Motion CompelCal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 3, 2020OOVQ \O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ELIZABETH QUINN, ESQ. (SBN 208919) . ERIK WHITMAN, ESQ. (SBN 297397) 3y sutperfs: C°urél°f CA’ THE BARRY LAW FIRM °"“ Y ° anta a’a’ 11845 w. Olympic Blvd, Suite 1270 0n 1/28/2021 3=56 PM L05 Angeles, CA 90064 Reviewed By: Tunisia Turner Telephone: 310.684.5859 Case #20CV364578 Facsimile: 310.862.4539 Envelope: 5735585 Attorneys for Plaintiff, BRYAN THUERK SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA BRYAN THUERK, an individual, case N0_ zocv364578 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND Plaintiff, MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO V, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 1-9, 11, 13-21, 23, 30, 31, AND 33-51; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., A ERIK WHITMAN, WITH EXHIBITS California Corporation; and DOES 1 through [Concurrently Filed with CRC 3.1345 Separate Statement ofltems in Dispute] 20, 1ncluswe, Date: 6-1 _21 Defendants. Time: 9:00 a.m. 9:00am Dept: 21 Dept 19 Action Filed: March 3, 2020 Trial Date: None Assignedfor allpurposes t0 the Honorable Thang N. Barrett in Dept. 21 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on 5-1-21 , 2021 at 9:00 a.m. or as soon 1 9 thereafter as counsel may be heard in in Department 2i 0f the above-entitled court located at 161 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113, Plaintiff Bryan Thuerk (“Plaintiff”) will move this Court for an Order compelling Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. to provide verified, supplemental -1 _ pLAINTIFF’s NOTICE 0F MOTION AND MOTION To COMPEL DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES To REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Nos. 1-9, 11, 13-21, 23, 30, 31, AND 33-51; MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION 0F ERIK WHITMAN, WITH EXHIBITS responses to Requests for Production 1-9, 11, 13-21, 23, 30, 31, and 33-51. This motion is made pursuant to California Code osz'vz'l Procedure §§ 2030.010, 2030.030 and 2030.290 and on the grounds that Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. has, without substantial justification, failed to provide full and complete responses Requests for Production 1-9, 11, 13-21, 23, 30, 31, and 33-51. This motion is based 0n the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the attached Declaration of Erik Whitman, and the exhibits attached thereto, the supporting Separate Statement OONQ \O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 under rule 3.1345 0f the Rules of 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 By: THE BARRY LAW FIRM ///Vyfl /"~WW_ I _ J/"fl / y”. \ V f éanMw-7vawwwvmw 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 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 1~9, ll, 13-21, 23, 30, 31, AND 33-51; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ERIK WHITMAN, WITH EXHIBITS OONQ \O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS, AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION This Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Lemon Law”) lawsuit stems from Plaintiff Bryan Thuerk purchase of a 2019 Kia Stinger, VIN KNAEZSLA9K6051 1 10, (“Subject Vehicle” 0r “Vehicle”). The Vehicle was manufactured and warranted by Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. (“KMA”) Along with the purchase 0f the Vehicle, Defendant expressly warranted to fix or repair any defects in workmanship or materials for fivé (5) years or 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 to timely investigate or meaningfully respond to Plaintiff’s concerns in compliance with the Song-Beverly Act, Plaintiff was left with no Viable options but to file suit. Plaintiff s suit alleges breach of warranty claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and requests that the Subject Vehicle be repurchased, that Plaintiff be awarded appropriate damages and attorneys’ fees as allowed by the statute and requests a civil penalty in an amount not 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 to compel is necessary because Defendant failed to provide Code-compliant substantive responses and document production to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production Nos. 1-9, 11, 13-21, 23, 30, 31, and 33-51. As detailed in Plaintiff’s CRC 3.1345 Separate Statement, KMA’S responses t0 the Requests at issue are incomplete, evasive and d0 not comply with the Code and there is good cause for production of the documents sought. Additionally, KMA has failed to provide any document production. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant Kia t0 provide verified, supplemental responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1-9, 11, 13-21, 23, 30, 31, and 33-51. III. THIS MOTION IS TIMELY AND PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT Plaintiff’s motion is timely. Plaintiff received Defendant’s unverified responses t0 Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, on July 16, 2020, as indicated on the proof 0f service for KMA’s responses. Declaration 0f Erik Whitman (“Whitman Decl.”), Exhibit 2. However, PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 1-9, ll, 13-21, 23, 30, 31, AND 33-51; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ERIK WHITMAN, WITH EXHIBITS A QQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 verifications for these responses were absent and were never received. On November 10, 2020, Defendant served unverified supplemental responses t0 Plaintiff‘s discovery, as indicated on the proof 0f service for KMA’s supplemental responses. See Exhibit 2. On December 9, 2020, Defendant KMA mailed the corresponding verifications to their supplemental responses. Pursuant to Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 and amended section 2030.300 (c) of the California Code osz'vil Procedure, KMA’s unverified responses are legally ineffective until the verifications are provided. Thus, the 45-day deadline in which to file a motion t0 compel further responses is not triggered until verifications are served.1 As such, this motion is timely filed. IV. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BASIS FOR RELIEF SOUGHT Plaintiff served Defendant KMA with a set of Requests for Production 0f Documents on June 11, 2020. See Exhibit “1.” Defendant KMA served its discovery responses by electronic mail on July 16, 2020. See Exhibit “2.” However, these responses were not verified, and KMA did not produce any documents. On July 30, 2020, Plaintiff 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, and requested that DefendantKMA verify their responses. Plaintiff asked Defendant to 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 on 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. On November 10, 2020, Defendant KMA served unverified further responses to written discovery. See, Exhibit “5.”_ 1 In light oprpletorz v. Superior Court, supra, this important clarification to the Discovery Act was the result of AB 1183 which amended Code 0f Civil Procedure sections 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), and 2033.290(c) to reflect that motions to compel further responses from interrogatories, inspection demands, or requests for admissions d0 not need to be filed until 45 days after verified responses are scflved. AB 1183 became law on June 24, 2013. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 1-9, 1], 13-21, 23, 30, 31, AND 33-51; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ERIK WHITMAN, WITH EXHIBITS \OOONQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On December 9, 2020, Defendant KMA mailed the verifications t0 their further responses t0 written discovery. See, Exhibit “6.” On January 4, 2021, Plaintiff served a meet and confer letter, addressing the deficiencies in KMA’s responses, and supplemental responses, t0 Plaintiff’s written discovery. See, Exhibit “7.” No response was received. As 0f this date, Defendant has refused to provide further Code-compliant responses t0 the Interrogatories at issue in this Motion. Thus, Plaintiff Was forced to file the instant Motion in order to protect his statutory motion deadline and to preserve ahd 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 to the items at issue sufficiently in advance of the hearing to allow Plaintiff s meaningful review. V. KIA MOTORS AMERICA. INC. SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE A FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 1-9, 11, 13-21, 23, 30, 31, and 33-51. California Code ofCivil Procedure § 203 1 .3 1 0 (a) provides in pertinent part: (a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any 0f the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation 0f inability t0 comply is inadequate, incomplete, 0r evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. * * * As shown in Plaintiff’s accompanying Rule 3.1345 Separate Statement, KMA’s responses t0 Requests Nos. 1-9, 11, 13-21, 23, 30, 31, and 33-51, are not complete and the corresponding production is insufficient. Defendant KMA should therefore be required t0 provide a supplemental, verified responses t0 these Requests along with a complete corresponding document production. // // _5_ PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE 0F MOTION AND MOTION T0 COMPEL DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES T0 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 1-9, 11, 13-21, 23, 30, 31, AND 33-51; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ERIK WHITMAN, WITH EXHIBITS A QO‘NUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20' 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VI. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue an Order compelling Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. to provide verified, supplemental responses t0 Requests for Production Nos. 1-9, 11, 13-21, 23, 30, 31, and 33-51, as demonstrated in the supporting Separate Statement, as well as a complete corresponding document production. Date: January 28, 2021 THE BARRY LAW FIRM x By: DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ. ELIZABETH QUINN, ESQ. ERIK WHITMAN, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff, BRYAN THUERK -6- pLAINTIFF’s NOTICE 0F MOTION AND MOTION To COMPEL DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES To REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Nos. 1-9, 11, 13-21, 23, 30, 31, AND 33-51; MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION 0F ERIK WHITMAN, WITH EXHIBITS DECLARATION A ION 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 as follows: 1. ’ I am an attorney duly licensed t0 practice in all of the courts of California and I am an associate with The Barry Law Firm, counsel 0f record for the Plaintiff, Bryan Thuerk. I make this Declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant KMA’s Further Responses t0 its responses dated April 24, 2020, to Requests for Production Nos‘ 1-99 115 13-21, 23, 30, 31, and 33-5 1. > 2. I have reviewed the entire file in this case, 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 to 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 KNAEZSLA9K6051110. Shortly after purchase? Plaintiff began to experience significant problems with the Vehicle. As a result of persistent manufacturing defects that KMA’S authorized dealerships were unable to repair, and KMA’s failure t0 timely investigate 0r meaningfully respond to Plaintiff‘s concerns in compliance With the Song-Beverly Act, Plaintiff was left With n0 Viable options but to 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 t0 repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle as required by the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. 4. On June 11, 2020 my office served Defendant with a set of Requests for Production, See, Exhibit “1.” 5. Defendant served unverified responses by electronic mail 0n July 16, 2020. See, Exhibit “2.” 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 select discovery items that were not responsive and/or incomplete within fourteen (14) PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 1-9, 11, 13-21, 23, 30, 31, AND 33-51; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ERIK WHITMAN, WITH EXHIBITS \OOONCE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 days of the date 0f the letter and t0 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 t0 provide verifications to the responses. Attached as Exhibit “3” is a true and correct copy 0f Plaintiff‘s meet and confer letter. No response correspondence was received from Defendant KMA. See, Exhibit “3.” 7. On September 29, 2020, my office followed up With a second meet and confer letter, requesting supplemental responses, and verifications. See, Exhibit “4.” 8. On November 10, 2020, Defendant KMA served unverified further responses t0 written discovery. See, Exhibit “5.” 9. On December 9, 2020, Defendant mailed the verifications to their further responses to written discovery. See, Exhibit “6.” 10. On January 4, 2021, I drafted and served a meet and confer letter, addressing the deficiencies in KMA’s responses, and supplemental responses, to Plaintiff‘s discovery. See, Exhibit “7.” 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 0r proposed stipulated protective order as requested by Plaintiff. 13. As of this Date, Defendant has refused t0 provide Code-compliant amended responses t0 the Requests for Admission 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. /// /// /// /// /// /// -8- PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE 0F MOTION AND MOTION To COMPEL DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES T0 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 1-9, 11, 13-21, 23, 30, 31, AND 33-51; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ERIK WHITMAN, WITH EXHIBITS fl 1o 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14. On behalf 0f Plaintiff, I will gladly take this Motion off calendar if Defendant provides further verified responses as requested at least twenty days in advance of the hearing on this Motion to allow scheduling of meaningful review. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that foregoing is true and correct. xecuted this 28th day 0f January 2021 at Los Angeles, California. Erik Whitman -9- pLAINTIFF’s NOTICE 0F MOTION AND MOTION To COMPEL DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES To REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Nos. 1-9, 11, 13-21, 23, 30, 31, AND 33-51; MEMORANDUM 0F pOINTs & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION 0F ERIK WHITMAN, WITH EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1 T OOQQ \O DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ. (SBN 219230) THE BARRY LAW FIRM 11845 W. Olympic B1Vd., Suite 1270 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: 310.684.5859 Facsimile: 310.862.4539 Attorney for Plaintiff, BRYAN THUERK SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA - DOWNTOWN SUPERIOR COURT BRYAN THUERK, an individual; Case No. 20cv3 64578 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR Plaintiff, PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, v. INC, SET ONE KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, A , . , Action Filed: March 3, 2020 Callfornla Corporatlon; and DOES 1 through Trial Date, None 20, inCIUSiVea Assignedfor all purposes 10 the Hon. Thang M. Barrett Defendants. ' in Dept. 21 PROPOUNDING PARTY: PlaintiffBRYAN THUERK RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. SET NUMBER: One (1) TO DEFENDANT, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD: /// /// -1- PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., SET ONE l\) U) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 \OOOQON DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE pursuant to the California Code 0f Civil Procedure Sections §203 1 .010, §2031.020, and §2031.030 that you produce and permit the inspection and copying of the documents and other tangible things described below within the statutory time allowed. The place of inspection shall be The Barry Law Firm, 11845 W. Olympic B1vd., Suite 1270, Los Angeles, CA 90064. DEFINITIONS (1)- “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” shall mean a writing, as defined in California Evidence Code Section §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 of communicating or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds 0r symbols, or combination 0f them. (2)- “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. (3)- “SUBJECT VEHICLE” shall refer to the motor vehicle that is the subject 0f this lawsuit as identified in the complaint filed in this action. (4)- “RELEVANT PERIOD” shall mean the period from the time Plaintiff first purchased the SUBJECT VEHICLE up to and including today. \ (5)- “COMMUNICATION” shall mean any or all transmittals of information, whether oral 0r reduced to writing, whether handwritten, typewritten, tape-recorded, or produced by electronic data processing, irrespective ofhow 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, or other forms of verbal intercourse, whether oral or written. /// /// -2- PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., SET ONE \OOO‘QQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2] 22 24 25 26 27 28 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUEST NO. 1: A11 repair orders including the front and back 0f each page, any handwritten notes: any hard cards and accounting copies regarding, pertaining, or relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. REQUEST NO. 2: A11 parts invoices regarding, pertaining, 0r relating t0 the SUBJECT VEHICLE. REQUEST NO. 3: A11 warranty repair documents regarding, pertaining, or relating t0 the SUBJECT VEHICLE. REQUEST NO. 4: A11 warranty reimbursement documents applicable t0 the SUBJECT VEHICLE. REQUEST NO. 5: A11 warranty documents applicable t0 the SUBJECT VEHICLE. REQUEST NO. 6: A11 DOCUMENTS regarding, pertaining, 0r relating to any examination, tests, 0r inspections performed with respect t0 the SUBJECT VEHICLE. REQUEST NO. 7: A11 DOCUMENTS regarding, pertaining, 0r relating t0 a pre-delivery preparation 0f ths SUBJECT VEHICLE. REQUEST NO. 8:, A11 DOCUMENTS reflecting any service, adjustments, repairs, 0r restorations t0 the SUBJECT VEHICLE prior to delivery to Plaintiff, including, but' not limited t0 all documents relating t0 events that may have affected the SUBJECT VEHICLE in any way at the manufacturing and or assembly facility, in transit and/or shipping, and any other stage 0f the pre-delivery process. REQUEST NO. 9: A11 recall DOCUMENTS regarding, pertaining, or relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE} including but not limited t0, service bulletins and/or technical service bulletins. /// /// -3- PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS T0 DEFENDANT, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, SET ONE \OOOQO‘x 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST NO. 10: A11 promotional brochures, flyers, posters, folders, and media advertisements regarding, pertaining, 0r relating t0 the SUBJECT VEHICLE during the RELEVANT PERIOD. REQUEST NO. 11: > A computer printout or similar summary of the SUBJECT VEHICLE repair history from the manufacturer’s records. REQUEST NO. 12: A11 DOCUMENTS relating in any way to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. REQUEST NO. 13: A11 statements taken by YOU OR ANYONE ON YOUR BEHALF from any person with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. REQUEST NO. 14: A11 DOCUMENTS evidencing any COMMUNICATION regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE. REQUEST NO. 15: A11 DOCUMENTS evidencing any COMMUNICATION between Plaintiff and Defendants. REQUEST NO. 16: A11 DOCUMENTS evidencing any COMMUNICATION between Defendant and any independent dealer, service facility, and/or any other person 0r entity providing assistance to Defendant regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE. REQUEST NO. 17: A11 DOCUMENTS to include but not limited to manuals, publications, directives and direct dealer notifications or advisements regarding, pertaining, or relating t0 handling warranty repairs on the SUBJECT VEHICLE. REQUEST NO. 18: The complete Sales or Lease file with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including but not limited togthe deal jacket. REQUEST NO. 19: The complete Service File with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. -4- PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS T0 DEFENDANT, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, SET ONE \OOONQ REQUEST NO. 20: The complete Sales and Service Accounting File with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. REQUEST NO. 21: A11 DOCUMENTS identified in YOUR responses to the Plaintiff s Special Interrogatories, Set One, served concurrently with this request. REQUEST N0. 22: A copy ofYOUR complete file relating to any arbitration proceeding concerning the SUBJECT VEHICLE. REQUEST N0. 23: A copy 0fYOUR complete file relating specifically to the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including but not limited t0, the deal jacket. REQUEST NO. 24: A11 DOCUMENTS relating t0 YOUR certification of the SUBJECT VEHICLE. REQUEST NO. 25: A11 DOCUMENTS relating t0 YOUR inspection of the SUBJECT VEHICLE for certification.W A11 DOCUMENTS relating to the odometer 01' the number 0f miles 0n the SUBJECT VEHICLE. REQUEST NO. 27: A11 DOCUMENTS relating t0 any damage sustained by the SUBJECT VEHICLE prior t0 its sale t0 Plaintiff. REQUEST NO. 28: A11 DOCUMENTS relating to whether the SUBJECT VEHlCLE was reacquired by Defendants 0r another KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. dealer pursuant to California state or federal warranty laws. REQUEST NO. 29: A11 DOCUMENTS relating £0 the title of the SUBJECT VEHICLE from the time it was manufactured t0 the present. /// -5- PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, SET ONE .b “001 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST NO. 30: A11 DOCUMENTS relating to any inspections performed on the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including the actual report(s). REQUEST NO. 31: A11 DOCUMENTS relating to the Customer Call Center, including but not limited to, all flow charts, processes,- and/or scripts. REQUEST NO. 32: A11 DOCUMENTS relating to any Customer Loyalty Program 0r Afier Warranty Assistance Program that YOU had in effect during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. REQUEST NO. 33: A11 DOCUMENTS related t0 the Technical Hot Line. REQUEST NO. 34: A11 DOCUMENTS related to efforts by YOU to reduce the number of repeat repair attempts for a customer. REQUEST NO. 35: A11 DOCUMENTS related to efforts by YOU to reduce the number of reacquired vehicles. REQUEST NO. 36: A11 DOCUMENTS related t0 repeat repair procedures for remedying customer concerns. REQUEST NO. 37: A11 DOCUMENTS evidencing, relating, 0r referring t0 complaints by owners 0f the same year, make, model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE regarding issues with the sunroof rattling noise. REQUEST NO. 38: A11 DOCUMENTS evidencing, relating, or referring t0 complaints by owners 0f the same year, make, model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE regarding issues with the trunk rattling noise. REQUEST NO. 39: 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 problems with the sunroof rattling noise. -6- PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS T0 DEFENDANT, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, 1NC., SET ONE OOQO ‘r-d 00 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST NO. 40: A11 surveys, reports, summaries, or other DOCUMENTS in Which owners of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE have reported t0 YOU problems with the trunk rattling noise. > REQUEST NO. 41: A11 DOCUMENTS Which evidence, describe, relate 0r refer t0 the numbers 0f owners 0f the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE who have complained of issues with the sunroof rattling noise. REQUEST NO. 42: A11 DOCUMENTS Which evidence, describe, relate 0r refer to the numbers of owners 0f the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE who have complained 0f issues with the trunk rattling noise. REQUEST NO. 43: A11 DOCUMENTS related t0 the Pinpoint tests available for the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including but not limited t0 any codes retrieved. REQUEST NO. 44: A11 DOCUMENTS related to the wiring diagrams for any systems related t0 the SUBJECT VEHICLE’S concerns. REQUEST NO. 45: A11 DOCUMENTS related to the repair procedures performed on the SUBJECT VEHICLE. REQUEST NO. 46: A11 DOCUMENTS related to the As-buiit data for the SUBJECT VW'ICLE. REQUEST NO. 47: A11 DOCUMENTS related t0 the VIN digit breakdown for the SUBJECT VEHICLE. REQUEST NO. 48: A11 Technical Service Bulletins applicable t0 the SUBJECT VEHICLE. REQUEST NO. 49: A11 recalls applicable t0 the SUBJECT VEHICLE. _7_ PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS T0 DEFENDANT, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, SET ONE A \OOONQU} REQUEST N0. 50: A11 DOCUMENTS regarding Defendant’s repair procedures consulted and followed during the completion of repairs for the SUBJECT VEHICLE. REQUEST NO. 51: A11 DOCUMENTS regarding diagnostic procedures consulted and followed while diagnosing Plaintiff s concerns for the SUBJECT VEHICLE. Date: June 11, 2020 _ ” LAW FIRM B3};m \ /\ a I‘VEDWY, ESQR Attorney for Plaintiff, BRYAN THUERK -8- PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, SET ONE \OOOVQthUJNu-A N [\J [\3 N N N N N [\J '-‘ r-i r-b t-t r-A u-a »-a p-A r-a» y-a 00 fl O\ U‘I b U) N '-‘ O \O 00 fl O\ LII uh U3 N '-‘ O 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 of 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 department’s practice for collection and processing of 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 or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [] (OVERNIGHT DELIVERY MAIL) I caused the above described document to be served on the interested parties noted below by GSO Delivery Service in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier in a facility which is deposited with the GSO Delivery Service in our building 0n the. same day, in the ordinary course of business with delivery fees paid 0r provided for. [] (PERSONAL SERVICE} I cau ed the auove described document t0 be personally served on the interested parties noted below. [X] (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I caused such document t0 be delivered by electronic transmission to the addresses and offices 0f the addressee listed 0n the Service List. [X] (STATE) I declare under penalty of perj ury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed 0n the 11th of June 2020, at Los Angeles, California. .fi ' h 1,7“ Jazmine Daniels gfl/‘(fl‘kqxif‘fliiygiwwp NAME SIGNATURE PROOF OF SERVICE \DOOQQU‘I-DWNH r-AHv-AHp-iv-AHp-iv-n WQQM-PWNF-‘O 19 SERVICE LIST THUERK V. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. CASE # 20CV364578 Danielle N. Duarte, Esq. danielle@lehnnanlawgroup.com Lehrman Law Group 12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90025 CC: klehnnan@lehrmanlawgroup.com dvillegas@lehrman1awrgroup.com Attorneys for Defendant, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. PROOF OF SERVICE EXHIBIT 2 I T \OOOflQUlbUJNI-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHp-AHHr-AHH OOflQUlngNHOOOOfl¢U1$UJNHO LEHRMAN LAW GROUP KATE S. LEHRMAN [Bar No. 123050] JACQUELINE BRUCE CHINERY [Bar No. 187544] DANIELLE N. DUARTE [Bar No. 308402] 1 2 1 2 1 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 Case No. 20CV364578 [Filedz March 3, 2020] BRYAN THUERK, an individual, Plaintiff, Hon. Thang M. Barrett v. Dept. 2 1 KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV Defendants. DOCUMENTS, SET ONE DISCOVERY CUT-OFF: NONE MOTION CUT-OFF: NONE TRIAL DATE: NONE PROPOUNDING PARTY : Plaintiff BRIAN THUERK RESPONDING PARTY : Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. SET NO. : ONE Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. (“KMA”), by and through its undersigned counsel, responds to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents as follows: 301.224.DND - 004981 10.Docx 1 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OmflamgtAJNH N N N N N N N N N n-t H H n-t r-t H n-t p-t H n-t 00 fl O\ UI # DJ ,N '-‘ O KO OO fl ON UI h U.) N I-‘ O 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 to Plaintiff’ s requests to the extent they seek information concerning products other than the subject product in suit, vehicle components, systems or characteristics that are not described or identified With reasonable particularity in the Complaint and Which are not the subject of Plaintiff’s defect allegations. Such requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome and seek information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case. KMA objects to Plaintiff s requests to the extent they may call for the production of proprietary information, trade Secrets or other confidential business and commercial information, public dissemination of Which would place KMA at a commercial disadvantage. KMA objects to Plaintiff s requests to the extent these requests can be interpreted to seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the consulting expert privilege or the work product doctrine. In responding to these requests, KMA assumes that Plaintiff does not seek information or documents protected by the attomey-client privilege or work produce doctrine, and KMA hereby preserves all such privileges. ~ KMA obj ects to the instructions and definitions in Plaintiff’ s Request for Production to the extent that they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seek to impose duties or requirements beyond those required by the Code 0f Civil Procedure. KMA further objects to Plaintiff s discovery request to the extent they seek “any” or “all” records or documents of a particular description or designation. KMA is only required to make a diligent search of records kept in the ordinary course of business and those locations likely to contain relevant information and has done so. Finally, neither the failure to specifically mention a general objection in any response nor the specification 0f any other obj ection shall be deemed a waiver 0f any objections to that discovery request. 301.224.DND - 004981 10.DOCX 2 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOO\JO\UILUJNn-t NNNNNNNNNr-r-iv-ir-r-Av-tr-HHH m‘fl O\ U‘I -b W N F-" O \O m fl O‘\ U1 -h U) N *-" O Without waiving the foregoing objections, and incorporating them into each of the following requests, KMA responds to Plaintiff’ s Request for Production as follows: OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS DEFINITION 1: “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” shall mean a writing, as defined in California Evidence Code Section § 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 of communicating or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds or symbols, or combination of them. RESPONSE: KMA objects to Plaintiff’s definition of the term “DOCUMENT” 0r “DOCUMENTS” as vague, ambiguous and overly broad. IQVIA assumes the terms “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” refers to written records or other tangible things. To the extent a “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” is requested to be produced, KMA Will provide a true and correct copy of the written material or allow for a reasonable inspection of the tangible thing, including an opportunity to photograph said tangible thing. Destructive testing or an inspection of any tangible thing which may alter said tangible thing will be allowed only after a protocol has been agreed upon by all parties. IQVIA also objects to the extent Plaintiff asks for “any” and “all” DOCUMENTS of a particular description or designation. IQVIA is only required to make a diligent search of records kept in the ordinary course of business and those locations likely to contain relevant information. DEFINITION 2: “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 agents, their employees, its attorneys, its accountants, its investigators, and/or anyone else acting on its behalf. /// /// 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.1)0cx I 3 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE H NNNNNNNNNF‘HHI-IHHI-IHHI-n WQONM#UJNHO\OWQQUIAUJNHO \DOOQONUILUJN RESPONSE: KMA objects to Plaintiff” s definition of the terms “YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF”, “YOU”, and/or “YOUR” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Further, to the extent that a request or interrogator requires KMA to respond on behalf 0f entities other than itself, or 0n behalf of agents or employees of other entities, KMA objects because such requests or interrogatories are overly broad, unduly burdensome and beyond the scope of permissible discovery. As used herein, KMA assumes the terms “YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF”, “YOU” and/or “YOUR” refer to KMA, and KMA responds solely one behalf ofKMA. DEFINITION 3: “SUBJECT VEHICLE” shall refer to the motor vehicle that is the subject of this lawsuit as identified in the complaint filed in this action. DEFINITION 4: “RELEVANT PERIOD” shall mean the period from the time Plaintiff first purchased the SUBJECT VEHICLE up to and including today. DEFINITION 5: “COMMUNICATION” shall mean any or all transmittals of information, whether oral or reduced to writing, whether handwritten, typewritten, tape-recorded, or 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 to: inquiries, discussions, conversations, negotiations, agreements, understandings, meetings, telephone conversations, letters, notes, telegrams, advertisements, or other forms of verbal intercourse, whether oral or written. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects t0 Plaintiff” s definition of “COMMUNICATION” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. /// 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.DOCX 4 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQONU‘I-bUJNr-I NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-dr-dr-Ir-dr-ir-‘r-dr-ar-I OOQONM$UJNHO©OOQONUIAUJNHC RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS RE( QUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: A11 repair orders including front and back of each page, any handwritten notes, any hard cards and accounting copies regarding, pertaining, or relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: 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 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 request seeks disclosure of materials which are not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks documents in the possession, custody, and/or control of third parties. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: A11 pans invoices regarding, pertaining, 0r relating t0 the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this request 0n the following grounds: 1. KMA objects t0 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence. 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.Docx 5 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQQUI-RUJNr-a NNNNNNNNNr-ir-tr-tr-v-tr-tr-ar-ap-ar-a mflam-bWNHoomflQUI-kUJNF-‘O 3. This request seeks documents in the possession, custody, and/or control of third parties. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: A11 warranty repair documents regarding, pertaining, or relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly board, 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated t0 lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request seeks documents in the possession, custody, and/or control of third parties. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: A11 warranty reimbursement documents applicable to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects 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. 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.DOCX 6 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE KOOOQONUl-bUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. This request seeks disclosure of materials which are not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: A11 warranty documents applicable to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly board, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this request, 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 request seeks disclosure 0f materials which are not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request seeks documents in the possession, custody, and control of third parties. 5. KMA further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks the premature disclosure of expert witness information and/or materials. //// REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: A11 DOCUMENTS regarding, pertaining, or relating to any examination, tests or inspections performed with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. /// 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.D0CX 7 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQONUl-hUJNId NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OOQQU‘I-bUJNP-‘OOOOQONU‘I-bUJNI-‘O RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request 0n the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad as to both time and scope, 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure of expert information. 4. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 5. This request seeks documents in the possession, custody, and control of third parties. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: A11 DOCUMENTS regarding, pertaining, or relating to pre-delivery preparation of the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad as to scope, 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.D0CX 8 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \DOOQONUI-bWNr-t NNNNNNNNNv-‘b-‘r-‘r-‘b-‘r-‘r-‘b-‘b-ir-t OOQONUl-hUJNh-‘OOOOQONUl-PWNHO 3. This request seeks documents in the possession, custody, or control of third parties. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: A11 DOCUMENTS reflecting any service, adjustments, repairs, or restorations to the SUBJECT VEHICLE prior t0 delivery to Plaintiff, including, but not limited to all documents relating to events that may have affected the SUBJECT VEHICLE in any way at the manufacturing and/or assembly facility, in transit and/or shipping, and any other stage of pre- delivery process. RESPONSE: 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 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. The interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to the terms “adjustments,” “restorations” as to be unintelligible. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request seeks documents in the possession, custody, and control of third parties. 5. KMA further obj ects to this request to the extent that it seeks the premature disclosure of expert witness information and/or materials. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: A11 recall DOCUMENTS regarding, pertaining, or relating t0 the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including but not limited to, service bulletins and/or technical service bulletins. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects to this request on the following grounds: 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.DOCX 9 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE H NNNNNNNNNv-nr-iu-iv-nr-tr-iv-tr-ir-av-t OOQONU’IAUJNr-‘OOOOQONLAAUJNF-‘O \OOOQONU‘I-hUJN 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad as to scope and time, vague and ambiguous. In responding t0 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request seeks documents in the possession, custody, and control of third parties. 5. KMA further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks the premature disclosure of expert witness information and/or materials. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: A11 promotional brochures, flyers, posters, folders, and media advertisements regarding, pertaining, or relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE during the RELEVANT PERIOD. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Request in that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that it seeks information which is not limited in time or to anything Plaintiff may have seen. Further, this Request does not seek any information regarding any of the issues raised by Plaintiff s Complaint. In addition, this Request seeks documents that are not in KMA’s possession, custody or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: A computer printout or similar summary of the SUBJECT VEHICLE repair history from the manufacturer’s records. . /// 301.224.DND - 004981 10.DOCX 10 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE KOOOQONU‘I-bUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-dr-‘p-fir-dr-‘r-fir-dr-‘r-fip-A OOQQM-RUJNb-‘OKOOOQQU‘I-PUJNF-‘O RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this request 0n the following grounds: 1. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 2. This request is vague and ambiguous as to “computer printout or similar summary.” 3. This request seeks documents in the possession, custody or control of third parties. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: All DOCUMENTS relating in any way to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad as to time and scope, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this request, 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 request 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 request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request does not specify with reasonable particularity the materials or categories of materials, including electronically stored information, to be produced, in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4). 5. This request prematurely seeks expert Witness information. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.210 et seq.) /// 301.224.DND - 004981 10.Docx 11 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \DOONONUI-RUJNI-a NNNNNNNNNHr-dl-dr-nr-dr-ir-Ir-dr-ir-I OOQQM-hWNHOCOOQQM-hWNHC REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: A11 statements taken by YOU OR ANYONE ON YOUR BEHALF from any person with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: 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 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. This request 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 request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: A11 DOCUMENTS evidencing any COMMUNICATION regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad as to time and scope, 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matterpf this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated t0 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 301.224.DND - 004981 10.D0CX 12 20CV364578 DEFENDMT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQQUI-bUJNp-x NNNNNNNNNr-tr-AHr-dr-Ar-dr-tr-Ar-ir-t OOQQM-RWNb-‘OKOOOQONM-PUJNF-‘O 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request seeks the premature disclosure of expert witness information. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: A11 DOCUMENTS evidencing any COMMUNICATION between Plaintiff and Defendants. RESPONSE: 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 t0 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. l6: A11 DOCUMENTS evidencing any COMMUNICATION between Defendant, and any independent dealer, service facility, and/or any other person or entity providing assistance to Defendant regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: 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 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.Docx 13 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQONUI-PUJNn-t NNNNNNNNNI-‘r-iI-an-tr-Ar-tn-dr-tr-dn-d OOQONU‘IAUJNF-‘OKOOOQONUIAUJNF-‘O understanding. 2. This request seeks disclosure of materials which are not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: A11 DOCUMENTS to include but not limited to manuals, publications, directives and direct dealer notifications or advertisements regarding, pertaining, or relating to handling warranty repairs on the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects to this request on the following grounds: 1. This request lacks the requisite specificity dictated by the Code of Civil Procedure, is overly broad, not limited in scope, and therefore is unjustly burdensome and oppressive. 2. This request 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 t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request is overly broad as to both time and scope as t0 be burdensome and harassing and is vague and ambiguous. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: The complete Sales or Lease file with respect t0 the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including but not limited to, the deal jacket. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.DOCX 14 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE KOOOQONUIhUJNr-t N N N {N N N [\J N N r-l r-A t-h p-t r-A r-h u-i p-A r-i r-t 00 fl ON U‘I A U) N H o O m \) Q KI‘I A U3 N H o 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks documents in the possession, custody, and control of third parties. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: The complete Service File With respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects 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 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 request seeks disclosure 0f materials Which are not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks documents in the possession, custody, and control of third parties. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: The complete Sales and Service Accounting File With respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.D0CX 15 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQQUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNI-‘HHI-tp-AHI-th-AHI-t wflONM-hWNHoowflONU‘I-bWB-JHO 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 counse-l. KMA’S responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. This request seeks disclosure of materials which are not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This Request seeks documents in the possession, custody, or control of third parties. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: A11 DOCUMENTS identified in YOUR responses to the Plaintiff’ s Special Interrogatories, Set One, served concurrently with this request. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects 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 reasonably related t0 the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request does not specify With reasonable particularity the materials or categories of materials, including electronically stored information, to be produced, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4). 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.Docx 16 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \DOOQONUILUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: A copy ofYOUR complete file relating to any arbitration proceeding concerning the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. KMA also objects to this Request as it seeks materials that are equally available to Plaintiff. KMA further objects to this Request to the extent it violates the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. KMA also objects to the extent that this Request seeks information that is protected from discovery at this phase of the proceeding by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.210 et seq. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: A copy ofYOUR complete file relating specifically to the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including but not limited to, deal jacket. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request does not specify with reasonable particularity the materials or categories of materials, including electronically stored information, to be produced, in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4). 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.DOCX 17 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQQUIhUJNH NNNNNNNNNHn-tp-IHHHHHHH OOQQUI$WNHO©OOQQU1AUJNHO RE! QUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: A11 DOCUMENTS relating to whether the SUBJECT VEHICLE was reacquired by Defendants or another KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. dealer pursuant to California state or federal warranty laws. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects to this Request as it requests documents equally available to Plaintiff as to this Defendant. This request does not specify with reasonable particularity the materials or categories of materials, including electronically stored information, to be produced, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4). Further, the request is vague and ambiguous, and overbroad as to both time and scope. Further, upon information and belief, Plaintiff has already received the records of the independent authorized dealership to which Plaintiff previously took the subj ect vehicle. In addition, this Request seeks documents that are not in KMA’s possession, custody or control. KMA further objects to this request as overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: A11 DOCUMENTS relating to the title of the SUBJECT VEHICLE from the time it was manufactured to the present. RESPONSE: KMA objects to the Request as it is overly broad and seeks documents which are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. KMA also objects to this request as the responsive documents are in Plaintiff s possession. This request does not specify with reasonable particularity the materials or categories of materials, including electronically stored information, to be produced, in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4). KMA further objects t0 this request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary information. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: A11 DOCUMENTS, relating t0 any inspections performed on the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including the actual report(s). 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.130cx 20 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOONONUI-bUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHr-t WQam-5WNHO000QQm-PUJNHO RESPONSE: KMA obj ects t0 this request 0n the following grounds: 1. KMA objects t0 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure of expert information. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: A11 DOCUMENTS relating to the Customer Call Center, including but not limited to, all flow charts, processes, and/or scripts.w 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 reasonably related t0 the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request does not specify with reasonable particularity the materials or categories of materials, including electronically stored information, to be produced, in Violation 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.1)0cx 21 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQONUIAUJNp-t NNNNNNNNNv-‘v-‘y-ip-‘y-‘Hn-np-At-tn-n OOQONUIAUJNP-‘OKOOOQONUIAUJNHO of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4). 5. The request is vague and ambiguous, and overbroad as to both time and scope. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: A11 DOCUMENTS relating to any Customer Loyalty Program of After Warranty Assistance Program that YOU had in effect during the RELEVANT time period. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects to this Request in that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that it seeks information which is not limited in time or t0 anything Plaintiff may have seen. Further, this Request does not seek any information regarding any of the issues raised by Plaintiff’s Complaint. Moreover, KMA objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of documents protected by the attorney/client privilege and/or work product doctrine. KMA obj ects to this request as it seeks trade secret, confidential and/or proprietary documents. This request does not specify with reasonable particularity the materials or categories of materials, including electronically stored information, to be produced, in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: A11 DOCUMENTS related to the Technical Hot Line. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.nocx 22 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQONUI-bUJNn-A NNNNNNNNNHHHn-AHHHHHn-t OOQQMbWNHOKOOOflOthwNHO 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request does not specify with reasonable particularity the materials 0r categories of materials, including electronically stored information, to be produced, in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4). 5. The request is vague and ambiguous, and overbroad as to both time and scope. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: A11 DOCUMENTS related to efforts by YOU to reduce the number of repeat repair attempts for a customer. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects t0 this request because it is overly broad as t0 both time and scope, 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request does not specify with reasonable particularity the materials or categories of materials, including electronically stored information, to be produced, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: A11 DOCUMENTS related to efforts by YOU to reduce the number of reacquired vehicles.‘ /// 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.Docx 23 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQONUI-bUJNn-t NNNNNNNNNr-‘b-‘p-An-HI-‘n-‘HHH OOQQM#WNHO\OOOQO\M#UJNHO RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad as to both time and scope, 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 reasonably related t0 the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request does not specify With reasonable particularity the materials or categories of materials, including electronically stored information, to be produced, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: A11 DOCUMENTS related to repeat repair procedures for remedying customer concerns. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad, as to both time and scope as to be burdensome, harassing, 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential 301.224.DND - 004981 10.DOCX 24 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQQUILUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHr-dr-t OOQQUIAUJNHOOOOQQUIAUJNHO information. 4. This request does not specify with reasonable particularity the materials or categories of materials, including electronically stored information, to be produced, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4). REmJEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: A11 DOCUMENTS evidencing, relating, or referring to complaints by owners of the same year, make, model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE regarding issues with the sunroof rattling noise. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and not properly limited in time and scope. 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. The phrase “sunroof rattling noise” is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. 4. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information, and/or licensed software. 5. This request seeks the disclosure 0f personal information of individuals not associated with this litigation and thus improperly infringes on the privacy rights 0f those individuals; therefore, the request is also harassing, burdensome, and oppressive when taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.030, subdivision (a)(2)- 6. This request seeks information protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. These protected documents can generally be described as any notes, memoranda, 0r reports 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.DOCX 25 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQONUI-bUJNv-t NNNNNNNNNr-AHHr-dr-AHv-dr-AHH OOQQUI-hWNHOOOOflONUI-hUJNHO generated by or for KMA’s legal counsel. 7. This request seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege. These protected documents can generally be described as any correspondence, memoranda, or reports generated by or for KMA’s legal counsel. V 8. This request also violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 2 1 6. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated to alleged complaints regarding other vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. 9. This request is burdensome and oppressive. It is intended to create an unreasonable burden 0n this responding party and that ultimate burden is incommensurate with any benefit to the propounding party. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: A11 DOCUMENTS evidencing, relating, or referring to complaints by owners of the same year, make, model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE regarding issues with the trunk rattling noise. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and not properly limited in time and scope. In responding t0 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 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. The phrase “trunk rattling noise” is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. 4. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information, and/or licensed software. 5. This request seeks the disclosure of personal information of individuals not 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.D0CX 26 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQO‘xUI-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHr-tp-AHr-tr-AHr-t OOQONUI-hUJNF-‘ooooflmm-RUJNHO associated with this litigation and thus improperly infringes on the privacy rights of those individuals; therefore, the request is also harassing, burdensome, and oppressive when taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.030, subdivision (60(2)- 6. This request seeks information protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. These protected documents can generally be described as any notes, memoranda, or reports generated by or for KMA’s legal counsel. 7. This request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege. These protected documents can generally be described as any correspondence, memoranda, or reports generated by 0r for KMA’s legal counsel. 8. This request also violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Ca1.App.4th 21 6. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to reliefunder the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated to alleged complaints regarding other vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. 9. This request 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. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: A11 surveys, reports, summaries, or other DOCUMENTS in which owners of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE have reported t0 YOU problems with the sunroof rattling noise. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and not properly limited in time and scope. In responding to this request, 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 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.DOCX 27 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQONU‘I-bUJNH NNNNNNNMNHHp-‘r-tr-Ap-‘r-tr-Ar-‘r-t OONmM-RUJNHooOOflmM-hWNHO will be limited with this understanding. 2. This request seeks disclosure of materials which are not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. The phrase “sunroof rattling noise” is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. 4. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information, and/or licensed software. 5. This request seeks the disclosure of personal information 0f individuals not associated with this litigation and thus improperly infringes on the privacy rights 0f those individuals; therefore, the request is also harassing, burdensome, and oppressive when taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation in Violation of Code 0f Civil Procedure section 201 9.030, subdivision (80(2). 6. This request seeks information protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. These protected documents can generally be described as any notes, memoranda, or reports generated by or for KMA’S legal counsel. 7. This request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege. These protected documents can generally be described as any correspondence, memoranda, or reports generated by or for KMA’S legal counsel. 8. This request also violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216‘ Specifically, Whether Plaintiff is entitled t0 relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated to alleged complaints regarding other vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. 9. This request 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. /// /// 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.D0cx 28 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQCNUI-bUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNv-Ab-Ap-An-Ab-Ap-Av-Ar-Ab-Av-A mqam-war-‘Okoooqoxm-hwwwo REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: A11 surveys, reports, summaries, or other DOCUMENTS in which owners of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE have reported to YOU problems with the trunk rattling noise. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and not properly limited in time and scope. 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. The phrase “trunk rattling noise” is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. 4. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information, and/or licensed software. 5. This request seeks the disclosure of personal information 0f individuals not associated with this litigation and thus improperly infringes on the privacy rights of those individuals; therefore, the request is also harassing, burdensome, and oppressive when taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.030, subdivision (80(2)- 6. This request seeks information protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. These protected documents can generally be described as any notes, memoranda, or reports generated by or for KMA’s legal counsel. 7. This request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege. These protected documents can generally be described as any correspondence, memoranda, or reports 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.Docx 29 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOVONUILUJNp-t NNNNNNNNNHHp-an-AHHn-AHHH mummAWNP-‘OkoooflmmthP-‘O generated by or for KMA’S legal counsel. 8. This request also violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Ca1.App.4th 216. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated to alleged complaints regarding other vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. 9. This request 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 t0 the propounding party. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: A11 DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, relate or refer to the numbers of owners of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE who have complained of issues with the sunroof rattling noise. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and not properly limited in time and scope. 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter 0f this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. The phrase “trunk rattling noise” is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. 4. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information, and/or licensed software. 5. This request 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 request is also harassing, burdensome, and oppressive when taking 301.224.DND - 004981 10.Docx 30 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \oooqmmAwNH NNNNNNNNNr-tp-Ap-iv-Ir-‘p-‘Ht-lp-‘v-I OOQQM-hUJNH0000QONM#UJN’-‘O into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation in Violation of Code 0f Civil Procedure section 201 9.030, subdivision (3X2)- 6. This request seeks information protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. These protected documents can generally be described as any notes, memoranda, or reports generated by or for KMA’s legal counsel. 7. This request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege. These protected documents can generally be described as any correspondence, memoranda, or reports generated by or for KMA’S legal counsel. 8. This request also violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Ca1.App.4th 2 1 6. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to reliefunder the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated to alleged complaints regarding other vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. 9. This request 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. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: A11 DOCUMENTS Which evidence, describe, relate or refer to the numbers of owners of the same year, make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE who have complained of issues with the trunk rattling noise. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous and not properly limited in time and scope. In responding to this request, 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 request seeks disclosure of materials which are not reasonably related to the 301.224.DND - 004981 10.D0CX 31 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQQUl-fiUJNr-A NNNNNNNNNr-tb-dp-Ip-AHHHHHH WQQLA$UJNHOKOWQONU1$UJNHO issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. The phrase “trunk rattling noise” is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. 4. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information, and/or licensed software. 5. This request seeks the disclosure 0f personal information of individuals not associated with this litigation and thus improperly infringes on the privacy rights of those individuals; therefore, the request is also harassing, burdensome, and oppressive When taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy and the importance 0f the issues at stake in the litigation in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.030, subdivision (a)(2). 6. This request seeks information protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. These protected documents can generally be described as any notes, memoranda, or reports generated by or for KMA’S legal counsel. 7. This request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege. These protected documents can generally be described as any correspondence, memoranda, or reports generated by or for KMA’S legal counsel. 8. This request also violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Ca1.App.4th 216. Specifically, Whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated to alleged complaints regarding other vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle. 9. This request 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. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: A11 DOCUMENTS related to the Pinpoint tests available for the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including but not limited to any codes retrieved. /// 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.Docx 32 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQONUl-bUJNr-d NNNNNNNNNb-th-Ar-‘I-th-Ar-‘I-th-AHI-t OOQC\M#WNHO\OOOQONM#UJNHO RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this Request on the grounds that it does not designate the documents, tangible things, or electronically stored information to be inspected, copied, tested or sampled either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item (Code of Civ. Proc., §2031.030(c)(1).) 2. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. It also seeks documents not in KMA’s control and seeks a category of documents KMA could never identify and produce. In responding t0 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. 3. This request seeks disclosure of materials which are not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead t6 the discovery 0f admissible evidence. The history of the subj ect vehicle outside of the relevant period of plaintiff s ownership is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 5. This request also seeks information that is protected from discovery at this phase 0f the proceeding by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.210 et seq. 6. The phrase “Pinpoint tests” is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: A11 DOCUMENTS related to the wiring diagrams for any systems related to the SUBJECT VEHICLE’S concerns. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this Request 0n the grounds that it does not designate the 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.D0cx 33 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE hWN \OOOQONUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 documents, tangible things, or electronically stored information to be inspected, copied, tested or sampled either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item (Code of Civ. Proc., §2031.030(c)(1).) 2. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. It also seeks documents not in KMA’s control and seeks a category of documents KMA could never identify and produce. In responding t0 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. 3. This request seeks disclosure of materials which are not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence. The history of the subject vehicle outside of the relevant period of plaintiff” s ownership is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 5. This request also seeks information that is protected from discovery at this phase of the proceeding by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.210 et seq. 6. The phrase “wiring diagrams for any systems” is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: A11 DOCUMENTS related to the repair procedures performed on the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. 1n responding to this request, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of . attorney/client communications, nor do Plaintiff seeks the discovery of the attorney work product 301.224.DND - 004981 10.Docx 34 ' 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQONUI-bUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-Ar-ti-tr-Ap-Ai-ir-tr-tr-tr-A OOQONM-bWNHOQOOQONm-hUJNF-‘O 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request also seeks information that is protected from discovery at this phase of the proceeding by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.210 et seq. 5. This request does not specify with reasonable particularity the materials or categories of materials, including electronically stored information, to be produced, in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4). 6. The request seeks the premature disclosure of expert witness information. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: A11 DOCUMENTS related to the As-built data for the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this Request on the grounds that it does not designate the documents, tangible things, or electronically stored information to be inspected, copied, tested or sampled either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item (Code of Civ. Proc., §203 1 .030(c)(1).) 2. KMA objects t0 this request because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. It also seeks documents not in KMA’s control and seeks a category of documents KMA could never identify and produce. In responding to this request, 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. 3. This request 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 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.D0CX 35 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQQUILUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNn-Ar-An-‘n-Ap-An-‘Hr-th-ir-t WNQMAWNHoomflmUl-hUJNHO reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The history of the subject vehicle outside of the relevant period of plaintiff s ownership is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 5. This request also seeks information that is protected from discovery at this phase of the proceeding by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.210 et seq. 6. The phrase “As-built data” is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: A11 DOCUMENTS related to the VIN digit breakdown for the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this Request on the grounds that it does not designate the documents, tangible things, or electronically stored information to be inspected, copied, tested or sampled either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item (Code of Civ. Proc., §2031.030(c)(1).) 2. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. It also seeks documents not in KMA’s control and seeks a category of documents KMA could never identify and produce. 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. 3. This request seeks disclosure of materials which are not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The history of the subject vehicle outside of the relevant period of plaintiff s ownership is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.1)0cx 36 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQO‘kal-bUJNn-A NNNNNNNNNp-tr-tI-‘n-Ar-tr-n-Ar-tr-n-A OOQQUI-bUJNF-‘OKOOOQO’NUI-hUJNHO information. 5. This request also seeks information that is protected from discovery at this phase of the proceeding by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.210 et seq. 6. This request seeks the premature disclosure of expert witness information. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: A11 Technical Service Bulletins applicable t0 the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects t0 this request because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this request, 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 0r outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. This request seeks disclosure of materials which are not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request also seeks information that is protected from discovery at this phase of the proceeding by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.210 et seq. 5. This request does not specify With reasonable particularity the materials or categories of materials, including electronically stored information, to be produced, in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: A11 recalls applicable to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects t0 this request because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this request, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.1)0CX 37 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQQUI-bUJNp-t Nr-tr-AHr-tp-AHr-tr-AHH O©OOQ©M¥UJNHO 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 attorney/client communications, nor do Plaintiff seeks 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request also seeks information that is protected from discovery at this phase of the proceeding by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.210 et seq. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: A11 DOCUMENTS regarding Defendant’s repair procedures consulted and followed during the completion of repairs for the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA obj ects t0 this request 0n the following grounds: 1. KMA objects t0 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 do Plaintiff seeks 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 request 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 t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request also seeks information that is protected from discovery at this phase of the proceeding by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.210 et seq. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: A11 DOCUMENTS regarding diagnostic procedures consulted and followed while diagnosing Plaintiffs concerns for the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.D0cx 38 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQCNUI-bUJNn-A N . N N N N N N N N n-I r-A i-at n-I p-A i-at n-I r-A r-at n-I 00 fl ON UI h U.) N '-‘ O \o 00 fl ON UI A U0 N r-d O RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects t0 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 do Plaintiff seeks 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request also seeks information that is protected from discovery at this phase of the proceeding by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.210 et seq. DATED: July 16, 2020 LEHRMAN LAW GROUP KATE S. LEHRMAN JACQUELINE BRUCE CHINERY DANIELLE N. DUARTE By: /s/ ®anie[[eW ®uarte Danielle N. Duarte Attorneys for Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.DOCX 39 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \DOOQONU‘I-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNr-‘HHHHr-dr-IHHH OOQO‘xU‘I-hWNV-‘ooocflom-kWNHO PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. 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 to the within action; my business address is 12121 Wilshire B1Vd., Suite 1300, Los Angeles, CA 90025. On July 16, 2020, Iserved, in the manner indicated below, the foregoing document described as: DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 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, t0 the offices 0f the addressees. (C.C.P. § 1013(c)(d).) BY FACSIMILE; (C.C.P. § 1013(e)(t).) BY MAIL: I caused to be delivered by U.S. mail by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated above. I am “readily familiar” With the firm’s practice 0f collection and processing documents for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. [] 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 or she has filed in the above-entitled cause and served on this party. (C.C.P. § 1010.6(a)(6).) Per agreement and per state and local stay at home Orders re COVID19. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed 0n July 16, 2020, at Los Angeles, California. /s/ (Mama 1'. Mad»; Theresa L. May 301 .224.DND - 004981 10.Docx 40 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OWQCNUILUJNn-A NNNNNNNNNn-r-tn-r-ar-dr-r-ar-dr-I- OOQQMAUJNHO©WQONUl-hUJNr-‘O PROOF OF SERVICE LIST KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC./THUERK, BRYAN (K070-224)(301 .224) Case N0. 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 - 004981 10.Docx 41 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE EXHIBIT 3 I 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@Jmylemonrights.com July 30, 2020 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL: Danielle(a)lehrmanlawg:roup.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 letter. In addition to the lack of verifications, Plaintiff would like to address deficiencies in the served responses. As a reminder, the discovery act is broadly interpreted. Greyhound Corp. v. Super. Ct. (Clay) (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 384. Generally, "any party may obtain discovery regarding any subject matter involved ... if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." CCP § 2017.010. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES "INCIDENT" is defined on page one of the Judicial Council of California's approved Form Interrogatories as follows: "INCIDENT includes the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding. 11 The definition is plain and straightforward, and there is nothing vague, ambiguous, or overbroad about it in Plaintiffs discovery in this case, thus, Defendant's frequent objection to the contrary in its responses is not well taken. Defendant's response to Form Interrogatory 1. 1, which asks you to state the name, address, telephone number, and relationship to you of each person who prepared or assisted in the preparation of these interrogatories, is not code-compliant. Defendant's response is as follows: "KlvfA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous. In responding to this request, KMA presumes Plaintiff'does not seek the discovery of attorney/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery of the attorney work product of either in-house or outside counsel. KMA 's responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. This request seeks disclosure of materials which are not reasonable related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." It is axiomatic that an individual at KMA must have compiled the information on behalf of KMA (and your office). In accomplishing this task, this individual must have corresponded with individuals that have admissible knowledge of the facts in this case. Plaintiff is entitled to those facts and the testimony of those percipient witnesses and responsive documents. Defendant's "overly broad, vague, and ambiguous" objection is not well taken. Defendant and its counsel know perfectly well what this interrogatory is seeking, especially considering it is the very first question on the most commonly used discovery, and is written verbatim in every case that it is used in, as it uses language that has been approved by the Judicial Counsel of California. Finally, "vague and ambiguous" is not proper unless the question is so unintelligible that is impossible to answer in good faith. Cembrook v. Superior Court (Sterling Drug, Inc.) (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423,428. Kia can certainly develop some kind of answer to question. This question is clear, extraordinarily common, and should be understood by a routine defendant like Kia Motors America, Inc. You, as learned counsel, know this, and accordingly, should work with your client to deliver a code-compliant response. 2 Additionally, a court will not sustain an "overbroad" objection unless the objecting party can substantiate it. "Even wide-ranging discovery requests are permitted because discovery is designed to elicit all facts." See, Burke v. Superior Court (1969), 71 26 Cal.2d 276,285. Therefore, a further response is necessary identifying the individuals who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses. Next, Defendant KMA's response to Form Interrogatory 12.1 is incomplete. This Interrogatory asks KMA to provide the name, address and telephone number of all witnesses who have knowledge related to the allegations in the Complaint. In response to this Interrogatory, KMA listed a series of objections that are likely made in bad faith and/or are unsubstantiated. Plaintiffs counsel hopes that Defendant does not mean to be insulting and that this was simply an error. Nonetheless, Plaintiff will address each of those objections in tum. The term "INCIDENT" is defined above, using the Judicial Council of California's definition. Surely, Defendant isn't choosing to ignore the guidance of the Judicial Council. Plaintiff does not seek to invade the attorney client or work-product privilege. However, such an objection cannot be sustained without a privilege log. Thus, Defendant should either withdraw this objection or produce a privilege log, and a further response is requested. Similarly, the proper way to address confidentiality concerns is to propose a protective order. Please submit a protective order or withdrawn this objection. Plaintiff looks forward to either of these actions. Plaintiff does not seek expert information yet, at this point. Kia should not disclose experts at this point. This interrogatory seeks factual information held by percipient witnesses, which is certainly discoverable at this point in litigation. Plaintiff is entitled to the identity, by full name and address ( as called for by the interrogatory) of the percipient witnesses. Clearly, that information is relevant and readily obtainable by Kia as the work was performed by a KMA-authorized facility. Put more simply, this particular Interrogatory calls for KMA to identify those individuals that KMA intends to call at the time of trial. Here, if KMA intends to potentially call a witness to testify at trial, Plaintiff is entitled to depose that individual. Any attempt to argue that the KMA- authorized dealerships are "third parties" not related to KMA is merely an attempt to obfuscate the issue. Plaintiff does not have the ability to take his vehicle to any service facility to have it repaired under the warranty. Plaintiff must take the vehicle to a KMA-authorized service center- one that certainly has an ongoing operating agreement with KMA. Defendant KMA's relationship with its associated service centers is not arm's-length. As mentioned previously, in order to obtain the identity of the servicing technicians, arguably, KMA merely places a phone call to the dealership. Plaintiff would be required to direct a subpoena duces tecum to the dealership with the hopes of obtaining sufficient identifying information to later serve a deposition subpoena. Plaintiff cannot merely serve the servicing technicians with a subpoena for personal appearance to testify based on the technician identification number alone. Notwithstanding the issue of Plaintiff would be unable to properly 3 identify the individual for the subpoena itself, Plaintiff cannot effectuate service of the subpoena on the individual if the person's identity is unknown. See, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2020.220(b )(2) (Providing that personal service is required to command attendance.) It is undeniable that the Plaintiff is entitled to obtain that information in his trial preparation. It is equally qndeniable that the court, if called upon to intervene, will not believe that requiring KMA to contact its own dealers for material information is unduly burdensome to the extent where Kia can rely on Section 2030.230 in formulating its response, keeping in mind that "all discovery imposes some burden on the responding party." West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 407, 418. A further response is therefore required. Moving right along, Defendant's response to Form Interrogatory 15.1 is deficient as well. Form Interrogatory 15.1 asks you to identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in your pleadings and for each: (a) State all facts upon which you base the denial or a special or affirmative defense; (b) State the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of those facts; and ( c) Identify all documents and other tangible things that support your denial or a special or affirmative defense, and state the name, address, and telephone number of the person who has each document. Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. pled multiple affirmative defenses. However, a review the response to Form Interrogatory 15 .1 utterly fails to fully comply with the subpart requirements for each of your separate affirmative defenses. Defendant simply stated the same boilerplate objections that it stated in response to Form Interrogatory 1. 1 and 12.1. Burke and West Pico Furniture Co. apply here as well, to Defendant's overly broad, and unjustly burdensome and oppressive objections. They should be withdrawn without further substantiation. Additionally, this interrogatory is only about Defendant's affirmative defenses, presumably how it intends to defend itself against Plaintiffs complaint. If Defendant finds arguing its case to be too burdensome, perhaps it should withdraw its Answer and submit to Plaintiff what he prayed for in his complaint. There is no point of continuing this litigation if Defendant will not even try to support its defenses, especially considering one of those defenses is that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action. Instead of wasting everyone's time, Defendant can simply withdraw its answer if it has nothing to support it and does not intend to find anything to support it. If Defendant does not have facts, witnesses, or documents to support a specific affirmative defense, then it should withdraw those defenses accordingly. Otherwise, a further response is necessary because the current response is devoid of the content sought in this Interrogatory. Defendant's argument that this interrogatory seeks information not reasonably related to the subject matter is clearly in error. This question is about Defendant's affirmative defenses, which alone makes discoverable. Please withdraw this erroneous objection. 4 Defendant's confidentiality objection is improper for the same reasons as addressed above. Defendant should propose a protective order instead of raising this objection. For all these reasons, a further response to Form Interrogatory 15 .1 is required. The response to Form Interrogatory 1 7 .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 fmmal proof of essentially uncontroverted facts, not as a substitute for trial of genuinely disputed facts."). Accordingly, when a litigant "toys" with the process by evading a factual proposition by avoiding the materials that provides the response to such requests, it defeats the purpose and the function of the requests and unduly forces plaintiff to waste time, money and energy proving factual propositions that can and should be readily admitted. A party "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. 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(l961) 56 Cal.2d 355. See also, Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771,782. [Ifa 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, 11, 14, 21, and 23. As to No. 9, a very simple Request asking Defendant to admit that is was aware of its restitution or replacement obligations under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, the answer is wholly nonresponsive to the Request. Arguably, KMA has been involved in numerous litigation matters involving Song-Beverly, and additionally has provided restitution to consumers and/or repurchased their vehicles. Nitpicking objections as to vagueness and ambiguity are rarely sustained by the courts and are only sustained when the request is completely unintelligible. A party has a duty to answer if "the nature of the information sought is apparent." Deyo at 783. KMA's response to this Request is clearly not straight forward, as required by the Code and warrants a further response that is Code compliant. Please provide a simple admission or denial to Request for Admission No. 9 without rewriting Plaintiffs Request. Defendant's discoverability objection to Request No. 12 is not well taken. Damages are a critical element in any lawsuit, and certainly evidence informing the existence and amount of damages is discoverable. Anything that would allow a party to prepare for trial in this matter is discoverable. Lipton v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 611. Any question as to discoverability is resolved in favor of allowing discovery. Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 9. Plaintiff respectfully asks that Defendant withdraw this frivolous objection and provide a code-compliant response. Requests for Admissions Nos. 17, 18, 19, and 20, relate to whether Defendant noted any evidence of misuse or abuse of the subject vehicle by Plaintiff, whether Defendant's service file contains notations involving suspected misuse or abuse of the subject vehicle, whether Defendant is currently unaware of any evidence of misuse or abuse of the subject vehicle by the Plaintiff, and whether Plaintiff caused damage to the subject vehicle by misusing or abusing it. Defendant claimed that after a reasonable inquiry, the information presently known or readily obtainable is insufficient to admit or deny these Requests, but failed to explain what was involved, if anything, in its "reasonable inquiry." The responses are disingenuous, inadequate, and simply evasive. 7 Defendant has placed these facts directly at issue by asserting Affirmative Defenses in its Answer that contend that Plaintiff and/or others are responsible for any alleged damages due to misuse and abuse by Plaintiff and/or others and related claims. Therefore, Plaintiff has an absolute right to discover facts relating to these defenses. A party "cannot plead ignorance to infom1ation which can be obtained from sources under his control." Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782 [Emphasis added.] [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 wan-anted. 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 Plaintiff's Special Interrogatory No. 1 asks Defendant to identify all persons who were consulted or provided answers to these interrogatories. For the same reasons discussed in relation to 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 san1e 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 Inte1TOgatory 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 perfonned the warranty repairs upon the subject vehicle. A further and complete response to No. 14 is hereby demanded. Defendant's responses to the remainder of Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories are repetitive and evasive, and identical to ones already discussed. As such, they should be withdrawn, and further responses should be provided. Special Interrogatory No. 25 asks KMA to identify all persons responsible for its customer relations department in the region having jurisdiction over Plaintiffs complaints, and Special Interrogatory No. 26 asks Defendant to identify the person(s) who is most knowledgeable regarding Defendant's warranty policies, including but not limited to policies that Defendant may have had regarding the replacement or reimbursement of allegedly defective automobiles, respectively. Defendant deflected these and did not provide answers responsive to the Interrogatories. Instead, Defendant asserted the same boilerplate objections. Plaintiff is entitled to the identifies of these key witnesses who oversee its customer relations department. A further response is necessary. As a matter of statutory law, witness information is not protected. "Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter ... . " [Emphasis added]. C.C.P. §§2017.010; 2030.0l0(a):, Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4 th 1539; 1536-1547. Next, Defendant does not have the right to choose how Plaintiff conducts his discovery. As long as Plaintiff propounds discovery properly pursuant to the Code, as Plaintiff has done, then Defendant has an obligation to respond properly. Defendant cannot decide that Plaintiff should choose a different method, and when Plaintiff does, only then will Defendant appropriately respond. This is insufficient and Defendant has failed to provide any legal authorities to support its position with respect to these two Interrogatories. Defendant has failed to provide a complete and straightforward response setting forth "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." C. C.P. § 2030.220 (a), (b ). Thus, a further response is requested to Nos. 25 and 26. 10 Special Interrogatory No. 27 asks Defendant to list all Special Service Messages and/or TSBs that relate to each nonconformity in the subject vehicle, as alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint filed in this action. Defendant asserted the same boilerplate objections, all of which should be denied for reasons previously discussed. The Discovery Act is broadly interpreted. Greyhound Corp. v. Super. Ct. (Clay) ( 1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 384. Generally, "any party may obtain discovery regarding any subject matter involved ... if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." CCP § 2017.010. Plaintiff is entitled to a list of all of the TSBs and/or special service messages that relate to all of his allegations in the Complaint, not limited to those that Defendant considers related. A further response is required to No. 27. Special Interrogatory Nos. 28, 29, and 30 asks if KMA contends that the nonconformity in the Subject Vehicle does not substantially impair the value, use, or safety of the Subject Vehicle, state all facts that supp01i 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 Interrogatory Nos. 32 - 36. Special Interrogatory makes the same boilerplate and/or objections in response to Special Interrogatory No. 37. These objections should be withdrawn, and a further response should be provided. 11 Special Interrogatory No. 38 concerns whether a written warranty was provided to the Plaintiff at the time of sale of the subject vehicle. Defendant's objections are the same boilerplate and frivolous objections that have been previously used and also include that the Interrogatory is irrelevant, immaterial, calls for a legal conclusion, and is unintelligible. These objections are not well taken. Deyo v. Kilbourne stands for the proposition that "vague and ambiguous objections are valid only if the question or request is totally unintelligible. Otherwise, the responding party has a duty to answer if 'the nature of the information sought is apparent."' See Id. at 783. Clearly, KMA is aware of the nature of the information being sought and has a duty to respond in good faith. A further response that fully responds to the Interrogatory as propounded is required. For reasons addressed above, a further response is also required for Special Interrogatory No. 39. This is a Song-Beverly Warranty Act lawsuit. It is axiomatic that warranties are relevant. Please provide a further response. Special Interrogatory No. 40 asks for witness information. This Interrogatory asks Defendant to identify individuals within Defendant's company who are responsible for ensuring that Defendant complies with Song-Beverly. Plaintiffs entire lawsuit is premised on allegations that Defendant violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to know who the individuals are within Defendant's company that are responsible for making sure Defendant complies with California law. If no such individual(s) exist(s), then Defendant must indicate this under oath. Defendant's boilerplate and unsubstantiated objections should be withdrawn. As such, a further response is required. Special Interrogatory No. 41 refers to Special Interrogatory No. 40 for its answer. This is nonresponsive and deficient. For the reasons stated above, a further response is necessary. As to No. 42, after objections, Defendant asserted attorney-client privilege. Please explain how and why this objection applies here, provide a privilege log, or otherwise respond fully. Similarly, Special Interrogatory No. 43 deals with identification of key witnesses, yet Defendant failed to answer, but instead raised the same boilerplate and frivolous objections. Defendant is obligated to identify these witnesses. The same applies to Special Interrogatory No. 44. Further responses are therefore required. Further responses to Special Interrogatory No. 45 are also necessary because Defendant has not produced a privilege log. Defendant's response to Special Interrogatory No. 46 is nonresponsive. This particular interrogatory calls for KMA to state the number of repair attempts that they were afforded. For the same reasons discussed previously, a broad reference to documents produced is unacceptable. This is a contention interrogatory, entirely proper. Surely KMA already performed this calculation and simply prefers not to provide an answer. 12 No. 47 seeks Defendant's definition of "non-conformity." Defendant responded with all objections and a claim that this improperly seeks a legal conclusion. Plaintiff contends that Defendant must answer this if Defendant wishes to defend its client in this case, particularly because Defendant has said elsewhere that "non-conformity" is vague and ambiguous. The existing response is a bad faith evasive tactic. A further response is required. With respect to No. 48, Defendant's boilerplate objections are not substantiated as applied, and the fact that this may seek a legal conclusion does not make it objectionable. The information sought is relevant and Plaintiffs are entitled to a substantive response. Similarly, in response to Nos. 49 and 50, Defendant asserted unsubstantiated objections only and failed to give any substantive responses. Please provide legal authorities to support Defendant's position that these are Code compliant responses to relevant and nonprivileged Interrogatories. Plaintiff contends that they are not and thus, Defendant must further respond with substantive answers. Special Interrogatory No. 51 asks Defendant to list all technical service bulletins that are applicable to the subject vehicle, including any that were superseded. Defendant's response only includes the same boilerplate and frivolous objections that Defendant has used previously. This is the discovery stage, and Plaintiff is entitled to a list of all TSBs relating to this vehicle, including those superseded. Defendant's knowledge of known defects that affect its vehicles is relevant. Defendant may not condition its response on arbitrary requirements of its own making. Accordingly, a further response is necessary. Special Interrogatory No. 52 ask to explain in detail the process by which a technical service bulletin is recalled or suspended. Defendant claims that the request is overly broad, immaterial, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It further alleges that this is an abuse of discovery by Plaintiff because Plaintiff did not even identify any TSB. How can Plaintiff possibly identify the TSBs when Defendant will not provide a complete list or produce the full set of those that apply to the subject vehicle? Therefore, a further response is necessary. Special Interrogatory No. 53 asks Defendant to state the number of days the vehicle was out of service for warranty repairs. There are no privileges or substantiated objections that apply. The total number of "down days" is essential to determining if the lemon law presumption applies. The dealer repair orders do not provide the response because the open and close dates on a dealer's repair orders are often inaccurate and thus do not accurately reflect out-of-service time; in fact, repair orders remain open due to circumstances not reflected in the documents alluded to. As such, the records identified do not answer the question and so the response on its face is incomplete and non-responsive. The appropriate information is readily available to Defendant; it can obtain it by contacting its authorized dealer. Defendant is required to provide answers that are "as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits." Defendant's duty also encompasses the requirement that it make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information sought by the interrogatory, except where that information is readily available to the propounding party. Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal. App.4th 13 1496, 1504. This includes referring to all sources of information that are under the party's control. California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(a), (b ). To be certain, information related to work performed by Defendant-authorized service centers is under the control of Defendant, and Defendant is clearly able to ascertain which Defendant-authorized service centers performed warranty repairs on the subject vehicle. A further response is required to No. 53. Plaintiff respectfully asks for further, verified responses to each of the propounded Special Interrogatories. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS As a preliminary note, none of Defendant's Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents are Code-compliant. A document response must consist of: (1) an agreement to comply, stating whether production or inspection will be allowed "in whole or in part" and that all documents or things in the possession, custody, or control of the respondent, as to which no objection is made, will be included, by the date set for inspection (unless informally extended in writing, or the designed timing is subject to objection); (2) a representation of inability to comply, with a specification of any person believed or known to have possession of documents; or, (3) objections and specifications of withheld documents. Code of Civil Procedure §§2031.210 (a), 2031.220, 2031.270, and 203 l.280(b ); Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2012) ,r,r 8:1469-9:1474. All of Defendant's Responses must be supplemented to comply with the Code. None of Defendant's responses had any language even close to what is required by the code. Defendant's responses exclusively consisted of objections. Moreover, Defendant's document production in this case is entirely deficient. Defendant produced no documents, and has only used the same frivolous, unsubstantiated, and boilerplate objections. Clearly, Defendant must acknowledge the obvious deficiency of a non-existent document production. Again, all of these objections should be overruled for reasons that have already been addressed in this letter. Time and again throughout these objections, Defendant raised concerns based on confidentiality and trade secrets, and has not proposed a protective order when it is Defendant who has the burden of seeking a protective order and substantiating why documents it claims are privileged require protection. Until it does so, there is no reason why Defendant should not produce the requested documents, which Plaintiff contends do not meet the minimum threshold for protection anyway. Plaintiff objects to Defendant's conditioning the production of documents on the execution of a Stipulated Proposed Protective Order. Pursuant to CCP sections 2016.040 and 203 l .060(a), this serves as Plaintiffs effort to informally resolve this matter. The following discussions provide prima facie evidence of good cause for the production of the documents sought by Plaintiff in this case. See, C. CP. § 2031.31 0(b )(1) [ A motion for an order compelling a further response to a production request "shall set forth specific facts 14 showing good cause justifying the discovery sought..."] Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117. Unless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, the moving party's burden is met simply by a showing or relevance. TBG Insurance Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443; Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002), 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98. Request for Production No. 1 seeks production of all repair orders including front and back of each page, handwritten notes, hard cards, accounting copies regarding, pertaining to, or relating to the subject vehicle. Defendant has produced very little in this regard and certainly not all variations or versions of all involved repair orders. These are clearly relevant and nonprivileged documents in a Song-Beverly case alleging breach of implied and express warranties. Further responses and production are necessary. For the same reasons stated above, Defendant must also provide further responses and production to Request or Production No. 2. Request for Production Nos. 3 and 4 ask for all warranty repair documents regarding, pertaining, or relating to the subject vehicle, and all warranty reimbursement documents applicable to the subject vehicle, respectively. Defendant's confidentiality concerns can be resolved with a protective order, but Defendant has yet to produce a protective order for review.' Therefore, further responses with an accompanying document production are necessary. Request Nos. 5 and 6 seek all warranty documents applicable to the subject vehicle and all documents related to any examination, test, or inspection performed with respect to the subject vehicle. For the same reasons as above, a further response and responsive document production is necessary. Request Nos. 7 and 8 seek pre-delivery preparation related documents, and any service, adjustments, repairs, or restorations to the subject vehicle prior to delivery to Plaintiff, respectively. Defendant's response to each made the same boilerplate objections, and thus, a further responses and an accompanying document production is necessary. Request for Production No. 9 seeks production of all recall documents regarding, pertaining, or relating to the subject vehicle, including but not limited to, service bulletins and/or technical service bulletins. Defendant's objections, like those above, are not well taken and should be withdmwn. 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 1 s necessary. Request for Production Nos. 14 and 15 seek production of all documents evidencing any communications regarding the subject vehicle and/or communications between Plaintiff and Defendant. First of all, as has been repeated, Defendant has not produced a document production, and if there are any privileged documents that Defendant is withholding based upon privilege, then Plaintiff is entitled to a privilege log to assess whether protection is appropriate. Please provide a privilege log, or otherwise clarify your responses to indicate clearly that no responsive documents, privileged or not are being withheld from Plaintiff. For the same reasons as discussed to varying degrees above, a further response with production of documents to Request No. 16, 17, and 18 is necessary. Request for Production No. 19 asks Defendant to produce the complete Service File with respect to the Subject Vehicle. No Service file/records were produced. A further response with responsive document production is necessary. Request for Production No. 20 asks Defendant to produce the complete Sales and Service Accounting File. Again, no sales records were produced. A further response with responsive document production is necessary. For Request for Production No. 21, however, Defendant failed to produce the sales and service records and the Warranty History Inquiry. Please produce these documents, as well as any documents responsive to Request for Production No. 22. Request for Production No. 23 asks for Defendant's "complete file relating specifically to the subject vehicle, including but not limited to, deal jacket." Defendant "objects to this request because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous, and "presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attorney/ client communications, nor does Plaintiff seeks the discovery of the attorney work product of either in-house or outside counsel." Defendant has failed to properly respond to this request. Please explain how these objections contain any merit. Produce the referenced documents that Defendant failed to produce including the sales and service records and Warranty History Inquiry, as well as any documents responsive to Request for Production Nos. 24 29, all of which raise the same frivolous and boilerplate objections. For Request for Production Nos. 30, as explained previously in this letter, the burden is on the party seeking protection to substantiate the need for protection and seek an order if necessary. Defendant failed to justify the need for one so far. Please further respond and produce all responsive documents. 16 Request for Production No. 31 asks for all documents relating to the customer call center, including but not limited to, all flow charts, processes, and/or scripts. Defendant's response is not responsive to the Request and for that reason a further response is sought, as well as for Request for Production No. 32. Defendant's objections claiming material that is confidential, proprietary, and protected by trade secrets are not supported by the requisite showing. A party claiming confidentiality protections must show good cause for the need in terms of a protective order. Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4 th 261, 318. Defendant must show that the information sought actually contains confidential commercial information (not otherwise known to others in the pertinent field) and that its dissemination would injure Defendant. See Id Kia has not shown that the information sought is generally unknown to other auto manufacturers or others similarly situated who could gain an advantage from its use, nor shown that any harm would result to Defendant from such use. Therefore, conclusory allegations and objection not sufficient. Defendant failed to include or refer to any privilege logs or similar documents describing the allegedly confidential documents. See, Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181. The purpose of a privilege log is to provide a specific factual description of documents in support of substantiating a claim of privilege in connection with a request for document production. Since these responses include no details or enumeration of allegedly confidential documents, Plaintiff cannot evaluate Kia's entitlement to these asserted protections. These documents are clearly relevant as they evidence Kia Motors America, Inc.' s policies and procedures for evaluating whether or not a customer's vehicle qualifies for repurchase under Song-Beverly. Whether or not Defendant willfully violated Song-Beverly is relevant to the potential for a civil penalty of up to two times Plaintiffs actual damages pursuant to Civil Code § 1794( c ). Accordingly, a further response is necessary. Request for Production No. 33 asks for all documents related to the technical hotline. Defendant again asserted boilerplate objections, and failed to propose a protective order. As discussed in relation to Request for Production Nos. 30, 31, and 32, this is unacceptable. Further responses and production are necessary. Request for Production No. 34 asks for all documents related to efforts by you to reduce the number of repeat repair attempts for a customer. Defendant's objections are with merit and it has not been shown how this request seeks confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information. Clearly, manufacturers and warranty defense lawyers know what a "repeat repair attempt" is, as it is a term regularly used in the context of Song-Beverly cases. Therefore, a further response is necessary. I also note that you have objected to Request for Production No. 35 which asks for all documents related to efforts by you to reduce the number of reacquired vehicles as well as Request for Production No. 36 which asks for all documents related to repeat repair procedures for remedying customer concerns. Clearly this information is relevant as Plaintiff is entitled to efforts by Defendant to repair the subject vehicle. Further responses with document production are required. All the other boilerplate objections that Defendant has repeated in these responses have been soundly addressed elsewhere in this letter. 17 Request for Production Nos. 37 through 42 seek documents evidencing, relating, or referring to complaints by owners of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle regarding any of the conditions, defects, or nonconformities for which Plaintiff presented the subject vehicle to you or your authorized repair facility for repair, and production of all surveys, reports, summaries, or other documents in which owners of the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle have reported to you any of the specific problems. Defendant asserted numerous objections on the grounds that each Request is 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, Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138. The Court held: "other vehicles testimony was not unduly prejudicial. It did not concern simply other vehicles. It was limited to the ( defective component) in Plaintiffs truck and other vehicles. (Plaintiffs expert) described what Ford itself had done to notify dealers and technicians about problems with this ( defective component) model. Thus, everything about which he testified that applied to other vehicles applied equally to Plaintiffs vehicle. Such evidence certainly was probative and not unduly prejudicial." See, Id at 154. Donlen is not an outlier case. In Doppes v. Bentley Motors Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 697, the trial ordered production of "repair invoices or other records of odor reduction work and/or odor repair on all Bentleys for model years 1999 to 2006, all documents recording 18 approval for installation of odor reduction kits for model years 1999 to 2006, all documents denying approval for installation of odor reduction kits for model years 1999 to 2006, any correspondence ( other than email) from Bentley dealers to Bentley USA or UK regarding customer odor complaints, .. and all other documents of any description referring or relating to the odor problem or complaints of odor in Bentley automobiles for model years 1999 to 2006." The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's orders. Additionally, information about other similar vehicle complaints are relevant to refute Defendant's claims that Plaintiff or others, aside from Defendant, are responsible for the vehicle's problems, as alleged in Defendant's affirmative defenses claiming that Plaintiff and/or others misused or abused the vehicle, or engaged in unauthorized or unreasonable use of the subject vehicle. Under any interpretation, the documents that Plaintiff seeks are "reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence," which is the standard that governs here. Accordingly, the documents sought by Plaintiff are certainly discoverable, as they are "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." CCP § 2017.01 0; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. 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. 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 ~~ (/ / Troy R. Candiotti, Esq. 20 EXHIBIT 4 I THE Main Office BARRY 11845 \W. Olympic Boulevard Suite 1270 LAW L08 Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone (310) 684-5859 O Facsimile (310) 862-4539 FIRM tcandiotti@mylemonrights.com September 29, 2020 VIA U.S. MAIL AND E-MAIL TO: DANIELLE@LEHRMANLAWGROUP.COM Danielle N. Duarte, Esq. Lehrman Law Group 12121 Wilshire B1Vd., Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Re: Bryan Thuerk v. Kia Motors America, Inc. Case N0: 20CV364578 Dear Ms. Duarte: This letter serves as a follow-up t0 my July 30, 2020 meet and confer letter t0 you regarding Defendant’s deficient discovery responses, and lack of verifications, to Plaintiff’s first set of written discovery responses. Despite my July 30, 2020 letter requesting verifications and a response within seven (7) days 0f the date 0f that letter, I still have not heard from you. Please note that if I d0 not receive a response within 7 days from the date of this letter, I must then assume Defendant is not interested in resolving this discovery dispute informally. Consequently, Plaintiff will be forced to file Motions to Compel Further Responses and a Request for Sanctions. I hope this will not be necessary. I 100k forward t0 hearing from you. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Very Truly Yours, THE BARRY LAW FIRM Troy R. Candiotti, Esq. CC: klehrman@lehrmanlawgroup.com dvillegas@lehrmanlawgroup.com EXHIBIT 5 T \OOOflQUl-hUJNn-A NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-‘r-Ar-Awn-Ay-Ar-ir-A OOQQM-PUJNHowooflONM-kUJNV-‘O LEHRMAN LAW GROUP KATE S. LEHRMAN [Bar No. 123050] JACQUELINE BRUCE CHINERY [Bar No. 187544] DANIELLE N. DUARTE [Bar No. 308402] 12121 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90025 (3 10) 917-4500 (310) 917-5677 (FAX) Attorneys for Defendant SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Case No. 20CV364578 [Filed: March 3, 2020] BRYAN THUERK, an individual, Plaintiff, Hon. Thang M. Barrett v. Dept. 21 KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Defendants. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 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, responds to Plaintiff’s Request for Production ofDocuments as follows: /// /// 3o 1 .224.DND - 00529954.D0CX 1 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQO‘NUl-hUJN 10 ' 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS The subject ofPlaintiff’ 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 to Plaintiff s requests to the extent they seek information concerning products other than the subject product in suit, vehicle components, systems or characteristics that are not described or identified with reasonable particularity in the Complaint and which are not the subject of Plaintiff’s defect allegations. Such requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome and seek information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case. KMA objects to Plaintiff’s requests to the extent they may call for the production of proprietary information, trade secrets or other confidential business and commercial information, public dissemination ofwhich would place KMA at a commercial disadvantage. KMA objects to Plaintiff’s requests to the extent these requests can be interpreted to seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the consulting expert privilege or the work product doctrine. In responding to these requests, KMA assumes that Plaintiff does not seek information or documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or work produce doctrine, and KMA hereby preserves all such privileges. KMA objects to the instructions and definitions in Plaintiff’s Request for Production to the extent that they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seek to impose duties or requirements beyond those required by the Code of Civil Procedure, KMA fithher objects to Plaintiff’s discovery request to the extent they seek “any” or “all” records or documents of a particular description or designation. KMA is only required to make a diligent search of records kept in the ordinary course ofbusiness and those locations likely to contain relevant information and has done so. Finally, neither the failure to specifically mention a general objection in any response nor the specification 0f any other objection shall be deemed a waiver of any objections to that discovery request; 301 .224.DND - 00529954.Docx 2 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQQUl-bUJNr-x [\Jr-Ar-iHr-Ar-dHr-Ar-dr-ar-A OKOOOQQUI-bUJNr-‘O 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Without waiving the foregoing objections, and incorporating them into each ofthe following requests, KMA responds to Plaintiff s Request for Production as follows: OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS DEFINITION 1: “DOCUMENT” 0r “DOCUMENTS” shall mean a writing, as defined in California Evidence Code Section § 250, and shall include the original or a copy 0f handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostats, photographs, electronically stored information, and every other means ofrecording upon any tangible thing and form ofcommunicating or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds or symbols, 0r combination of them. RESPONSE: KMA objects to Plaintiff’ s definition of the term “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” as vague, ambiguous and overly broad. KMA assumes the terms “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” refers to written records or other tangible things. To the extent a “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” is requested to be produced, KMA will provide a true and correct copy of the written material or allow for a reasonable inspection of the tangible thing, including an opportunity to photograph said tangible thing. Destructive testing or an inspection of any tangible thing which may alter said tangible thing will be allowed only after a protocol has been agreed upon by all parties. KMA also objects to the extent Plaintiff asks for “any” and “all” DOCUMENTS of a particular description or designation. KMA is only required to make a diligent search of records kept in the ordinary course of business and those locations likely to contain relevant information. DEFINITION 2: “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. /// /// 30 1 .224.DND - 00529954.D0CX 3 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \DOOQONUIbUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNHb-dr-tp-tr-tp-tr-tr-tt-tr-t OOQOMbWNHO©OOQONU1hUJNHO RESPONSE: KMA objects to Plaintiff’s definition 0f the terms “YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF”, “YOU”, and/or “YOUR” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Further, to the extent that a request or interrogator requires KMA to respond on behalf 0f entities other than itself, or on behalf of agents or employees of other entities, KMA objects because such requests or interrogatories are overly broad, unduly burdensome and beyond the scope of permissible discovery. As used herein, KMA assumes the terms “YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF”, “YOU” and/or “YOUR” refer t0 KMA, and KMA responds solely one behalfofKMA. DEFINITION 3: “SUBJECT VEHICLE” shall refer t0 the motor vehicle that is the subject of this lawsuit as identified in the complaint filed in this action. DEFINITION 4: “RELEVANT PERIOD” shall mean the period fiom the time Plaintiff first purchased the SUBJECT VEHICLE up to and including today. DEFINITION 5: “COMMUNICATION” shall mean any or all transmittals of information, whether oral or reduced to writing, whether handwritten, typewritten, tape-recorded, or produced by electronic data processing, irrespective ofhow 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, letters, notes, telegrams, advertisements, or other forms of verbal intercourse, whether oral or written. RESPONSE: KMA objects to Plaintiff’s definition of“COMMUNICATION” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. /// 301.224.DND - 00529954.Docx 4 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQONUI-bUJNp-x Nr-Ar-Ar-ir-Ar-Ar-tn-tr-ar-tr-A OKOOOQONU‘I-hUJNr-IO 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FURTHER RESPONSE TO RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: A11 repair orders including fiont and back 0f each page, any handwritten notes, any hard cards and accounting copies regarding, pertaining, or relating to the SUBJECT VEPHCLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request 0n 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 ofthe 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks documents in the possession, custody, and/or control ofthird parties. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its objections, KMA fithher responds as follows: KMA agrees to comply with this demand in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, and to which n0 objection is being made. KMA refers Plaintiff to 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), copies ofwhich are in Plaintiff’s possession, which will be produced REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: A11 parts invoices regarding, pertaining, or relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 301 .224.DND - 00529954.D0CX 5 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE #UJN \OOOQONUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 reasonably related t0 the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks documents in the possession, custody, and/or control of third parties. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA agrees to comply with this demand in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, and to Which no objection is being made. KMA refers Plaintiff to 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), copies ofwhich are in Plaintiffs possession, which will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: A11 warranty repair documents regarding, pertaining, or relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly board, 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. 30 1 .224.DND - 00529954.Docx 6 20CV36457 8 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \DOOQQUILUJNH [\Jr-Ar-ti-tr-Ar-ti-tn-Ar-tr-tn-A Owoofl©thJNHO 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. This request seeks disclosure of materials which are not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter ofthis litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request seeks documents in the possession, custody, and/or control ofthird parties. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its objections, KMA fithher responds as follows: KMA agrees to comply with this demand in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, and to which no objection is being made. KMA refers Plaintiff to 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), copies ofwhich are in Plaintiff’s possession, which will be produced and the Warranty History Inquiry, a copy ofwhich will be produced, subject to entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: A11 warranty reimbursement documents applicable to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 0f admissible evidence. 301 .224.DND - 00529954Docx 7 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE KOOOQONUlthV-d Nv-tb-Ap-hhab-Ab-iv-tr-AHI-t Owooqmm-kUJNr-‘O 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its objections, KMA fithher responds as follows: Subject to entry ofan appropriate Protective Order in this case regarding certain proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information, KMA agrees to comply with this demand in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, and to which no objection is being made. KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the Warranty History Inquiry, a copy ofwhich will be produced, subject to entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: A11 warranty documents applicable to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly board, 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 0f materials which are not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are h‘relevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request seeks documents in the possession, custody, and control ofthird parties. 5. KMA further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks the premature disclosure of expert witness information and/or materials. 301 .224.DND - 00529954.D0CX 8 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOflQUl-bUJNp-t NHHHHHHHHHH OQOOQQUI-bUJNh-‘O 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA agrees to comply with this demand in part. KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the Warranty and Consumer Manual, which will be produced, and the Warranty History Inquiry, which will be produced, subject to the entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: A11 DOCUMENTS regarding, pertaining, or relating t0 any examination, tests or inspections performed with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad as to both time and scope, 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure of expert information. 4. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential informaticn. 5. This request seeks documents in the possession, custody, and control of third parties. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA agrees t0 comply with this demand in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, ,and to which n0 objection is being made. KMA refers Plaintiff t0 the service records for the subject vehicle, 30 1 .224.DND _ 00529954.D0CX 9 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE ©00QO\UI#UJNr-‘ [\Jr-Ar-tr-ip-Ar-tr-ap-Ay-tr-ar-A OKOOOQONm-lkUJNr-‘O [\J pa 23 24 25 26 27 28 copies of which are in Plaintiff s possession, which will be produced. Further, KMA refers Plaintiff to the Warranty History Inquiry and the Techline Assistance Center Case Reports, copies ofwhich will be produced, subject to entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: A11 DOCUMENTS regarding, pertaining, or relating to pre-delivery preparation of the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad as to scope, 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 0r outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. This request seeks disclosure of materials which are not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks documents in the possession, custody, or control ofthird parties. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA agrees to comply with this demand in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, and to which no objection is being made. Specifically, KMA will search for and, if discovered, will produce a copy 0f the pre-delivery inspection service record for the subject vehicle. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: A11 DOCUMENTS reflecting any service, adjustments, repairs, or restorations to the SUBJECT VEHICLE prior t0 delivery t0 Plaintiff, including, but not limited to all documents relating to events that may have affected the SUBJECT VEHICLE in any way at the 301.224.DND - 00529954.D0CX 10 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQQUI-bUJNr-l Nr-tr-tu-‘p-Ah-‘t-In-tv-dt-tr-t OKOOOQO\U1-AUJNv-‘O 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 manufacturing and/or assembly facility, in transit and/or shipping, and any other stage ofpre- delivery process. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects t0 this request because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this request, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery 0f attorney/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery ofthe attorney work product 0f either in-house or outside counsel. KMA’S responses will be limited with this understanding. 2. The interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to the terms “adjustments,” “restorations” as to be unintelligible. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request seeks documents in the possession, custody, and control of third parties. 5. KMA further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks the premature disclosure of expert witness information and/or materials. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and Without waiving its objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA agrees to comply with this demand in filll and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control and. to which n0 objection is being made. Specifically, KMA will search for and, if discovered, will produce a copy of the pre-delivery inspection service record for the subject vehicle. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0. 9: A11 recall DOCUMENTS regarding, pertaining, or relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including but not limited to, service bulletins and/or technical service bulletins.w KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 301 .224.DND - 00529954.D0CX 1 1 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQONUIhUJNp-x Nr-Ir-tHr-Ar-dr-ar-Ar-dr-ar-A OOOOQONMAUJNr-ao 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad as to scope and time, vague and ambiguous. In responding t0 this request, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attorney/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery ofthe 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request seeks documents in the possession, custody, and control ofthird parties. 5. KMA filrther objects to this request to the extent that it seeks the premature disclosure of expert witness information and/or materials. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its objections, KMA further responds as follows: Subject to entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case regarding certain proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information, KMA agrees to in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, and to which no objection is being made. KMA refers Plaintiff to 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), copies ofwhich are in Plaintiff s possession, Which will be produced and the Warranty History Inquiry, Consumer Assistance Center Case Reports, Techline Case Reports, copies ofwhich will be produced subject t0 entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case. Further, KMA will produce any service bulletin/technical service bulletin applied to/performed on the subject vehicle REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: A11 promotional brochures, flyers, posters, folders, and media advertisements regarding, 301.224.DND - 00529954.D0CX 12 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQQU‘I#WNr-t N N N N N N 'N N N r-‘ b-t >-d r-d r-d r-a r-d r-d b-i v--\ 00 fl O\ U] A DJ N r-‘ O \O 00 fl O\ U‘I A DJ N b-i O pertaining, or relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE during the RELEVANT PERIOD. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Request in that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that it seeks information which is not limited in time or to anything Plaintiff may have seen. Further, this Request does not seek any information regarding any 0f the issues raised by Plaintiff’s Complaint. In addition, this Request seeks documents that are not in KMA’s possession, custody or control. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA agrees to in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, and to which n0 objection is being made. KMA refers Plaintiff to the product brochure for the subject vehicle. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: A computer printout or similar summary of the SUBJECT VEHICLE repair history fiom the manufacturer’s records. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this request 0n the following grounds: 1. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 2. This request is vague and ambiguous as t0 “computer printout 0r similar summary.” 3. This request seeks documents in the possession, custody or control of third parties. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its objections, KMA further responds as follows: Subject t0 entry ofan appropriate Protective Order in this case regarding certain proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information, KMA agrees to comply with 3O 1 .224.DND - 00529954.DOCX 13 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQO‘NU‘I-bUJNn-A NNNNNNNNNr-‘r-‘r-dr-‘r-Ar-dr-tr-Ap-ap-A this demand in part and will produce the Warranty History Inquiry relating to the subject vehicle. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: A11 DOCUMENTS relating in any way t0 the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request 0n the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad as to time and scope, 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 ofthe 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request does not specify with reasonable particularity the materials or categories of materials, including electronically stored information, to be produced, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4). 5. This request prematurely seeks expert Witness information. (Code CiV. Proc., § 2034.210 et seq.) FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and Without waiving its objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA agrees to comply with this demand in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, and to which no objection is being made. KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales and service records for the subject vehicle, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual and the Owner’s Manual for the subject vehicle, c0pies of which are in Plaintiff’s possession, which will be produced. Further, KMA refers Plaintiff to the Warranty History Inquiry, Consumer Assistance Case 301 .224.DND - 00529954.D0CX 14 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE KOOOQQthbJNp-A N N [\J N N N [\J [\J N h-t H 1-4» h-t h-A H h-t H H p-d 00 fl O\ kl] -§ U) N F" O \O 00 fl O\ L11 -§ U) N H o Center Reports and the Techline Assistance Center Case Reports, copies of which will be produced, subject to entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: A11 statements taken by YOU OR ANYONE ON YOUR BEHALF fiom any person with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA agrees to comply with this demand in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, 0r control, and t0 which no objection is being made. KMA refers Plaintiff to the service records for the subject vehicle, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual and the Owner’s Manual for the subject vehicle, copies 0f Which are in Plaintiff’s possession, which will be produced. Further, KMA refers Plaintiff to the Consumer Assistance Case Center Reports and Techline Assistance Center Case Reports, copies of which Will be produced, subject to entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case. /// 301.224.DND - 00529954D0CX 15 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQONUILUJNH N N [\J [\J [\J [\J [\J {\J [\J r-A r-A >-A p-A H b-d r-A >-¢ r-d r-A 00 fl O\ U1 A DJ [\J *-‘ O \O 00 fl ON U1 h UJ [\J *-‘ O REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: A11 DOCUMENTS evidencing any COMMUNICATION regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.w KMA objects to this request 0n the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad as to time and scope, 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 0fthe 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request seeks the premature disclosure 0f expert Witness information. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its objections, KMA fithher responds as follows: KMA agrees to comply with this demand in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, and to Which n0 objection is being made. KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales and service records, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual and the Owner’s Manual for the subject vehicle, copies of which are in Plaintiff‘s possession, which will be produced and the Warranty History Inquiry and the Techline Assistance Center Case Reports, copies ofwhich Will be produced, subject to entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: A11 DOCUMENTS evidencing any COMMUNICATION between Plaintiff and Defendants. 301 .224.DND - 00529954.D0CX 16 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQONLI‘IhUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE: 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA agrees to comply with this demand in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, and to Which no objection is being made. KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales and service records, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual and the Owner’s Manual for the subject vehicle, copies of which are in Plaintiff’s possession, which will be produced. KMA further refers plaintiff to Consumer Assistance Case Center Reports, copies ofwhich Will be produced, subject to entry of an appropriate Pretective Order in this case. REmJEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: A11 DOCUMENTS evidencing any COMMUNICATION between Defendant, and any independent dealer, service facility, and/or any other person 0r entity providing assistance to Defendant regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects t0 this request because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In 301.224.DND - 00529954.D0CX 17 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE p-A NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHr-tr-AHr-t WQQMbWNHoomflONM$UJNHO \OOOQONUI-hUJN responding to this request, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attorney/client communications, nor does Plaintiff seek the discovery ofthe 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA agrees to comply with this demand in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, and to which no objection is being made. KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales and service records, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual and the Owner’s Manual for the subject vehicle, copies of which are in Plaintiff’s possession, which will be produced and the Warranty History Inquiry and the Techline Assistance Center Case Reports, copies ofwhich will be produced, subject to entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: A11 DOCUMENTS to include but not limited to manuals, publications, directives and direct deal r netifications or advertisements regarding, pertaining, 0r relatmg to handling warranty repairs on the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request 0n the following grounds: 1. This request lacks the requisite specificity dictated by the Code of Civil Procedure, is overly broad, not limited in scope, and therefore is unjustly burdensome and oppressive. 2. This request seeks disclosure of materials which are not reasonably related to the 301.224.DND - 00529954.D0CX 18 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQONUl-bUJNH Nr-Ir-‘r-ir-Ay-‘r-ir-Ir-Ar-ir-A OOOOQONUIAUJNHO 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request is overly broad as to both time and scope as to be burdensome and harassing and is vague and ambiguous. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA refers Plaintiff to the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual for the subject vehicle. KMA further refers Plaintiff to relevant portions of the Service Policy & Procedures Manual, which will be produced subject to entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case. REmJEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: The complete Sales or Lease file with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including but not limited to, the deal jacket.W 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 t0 this request, 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 understandifig. 2. This request seeks disclosure of materials which are not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter 0f this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks documents in the possession, custody, and control of third parties. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its objections, KMA further responds as follows: 301 .224.DND - 00529954.D0CX 19 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQOU‘IhUJNH Nr-tb-ip-ir-tr-Ar-Ah-tr-Ar-AI-t OOOOQQLh-PUJNb-‘O [\J p...¢ 23 24 25 26 27 28 KMA agrees to comply with this demand in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, and to which no objection is being made. KMA refers Plaintiff to the purchase contract, a copy of which will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: The complete Service File with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks documents in the possession, custody, and control of third parties. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and Without waiving its objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA agrees to ccmply with this demand in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, and to which no objection is being made. KMA agrees to produce the service records for the subject vehicle (Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia of Fremont invoice no. 338097). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. A]; The complete Sales and Service Accounting File with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 301.224.DND - 00529954.D0CX 20 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQONUl-hUJNr-t Np-‘HHp-nr-iHr-IHr-dr-I O©00QONUIAUJNHO 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE: 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This Request seeks documents in the possession, custody, or control ofthird parties. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA agrees to comply with this demand in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, and to which no objection is being made. KMA agrees to produce the purchase agreement with respect to the subject vehicle. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. g; A11 DOCUMENTS identified in YOUR responses to the Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, served concurrently with this request. RESPONSE: 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. 301 .224.DND - 00529954.DOCX 21 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQONUILUJNH NI-tr-iHI-tr-Ar-dI-Ib-tr-dr-i OCOOQONUIAUJNr-‘O 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. This request seeks disclosure of materials which are not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request does not specify with reasonable particularity the materials or categories of materials, including electronically stored information, to be produced, in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4). FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its objections, KMA filrther responds as follows: KMA agrees to comply with this demand in part and Will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, and to which no objection is being made. KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales and service records (Capitol Kia invoice nos. 189894, 195296, Stevens Creek Kia invoice nos. 68061, 68483, and 69995, Winn Kia of Fremont invoice no. 338097), the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual and the Owner’s Manual for the subject vehicle, copies of which are in Plaintiffs possession, which will be produced and the Warranty History Inquiry, Techline Assistance Center Case Reports, and Consumer Assistance Center Case reports, copies of Which will be produced, subject to entry 0f an appropriate Protective Order in this case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: A cepy 0fYOUR complete file relating t0 any arbitration proceeding concernmg the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects t0 this Request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. KMA also objects to this Request as it seeks materials that are equally available to Plaintiff. KMA further objects to this Request to the extent it violates the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. KMA also objects to the extent that this Request seeks information that is protected fiom discovery at this phase of the proceeding by Code 0f Civil 3o 1 .224.DND - 00529954.D0CX 22 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE KDOOQONUI-bUJNh-t Nr-tr-tu-tHr-Ar-tr-tr-Ar-‘r-t OQOOQCNUIAUJNHO 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Procedure Section 2034.210 et seq. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its objections, KMA further responds as follows: Unable to cbmply. Following a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, KMA lacks the ability to comply with this Request because it has no responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control, as no such documents exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Nag; A copy ofYOUR complete file relating specifically t0 the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including but not limited to, deal jacket. RESPONSE: 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request does not specify With reasonable particularity the materials or categories of materials, including electronically stored information, to be produced, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4). FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA agrees to comply With this demand in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, and to which 301 .224.DND - 00529954.D0cx 23 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQQUl-PLNNr-A NHHy-n-Hr-n-Hr-r-A OCCOQOUIfiUJNr-‘o 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 no objection is being made. KMA refers Plaintiff to the sales and service records, the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual and the Owner’s Manual for the subject vehicle, copies 0f which are in Plaintiff” s possession, which will be produced and the Warranty History Inquiry, Techline Assistance Center Case Reports and Consumer Assistance Center Case Reports copieé ofwhich will be produced, subject to entry 0f an appropriate Protective Order in this case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: A11 DOCUMENTS relating to the odometer or the number of miles on the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Request as it requests documents equally available to Plaintiff as to this Defendant. This request does not specify with reasonable particularity the materials or categories of materials, including electronically stored information, to be produced, in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4). Further, the request is vague and ambiguous, and overbroad as to both time and scope. Further, upon information and belief, Plaintiff has already received the records of the independent authorized dealership to which Plaintiffpreviously took the subject vehicle. In addition, this Request seeks documents that are not in KMA’s possession, custody or control. KMA further objects to this request as overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FURTHER RESPONSE: Without waiving and subject to its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA agrees to comply with this demand in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, and to which no objection is being made. 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) regarding the subject vehicle. In addition, KMA refers Plaintiff to the Warranty History Inquiry, a copy 0fwhich will be produced, subject to entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case. 301.224.DND - 00529954.DOCX 24 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQQUIhUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and ambiguous, and overbroad as to both time and scope. Further, upon information and belief, Plaintiff has already received the records 0f the independent authorized dealership to which Plaintiff previously took the subject vehicle. In addition, this Request seeks documents that are not in KMA’s possession, custody or control. KMA filrther objects to this request as overly broad and not reasonably calculated t0 lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA filrther responds as follows: Unable to comply. Afier a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, KMA has no responsive documents in its possession, custody or control, as no such documents exist. KMA's investigation and discovery are continuing and KMA reserves the right to amend this response. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: A11 DOCUMENTS, relating to any inspections performed on the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including the actual report(s). RESPONSE: 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure of expert information. FURTHER RESPONSE: Without waiving and subject to its previously asserted objections, KMA filrther responds as follows: 301.224.DND - 00529954.Docx 26 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQCNkthJNfi-d Nva-dr-dHh-fir-dh-dh-ar-d OOOOQONUIAUJNh-‘O 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Subject to entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case regarding certain proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information, KMA agrees to comply with this demand in full and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control. KMA refers Plaintiff to the Warranty History Inquiry, a copy 0f Which will be produced, subject to entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: A11 DOCUMENTS relating to the Customer Call Center, including but not limited to, all flow charts, processes, and/or scripts. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request 0n the following grounds: 1. KMA objects t0 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request does not specify with reasonable particularity the materials or categories of materials, including electronically stored information, to be produced, in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4). 5. The request is vague and ambiguous, and overbroad as to both time and scope. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject t0 and without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA filrther responds as follows: 301 .224.DND - 00529954.D0CX 27 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOONONUI#UJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-Ar-y-ip-tr-iy-ip-p-Av-ir-A OONONUIAUJNHOOOOQONUIAUJNHO KMA agrees to comply With this demand in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, and to which no objection is being made. KMA Will produce the Consumer Assistance Case Center Reports and the Techline Assistance Case Center Reports and relevant portions of the Call Matrix, subject to entry 0f an appropriate Protective Order in this case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: A11 DOCUMENTS relating to any Customer Loyalty Program or After Warranty Assistance Program that YOU had in effect during the RELEVANT time period. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this Request in that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that it seeks information which is not limited in time or to anything Plaintiffmay have seen. Further, this Request does not seek any information regarding any of the issues raised by Plaintiff’ s Complaint. Moreover, KMA objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure 0f documents protected by the attorney/client privilege and/or work product doctrine. KMA objects to this request as it seeks trade secret, confidential and/or proprietary documents. This request does not specify with reasonable particularity the materials or categories of materials, including electronically stored information, t0 be produced, in Violation ofCode 0f Civil Procedure section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4). FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject t0 and Without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: Unable to comply. After conducting a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, KMA does not have any responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control as n0 such documents exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: A11 DOCUMENTS related to the Technical Hot Line. /// 301.224DND - 00529954.Docx 28 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQQU‘I#UJNn-a N N N N N N N b) N r-t r-A r-a p-t r-A r-a r-I p-A r-d r-t 00 fl O\ LII -b U) N '-" O \O 00 fl O\ U‘l -b DJ N H O RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request 0n 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request does not specify With reasonable particularity the materials or categories of materials, including electronically stored information, to be produced, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4). 5. The request is vague and ambiguous, and overbroad as to both time and scope. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA refers Plaintiff to the service records that KMA requested fiom the independent authcrized dealerships which are currently in this Defendant's possession. KMA also refers Plaintiff to the Warranty Claim History 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. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: A11 DOCUMENTS related to the repair procedures performed on the SUBJECT VEHICLE. I /// 301.224.DND - 00529954.DOCX 29 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQONUIhUJNH N N N N N N N [\J N r-A r-i >-a r-A r-d r-a r-A r-d r-a r-A 00 Q Q m A U) N "" o \o 0° fl ON U‘I A DJ N ’-‘ o RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request 0n 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 d0 Plaintiff seeks 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 request seeks disclosure of materials which are not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter 0f this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request also seeks information that is protected fiom discovery at this phase of the proceeding by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.210 et seq. 5. This request does not specify with reasonable particularity the materials or categories of materials, including electronically stored information, to be produced, in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4). 6. The request seeks the premature disclosure of expert witness information. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and Without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA agrees to comply with this demand in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, and to which no objection is being made. KMA agrees to produce 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) for the subject vehicle and the Warranty History Inquiry, a copy of which will be produced, subject to entry of an appropriate Protective Order in this case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: A11 Technical Service Bulletins applicable to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 301.224.DND ~ 00529954.DOCX 30 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE kDOOflONUI-RUJNH N N N N N [\J N [\J [\J t-d r-t i-A n-t r-A i-a n-t r-A r-a n-t 00 fl C\ U1 g W N P" O \o 00 \] ON U1 -h UJ N H O RESPONSE: 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 do Plaintiff seeks 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request also seeks information that is protected fiom discovery at this phase of the proceeding by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.210 et seq. 5. This request does not specify with reasonable particularity the materials or categories of materials, including electronically stored information, to be produced, in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(4). FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject t0 and without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA agrees to comply with this demand in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, 0r controls and to Which no objection is being made. KMA will produce any technical service bulletin applied to/performed on the subject vehicle. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: A11 recalls applicable to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects to this request because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In 301 .224.DND - 00529954.D0CX 31 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOflQUl-bUJNH [\Jr-ir-Ap-‘r-ir-AHp-ir-ir-dr-i OKOOOQO\UIAUJNr-io 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 responding to this request, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of attorney/client communications, nor do Plaintiff seeks 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request also seeks information that is protected fiom discovery at this phase of the proceeding by Code ofCiVil Procedure Section 2034.210 et seq. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA fithher responds as follows: KMA agrees t0 comply with this demand and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, and to which no objection is being made. KMA will provide the recalls, if any, for the subject vehicle. As to responsive materials which are in the public domain and equally available to Plaintiff, KMA refers Plaintiff to the NHTSA website, www.nhtsa.dot.gov. Associated documents are posted on said website and/or may be ordered fiom NHTSA Technical Information Services through the following address: Technical Information Services (NAD-40) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 - 7th Street, sw, Room 5 1 10 Washington, DC 20590 tis@nhtsa.dot.gov REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: A11 DOCUMENTS regarding Defendant’s repair procedures consulted and followed during the completion ofrepairs for the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 301 .224.DND - 00529954.D0CX 32 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQCNUlgLNNr-t [\Jr-Ap-Ab-aI-tp-AHr-Ap-At-tp-i OOOOQONUI-hUJNt-O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE: 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 do Plaintiff seeks 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 request seeks disclosure of materials which are not reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request also seeks information that is protected fiom discovery at this phase ofthe proceeding by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.210 et seq. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA agrees t0 comply with this demand in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, and to which no objection is being made. KMA agrees to produce 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) for the subject vehicle. RE!QUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: A11 DOCUMENTS regarding diagnostic procedures consulted and followed while diagnosing Plaintiffs concerns for the SUBJECT VEHICLE. RESPONSE: KMA objects to this request on the following grounds: 1. KMA objects t0 this request because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. In responding to this request, KMA presumes Plaintiff does not seek the discovery of 301 .224.DND - 00529954.D0CX 33 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQOUI-bUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 attorney/client communications, nor do Plaintiff seeks 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 reasonably related to the issues presented by the subject matter of this litigation and are irrelevant and immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. This request seeks proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information. 4. This request also seeks information that is protected fiom discovery at this phase 0f the proceeding by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.210 et seq. FURTHER RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its previously asserted objections, KMA further responds as follows: KMA agrees to comply with this demand in part and will produce all documents or things in the demanded category that exist and are in its possession, custody, or control, and to which no objection is being made. KMA agrees to produce 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) for the subject vehicle. DATED: November 10, 2020 LEHRMAN LAW GROUP KATE S. LEHRMAN JACQUELINE BRUCE CHINERY DANIELLE N. DUARTE By: /s/ (DaniefléW ®ua1’te Danielle N. Duarte Attorneys for Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. 301 .224.DND - 00529954.DOCX 34 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \OOOQONLII#UJNr-‘ [\Jr-‘r-dHr-‘Hr-ip-‘p-ir-drd meflONU'I-RUJNP-‘O 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFICATION TO FOLLOW 301.224.DND - 00529954.Docx 35 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE KOOOQO‘sUIhWNH Nr-Ar-ar-tr-Ap-tt-ar-Ap-ar-ap-A OKOOOQONm-hwlvr-‘O 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I am employed in the County ofLos Angeles, State of California. I a_rn 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 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 0n the interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof, enclosed in sealed envelopes, at Los Angeles, CA addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST [] BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I caused such envelopes t0 be delivered by courier, with next day service, t0 the offices 0f the addressees. (C.C.P. § 1013(c)(d).) BY FACSIMILE; (C.C.P. § 1013(e)(t).) BY MAIL: I caused to be delivered by U.S. mail by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated above. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice 0f collection and processing documents for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. U BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelopes to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressees. (C.C.P. § 101 1(a)(b).) BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I transmitted such document from Los Angeles, California, t0 the electronic mail address maintained by the person(s) on the SERVICE LIST as last indicated by that person on a document that he or she has filed in the above-entitled cause and served on this party. (C.C.P. § 1010.6(a)(6).) Per agreement and per state and local stay at home Orders re COVID19. l declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed 0n November 10, 2020, at Los Angeles, California. /s/ Wa'é’éon 799546 Tra’Shon Pugh 301.224.DND - 00529954.D0CX 36 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE \DOOQONUl-bUJNr-a NNNNNNNNNr-‘HHHF-tr-Ar-AHHH OOQONUIAWNP-‘OKOOOQONU‘IAUJNP-‘o PROOF OF SERVICE LIST KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC./THUERK, BRYAN (K070-224)(301 .224) Case N0. 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 (3 10) 684-5859 (3 10) 862-4539 (FAX) dbarrv@mv1emonri2hts.com Jeramy Templin: jtemplin@mylemonrights.com Mela Kelly: mkelly@mylemonrights.com Ivy Flores: iflores@mylemonrights.com 30 1 .224.DND - 00529954.D0CX 37 20CV364578 DEFENDANT KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE EXHIBIT 6 I Lehrman L wGron~ 12121 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD• SUITE 1300 ATTORNEYS AT LA \V LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 Via U.S. Mail David N. Barry, Esq. THE BARRY LAW FIRM 11845 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 1270 Los Angeles, Ci\.. 90064 December 9, 2020 Re: Bryan Thuerk v. Kia Motors America. Inc. Dear Counsel: TELEPHONE: (310) 917-4500 FACSIMILE: (310) 917-5677 www.lehrmanlawgroup.com Enclosed please find defendant Kia Motors America, Inc.' s Verifications to plaintiffs From Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, Request for Admissions and Special Interrogatories, set one. Enclosures 301.213.BT - 00479281.DOCX Sincerely yours, Brian Entzminger Paralegal CORPORATE VERIFICATION Bryan Thuerk vs. Kia Motors America, Inc. Case No. 20CV364578, Santa Clara County, California I, DEBBIE AVALOS, declare: I am a paraiega! within the legal department of KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, and I am authorized to make this verification for and on behalf of KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. I have read and am fami Ear with the contents of the foregoing document entitled DEFENDANT, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, and l 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 l believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Long Beach, California on this 8th day of December, 2020. Deborah 4mm DEBBIE AVALOS Kia Motors America, Inc. 301 .224 . - 00532858.DOCX EXHIBIT 7 I :\Iain O fficc 11845 \\/. Olympic Boulevard Suite 1270 Los _-\ngeles, California 90064 THE BARRY LAW FIRM Telephone (310) 684-5859 ♦ Facsimile (310) 86.2-4539 e\vhitman@my1emonrights.com January 4, 2021 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL: DanieHe(ii:Jehrn~ainhnvg:rou.p.com; kk h rm an (aJe h rm ~mfa,, group.com; i ch in t::r\·,'a) !eh rm an ta vF gm ur,u;:,o m Kate S. Lehrman, Esq. Danielle N. Duarte, Esq. Jacqueline Chinery, Esq. Lehrman Law Group 12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Re: Bryan Thuerk v. Kia Motors America, Inc. Case No: 20CV364578 Dear Counsel: I am in receipt of your client, Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc.' s ('"KMA") unverified supplemental responses to Plaintiffs first set of discovery requests, served by electronic mail on November 10, 2020. I note that KMA's responses were not verified until December 8, 2020~ which was served by mail on December 9, 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. 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 FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES Upon review of KMA's further responses to Form Interrogatories, Defendant chose not to provide a further response to Form Interrogatory 1. 1, and thus 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, 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 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 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 12.1 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' 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 Form Interrogatory 15 .1, this response remains deficient as well. Form Interrogatory 15.1 asks you to identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in your pleadings and for each: (a) State all facts upon which you base the denial or a special or affirmative defense; (b) State the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of those facts; and ( c) Identify all documents and other tangible things that support your denial or a special or affirmative defense, and state the name, address, and telephone number of the person who has each document. Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. pled multiple affirmative defenses. However, a review the further response to Form Interrogatory 15.1 still fails to fully comply with the subpart requirements for each of your separate affirmative defenses, for the same reason that Defendant's further response to Form Interrogatory 12. l 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. L 12.1, 12.3, 12.6, 15.1, and 17.1. DEFENDANT'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION As previously stated, Requests for Admission are not "true" discovery. Requests for admission are not discovery devices, per se. Burch v. Gombos (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 352, 359. They are designed to set to rest, triable issues of fact with the ultimate goal of expediting trial and the unnecessary expenses of proof at trial. Cembrook v. Superior Court ( 1961) 56 Cal.2d 423; St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762; Hillman v. Stultz (1968), 263 Cal.App.2d 848, 885. ("They were enacted to eliminate the necessity of putting on formal proof of essentially uncontroverted facts, not as a substitute for trial of genuinely disputed facts."). Accordingly, when a litigant "toys," and continues to "toy" with the process by evading a factual proposition by avoiding the materials that provides the response to such requests, it defeats the purpose and the function of the requests and unduly forces plaintiff to waste time, money and energy proving factual propositions that can and should be readily admitted. 4 A party "cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control." Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782 [Emphasis added.] [If a party is unable to fully answer it should set forth the efforts made to secure the information.] Id. Request No. 2 asked Defendant to admit that the subject vehicle was a new motor vehicle, for purposes of Song-Beverly Warranty Act. Defendant's further response appears to plead ignorance as the rationale for being unable to admit or deny the Request as phrased. Defendant was able to admit with respect to Request for Admission No. 1, and thus Defendant must further respond to No. 2 to admit or deny that the subject vehicle was new for purposes of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, for the same reasons it admitted Request for Admission No. 1. Request for Admission No. 14 asks KMA to admit or deny whether they conducted an investigation and/or inquiry into whether the subject vehicle should be repurchased pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act as a result of contact by Plaintiff. KMA 's further response consists only of objections. Defendant's objection as "vague and ambiguous" is improper. The Defendant can answer as it understands the Request, in the spirit of Cembrook, and fails to substantiate the "overly broad" objection under Burke. Also, KMA's further response to Request for Admission No. 13 admits that Plaintiff contacted KMA regarding the subject vehicle. Thus, the response to Request for Admission No. 14 should also be supplemented to reflect Defendant's further response to Request for Admission No. 13. Requests for Admissions Nos. 17, 18, 19, and 20, relate to whether Defendant noted any evidence of misuse or abuse of the subject vehicle by Plaintiff: whether Defendant's service file contains notations involving suspected misuse or abuse of the subject vehicle, whether Defendant is currently unaware of any evidence of misuse or abuse of the subject vehicle by the Plaintiff: and whether Plaintiff caused damage to the subject vehicle by misusing or abusing it. Defendant's further responses claimed that after a reasonable inquiry, the information presently known or readily obtainable is insufficient to admit or deny these Requests, but failed to explain what was involved, if anything, in its "reasonable inquiry." The responses are disingenuous, inadequate, and simply evasive. The only change KMA made in their further responses was to withdraw the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Defendant has placed these facts directly at issue by asserting Affirmative Defenses in its Answer that contend that Plaintiff and/or others are responsible for any alleged damages due to misuse and abuse by Plaintiff and/or others and related claims. Therefore, Plaintiff has an absolute right to discover facts relating to these defenses. A party "cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control." Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782 [Emphasis added.] [If a party is unable to fully answer it should set forth the efforts made to secure the information.] These Requests are straightforward and relate to the past; either KMA's authorized repair facility noted that there was misuse or abuse, or it did not. Defendant's responses given are 5 blatant attempts to avoid responding and may be considered an abuse of discovery should Plaintiff be required to seek judicial intervention. An inability to respond can only be stated where there is a true lack of information available to the responding party. In addition to objections that have already been addressed, Defendant has stated, in its further response to Request for Admission No. 15, that Defendant's awareness of its Song-Beverly obligations is not reasonably calculated to lead to the admission of admissible evidence. This Request is clearly related to the civil penalty component of the Song-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. ll.1ary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762; Hillman v. Stultz (1968), 263 Cal.App.2d 848, 885. ("They were enacted to eliminate the necessity of putting on formal proof of essentially uncontroverted facts, not as a substitute for trial of genuinely disputed facts."). Accordingly, when a litigant "toys" with the process by evading a factual proposition by avoiding the materials that provides the response to such requests, it defeats the purpose and the function of the requests and unduly forces plaintiff to waste time, money and energy proving factual propositions that can and should be readily admitted. Yet, that is exactly what Defendant has improperly done here. KMA removed some of the objections with respect to certain terms in the Request for Admission, but still pleads the inability to admit or deny the Request, which is improper. A further response to Request for Admission No. 24 is necessary. Finally, with respect to Request for Admission No. 31, it appears that Defendant inadvertently omitted the further response portion in their response. Accordingly, for the reasons 6 KMA decided to provide further response to Request for Admission Nos. 27-30 and 32-44, further response to Request for Admission No. 31 should also be provided. Plaintiff respectfully asks for further, verified responses to each of the propounded Requests for Admission. DEFENDANT'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Plaintiffs Special Interrogatory No. 1 asks Defendant to identify all persons who were consulted or provided answers to these interrogatories. For the same reasons discussed in relation to Form Interrogatory No. 1. 1, defendant's further response is insufficient, and an even further response is necessary to cure the deficiencies. Defendant's further response to Special Inte1Togatory 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 Inte1Togatory Nos. 3 through 6. It should be noted that communications directly between the parties are not proprietary and the Court would not likely uphold any protective order for said communications. In order to avoid any unnecessary motion practice, Plaintiff requests that Defendant produce the CACCRs without a Protective Order. 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 Inte1Togatory 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 Inte1Togatory No. 12, Defendant responded refe1Ting 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 T,vell 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, Defendanf s response to Special Interrogatory No. 20 must also be further supplemented. It should also be noted that these repair orders to not adequately identify the technicians who attempted to conform the subject vehicle to the applicable express warranty, rather their respective technician ID numbers are only provided. Special Interrogatory No. 25 asks KMA to identify all persons responsible for its customer relations department in the region having jurisdiction over Plaintiffs complaints, and Special Interrogatory No. 26 asks Defendant to identify the person(s) who is most knowledgeable regarding Defendant's warranty policies, including but not limited to policies that Defendant may have had regarding the replacement or reimbursement of allegedly defective automobiles, respectively. Defendant deflected these and did not provide answers responsive to the Interrogatories. Instead, Defendant asserted the same boilerplate objections. Plaintiff is entitled to the identifies of these key witnesses who oversee its customer relations department. Further responses are necessary. As a matter of statutory law, witness information is not protected. ''Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter ... . " [Emphasis added]. C.CP §§2017.010; 2030.0l0(a); Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4 th 1539:, 1536-1547. Next, Defendant does not have the right to choose how Plaintiff conducts his discovery. As long as Plaintiff propounds discovery properly pursuant to the Code, as Plaintiff has done, then Defendant has an obligation to respond properly. Defendant cannot decide that Plaintiff should choose a different method, and when Plaintiff does, only then will Defendant appropriately respond. This is insufficient and Defendant has failed to provide any legal authorities to support its position with respect to these two Interrogatories. Defendant has failed to provide a complete and straightforward response setting forth "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." C.C.P. § 2030.220 (a), (b). Thus, a further response is requested to Nos. 25 and 26. 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 further response is required. Special Interrogatory No. 40 asks for witness information. This Interrogatory asks Defendant to identify individuals within Defendant's company who are responsible for ensuring that Defendant complies with Song-Beverly. Plaintiffs entire lawsuit is premised on allegations that Defendant violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to know who the individuals are within Defendant's company that are responsible for making sure Defendant complies with California law. If no such individual(s) exist(s), then Defendant must indicate this under oath. Defendant's boilerplate and unsubstantiated objections should be withdrawn. As such, a further response is still required. Special Interrogatory No. 41 refers to Special Interrogatory No. 40 for its answer. This is nonresponsive and deficient. For the reasons stated above, a further response is still necessary. As to Special Interrogatory No. 42, after objections, Defendant asserted attorney-client privilege. Please explain how and why this objection applies here, provide a privilege log, or otherwise respond fully. Defendant's further responses entirely fails to address this issue. Similarly, Special Interrogatory No. 43 deals with identification of key witnesses, yet Defendant failed to answer, but instead raised the same boilerplate and frivolous objections. Defendant is obligated to identify these witnesses. The same applies to Special Interrogatory No. 44. While Plaintiff appreciates that Defendant supplemented their response and refers Plaintiff to documents which were consulted, reviewed and/or obtained, Defendant refers to a number of them which require the entry of a Protective Order prior to being produced, yet Defendant failed to provide a proposed Protective 9 Order to start any kind of resolution to these discovery issues. Accordingly, further responses are therefore required, and a copy of the proposed Protective Order needs to be produced for review. Defendant's response to Special 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 Interrogatory No. 52 ask to explain in detail the process by which a TSB is recalled or suspended. Defendant continues to claim that the request is overly broad, immaterial, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It further alleges that this is an abuse of discovery by Plaintiff because Plaintiff did not even identify any TSB. How can Plaintiff possibly identify the TSBs when Defendant will not provide a complete list or produce the full set of those that apply to the subject vehicle? Therefore, a further response is necessary. Special Interrogatory No. 53 asks Defendant to state the number of days the vehicle was out of service for warranty repairs. There are no privileges or substantiated objections that apply. The total number of "down days" is essential to determining if the lemon law presumption applies. The dealer repair orders do not provide the response because the open and close dates on a dealer's repair orders are often inaccurate and thus do not accurately reflect out-of-service time; in fact, repair orders remain open due to circumstances not reflected in the documents alluded to. As such, the records identified do not answer the question and so the response on its face is incomplete and non-responsive. The appropriate information is readily available to Defendant; it can obtain it by contacting its authorized dealer. Defendant is required to provide answers that are "as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits." Defendant's duty also encompasses the requirement that it make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information sought by the 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 10 to work performed by Defendant-authorized service centers is under the control of Defendant, and Defendant is clearly able to ascertain which Defendant-authorized service centers performed warranty repairs on the subject vehicle. A further response is required to No. 53. Plaintiff respectfully asks for further, verified responses to each of the propounded Special Interrogatories. DEFENDANT'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS As a preliminary note, after review of KMA' s fmiher responses, at least some of Defendant's Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents remain not Code- compliant. A document response must consist of: ( 1) an agreement to comply, stating whether production or inspection will be allowed "in whole or in part" and that all documents or things in the possession, custody, or control of the respondent, as to which no objection is made, will be included, by the date set for inspection (unless informally extended in writing, or the designed timing is subject to objection); (2) a representation of inability to comply, with a specification of any person believed or known to have possession of documents; or, (3) objections and specifications of withheld documents. Code of Civil Procedure §§2031.210 (a), 2031.220, 2031.270, and 2031.280(b ); Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2012) 11 8: 1469-9: 14 74. Time and again throughout these objections, Defendant raised concerns based on confidentiality and trade secrets, and has not proposed a protective order when it is Defendant who has the burden of seeking a protective order and substantiating why documents it claims are privileged require protection. Until it does so, there is no reason why Defendant should not produce the requested documents, which Plaintiff contends do not meet the minimum threshold for protection anyway. Plaintiff objects to Defendant's conditioning the production of documents on the execution of a Stipulated Proposed Protective Order. Pursuant to CCP sections 2016.040 and 203 l .060(a), this serves as Plaintiffs effort to informally resolve this matter. Moreover, Defendant entirely fails to provide a proposed Protective Order that could even be considered to resolve these issues according to Defendant's improper demands. The following discussions provide prima facie evidence of good cause for the production of the documents sought by Plaintiff in this case. See, C. C. P. § 2031.31 0(b )(1) [ A motion for an order compelling a further response to a production request "shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought. .. "] Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117. Unless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, the moving party's burden is met simply by a showing or relevance. TBG Insurance Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443; Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002), 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98. Request for Production Nos. 3 and 4 ask for all warranty repair documents regarding, pertaining, or relating to the subject vehicle, and all warranty reimbursement documents applicable to the subject vehicle, respectively. Defendant's confidentiality concerns can be 11 resolved with a protective order, but Defendant has yet to produce any protective order for review. Therefore, further responses with an accompanying document production are necessary. Request Nos. 5 and 6 seek all warranty documents applicable to the subject vehicle and all documents related to any examination, test, or inspection performed with respect to the subject vehicle. For the same reasons as above, a further response and responsive document production is necessary. Request Nos. 7 and 8 seek pre-delivery preparation related documents, and any service, adjustments, repairs, or restorations to the subject vehicle prior to delivery to Plaintiff, respectively. Defendant's response states that they will search for, and produce upon discovery, a pre-delivery inspection report, without any assurances or timeframe for which such search or document production will occur, and thus, further responses and an accompanying document production is necessary. Request for Production No. 9 seeks production of all recall documents regarding, pertaining, or relating to the subject vehicle, including but not limited to, service bulletins and/or technical service bulletins. Defendant did produce the TSBs and recalls, but also refers to the Warranty History Inquiry, CACCRs, and Techline Case reports, that will be produced upon the entry of a protective order. The first two of these documents are not proprietary or protected trade secret, and I have won this very issue before. Rather than undergo unnecessary motion practice and argue over whether the documents are privileged or protected, KMA should simply produce these documents. Moreover, as stated above Defendant has not produced a proposed protective order that can even be considered to resolve this discovery issue. As for Request for Production No. 10, Defendant responds that they will produce the documents which are in their possession, custody, or control, and to which no objection is being made. This is concerning as it is unclear which documents Defendant is withholding subject to objection, and under what objection those documents are being withheld. This is the same for many of Defendant's further responses. Anything that would allow a party to prepare for trial in this matter is discoverable. Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 611. Any question as to discoverability is resolved in favor of allowing discovery. 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. 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 1s necessary. Request for Production Nos. 14 and 15 seek production of all documents evidencing any communications regarding the subject vehicle and/or communications between Plaintiff and Defendant. First of all, as has been repeated above, Defendant has not produced a proposed protective order, nor have they produced any privilege log, and if there are any privileged documents that Defendant is withholding based upon privilege, then Plaintiff is entitled to a privilege log to assess whether protection is appropriate. Accordingly, as stated in regard to Defendant's response to Request for Production No. 9, Defendant should provide a further response and the proposed Protective Order. For the same reasons as discussed to varying degrees above, a further response with production of documents to Request No. 16 and 17 is necessary. Request for Production No. 20 asks Defendant to produce the complete Sales and Service Accounting File. Again, Defendant states that they will produce the documents that exist and are in Defendant's possession, custody, or control, and to which no objection is being made. This again raises the question what documents are being withheld subject to objections. If there are any documents being withheld, then Defendant must produce a privilege log in accordance with their response. It is also difficult for Plaintiff to understand why the purchase agreement would be responsive to Plaintiff's 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. qf Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 407, the Supreme Court discussed the meaning of the terms "burden" and "oppression." The Court held that burden alone is an insufficient basis to object to discovery because all discovery imposes some burden on the responding party. See, Id. at 417,418. In addition, any objection based upon burden "must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required" to respond to the discovery. See, Id. at 417. Similarly, an objection based on oppression must be based on a showing "either of an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the results sought." See, Id. Information about other similar vehicle complaints may demonstrate a defect or nonconformity, or show when it arose, and may also demonstrate Defendant's knowledge of widespread warranty problems and Kia's failure to act despite this knowledge. The Court of Appeals recently addressed a manufacturer's argument that evidence of other vehicles was prejudicial and irrelevant. See, Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138. The Court held: "other vehicles testimony was not unduly prejudicial. It did not concern simply other vehicles. It was limited to the (defective component) in Plaintiffs truck and other vehicles. (Plaintiffs expert) described what Ford itself had done to notify dealers and technicians about problems with this ( defective component) model. Thus, everything about which he testified that applied to other vehicles applied equally to Plaintiffs vehicle. Such evidence certainly was probative and not unduly prejudicial." See, Id. at 154. 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 "reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence," which is the standard that governs here. Accordingly, the documents sought by Plaintiff are certainly discoverable, as they are "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." CCP § 2017.01 0; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. 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 performed on the subject vehicle. Defendant's further response refers to the repair orders and the Warranty History Inquiry, which would only be produced subject to the entry of a protective order, but failed to produce a proposed protective order. This response remains nonresponsive to Plaintiffs Request. Repair procedures include all instructions, directives, guidelines, procedures for how to actually fix the vehicle. Plaintiff seeks only those documents related to repair procedures that were actually performed on the subject vehicle, whereas the repair orders do not provide any of this information. Please review Plaintiffs Request No. 45 carefully and provide a further response and corresponding production of documents. 16 Request Nos. 46 and 47 seek the As-Built data and the VIN digit breakdown documents. Like Nos. 43 and 44, Defendant's non-supplemented responses are insufficient, and these documents are relevant and nonprivileged. Thus, further responses and production should be forthcoming. Plaintiffs Requests for Production, Nos. 48 and 49, seek all TSBs, and recalls, applicable to the subject vehicle. Defendant states that they produced the TSB or recall that were applied to the subject vehicle, and Plaintiff is entitled to the 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 II II II II I I I I 17 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, there was no deadline for a motion to compel further responses until the responses were verified. 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 comi intervention. Very Truly Yours, THE BARRY LAW FIRM Erik Whitman, Esq. 18 [\J \OOONQM-PUJ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA THUERK V. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. CASE # 20CV364578 I am employed in the County 0f Los Angeles, State 0f California. I am over the age of eighteen (1 8) years and not a party t0 the within action; my business address is: 11845 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1270, Los Angeles, CA 90064. On January 28, 2021, I served the following described as: PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION; 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: [] [] [] [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 on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date 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 or 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 to the addresses and offices of the addressee listed 0n the Service List. (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State 0f California that the above is true and correct. Executed 0n the 28th of January 2021, at Los An eles, California. ’ Megan Hoerman WW1. I _. NAME fl SIGNATURE PROOF OF SERVICE O\ U‘l g U3 N \OWN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST THUERK V. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. CASE # 20CV364578 Kate Lehrman, Esq. Danielle N. Duarte, Esq. danielle@lehrmanlawgroup.com Lehrman Law Group 12121 Wilshire B1Vd., Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90025 CC: k1ehrmanfallehrmanlawgroup.com danielle@lehrmanlawgroup.com Attorneys for Defendant, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. PROOF OF SERVICE