Motion Compel

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

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 £184: W-101yg£130%16\’f., Sufie 1270 Reviewed By: Tunisia Turner os nge es, Telephone: 3 10.684.5859 E:\Slzlgzpoecggggfgg Facsimile: 3 1 0.862.4539 Attorneys for Plaintiff, BRYAN THUERK SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA _ . o Case N0. 20CV364578 BRYAN THUERK, an 1nd1v1dua1, PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S Plaintiff, FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES NOS. 1, 2-11, 14, 25- V, 27, 31, 40-44, 46, 51-53, AND 55; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., A ERIK WHITMAN WITH EXHIBITS California Corporation, and DOES 1 through [Concurrently Filed with Plaintifi’s CRC 3.1345 Separate Statement ofltems in Dispute] 20, mcluswe, Date: V 6_1 _21 Time: 9:00 a.m. 9:00am Defendants. Dept: 11 Dept. 19 Action Filed: March 3, 2020 Trial Date: None Assignedf'or ailpurposes t0 the Honorable Thang Barrett in Dept. 21 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on 6-1 -21 , 2021 at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard in Departmenlgfil 0f the above-entitled court located at 161 North First Street, San Jose, CA 951 13, Plaintiff Bryan Thuerk (“Plaintiff”) will move this Court for an Order compelling Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. (“Defendant” 0r “KMA”) t0 provide verified, further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2-1 1, 14, 25-27, 31, 40-44, 46, 51-53, and 55. -1- PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONIPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 1, 2-1 1, 14, 25-27, 31, 40-44, 46, 51-53, AND 55; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ERIK WHITMAN WITH EXHIBITS \OOOQON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This Motion is made pursuant to California Code osz'viZ Procedure §§ 2030.010, 2030.030 and 2030.290 and 0n the grounds that Defendant KMA has, Without substantial justification, failed to provide full and complete responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2-1 1, 14, 25-27, 31, 40-44, 46, 51-53, and 55. This Motion is based 0n the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the attached Declaration 0f Erik Whitman and the exhibits attached thereto, the supporting Separate Statement under Rule 3.1345 of the Rules 0f Court, the records on file with the Court and upon such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of this Motion. Date: January 28, 2021 THE BARRY LAW FIRM rm V»W/ijy/“Xg/"M M fr [X 6' DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ. ELIZABETH QUINN, ESQ. ERIK WHITMAN, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff, BRYAN THUERK -2- PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 1, 2-11, 14, 25-27, 31, 40-44, 46, 51-53, AND 55; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ERIK WHITMAN WITH EXHIBITS 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-Baverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Lemon Law”) lawsuit stems from Plaintiff Bryan Thuerk purchase 0f a 2019 Kia Stinger, VIN KNAE25LA9K6051 1 10, (“Subject Vehicle” or “Vehicle”). The Vehicle was manufactured and warranted by Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. (“KMA”). Along With the purchase of the Vehicle, Defendant expressly warranted to fix 0r repair any defects in workmanship 0r materials for five (5) years 0r 60,000 miles. Shortly after purchase, Plaintiff began to 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 t0 timely investigate or meaningfully respond t0 Plaintiff‘s concerns in compliance with the Song-Beverly Act, Plaintiff was left With no Viable options but t0 file suit. Regarding warranty repairs performed 0n 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 only objected t0 the interrogatories as being improper 0r premature. Absent a Court Order, Defendant has no intention t0 comply. Plaintiff” s suit alleges breach ofwarranty claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and requests that the Subject Vehicle be repurchased, that Plaintiff be awarded appropriate damages and attomeys’ fees as allowed by the statute, and requests a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed two times the amount of Plaintiff s actual damages as allowed by the statute. II. NATURE OF THE DISPUTE AND RELIEF SOUGHT This Motion t0 compel is necessary because Defendant KMA has failed t0 properly respond t0 Plaintiff s Special Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2-1 1, 14, 25-27, 3 1, 40-44, 46, 51-53, and 55. Defendant is refusing t0 answer basic questions relating t0 this case and providing evasive responses t0 inquiries that are seeking information important t0 Plaintiff’s case. Defendant has n0 substantial justification for its refusal. The responses provided are incomplete, evasive and non-responsive to the questions posed. Plaintiff therefore seeks an Order compelling Defendant KMA t0 provide verified, further responses t0 Special Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2-1 1, 14, 25-27, 31, 40-44, 46, 51-53, and 55. _ 1 _ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES 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. Plaintiffreceived Defendant’s unverified responses t0 Plaintiff s Special Interrogatories, Set One, 0n July 16, 2020, as indicated 0n the proof of service for KMA’S responses. Declaration 0f Erik Whitman (“Whitman Decl.”), 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 0n 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 t0 Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 and amended section 2030.300 (c) 0f the California Code osz'vz'l 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 Plaintiff served Defendant KMA with a set 0f Special Interrogatories on June 11, 2020. See Exhibit “1 .” Defendant KMA served its discovery responses by electronic mail 0n July 16, 2020. See Exhibit “2.” However, these responses were not verified. On July 30, 2020, Plaintiff sent Defendant KMA a meet and confar letter with legal authorities detailing various deficiencies with Defendant’s discovery responses, including those at issue in this Motion, and requested that Defendant KMA verify their responses. Plaintiff asked Defendant t0 provide further responses t0 select discovery items that were not responsive and/or incomplete within fourteen (14) days of the date of the letter and to advise Plaintiff if additional time was needed, which would be agreeable t0 Plaintiff if Defendant provided a reciprocal extension 0n Plaintiff s motion filing deadline. See Exhibit “3.” Plaintiff received no response. On September 29, 2020, Plaintiff sent a follow up meet and confer correspondence. See Exhibit “4.” Again, KMA did not respond. 1 In light of Appleton v. Superior Court, supra, this important clarification t0 the Discovery Act was the result 0fAB 1183 which amended Code Osz'vil Procedure sections 203030002), 203 1 .310(c), and 2033.290(c) to reflect that motions t0 compel further responses from interrogatories, inspection demands, 0r requests for admissions d0 not need t0 be filed until 45 days after verified responses are served. AB 1183 became law on June 24, 2013. -2- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES \OOOQQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 ‘16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On November 10, 2020, Defendant KMA served unverified further responses t0 written discovery. See, Exhibit “5.” On December 9, 2020, Defendant KMA mailed the verifications to 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.” N0 response was received. As 0f this date, Defendant has refused t0 provide further Code-compliant responses t0 the Interrogatories at issue in this Motion. Thus, Plaintiff was forced to file the instant Motion in order t0 protect his statutory motion deadline and t0 preserve and enforce his discovery rights. Nevertheless, in an ongoing effort t0 resolve these issues informally and Without court intervention, Plaintiff will take this Motion off calendar if Defendant KMA provides further verified responses t0 the items at issue sufficiently in advance 0f the hearing t0 allow Plaintiff” s meaningful review. V. DEFENDANT KMA SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES T0 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 19 Z-llg 14, 25-27, 31, 40-44, 46, 51- 53, AND 55 California Code osz'vz'l Procedure § 2030.300 provides in pertinent part: “(a) On receipt 0f a response t0 interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any 0f 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 or the required specification 0f those documents is inadequate.” >x< >x< >1: As fully detailed in Plaintiff’s accompanying Rule 3.1345 Separate Statement, Defendant KMA should be required to provide further responses t0 Special Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2-1 1, 14, 25- 27, 3 1 , 40-44, 46, 51-53, and 55. Defendant KMA’S failure to provide full and complete responses t0 -3- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 these Interrogatories is without substantial justification. There is n0 justifiable basis for Defendant KMA’s apparent refusal t0 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 KMA t0 provide verified, further responses t0 Special Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2-1 1, 14, 25-27, 31, 40-44, 46, 51-53, and 55, as demonstrated in the supporting Separate Statement. Date: January 28, 2021 THE BARRY LAW FIRM /’VM:«::;?//,/: "MWaw W“ rig w /r I ' ,/ » ,Zawng/ggmw; 4‘; / DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ. ELIZABETH QUINN, ESQ. ERIK WHITMAN, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff, BRYAN THUERK -4- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES DECLARATION ARATION \OOOVQ 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 a California licensed attorney in good standing and an Associate at The Barry Law Firm, counsel 0f record for Plaintiff, BRYAN THUERK. I make this Declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion t0 Compel Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’s (“‘Defendant” or “KMA”) Further Responses t0 Plaintiff s Special Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2-1 1, 14, 25-27, 31, 40-44, 46, 51-53, and 55, seeking information related to the claims and defenses in this case that is essential to Plaintiff s preparation for trial. 2. I am the attorney with primary handling responsibility 0f this matter, and I am therefore familiar With all activities and all proceedings in this case. Accordingly, if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify t0 the following based upon my own personal knowledge. 3. This is a lemon law case arising from Plaintiff s purchase of a 2019 Kia Stinger, VIN KNAEZSLA9K6051 1 10. Shortly after purchase, Plaintiff began to 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 t0 timely investigate 0r meaningfully respond t0 Plaintiff s concerns in compliance with the Song-Beverly Act, Plaintiff was left With n0 Viable options but t0 file suit. Plaintiff‘s lawsuit alleges breach of warranty claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and requests that the Subject Vehicle be repurchased, and that Plaintiff be awarded appropriate damages and attorneys’ fees as allowed by statute. Plaintiff also seeks a statutory Civil penalty for Defendant KMA’S bad faith failure to repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle as required by the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. 4. On June 11, 2020, my office served Defendant KMA with a set 0f Special Inlerrogatories. Attached as Exhibit “1” is a true and correct copy of the relevant Interrogatorics at issue in this Motion seeking information essential t0 Plaintiff s trial preparation. 5. Defendant KMA served unverified discovery responses 0n July 16, 2020. Attached as Exhibit “2” is a true and correct copy 0f the relevant portions of Defendant’s responses t0 the Interrogatories at issue in this Motion. No verifications accompanied Defendant’s responses. _ 1 _ DECLARATION OF ERIK WHITMAN 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. On July 30, 2020, 0n behalf of Plaintiff, my office sent Defendant KMA a meet and confer letter With legal authorities detailing various deficiencies with Defendant’s discovery responses, including those at issue in this Motion. The letter asked Defendant to provide further responses t0 selsct discovery items that were not responsive and/or incomplete within fourteen (14) days 0f the date 0f the letter and to advise our office if additional time was needed, which would be agreeable if Defendant provided a reciprocal extension on Plaintiff’s motion filing deadline. The letter also asked Defendant KMA to provide verifications t0 the responses. Attached as Exhibit “3” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter. N0 response correspondence was received from Defendant KMA. 7. On September 29, 2020, my office followed up with a second meet and confer letter, requesting supplemental responses, and verifications. Attached as Exhibit “4” is a true and correct copy 0f Defendant’s response letter. 8. On November 10, 2020, Defendant KMA served unverified further responses t0 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 t0 their further responses to written discovery. Attached as Exhibit “6” is a true and correct copy of Defendant KMA’S mailed verifications. 10. On January 4, 2021, Plaintiff served a meet and confer letter, addressing the deficiencies in KMAas 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. To date, Defendant has not replied t0 my meet and confer and has utterly failed t0 substantively meet and confer. 12. KMA has yet t0 produce any privilege 10g or proposed stipulated protective order as requested by_ Plaintiff. 13. As of this date, Defendant has refused t0 provide Code-complaint amended responses to the Interrogatories at issue in this Motion. Thus, Plaintiff was forced t0 file the instant Motion in order to protect his statutory motion deadline and to preserve and enforce his discovery rights. -2- DECLARATION OF ERIK WHITMAN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14. Nevertheless, I will gladly take this Motion off calendar if Defendant KMA provides verified further responses as requested at least twenty (20) days in advance Motion t0 allow scheduling 0f meaningful review. 0f the hearing on this I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws 0f the State 0f California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 28th day of January 2020, in Los Angeles, California. ,m ajiiM/«fl’yflwzfi , Zfl/ $42” X/ M j"WW . WM Wm%:~~. f (‘0‘ Erik Whitman -3- DECLARATION OF ERIK WHITMAN EXHIBIT 1 T [\J GOO‘QQ DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ. (SBN 219230) THE BARRY LAW FIRM 11845 W. Olympic Blvd, Suite 1270 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: 310.684.5859 Facsimile: 310.862.4539 Attorney for Plaintiff, BRYAN THUERK SUPEMOR COURT OF THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY 0F SANTA CLARA - DOWNTOWN SUPERIOR COURT BRYAN THUERK, an individual Case N0, 20CV364578 PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL Plaintiff, INTERROGATORIES T0 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., SET v, ONE; DECLARATION OF DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ., FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, A California Corporation; and DOES 1 through Action Filed; March 3, 2020 . . Trial Date: None 20, Incluswq Assignedfbr allpurposes r0 the Hon. Thang Defendants. M. Barrett z'n Dept. 21 PROPOUNDING PARTY: PlaintiffBRYAN THUERK RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, ENC. SET NUMBER: One (1) TO DEFENDANT, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD: /// /// /// -1- PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, SET ONE; DECLARATION OF DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ., FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff, BRYAN THUERK, hereby requests that Defendant, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, responds to the following interrogatories separately and fully in writing and under oath Within thirty (30) days after they are served. In answering these interrogatories, you are required to furnish all information that is available t0 you, including information in the possession 0f your attorneys and investigators for your attorneys, and not merely information from your own personal knowledge. If you cannot answer the following interrogatories in full, after exercising due diligence t0 secure the information to d0 so, so state, and answer t0 the extent possible, specifying your inability t0 answer the remainder, and stating whatever information 0r knowledge you have concerning the unanswered questions. Special Interrogatorv N0. 1 IDENTIFY all PERSONS who were consulted 0r provided answers to these interrogatories. (When referring t0 a PERSON, "IDENTIFY" shall mean t0 state that person’s full name, title 0r occupation, present 0r last known address and telephone number, current employer, and employer’s address and phone number. "PERSONS" shall include a natural person, firm, association, organization? partnership, business, trust, limited liability company, corporation, 0r public entity.) Special Interrogatorv N0. 2 Did YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF receive any COMMUNICATION from Plaintiff regarding the service 0f the SUBJECT VEHICLE? ("YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF", "YOU", and/or ”YOUR" include Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, its agents, its employees, its insurance companies, their agents, their employees, its attorneys, its accountants, its investigators, and/or anyone else acting 0n its behalf. "COMMUNICATION" shall mean any 0r all transmittals 0f information, whether oral 0r reduced t0 writing, whether handwritten, typewritten, tape-recorded, 0r produced by electronic data processing, irrespective of how conveyed [e.g., telephone, United States mail, electronic mail, private mail, courier service, facsimile transmittal, face-to-face contact] including but not limited t0: inquiries, discussions, conversations, negotiations, agreements, understandings, meetings, telephone conversations, -2- PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, SET ONE; DECLARATION 0F DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ, FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 letters, notes, telegrams, advertisements, 0r other forms 0f verbal intercourse, whether oral or written. "SUBJECT VEHICLE” shall refer t0 the motor vehicle that is the subject 0f this lawsuit as identified in the complaint filed in this action. Snecifllnterrogatorv N0. 3 If the response to Interrogatory N0. 2 is in the affirmative, state the date(s) 0f each COMMUNICATION. Special Interrogatog No. 4 ' If the response t0 Interrogatory No. 2 is in the affirmative, state the substance 0f aach COMMUNICATION. Special Interrogatogx N0. 5 If the response to Interrogatory N0. 2 is in the affirmative, IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge 0f each COMMUNICATION. Special Interrogatorv N0. 6 If the response t0 Interrogatory N0. 2 is in the affirmative, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS regarding, relating, 01* pertaining t0 each COMMUNICATION. (When referring t0 a DOCUMENT, “IDENTIFY" shall mean t0 state the type 0f document [e.g., letter, journal, record, memorandum, repair order], its date, title, and identifying number, the general subj ect matter 0f the document, its present location, as W61} as each person who prepared it, each person for whom it was prepared, and the last known address 0f each person who presently has custody 0f the original and copies thereof. ”DOCUMENT" or ”DOCUMENTS" shall mean a writing, as defined in California Evidence Code Section §250, and shall include the original 0r a copy 0f handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostats, photographs, electronically stored information, and every other means 0f recording upon any tangible thing and form 0f communicating 0r representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds 0r symbols, or combination 0f them.) Special Interrogatorv N0. 7 Did YOU OR ANYONE ACTING QN YOUR BEHALF receive any COMMUNICATION from any manufacturer-authorized dealership regarding the service 0f the SUBJECT VEHICLE. /// -3- PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, SET ONE; DECLARATION 0F DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ, FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY mcial Interrggatorv N0. 8 If the response to Interrogatory N0. 7 is in the affirmative, state the date(s) of each COMMUNICATION. Snecial Interrogatorv N0. 9 If the response to Interrogatory No. 7 is in the affirmative, state the substance of each COMMUNICATION. Special Interroggtorv N0. 10 If the response t0 Interrogatory No. 7 is in the affirmative, IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge of each COMMUNICATION. Special Interrogatorv No: 11 If the response t0 Interrogatory No. 7 is in the affirmative, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS regarding, relating, or pertaining to each COMMUNICATION. Special Interrogatorv N0. 12 State the number of service requests that Plaintiff made pursuant t0 the Defendant’s warranty. Special Interrogatorv No. 13 State how many times YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF perfermed warranty repairs upon the SUBJECT VEHICLE. Sgecial Interrogatorv No. 14 IDENTIFY all PERSONS who performed warranty repairs upon the SUBJECT VEHICLE. Sp_ecial Interrogatorv N0. 15 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS relating 0r pertaining t0 the warranty repairs performed upon the SUBJECT VEHICLE. Sgecial Interrogatorv No. 16 List all warranty claims submitted to YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE. I mcial Interrogatorv N0. 17 State whether any repairs made upon the SUBJECT VEHICLE were performed outside the express warranty periods. -4- PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, SET ONE; DECLARATION OF DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ, FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY \OOOQQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 24 25 26 28 Special Interrogatorv N0. 18 Did YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF retain the SUBJECT VEHICLE for inspection or testing during the RELEVANT PERIOD? ("RELEVANT PERIOD" shall mean the period from the time Plaintiff first purchased the SUBJECT VEHICLE up t0 and including today.) Special Interrogatorv N0. 19 If the response t0 Interrogatory N0. 18 is in the affirmative, state each date when the SUBJECT VEHICLE was retained for inspection 0r testing during the RELEVANT PERIOD. Special Interrogatorv N0. 20 IDENTIFY all PERSONS who inspected 0r tested the SUBJECT VEHICLE during the RELEVANT PERIOD. Special Interroggtorv N0. 21 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS regarding, relating, or pertaining to any inspection 0r testing 0f the SUBJECT VEHICLE during the RELEVANT PERIOD. Special Interrogatorv No. 22 State the date(s) when Plaintiff notified YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF 0f the need for the repair 0f any NONCONFORMITY in the SUBJECT VEHICLE. Special Interrogatorv N0. 23 IDENTIFY all PERSONS who have knowledge 0f Plaintiff s n0tice(s) 0fNONCONFORMITY t0 YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF. Special Interrogatorv N0. 24 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS regarding, relating, or pertaining t0 Plaintiffs n0tice(s) 0f NONCONFORMITY to YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF. Special Interrogatorv N0. 25 IDENTIFY all PERSONS responsible for the customer relations department in the district 0r region having jurisdiction over Plaintiff s complaints during the RELEVANT PERIOD. /// /// -5- PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., SET ONE; DECLARATION OF DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ, FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY \]O\ Special Interrtgatorv N0. gfi IDENTIFY YOUR present employee in California who is most knowledgeable regarding YOUR warranty policies, including but not limited t0 any policies YOU may have had regarding the replacement or reimbursement 0f allegedly defective automobiles, during the RELEVANT PERIOD. Special Interrogatorv No. 27 List all Special Service Messages and/or Technical Service Bulletins which relate t0 each NONCONFORMITY in the SUBJECT VEHICLE, as alleged in the Plaintiff s Complaint filed in this action. Special Interrogatorv N0. 28 Do YOU contend that the NONCONFORMITY in the SUBJECT VEHICLE does not substantially impair the value, use, 0r safety 0f the SUBJECT VEHICLE? Special Interrogatorv N0. 29 If the answer t0 Interrogatory N0. 28 is in the affirmative, state all the facts that support YOUR contention. Special Interrogatorv No. 30 If the answer t0 Interrogatory No. 28 is in the affirmative, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention. Special Interrogatorv No. 31 D0 YOU contend that Defendants have complied with their warranty obligations set forth in the Song-Beverly Warranty Act? Special interrogatorv N0. 32 D0 YOU contend that Defendants were able to repair all the NONCONFORMITY in the SUBJECT VEHICLE t0 conform t0 the applicable express warranties? Special Interrogatorv N0. 33 If the answer to Interrogatory No. 32 is in the affirmative, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention. V /// -6- PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, SET ONE; DECLARATION OF DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ., FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 Special Interrogatorv N0. 34 D0 YOU contend that Defendants were not given a reasonable number of attempts to repair the NONCONFORMITY in the SUBJECT VEHICLE, as alleged in the Plaintiff s Complaint filed in this action? Special Interrogatorv N0. 35 If the anSW€r t0 Interrogatory No. 34 is in the affirmative, state all tha facts that support YOUR contention. Special Interrogatorv N0. 36 If the answer t0 Interrogatory N0. 34 is in the affirmative, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention. Special Interrogatorv N0. 37 Does Defendant maintain a third-party dispute resolution process that complies - not substantially complies - With the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and California Civil. Code Section §1793.22(d)? Special Interrogatorv N0. 38 Is the written warranty provided to Plaintiff at the time 0f sale 0f the SUBJECT VEHICLE a "written warranty" within the meaning 0f the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §301 et seq? Special Interrogatorv N0. 39 List all warranties provided, to Plaintiff at the time 0f sale 0f the SUBJECT VEHICLE. Special Interrogatorv N0. 40 identify the individual(s) whose responsibility it is 10 supervise t0 ensure that YOU are properly determining whether a vehicle should be repurchased 0r replaced pursuant to The Song-Beverly Warranty Act. Special Interrogatory N0. 41 Please describe with particularity how the individual(s) identifisd in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory above perform their duties. /// -7- PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, SET ONE; DECLARATION OF DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ, FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Special Interrogatorv N0. 42 Explain with particularity all aspects 0f YOUR investigation into whether the SUBJECT VEHICLE qualified 0r was eligible for repurchase 0r replacement pursuant to The Song-Beverly Warranty Act. Special Interrogatorv N0. 43 Identify all person(s) involved in YOUR investigation, including any individuals With whom YOU communicated regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE. Special Interrogatorv N0. 44 Identify all DOCUMENTS consulted, reviewed and/or obtained in YOUR investigation. fipecial Interrogatorv N0. 45 Identify all individuals responsible for YOUR decision to not repurchase or replace the SUBJECT VEHICLE. Special Interrogatorv N0. 46 How many repair attempts d0 YOU believe YOU were afforded t0 fix the vehicle under the terms ofYOUR warranty? Special Interrogatorv N0. 47 What is YOUR definition 0f a “non-conformity?” finecial Interrogatorv N0. 48 According to YOUR definition 0f “non-conformity,” d0 YOU believe that the SUBJECT VEHICLE ever experienced a non-conformity? Special Interrogatory N0. 49 On What occasions d0 YOU believe the SUBJECT ' 'EHIC' E experienced a non-conformity, according t0 YOUR definition? Special Interrogatorv No. 50 D0 YOU contend that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was presented more than once for any same 0r similar non-conformity? /// /// -8- PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, SET ONE; DECLARATION OF DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ, FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY Special Interrogatorv N0. 51 Please list all Technical Service Bulletins applicable t0 the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including previously issued technical service bulletins that have been superseded. Special Interrogatorv N0. 52 Please explain Why Recall DC19CK1 was issued. Special Interrogatorv N0._ 53 Please explain in detail the process by which DC19CK1 was issued. Special Interrogatorv N0. 54 Please explain in detail the process by which a Technical Service Bulletin is recalled 0r superseded. Special Interrogatorv N0. 55 Please state the total number 0f days the SUBJECT VEHICLE was out 0f service for warranty repairs. \ K Date: June 11, 2020 THE 331W LAW FIRM £1 ‘<. fjkx _‘ I fl/fj" V Byzgij‘ E ”ff” ‘ W ?NMéfiRRY, ESQ. Attorrfé‘yébt’ Plaintiff, BRYAN THUERK -9- PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, SET ONE; DECLARATION OF DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ, FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26' 27 28' DECLARATION OF DAVID N. BARRY 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed t0 practice before all the Courts of the State 0f California. I am the attorney for PLAINTIFF, BRYAN THUERK, in this matter. 2. I am propounding t0 DEFENDANT, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. the attached set of interrogatories. 3. This set 0f interrogatories will cause the total number 0f specially prepared interrogatories propounded t0 the party t0 whom they are directed to exceed the number 0f specially prepared interrogatories permitted by Section §2030.030 0f the California Code 0f Civil Procedure. 4. I have not previously propounded any interrogatories t0 this party. 5. This set 0f interrogatories contains a total 0f 55 specially prepared interrogatories. 6. I am familiar with the issues and the previous discovery conducted by all of the parties in the case. 7. I have personally examined each 0f the questions in this set of interrogatories. 8. This number 0f questions is warranted under California Code 0f Civil Procedure Section §2030.040(a)(1) and (3). 9. None 0f the questions in this set 0f interrogatm‘ies is being propounded for any improper purpose, such as to harass the party, 0r the attorney for the party, t0 whom it is directed, 0r t0 cause unnecessary delay 0r needless increase in the cosEgéf litigation. 1 declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws 0%\Ehe State 0f California that the foregoing is true and correct. \ kg Executed 0n the 11th 0f June 2020 in Los Angeles, Qaliforniax E g B m f X g «1” ‘2 L K DECLARANT § S -10- PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, SET ONE; DECLARATION OF DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ, FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY #UJN 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OCOOQOUI 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 0f California. I am over the age 0f eighteen (18) 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, 0n the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed t0: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST [X] (MAIL) I am ”readily familiar" with the legal departmént’s practice for collection and processing 0f correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day in the ordinary course 0f business. I am aware that on motion 0f the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date 0r postage meter date is more than one day after the date 0f 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 of business with delivery fees paid 0r provided for. (PERSONAL SERVICE) I c used the augve described decument t0 be 0n the interested parties noted 610w. r-fi L_J [X] (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I caused such document to be delivered by electronic transmission to the addresses and offices 0f the addressee listed 0n the Service List. [X] (STATE) I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws 0f the State 0f California that the above is true and correct. Executed 0n the 11th 0f June 2020, at Los Angeles, California. ~ . F"? imam.“ ‘ ?g ‘1",\ ff jsjf f,Jazmme Damels g gal” (“:ng E ’1‘” NAME w SIGNATURE PROOF OF SERVICE #095) \OOOQQU‘I SERVICE LIST THUERK V. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. CASE # 20CV364578 Danielle N. Duarte, Esq. danielle@lehrmanlawgroup.com Lehrman Law Group 12121 Wilshire B1Vd., Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90025 CC: klehrman@1ehrmanlawgr0up.com dvillegas@lehrmanlawgroup.com Attorneys for Defendant, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. PROOF OF SERVICE EXHIBIT 2 T Ul-bUJN \OOOQON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 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 CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA BRYAN THUERK, an individual, Plaintiff, V. KLA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Case N0. 20CV364578 [Filedz March 3, 2020] Hon. Thang M. Barrett Dept. 21 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET Defendants. ONE DISCOVERY CUT-OFF: NONE MOTION CUT-OFF: NONE TRIAL DATE: NONE PROPOUNDING PARTY PlaintiffBRIAN THUERK RESPONDING PARTY Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. SET NO. Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. (“KMA”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby responds to Plaintiff s Special Interrogatories: 301.224.DND - 00498106.DOCX 1 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE bWN \DOOQQU} PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS The subject of Plaintiff’s Complaint is a 2019 Kia Stinger, VIN: KNAEZSLA9K6051 1 10, which was purchased/leased on or about April 8, 2019. KMA did not design or manufacture the subject vehicle. KMA objects t0 Plaintiff” s Interrogatories t0 the extent 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 t0 lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence in this case. KMA obj ects t0 Plaintiff s Interrogatories t0 the extent they may call for the production of proprietary information, trade secrets 0r other confidential business and commercial information, public dissemination of which would place KMA at a commercial disadvantage. KMA obj ects t0 Plaintiff s Interrogatories t0 the extent 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 t0 these interrogatories, KMA assumes that Plaintiff does not seek information or documents protected by the attorney-client privilege 0r work product doctrine, and KMA hereby preserves all such privileges. KMA obj ects t0 the instructions and definitions in Plaintiff’s interrogatories to the extent they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seek t0 impose duties 0r requirements beyond those required by the Code of Civil Procedure. KMA further obj ects t0 Plaintiff s interrogatories t0 the extent they seek “any” 0r “all” records 0r documents 0f a particular déscription 0r designation. KMA is only required to make a diligent search 0f records kept in the ordinary course 0f business and those locations likely t0 contain relevant information and has done so. Finally, neither the failure t0 specifically mention a general objection in any response nor the specification 0f any other Objection shall be deemed a waiver 0f any objections t0 that Interrogatory. 301 .224.DND - 00498106DOCX 2 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE #UJN KOOOQO‘NKII Without waiving the foregoing objections, and incorporating them into each of the following interrogatories, KMA responds t0 Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories as follows: RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: IDENTIFY all PERSONS who were consulted or provided answers t0 these interrogatories. (When referring to a PERSON, “IDENTIFY” shall mean to state that person’s full name, title 0r occupation, present or last known address and telephone number, current employer, and employer’s address and phone number. “PERSONS” shall include a natural person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business, trust, limited liability company, corporation, 0r public entity.) 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. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Did YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF receive any COMMUNICATION from Plaintiffregarding the service 0f the SUBJECT VEHICLE? (“YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF”, “YOU”, and/or “YOUR” include Defendant KLA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, its agents, its employees, its insurance companies, their gm00 ('DI3 ..+ ED -§ ’3‘ CD tr; (D3‘,2D ‘~<(D (D if” {3' [fl .93t-fH.0E3(D"--‘O 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the motor vehicle that is the subject 0f this lawsuit as identified in the complaint filed in this action. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects t0 this Interrogatory as follows: 1. This interrogatory seeks disclosure 0f information which is not reasonably related t0 the issues presented by the subject matter 0f this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated t0 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 2. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 3. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: If the response to Interrogatory N0. 2 is in the affirmative, state the date(s) 0f each COMMUNICATION. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects t0 this Interrogatory as follows: 1. This interrogatory seeks disclosure of information which is not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter 0f this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated t0 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 2. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 3. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: If the response t0 Interrogatory No. 2 is in the affirmative, state the substance of each COMMUNICATION. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory as follows: 1. This interrogatory seeks disclosure 0f information which is not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, 301 .224.DND - 00498106Docx 4 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \DooflaM-BUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and not reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence. 2. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 3. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: If the response to Interrogatory N0. 2 is in the affirmative, IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge of each COMMUNICATION. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory as follows: 1. This interrogatory seeks disclosure 0f information which is not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated t0 lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 2. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 3. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: If the response t0 Interrogatory No. 2 is in the affirmative, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS regarding, relating, 0r pertaining to each COMMUNICATION. (When referring t0 a DOCUMENT, “IDENTIFY” shall mean t0 state the type 0f document [e.g., letter, journals, record, memorandum, repair order], its date, title, and identifying number, the general subj ect matter 0f the documeutj its present location, as well as each person with prepared it, each person for whom it was prepared, the last known address of each person who presently has custody of the original 0r copies thereof. “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” shall mean a writing, as defined in Evidence Code §250, and shall include 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 0f communicating or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds or symbols, or combination of them.) /// 301 .224.DND - 00498106D0cx 5 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AWN \OOOQONLII RESPONSE: KMA obj ects to this Interrogatory as follows: 1. This interrogatory seeks disclosure of information Which is not reasonably related t0 the issues presented by the subj ect matter of this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated t0 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 2. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 3. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Did YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF receive any COMMUNICATION from any manufacturer-authorized dealership regarding the service 0f the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects t0 this Interrogatory as follows: 1. KMA objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding t0 this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attorney/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery 0f the attorney work product 0f either in-house 0r outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure 0f information Which is not reasonably related to the iqsues presanted by the subject matter of this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts in Violation of C.C.P. § 2030.060(f). 4. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. /// /// 301 .224.DND - 00498106.DOCX 6 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE bWN GOOQQLJI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8: If the response to Interrogatory No. 7 is in the affirmative, state the date(s) 0f each COMMUNICATION. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory as follows: 1. KMA obj ects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding t0 this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery 0f attomey/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery 0f the attorney work product of either in-house or outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure of information which is not reasonably related t0 the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts in Violation 0f C.C.P. § 2030.060(f). 4. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9: If the response t0 Interrogatory N0. 7 is in the affirmative, state the substance of each COMMUNICATION. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects to this Interrogatory as follows: 1. KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attomey/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery 0f the attorney work product 0f either in-house 0r outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure of information which is not reasonably related 301 .224.DND - 00498106DOCX 7 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE #WN koooflmm 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to the issues presented by the subject matter 0f this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reascnably calculated to lead to the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts in Violation of C.C.P. § 20300606). 4. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10: If the response t0 Interrogatory No. 7 is in the affirmative, IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge 0f each COMMUNICATION. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory as follows: 1. KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this interrogatory, 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 0r outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure 0f information Which is not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter 0f this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts in Violation of C.C.P. § 2030.060(-fl 4. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11: If the response to Interrogatory No. 7 is in the affirmative, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS regarding, relating, 0r pertaining to each COMMUNICATION. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory as follows: 301 .224.DND - 00498106.DOCX 8 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE hWN \OOOQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding t0 this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attorney/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery 0f the attorney work product of either in-house or outside counsel. KMA’S responses Will be limited With this understanding. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure 0f information which is not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter 0f this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated t0 lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts in Violation 0f C.C.P. § 2030.060(f). 4. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12: State the number of service requests that Plaintiff made pursuant to the Defendant’s warranty. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects to this Interrogatory as follows: 1. KMA objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attorney/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery 0f the attorney wvrk product 0f either in-house or outside counsel. KMA’s responses Will be limited with this understanding. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure of information Which is not reasonably related t0 the issues presented by the subj ect matter 0f this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request is vague and ambiguous With respect t0 the phrase “service 301 .224.DND - 00498106DOCX 9 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE KOOOQQUI-PUJNH [\J [\J N N N [\J [\J N [\J h-a r-A H r-t h-A h-d r-a r-d p-A h-a 00 fl ON L11 g U) N h-“ O \O 00 \l ON U1 -P UJ N F-‘ O requests.” 5. This request seeks the premature discovery 0f expert witness information 0r opinions. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13: State how many times YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF performed warranty repairs upon the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory as follows: 1. KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding t0 this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery 0f 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 interrogatory seeks disclosure 0f information which is not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated t0 lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request is vague and ambiguous with respect t0 the phrase “warranty repairs.” 5. This request seeks the premature discovery of expert witness information 0r opinions. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: IDENTIFY all PERSONS who performed warranty repairs upon the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects t0 this Interrogatory as follows: 1. KMA obj ects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and 301 .224.DND - 00498 1 06.1)0CX 10 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE hWN \OOOQGLII 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ambiguous. In responding to this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery 0f attorney/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery 0f the attorney work product of either in-house or outside counsel. KMA’S responses Will be limited with this understanding. 2. KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory on the grounds that this information is as equally available t0 Plaintiff as t0 KMA. KMA obj ects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and not reasonably calculated t0 lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request is vague and ambiguous with respect t0 the phrase “warranty repairs.” SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15: IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS relating or pertaining to the warranty repairs performed upon the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory as follows: 1. KMA obj ects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attomey/client communications, nor do Plaintiff seeks the discovery of the attorney work product 0f either in-house or outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. KMA obj ects to this Interrogatory 0n the grounds that this information is as equally available t0 Plaintif as to KMA, KMA objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and not reasonably calculated t0 lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory seeks information that incorporates trade secrets, and confidential and/or proprietary information. 4. This request is vague and ambiguous With respect t0 the phrase “warranty repairs.” 5. This request seeks the premature discovery of expert witness information or Opinions. 301.224.DND - 00498106.DOCX 1 1 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE #WN \OOOQO’NU‘I 2030.060(t). 5. This interrogatory is not full and complete in and 0f itself. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24: IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS regarding, relating, 0r pertaining t0 Plaintiff’s notice(s) 0f NONCONFORMITY to YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory as follows: 1. KMA objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding t0 this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attorney/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery 0f the attorney work product 0f either in-house or outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. This interrogatory potentially seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 3. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in its use of the term “nonconformities.” Use of this term in the interrogatory assumes that the alleged defects in the subject vehicle substantially impair its use, value, 0r safety. This responding party denies that this is true. 4. This interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure 0f expert information. 5. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts in Violation 0f C.C.P. § 2030.060(*,. 6. This interrogatory is not full and complete in and 0f itself. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25: IDENTIFY all PERSONS responsible for the customer relations department in the district 0r region having jurisdiction over Plaintiff’ s complaints during the RELEVANT PERIOD. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory as follows: 301.224.DND - 00498106.D0CX 17 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AWN \DOOQQUI 1. KMA objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome, oppressive, and not reasonably calculated t0 lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence. In responding t0 this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attomey/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery of the attorney work product 0f either in-house or outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts in Violation 0f C.C.P. § 20300600). 3. This interrogatory potentially seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as t0 “responsible for the customer relations department” as to be unintelligible, burdensome and harassing. 5. This interrogatory seeks t0 invade the privacy rights 0f third parties. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26: IDENTIFY YOUR present employee in Southern California who is most knowledgeable regarding YOUR warranty policies, including but not limited to any policies YOU may have had regarding the replacement 0r reimbursement 0f allegedly defective automobiles, during the RELEVANT PERIOD. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects t0 this Interrogatory as being vague, ambiguous, specifically as t0 the term “most knowledgeable.” KMA rasponds that there is not a single individual responsive t0 this Interrogatory. KMA will produce an appropriate corporate representative in response to a proper notice pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and as such KMA reserves the right to amend this response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27: List all Special Service Messages and/or Technical Service Bulletins which relate to each NONCONFORMITY in the SUBJECT VEHICLE, as alleged in the Plaintiff’s Complaint filed in this action. 301 .224.DND - 00498106DOCX 18 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE KOOOQONUI-fiww 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE: KMA obj acts to this Interrogatory 0n the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly board, vague and ambiguous. In responding t0 this intarrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery 0f attorney/Client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery of the attorney work product 0f either in-house 0r outside counsel. KMA’s responses will be limited With this understanding. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure 0f information which is not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated t0 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in its use 0f the term “nonconformities.” Use of this term in the interrogatory assumes that the alleged defects in the subject vehicle substantially impair its use, value, 0r safety. This responding party denies that this is true. 5. This interrogatory is not full and complete in and of itself. 6. This interrogatory is impermissibly compound and contains subparts. 7. This interrogatory is a premature request for expert Witness information. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Do YOU contend that. the NONCONFORMITY in the SUBJECT VEHICLE does not substantially impair the value, use, or safety of the SUBJECT VEHICLE? RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds: 1. KMA obj ects t0 this Interrogatory 0n the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, argumentative and presupposes the existence of a “nonconformity.” KMA also objects t0 the use 0f the term “nonconformity,” as it is vague, ambiguous, argumentative and assumes facts not in evidence, and the present Interrogatory makes no sense. The request is also compound and is not 301 .224.DND - 00498106.DOCX 19 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOQQUI-bUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 opinions. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31: D0 YOU contend that Defendants have complied with their warranty obligations set forth in the Song-Beverly Warranty Act? RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery 0f 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. KMA objects to this Interrogatory 0n the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, argumentative and compound as to the phrase “warranty obligations.” 3. The interrogatory is not full and complete in and of itself. 4. This interrogatory is a premature request for expert witness information 0r opinions. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32: Do YOU contend that Defendants were able t0 repair all the NONCONFORMITY in the SUBJECT VEHICLE t0 conform to the applicable express warranties? RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Lnterrogatory 0n the following grounds: 1. KMA obj ects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attomey/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery of the attorney work product of either in-house 0r outside counsel. KMA’s responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. V This interrogatory seeks disclosure of information which is not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter 0f this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, 301.224.DND - 00498106DOCX x21 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AWN \OOOQGUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Civil Procedure section 2030.060 (f). SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Identify the individual(s) at whose responsibility it is t0 supervise t0 ensure that YOU are properly determining whether a vehicle should be repurchased 0r replaced pursuant t0 The Song- Beverly Warranty Act. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly board, vague and ambiguous. In responding t0 this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attomey/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery of the attorney work product 0f either in-house or outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited With this understanding. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure 0f information Which is not reasonably related t0 the issues presented by the subj ect matter 0f this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure of expert information. 4. This interrogatory potentially seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 5. This interrogatory potentially invades the privacy rights of third parties t0 this litigation. 6. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060 (f). SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Please describe with particularly how the individual(s) identified in your response t0 Special Interrogatory above perform their duties. RESPONSE: See KMA's response t0 Interrogatory No. 40, above. KMA obj ects t0 this Interrogatory on the following grounds: 301 .224.DND - 00498106.DOCX 27 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE bUJN \OOOQONUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory because it is overly board, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attomey/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery of the attorney work product 0f either in-house or outside counsel. KMA’s responses Will be limited With this understanding. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure 0f information which is not reasonably related t0 the issues presented by the subj ect matter of this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure of expert information. 4. This interrogatory potentially seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 5. This interrogatory potentially invades the privacy rights of third parties to this litigation. 6. This interrogatory is compound and contains subpans in Violation 0f Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.060 (f). SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 42: Explain with particularity all aspects 0f your investigation into whether the SUBJECT VEHICLE qualified 0r was eligible for repurchase 0r replacement pursuant to the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory 0n the following grounds: 1. KMA obj ects to this Interrogatory because it is overly board, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery 0f attomey/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery 0f the attorney work product 0f either in-house or outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure of information which is not reasonably related t0 the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, 301 .224.DND - 00498106.D0CX 28 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE LUJN \OOOQQU} 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and not reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure 0f expert information. 4. This interrogatory potentially seeks proprietary, commercially ssnsitive and confidential information. 5. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060 (f). SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 43: Identify all person(s) involved in YOUR investigation, including any individuals With whom you communicated regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects to this Interrogatory 0n the following grounds: 1. KMA obj ects to this Interrogatory because it is overly board, vague and ambiguous. In responding t0 this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attomey/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery 0f the attorney work product 0f either in-house 0r outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure 0f information which is not reasonably related t0 the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure of expert information. 4. This interrogatory potentially seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 5. This interrogatory potentially invades the privacy rights 0f third parties to this litigation. 6. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts in Violation of Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.060 (f). /// /// 301.224.DND - 00498106.D0CX 29 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE hUJN \OOOQONUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 44: Identify all DOCUMENTS consulted, reviewed and/or obtained in your investigation. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects t0 this Interrogatory as follows: 1. This interrogatory is overly board, vague and ambiguous. In responding t0 this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attorney/client communications, nor d0 Plaintiff seek the discovery of the attorney work product 0f either in- house or outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited With this understanding. 2. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060 (f). 3. This interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure 0f expert information. 4. This interrogatory potentially seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 45: Identify all individuals responsible for YOUR decision t0 not repurchase or replace the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: 1. This interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. 2. This interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege. SPECIAL INTERRQGATORY NO: 46; How many repair attempts do you believe YOU were afforded to fix the vehicle under the terms 0fYOUR warranty? RESPONSE: KMA obj ects to this Interrogatory as follows: 1. KMA objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery 0f attorney/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery of the 301.224.DND - 00498106D0CX 3O 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOflOUl-PUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 attorney work product of either in-house 0r outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure of information which is not reasonably related t0 the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. KMA objects to “repair attempts” and “afforded to fix the vehicle” as vague, ambiguous and argumentative. 4. This interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure of expert information. 5. This interrogatory potentially seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0. 47: What is YOUR definition of a “non-conformity”? RESPONSE: KMA obj ects to this Interrogatory as it seeks immaterial and irrelevant information Which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 0f admissible evidence. This Interrogatory also improperly seeks a legal conclusion. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 48: According to your definition 0f “non-confonnity”, do you believe that the SUBJECT VEHICLE ever experienced a non-conformity? RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory as it seeks immaterial and irrelevant information Which is not reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence. KMA also objects to the use of the term “nonconformity,” as it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad as to time, argumentative and assumes facts not in evidence. KMA objects to this request t0 the extent it seeks the premature disclosure of expert information. This Interrogatory also improperly seeks a legal conclusion. /// // 301.224.DND - 00498106.Docx 31 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE #WN KOOOQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 49: On what occasions d0 you believe the SUBJECT VEHICLE experienced a non- conformity according t0 your definition? RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory as it seeks immaterial and irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence. KMA also obj ects t0 the use of the term “nonconformity,” as it is vague, ambiguous, argumentative and assumes facts not in evidence. KMA objects to this request to the extent it seeks the premature disclosure of expert information. This Interrogatory also improperly seeks a legal conclusion. Moreover, Plaintiff has the burden t0 prove the subj ect vehicle contained a nonconformity. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 50: Do you contend that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was presented more than once for any same 0r similar non-conformity? RESPONSE: KMA obj ects to this Interrogatory as it seeks immaterial and irrelevant infcrmation Which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. KMA also obj ects t0 the use 0f the term “nonconformity,” as it is vague, ambiguous, argumentative and assumes facts not in evidence. KMA objects to this request to the extent it seeks the premature disclosure of expert information. Moreover, Plaintiff has the burden t0 prove the subject vehicle contained a nonconformity. SPECEAL INTERROGATORY NO. 51: Please list all Technical Service Bulletins applicable to the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including previously issues technical service bulletins that have been superseded. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects t0 this Interrogatory as follows: 1. This interrogatory is overly board, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery 0f attorney/Client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery of the attorney work product of either in- 301.224.DND - 00498106.D0CX 32 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AWN \DOOQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 house 0r outside counsel. KMA’S responses Will be limited With this understanding. 2. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060 (f). 3. This interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure 0f expert information. 4. This interrogatory potentially seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 5. KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, duplicative, and argumentative. Further, this Interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 0f admissible evidence. Plaintiff has failed to specifically identify any problems 0r complaints related t0 the subj ect vehicle which were not fully and completely repaired pursuant to the applicable warranty. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 52: Please explain why Recall DC19CK1 was issued. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory 0n the following grounds: 1. KMA obj ects t0 this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and not properly limited in time and scope. In responding t0 this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attomey/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 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 t0 lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information, and/or licensed seftware. 4. This interrogatory seeks the disclosure of personal information of individuals not associated with this litigation and thus improperly infringes on the privacy rights of those individuals; therefore, the interrogatory is also harassing, burdensome, and oppressive. 301 .224.DND - 00498106.D0CX 33 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 5. This interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney work-product doctrine and attorney-client privilege. These protected documents can generally be described as any correspondence, notes, memoranda, or reports generated by 0r for KMA's legal counsel. 6. This interrogatory also violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Ca1.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated t0 alleged complaints regarding other vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. 7. This interrogatory is burdensome and oppressive. It is intended to create an unreasonable burden on this responding party and that ultimate burden is incommensurate with any benefit to the propounding party. 8. KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory as Plaintiffs have propounded in excess of 35 special interrogatories, including subparts, in Violation 0f 2030.030, 2030.040 and 2030.060. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 53: Please explain in detail the process by which DC19CK1 was issued. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds: 1. KMA obj ects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and not properly limited in time and scope. In responding t0 this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery 0f attomey/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 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 t0 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information, and/or licensed software. 4. This interrogatory seeks the disclosure 0f personal information 0f individuals not associated With this litigation and thus improperly infringes on the privacy rights 0f those 301 .224.DND - 00498106.D0CX 34 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE KOOOQONUI-RUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 individuals; therefore, the interrogatory is also harassing, burdensome, and oppressive. 5. This interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney work-product doctrine and attorney-client privilege. These protected documents can generally be described as any correspondence, notes, memoranda, 0r reports generated by 0r for KMA's legal counsel. 6. This interrogatory also violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Ca1.App.4th 216, 61 Ca1.Rptr.2d 567.. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled t0 relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated to alleged complaints regarding other vehicles 0f the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. 7. This interrogatory is burdensome and oppressive. It is intended t0 create an unreasonable burden on this responding party and that ultimate burden is incommensurate with any benefit t0 the propounding party. 8. KMA obj ects t0 this Interrogatory as Plaintiffs have propounded in excess of 35 special interrogatories, including subparts, in Violation of 2030.030, 2030.040 and 2030.060. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 54: Please explain in detail the process by which a Technical Service Bulletin is recalled 0r superseded. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory as follows: 1. This interrogatory is overly board, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery 0f attorney/client communications, nor does Plaintif. 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 interrogatory is compound and contains subparts in Violation 0f Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.060 (f). 3. This interrogatory seeks the prema‘wre disclosure of expert information. 4. This interrogatory potentially seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 5. KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory as overly broad, immaterial, irrelevant and not 301.224.DND - 00498106DOCX 35 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE .hUJN \OOOQONUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 reasonably calculated t0 lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence. Further, Plaintiff has made n0 attempt in this improper interrogatory t0 limit the information t0 any matter at issue in this lawsuit and has even failed t0 identify any Technical Service Bulletin applicable to Plaintiff’s complaints. As such, this interrogatory is an abuse of the discovery process. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 55: Please state the total number of days out 0f service for warranty repairs. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects t0 this Interrogatory as it seeks immaterial and irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated t0 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, KMA states that this information is either already in the Plaintiff s possession or is equally available t0 the Plaintiff. KMA further obj ects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. DATED: July 16, 2020 LEHRMAN LAW GROUP KATE S. LEHRMAN JACQUELINE BRUCE CHINERY DANIELLE N. DUARTE By: /s/ ®cmz'e[[e W. @uarte Danielle N. Duarte Attorneys for Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. 301.224.DND - 00498106.D0CX 36 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE .bUJN \OOOQQLI) 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 LOS ANGELES ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of 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 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 SPECIAL 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. § 103(c)(1).) 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 0n that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course 0f business. U 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, to the electronic mail address maintained by the person(s) on 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 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 0f the State 0f California that the above is true and correct. Executed 0n July 16, 2020, at Los Angeles, California. /s/ Tfierem L'. ?Wg Theresa L. May 301 .224.DND - 00498106DOCX 37 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AWN \OOOQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE LIST KIA MOTORS AMERICA. INC./THUERK. BRYAN (K070-224)(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) dbarrvéflmylemonrightscom Jeramy Templin: jtemplin@mylemonrights.com Mela Kelly: mkelly@mylemonrights.com Ivy Flores: iflores@mylem0nrights.com 301.224.DND - 00498106DOCX 38 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE EXHIBIT 3 T Main Office THE BARRY LAW FIRM 11845 W. Olympic Boulevard Suite 1270 Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone (310) 684-5859 ♦ Facsimile (310) 862-4539 tcandiotti@my lemonrigh ts. com July 30, 2020 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL: DanieHe(mlehrmanlawgnmp.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 Plaintiffs 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 ietter. 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: "KMA 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 Inte1rngatory 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, especia11y 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 matedals 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 bless 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 infom1ation.] 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, 1 L 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 "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 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 "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. 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 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 Forn1 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 Interrogatory 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]. CCP. §§2017.010; 2030.0lO(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 interrogatories. 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 Inte1TOgatory 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 Inte1Togatory 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 teclmical 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 fu1iher 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 '1 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. 5 3. 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) 118:1469-9:1474. 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 priviieged 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. 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 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 C01p. 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 § 1 794( 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. 3 7 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 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) 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, Don/en 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 ,vas probative and not unduly prejudicial." See, Id. at 154. Don/en 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." 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 umeasonable 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 § 2017.010; 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 or diagnostic procedures that were consulted during the completion of repairs on the vehicle, in addition to repair procedures that were actually performed. In response to these requests, Defendant has raised the same frivolous objections that have been soundly addressed throughout this letter. Please withdraw your objections and provide further responses and accompanying document production. As such, Plaintiff expects further, verified responses to the Requests for Production propounded on Defendant. Thank you. REQUESTED ACTION Please provide further, verified responses within seven (7) days of the date of this letter. If you require additional time to respond, then please advise and I will accommodate any reasonable request and postpone consideration of filing any motions to compel. As you know, Plaintiff does not yet have a deadline to file motions since you have yet to serve verifications. If, however, Defendant fails to provide further responses as requested herein, or to otherwise respond, then Plaintiff will have no other alternative but to file motions to compel, reserving all rights to seek costs and sanctions as appropriate. I hope to avoid burdening the court with any discovery disputes and therefore, I look forward to resolving this directly without court intervention. Very Truly Yours, THE BARRY LAW FIRM < .. "~ L~~ ( Troy R. Candiotti, Esq. 20 EXHIBIT 4 T THE Riain Office BARRY 11845 \W. Olympic Boulevard Suite 1270 L AW Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone (310) 684-5859 o Facsimile (310) 862-4539 FIR I VI tcandiotti@mylemonrights.com September 29, 2020 VIA U.S. MAIL AND E-MAIL TO: DAN1ELLE@LEHRMANLAWGR0UP.C0M Danielle N. Duarte, Esq. Lehman Law Group 12121 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Re: Bryan Thuerk v. Kz'a Motors America, Inc. Case No: 20CV3645 78 Dear Ms. Duane: This letter serves as a fOHOW-up t0 my July 30, 2020 meet and confer letter t0 you regarding Defendant’s deficient discovery responses, and lack 0f verifications, to Plaintiff s first set ofwritten discovery responses. Despite my July 30, 2020 letter requesting verifications and a response within seven (7) days of the date 0f that letter, I still have not heard from you. Please note that if I d0 not receive a response within 7 days from the date 0f 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 Troy R. Candiotti, Esq. CC: k]ehrman@lehrmanlawgroup.com dvillegas@lehrmanlawgr0up.com EXHIBIT 5 T LWN \OOOQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEHRMAN LAW GROUP KATE S. LEHRMAN [Bar No. 123050] JACQUELINE BRUCE CHINERY [Bar N0. 187544] DANIELLE N. DUARTE [Bar No. 308402] 12121 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90025 (3 10) 91 7-4500 (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 ) [Filed: 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 FURTHER RESPONSES TO ) PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL Defendants. ) INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE ) § ) 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 Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. (“KMA”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby responds to Plaintiff s Special Interrogatories: /// /// /// 301 .224.DND - 00529970.D0CX 1 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS The subject 0f Plaintiffs Complaint is a 2019 Kia Stinger, VIN: KNAEZSLA9K6051 1 10, Which was purchased/leased on 0r about April 8, 2019. KMA did not design 0r manufacture the subject vehicle. KMA objects t0 Plaintiff" s Interrogatories to the extent 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 0f Plaintiff” s defect allegations. Such interrogatories are overly broad, unduly burdensome and seek information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence in this case. KMA objects t0 Plaintiff s Interrogatories to the extent they may call for the production 0f proprietary information, trade secrets 0r other confidential business and commercial information, public dissemination 0fwhich would place KMA at a commercial disadvantage. KMA objects t0 Plaintiff s Interrogatories to the extent 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 attomey-client privilege or work product doctrine, and KMA hereby preserves all such privileges. KMA objects to the instructions and definitions in Plaintiff s interrogateries t0 the extent they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seek to impose duties 0r requirements beyond those required by the Cede 0f Civil Procedure. KMA further objects t0 Plaintiff s interrogatories t0 the extent they seek “any” or “all” records or documents 0f a particular description 0r designation. KMA is only required to make a diligent search of records kept in the ordinary course ofbusiness and those locations likely t0 contain relevant information and has done so. Finally, neither the failure t0 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. 301.224.DND - 00529970.D0CX 2 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Without waiving the foregoing objections, and incorporating them into each of the following interrogatories, KMA responds t0 Plaintiff‘s Special Interrogatories as follows: RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Did YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF receive any COMMUNICATION fiom Plaintiff regarding the service of the SUBJECT VEHICLE? (“YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF”, “YOU”, and/or “YOUR” include Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., its agents, its employees, its insurance companies, their agents, their employees, its attorneys, its accountants, its investigators, and/or anyone else acting on its behalf. “COMMUNICATION” shall mean any 0r all transmittals 0f information, whether oral or reduced t0 writing, Whether handwritten, typewritten, tape-recorded, or produced by electronic data processing, irrespective 0fhow conveyed [e.g., telephone, United States mail, electronic mail, private mail, courier service, facsimile transmittal, face-to-face contact] including but not limited to: inquiries, discussions, conversations, negotiations, agreements, understandings, meetings, telephone conversations, letters, notes, telegrams, advertisements, 0r other forms 0f verbal intercourse, whether oral or written. “SUBJECT VEHICLE” shall refer to the motor vehicle that is the subject of this lawsuit as identified in the complaint filed in this action. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory as follows: 1. This interregatcry seeks disclosure of information which is not reasonably related t0 the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated t0 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 2. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 3. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject t0 and Without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds 301.224.DND - 00529970.D0CX 3 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOQQUl-bUJNr-A NNNNNNNNNHHHHHr-AHr-Ar-AH OOQONLh-bWNHOOOOflom-bWNr-‘O as follows: Yes. Pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiffto the Consumer Assistance Center Case Reports from which the date(s) and substance of the communication can be found. Copies 0f Consumer Assistance Center Case reports Will be produced, subject t0 entry 0f an appropriate Protective Order in this case. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: If the response to Interrogatory No. 2 is in the affirmative, state the date(s) 0f each COMMUNICATION. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory as follows: 1. This interrogatory seeks disclosure 0f information which is not reasonably related t0 the issues presented by the subject matter 0f this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 2. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 3. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and Without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: January 13, 2020. KMA further answers this interrogatory pursuant to Code 0f Civil Pracedure section 2030.230, and refers Plaintiff to the Consumer Assistance Center Case Reports from which the date(s) and substance 0f the communication can be found. Copies 0fConsumer Assistance Center Case reports Will be produced, subject t0 entry 0f an appropriate Protective Order in this case. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: If the response to Interrogatory N0. 2 is in the affirmative, state the substance ofeach COMMUNICATION. /// 301 .224.DND - 00529970.D0CX 4 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AWN \OOOQONUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory as follows: 1. This interrogatory seeks disclosure of information Which is not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter 0f this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated t0 lead to the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 2. This interrogatory seeks proprietary,.commercia11y sensitive and confidential information. 3. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject t0 and without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA answers this interrogatory pursuant t0 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, and refers Plaintiff t0 the Consumer Assistance Center Case Reports fiom which the date(s) and substance of the communication can be found. Copies of Consumer Assistance Center Case reports will be produced, subject t0 entry 0f an appropriate Protective Order in this case. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Ifthe response to Interrogatory No. 2 is in the affirmative, IDENTIFY all PERSONS With knowledge of each COMMUNICATION. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory as follows: 1. This interrogatory seeks disclosure 0f information which is not reasonably related t0 the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and is inelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 2. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 3. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA filrther responds 301 .224.DND - 00529970.D0CX 5 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOQQUI-PUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 as follows: KMA answers this interrogatory pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, and refers Plaintiff to the Consumer Assistance Center Case Reports fiom which the date(s), identities of persons, and substance 0f the communication can be found. Copies 0fConsumer Assistance Center Case reports will be produced, subject to entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: If the response t0 Interrogatory No. 2 is in the affirmative, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS regarding, relating, 0r pertaining to each COMMUNICATION. (When referring to a DOCUMENT, “IDENTIFY” shall mean to state the type 0f document [e.g., letter, journals, record, memorandum, repair order], its date, title, and identifying number, the general subject matter of the document, its present location, as well as each person With prepared it, each person for whom it was prepared, the last known address of each person who presently has custOdy of the original 0r copies thereof. “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” shall mean a writing, as defined in Evidence Code §250, and shall include the original 0r a copy of handwriting, typewriting, printing, Photostats, photographs, electronically stored information, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing and form 0f communicating 0r representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds 0r symbols, or combination 0f them.) RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory as follows: 1. This interrogatory seeks disclosure of information which is not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter 0f this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 2. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 3. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject t0 and without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds 301 .224.DND - 00529970.D0CX 6 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE .bUJN \OOOQQU} as follows: KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the Consumer Assistance Center Case Reports fiom which the date(s) and substance of the communication can be found. Copies 0f Consumer Assistance Center Case reports will be produced, subject to entry 0f an appropriate Protective Order in this case. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Did YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF receive any COMMUNICATION fiom any manufacturer-authorized dealership regarding the service of the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory as follows: 1. KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding t0 this interrogatory, 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 0r outside counsel. KMA’s responses will be limited With this understanding. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure of information which is not reasonably related t0 the issues presented by the subject matter 0f this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated t0 lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts in Violation 0f C.C.P. § 2030.060(f). 4. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject t0 and Without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: Insofar as KMA understands Plaintiff” s interrogatory, and pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the Techline Assistance Center Case 301.224.DND - 00529970.DOCX 7 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Reports, which contains the content 0f any contacts KMA has had with Plaintiff and any employees 0f any dealership or any repair facility regarding the subject vehicle. Subject t0 entry 0f an appropriate Protective Order in this case, KMA will produce these documents in response t0 Plaintiff s First Request for Production of Documents. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and as such KMA reserves the right to amend this response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8: If the response to Interrogatory N0. 7 is in the affirmative, state the date(s) 0f each COMMUNICATION. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory as follows: 1. KMA objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attorney/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery 0f the attorney work product 0f either in-house 0r outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited With this understanding. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure of information which is not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter 0f this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts in Violation 0f C.C.P. § 2030.060(t). 4. This interrogatcry seeks proprietary, comm€rcia11y sensitive and confidential information. FURTHER RESPONSE: as follows: Inso far as KMA understands Plaintiff” s interrogatory, and pursuant t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the Techline Assistance Center Case Reports, which contains the content of any contacts KMA has had with Plaintiff and any 301 .224.DND - 00529970.DOCX 8 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOQQUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNHr-ap-db-AHb-‘r-ar-ar-Ar-A OOQCNM$UJNWO©OOQ©Ulfib~>NHO employees 0f any dealership 0r any repair facility regarding the subject vehicle. Subject t0 entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case, KMA will produce these documents in response to Plaintiff s First Request for Production 0f Documents. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and as such KMA reserves the right to amend this response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0. 9: If the response to Interrogatory N0. 7 is in the affirmative, state the substance 0f each COMMUNICATION. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory as follows: 1. KMA objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. 1n responding t0 this interrogatory, 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 0r outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure of information which is not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated t0 lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts in Violation of C.C.P. § 2030.060(t). 4. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject t0 and without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: Insofar as KMA understands Plaintiff” s interrogatory, and pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the Techline Assistance Center Case Reports, which contains the content 0f any contacts KMA has had with Plaintiff and any employees 0f any dealership or any repair facility regarding the subject vehicle. Subject t0 entry 301.224.DND - 00529970.DOCX 9 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE KOOOQONUl-hUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0f an appropriate Protective Order in this case, KMA will produce these documents in response to Plaintiff s First Request for Production 0f Documents. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and as such KMA reserves the right t0 amend this response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10: If the response t0 Interrogatory N0. 7 is in the affirmative, IDENTIFY all PERSONS With knowledge of each COMMUNICATION. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory as follows: 1. KMA objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding t0 this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attorney/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery 0f the attorney work product of either in-house or outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure of information which is not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter 0f this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated t0 lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts in Violation 0f C.C.P. § 2030.060(t). 4. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject t0 and Without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: Insofar as KMA understands Plaintiff’s interrogatory, and pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the Techline Assistance Center Case Reports, which contains the content 0f any contacts KMA has had With Plaintiff and any employees of any dealership or any repair facility regarding the subject vehicle. Subject t0 entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case, KMA Will produce these documents in response 301 .224.DND - 00529970.D0CX 10 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE #UJN \OOOQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 t0 Plaintiff” s First Request for Production of Documents. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and as such KMA reserves the right to amend this response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11: If the response to Interrogatory No. 7 is in the affirmative, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS ‘ regarding, relating, or pefiaining t0 each COMMUNICATION. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory as follows: 1. KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attorney/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery of the attorney work product 0f either in-house or outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure 0f information Which is not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter 0f this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated t0 lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts in Violation of C.C.P. § 20300600). 4. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject t0 and Without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: Insofar as KMA understands Plaintiff” s interrogatory, and pursuant t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff to the Techline Assistance Center Case Reports, Which contains the content 0f any contacts KMA has had With Plaintiff and any employees of any dealership or any repair facility regarding the subject vehicle. Subject to entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case, KMA Will produce these documents in response t0 Plaintiff” s First Request for Production 0f Documents. Investigation and discovery are 301 .224.DND - 00529970.D0CX 1 1 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOflOUI-PUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ongoing and as such KMA reserves the right to amend this response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12: State the number 0f service requests that Plaintiff made pursuant t0 the Defendant’s warranty. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory as follows: 1. KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attorney/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery 0f the attorney work product of either in-house or outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure of information which is not reasonably related t0 the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request is vague and ambiguous with respect to the phrase “service requests.” 5. This request seeks the premature discovery 0f expert witness information 0r opinions. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject t0 and without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: Insofar as KMA understands Plaintiff s interrogatory, and pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the service records (Capitol Kia invcice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia of Fremont invoice no. 338097), which KMA believes are in Plaintiff s possession. KMA also refers Plaintiff t0 the Warranty Claim History, which contain confidential and proprietary 301 .224.DND - 00529970.D0CX 12 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \oooqoxmbwmpa [\Jh-Ah-dp-‘p-Ab-nb-dp-tr-AHH OOOOQGNU‘I-bUJNh-dc 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Fremont invoice n0. 338097) that KMA requested from the independent authorized dealerships. KMA also refers Plaintiff t0 the Warranty Claim Inquiry, which contains confidential and proprietary information, and thus will only be produced if Plaintiff agrees to the entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and as such KMA reserves the right t0 amend this response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: IDENTIFY all PERSONS who performed warranty repairs upon the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory as follows: 1. KMA objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery 0f attorney/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery of the attorney work product 0f either in-house or outside counsel. KMA’s responses Will be limited With this understanding. 2. KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory on the grounds that this information is as equally available to Plaintiff as to KMA. KMA objects t0 this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and not reasonably calculated t0 lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 3. This request is vague and ambiguous with respect t0 the phrase “warranty repairs.” FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA fithher responds as follows: Insofar as KMA understands Plaintiff“ s interrogatory, and pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the service records (Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia 0f Fremont invoice n0. 338097) that KMA requested fiom the independent authorized dealerships. See also KMA’S ReSponse to Form Interrogatory, Set One, No. 12.1. Investigation and discovery 301.224.DND - 00529970.DOCX 14 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AWN \OOONONLII are ongoing and as such KMA reserves the right to amend this response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15: IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS relating 0r pertaining t0 the warranty repairs performed upon the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory as follows: 1. KMA objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding t0 this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attorney/client communications, nor d0 Plaintiff seeks the discovery 0f the attorney work product of either in-house or outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory on the grounds that this information is as equally available to Plaintiff as t0 KMA. KMA objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and not reasonably calculated t0 lead to the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory seeks information that incorporates trade secrets, and confidential and/or proprietary information. 4. This request is vague and ambiguous With respect t0 the phrase “warranty repairs.” 5. This request seeks the premature discovery of expert witness information or opinions. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject t0 and without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: Insofar as KMA understands Plaintiff” s interrogatory, and pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the service records (Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia of Fremont invoice no. 338097) that KMA requested fiom the independent authorized dealerships. KMA also refers Plaintiff t0 the Warranty Claim Inquiry and Techline Assistance Center Case 301.224.DND - 00529970Docx 15 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOVONUw-waH NNNNNNNNNr-dI-dx-Ab-Ar-Ap-Ay-dt-Ap-dr-A OOQQKJ‘IngNr-dooooflo‘smgwwh‘o as well as KMA'S response to Form Interrogatory 12. 1. KMA also refers Plaintiff to the Warranty Claim Inquiry, Consumer Assistance Center Case Reports and Techline Assistance Center Case Reports, Which contain confidential and proprietary information, and thus Will only be produced if Plaintiff agrees to the entry 0f an appropriate Protective Order in this case. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and as such KMA reserves the right t0 amend this response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0. 24: IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS regarding, relating, or pertaining to Plaintiff’s n0tice(s) 0f NONCONFORMITY to YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory as follows: 1. KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attorney/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery 0f the attorney work product 0f either in-house or outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited With this understanding. 2. This interrogatory potentially seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 3. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in its use of the term “nonconformities.” Use 0f this term in the interrogatory assumes that the alleged defects in the subject vehicle substantially impair its use, value, or safety. This responding party denies that this is true. 4. This interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure 0f expert information. 5. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts in Violation of C.C.P. § 2030.060(t). 6. This interrogatory is not filll and complete in and of itself. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject t0 and without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds 301.224.DND - 00529970.D0CX 24 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMEIUCA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOQONLII-RUJNH NHr-Ap-Ar-tHHr-Ar-dr-dr-A OKOOOQQUILUJNF-‘O 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 as follows: Inso far as KMA understands Plaintiff s interrogatory, and pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the service records (Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia of Fremont invoice n0. 338097) that KMA requested from the independent authorized dealerships. KMA also refers Plaintiff to the Warranty Claim Inquiry, Consumer Assistance Center Case Reports and Techline Assistance Center Case Reports, which contains confidential and proprietary information, and thus will only be produced if Plaintiff agrees to the entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and as such KMA reserves the right to amend this response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27: List all Special Service Messages and/or Technical Service Bulletins which relate to each NONCONFORMITY in the SUBJECT VEHICLE, as alleged in the Plaintiff‘s Complaint filed in this action. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this Interrogatory bacause it 1's overly board, vague and ambiguous. In responding t0 this interrogatory, 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 interrogatory seeks disclosure of information which is not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. ‘4. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in its use 0f the term “nonconformities.” Use 0f this term in the interrogatory assumes that the alleged defects in the 301 .224.DND - 00529970.D0CX 25 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \DOOQONUI-bwwr-A NNNNNNNNNHHHr-ir-Ap-AHHHH OOQQLJI-AUJNh-‘OKOOOQONUI-PUJNb-‘O subject vehicle substantially impair its use, value, 0r safety. This responding party denies that this is true. 5. This interrogatory is not full and complete in and of itself. 6. This interrogatory is impermissibly compound and contains subparts. 7. This interrogatory is a premature request for expert witness information. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject t0 and without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: Insofar as KMA understands Plaintiff s interrogatory, and pursuant t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure §2030.230, KMA will produce technical service bulletins, if any, related t0 the issues alleged by Plaintiff t0 exist with the subject vehicle. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and as such KMA reserves the right to amend this response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28: D0 YOU contend that the NONCONFORMITY in the SUBJECT VEHICLE does not substantially impair the value, use, or safety of the SUBJECT VEHICLE? RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory 0n the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this Interrogatory 0n the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, argumentative and presupposes the existence of a “nonconformity.” KMA also objects to the use of the term “nonconformity,” as it is vague, ambiguous, argumentative and assumes facts not in evidence, and the present Interrogatory makes n0 sense. The request is also compcund and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 0f admissible evidence. The interrogatory is not full and complete in and 0f itself, and is a premature request for expert witness information or opinions. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA denies the existence of a “nonconformity.” Thus, KMA does not make this 301.224.DND - 00529970.DOCX 26 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOQQUI-PUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 are in Plaintiff s possession. KMA’S documents contain confidential and proprietary information, and will be produced if Plaintiff agrees to the entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and as such KMA reserves the right to amend this response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30: If the answer to Interrogatory No. 28 is in the affirmative, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that suppofi YOUR contention. RESPONSE: See KMA'S response t0 Interrogatory N0. 28, above. KMA objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this Interrogatory 0n the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, argumentative and presupposes the existence of a “nonconformity.” KMA also objects to the use 0f the term “nonconformity,” as it is vague, ambiguous, argumentative and assumes facts not in evidence, and the present Interrogatory makes n0 sense. The request is also compound and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 0f admissible evidence. The interrogatory is not full and complete in and 0f itself, and is a premature request for expert witness information 0r opinions. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: See KMA'S respense to Interrogatery N0. 28, above. KMA denies the existence of a “nonconformity.” KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the service records and Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, copies 0fWhich are in Plaintiff s possession. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and as such KMA reserves the right t0 amend this response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32: D0 YOU contend that Defendants were able t0 repair all the NONCONFORMITY in the SUBJECT VEHICLE t0 conform t0 the applicable express warranties? /// 301.224.DND - 00529970D0CX 28 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOVQUI-PUJNH [\Jr-dr-dr-ab-Ar-Av-Ab-ir-Ah-dr-d OOOOQQUI-PUJNHO [\J pa 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery 0f 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 interrogatory seeks disclosure of information which is not reasonably related t0 the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in its use 0f the term “nonconformities.” Use of this term in the interrogatory assumes that the alleged defects in the subject vehicle substantially impair its use, value, 0r safety. This responding party denies that this is true. 5. The interrogatory is not full and complete in and of itself. 6. This interrogatory is a premature request for expert witness information or opinions. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject t0 and without waiving its previously asserted objections? KMA fixther responds as follows: KMA contends that all 0f Plaintiff s verifiable concerns covered by warranty have been successfully repaired. KMA'S investigation and discovery are continuing. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and as such KMA reserves the right to amend this response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33: If the answer t0 Interrogatory N0. 32 is in the affirmative, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention. 301.224.DND - 00529970.D0CX 29 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOQONUI-bUJNH N N N N N N N [\J [\J >--* r-t y-a >--\ b-a r-A )---A >-A v-d r-a 00 fl ON U1 $ U) [\J F" O \O 00 N O\ kl} h U) N P-‘ O as follows: See KMA's response to Interrogatory No. 34, above. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and as such KMA reserves the right to amend this response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 37: Does Defendant maintain a third-party dispute resolution process that complies ~ not substantially complies - With the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and California Civil Code §1793.22(d)? RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory as irrelevant and immaterial as Plaintiff has asserted claims only under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act and thus, the only issues relate t0 the conformance 0f the subject vehicle t0 the applicable warranty. KMA further objects that this Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous with respect t0 the phrase “complies - not substantially complies.” KMA also objects to the extent this Interrogatory call for a legal conclusion. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject t0 and Without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: Yes. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 39: List all warranties provided t0 Plaintiff at the time 0f sale of the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this Interrofiatory because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding t0 this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attorney/Client communications, nor do Plaintiff seeks the discovery of the attorney work product 0f either in-house or outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited With this understanding. 2. This interrogatory seeks disclosure 0f information Which is not reasonably related t0 the issues presented by the subject matter ofthis litigation and is irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence. 301 .224.DND - 00529970.D0CX 34 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 3. This interrogatory potentially seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This interrogatory is not full and complete in and of itself. 5. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts in Violation of Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.060 (f). FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject t0 and without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA states that a written limited express warranty accompanied the vehicle when it was originally sold by this Defendant to the authorized Kia dealership. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual for the subject vehicle. Said document speaks for itself. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and as such KMA reserves the right to amend this response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 44: Identify all DOCUMENTS consulted, reviewed and/or obtained in your investigation. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory as follows: 1. This interrogatory is overly board, vague and ambiguous. In responding t0 this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attorney/client communications, nor d0 Plaintiff seek the discovery 0f the attorney work product of either in- house 0r Qutsidv counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. This interrogatory is compound and contains subparts in Violation of Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.060 (f). 3. This interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure of expert information. 4. This interrogatory potentially seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. FURTHER RESPONSE: Without waiving and subject to its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds 301.224.DND - 00529970.DOCX 35 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE .hUJN \OOOQO‘xU‘I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 as follows: KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales contract and the service records for the subject vehicle. Also, the Warranty and Consumers Information Manual, a copy ofwhich is in Plaintiff’s possession, which will be produced in response to Plaintiff“ s First Request for Production of Documents. The Warranty History Inquiry, Consumer Assistance Center Case Reports and the Techline Assistance Center Case Reports, copies of which will be produced subject to entry 0f an appropriate Protective Order in this case. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 45: Identify all individuals responsible for YOUR decision t0 not repurchase or replace the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: 1. This interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. 2. This interrogatory seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege. FURTHER RESPONSE: Without waiving and subject to its previously asserted objections, KMA fithher responds as follows: Assuming as a reasonable interpretation that this Request is asking about any pre- litigation decision t0 not repurchase 0r replace the subject vehicle, KMA is unable to respond because Plaintiff did not request a repurchase 0r replacement prior to filing the instant action, and tharefore, KMA did not make a decision to not repurchase or replace the subject vehicle. KMA also refers Plaintiff t0 its response t0 Form Interrogatory No. 12. 1. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and as such KMA reserves the right t0 amend this response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 46: How many repair attempts do you believe YOU were afforded t0 fix the vehicle under the terms ofYOUR warranty? RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory as follows: 3o 1 .224.DND - 00529970.D0CX 36 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE \OOOflQUl-bUJNr-A Nr-Ap-‘r-Ap-«h-dv-AHy-dt-AH OOOONONUIAUJNI-‘O 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 as follows: None. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 50: D0 you contend that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was presented more than once for any same 0r similar non-conformity? RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Interrogatory as it seeks immaterial and inelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. KMA also objects to the use of the term “nonconformity,” as it is vague, ambiguous, argumentative and assumes facts not in evidence. KMA objects to this request to the extent it seeks the premature disclosure of expert information. Moreover, Plaintiff has the burden to prove the subject vehicle contained a nonconformity. FURTHER RESPONSE: Without waiving and subject t0 its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA denies the existence of a “non-conformity.” Thus, KMA does not make this contention. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 51: Please list all Technical Service Bulletins applicable t0 the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including previously issues technical service bulletins that have been superseded. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Interrogatcry as fellows: 1. This interrogatory is overly board, vague and ambiguous. In responding t0 this interrogatory, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not sack the discovery 0f attorney/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery 0f the attorney work product of either in- house 0r outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited With this understanding. 2. This interrogatory is ccmpound and contains subparts in Violation of Code 0f Civil Procedure section 2030.060 (f). 3. This interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure 0f expert information. 301.224.DND - 00529970.D0CX 39 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE bWN \DOOQONUI 4. This interrogatory potentially seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 5. KMA objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, duplicative, and argumentative. Further, this Interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff has failed t0 specifically identify any problems or complaints related t0 the subject vehicle Which were not fully and completely repaired pursuant to the applicable warranty. FURTHER RESPONSE: Without waiving and subject t0 its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: Pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure §2030.230, KMA will produce technical service bulletins, if any, related t0 the warrantable issues alleged by Plaintiff t0 exist with the subject vehicle during his ownership. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 55: Please state the total number 0f days out of service for warranty repairs. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Interrogatory as it seeks immaterial and irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated t0 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, KMA states that this information is either already in the Plaintiff’s possession 0r is equally available to the Plaintiff. KMA further objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. FURTHER RESPONSE: Without waiving and subject t0 its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: /// /// /// /// /// 301.224.DND - 00529970.DOCX 4O 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE LWN \OOOQO‘in 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.230, KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the service records that KMA requested from the independent authorized dealerships (Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia ofFremont invoice no. 338097). KMA also refers Plaintiff to the Warranty Claim History Inquiry and Consumer Assistance Center Case Reports, which contain confidential and proprietary information, and thus Will only be produced if Plaintiff agrees t0 the entry 0f an appropriate Protective Order in this case. DATED: November 10, 2020 LEHRMAN LAW GROUP KATE S. LEHRMAN JACQUELINE BRUCE CHINERY DANIELLE N. DUARTE By: /s/ @am’efle W. Quarte Danielle N. Duarte Attorneys for Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. 301.224.DND - 00529970.D0CX 41 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE KOOOQQMJ>UJNH Nr-At-AHHr-dh-Ay-dr-Ay-lr-A OOOOQONUI-RUJNHO 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFICATION TO FOLLOW 301 .224.DND - 00529970.D0CX 42 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE OOOQQUI-DUJNy-a NNNNNNNNNHHr-Ap-AHHHHr-‘r-A OOQCNLh-gWNF-‘OQOOQQU‘IAUJNHO 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 to 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 SPECIAL 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 to be delivered by courier, with next day service, t0 the offices of the addressees. (C.C.P. § 1013(c)(d).) BY FACSIMILE: (COP. § 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 firm’s practice of 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. H 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, to the electronic mail address maintained by the person(s) on 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 0f perjury under the laws of the State 0f California that the above is true and correct. Executed 0n November 10, 2020 at Los Angeles, California. /s/ TM'Sfion 7703M Tra’Shon Pugh 301.224.DND - 00529970.D0CX 43 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE hWN \OOOQONUI 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) dbarrv@mvlemonrights.com Jeramy Templin: jtemplin@mylemonrights.com Mela Kelly: mkelly@mylemonrights.com Ivy Flores: iflores@mylemonrights.com 301 .224.DND - 00529970.D0CX 44 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE EXHIBIT 6 T LehrmanLawfimuu NE 12121 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD - SUITE 1300 Arm“RNEYS AT LAW FACSIMILE (3 1 0) 91 76677 LOS ANGELES’ CALIFORNIA 90025 www. lehrmanlawgroup. com December 9, 2020 Via U.S. Mail David N. Barry, Esq. THE BARRY LAW FIRM 11845 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 1270 Les Angela‘s, CA 90064 Re: Bryan Thuerk v. Kia Motors America, Inc. Dear Counsel: Enclosed please find defendant Kia Motors America, Inc.’s Verifications t0 plaintiffs From Interrogatoriess Request for Production of Documents? Request for Admissions and Special Interrogatories, set one. Smcerely yours, a 1W: ’5 ,1 Brian Entzminger Paralegal Enclosures 301 .213.BT - 00479281 .DOCX CORPORATE VERIFICATION Bryan Thuerk vs. Kia Motors America, Inc. Case No. 20CV364578, Santa Clara County, California l, DEBBIE AVALOS, declare: i am a paraiegal within the iega} department of KIA MOTORS AMERICA, ENC, and ! 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, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL 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 California that the foregoing is true and correct: Executed at Long Beach, California on this 8th day of December, 2020. (Deborah Amm DEBBIE AVALOS Kia Motors America, Inc. 301.224 . - 00532858,DOCX EXHIBIT 7 I THE Main Office BARRY 118-45 \V’. Olympic Boulevard Suite 1270 L AW Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone (310) 684-5859 O Facsimile (310) 862-4539 F1R l \ / I e\\r11itman@mylem0nrights.com January 4, 2021 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL: .fifimigfiaféiiighr233mfiawgmumwm; Egém?mzzsiéafinéehrmméawgwmmm, gaiagmm aazauégfigg wwgwmwmywflw Kate S. Lehrman, Esq. Danielle N. 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 N0: 20CV3645 78 Dear Counsel: I am in receipt 0f your Client, Defendant Kia Motors America, Inefs (“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, 20205 which was served by mail 0n December 9, 2020. This letter serves as my effort to meet and confer with you t0 informally resolve discovery disputes created by deficiencies in those responses, as required by the Code osz'vz'Z 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 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 calcuiate t0 lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence." CCP § 20] 7.010. 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 t0 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: "KMA 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 <~f either in-house or outside counsel. KMA 's responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. This request seeks disclosure of materials vvhich 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 of 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 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. 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 F onn 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 Wananty 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. 11 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. 11 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-Beverly 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 al1 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 CA CC Rs without a Protective Order. Defendant's 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, 10, 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, Defendanfs 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.CP. §§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. Piaintiff 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 fm1her 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 Interrogatory 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 interrogatory, which is entirely proper. Surely KMA already 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 Intenogatory 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 11as 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 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 further 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 203 l.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 2031.060(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, fu1iher 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 further production is 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 further 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 relevant 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) 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 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 "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 Plaintiff,s 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, 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 nreasonably 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. Pac(fic 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 perf01med 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 4 7 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 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. 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 I I I I I I II II I I I I I I 17 REQUESTED ACTION Please provide fufiher, 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 to compel. As you know, there was n0 deadline for a motion t0 compel further responses until the responses were verified. If, however, Defendant fails t0 provide further responses as requested herein, 0r to otherwise respond, then Plaintiff will have n0 other alternative but t0 file motions to 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 t0 resolving this directly without court intervention. Very Truly Yours, THE BARRY LAW FIRM Erik Whitman, Esq]. 18 .bUJN OOONGM 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 of California. I am over the age 0f eighteen (18) years and not a party to 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 SPECIAL 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 t0: [] [1 [1 [X] [X] PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST (MAIL) I am "readily familiar" with the legal department’s practice for collection and processing 0f correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal service 0n that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date 0r postage meter date is more 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 or 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. (PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused the above described document to be personally served on the interested parties noted below. (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I caused such document t0 be delivered by electronic transmission t0 the addresses and offices 0f the addressee listed on the Service List. (STATE) I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws 0f the State 0f California that the above is true and correct. Megan Hoerman NAME PROOF OF SERVICE [\J \OOOQONUI-bw 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST THUERK V. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. CASE # 20CV364578 Kate Lehrman, Esq. Danielle N. Duarte, Esq. danielle@lehrmanlawgr0up.com Lehrman Law Group 12121 Wilshire B1Vd., Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90025 CC: kiehrmanfcbiehrmamiawgroup‘com danielle@lehrmanlawgr0up.com Attorneys for Defendant, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. PROOF OF SERVICE