Party Discovery: HAROLD KOEPKE et al VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                LISA L. OBERG (SBN 120139)

loberg@mckennalong.com

JENNIFER J. LEE (SBN 203774) ELECTRONICALLY
jelee@mckennalong.com FILED
ALECIA E, COTTON (SBN 252777) Superior Court of California,
acotton@mckennalong.com County of San Francisco
McKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP JUN 05 2014
One Market Plaza Clerk of the Court
Spear Tower, 24" Floor BY: VANESSA WU

San Francisco, California 94105 Deputy Clerk

Telephone: (415) 267-4000
Facsimile: (415) 267-4198

Attorneys for Defendant
KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

County OF SAN FRANCISCO

HAROLD KOEPKE and
NANCY KARIDIS-KOEPKE,

Case No. CGC-13-276217

DECLARATION OF ALECIA E. COTTON IN
Support OF DEFENDANT KELSEY-HAYE
COMPANY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS?
Motion To ComPet DEFENDANT
KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY’S FURTHER
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ PMQ/COR
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION

Plaintiffs,

v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY; et al.,

Defendants.
{Filed concurrently with Opposition/MPA;
Response to Separate Statement; and
[Proposed] Order]

DATE: — June 10, 2014

TIM 9:00 a.m,

Jupce: Hon. Teri L. Jackson
Dept; 503

| FLAC, FILED: May 1, 2014
ComPLAINT FILED: December 3, 2013
| TRIAL DATE: June 16, 2014

1, ALECIA E, Coron, declare:
1. Tam an attorney at law duly authorized to practice law in the State of California. I
am an associate with the law firm of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, counsel of record for

Defendant KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY (“Kelsey-Hayes” or “Defendant”) in this action. [ have

SW

aE. Cotton Ia Support Of Defendant Relsey-lfayes Company's Opposition To Plaintitis’ Motion To Compel Detendunt Kelsey-
Hayes Company's Further Responses To Plaintills’ PMQ/COR Notice OF Depositiontv

personal and first-hand knowledge of all of the matters contained in this declaration and, if called
and sworn as a witness, [ can and will competently testify to all of the matters contained herein.

1, On April 11, 2014, Defendant properly served written objections to Plaintiffs’
deposition notice and request for production of documents for its custodian of records and person
most knowledgeable. ‘The written objections were attached as Exhibit A to the deposition of
Michael Silvasi on Apri] 29, 2014 by counsel for Defendant. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and
correct copy of Defendant's written objections to Plaintiffs’ deposition notice and request for
production of documents for its custodian of records and person most knowledgeable.

2, Upon receiving Defendant's objections to their deposition notice, Plaintiffs failed to
engage in any meet and confer efforts with Defendant concerning the objections to the specific
categories,

3. At no time before the April 29, 2014 deposition of Defendant's corporate witness
did Plaintiffs engage in any meet and confer efforts with counsel with respect to Defendant's
objections to the categories in the deposition notice.

4. Defendant made jts corporate witness, Michael Silvasi, available for deposition on
April 29, 2014.

5. Plaintiffs’ counsel Joseph Satterley took and completed the deposition of
Defendant's corporate witness, Mr. Silvasi, on this date,

6. On April 23, 2014, in preparation for the deposition, Defendant through its counsel
produced a cd containing thousands of documents to Plaintiffs in response to numerous categories
requested in the deposition notice,

7. On May 7, 2014, after the completion of Mr. Silvasi's deposition, Plaintiffs‘ counsel
contacted counsel for Defendant and informed Defendant that Plaintiffs were seeking further
responses to deposition questions and documents in response to categories 5, 25, 26 and 17.

8. Counsel for Defendant informed Plaintiffs' counsel that Defendant would look into
their concerns.

9, The parties continued to correspond via e-mail and on May 25, 2014 counsel for

Defendant informed Plaintiffs’ counsel that Defendant had located several boxes of documents

USW 804532025.1

$ Companys Opposition fo Plaintiffs’ Motion To Comipel Defendant Kels
Hayes Company's Further Responses To Plaintiffs" PMQ/COR Notice Of Depositionoo

28

McKenna LONG &

ALD
SAN

ous

which she needed to examine before she could provide a final response to Plaintiffs’ further
requests.

10. Just three days later, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel against
Defendant.

ll. Plaintiffs' hasty filing of this instant motion exhibits bad faith and lack of good
cause to compel further deposition testimony or documents from this Defendant.

12. A few sparse e-mails and one phone call to Defendant does not necessarily mean
that productive meet and confer efforts are taking place. When all is said and done, the fact
remains that despite repeated communication of the fact that Defendant was in the process of
attempting to locate possible additional documents and information, Plaintiffs’ unwarranted and
admitted presumption that Defendant has additional documents and information fails to satisfy
any basis for the instant Motion.

13. Plaintiffs never engaged in any meet and confer efforts in advance of Mr. Silvasi's
April 29, 2014 deposition concerning Defendant's objections to the categories of documents and
information sought, including categories nos. 25 and 26, let alone exercised a "reasonable and
good faith effort" to meet and confer before the deposition in light of Defendant's objections.
And, Plaintiffs have also failed to meet and confer in good faith post-deposition.

14. Plaintiffs have entitled their motion as a motion to compel “Further Responses to
Plaintiffs' PMQ/COR Notice of Deposition,” yet in their Motion and in their Proposed Order
Plaintiffs are actually seeking a further corporate witness deposition from Defendant on categories
nos, 25 and 26.

15. In their separate statement, Plaintiffs fail to identify a single question asked during
the deposition of Mr, Silvasi for which they seek a further response.

16. Plaintiffs cannot merely cut and paste the categories of inquiry identified in their
original (and fully objected to) deposition notice into their Rule 3.1345 separate statement and
expect opposing counsel or the Court to be apprised as to the actual subject of their motion.

17. Rather than comply with the specific requirements of Rule 3.1345, Plaintiffs

merely copy-and-pasted the categories of documents and information from their original

USW 804532025.1 3

Beclaraiion Of Alecia f Cotton in Support Of Detendant Relsey-l layes Company's Opposition To Plainifis” Motion fe Campel Delendant Kel
Hayes Company's Further Responses To Plaintifis’ PMQ/COR Notice Of Depositiondeposition notice from April 2, 2014, nos. 25 and 26 (Defendant notes that the category no. 25 for
the custodian of records which was copied-and-pasted into the separate statement does not match
up with the actual category no. 25 for the custodian of records in Plaintiffs’ deposition notice),
copy-and-pasted Defendant's written objections served on April 11, 2014 to which Plaintiffs never
met and conferred, and finally listed their reasons to compel based upon Defendant's written
objections served on April 11, 2014.

18. Plaintiffs do not identify a single question posed to Mr. Silvasi in their separate
statement, for which they have requested the Court to compel further responses.

19. It is Defendant's position that Plaintiffs’ motion based upon the categories of
documents and information requested and Defendant's properly served objections is untimely.

20. Plaintiffs put forth the declaration of Ryan Harris in support of their Motion to
Compel.

21. r. Harris’ declaration fails to provide any support, let alone “good cause” for why
any further document production is justified.

22.

fhe Harris declaration also fails to meet the requirements of Section 2016.040, and
thus fails to comply with the requirement for a meet and confer declaration.
23. Plaintiff's seek further production of documents and a further corporate witness

deposition concerning category no. 25 in their deposition notice served on Defendant.

24. Plaintiff's claim that a prior deposition taken in 1990 of a deceased former
employee of Kelsey-Hayes, Donald Varblow, proves that Defendant has possession of former
workers’ compensation claims relating to former employces of Defendant.

25. This claim is purely speculative and has no merit.

26. — In 1990 Donald Varblow testified that he thought "Connie" in the Jackson plant
would have the personnel records concerning workers' compensation claims of employees in the
Jackson plant.

27, He could not recall Connie's last name or what her position was.

28. — This deposition was taken in 1990.

29, The Jackson plant closed in approximately 1998.

USW 864532025.1 4

Declaration OF Alecia . Cotton fi Support Of Defendant Kelsey
Hayes Company's Purther Responses To Plaintifis®

iny's Opposition To Piainufis’ Motion Te Compel Defendant Kelsey-
PMQICOR Notice Of DepositionALD)

we

wu

12
13

30. Donald Varblow is now deceased.

31. The mere fact that Plaintiffs have now located this non-specific prior testimony of
Donald Varblow in no way proves Defendant is currently in possession of any documents
responsive to Plaintiffs’ category no. 25.

32. Concerning category no, 25, Mr. Silvasi testified that he was not aware of any
workers’ compensation claims documents, and that any workers’ compensation claims which may
have been made in relation to the Jackson, Michigan plant would be a matter of public record and
available to the public in Michigan. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the
pertinent excerpts of the deposition testimony of Michael Silvasi on April 29, 2014.

33. Plaintiffs also seek further production of documents and a further corporate witness
deposition concerning category no. 26 in their deposition notice served on Defendant.

34. Defendant stands by its objections to this category, as the request as phrased is
completely overbroad.

35. No time period is specified by Plaintiffs.

36. Plaintiffs’ request is nothing short of an improper “fishing expedition”. (See
Greyhouse Corp. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 355, 384-385 (1961) and Calcor Space Facility v.
Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4® 216, 225 (1997),)

37. Plaintifis were in receipt of Defendant's objections to this category almost one
month before Mr, Silvasi's deposition and failed to engage in any meet and confer efforts with

Defendant at any time before the deposition.

USW 804532625, | 5

Hayes Company's Further Responses To Plaintiffs’ PMQ/COR Notice OF Depositiontw

38. Plaintiffs’ Motion is premature as Defendant is still attempting to meet and confer
with Plaintiffs' counsel in an attempt to limit the scope of category no. 26 to a specific and relevant
time period.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was made this Bay of June, 2014, at

San Francisco, California.

ALECIA

5.L 6
Alecia © Cotton tir Support Of Defendamt Kelsey ‘omipany’s Opposition To Plain fotion To Compel Defendant Kelsey
Hayes Company's Further Responses To Plintifis’ PMQ/COR Notice Of DepositionEXHIBIT Aeemuee
eee

sszereag \

£ Apr tt 2014
oui |

1 | LISA L. OBERG (SBN 120139)
lobergmekennalong.com

2.) JENNIFER J. LEE (SBN 203774)
jelee@tmekennalong.com

3) E. JACOB LUBARSKY (SBN 251289)
jlubarsky@omckennalong.com

'
|

4 | McKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
Spear Tower
5 | One Market Plaza, 24" Floor
| San Francisco, California 94105
6 | Telephone: (415) 267-4000
Facsimile: (415) 267-4198
7h
| Attorneys for Defendant i
8 | KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
j
10 | COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO |
i
i |
12} HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY i CASE NO. CGC-13-276217
| KARIDIS-KOEPKE, i
13 | Onsections To PLaintires’ NOTICE OF |
I Plaintiffs, TAKING DEposttion AND REQUEST For |
14 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT |
vy. KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY'S PERSON(S) Most |
1s) | QUALIFIED AND CusToptan(S) Or RECORDS i
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, etal., | i
16 | :
|
7) Defendants. i i
18 | |
I |
19) :
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY (“Kelsey- :
20
Hayes” or “Defendant”), hereby objects to the Plaintiffs’ Notice of the Taking Deposition and |
21) i
| Request for Production of Documents to Defendant's Person Most Qualified and Custodian
22 4 i
of Records served by Plaintiffs on April 2, 2014. Based on the general and specific objections |
23 _ |
° sel forth below, Kelsey-Hayes will not produce a witness or documents on the noticed date (April
24 |
15, 2014). Subject to the below objections, Kelsey-Hayes will produce a witness for deposition i
25 |

| on April 29, 2014.

-|-

Nou oF DOCOMENES |DA we WwW Ww

So Oo wa NK

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Kelsey-Hayes objects to the notice on the grounds that it unilaterally specifies a date on
which a witness is not available.

Kelsey-Hayes objects to the notice on the grounds that Plaintiffs are using this means of
discovery to bypass the timing requirements under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.010, et
seq., which requires that a party be given 30 days to respond to a request for production of
documents,

Kelsey-Hayes objects to the notice in that it fails to specify with reasonable particularity
the matters on which examination is requested, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.230.

Kelscy-Hayes objects to the notice in that it fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure
§ 2025.250. The deposition was not noticed at a location within 75 miles of Defendant's
principal place of business, and Defendant will not consent to a deposition at a place of greater
distance.

The notice and requests for production seek examination and production of documents on
matters referenced in the categories that, as phrased, are vague, ambiguous, compound, over
broad as to time and subject matter, neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, calls for information protected by disclosure by the attorney-
client and work product privileges, and are oppressive, burdensome and harassing.

The notice is harassing and burdensome in that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the
information sought cannot be obtained by less intrusive means as required by Code of Civil
Procedure § 2019,030. Asa result, the notice is intended solely to harass and annoy Kelsey-
Hayes, as well as incur unreasonable and unnecessary expense.

Kelsey-Hayes objects to producing any person or documents from unnamed and
unspecified entities, Kelsey-Hayes cannot respond on behalf of any entity other than itself’ in the
present action and will not respond on behalf of any other entity.

Kelsey-Hayes objects to the use of the defined terms “ASBESTOS-CONTAINING
BRAKE ASSEMBLIES”, “FRICTION PRODUCTS”, and “VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS” as
vague, ambiguous, compound and overbroad and therefore in violation of Code of Civil

-2-

Hates COMPANY'S DOJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ Novice oF Derosition ANo Request For PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

|
|
|

|
I
:
i

/
t
|
|
:

i
i
|1 Procedure § 2025.230 in tailing to describe with reasonable particularity the information and |
2 | documents requested.
3 Kelsey-Hayes objects to the notice and request for production of documents to the extent |
4 j| that they seck information protected by the attorney client and/or attorney work product |
5 | privileges.

6 Kelsey-Hayes objects to the notice and request for production of documents to the extent
7 | that they seek information that is not in the possession, custody or control of Kelsey-Hayes or

8 || requires Defendant to obtain information from public sources or from entities unrelated to

9 | Kelsey-Hayes.

0 Kelsey-Hayes objects to the notice and request for production of documents on the

1 | grounds that they seek documents that are irrelevant and are equally available to Plaintiffs

2} through other sources and, therefore, they are overly broad, unduly burdensome and oppressive.

3 Kelsey-Hayes objects to the request for production of documents on the grounds that they |
| :

4 | seck documents that may be privileged, or have trade secret information.

5 Kelsey-Haycs objects to the request for production of documents on the grounds that it

6 | fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedwre § 2025,220 and § 2031.030. |

7 Subject to and without waiving these general objections and the specific objections stated |

8 | below, Kelsey-Hayes may produce responsive non-privileged documents before any deposition of |

19 | its witnesses occurs,

20 SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR

21 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
22
2 OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 1: |
D4 Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts nat in evidence and is also vague, |
25 ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time, The category
%6 seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead
7 to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request
28 | is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being |

LONG &

-3- |

LSEY-HAYES COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ NORCE OF DEPOSHION AND Request For PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

oe LEP
FIORNEYS AT Law
EAN Francuices28

MCKENSA Lane &
LP

| sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant
objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of

information protecicd by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine,

i
i

Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in

previous actions.

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO, 2:
Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague, |

ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time, The category

seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead

to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request

is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being

sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant
objects to this request to the extent it secks production of documents and disclosure of

information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.

Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in
previous actions,

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 3:

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague, |

i

ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category |
seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request |

is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being

sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant
objects to this request to the extent it secks production of documents and disclosure of
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.
Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in

previous actions.

-4-OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. |

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague, |
ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category
seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request
is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being |
sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Morcover, Defendant
objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. |
Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in

previous actions.

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO.

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague,
ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category :

seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead |

to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request |
is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being |
sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant |
objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of

information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine,

Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in
previous actions.

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 6:

|
|
|

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague,

|

ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category |
seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead

to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request

is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being

-5-
need
Y-HAVES COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF DEPasiON AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DocuMENTStw

co

McKenna LONG &
LLP

NEVS.AT LAW
SAN FRANCHCO

sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant
objects to this request to the extent it secks production of documents and disclosure of
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.
Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in

previous actions,

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 7:

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague,
ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category

seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead |

to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request |

is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being |
sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant |
objects to this request to the extent it secks production of documents and disclosure of
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. |
Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in
previous actions.

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 8:

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague,

ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category |
{

seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead |

to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request

is so vague and ambiguous thal Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being |
i
i

sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant

objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of)
i

information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.

'
Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in
previous actions,

te -6- !
|

Keisey-Haves COMPANY'S CRJECPONS TO PcAINHEFS' NOTICE OF Derasiion And Request For PRODUCTON OF DOCUMENTS2

MoKensa f
ALDaiDce LE
ATTORNEGS AT Law
SAN FRANCISCO

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 9:

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague,
ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category
sceks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead

to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request

is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being

sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant

objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.
Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in |
previous actions, |

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 10:

Kelsey-Mayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague,

ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category
i

seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead

to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request

is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being |
i

sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant

. . . . i
objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.

Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in

previous actions.

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 11:

Kelscy-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague,
ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category

seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead

to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request —

is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being |

-7-

Keisey-Haves COMPANY’ s OBJECTIONS TO PraintiFrs’ NOnce OF DeFosTion AnD Reawe

us

sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant

objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of |

information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. |
Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in
i

previous actions,

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO, 12:

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague,
i

ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category |
i
secks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead |
I

to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request |
|

is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents arc being |
i
sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant |

i
objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of
i
{

information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.

Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in
previous actions.

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 13:

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague, -
ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time, The category
seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead |
to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request
is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being |
sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defen ant |
|

objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of

information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.

in

Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this an

previous actions,

-8-|

|

|

|

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 14:
i

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague,

ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category i

seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead |
to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request
1
is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being |
sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant |
objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.
Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in
previous actions,
OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO, 15:
Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague,

ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time, The category

seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request
is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being |
sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant
objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of

information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.

Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in

previous actions,

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 16: |
—, |

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague, |
. i
ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category

seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead |

to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request

is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being

29: -
F DEPOSMTION AND REQUEST For PRObUCTION OF DOCUMENIS

7;1 | sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant

objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of
3] information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attomey work product doctrine.
4 | Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in

5 | previous actions.

6 | OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO, 17:

7 Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague,
8 | ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category
9 | secks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead
0 jj to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore. is burdensome and harassing. The request |

1 | is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being
2 | sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant
13} objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of

14}, information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attormey work product doctrine. |

i
5 | Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in
6 | previous actions. |
7 | OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO, 18: |
8 Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague,

|

9 | ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category ;
0 | sceks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead |
21 | to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request |
22 | is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being |
23 | sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant

24 |, objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of

25 | information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. |

26 | Kelsey-Hayes also Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in

previous actions,

LLP
Law
co

Reusey-Hayes COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS 10 PLAINTIFRS’ NOTCE OF DErosaion AND Reues! For PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

|
KENNA LONG & -10-
iWw

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO, 19:

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague, |
ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category |
seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead |
to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request

is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being

sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant
objects to this request to the extent it secks production of documents and disclosure of
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctine |
Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in
previous actions,

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO, 20:

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague,
ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category
seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request
is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being
sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant
objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of |
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.
Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in
previous actions.

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO, 21:

|
|
Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague, |

ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category |
secks documents and information that ts irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead

:
to the discavery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request |

is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being |

-ll-

OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF Derosiion And Request For PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Keisey-Haves COMPaN

iwe

w

6
7

i
1
sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Morcover, Defendant |
objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.
Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in
previous actions,

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 22:

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague, |

ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category

secks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead |
to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request
is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being
sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant

objects to this request to the extent it secks production of documents and disclosure of

information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.
Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in
previous actions.
OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 23: i
Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague,
ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time, The category
seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead |
to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request

is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being

sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant |
objects to this request to the extent it secks production of documents and disclosure of
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. |
Kelscy-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in

previous actions.

AYES COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS 10 PLAINHFRS’ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCHON OF DOCUMENTSKELSey-Haves COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS 10 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF Dero:

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO, 24:

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague,
ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category
seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request

is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being

sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant
objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of |
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work praduct doctrine.

Kelscy-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 25:

i

|

. . |

previous actions. |

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague, |

i

ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category |
seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request

is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being |

sought, making any response or production of documents impossible, Moreover, Defendant

objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of |

information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine,

Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in
previous actions,

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 26

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague,
ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category

seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead

{
i
|
|
to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request |
is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being |

-13- :

FON AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENISa

6
7

sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant

objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.
Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses (o Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in
previous actions.

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 27:

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague,

ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category

seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request
is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being |
sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant
objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of}
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.
Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in
previous actions,
OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 28:
Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague,
ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category |
i

seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead |

to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request |

is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being
sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant |
objects to this request to the extent it secks production of decuments and disclosure ot
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine, |
Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiff's to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in i
previous actions,

-l4-

Katsey-Haves COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS 10 PLAINTFFS' NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTSww

fe

COD Be UI KD

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 29:

|
Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague, |

ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time, The category |
1

secks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead /

objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of

information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.

Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in
previous actions.

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 30:

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague, |
ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category /
seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request
is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being |
sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant |
objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product dectrine.
Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in |
previous actions,

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO, 31:

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague, |
ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category |

seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead |

to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request

is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being jwv

us

27
28

MOKENNa LONG &
cL

sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant
objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.
Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in |
previous actions,

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO, 32:

Kelsey-Hayes obiects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague, |
ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matier and time. The category |
seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request

is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being

sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant
objects to this request to the extent it secks production of documents and disclosure of
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney werk product doctrine.
Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in
previous actions.

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO, 33:

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague,
ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter and time. The category |
seeks documents and information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated ta lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request
is so vague and ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what documents are being
sought, making any response or production of documents impossible. Moreover, Defendant |
objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of documents and disclosure of
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.
Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ documents requests in this and in

previous actions.

a 216 -

AYES COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS 1G PLAINTIFFS’ NOT:CE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FoR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

|
|
|
|
i
1
i
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“|wn

aya

28

MeKenwa Lond & |

ince LLP.

| Keusty-HAves COMPANY § CRJECTIONS TO PLATES Novice oF Derosition Ano REQuésr For PRODuCTON OF DOCUMENTS

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO CATEGORIES FOR EXAMINATION OF
PERSON MOST QUALIFIED

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. |:

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague,
ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter. The category seeks
information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request is so vague and
ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what information is being sought, making any
response impossible. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure |

of information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.

Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiff's’ interrogatories in this and ir

previous actions,

|
|

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 2:

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague, |
ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter. The category seeks
information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of |
admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request is so vague and

|
ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what information is being sought, making any /
response impossible, Moreover, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it secks disclosure |
of information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.
Kelsey-Hayes also refers Plaintiffs to its responses to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories in this and in
previous actions,

OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 3:

Kelsey-Hayes objects to this category as assuming facts not in evidence and is also vague,

ambiguous, compound, uncertain, and over broad as to subject matter. The category seeks

information that is irrelevant to this action, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence and therefore, is burdensome and harassing. The request is so vague and |
|
“17: |4
5
6
7
8

ambiguous that Defendant is unable to determine what information is being sought, making any |

response impossible. Moreover, Defendant objects to this request to