Separate Statement

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.November 19, 2020

thN \OOOQON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ZOCV373787 Santa Clara - Civil Michael J. Gregg (SBN 321765) Mark W. Skanes (SBN 322072) Jonathan T. Martinez (SBN 3 14228) ROSEWALDORF LLP 100 Oceangate, Suite 300 Long Beach, California 90802 Telephone: (5 1 8) 869-9200 Facsimile: (518) 869-3334 Email: m2regg@rosewaldorf.com mskanes@rosewaldorf.com imartinez@rosewaldorf.com Tunisia T Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 9/8/2021 4:02 PM Reviewed By: Tunisia Turner Case #20CV373787 Envelope: 7226095 Attorneys for Defendant, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A., INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Richard Espinoza, Plaintiff, V. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., and Does One through Twenty, Defendant. Case N0.: 20CV373787 Assigned for all purposes t0: Hon. Drew Takaichi, Dept. 2 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT 0F TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES Action Filed: November 19, 2020 Trial Date: Unassigned Date: September 21, 2021 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept. 2 Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (“TMS”) hereby provides its Separate Statement in support of its opposition t0 Plaintiffs Motion to Compel filrther responses t0 Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories as follows: FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.1: State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number 0f each individual: /// umer SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC. ’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT; (b) Who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT; (c) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and (d) Who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge 0f the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034). RESPONSE: To the extent Plaintiff seeks information concerning repairs made to the subject vehicle and subject to the below objections, pursuant to Code 0f Civil Procedure Section 2030.230, TMS identifies relevant documents produced in response t0 Plaintiff’ s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, as though fully set forth herein. Objection: The definition 0f “INCIDENT” in these form interrogatories is vague and ambiguous. In addition, the interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive. Further, the interrogatory violates the attorney-client, work product and/or consulting expert privileges. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: Subject t0 and without waiving the foregoing objections, TMS identifies the following employees and/or former employees of the non-party authorized dealers involvec in the inspection, diagnosis and repair 0f the subject vehicle: technicians and service advisers at Maite Toyota (2500 Auburn Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95821 [916] 481-0855), German Madrigal Jason Thao Marshall De La Pena, Parker Seim, Rock Howard, Sergio Zermeno, Ronald F1010, Austin Jackson, Thank. Tran, Joseph Valadao, Valentin Valadez, Norbert Santos, and Junko Case. TMS further identifies TMS Field Technical Specialist Mario Jaime and TMS TAS agent Mitchell Titterness as having knowledge 01‘ the inspection, diagnosis and repair of the subject vehicle. WHY NO FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED: Plaintiff had no reasonable basis to bring a motion to compel a further response to this interrogatory. In its responses to these interrogatories, TMS referred Plaintiff t0 the documents produced in this matter, Which included the Service Lane, TAS case and the service records of the non- party dealerships in TMS’ possession relating to the subject vehicle. Contained in those records, the 2 L SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 service advisers and technicians employed by the non-party authorized dealerships involved in the inspection, diagnosis and repair of the subject vehicle are listed by name and corresponding service Visit. Therefore, it appears that Plaintiff never bothered t0 review the documents provided by TMS. While not necessary, TMS then provided a supplemental response, identifying by name the employees or former employees of the non-party dealerships that TMS believes were involved in the inspection, diagnosis, repair 0r maintenance of the subj ect vehicle and further, identifying by name the TMS employees and representatives having knowledge of TMS’ denial and defenses in this matter. Thus, n0 fithher response is necessary. In his motion, Plaintiff failed t0 articulate any proper purpose upon which Plaintiff would require the address and phone numbers ofthose individuals as well. Although seemingly obvious, given Plaintiff’ s insistence TMS felt the need t0 restate that TMS employees are t0 be contacted only through undersigned counsel. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion seeking to compel a further response to this interrogatory should be denied. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2: Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number 0f the individual interviewed; (b) the date of the interview; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON Who conducted the interview. RESPONSE: Objection. The definition 0f “INCIDENT” in these form interrogatories is vague and ambiguous. In addition, the interrogatory is objected t0 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive, and seeks information equally available to Plaintiff. Further, the interrogatory violates the attorney-client, attorney work product and/or consulting expert privileges. The interrogatory constitutes an unreasonable invasion 0f privacy. /// 3 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, and although it continues t0 find the definition 0f “INCIDENT” t0 be vague and ambiguous TMS identifies the following employees and/or former employees of the non-party authorized dealers involved in the inspection, diagnosis and repair 0f the subject vehicle: technicians and service advisers a1 Maita Toyota (2500 Auburn Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95821 [916] 481-0855), German Madrigal Jasor Thao, Marshall De La Pena, Parker Seim, Rock Howard, Sergio Zermeno, Ronald F1010, Austin Jackson Thanh Tran, Joseph Valadao, Valentin Valadez, Norbert Santos, and Junko Case. TMS further identifies TMS Field Technical Specialist Mario Jaime and TMS TAS agent Mitchell Titterness as having" 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 knowledge 0f the inspection, diagnosis and repair 0f the subject vehicle. WHY NO FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED: Plaintiff had n0 reasonable basis t0 bring a motion to compel a fithher response t0 this interrogatory. In its responses t0 these interrogatories, TMS referred Plaintiff t0 the documents produced in this matter, which included the Service Lane, TAS case and the service records 0f the non- party dealerships in TMS’ possession relating to the subject vehicle. Contained in those records, the service advisers and technicians employed by the non-party authorized dealerships involved in the inspection, diagnosis and repair of the subject vehicle are listed by name and corresponding service Visit. Therefore, it appears that Plaintiff never bothered to review the documents provided by TMS. While not necessary, TMS then provided a supplemental response, identifying by name the employees or former employees of the non-party dealerships that TMS believes were involved in the inspection, diagnosis, repair or maintenance of the subj ect vehicle and further, identifying by name the TMS employees and representatives having knowledge 0f TMS’ denial and defenses in this matter. Thus, n0 further response is necessary. In his motion, Plaintiff failed to articulate any proper purpose upon Which Plaintiff would require the address and phone numbers 0f those individuals as well. Although seemingly obvious, given Plaintiff’s insistence TMS felt the need t0 restate that TMS employees are t0 be contacted only through undersigned counsel. Therefore, Plaintiff s motion seeking to compel a further response t0 this interrogatory should be denied. 4 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1: Is your response to each request for admission served With these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) State the number 0f the request; (b) State all facts upon which you base your response; (c) State the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers 0f all PERSONS Who have knowledge of those facts; and (d) Identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number 0f the PERSON Who has each DOCUMENT or thing. RESPONSE: (a) 2 (b-d) TMS does not manufacture Toyota motor vehicles in the ordinary course of its business and, therefore, was not the manufacturer of the subj ect vehicle. (a) 7, 8, 9 and 10 (b) Plaintiff delivered the subj ect vehicle to TMS’ authorized dealership with various complaints. TMS believes that the subject vehicle has been repaired Within a reasonable number 0f attempts and does not have a nonconformity. Further, pursuant t0 Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.230, TMS identifies the Vehicle Detail, Service Lane, DTC History, TAS Case, the Case Activity Report, Roadside Assistance, Warranty Claim History and Service Records produced in response t0 Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, as though fully set forth herein. (c) TMS identifies Richard Espinoza and Maita Toyota 0f Sacramento. (d) TMS identifies the Vehicle Detail, Service Lane, DTC History, TAS Case, Case Activity Report, Roadside Assistance, Warranty Claim History, and Service Records produced in response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production 0f Documents, Set One, as though fully set forth herein. (a) 11, 12, 13 and 14 5 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (b) Plaintiff delivered the subject vehicle to TMS’ authorized dealership with various complaints. TMS believes that the subj ect vehicle has been repaired Within a reasonable number 0f attempts and does not have a nonconformity. Plaintiff did not request a buyback or replacement. TMS did not offer to repurchase pre-litigation the subject vehicle and contends that there was n0 legal or factual obligation to do so. Further, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.230, TMS identifies the Vehicle Detail, Service Lane, DTC History, TAS Case, Case Activity Report, Roadside Assistance, Warranty Claim History and Service Records produced in response t0 Plaintiff’s Request for Production 0f Documents, Set One, as though fully set forth herein. (c) TMS identifies Richard Espinoza and Maita Toyota of Sacramento. (d) TMS identifies the Vehicle Detail, Service Lane, DTC History, TAS Case, the Case Activity Report and Service Records produced in response to Plaintiff s Request for Production 0f Documents, Set One. In addition, TMS identifies the New Vehicle Limited Warranty, which TMS is informed and believes is in Plaintiff’s possession, and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, which is publicly available. TMS personnel and authorized dealerships also have access t0 the glove box materials, which TMS is informed and believes are already in Plaintiff’ s possession. WHY NO FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED: In his motion, Plaintiff argues that TMS failed to properly respond t0 Form Interrogatory 17.1 because TMS failed to reference its responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 4, 5 and 6. Plaintiff‘s contention is misguided as TMS did not deny those requests (see Responses, Exhibit “D” to the Skanes Dec.) and thus, no fithher response is necessary. Instead, TMS provided a substantive response to eacf requests and raised proper objections (id). No further response is required. In addition, in its response letter to Plaintiff’s meet and confer email, TMS stated that it woulc provide a supplemental response t0 Form Interrogatory N0. 17.1 and provide a fithher substantive response regarding TMS’ response t0 Request for Admission Nos. 4, 5 and 6 (see Letter, dated May 21 6 l SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES UI$UJN \OOOQON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2021, Exhibit “H” to the Skanes Dec.). Plaintiff failed to respond t0 this offer and instead, filed this needless motion. Plaintiff” s motion should be denied for this additional reason. Dated: September 8, 2021 ROSEWALDORF LLP By: Mark . Skanes Attorneys for Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. 7 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC. ’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES UIAUJN KOOOQO 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE Richard Espinoza v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Ina, and Does One through Twenty, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case N0. 20CV373787 I, the undersigned, am over the age of 18 and am not a party to the within action. My business address is 100 Oceangate, Suite 300, Long Beach, CA 90802. On the date below, I served the following document(s) described as: SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION T0 COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES To the following party or parties in this matter: Kevin Faulk, Esq. Attorneysfor Plaintiff Law Offices of Kevin Faulk 530 Lawrence Expy., #361 Sunnyvale, California 94085 Tel: (408) 599-3277 Fax: (408) 800-4046 E-Mail:mm Martin Anderson, Esq. Anderson Law Firm 2070 N. Tustin Ave. Santa Ana, California 92705 Email: firm@andersonlaw.net D BY U.S. MAIL: By enclosing the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope t0 the addressee(s) above and, under the firm’s ordinary course of business, placing said envelope(s) for pick-up and mailing pursuant t0 C.C.P. § 1013. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice for collection and processing of outgoing mail. Under that practice, the outgoing mail is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service 0n the same day as collected, With postage fully prepaid. D BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the foregoing documents in a sealed envelope or package t0 the addressee(s) listed above and placed said envelope 0r package for pick-up for overnight delivery Via UPS under the firm’s ordinary course of business. I am familiar with the firm’s practice of collecting and processing documents for overnight delivery via UPS. Under that practice, the envelope or package would be deposited for pick up by an authorized UPS courier or driver that same day and delivered t0 the addressee(s) the following business day pursuant t0 C.C.P. § 1013. BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE/EMAIL: I electronically filed the document(s) with this Court using the Coult’s designated electronic filing service provider, Which sent notification of that filing to the person(s) listed above to accept service by electronic transmission, and/or I caused the document(s) to be transmitted Via electronic mail to the addressees as listed above pursuant t0 C.C.P. § 1010.6 and 1013(g), Cal. Rule 0f Court 2.25 1 , and/or agreement or stipulation between the parties. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: September 8, 2021 Claire Wald/vogel/ Claire Waldvogel PROOF OF SERVICE