information fiom Which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisers Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Adviser Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia of Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia 0f Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals 0f these records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. KMA filrther identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia 0f Fremont invoice no. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry will be produced pursuant t0 the entry of a prctective order. 5. (a) Request 7 (b)-(d) Pursuant t0 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, which show that there was n0 defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value 0r safety of the vehicle that could not be repaired Within a reasonable number of attempts. In addition, KMA refers t0 the complaint for the instant action. The originals 0f these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff” s possession. Pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, which may provide information from which the sales associate(s), service advisers” and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisers Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Adviser Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia of Fremont Service Advisor “Sonny,” and Winn Kia 0f Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals of these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia ofFremont invoice no. 338097, the 301 .224.DND - 00529957.DOCX 23 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE bUJN \DOOQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry will be produced pursuant t0 the entry 0f a protective order. 6. (a) Request 8 (b)-(d) KMA denies the vehicle had a non-conformity. Pursuant t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, Which show that there was n0 defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety 0f the vehicle that could not be repaired within a reasonable number 0f attempts. In addition, KMA refers t0 the complaint for the instant action. The originals 0f these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff” s possession. Pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, which may provide information fiom Which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisers Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Advisor Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia 0f Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia of Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals of these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia of Fremont invoice no. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry will be produced pursuant t0 the entry 0f a protective order. 7. (a) Request 9 (b)-(d) KMA denies any factual or legal basis existed under Which plaintiff is entitled to Restitution or a replacement vehicle. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales Icontract and the service records of Capitol Kja, Stevens Creek 301 .224.DND - 00529957.D0CX 24 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AWN \OOOQQLA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Kia and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, Which show that there was no defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value 0r safety of the vehicle that could not be repaired within a reasonable number 0f attempts. In addition, KMA refers to the complaint for the instant action. The originals of these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff s possession. Pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0fFremont, which may provide information from which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisors Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Adviser Daniel Garcia- Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia 0fFremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia of Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals 0f these records are believed to be in Plaintiff’s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia of Fremont invoice no. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry will be produced pursuant t0 the entry of a protective 0rd6r. 8. (a) Request 10 (b)-(d) KMA denies any factual or legal basis existed under Which plaintiff is entitled to Restitution 0r a replacement vehicle. Pursuant t0 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which show that there was no defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value 0r safety of the vehicle that could not be repaired within a reasonable number 0f attempts. In addition, KMA refers to the complaint for the instant action. The originals 0f these records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. Pursuant t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which may provide information fiom which the sales assdciate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may 301 .224.DND - 00529957.D0CX 25 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE hUJN \OOOQQU} 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisers Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Adviser Daniel Garcia- Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia of Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia of Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals of these records are believed to be in Plaintiff’s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 19.5296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 680613 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia 0f Fremont invoice n0. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry will be produced pursuant t0 the entry 0f a protective order. 9. (a) Request 11 (b)-(d) KMA denies any factual or legal basis existed under which plaintiff is entitled t0 Restitution 0r a replacement vehicle. Pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, Which show that there was n0 defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle that could not be repaired Within a reasonable number of attempts. In addition, KMA refers t0 the complaint for the instant action. The originals ofthese records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. Pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiffto the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, which may provide information fiom which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisers Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Advisor Daniel Garcia- Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia of Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia of Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals ofthese records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia of Fremont invoice n0. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline 301.224.DND - 00529957.D0CX 26 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE U1 A U) [\J \OOOQO‘x 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry will be produced pursuant to the entry of a protective order. 10. (a) Request 12 (b)-(d) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, Which show that there was no defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the usea value or safety 0f the vehicle that could not be repaired within a reasonable number of attempts. In addition, KMA refers to the complaint for the instant action. The originals 0f these records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. Pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia ofFremont, which may provide information from which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians” identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisers Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Adviser Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia 0f Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia of Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals ofthese records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff‘s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. .189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia ofFremont invoice n0. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry Will be produced pursuant t0 the entry of a protective order. 11. (a) Request 16 (b)-(d) KMA maintains a qualified third-party dispute resolution process. Pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to defendant’s BBB certification. /// 301.224.DND - 00529957.DOCX 27 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE .bUJN \OOOQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12. (a) Request 17 (b)-(d) KMA responds that based upon a reasonable inquiry t0 obtain sufficient information concerning the matter stated in this request, KMA lacks sufficient information and knowledge at this time t0 admit 0r deny this Request. KMA'S investigation and discovery are continuing. 13. (a) Request 18 (b)-(d) KMA responds that based upon a reasonable inquiry to obtain sufficient information concerning the matter stated in this request, KMA lacks sufficient information and knowledge at this time to admit 0r deny this Request. KMA'S investigation and discovery are continuing. 14. (a) Request 19 (b)-(d) KMA responds that based upon a reasonable inquiry t0 obtain sufficient information concerning the matter stated in this request, KMA lacks sufficient information and knowledge at this time to admit 0r deny this Request. KMA's investigation and discovery are continuing. 15. (a) Request 20 (b)-(d) KMA responds that based upon a reasonable inquiry t0 obtain sufficient information concerning the matter stated in this request, KMA lacks sufficient information and knowledge at this time t0 admit 0r deny this Request. KMA's investigation and discovery are continuing. 16. (a) Request 21 (b)-(d) KMA denies the vehicle had a non-conformity. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, which show that there was no defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle that could not be repaired within a reasonable number of attempts. In addition, KMA refers t0 the complaint for the instant action. The originals of these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff s possession. Pursuant t0 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the 301 .224.DND - 00529957.D0CX 28 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE L11 .5 w N \OOOQCN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which may provide information fiom which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisers Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Advisor Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia of Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny? and Winn Kia of Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100), The originals of these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos“ 1898945 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia 0f Fremont invoice no. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry Will be produced pursuant t0 the entry of a protective order. 17. (a) Request 23 (b)-(d) KMA analyzes the facts and claims on a case by case basis before making a decision to repurchase a vehicle. KMA identifies the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual 18. (a) Request 27 (b)-(d) KMA denies the vehicle had a n0n-conformity. Pursuant t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which show that there was n0 defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety 0f the vehicle that could not be repaired within a reasonable number 0f attempts. In addition, KMA refers to the complaint for the instant action. The originals 0f these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff s possession. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which may provide information from which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisers Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service 301.224.DND - 00529957.DOCX 29 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOQO\UI#UJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Advisor Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia 0f Fremont Service Advisor “Sonny,” and Winn Kia 0f Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals 0f these records are believed to be in Plaintiff” s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kid invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia of Fremont invoice n0. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry Will be produced pursuant to the entry of a protective order. 19. (a) Request 28 (b)-(d) KMA denies the vehicle had a non-conformity. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which show that there was no defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle that could not be repaired Within a reasonable number of attempts. In addition, KMA refers to the complaint for the instant action. The originals of these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff s possession. Pursuant t0 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, which may provide information fiom which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisors Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Adviser Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia of Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia 0f Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals of these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia of Fremont invoice no. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry Will be produced pursuant to the enfiy of a protective order. 301.224.DND - 00529957.D0CX 30 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AWN ©00Q©U1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20. (a) Request 29 (b)~(d) KMA denies the vehicle had a non-conformity. Pursuant t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, which show that there was n0 defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle that could not be repaired within a reasonable number 0f attsmpts. In addition, KMA refers to the complaint for the instant action. The originals of these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff’s possession. Pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which may provide information from Which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisors Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 7967 1, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Adviser Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia of Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia 0f Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals of these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia of Fremont invoice no. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry will be produced pursuant to the entry of a protective order. 21. (a) Request 3O (b)-(d) KMA denies the vehicle had a non-conformity. Pursuant t0 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, Which show that there was n0 defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle that could not be repaired within a reasonable number of attempts. 1n addition, KMA refers t0 the complaint for the instant action. The originals of these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff s possession. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the 301 .224.DND - 00529957.D0CX 31 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE .bUJN \OOOQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which may provide information from which the sales associate(s), service advisers” and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisers Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Advisor Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia 0f Fremont Service Advisor “Sonny,” and Winn Kia of Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals 0f these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff” s possession. KMA fimher identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia 0f Fremont invoice n0. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry will be produced pursuant to the entry 0f a protective order. 22. (a) Request 31 (b)-(d) KMA denies the vehicle had a non-conformity. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which show that there was no defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety 0f the vehicle that could not be repaired within a reasonable number of attempts. In addition, KMA refers t0 the complaint for the instant action. The originals of these records are believed to be in Plaintiffs possession. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which may provide information fiom which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisors Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Adviser Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia of Fremont Service Advisor “Sonny,” and Winn Kia 0f Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals 0f these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn 301.224.DND - 00529957.D0CX 32 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (/1 A U3 N \OOOQON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Kia 0f Fremont invoice n0. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry Will be produced pursuant t0 the entry 0f a protective order. 23. (a) Request 32 (b)-(d) KMA denies the vehicle had a non-conformity. Pursuant t0 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which show that there was n0 defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle that could not be repaired Within a reasonable number of attempts. In addition, KMA refers t0 the complaint for the instant action. The originals of these records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. Pursuant t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, Which may provide information fiom Which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisers Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 7967 1, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Adviser Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia 0f Fremont Service Advisor “Sonny,” and Winn Kia of Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals ofthese records are believed to be in Plaintiff” s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia 0f Fremont invoice n0. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry will be produced pursuant to the entry of a protective order. 24. (a) Request 33 (b)-(d) KMA denies the vehicle had a non-conformity. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, which show that there was n0 defect 301 .224.DND - 00529957.D0CX 33 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE KOOOQQU‘I-RUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OOQQUl-PUJNF-‘OGOOQQUI-hUJNF-‘O covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle that could not be repaired Within a reasonable number 0f attempts. In addition, KMA refers t0 the complaint for the instant action. The originals 0f these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff s pOSsession. Pursuant t0 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, Which may previde information from which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisers Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Advisor Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia 0f Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia 0f Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals of these records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia 0f Fremont invoice n0. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry will be produced pursuant t0 the entry of a protective order. 25. (a) Request 34 (b)-(d) KMA denies the vehicle had a non-conformity. Pursuant t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, which show that there was n0 defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle that could not be repaired within a reasonable number of attempts. In addition, KMA refers t0 the complaint for the instant action. The originals 0f these records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, which may provide information fiom which the sales associate(s), service advisers” and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisers Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service 301.224.DND - 00529957.DOCX 34 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AWN \OOOQO\U1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Advisor Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia of Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia of Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals of these records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia of Fremont invoice no. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry will be produced pursuant t0 the entry 0f a protective order. 26. (a) Request 35 (b)-(d) KMA denies the vehicle had a non-conformity. Pursuant t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which show that there was no defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value 0r safety of the vehicle that could not be repaired within a reasonable number 0f attempts. In addition, KMA refers to the complaint for the instant action. The originals 0f these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff“ s possession. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Win11 Kia 0f Fremont, which may provide information from Which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisors Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Advisor Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia of Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia ofFremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals of these records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. KMA fithher identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia 0f Fremont invoice n0. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry will be produced pursuant t0 the entry of a protective order. 301 .224.DND - 00529957.DOCX 35 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOQONMAUJNH NNNNNNNNNp-ns-Ay-ir-Ah-Ab-Awr-AHr-A OOQQUI-RUJNHOKOOOQOU‘I-bUJNP-‘O 27. (a) Request 36 (b)-(d) KMA denies the vehicle had a non-conformity. Pursuant to Coda of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, Which show that there was no defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value 0r safety of the vehicle that could not be repairad within a reasenable number of attempts. In addition, KMA refers to the complaint for the instant action. The originals 0f these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff s possession. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kja and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, Which may provide information from which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisors Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Advisor Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia of Fremont Service Advisor “Sonny,” and Winn Kia 0f Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals of these records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Steven§ Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia 0f Fremont invoice n0. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry will be produced pursuant to the entry 0f a protective order. 28. (a) Request 37 (b)-(d) KMA denies the vehicle had a non-conformity. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which show that there was n0 defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value 0r safety 0f the vehicle that could not be repaired within a reasonable number 0f attempts. In addition, KMA refers t0 the complaint for the instant action. The originals 0f these records are believed to be in Plaintiff” s possession. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the 3o 1 .224.DND - 00529957.D0CX 36 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOQQUI-bUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, Which may provide information fiom which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisers Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Adviser Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia of Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia 0f Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100)“ The originals 0f these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia 0f Fremont invoice no. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry Will be produced pursuant to the entry 0f a protective order. 29. (a) Request 38 (b)-(d) KMA denies the vehicle had a non-conformity. Pursuant t0 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which show that there was n0 defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety 0f the vehicle that could not be repaired Within a reasonable number 0f attempts. In addition, KMA refers to the complaint for the instant action. The originals 0f these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff s possession. Pursuant t0 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, Which may provide information from which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisers Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 7967 1, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Advisor Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia 0f Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia 0f Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals 0f these records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winfi 301 A224.DND - 00529957.D0CX 37 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE me \OOOQGNUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Kia of Fremont 'mvoice no. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry will be produced pursuant to the entry 0f a protective order. 30. (a) Request 39 (b)-(d) KMA denies the vehicle had a non-conformity. Pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kiafi Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which show that there was no defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value 0r safety 0f the vehicle that could not be repaired within a reasonable number of attempts. In addition, KMA refers to the complaint for the instant action. The originals of these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff“ s possession. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, Which may provide information fiom which the sales associate(s), service advisdrs’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisors Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Advisor Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia 0f Fremont Service Advisor “Sonny,” and Winn Kia 0f Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals ofthese records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia 0f Fremont invoice no. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reperts and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry will be produced pursuant t0 the entry of a protective order. 31. (a) Request 4O (b)-(d) KMA denies the vehicle had a non-conformity. Pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, which show that there was n0 defect 301.224.DND - 00529957.D0CX 3 8 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AWN \OOOQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value 0r safety of the vehicle that could not be repaired within a reasonable number of attempts. In addition, KMA refers to the complaint for the instant action. The originals 0f these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff s possession. Pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0f Fremcnt, which may provide information fiom which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisors Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Advisor Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia of Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia 0f Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals of these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia of Fremont invoice no. 338097, the Warranty and Censumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry will be produced pursuant to the entry of a protective order. 32. (a) Request 41 (b)-(d) KMA denies the vehicle had a non-conformity. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia ofFremont, which show that there was n0 defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value 0r safety 0f the vehicle that could not be repaired within a reasonable number of attempts. In addition, KMA refers to the complaint for the instant action. The originals of these records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. Pursuant t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, which may provide information fiom which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisors Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service 301 .224.DND - 00529957.DOCX 39 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE OOQQUl-PUJN \O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Adviser Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia 0f Fremont Service Advisor “Sonny,” and Winn Kia 0f Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals of these records are believed to be in Plaintiff” s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia 0f Fremont invoice n0. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry Will be produced pursuant to the entry of a protective order. 33. (a) Request 42 (b)-(d) KMA denies the vehicle had a non-conformity. Pursuant t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, Which show that there was no defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value 0r safety 0f the vehicle that could not be repaired within a reasonable number 0f attempts. In addition, KMA refers to the complaint for the instant action. The originals 0f these records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, which may provide information from which the sales associate(s), service advisers” and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisers Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Adviser Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia 0fFremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia of Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals of these records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia 0f Fremont invoice no. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry will be produced pursuant t0 the entry of a protective order. 301 .224.DND - 00529957.D0CX 40 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE .bUJN \OOOQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 34. (a) Request 43 (b)-(d) KMA denies the vehicle had a non-conformity. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, Which show that there was n0 defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety 0f the vehicle that could not be repaired Within a reasenable number 0f attempts. In additicn, KMArefers to the complaint for the instant action. The originals 0f these records are believed t0 be in Plaintiff s possession. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records of Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia 0f Fremont, which may provide information from which the sales associate(s), service advisers” and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisors Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Adviser Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia of Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia 0f Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals of these records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia of Fremont invoice n0. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techl'me Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry Will be produced pursuant t0 the entry 0f a protective order. 35. (a) Request 44 (b)-(d) KMA denies the vehicle had a non-conformity. Pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, Which show that there was no defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety 0f the vehicle that could not be repaired within a reasonable number of attempts. In addition, KMA refers to the complaint for the instant action. The originals 0f these records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. Pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the 301 .224.DND - 00529957.DOCX 41 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOflmUl-bUJNr-d NNNNNNNNNb-‘t-tr-dr-Ab-Ar-At-Ar-Ar-Jp-A OOQQM-PWNb-‘OKDOONCNLI‘I-bWNHO sales contract and the service records 0f Capitol Kia, Stevens Creek Kia and Winn Kia of Fremont, Which may provide information from which the sales associate(s), service advisors’ and technicians’ identities may be ascertained (including Capitol Kia Service Advisers Micah Caplan and Eli Duarte, Capitol Kia Technicians 79671, 685767 and 56357, Steven Creek Kia Service Adviser Daniel Garcia-Marez, Stevens Creek Kia Technicians 793 and 99, Winn Kia of Fremont Service Adviser “Sonny,” and Winn Kia 0f Fremont Technicians 6022 and 100). The originals 0f these records are believed to be in Plaintiff s possession. KMA further identifies Capitol Kia invoice nos. 1898943 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia 0f Fremont invoice n0. 338097, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and the Warranty History Inquiry. The Techline Assistance Case Reports, Consumer Assistance Center Case reports and Warranty History Inquiry Will be produced pursuant to the entry of a protective order. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.1 For each agreement alleged in the pleadings: (a) identify each DOCUMENT that is part of the agreement and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the DOCUMENT; (b) state each part of the agreement not in writing, the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number 0f each PERSON agreeing to that provision, and the date that part of the agreement was made; (c) Identify all DOCUMENTS that evidence any part 0f the agreement not in writing and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the DOCUMENT. (d) Identify all DOCUMENTS that are part of any modification to the agreement, and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number 0f each PERSON who has the DOCUMENT; (e) State each modification not in writing, the date, and the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number 0f each PERSON agreeing to the modification, and the date the 301.224.DND - 00529957.DOCX 42 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOQO\Ul-hUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and Without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA fithher responds as follows: No. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and KMA reserves the right to amend this response. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.6 Is any agreement alleged in the pleadings ambiguous? If so, identify each ambiguous agreement and state Why it is ambiguous. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Request 0n the following grounds: 1. This interrogatory is overly broad, and therefore is unjustly burdensome and oppressive. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure 0f materials Which are not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter 0f this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and Without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follews: No. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and KMA reserves the right t0 amend this response. DATED: November 10, 2020 LEHRMAN LAW GROUP KATE S. LEHRMAN JACQUELINE BRUCE CHINERY DANIELLE DUARTE By: /s/ ®cmie[& @uarte Danielle Duarte Attorneys for Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. 301.224.DND - 00529957.DOCX 46 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE .bUJN \OOOQQU} 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFICATION TO FOLLOW 301 .224.DND - 00529957D0CX 47 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOO\]O\UI-bb~>l\)*-‘ NNNNNNNNNh-dt-‘r-Ar-dr-Awr-Ar-dp-AH OOQQLI‘IngNHOOOOQONLh-bUJNP-‘O PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I am employed in the County 0f Los Angeles, State 0f California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party t0 the within action; my business address is 12121 Wilshire B1Vd., Suite 1300, Los Angeles, CA 90025. On November 10, 2020, I served, in the manner indicated below, the foregoing document described as: DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE on the interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof, enclosed in sealed envelopes, at Los Angeles, CA addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST [] BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I caused such envelopes t0 be delivered by courier, with next day service, to the offices 0f the addressees. (C.C.P. § 1013(c)(d).) BY FACSIMILE: (C.C.P. § 1013(e)(i).) BY MAIL: I caused t0 be delivered by U.S. mail by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated above. I am “readily familiar” with the flrm’s practice 0f collection and processing documents for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. postal service 0n that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course 0f business. U BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelopes to be delivered by hand to the offices 0f the addressees. (C.C.P. § 1011(a)(b).) BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: Itransmitted such document from Los Angeles, California, to the electronic mail address maintained by the person(s) 0n the SERVICE LIST as last indicated by that person on a document that he 0r she has filed in the above~entitled cause and served 0n this party. (C.C.P. § 1010.6(a)(6).) Per agreement and per state and local stay at home Orders re COVID19. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws 0f the State 0f California that the above is true and correct. Executed on November 10, 2020, at Los Angeles, California. /s/ 7m 1876024 730596 Tra’Shon Pugh 301.224.DND - 00529957.D0CX 48 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOQQUIAUJNv-A NNNNNNNNNp-dr-‘h-dh-AP-‘r-‘r-Ab-ay-Ar-A OOVONUI-hwlvr-dooooqomhwwwo PROOF OF SERVICE LIST KIA MOTORS AMERICA. INC./THUERK. BRYAN (KO70-224)(301 .224) Case No. 20CV364578 Page 1 David N. Barry, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff THE BARRY LAW FIRM BRYAN THUERK 11845 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 1270 Los Angeles, CA 90064 (310) 684-5859 (310) 862-4539 (FAX) dbam‘vébmvlemam‘ights.00m Jeramy Templin: jtemplin@mylemonrights.com Mela Kelly: mkelly@mylem0nrights.com Ivy Flores: iflores@mylemonrights.com 301.224.DND - 00529957.DOCX 49 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE EXHIBIT 6 T LehrmanLawBruull NE 12121 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD-SUITE 1300 MTQRNEYS AT 31A“? _ Los ANGELES CALIFORNIA90025 FACSIMILE: (310)91/'5677 = WWW.lehrmanlawgroup.com December 9, 2020 Via U.S. Mail David N. Barry, Esq. THE BARRY LAW FIRM 11 845 West Olympic Boulevayd Suite 1270 L03 Angeles, CA 90064 Re: Brvan Thuerk v. Kia Motors America, Inc. Dear Counsel: Enclosed please find defendant Kia Motors America, Inc.’s Verifications t0 plaintiff‘s From Interrogatoriesa Request for Production 0f Documentsa Request for Admissions and Special Interrogatories, set one. Sincerely yours, é: w {gwm ?g'wyg..i.~ :11 («W (2 w '. 612:: gwaxzmxrimo/ Brian Entzminger Paralegal Enclosures 301‘213ABT - 00479281DOCX CORPORATE VERIFICATION Bryan Thuerk vs. Kia Motors America, Inc. Case No. 20CV364578, Santa Clara County, California i, DEBBIE AVALOS, deciare: I am a parategal within the legal department of KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, and i am authorized to make this verification for and on behalf of KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. l have read and am familiar with the contents of the foregoing document entitled DEFENDANT, KiA MOTORS AMERICA, |NC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, and I hereby verify that the contents of said Responses are true and correct to the best of my own knowledge, except to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. i declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State 0f Caiifomia that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Long Beach, California on this 8th day of December, 2020. fiebomfz Ayala; DEBBIE AVALOS Kia Motors America, lnc. 301.224. - 00532858.DOCX EXHIBIT 7 I THE Alain Office BARRY 11845 \V. Olympic Boulevard Suite 1270 L AW Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone (310) 684-5859 o Facsimile (310) 862-4539 E I B I \/I ewhitman@my1emonrights.com January 4, 2021 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL: Elm'mg: max” E&hwgzgfimgawrmm 23:: m; Eur: “gym gig}?wmgwhm 23343522; mm; 3&2:me M Elwmwigwwm :2 mw Kate S. Lehrman, Esq. Danielle No Duane, Esq. Jacqueline Chinery, Esq. Lehrman Law Group 12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Re: Bryan Thuerk v. Kia Motors America, Inc. Case No: 20CV3645 78 Dear Counsel: I am in receipt 0f your client, Defendant Kia Moters America, Inc.’s (“KMA”) unverified supplemental responses t0 Plaintiff‘s first set 0f discovery requests, served by electronic mail 0n November 10, 2020. I note that KMA’S responses were not verified until December 8, 2020, which was served by mail 0n December 9, 2020. This letter serves as my effort t0 meet and confer with you to informally resolve discovery disputes created by deficiencies in those responses, as required by the Code ()fCivz'l Procedure. Plaintiff would like t0 address deficiencies in the served responses. As a reminder, the discovery act is broadly interpreted. Greyhound Corp. v. Super. Cl. (Clay) (1961) 56 Ca1.2d 355, 384. Generally, "any party may obtain discovery regarding any subject matter involved if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence 0r appears reasonably calculated t0 lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence." CCP § 20] 7. 0] 0. DEFENDANT'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES Upon review 0f KMA’S further responses t0 Form Interrogatories, Defendant chose not t0 provide a further response t0 Form Interrogatory 1.1, and thus Defendant's response t0 Form Interrogatory 1.1, which asks you to state the name, address, telephone number, and relationship t0 you 0f each person who prepared 0r assisted in the preparation 0f these interrogatories, remains not code compliant. Defendant's response 1s as follows: nKMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA o~jects to this request because it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. In responding to this request, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attorney/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery of the attorney work product qf either in-house or outside counsel. KMA 's responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. This request seeks disclosure of materials which are not reasonable related to the issues presented by the su~ject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery r~l admissible evidence." KMA must have had someone compile the information on behalf of KMA ( and your office). In accomplishing this task, this individual must have corresponded with individuals that have admissible knowledge of the facts in this case. Plaintiff is entitled to those facts and the testimony of those percipient witnesses and responsive documents. As addressed in our previous meet and confer letter, this response is insufficient and not Code-compliant. Therefore, a further response is necessary identifying the individuals who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses. Next, Defendant KMA's further response to Form Interrogatory 12. l is incomplete. This Interrogatory asks KMA to provide the name, address and telephone number of all witnesses who have knowledge related to the allegations in the Complaint. In response to this Interrogatory, KMA's further response lists a few service advisor names, notwithstanding "Sonny," and technician identification numbers, and subsequently incorporated the objections made in KMA's original response. As addressed previously, these objections are baseless and should be withdrawn. Plaintiff is entitled to the identity, by full name and address (as called for by the interrogatory) of the percipient witnesses. Clearly, that information is relevant and readily obtainable by Kia as the work was performed by a KMA-authorized facility. Put more simply, this particular Interrogatory calls for KMA to identify those individuals that KMA intends to call at the time of trial. Here, if KMA intends to potentially call a witness to testify at trial, Plaintiff is entitled to depose that individual. Any attempt to argue that the KMA- authorized dealerships are "third parties" not related to KMA is merely an attempt to obfuscate the issue. Plaintiff does not have the ability to take his vehicle to any service facility to have it repaired under the warranty. Plaintiff must take the vehicle to a KMA-authorized service center- one that certainly has an ongoing operating agreement with KMA. Defendant KMA's relationship with its associated service centers is not arm's-length. 2 As mentioned previously, in order to obtain the identity of the servicing technicians, arguably, KMA merely places a phone call to the dealership. Plaintiff would be required to direct a subpoena duces tecum to the dealership with the hopes of obtaining sufficient identifying information to later serve a deposition subpoena. Plaintiff cannot merely serve the servicing technicians with a subpoena for personal appearance to testify based on the technician identification number alone. The same goes for the service advisor "'Sonny" from Winn Kia of Fremont. Notwithstanding the issue of Plaintiff would be unable to properly identify the individual for the subpoena itselt Plaintiff cannot effectuate service of the subpoena on the individual if the person's identity is unknown. See, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2020.220(b )(2) (Providing that personal service is required to command attendance.) It is undeniable that the Plaintiff is entitled to obtain that information in his trial preparation. It is equally undeniable that the court, if called upon to intervene, will not believe that requiring KMA to contact its own dealers for material information is unduly burdensome to the extent where Kia can rely on Section 2030.230 in formulating its response, keeping in mind that "'all discovery imposes some burden on the responding party." West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 407, 418. A further response is therefore required. With respect to Defendant's further response to Form Interrogatory 12.3, KMA's further response is deficient. The interrogatory asks KMA whether KMA or anyone acting on their behalf obtained a written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the incident, and if so, then KMA is to provide: (a) The name~ ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual from whom the statement was obtained; (b) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who obtained the statement; ( c) The date the statement was obtained; and (d) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original statement or copy. Defendant's further response simply states ''No." KMA appears to have forgotten, or omitted, that each time Plaintiff presented the subject vehicle to an authorized KMA repair facility, the service advisor made a written recording of Plaintiff's statements as to the issues that were affecting the subject vehicle. Also, each line item in the repair orders, is a written statement made by the repairing technician, concerning repairs made to the subject vehicle. All of which would be considered a "written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the incident". Moreover, if there are any records in the Consumer Assistance Center Case Reports ("CACCR"), these would certainly be considered written or recorded statements. In any event, Defendant KMA's written response to Form Interrogatory 12.3 is incomplete. KMA's further response to Form Interrogatory 12.6 is also deficient, for the same reasons as KMA's further response to Form Interrogatory 12.3. I would certainly think that the repair orders and any CA CCR' s would fall into this category. Accordingly, a further response to Form Interrogatory No. 12.6 is required. 3 Moving on to Defendant's further response to Form Interrogatory 15 .1, this response remains deficient as well. Form Interrogatory 15.1 asks you to identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in your pleadings and for each: (a) State all facts upon which you base the denial or a special or affirmative defense; (b) State the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of those facts; and ( c) Identify all documents and other tangible things that support your denial or a special or affirmative defense, and state the name, address, and telephone number of the person who has each document Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. pled multiple affirmative defenses. However, a review the further response to Form Interrogatory 15.1 still fails to fully comply with the subpart requirements for each of your separate affirmative defenses, for the same reason that Defendant's further response to Form Interrogatory 12.1 is deficient. For all these reasons, a further response to Form Interrogatory 15 .1 is required. The further response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 is also deficient. For each and every response to a Request for Admission that is not an unqualified admission, you are to state the number of the request, all facts upon which you base your response, the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all persons that have knowledge of those facts, identify all documents and other tangible things that support your response, and the name, address and telephone number of the person who has each document or thing. The further response fails for the same reasons as KMA' s further response to Form Interrogatory 12 .1. Thus, a further, verified response is required. In summary, Plaintiff expects further, verified responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 1. 1, 12.1, 12.3, 12.6, 15.1, and 17.1. DEFENDANT'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION As previously stated, Requests for Admission are not "true" discovery. Requests for admission 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.4th 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," and continues to "toy" with the process by evading a factual proposition by avoiding the materials that provides the response to such requests, 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 readily admitted. 4 A party "cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control." Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782 [Emphasis added.] [If a party is unable to fully answer it should set forth the efforts made to secure the information.] Id. Request No. 2 asked Defendant to admit that the subject vehicle was a new motor vehicle, for purposes of Song-Beverly Warranty Act. Defendant's further response appears to plead ignorance as the rationale for being unable to admit or deny the Request as phrased. Defendant was able to admit with respect to Request for Admission No. 1, and thus Defendant must further respond to No. 2 to admit or deny that the subject vehicle was new for purposes of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, for the same reasons it admitted Request for Admission No. 1. Request for Admission No. 14 asks KMA to admit or deny whether they conducted an investigation and/or inquiry into whether the subject vehicle should be repurchased pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act as a result of contact by Plaintiff. KMA's further response consists only of objections. Defendant's objection as "vague and ambiguous" is improper. The Defendant can answer as it understands the Request, in the spirit of Cembrook, and fails to substantiate the "'overly broad" objection under Burke. Also, KMA's further response to Request for Admission No. 13 admits that Plaintiff contacted KMA regarding the subject vehicle. Thus, the response to Request for Admission No. 14 should also be supplemented to reflect Defendant's further response to Request for Admission No. 13. Requests for Admissions Nos. 17, 18, 19, and 20, relate to whether Defendant noted any evidence of misuse or abuse of the subject vehicle by Plaintiff: whether Defendant's service file contains notations involving suspected misuse or abuse of the subject vehicle, whether Defendant is currently unaware of any evidence of misuse or abuse of the subject vehicle by the Plaintiff, and whether Plaintiff caused damage to the subject vehicle by misusing or abusing it. Defendant's further responses claimed that after a reasonable inquiry, the information presently known or readily obtainable is insufficient to admit or deny these Requests, but failed to explain what was involved, if anything, in its "reasonable inquiry." The responses are disingenuous, inadequate, and simply evasive. The only change KMA made in their further responses was to withdraw the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Defendant has placed these facts directly at issue by asserting Affirmative Defenses in its Answer that contend that Plaintiff and/or others are responsible for any alleged damages due to misuse and abuse by Plaintiff and/or others and related claims. Therefore, Plaintiff has an absolute right to discover facts relating to these defenses. A party "cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control." Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782 [Emphasis added.] [If a party is unable to fully answer it should set forth the efforts made to secure the information.] These Requests are straightforward and relate to the past; either KMA's authorized repair facility noted that there was misuse or abuse, or it did not. Defendant's responses given are 5 blatant attempts to avoid responding and may be considered an abuse of discovery should Plaintiff be required to seek judicial intervention. An inability to respond can only be stated where there is a true lack of information available to the responding party. In addition to objections that have already been addressed, Defendant has stated, in its further response to Request for Admission No. 15, that Defendant's awareness of its Song-Beverly obligations is not reasonably calculated to lead to the admission of admissible evidence. This Request is clearly related to the civil penalty component of the Song-Beveriy Act, of which Defendant's awareness is a crucial aspect. Defendant made no attempt to provide further response as it did to numerous other Requests for Admission, and as such, Plaintiff asks that Defendant withdraw these objections, and provide further response. In KMA's further response to Request for Admission No. 22, Defendant KMA objects to this request as being vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible, and therefore KMA cannot admit or deny this request KMA's objections are meritless and boilerplate. Defendant KMA has a duty to respond if the nature of the Request is understood, and this Request is straightforward. This information is germane to whether or not KMA complied with the requirements of the Song-Beverly Act, and whether civil penalties are warranted. Accordingly, KMA must provide a further response to this request without these meritless objections. Plaintiffs Request for Admission No. 24 asked Defendant to admit that Plaintiff is defined as a qualifying CONSUMER as defined for purposes of the Song Beverly Warranty Act. Defendant asserted boilerplate objections, and claimed that this is unintelligible, vague and ambiguous. As stated at the beginning of this section, Requests for Admission are not "true" discovery. Requests for admission 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.4th 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 the materials that provides the response to such requests, 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 readily admitted. Yet, that is exactly what Defendant has improperly done here. KMA removed some of the objections with respect to certain terms in the Request for Admission, but still pleads the inability to admit or deny the Request, which is improper. A further response to Request for Admission No. 24 is necessary. Finally, with respect to Request for Admission No. 31, it appears that Defendant inadvertently omitted the further response portion in their response. Accordingly, for the reasons 6 KMA decided to provide further response to Request for Admission Nos. 27-30 and 32-44, further response to Request for Admission No. 31 should also be provided. Plaintiff respectfully asks for further, verified responses to each of the propounded Requests for Admission. DEFENDANT'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Plaintiffs Special Interrogatory No. 1 asks Defendant to identify all persons who were consulted or provided answers to these interrogatories. For the same reasons discussed in relation to Form Interrogatory No. 1. 1, defendant's further response is insufficient, and an even further response is necessary to cure the deficiencies. Defendant's further response to Special Interrogatory No. 2 refers Plaintiff to the CACCRs, which will apparently be produced upon the entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case, but Defendant failed to provide a proposed Protective Order to resolve this issue. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that Defendant produce their proposed Protective Order. Special Interrogatory Nos. 3 through 6 are all related to Special Interrogatory No 2., which all refer to the same document, which will only be produced subject to the entry of a Protective Order, but Defendant again has failed to produce said Protective Order. Thus, once Defendant provides the Protective Order for Special Interrogatory No. 2, it should also provide even further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 3 through 6. It should be noted that communications directly between the parties are not proprietary and the Court would not likely uphold any protective order for said communications. In order to avoid any unnecessary motion practice, Plaintiff requests that Defendant produce the CACCRs without a Protective Order. Defendanfs further response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, refers Plaintiff to the Techline Assistance Center Case Reports, which will be produced subject to the entry of an appropriate Protective Order, similar to Defendant's response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 2-6. Yet again, Defendant failed to provide a copy of the proposed Protective Order upon which Defendant will produce the responsive documents. More importantly, Special Interrogatory No. 7 asks Defendant to provide a simple "'yes" or "no" response. Nothing about seeking this type of response seeks to invade any trade-secret or other similar privileges. Accordingly, please provide a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 7. Similarly, further responses are required for Interrogatory Nos. 8, I 0, and 11, since they relate to Special Interrogatory No. 7, and do not seek to invade any trade secret or similar privileges. Defendant's responses are deficient for the same reasons as discussed in No. 7. In response to Special Interrogatory No. 12, Defendant responded referring Plaintiff to the repair orders for the subject vehicle and refers to each repair order individually. Rather than count the number of times Plaintiff produced the vehicle for repairs under the express warranty, Defendant lists them, which is baffling, as it took the same amount of work to provide an evasive response. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that Defendant provide a further response to Special 7 Interrogatory No. 12. For the same reasons, a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 13 is also required. In response to Special Interrogatory No. 14, in addition to objections that Plaintiff has already addressed, Defendant states that Plaintiff has equal ability to identify all persons who performed warranty repairs on the Vehicle. Defendant, as the provider of the warranty of the Vehicle, knows all the information of these technicians. All they have to do is perform a VIN search, and the provide the information to Plaintiff. Plaintiff cannot find this information with the ease that Defendant can. This case is a breach of warranty case and the persons who performed the warranty repairs are therefore percipient witnesses. Defendant's evasive tactics are not well taken. Please further respond and identify the persons who performed the warranty repairs on the subject vehicle. A further and complete response to No. 14 is hereby demanded. For the same reasons as Special Interrogatory No. 14, Defendant's response to Special Interrogatory No. 20 must also be further supplemented. It should also be noted that these repair orders to not adequately identify the technicians who attempted to conform the subject vehicle to the applicable express warranty, rather their respective technician ID numbers are only provided. Special Interrogatory No. 25 asks KMA to identify all persons responsible for its customer relations department in the region having jurisdiction over Plaintiffs complaints, and Special Interrogatory No. 26 asks Defendant to identify the person(s) who is most knowledgeable regarding Defendant's warranty policies, including but not limited to policies that Defendant may have had regarding the replacement or reimbursement of allegedly defective automobiles, respectively. Defendant deflected these and did not provide answers responsive to the Interrogatories. Instead, Defendant asserted the same boilerplate objections. Plaintiff is entitled to the identifies of these key witnesses who oversee its customer relations department. Further responses are necessary. As a matter of statutory law, witness information is not protected. ''Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter ... . " [Emphasis added]. C.C.P. §§2017.010; 2030.0l0(a); Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4 th 1539; 1536-154 7. Next, Defendant does not have the right to choose how Plaintiff conducts his discovery. As long as Plaintiff propounds discovery properly pursuant to the Code, as Plaintiff has done, then Defendant has an obligation to respond properly. Defendant cannot decide that Plaintiff should choose a different method, and when Plaintiff does, only then will Defendant appropriately respond. This is insufficient and Defendant has failed to provide any legal authorities to support its position with respect to these two Interrogatories. Defendant has failed to provide a complete and straightforward response setting forth "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." C.C.P. § 2030.220 (a), (b). Thus, a further response is requested to Nos. 25 and 26. 8 Special Interrogatory No. 27 asks Defendant to list all Special Service Messages and/or TSBs that relate to each nonconformity in the subject vehicle, as alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint filed in this action. Defendant asserted the same boilerplate objections, all of which should be withdrawn for reasons previously discussed. The Discovery Act is broadly interpreted. Greyhound Corp. v. Super. Ct. (Clay) ( 1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 384. Generally, "any party may obtain discovery regarding any subject matter involved ... if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." CCP § 2017.010. Plaintiff is entitled to a list of all of the special service messages and/or TSBs that relate to all of his allegations in the Complaint, not limited to those that Defendant considers related, or just TSBs. If there are none, then KMA should state as much. A further response is required to No. 27. Defendant made a number of boilerplate objections to Special Interrogatory 31, but Plaintiff is nonetheless entitled to an answer according to Defendant's best knowledge. The Special Interrogatory seeks a "yes" or "no" response again, and Defendant relies upon a number of baseless objections and utterly fails to even attempt to use a reasonable interpretation of the Special Interrogatory when providing their response. Accordingly, a further response is required. Special Interrogatory No. 40 asks for witness information. This Interrogatory asks Defendant to identify individuals within Defendant's company who are responsible for ensuring that Defendant complies with Song-Beverly. Plaintiffs entire lawsuit is premised on allegations that Defendant violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to know who the individuals are within Defendant's company that are responsible for making sure Defendant complies with California law. If no such individual(s) exist(s), then Defendant must indicate this under oath. Defendant's boilerplate and unsubstantiated objections should be withdrawn. As such, a further response is still required. Special Interrogatory No. 41 refers to Special Interrogatory No. 40 for its answer. This is nonresponsive and deficient. For the reasons stated above, a further response is still necessary. As to Special Interrogatory No. 42, after objections, Defendant asserted attorney-client privilege. Please explain how and why this objection applies here, provide a privilege log, or otherwise respond fully. Defendant's further responses entirely fails to address this issue. Similarly, Special Interrogatory No. 43 deals with identification of key witnesses, yet Defendant failed to answer, but instead raised the same boilerplate and frivolous objections. Defendant is obligated to identify these witnesses. The same applies to Special Interrogatory No. 44. While Plaintiff appreciates that Defendant supplemented their response and refers Plaintiff to documents which were consulted, reviewed and/or obtained, Defendant refers to a number of them which require the entry of a Protective Order prior to being produced, yet Defendant failed to provide a proposed Protective 9 Order to start any kind of resolution to these discovery issues. Accordingly, further responses are therefore required, and a copy of the proposed Protective Order needs to be produced for review. Defendant's response to Special Inten-ogatory No. 46 is nonresponsive. This particular interrogatory calls for KMA to state the number of repair attempts that they were afforded, not whether KMA contends they were able to repair the subject vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts. For the same reasons discussed previously, a broad reference to documents produced is unacceptable. This is a contention inten-ogatory, which is entirely proper. Surely KMA aiready performed this calculation and simply prefers not to provide an answer. Special Interrogatory No. 51 asks Defendant to list all technical service bulletins applicable to the subject vehicle, including any that were superseded. Defendant's response only includes the same boilerplate and frivolous objections that Defendant asserted previously. This is the discovery stage, and Plaintiff is entitled to a list of all TSBs relating to this vehicle, including those superseded. Defendant's broad reference to TSBs that were supposedly produced is akin to "look at my documents and see" which is improper. Defendant's knowledge of known defects that affect its vehicles is relevant. Defendant may not condition its response on arbitrary requirements of its own making. Accordingly, a further response 1s necessary. Special Inten-ogatory No. 52 ask to explain in detail the process by which a TSB is recalled or suspended. Defendant continues to claim that the request is overly broad, immaterial, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It further alleges that this is an abuse of discovery by Plaintiff because Plaintiff did not even identify any TSB. How can Plaintiff possibly identify the TSBs when Defendant will not provide a complete list or produce the full set of those that apply to the subject vehicle? Therefore, a further response is necessary. Special Interrogatory No. 53 asks Defendant to state the number of days the vehicle was out of service for warranty repairs. There are no privileges or substantiated objections that apply. The total number of "down days" is essential to determining if the lemon law presumption applies. The dealer repair orders do not provide the response because the open and close dates on a dealer's repair orders are often inaccurate and thus do not accurately reflect out-of-service time; in fact, repair orders remain open due to circumstances not reflected in the documents alluded to. As such, the records identified do not answer the question and so the response on its face is incomplete and non-responsive. The appropriate information is readily available to Defendant; it can obtain it by contacting its authorized dealer. Defendant is required to provide answers that are "as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits." Defendant's duty also encompasses the requirement that it make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information sought by the intenogatory, except where that information is readily available to the propounding party. Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal. App.4th 1496, 1504. This includes referring to all sources of information that are under the party's control. California Code of Civil Procedure§ 2030.220(a), (b). To be certain, information related to work performed by Defendant-authorized service centers is under the control of Defendant, and Defendant is clearly able to ascertain which Defendant-authorized service centers performed warranty repairs on the subject vehicle. A further response is required to No. 53. Plaintiff respectfully asks for further, verified responses to each of the propounded Special Interrogatories. DEFENDANT'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS As a preliminary note, after review of KMA' s fmiher responses, at least some of Defendant's Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents remain not Code- compliant. A document response must consist of: (1) an agreement to comply, stating whether production or inspection will be allowed "in whole or in part" and that all documents or things in the possession, custody, or control of the respondent, as to which no objection is made, will be included, by the date set for inspection (unless informally extended in writing, or the designed timing is subject to objection); (2) a representation of inability to comply, with a specification of any person believed or known to have possession of documents; or, (3) objections and specifications of withheld documents. Code of Civil Procedure §§2031.210 (a), 2031.220, 2031.270, and 2031.280(b ); Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2012) 11 8:1469-9:1474. Time and again throughout these objections, Defendant raised concerns based on confidentiality and trade secrets, and has not proposed a protective order when it is Defendant who has the burden of seeking a protective order and substantiating why documents it claims are privileged require protection. Until it does so, there is no reason why Defendant should not produce the requested documents, which Plaintiff contends do not meet the minimum threshold for protection anyway. Plaintiff objects to Defendant's conditioning the production of documents on the execution of a Stipulated Proposed Protective Order. Pursuant to CCP sections 2016.040 and 203 l .060(a), this serves as Plaintiffs effort to informally resolve this matter. Moreover, Defendant entirely fails to provide a proposed Protective Order that could even be considered to resolve these issues according to Defendant's improper demands. The following discussions provide prima facie evidence of good cause for the production of the documents sought by Plaintiff in this case. See, C. C. P. § 2031.31 0(b )(1) [ A motion for an order compelling a further response to a production request "shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought..."] Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117. Unless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, the moving party's burden is met simply by a showing or relevance. TBG Insurance Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443; Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002), 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98. Request for Production Nos. 3 and 4 ask for all warranty repair documents regarding, pertaining, or relating to the subject vehicle, and all warranty reimbursement documents applicable to the subject vehicle, respectively. Defendant's confidentiality concerns can be 11 resolved with a protective order, but Defendant has yet to produce any protective order for review. Therefore, further responses with an accompanying document production are necessary. Request Nos. 5 and 6 seek all warranty documents applicable to the subject vehicle and all documents related to any examination, test, or inspection performed with respect to the subject vehicle. For the same reasons as above, a further response and responsive document production is necessary. Request Nos. 7 and 8 seek pre-delivery preparation related documents, and any service, adjustments, repairs, or restorations to the subject vehicle prior to delivery to Plaintiff, respectively. Defendant's response states that they will search for, and produce upon discovery, a pre-delivery inspection report, without any assurances or timeframe for which such search or document production will occur, and thus, further responses and an accompanying document production is necessary. Request for Production No. 9 seeks production of all recall documents regarding, pertaining, or relating to the subject vehicle, including but not limited to, service bulletins and/or technical service bulletins. Defendant did produce the TSBs and recalls, but also refers to the Warranty History Inquiry, CACCRs, and Techline Case reports, that will be produced upon the entry of a protective order. The first two of these documents are not proprietary or protected trade secret, and I have won this very issue before. Rather than undergo unnecessary motion practice and argue over whether the documents are privileged or protected, KMA should simply produce these documents. Moreover, as stated above Defendant has not produced a proposed protective order that can even be considered to resolve this discovery issue. As for Request for Production No. 10, Defendant responds that they will produce the documents which are in their possession, custody, or control, and to which no objection is being made. This is concerning as it is unclear which documents Defendant is withholding subject to objection, and under what objection those documents are being withheld. This is the same for many of Defendant's further responses. Anything that would allow a party to prepare for trial in this matter is discoverable. Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 611. Any question as to discoverability is resolved in favor of allowing discovery. Glenjed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 9. As such, a further response and accompanying document production is required. With respect to Nos. 11 and 12, a further response and document production is necessary for the same reasons as stated above. Wide-ranging discovery responses are pennitted because discovery is meant to elicit all facts. Burke. Defendant responded referencing some documents that were being produced, and then refers to several documents which will only be produced subject to the entry of a protective order. Both of these further responses should be amended for the same reasons as Request for Production No. 9. In response to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents No. 13 seeking production of all statements taken by Defendant or anyone acting on its behalf from any person with respect to the subject vehicle, Defendant makes the same references to documents as Request No. 9, and never submitted a proposed protective order. Thus, the need for such an order has not been 12 substantiated in any way, and Plaintiff is entitled to the documents sought. A fm1her production 1s necessary. Request for Production Nos. 14 and 15 seek production of all documents evidencing any communications regarding the subject vehicle and/or communications between Plaintiff and Defendant. First of all, as has been repeated above, Defendant has not produced a proposed protective order, nor have they produced any privilege log, and if there are any privileged documents that Defendant is withholding based upon privilege, then Plaintiff is entitled to a privilege log to assess whether protection is appropriate. Accordingly, as stated in regard to Defendant's response to Request for Production No. 9, Defendant should provide a further response and the proposed Protective Order. For the same reasons as discussed to varying degrees above, a further response with production of documents to Request No. 16 and 17 is necessary. Request for Production No. 20 asks Defendant to produce the complete Sales and Service Accounting File. Again, Defendant states that they will produce the documents that exist and are in Defendant's possession, custody, or control, and to which no objection is being made. This again raises the question what documents are being withheld subject to objections. If there are any documents being withheld, then Defendant must produce a privilege log in accordance with their response. It is also difficult for Plaintiff to understand why the purchase agreement would be responsive to Plaintiffs request for the Service Accounting File. A further response with responsive document production is necessary. For Request for Production Nos. 21 and 23, Defendant's further response again refers to documents that will only be produced subject to the entry of a protective order, but again, for the same reasons as Request for Production No. 9, Defendant's further responses are required. And again, Defendant failed to produce a proposed Protective Order that is required by Defendant. Produce the referenced documents that Defendant failed to produce including the sales and service records and Warranty History Inquiry, as well as any documents responsive to Request for Production Nos. 24 and 25, both of which raise the same frivolous and boilerplate objections. Request for Production No. 26 seeks all documents relating to the odometer or number of miles on the subject vehicle. Defendant's fm1her response refers to the repair orders and the Warranty History Inquiry that will only be produced subject to the entry of a protective order. However, as stated above, this document is not proprietary and should be produced. Further, Defendant has failed to produce a proposed protective order that could even be contemplated by Plaintiff. For Request for Production Nos. 30, as explained previously in this letter, the burden is on the party seeking protection to substantiate the need for protection and seek an order if necessary. Defendant failed to justify the need for one so far. Please further respond and produce all responsive documents. 13 Request for Production No. 31 asks for all documents relating to the customer call center, including but not limited to, all flow charts, processes, and/or scripts. Defendant's response refers to documents that will be produced subject to the entry of a protective order, but no protective order was produced by Defendant. For the reasons stated above, please produce the responsive documents and the protective order proposed by Defendant. Defendant's objections claiming material that is confidential, proprietary, and protected by trade secrets are not supported by the requisite showing. A party claiming confidentiality protections must show good cause for the need in terms of a protective order. Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4 th 261, 318. Defendant must show that the information sought actually contains confidential commercial information (not otherwise known to others in the pertinent field) and that its dissemination would injure Defendant. See Id. Kia has not shown that the information sought is generally unknown to other auto manufacturers or others similarly situated who could gain an advantage from its use, nor shown that any harm would result to Defendant from such use. Therefore, conclusory allegations and objections are not sufficient. Defendant failed to include or refer to any privilege logs or similar documents describing the allegedly confidential documents. See, Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181. The purpose of a privilege log is to provide a specific factual description of documents in support of substantiating a claim of privilege in connection with a request for document production. Since these responses include no details or enumeration of allegedly confidential documents, Plaintiff cannot evaluate KMA's entitlement to these asserted protections. These documents are clearly reievant as they evidence KMA's policies and procedures for evaluating whether or not a customer's vehicle qualifies for repurchase under Song-Beverly. Whether or not Defendant willfully violated Song-Beverly is relevant to the potential for a civil penalty of up to two times Plaintiffs actual damages pursuant to Civil Code § 1794( c ). Accordingly, a further response is necessary. Request for Production No. 33 asks for all documents related to the technical hotline. Defendant again refers to the same documents that will only be produced subject to the entry of a protective order, and failed to propose a protective order. As discussed in relation to Request for Production Nos. 30 and 31, this is unacceptable. Further responses and production are necessary. Request for Production No. 34 asks for all documents related to efforts by you to reduce the number of repeat repair attempts for a customer, which Defendant failed to supplement. Defendant's objections are with merit and it has not been shown how this request seeks confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information. Clearly, manufacturers and warranty defense lawyers know what a "repeat repair attempt" is, as it is a term regularly used in the context of Song-Beverly cases. Therefore, a further response is necessary. I also note that you have objected to Request for Production No. 35, and did not provide further response, which asks for all documents related to efforts by you to reduce the number of reacquired vehicles as well as Request for Production No. 36 which asks for all documents related to repeat repair procedures for remedying customer concerns. Clearly this information is relevant as Plaintiff is entitled to efforts by Defendant to repair the subject vehicle. Further responses with document production 14 are required. All the other boilerplate objections that Defendant has repeated in these responses have been soundly addressed elsewhere in this letter. Request for Production Nos. 37 through 42 seek documents evidencing, relating, or referring to complaints by owners of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle regarding any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the subject vehicle to you or your authorized repair facility for repair, and production of all surveys, reports, summaries, or other documents in which owners of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle have reported to you any of the specific problems. Defendant did not provide further response, so Plaintiff assumes that Defendant is maintaining the before asserted numerous objections on the grounds that each Request is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and not properly limited in time and scope, irrelevant, seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information, and does not specify with reasonable particularity what is sought. Defendant's objections are without merit, and certainly no justification to refuse to produce the requested relevant documents. The discovery act is broadly interpreted. Greyhound Corp. v. Super. Ct. (Clay) (1961) 5 6 Cal.2d 355, 384. Generally, "any party may obtain discovery regarding any subject matter involved ... if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." CCP § 2017.010. Given the broad standard of discovery within the state of California, Plaintiff confidently contends that Defendant's knowledge of other individuals complaining of the same defects or conditions for which Plaintiff presented the vehicle are relevant. In West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 407, the Supreme Court discussed the meaning of the terms "burden 11 and 11oppression." The Court held that burden alone is an insufficient basis to object to discovery because all discovery imposes some burden on the responding party. See, Id. at 41 7, 418. In addition, any objection based upon burden "must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required" to respond to the discovery. See, Id. at 417. Similarly, an objection based on oppression must be based on a showing neither of an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the results sought." See, Id. Information about other similar vehicle complaints may demonstrate a defect or nonconformity, or show when it arose, and may also demonstrate Defendant's knowledge of widespread warranty problems and Kia's failure to act despite this knowledge. The Court of Appeals recently addressed a manufacturer's argument that evidence of other vehicles was prejudicial and irrelevant. See, Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138. The Court held: "other vehicles testimony was not unduly prejudicial. It did not concem simply other vehicles. It was limited to the ( defective component) in Plaintiffs truck and other vehicles. (Plaintiffs expert) described what Ford itself had done to notify dealers and technicians about problems with this ( defective component) model. Thus, everything about which he testified that applied to other vehicles applied equally to Plaintiffs vehicle. Such evidence certainly was probative and not unduly prejudicial." See, Id. at 154. 15 Donlen is not an outlier case. In Doppes v. Bentley Motors Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 697, the trial ordered production of "repair invoices or other records of odor reduction work and/or odor repair on all Bentleys for model years 1999 to 2006, all documents recording approval for installation of odor reduction kits for model years 1 999 to 2006, all documents denying approval for installation of odor reduction kits for model years 1999 to 2006, any correspondence ( other than email) from Bentley dealers to Bentley USA or UK regarding customer odor complaints, .. and all other documents of any description referring or relating to the odor problem or complaints of odor in Bentley automobiles for model years 1999 to 2006." The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's orders. Additionally, info1mation about other similar vehicle complaints are relevant to refute Defendant's claims that Plaintiff or others, aside from Defendant, are responsible for the vehicle's problems, as alleged in Defendant's affirmative defenses claiming that Plaintiff and/or others misused or abused the vehicle, or engaged in unauthorized or unreasonable use of the subject vehicle. Under any interpretation, the documents that Plaintiff seeks are "reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence," which is the standard that governs here. Accordingly, the documents sought by Plaintiff are certainly discoverable, as they are "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." CCP § 2017.01 0; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacffic Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402. Plaintiff may also prove that Defendant willfully refused to buy back the vehicle despite knowing that it was legally obligated to do so, and if so, the Court may impose civil penalties against Defendant. Further responses and production are therefore needed for Request Nos. 3 7 through 42. Next, Requests for Production Nos. 43 and 44 seek the Pinpoint tests including codes retrieved, and the wiring diagrams for any systems related to the subject vehicle's concerns, respectively. Defendant continue assertions of the previously made objections and privilege claims for each but failed to provide privilege logs or fully explain the objections. These documents are necessary for Plaintiffs experts to assess and understand the claims and defenses involved in the case for the specific problems and concerns involved. Please further respond and produce the documents. Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents, No. 45, seeks production of all documents related to repair procedures performed on the subject vehicle. Defendant's further response refers to the repair orders and the Warranty History Inquiry, which would only be produced subject to the entry of a protective order, but failed to produce a proposed protective order. This response remains nonresponsive to Plaintiffs Request. Repair procedures include all instructions, directives, guidelines, procedures for how to actually fix the vehicle. Plaintiff seeks only those documents related to repair procedures that were actually performed on the subject vehicle, whereas the repair orders do not provide any of this information. Please review Plaintiffs Request No. 45 carefully and provide a further response and corresponding production of documents. 16 Request Nos. 46 and 47 seek the As-Built data and the VIN digit breakdown documents. Like Nos. 43 and 44, Defendant's non-supplemented responses are insufficient, and these documents are relevant and nonprivileged. Thus, further responses and production should be forthcoming. Plaintiffs Requests for Production, Nos. 48 and 49, seek all TSBs, and recalls, applicable to the subject vehicle. Defendant states that they produced the TSB or recall that were applied to the subject vehicle, and Plaintiff is entitled to the fuil set of those that apply to the subject vehicle, whether or not they were performed. This is the discovery stage and the standard of relevance is broad, as discussed earlier. Defendant's further response to Request No. 49 is not code compliant and raises several issues, requiring further response from Defendant. Defendant states that Plaintiff can request the recall documents from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"). Unless Defendant is agreeing to waiving various objections based on hearsay, lacks foundation, etc., then Plaintiff would be unable to use these documents at trial. Accordingly, this response is incomplete and requires further response. Request Nos. 50 and 51 seek any repair or diagnostic procedures that were consulted during the completion of repairs on the vehicle, in addition to repair procedures that were actually performed. In further response to these requests, Defendant only refers to the repair orders for the subject vehicle. Again, the repair orders are not fully responsive to the request. The technicians may have consulted other diagnostic procedures before finding the procedure which was effective in determining the root cause of the nonconformity, which is not reflected in the repair orders. Moreover, the repair orders follow the proverbial '·three C's" wherein the customer's concern, the cause of the concern, and the correction for the concern, are noted, but nothing else. Accordingly, these documents are not responsive to the requests and further responses are required. As such, Plaintiff expects further, verified responses to the Requests for Production propounded on Defendant. Thank you. I I II II I I I I I I I I I I II 17 REQUESTED ACTION Please provide further, verified responses within seven (7) days 0f the date 0f this letter. If you require additional time t0 respond, then please advise and I will accommodate any reasonable request and postpone consideration 0f filing any motions t0 compel. As you know, there was n0 deadline for a motion t0 compel further responses until the responses were verified. If, however, Defendant fails to provide further responses as requested herein, 0r t0 otherwise respond, then Plaintiff will have no other alternative but t0 file motions t0 compel, reserving all rights to seek costs and sanctions as appmpriate. I hope t0 avoid burdening the court with any discovery disputes and therefore, I 100k forward to resolving this directly without court interventigm Very Truly Yours, THE BARRY LAW FIRM Erik Whitman, Esq. 18 ALAN \OOONGUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA THUERK V. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. CASE # 20CV364578 I am employed in the County 0f Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age 0f eighteen (1 8) years and not a party t0 the within action; my business address is: 11845 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1270, Los Angeles, CA 90064. On January 28, 2021, I served the following described as: PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ERIK WHITMAN WITH EXHIBITS Service was made in the below ascribed manner, 0n 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 sarvice 0n that same day in the ordinary course 0f business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date 0r 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 0n the interested parties noted below by GSO Delivery Service in an envelope 0r package designated by the express service carrier in a facility which is deposited with the GSO Delivery Service in our building 0n the same day, in the ordinary course 0f business With delivery fees paid or provided for. [] (PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused the above described document t0 be personally served 0n the interested parties noted below. [X] (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I caused such document to be delivered by electronic transmission t0 the addresses and offices of the addressee listed on the Service List. [X] (STATE) I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on the 28th 0f January 2021, at Los Angeles, California. ' s; x g ; .v .. xMegan Hoerman NAME SIGNTURE ' PROOF OF SERVICE \OOOQQUIHRUJNy-t NNNNNNNNNHdeHHHHHHH OONQM-bWNHOKOOOVCNm-PWNHO SERVICE LIST THUERK V. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. CASE # 20CV364578 Kate Lehrman, Esq. Danielle N. Duarte, Esq. danielle@lehnnanlawgroup.com Lehrman Law Group 12121 Wilshire B1Vd., Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90025 CC: kiehrmanébiehrmaniawgmup£0m danielle@lehrmanlawgroup.com Attorneys for Defendant, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. PROOF OF SERVICE