Motion_to_tax_costsMotionCal. Super. - 2nd Dist.September 6, 2018Electronically FILED by|quperior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 06/27/2019 02:52 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by K. Hung,Deputy Clerk 1 [| Barry R. Schirm (SBN 94553) Brian Yasuzawa (SBN 345322) 2 || Samantha Brignoni (SBN 311869) HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG, LLP 3 ||445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, California 90071 4 || Telephone: (213) 486-8000 Facsimile: (213) 486-8080 5 || Email: byasuzawa@hpylaw.com sbrignoni@hpylaw.com 6 Attorneys for Defendants, 7 ||FCA US LLC AND STAWMIT COMPANIES LLC DBA DESERT ALFA ROMEO/FIAT 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 11 RYAN MASALCAS, an individual ) Case No.: BC720644 12 ) Plaintiff, ) For All Purposes to the Honorable Gregory W. 13 ) Alarcon in Department 36 Vv. ) 14 ) DEFENDANTS FCA US LLC AND STAWMIT FCA US LLC, (formerly known as CHRYSLER ) COMPANIES LLC DBA DESERT ALFA 15 || GROUP LLC), a Delaware Corporation, ) ROMEO/FIAT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND STAWMIT COMPANIES, LLC (d.b.a. DESERT) MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF 16 || FIAT), A California Corporation, and DOES 1- ) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 100, inclusive, ) 17 ) [FILED CONCURRENTLY WITH [PROPOSED] Defendants. ) ORDER] 18 ) ) Date: July 25,2019 19 ) Time: 8:30 a.m. ) Department: 36 20 ) Reservation ID: 153720391258 ) 21 Complaint Filed : September 6, 2018 22 23 TO ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 24 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 25, 2019, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 36 of the 25 ||above-captioned court, Defendants FCA US LLC and Stawmit Companies LLC d/b/a Desert Alfa 26 ||Romeo (“Defendants”) will move to tax the costs Plaintiff Ryan Masalcas (“Plaintiff”) seeks in this 27 |laction. Defendants’ Motion is made pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(d) and California Rule of 28 [| Court 3.1700 on the grounds that Plaintiff seeks unrecoverable and unallowable expenses. Plaintiff 1 DEFENDANTS FCA US LLC AND STAWMIT COMPANIES LLC DBA DESERT ALFA ROMEO/FIAT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 seeks attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to California Civil Code section 1794(d), which states if a buyer prevails in an action under this section, the buyer can recover attorneys’ fees and costs based on actual time expended, determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action. (Civ. Code § 1794(d) [emphasis added].) Plaintiff seeks to recover unreasonable incurred costs in the amount of $4,845.57, under the category of models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits. Accordingly, FCA US requests the Court tax Plaintiffs Memorandum of Costs in the amount of $4,845.57. The Motion is based on this Notice, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and Declaration of Samantha Brignoni in support thereof, the complete files and records in this action, and upon such oral and documentary evidence that may be presented at the hearing of this matter. Dated: June 27, 2019 HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG LLP By: Than Lge Barry R. Schirm Brian Yasuzawa Samantha Brignoni Attorneys for Defendants, FCA US LLC AND STAWMIT COMPANIES LLC DBA DESERT ALFA ROMEO/FIAT 2 DEFENDANTS FCA US LLC AND STAWMIT COMPANIES LLC DBA DESERT ALFA ROMEO/FIAT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IL INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Ryan Masalcas filed this action on September 8, 2018. Trial was scheduled for November 13, 2019. On April 4, 2019, Defendants sent a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer to compromise to Plaintiff. The very same day, Plaintiff accepted the offer and the matter was settled for $30,000.00, with fees and costs to be determined by agreement or motion (See Exhibit A to the Declaration of Samantha Brignoni (“Brignoni Decl.”’).) Plaintiff served a Memorandum of Costs, and seeks a total of $6,238.84 in costs related to this case. However, Plaintiff should be taxed a total of $4,856.69 in the amount costs under the category of “Models, enlargements and photocopies of exhibits,” since these costs are not reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action. Plaintiff notes, that these costs were for towing/transport ($1,200.00), service manuals ($745.57) and graphics ($2,900.00.) However, Civil Code section 1794(d) states if a buyer prevails in an action under this section, the buyer shall be allowed by the court to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses including attorney’s fees based on actual time expended, determined by the Court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action. (Civ. Code § 1794(d) [emphasis added].) Plaintiff’s counsel specializes in matters involving the Song-Beverly Act, and as such should not reasonably be expected to spend thousands on items like graphics and service manuals. Furthermore, this case settled six months before its scheduled trial date, and before any vehicle inspection had taken place. It is unnecessary that Plaintiff’s counsel would need to spend nearly $3,000.00 on “graphics,” nearly $1,000.00 for “service manuals,” and $1,200.00 to tow a vehicle for an unknown reason for a case six months from the trial date. Additionally, Plaintiff has provided no evidence the costs sought were incurred prior to the signing of the 998 offer. Accordingly, Defendants request this Court tax Plaintiffs’ costs in the amount of $4,845.57 for unreasonable and unnecessary costs expended by Plaintiff’s counsel. 111 3 DEFENDANTS FCA US LLC AND STAWMIT COMPANIES LLC DBA DESERT ALFA ROMEO/FIAT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. LEGAL STANDARD “As a general rule the parties to civil litigation are required to finance their own participation in the litigation.” (Ripley v. Pappadopoulos (1994) 23 Cal. App.4th 1616, 1622.) Thus, “in absence of an authorizing statute, no costs can be recovered by either party.” (Davis v. KGO-T.V., Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 436, 439; Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal. App.4th 761, 774 [“a court has no discretion to award costs not statutorily authorized.”].) When a motion to tax is filed, the costs objected to “are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs.” (Ladas, 19 Cal.App.4th at 774; see also Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 CalApp.3d 618, 624 [“where the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue, and the burden of proof is upon the party claiming them as costs.”].) Furthermore, Plaintiff’s claim for costs are made pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act, which states in pertinent part “if the buyer prevails in an action under this section, the buyer shall be allowed by the court to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees based on actual time expended, determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action.” (Civ. Code § 1794(d).) As a preliminary matter, any expenses incurred after Plaintiff signed Defendants’ Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 Offer to Compromise, aside from the transportation costs which are discussed fully below, should be rejected as those expenses were not reasonably incurred during the prosecution of the action. Additionally, Plaintiff has provided no receipts or documentation to substantiate the costs. No evidence has been provided that the expenses were actually incurred. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff cannot meet this burden and the motion to tax should be granted. IILITEMS TO BE TAXED A. Item 12: Models, Enlargements, and Photocopies of Exhibits Plaintiff seeks a total of $4,845.57 in fees for models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits. This item is defined to mean “[m]odels, the enlargements of exhibits and photocopies of exhibits, and the electronic presentation of exhibits, including costs of rental equipment and 4 DEFENDANTS FCA US LLC AND STAWMIT COMPANIES LLC DBA DESERT ALFA ROMEO/FIAT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 electronic formatting, may be allowed if they were reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact.” (Cal. Civ. Code § 1033.5(a)(13).) The costs Plaintiff seeks to recover in Item 12 are unreasonable given the status of the matter at the time of settlement. Additionally, these items are not “models, the enlargement of exhibits, photocopies of exhibits, or the electronic presentation of exhibits” as is required under this Code section. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to recover his costs for tow/transport, service manuals and graphics. First, Plaintiff seeks to recover $1,200.00, in costs for tow/transport. However, there was never a vehicle inspection in the case and FCA US agreed to arrange for all transport of the subject vehicle to the surrender location. (See Exhibit B to the Brignoni Decl.) Even though Defendants agreed to arrange for the tow, for an unknown reason, Plaintiff arranged the tow on his own and is not expecting Defendants to pay $1,000.00. One thousand dollars to tow a vehicle from Plaintiff’s home to a dealership less than 100 miles from his home is unreasonable, exorbitant, and unnecessary given the fact that Defendants had already agreed to arrange the tow. Certainly, Defendants could have arranged for a less expensive towing service, including having its own tow truck pick up the vehicle given one of defendants is a car dealership. This decision is particularly confusing, given Plaintiff’s insistence in numerous emails that Defendants arrange and pay for the tow. Nonetheless, given the fact that Plaintiff chose to arrange and pay for the tow himself now makes the expense unreasonable and unnecessary. Additionally, it appears Plaintiff is seeking $200.00 for a ride back to his home from the dealership. Once again, this cost is unreasonable and unnecessary. There was never any other reason for the vehicle to be towed in this matter. As a result, FCA US requests the Court tax this expense as unrelated and not necessary to the prosecution of this lawsuit. Next, Plaintiff seeks unreasonable expenses in the amount of $795.00 for service manuals. It is unreasonable for Plaintiff to spend nearly $1,000.00 on service manuals, when he could have simply propounded a request for production to obtain FCA US’s service manual on the vehicle at issue in this case. Plaintiff never served a request for production of documents, which would entitle him to the service manual. (See Exhibit C to the Brignoni Decl.) However, if he had served a request for production to obtain the service manual, he would have obtained it without incurring any 5 DEFENDANTS FCA US LLC AND STAWMIT COMPANIES LLC DBA DESERT ALFA ROMEO/FIAT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 costs. FCA US routinely produces the service manual for a vehicle, which is the subject of a lawsuit. As such, this Court should tax Plaintiff’s memorandum of costs in the amount Plaintiff spent for multiple service manuals as Plaintiff had a more reasonable and less expensive method of obtaining the documents. Furthermore, it is anticipated Plaintiff’s counsel is actually the beneficiary of this expense. Plaintiff will have no need for the service manuals now that he has surrendered the subject vehicle. More likely, Plaintiff’s counsel will keep the manuals for future cases he has against FCA US. Forcing Defendants to pay for this expense is akin to forcing Defendant to pay for Plaintiff counsel’s Rutter’s Guide. Plaintiff is entitled to expenses he incurred as a result of the prosecution of this action, not for expenses related to his counsel’s prosecution of future actions. Lastly, Plaintiff seeks $2,900.00 in costs for graphics. As a preliminary matter, the description of “graphics” is vague and ambiguous. It is unclear what the graphics were used for, and as such FCA US addresses what it believes to be the use of Plaintiff’s graphics. FCA US anticipates these costs were somehow expended for models, and/or the enlargements of exhibits at trial. If that is the case, it was an unreasonable amount to pay for a standard lemon law case, let alone one nearly 7 months from trial. Additionally, Plaintiff states in his Motion for Attorneys’ Fees “Plaintiff’s attorneys specialize in consumer law, namely as it applies to Lemon Law. Plaintiff’s attorneys’ experience in this area have enabled them to develop a litigation strategy that is effective and cost and time efficient.” (Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees at 10:18-27.) It is not cost efficient to pay nearly $3,000.00 in graphics for a case that settled nearly 7 months before the trial date. At the time the matter settled, no vehicle inspection had occurred, and Plaintiff had not even designated experts. Additionally, neither Defendants, not the Court has seen these alleged exhibits. Without the benefit of viewing the exhibits, the Court cannot know whether the expenditure was reasonable and necessary in this matter. FCA US requests this Court tax Plaintiff’s memorandum of costs for this vague and ambiguous entry for graphics. VI. CONCLUSION Plaintiff is only entitled to those costs actually incurred that were reasonable and necessary for prosecution of this action. Many of Plaintiff’s claimed expenses were unreasonable and 6 DEFENDANTS FCA US LLC AND STAWMIT COMPANIES LLC DBA DESERT ALFA ROMEO/FIAT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 unnecessary. Additionally, some of Plaintiff counsel’s expenses were not incurred for prosecution of this action. Plaintiff has provided no evidence that the claimed expenses were in fact incurred. For the foregoing reasons, FCA US respectfully requests this Court tax Plaintiff’s a total of $4,845.57 due to the costs being unreasonable and excessive under the California Civil Code. Dated: June 27, 2019 HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG LLP By: 7 Barry R. Schirm Brian Yasuzawa Samantha Brignoni Attorneys for Defendants, ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, FCA US LLC AND STAWMIT COMPANIES LLC DBA DESERT ALFA ROMEO/FIAT DEFENDANTS FCA US LLC AND STAWMIT COMPANIES LLC DBA DESERT ALFA ROMEO/FIAT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF SAMANTHA BRIGNONI I, Samantha Brignoni, declare as follows: 1. I am an associate at the law firm of Hawkins Parnell & Young LLP, counsel of record for FCA US LLC and Stawmit Companies LLC d/b/a Desert Alfa Romeo (“Defendants”) in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently to such facts under oath. 2, Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the California Civil Code of Procedure 998 served on April 4, 2019, and a fully executed copy of the offer. 3; Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of email communication between the parties in which Defendants agreed to arrange for the tow of the subject vehicle. 4. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents to Defendants. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed 27" day of June 2019, at Los Angeles, California. Hoa Lgrres Samantha Brignoni 8 DEFENDANTS FCA US LLC AND STAWMIT COMPANIES LLC DBA DESERT ALFA ROMEO/FIAT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ryan Masalcas v. FCA US LLC, et al. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.: BC720644 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I declare that I am employed by Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within cause; my business address is 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200, Los Angeles, California 90071-1651. On the date set forth below, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: DEFENDANTS FCA US LLC AND STAWMIT COMPANIES LLC DBA DESERT ALFA ROMEO/FIAT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES On the parties in said cause: Natan Davoodi, Esq. Phone: (310) 889-4554 THE LAW OFFICES OF NATAN DAVOODI, ESQ. Fax: (213) 382-4083 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Attorneys for Plaintiff Ryan Masalcas X BY MAIL: by enclosing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope and, following ordinary business practices, said envelope, with postage pre-paid, was placed for mailing and collection (in the offices of Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP) in the appropriate place for mail collected for deposit with the United States Postal Service. I am readily familiar with the Firm’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence/documents for mailing with the United States Postal Service and that said correspondence/documents are deposited with the United States Postal Service in the ordinary course of business on the same day. [] VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL: by enclosing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope(s), addressed as above, and causing each envelope(s) to be delivered on the next day by courier service following ordinary business practices. [] BY FACSIMILE: by facsimile to the facsimile number(s) of the offices of the addressee(s) as indicated on the attached list. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on June 27, 2019, at Los Angeles, CA. s/Carla Furman-Lacy Signature Carla Furman-Lacy Print Name 9 DEFENDANTS FCA US LLC AND STAWMIT COMPANIES LLC DBA DESERT ALFA ROMEO/FIAT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TAX COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES EXHIBIT “A” 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Barry R. Schirm (SBN 94553) Brian Yasuzawa (SBN 345322) Samantha Brignoni (SBN 311869) HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG, LLP 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 486-8000 Facsimile: (213) 486-8080 Email: byasuzawa@hpylaw.com sbrignoni@hpylaw.com Attorneys for Defendants, FCA US LLC AND STAWMIT COMPANIES LLC DBA DESERT ALFA ROMEO/FIAT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RYAN MASALCAS, an individual and DOES 1-) Case No.: BC720644 ) 100 inclusive, ) ) For All Purposes to the Honorable Gregory Plaintiffs, ) Alarcon in Department 36 ) ) ) DEFENDANTS FCA US LLC AND STAWMIT COMPANIES LLC DBA DESERT ALFA FCA US LLC, (formerly known as CHRYSLER ) ROMEO/FIAT’S C.C.P. §998 OFFER TO GROUP LLC), a Delaware Corporation, ) COMPROMISE TO PLAINTIFF RYAN MASALCAS STAWMIT COMPANIES, LLC (d.b.a. DESERT) FIAT), a California Corporation, and DOES 1- ) 100, inclusive. ) Complaint Filed : September 6, 2018 ) ) V. Trial Date: November 13, 2019 Defendants. TO THE PLAINTIFF RYAN MASALCAS AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998, defendants FCA US LLC and STAWMIT COMPANIES LLC dba DESERT ALFA ROMEO/FIAT, without admitting liability offer to pay in exchange for dismissal of this action with prejudice in its entirety and return of the vehicle that is the subject of this lawsuit with title free and clear of any and all encumbrances and without any accident or intentional damage, the sum of $30,000.00. In addition, defendants offer to pay reasonable costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees based on actual time expended pursuant to Civil Code Section 1794(d) as stipulated by the parties or, if the parties cannot agree, upon motion to the Court, having 1 DEFENDANTS’ 998 OFFER TO COMPROMISE 11170680v.1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 jurisdiction over this action. Except as set forth herein, above, each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. Plaintiff may accept the above offer by signing the following statement that the offer is accepted along with service by mail pursuant to C.C.P. Section 1013(a) within the time specified by C.C.P. Section 998. This offer is made pursuant to Goodstein v. Bank of San Pedro (1994) 27 Cal. App.4™ 899, 323 Cal.Rptr.2d 740, in that a judgment will not be entered. Rather the Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. Further, except as set forth in Paragraph 2, above, each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. Dated: April 4, 2019 HAWKINS 1 YOUNG, LLP Barry R. Brian Yass a Samantha Brignoni Attorneys for Defendants, FCA US LLC AND STAWMIT COMPANIES LLC DBA DESERT ALFA ROMEO/FIAT Plaintiff Ryan Masalcas hereby accepts defendants’ California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 offer to compromise on the terms stated above. Dated: , 2019 Ryan Masalcas, an individual Dated: , 2019 Counsel for Plaintiff, Ryan Masalcas 2 DEFENDANTS’ 998 OFFER TO COMPROMISE 11170680v.1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ryan Masalcas v. FCA US LLC, et al. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.: BC720644 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I declare that I am employed by Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within cause; my business address is 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200, Los Angeles, California 90071-1651. On the date set forth below, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: DEFENDANTS FCA US LLC AND STAWMIT COMPANIES LLC DBA DESERT ALFA ROMEO/FIAT’S C.C.P. §998 OFFER TO COMPROMISE TO PLAINTIFF RYAN MASALCAS On the parties in said cause: Natan Davoodi, Esq. Phone: (310) 889-4554 THE LAW OFFICES OF NATAN DAVOODI, ESQ. Fax: (213) 382-4083 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Attorneys for Plaintiff Ryan Masalcas X BY MAIL: by enclosing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope and, following ordinary business practices, said envelope, with postage pre-paid, was placed for mailing and collection (in the offices of Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP) in the appropriate place for mail collected for deposit with the United States Postal Service. I am readily familiar with the Firm’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence/documents for mailing with the United States Postal Service and that said correspondence/documents are deposited with the United States Postal Service in the ordinary course of business on the same day. [1] VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL: by enclosing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope(s), addressed as above, and causing each envelope(s) to be delivered on the next day by courier service following ordinary business practices. [] BY FACSIMILE: by facsimile to the facsimile number(s) of the offices of the addressee(s) as indicated on the attached list. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on April 4, 2019, at Los Angeles, CA. a TA Soi? Sarre Silvia Moreno Print Name 3 DEFENDANTS’ 998 OFFER TO COMPROMISE 11170680v.1 s w o e N h Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Barry R. Schirm (SBN 94553) Brian Yasuzawa (SBN 345322) Samantha Brignoni (SBN 311869) HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG, LLP 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 486-8000 Facsimile: (213) 486-8080 Email: byasuzawa@hpy law.com sbrignoni@hpylaw.com Attorneys for Defendants, FCA US LLC AND STAWMIT COMPANIES LLC DBA DESERT ALFA ROMEO/FIAT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RYAN MASALCAS, an individual and DOES 1-) Case No.: BC720644 100 inclusive, For All Purposes to the Honorable Gregory -) ) Plaintiffs, } Alarcon in Department 36 ) ) ) DEFENDANTS FCA US LLC AND STAWMIT ; COMPANIES LLC DBA DESERT ALFA FCA US LLC, (formerly known as CHRYSLER ) ROMEO/FIAT’s C.C.P. §998 OFFER TO GROUP LLC), a Delaware Corporation, ) COMPROMISE TO PLAINTIFF RYAN MASALCAS STAWMIT COMPANIES, LLC (d.b.a. DESERT) FIAT), a California Corporation, and DOES 1- 100, inclusive. Vv. ) ) Complaint Filed : September 6, 2018 : ) Trial Date: November 13, 2019 Defendants. ) TO THE PLAINTIFF RYAN MASALCAS AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998, defendants FCA US LLC and STAWMIT COMPANIES LLC dba DESERT ALFA ROMEO/FIAT, without admitting liability offer to pay in exchange for dismissal of this action with prejudice in its entirety and return of the vehicle that is the subject of this lawsuit with title free and clear of any and all encumbrances and without any accident or intentional damage, the sum of $30,000.00. In addition, defendants offer to pay reasonable costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees based on actual time expended pursuant to Civil Code Section 1794(d) as stipulated by the parties or, if the parties cannot gre, upon moon toe Court, having 1 DEFENDANTS’ 998 OFFER TO COMPROMISE 11170680v.1 "03 Ow O e N N N n e W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 jurisdiction over this action. Except as set forth herein, above, each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. Plaintiff may accept the above offer by signing the following statement that the offer is accepted along with service by mail pursuant to C.C.P. Section 1013(a) within the time specified by C.C.P. Section 998. This offer is made pursuant 5 Goodstein v. Bank of San Pedro (1994) 27 Cal. App.4™ 899, 323 Cal.Rptr.2d 740, in that a judgment will not be entered. Rather the Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. Further, except as set forth in Paragraph 2, above, each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. Dated: April 4,2019 y YOUNG, LLP Brian YasuzaWwa Samantha Brignoni Attorneys for Defendants, FCA US LLC AND STAWMIT COMPANIES LLC DBA DESERT ALFA ROMEO/FIAT Plaintiff Ryan Masalcas hereby accepts defendants’ California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 offer to compromise on the terms stated above. Dated: April 4,2019 2019 yo / Ryan Masalcas, an individual ff A oN = Dated: _ April 4,2019 ,2019 DEFENDANTS’ 998 OFFER TO COMPROMISE 11170680v.1 "02 EXHIBIT “B” From: Yasuzawa, Brian To: Natan Davoodi Cc: Bundy, Oliver; Brignoni, Samantha; NatanDavoodi@lemonlawguru.com Subject: Re: Masalcas v. FCA Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 8:46:20 AM Natan, None of these demands were part of the 998 you signed. Not were we made of these issues before you signed the 998. We are working on arranging the tow but your client will need to sign the docs in person. That cannot be avoided. He will have to go to the surrender dealership to complete the surrender. On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:38 AM, Natan Davoodi wrote: Brian, Good morning. We are NOT going to sign the release until we get a revised settlement agreement stating that a flat bed will pick up the car and tow it to the dealer, the towing costs will be covered by FCA and surrender docs can be signed electronically. The car is NOT driveable. Again, Plaintiff is moving to the east coast on May 10, 2019. Time is of the essence. All the best. - Natan Davoodi On Tue, Apr 23, 2019, 16:29 Bundy, Oliver wrote: Natan, I need your Tax-ID. Thank you, Oliver Bundy Associate Attorney Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP 445 South Figueroa St. Ste 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (D) 213-486-8043 (0) 213-486-8000 (F) 213-486-8080 (C) 310-804-3237 obundy@hpylaw.com From: Natan Davoodi [mailto:NatanDavoodi@natandavoodilaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 10:47 AM To: Bundy, Oliver; NatanDavoodi Cc: Brignoni, Samantha; Yasuzawa, Brian; NatanDavoodi@lemonlawguru.com Subject: Re: Masalcas v. FCA We need the release to show that FCA will pick up the car and Plaintiff can sign the surrender documents remotely. Again, Plaintiff is moving by May 10. Please modify the release. - Natan Davoodi On Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 16:04 Bundy, Oliver wrote: Natan, Following up with you regarding signing the settlement release document. Thanks Oliver Bundy Associate Attorney Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP 445 South Figueroa St. Ste 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (D) 213-486-8043 (0) 213-486-8000 (F) 213-486-8080 (C) 310-804-3237 obundy@hpylaw.com From: Bundy, Oliver Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 3:05 PM To: 'Natan Davoodi' Cc: Brignoni, Samantha; Yasuzawa, Brian; NatanDavoodi@lemonlawguru.com Subject: RE: Masalcas v. FCA Natan, I'll have to circle back with you next week on handling surrender. I've reached out to Stericycle but they have not responded yet. We still need the Release Agreement signed before we can move forward. Please let me know when | can expect that. Thanks, Oliver Bundy Associate Attorney Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP 445 South Figueroa St. Ste 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (D) 213-486-8043 (0) 213-486-8000 (F) 213-486-8080 (C) 310-804-3237 obundy@hpylaw.com From: Natan Davoodi [mailto:NatanDavoodi@natandavoodilaw.com] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 7:01 PM To: Bundy, Oliver; NatanDavoodi Cc: Brignoni, Samantha; Yasuzawa, Brian; NatanDavoodi@lemonlawguru.com Subject: Re: Masalcas v. FCA Confirmed On Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 16:56 Bundy, Oliver wrote: Natan, Can you confirm Ryan Masalcas’s current address is 59869 Holly Lane, Landers, CA 92285? Thanks, Oliver Bundy Associate Attorney Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP 445 South Figueroa St. Ste 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (D) 213-486-8043 (0) 213-486-8000 (F) 213-486-8080 (C) 310-804-3237 obundy@hpylaw.com From: Natan Davoodi [mailto:NatanDavoodi@natandavoodilaw.com] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 12:06 PM To: Bundy, Oliver Cc: Brignoni, Samantha; Yasuzawa, Brian; NatanDavoodi@lemonlawguru.com Subject: Re: Masalcas v. FCA Oliver, Please note that due to health reasons, Plaintiff is moving to New York on May 10, 2019. If You'd like the vehicle surrendered, it needs to be well before that date. You stated that You will work with us on the location but state nothing about how the vehicle will be picked up or returned. It is NOT driveable. The seat belts do not work, the car won't hold a charge, etc... It needs to be picked up. Once FCA picks it up , they can take it to wherever they want. Please advise as soon as possible. - Natan Davoodi On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 4:37 PM Bundy, Oliver wrote: Please see below: - We need a 664.6 Paragraph 15 addresses this issue. - We need a clause to award fees to enforce the agreement This is unnecessary as you are filing a fee motion. - We need payment within 15 calendar days or May 1, 2019 whichever is quicker Due to surrender of the vehicle, this is not possible. - We need the vehicle to be returned AS-IS - the dealer left the car in the sun for 9 months and it was broken into The vehicle must not have any accidental or intentional damage from Plaintiff. - We need the vehicle returned at a dealer chosen by Plaintiff - or in the alternative - at any dealer chosen by FCA as long as FCA picks up the vehicle with a tow bed truck and all costs related to the towing and pick up of the vehicle are born by FCA. In any event, all documents to be signed need to be signed at Plaintiff's residence due to Plaintiff's health OR in the alternative, documents can be signed electronically. Documents can be signed wherever. We will certainly work with you on the location but there are only so many dealerships that deal with a buyback. Oliver Bundy Associate Attorney Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP 445 South Figueroa St. Ste 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (D) 213-486-8043 (0) 213-486-8000 (F) 213-486-8080 (C) 310-804-3237 obundy@hpylaw.com From: Natan Davoodi [mailto:NatanDavoodi@natandavoodilaw.com] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 3:52 PM To: Bundy, Oliver Cc: Brignoni, Samantha; Yasuzawa, Brian; NatanDavoodi@Ilemonlawguru.com Subject: Re: Masalcas v. FCA We request changes: - We need a 664.6 - We need a clause to award fees to enforce the agreement - We need payment within 15 calendar days or May 1, 2019 whichever is quicker - We need the vehicle to be returned AS-IS - the dealer left the car in the sun for 9 months and it was broken into - We need the vehicle returned at a dealer chosen by Plaintiff - or in the alternative - at any dealer chosen by FCA as long as FCA picks up the vehicle with a tow bed truck and all costs related to the towing and pick up of the vehicle are born by FCA. In any event, all documents to be signed need to be signed at Plaintiff's residence due to Plaintiff's health OR in the alternative, documents can be signed electronically. - Natan Davoodi On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 3:36 PM Bundy, Oliver wrote: The release agreement is attached. Thanks, Oliver Bundy Associate Attorney Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP 445 South Figueroa St. Ste 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (D) 213-486-8043 (0) 213-486-8000 (F) 213-486-8080 (C) 310-804-3237 obundy@hpylaw.com From: Natan Davoodi [mailto:NatanDavoodi@natandavoodilaw.com] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 3:17 PM To: Brignoni, Samantha; NatanDavoodi Cc: Yasuzawa, Brian; NatanDavoodi@lemonlawguru.com; Bundy, Oliver Subject: Re: Masalcas v. FCA Following up. - Natan Davoodi On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 9:09 AM Brignoni, Samantha wrote: Hi Natan, We will send you our proposed settlement agreement shortly. Thank you, Samantha Samantha Brignoni Associate Attorney Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP 213-486-8000 | hpylaw.com From: Natan Davoodi [mailto:NatanDavoodi@natandavoodilaw.com] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2019 1:03 PM To: Yasuzawa, Brian; NatanDavoodi; NatanDavoodi@lemonlawguru.com Cc: Brignoni, Samantha; Bundy, Oliver Subject: Re: Masalcas v. FCA Brian, Would You like us to prepare the settlement? - Natan Davoodi On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 4:49 PM Natan Davoodi wrote: Please see attached. - Natan Davoodi On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 1:28 PM Yasuzawa, Brian wrote: Trial it is. Please provide dates you are available for an IDC with the court to discuss the issue of the location of the vehicle inspection. Judge Alarcon requires an in person meet and confer in the department at 830 am before a motion to compel can be filed. We are available Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday next week. Please let me know which day works best. The attached 998 offer will also be mailed to your office. The offer includes all damages your client would be entitled to under Song- Beverly and your attorney's fees and costs. A rejection of this 998 would be an indication you are seeking additional damages for your misrepresentation cause of action. Please be advised, this is FCA’s take it or leave it number. There will be no further offers made. Thank you. Brian Yasuzawa Partner Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP 445 S. Figueroa, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 D: 213-486-8018 | C: 310-463-8134 | hpylaw.com byasuzawa@hpylaw.com From: Natan Davoodi [mailto:NatanDavoodi@natandavoodilaw.com] Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2019 1:22 PM To: Yasuzawa, Brian; NatanDavoodi Cc: Brignoni, Samantha; Bundy, Oliver Subject: Re: Masalcas v. FCA If FCA doesn't want to pay for the fraud, we have two options: (1) continue discussions as to FCA only, or (2) proceed to trial. - Natan Davoodi On Thu, Apr 4, 2019, 13:17 Yasuzawa, Brian wrote: | agree you are entitled to incidentals. But the incidentals aren’t that much. | just looked at his “receipts.” Almost all of those are not recoverable. That's why | am asking for breakdown of your number. As for the fraud, if you are think FCA is going to pay on your fraud claim in this case, we should just end the settlement talks now. FCA will not pay one dollar for that fraud claim. Brian Yasuzawa Partner Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP 445 S. Figueroa, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 D: 213-486-8018 | C: 310-463-8134 | hpylaw.com bvasuzawa@hpylaw.com From: Natan Davoodi [mailto:NatanDavoodi@natandavoodilaw.com] Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2019 1:15 PM To: Yasuzawa, Brian; NatanDavoodi Cc: Brignoni, Samantha; Bundy, Oliver Subject: Re: Masalcas v. FCA You're again not acknowledging the other categories of Song Beverly or even acknowledging the fraud. In terms of fees and costs, if you think our fees are limited to what you saw personally, we're comfortable with a fees by motion. On Thu, Apr 4, 2019, 12:29 Yasuzawa, Brian wrote: Adherence to SB nets you at most with a double civil penalty less than $24,000. So your fees in this case in which one deposition has been taken and you served objections only to discovery is $100,000? Brian Yasuzawa Partner Error! Filename not specified. Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP 445 S. Figueroa, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 D: 213-486-8018 | C: 310-463-8134 | hpylaw.com bvasuzawa@hpylaw.com From: Natan Davoodi [mailto:NatanDavoodi@natandavoodilaw.com] Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2019 12:28 PM To: Yasuzawa, Brian; NatanDavoodi Cc: Brignoni, Samantha; Bundy, Oliver Subject: Re: Masalcas v. FCA Plaintiff is entitled to Song Beverly categories of damages, including: - Reimbursement - Alternative Transportation - Incidentals - Costs - Fees We're Court Approved at $605 and recently awarded $575 (No lodestar) on March 18, 2019. The numbers are what they are. How are we not inthe realm of reality? The numbers add up to $126,357.48. If You don't believe that is in the realm of reality, that only confirms our position that FCA acted with willful noncompliance. | don't understand your basis for saying adherence to Song Beverly is not in the realm of reality. If You believe we're in the category of mill type lemon law firms who do not try cases, feel free to rely on that assumption and stare down a $400,000 judgment after trial. If You want a discount, which it sounds like, it would make sense to nip it in the bud as opposed to making us do more work. This case is made for trial. We look forward to FCA explaining how they refused to repair a car for 9 months, let it get robbed, lose track of the car, report the rental car stolen, have the dealership refuse service believing it would get repurchased and playing with Plaintiff's compromised immune system to exploit a submission. If You believe that exposure is only $20,000, we thank God for giving us an opportunity to prove you wrong. If You want to settle this case, we're happy to do so. If you're going to go on auto-pilot and go by your predictable defense play-book, we will leave it to a jury. The numbers are what they are. God bless. - Natan Davoodi On Thu, Apr 4, 2019, 12:07 Yasuzawa, Brian wrote: Like | said, if you want to come back to reality, we can talk further. If not, that’s fine. Brian Yasuzawa Partner Error! Filename not specified. Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP 445 S. Figueroa, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 D: 213-486-8018 | C: 310-463-8134 | hpylaw.com byasuzawa@hpylaw.com From: Natan Davoodi [mailto:NatanDavoodi@natandavoodilaw.com] Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2019 12:06 PM To: Yasuzawa, Brian; NatanDavoodi@natandavoodilaw.com Cc: Brignoni, Samantha; Bundy, Oliver Subject: Re: Masalcas v. FCA Song-Beverly categories of damages amounts for the increase in our demand. If FCA wants to get our of the grave it dug itself, have them put the shovel down. On Thu, Apr 4, 2019, 11:57 Yasuzawa, Brian wrote: So your demand has increased $50,000? Explain to me how you get to your number? You know the car was less than $8,000? If you want to get in the realm of reality, we can talk further. If not that’s fine. Brian Yasuzawa Partner Error! Filename not specified. Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP 445 S. Figueroa, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 D: 213-486-8018 | C: 310-463-8134 | hpylaw.com byasuzawa@hpylaw.com From: Natan Davoodi [mailto:NatanDavoodi@natandavoodilaw.com] Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2019 11:55 AM To: Yasuzawa, Brian; NatanDavoodi Cc: Brignoni, Samantha; Bundy, Oliver Subject: Re: Masalcas v. FCA Counter-Offer: $126,357.48 Plus towing fees to be covered by FCA. Vehicle to be picked up by FCA and Plaintiff's residence. Release terms: - 664.6 - Payment by May 1, 2019 - Vehicle picked up by May 1, 2019 - fees to enforce settlement agreement On Thu, Apr 4, 2019, 11:03 Yasuzawa, Brian wrote: Okay. Pretty quick answer after presenting to your client. Do you all have a counter? Brian Yasuzawa Partner Error! Filename not specified. Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP 445 S. Figueroa, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 D: 213-486-8018 | C: 310-463-8134 | hpylaw.com bvasuzawa@hpylaw.com From: Natan Davoodi [mailto:NatanDavoodi@natandavoodilaw.com] Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2019 11:02 AM To: Yasuzawa, Brian; NatanDavoodi Cc: Brignoni, Samantha; Bundy, Oliver Subject: Re: Masalcas v. FCA As You know, we're court approved at $605 an hour. As Song-Beverly demands reimbursement of Plaintiff's damages, costs, incidentals and attorney's fees, FCA's offer is not code compliant. Additionally, the exposure defendant's face for the fraud cause of action is well above $20,000 alone. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff rejects. On Thu, Apr 4, 2019, 10:26 Yasuzawa, Brian wrote: Counsel: My client has authorized me to settle this matter for $20,000 for a buyback inclusive of fees and costs. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you. Brian Yasuzawa Partner Error! Filename not specified. Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP 445 S. Figueroa, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 D: 213-486-8018 | C: 310-463-8134 | hpylaw.com byasuzawa@hpylaw.com The Law Offices of Natan Davoodi 3580 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 310-889-4554 Fax: 213-382-4083 The contents of this email message and its attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. This email transmission may be confidential and it may be subject to privilege protecting communications between attorneys and their clients. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this transmission. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail. We request that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. UNAUTHORIZED INTERCEPTION PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL LAW (18 U.S.C 2510-2522). The Law Offices of Natan Davoodi 3580 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 310-889-4554 Fax: 213-382-4083 The contents of this email message and its attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. This email transmission may be confidential and it may be subject to privilege protecting communications between attorneys and their clients. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this transmission. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail. We request that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. UNAUTHORIZED INTERCEPTION PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL LAW (18 U.S.C 2510-2522). The Law Offices of Natan Davoodi 3580 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 310-889-4554 Fax: 213-382-4083 The contents of this email message and its attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. This email transmission may be confidential and it may be subject to privilege protecting communications between attorneys and their clients. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this transmission. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail. We request that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. UNAUTHORIZED INTERCEPTION PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL LAW (18 U.S.C 2510-2522). The Law Offices of Natan Davoodi 3580 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 310-889-4554 Fax: 213-382-4083 The contents of this email message and its attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. This email transmission may be confidential and it may be subject to privilege protecting communications between attorneys and their clients. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this transmission. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail. We request that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. UNAUTHORIZED INTERCEPTION PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL LAW (18 U.S.C 2510-2522). The Law Offices of Natan Davoodi 3580 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 310-889-4554 Fax: 213-382-4083 The contents of this email message and its attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. This email transmission may be confidential and it may be subject to privilege protecting communications between attorneys and their clients. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this transmission. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail. We request that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. UNAUTHORIZED INTERCEPTION PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL LAW (18 U.S.C 2510-2522). From: Yasuzawa, Brian To: natandavoodi Cc: Natan Davoodi; Bundy, Oliver; Brignoni, Samantha; NatanDavoodi@lemonlawguru.com Subject: Re: Masalcas v. FCA Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 10:25:22 AM I don’t see anywhere in this email chain where we said he could sign remotely. I see you making that demand after you signed the 998 without those conditions but no acknowledgment that this could be done. He needs to sign documents after the vehicle is inspected and surrendered. That cannot be done at the time the vehicle is picked up to be towed to the surrendering dealership. Again, he needs to be present at the surrendering dealership. As stated in my previous email, we are arranging the tow and that will not be a problem. On Apr 24, 2019, at 9:22 AM, natandavoodi wrote: Brian, Hope all is well. Please see this email chain. We were told Plaintiff could sign the documents remotely. In terms of the tow, will it take place before May 10? The other option would be to have us arrange the tow and include the costs in our motion for fees and costs - but it would cost FCA more as we're court approved at $605 an hour. We can arrange it but it'll cost FCA more than $1,000. If You insist Plaintiff be present when signing the documents in person, it may make sense to have him sign the documents when the car is picked up from his home. Again, this needs to be done by May 10. Can that be done? - Natan Davoodi Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone me Original message -------- From: "Yasuzawa, Brian" Date: 4/24/19 08:46 (GMT-08:00) To: Natan Davoodi Cc: "Bundy, Oliver" , "Brignoni, Samantha" , NatanDavoodi@lemonlawguru.com Subject: Re: Masalcas v. FCA Natan, None of these demands were part of the 998 you signed. Not were we made of these issues before you signed the 998. We are working on arranging the tow but your client will need to sign the docs in person. That cannot be avoided. He will have to go to the surrender dealership to complete the surrender. On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:38 AM, Natan Davoodi wrote: Brian, Good morning. We are NOT going to sign the release until we get a revised settlement agreement stating that a flat bed will pick up the car and tow it to the dealer, the towing costs will be covered by FCA and surrender docs can be signed electronically. The car is NOT driveable. Again, Plaintiff is moving to the east coast on May 10, 2019. Time is of the essence. All the best. - Natan Davoodi On Tue, Apr 23, 2019, 16:29 Bundy, Oliver wrote: Natan, I need your Tax-ID. Thank you, Oliver Bundy Associate Attorney Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP 445 South Figueroa St. Ste 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (D) 213-486-8043 (0) 213-486-8000 (F) 213-486-8080 (C) 310-804-3237 obundy@hpylaw.com From: Natan Davoodi [mailto:NatanDavoodi@natandavoodilaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 10:47 AM To: Bundy, Oliver; NatanDavoodi Cc: Brignoni, Samantha; Yasuzawa, Brian; NatanDavoodi@lemonlawguru.com Subject: Re: Masalcas v. FCA We need the release to show that FCA will pick up the car and Plaintiff can sign the surrender documents remotely. Again, Plaintiff is moving by May 10. Please modify the release. - Natan Davoodi On Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 16:04 Bundy, Oliver wrote: Natan, Following up with you regarding signing the settlement release document. Thanks Oliver Bundy Associate Attorney Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP 445 South Figueroa St. Ste 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (D) 213-486-8043 (0) 213-486-8000 (F) 213-486-8080 (C) 310-804-3237 obundy@hpylaw.com From: Bundy, Oliver Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 3:05 PM To: 'Natan Davoodi' Cc: Brignoni, Samantha; Yasuzawa, Brian; NatanDavoodi@lemonlawguru.com Subject: RE: Masalcas v. FCA Natan, I'll have to circle back with you next week on handling surrender. I've reached out to Stericycle but they have not responded yet. We still need the Release Agreement signed before we can move forward. Please let me know when | can expect that. Thanks, Oliver Bundy Associate Attorney Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP 445 South Figueroa St. Ste 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (D) 213-486-8043 (0) 213-486-8000 (F) 213-486-8080 (C) 310-804-3237 obundy@hpylaw.com From: Natan Davoodi [mailto:NatanDavoodi@natandavoodilaw.com] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 7:01 PM To: Bundy, Oliver; NatanDavoodi Cc: Brignoni, Samantha; Yasuzawa, Brian; NatanDavoodi@lemonlawguru.com Subject: Re: Masalcas v. FCA Confirmed On Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 16:56 Bundy, Oliver wrote: Natan, Can you confirm Ryan Masalcas’s current address is 59869 Holly Lane, Landers, CA 92285? Thanks, Oliver Bundy Associate Attorney Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP 445 South Figueroa St. Ste 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (D) 213-486-8043 (0) 213-486-8000 (F) 213-486-8080 (C) 310-804-3237 obundy@hpylaw.com From: Natan Davoodi [mailto:NatanDavoodi@natandavoodilaw.com] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 12:06 PM To: Bundy, Oliver Cc: Brignoni, Samantha; Yasuzawa, Brian; NatanDavoodi@lemonlawguru.com Subject: Re: Masalcas v. FCA Oliver, Please note that due to health reasons, Plaintiff is moving to New York on May 10, 2019. If You'd like the vehicle surrendered, it needs to be well before that date. You stated that You will work with us on the location but state nothing about how the vehicle will be picked up or returned. It 1s NOT driveable. The seat belts do not work, the car won't hold a charge, etc... It needs to be picked up. Once FCA picks it up , they can take it to wherever they want. Please advise as soon as possible. - Natan Davoodi On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 4:37 PM Bundy, Oliver wrote: Please see below: = EXHIBIT “C” 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Barry R. Schirm (SBN 94553) Brian Yasuzawa (SBN 245322) Samantha Brignoni (SBN 311869) HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 486-8000 Facsimile: (213) 486-8080 Email: byasuzawa@hptylaw.com sbrignoni@hptylaw.com Attorneys for Defendants FCA US LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RYAN MASALCAS, an individual and DOES Case No.: BC720644 1-100 inclusive, Plaintiffs, FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR Vs. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE FCA US LLC, (formerly known as CHRYSLER GROUP LLC), a Delaware Judge: Hon Gregory Alarcon Corporation, STAWMIT COMPANIES, LLC. Dept: 36 (d.b.a. DESERT FIAT), a California Corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Complaint Filed: September 6, 2018 Defendants. Trial Date: None Set PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, RYAN MASALCAS RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, FCA US LLC SET NUMBER: One FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE FCA US LLC (“FCA US”) responds to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One as follows: I FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 N N nw A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT These amended responses are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each response is made subject to all objections as to competence, materiality, relevance or other objection as to admissibility that may apply in the event that any such response, or the information contained therein, is sought to be used in court. FCA US expressly reserves all such objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between Plaintiff and FC US LLC. RESPONSE NO. 1: FCA US will comply in part with this request and will produce a copy of available Customer Assistance Inquiry Records (CAIRs) containing communications with Plaintiffs relating to the 2013 Fiat 500e, VIN 3C3CFFGESDT750765. FCA US otherwise objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS?” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS referring to VEHICLE’s (the term “VEHICLE” as used herein shall refer to and means Plaintiff’s 2013 FIAT 500e, vehicle identification number 3C3CFFGE5DT750765) service records. RESPONSE NO. 2: FCA US will comply in part with this request and will produce a copy of the warranty claim records for the 2013 Fiat 500e, VIN 3C3CFFGESDT750765, and a copy of vehicle repair records obtained from any authorized repair facility concerning service to FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFE’S Toor FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 97 28 the 2013 Fiat 500e, VIN 3C3CFFGE5DT750765. FCA US will also produce a copy of available Customer Assistance Inquiry Records (CAIRs) containing communications with Plaintiff relating to the 2013 Fiat 500e, VIN 3C3CFFGE5SDT750765. Further, FCA US will produce a copy of the Vehicle Information Detail Report for the 2013 Fiat 500e, VIN 3C3CFFGESDT750765. Additionally, FCA US has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry for any communications with any authorized repair facilities concerning service to the 2013 Fiat 500e, VIN 3C3CFFGESDT750765, and located none, because upon information and belief, they do not and have never existed. FCA US otherwise objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[tlhe unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL. DOCUMENTS?” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO Plaintiff. RESPONSE NO. 3: FCA US will comply in part with this request and will produce a copy of the warranty claim records for the 2013 Fiat 500e, VIN 3C3CFFGE5DT750765, and a copy of vehicle repair records obtained from any authorized repair facility concerning service to the 2013 Fiat 500e, VIN 3C3CFFGES5SDT750765. FCA US will also produce a copy of available Customer Assistance Inquiry Records (CAIRs) containing communications with Plaintiffs FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 Lh ha Ww No ~ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 relating to the 2013 Fiat 500e, VIN 3C3CFFGESDT750765. Additionally, FCA US has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry for any communications with any authorized repair facilities concerning service to the 2013 Fiat 500e, VIN 3C3CFFGESDT750765, and located none, because upon information and belief, they do not and have never existed. FCA US otherwise objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS?” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO YOUR employees and the VEHICLE. RESPONSE NO. 4: FCA US will comply in part with this request and will produce a copy of the warranty claim records for the 2013 Fiat 500e, VIN, and a copy of vehicle repair records obtained from any authorized repair facility concerning service to the 2013 Fiat 500e, VIN 3C3CFFGESDT750765. FCA US will also produce a copy of available Customer Assistance Inquiry Records (CAIRs) containing communications with Plaintiffs relating to the 2013 Fiat 500e, VIN 3C3CFFGES5SDT750765. FCA US will also search for and produce a copy of any communications with any authorized repair facilities concerning service to the 2013 Fiat 500e, VIN 3C6TRVAGOEE102688. Additionally, FCA US has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry for any communications with any authorized repair facilities concerning FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS aves FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 Ww ND ox ~~ aN Wn Oo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 service to the 2013 Fiat 500e, VIN 3C3CFFGESDT750765, and located none, because upon information and belief, they do not and have never existed. FCA US otherwise objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS?” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO YOUR settlement authority of complaints. RESPONSE NO. 5: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “YOUR” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. -5- FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 oO 0 NN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Further, FCA US objects to this request because it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO YOUR settlement authority of complaints related to YOUR vehicles. RESPONSE NO. 6: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “YOUR” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, FCA US objects to this request because it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO YOUR buy-back policy of YOUR vehicles. RESPONSE NO. 7: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS aes FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 ~ 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “YOUR” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO Plaintiff’s use of the VEHICLE. RESPONSE NO. 8: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 09: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO WARRANTY INFORMATION related to the VEHICLE. RESPONSE NO. 9: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFE’S oer FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 ®R 3 ON Oo 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS?” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between STAWMIT COMPANIES, LLC. (d.b.a. DESERT FIAT) (“DESERT”) employees and Plaintiff. RESPONSE NO. 10: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the ecards is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS?” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between DESERT and Plaintiff. RESPONSE NO. 11: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS?” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO YOUR General Liability Policy. RESPONSE NO. 12: FCA US objects to this request because it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US further objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO YOUR advertisements of VEHICLE. RESPONSE NO. 13: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS?” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor -9- FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO technical specifications of VEHICLE. RESPONSE NO. 14: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS?” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO the use of VEHICLE by consumers. RESPONSE NO. 15: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS?” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFE’S aoe FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 Ww xX 3 Oo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US also objects to this request because it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous.FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO the use of VEHICLE by Plaintiff. RESPONSE NO. 16: FCA US will comply in part with this request and will produce a copy of the warranty claim records for the 2013 Fiat 500e, VIN 3C3CFFGE5DT750765, and a copy of vehicle repair records obtained from any authorized repair facility concerning service to the 2013 Fiat 500e, VIN 3C3CFFGESDT750765. FCA US will also produce a copy of available Customer Assistance Inquiry Records (CAIRs) containing communications with Plaintiff relating to the 2013 Fiat 500e, VIN 3C3CFFGESDT750765. Additionally, FCA US has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry for any communications with any authorized repair facilities concerning service to the 2013 Fiat 500e, VIN 3C3CFFGESDT750765, and located none, because upon information and belief, they do not and have never existed. FCA US otherwise objects to this request because the terms “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “use of the vehicle” are vague, ambiguous, overly broad and seek information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US further objects to this request and is unable to state it is complying in full because it lacks specificity as to any reasonable category of documents sought to be produced. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO any complaints made by consumers about VEHICLE. RESPONSE NO. 17: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS aos: FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO complaints made by consumers about YOUR handling of incidents, accidents, injuries, or policy coverage. RESPONSE NO. 18: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS?” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO claims created, edited, revised, sent, received, reviewed and/or authored by YOU. FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS -- FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE NO. 19: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “YOU” as overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO checks and payments issued by YOU to consumers injured by YOUR vehicles for the period of January 1, 2010 to the present. RESPONSE NO. 20: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “YOU” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS oor: FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 Ww N O Y 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO all repairs covered and paid by YOU towards injured consumers. RESPONSE NO. 21: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “YOU” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO assessment of damages, estimates, and investigations, relating to Plaintiffs file. RESPONSE NO. 22: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S aes: FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS?” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO YOUR handling of incidents, accidents, injuries, or policy coverage. RESPONSE NO. 23: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t}he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “YOUR” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO YOUR policies on how to handle incidents arising out of use of the VEHICLE. RESPONSE NO. 24: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS oor FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 9 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “YOUR” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: ALL DOCUMENTS sufficient to establish YOUR incident claims handling procedures. RESPONSE NO. 25: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “YOUR” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, FCA US objects to this request because it is vague and ambiguous. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: ALL DOCUMENTS sufficient to establish YOUR policy of how to respond to any damages caused by YOUR vehicles. RESPONSE NO. 26: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS over FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 | aN wn EE N >® 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “YOUR” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: ALL DOCUMENTS sufficient to establish YOUR procedures of what employees should do if a customer reports a problem, sustains an injury or damage by YOUR vehicles, or files a complaint ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO shipment information of the about their use of one YOUR vehicles. RESPONSE NO. 27: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “YOUR” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO shipment information of the VEHICLE. FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS anes FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SS C N RESPONSE NO. 28: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL. DOCUMENTS” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO YOUR policies of taking inventory when receiving a shipment of one of YOUR vehicles. RESPONSE NO. 29: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “YOUR” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: ALL DOCUMENTS sufficient to establish FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS oes: FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 WwW NI 0 9 O N Wn Oo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 YOUR training procedure for salesmen/saleswomen. RESPONSE NO. 30: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “YOUR” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO managerial training material for hired employees. RESPONSE NO. 31: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO training material for newly hired employees. RESPONSE NO. 32: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S oor FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 N O N Ww 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (¢)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS?” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO claims same or similar to Plaintiff's claim which have been denied. RESPONSE NO. 33: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c¢)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “claims same or similar to Plaintiffs” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO complaints made about one of YOUR vehicles to the Department of Insurance Consumer Complaints. -20- FCA US LLCS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 WwW NI RR N N Wn Oo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE NO. 34: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS?” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. Additionally, the request is overbroad as to the time period and subject matter. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO complaints made about the VEHICLE to the Department of Insurance Consumer Complaints. RESPONSE NO. 35: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “VEHICLE” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S ous FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 © 9 Oo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO complaints made about Fiat 500 vehicles to the Department of Insurance Consumer Complaints. RESPONSE NO. 36: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “VEHICLE” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO complaints made about Fiat 500e vehicles to the Department of Insurance Consumer Complaints. RESPONSE NO. 37: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS aoe FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 WwW O N wn Oo 0 Nu 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 29 23 24 25 26 27 28 Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “VEHICLE” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO YOUR claim payment goals and incentive programs. RESPONSE NO. 38: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “YOUR” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US further objects to the time period of this request as it is overbroad. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO YOUR employee performance evaluations. RESPONSE NO. 39: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS aoe FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 xR 3 O&O Oo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “YOUR?” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO YOUR management conference handouts and presentations. RESPONSE NO. 40: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “YOUR?” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO VEHICLE’s technical specifications. RESPONSE NO. 41: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t}he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S -- FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 xR 3 oO Oo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 9 23 24 25 26 27 28 Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “technical specifications” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO VEHICLE 2’s(sic) technical specifications. RESPONSE NO. 42: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “technical specifications” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, FCA US objects to this interrogatory by because it is duplicative of Request 41. FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO the maintenance schedule of VEHICLE. RESPONSE NO. 43: FCA US will comply in part with this request and will produce a copy of the 2013 Fiat 500e Owner’s Manual and User Guide. 295. FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 wn 4 Ww No ~ 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FCA US otherwise objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t}he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS?” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO the service history of VEHICLE. RESPONSE NO. 44: FCA US will comply in part with this request and will produce a copy of the warranty claim records for the 2013 Fiat 500e, VIN 3C3CFFGESDT750765, and a copy of vehicle repair records obtained from any authorized repair facility concerning service to the 2013 Fiat 500e, VIN 3C3CFFGESDT750765. FCA US otherwise objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFE’S aoe: FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 e e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO any warnings related to the use of VEHICLE. RESPONSE NO. 45: FCA US will comply in part with this request and will produce a copy of the 2013 Fiat 500e Owner’s Manual and User Guide. FCA US otherwise objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “warnings” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO compliance with Proposition 65 printed on VEHICLE. RESPONSE NO. 46: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S ost FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 E S | ~N >x® 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FCA US objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney- client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47. ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO YOUR compliance with Proposition 65 and VEHICLE. RESPONSE NO. 47: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS” and “YOUR?” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO Proposition 65 and VEHICLE. /1/ I 117 117 117 Il 117 111 /17 Il /11/ -28- FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESPONSE NO. 48: FCA US objects to the request as improper under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because the request does not meet the threshold requirement of specifically describing each individual item sought or reasonably particularizing each category of item sought. This “omnibus” request is not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.030 (c)(1) because “[t]he unlimited characteristics of such a description may impair or destroy exactitude so that the custodian of the records is not reasonably apprised of what he must produce.” Flora Crane Service Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal 2d 767, 786-787. Accordingly, FCA US is unable to identify the documents or categories of documents being sought. FCA US further objects as the phrase “ALL DOCUMENTS?” is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. FCA US additionally objects as this request seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Dated: October 17,2018 HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP 7 SS Pk LY Barry R. Schirm” Brian Yasuzawa Samantha Brignoni Attorneys for Defendant FCAUSLLC -29- FCA US LLCS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 Oo 0 N N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11121999v.1 VERIFICATION TO FOLLOW -30 - FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ryan Masalcas v. FCA US LLC, et al. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.: BC720644 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I declare that I am employed by Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within cause; my business address is 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200, Los Angeles, California 90071-1651. On the date set forth below, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE On the parties in said cause: Natan Davoodi, Esq. Phone: (310) 889-4554 THE LAW OFFICES OF NATAN DAVOODI, ESQ. Fax: (213) 382-4083 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Attorneys for Plaintiff Ryan Masalcas x BY MAIL: by enclosing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope and, following ordinary business practices, said envelope, with postage pre- paid, was placed for mailing and collection (in the offices of Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP) in the appropriate place for mail collected for deposit with the United States Postal Service. I am readily familiar with the Firm’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence/documents for mailing with the United States Postal Service and that said correspondence/documents are deposited with the United States Postal Service in the ordinary course of business on the same day. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on October 17,2018, at Los Angeles, CA. ee) - Fd 7 Sa ~ Lt Ll ~~ \_~Signature Erica Miller Print Name -31 - FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 11121999v.1 Make a Reservation | Journal Technologies Court Portal Journal Technologies Court Portal Make a Reservation RYAN MASALCAS VS FCAUSLLCET AL Case Number: BC720644 Case Type: Civil Unlimited Category: Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort Date Filed: 2018-09-06 Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Department 36 Reservation Case Name: Case Number: RYAN MASALCASVSFCAUSLLCETAL BC720644 Type: Status: Motion to Tax Costs RESERVED Filing Party: Location: FCA US LLC (Defendant) Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Department 36 Date/Time: Number of Motions: 07/25/2019 8:30 AM 1 Reservation ID: Confirmation Code: 153720391258 CR-8YUYNWSPNKIZ8D3HM Fees Description Fee Qty Amount Motion to Tax Costs 60.00 1 60.00 Credit Card Percentage Fee (2.75%) 1.65 1 1.65 TOTAL $61.65 Payment Amount: Type: $61.65 AmericanExpress Account Number: Authorization: XXXX1148 206540 24 Print Receipt | 4 Reserve Another Hearing Copyright © Journal Technologies, USA. All rights reserved.