Preview
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT A'ITORNEY (Name, state bar number.and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
Alicia L. Hinton, Esq., (SBN 292849)
LAW OFFlCE OF A.L. HINTON
1616 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. B7, Fresno, CA 93711
TELEPHONE NO: (559) 691-6900 FAX N01 (559) 421-0373 E-FILED
ATIORNEY FOR (Name): p|aimiff, 5/4/2020 8:00 AM
Superior Court of California
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF FRESNO
Civll Divlsion
County of Fresno
I130 O Street By: Sergio Lopez, Deputy
Fresno, California 93721-2220
PLAINTIFF/PEHTIONER: Mark Trost
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Keystone RV erroneously named as Thor Motor Coach
CASE NUMBER:
REQUEST FOR PRETRIAI. DISCOVERY CONFERENCE 19CE0600562
E Ploinfiffls) D Defendonfls) DCross—complainonfls) D Cross-defendanfls) Dotheds) Requesta
PretrialDiscovery Conference.
A Pretrial Discovery Conference isbeing requested for the following reasons:
E A dispute hos arisen regarding o request for production of documents.
D A dispute hos arisen regarding form or special interrogatories.
D A dispute hos arisen regarding c deposition subpoena.
D A dispute hos arisen regarding o deposition notice, production of documents at a
questions.
deposition or deposition
D A dispute hos arisen regarding monetary, issue,evidence or terminating sanctions.
D Privilege isthe basis for the refusal fo produce documents
with Local Rule 2.]
and a privilege log isofioched which complies
.I7(B).
The parties hove engaged in ’rhe following meaningful meet and confer efforts prior to filing this request:
(Describe in detail allmeet and confer efforts including any narrowing of the issues or resolufions reached via
these efforts.)
Plaintiffsent a meet and confer on March
letter 9,2020 requesting a supplemental response by March 27, 2020,
and granted an extension for supplemental responses to April 15, 2020.
On April an email
14, 2020, plaintiff sent todefense counsel asking for a statusupdate on the supplemental
responses due on April 15, 2020.
Defendant responded on April 16,2020, to further meet and confer, and stating that request for production no. 16
was overbroad (the same objection to itsresponses documents).
to plaintiffs request for production of
Plaintiffresponded on Apn'l 16.2020, explaining the relevance of the request for production no. 16, and offering to
compromise on the terms of request.
As of this date. defendant has not responded.
A brief summary of the dispute, including the focfs and legal arguments of issue is os follows:
(Excepfing o privilege log if checked above, no pleadings, exhibits, declarations, or attachments shall be
ofioched.)
PCV-7O R06—1 4 Fresno Counfy Superior Court
Monda1ory REQUEST FOR PRE‘IRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Local Rule 2.1 .1 7
Amman chllNel. Int.
claims violations under the Song—Beverly Warranty Act related to his purchase of a new 2016 Alpine 3510-RE
Plaintiff
fifthwheel recreational vehicle manufactured by defendant. The primary complaint is that the RV's slide-outs do not stay
closed when the RV is being driven, but instead creep open requiring plaintiff to regularly pull over to correct the problem.
The manufacturer has not been able to repair theproblem after at least six repair attemptsand more than 300 days inthe
repair shop.
propounded discovery to Keystone on October 11, 2019, including request number 16: "All DOCUMENTS
Plaintiff
relating toany customer complaints concerning the slide-outs for vehicles ofthe same year, make and model, from
January 1, 2015 to the present."
Defendant objected: "This Request seeks documents containing proprietary and/or trade secret cost or price
information protected from disclosure under California law. In addition,the Request is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible
so as to make a response impossible without speculation as to itsmeaning. Furthermore, this Request is overbroad,
burdensome and without reasonable scope and
limitation in calls forthe production of documents not relevant to the
subject matter of this litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
responded by meet and confer
Plaintiff "Documents
letter: related other consumer complaints of the defect that plaintiff
complains of isnot proprietary. The request isspecifically limited to thesame year, make and model as plaintiffs and
limited to aspecified period of time, therefore itisnot vague or overbroad. Information related to thesame defect as
the
plaintiff's vehicle, for same year, make and model is highly relevant."
On April 15, 2020, Keystone responded: "Keystone is standing by itsposition and objections regarding this request. To
request documents for all consumer complaints regarding slideouts for units of thesame year, make and model is
burdensome and overbroad. There are a number of potential issues that could pertain to a slideout that do not relate or
pertain to the issues encountered by your client. Iam willing to explore some compromise but to produce all documents
regarding allslideout issues for thesame year, make and model isunreasonable."
On April 16, 2020, responded: "As to request for production
plaintiff 16, request
plaintiff‘s is limited to onlyone year of
production of a specific make and model, and further limited to complaints only about slideouts. Has Keystone even
performed this search? The response may be only five complaints. lfKeystone states that the search would take 40 hours
to perform, 0r would result in thousands of records unrelated t0Mr. Trost‘s complaint, then we would know where to
compromise. But, my guess is be
that the result of this limited search will relatively small. Please either ask Keystone to
perform the search or provide me with Keystone's more specific concern that this limitedsearch is overbroad and
burdensome. Of course, since the source of the problem for the "creeping" slideouts has not been determined, I'm not
sure how to narrow the search. Alternatively,|could modify the request to ask for customer complaints specifically about
slideouts creeping open while the make and model
units are stationary or in transit for Trost's fora 6 year period beginning
3 years prior to Mr. Trost's year unit."
Defendant has not responded to this request,which believes
plaintiff is highly relevant to the case.
understood that
If is fhe filing of ’rhis request for o Prefriol Discovery Conference tolls the time for filing o motion
To compel discovery on The dispuTed issues for The number of doys between The filing of The request 0nd
issuance by The Court of o subsequent order pertaining To The discovery dispute.
Opposing Pon‘y was served with o copy of REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE on: fig? Z£030
Date
Pursuant To Local Rule 2.1 .1 7(A)(] ), any opposition To o request for o Pretrial Discovery Conference must also be
filedon 0n approved form 0nd must be filed within five (5) courT days of service of ’rhe request for o Pretrial
Discovery Conference, extended five (5) days for service by moil, 0nd mus’r be served on opposing counsel.
|declare
0nd
o1e
'
a7?
under
correct.
PCV—7O ROM 4
Mandatory
020
penalty of perjury
é’ZQ
Type
under
'4
the
#4143417
orPrin’TNome
lows of The State of
REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
W
California
o
that fhe
re ofPorfy
J
foregoing is
orAfiomeyforPorfy
true
Fresno County Superior Court
Local Rule 2.] .17
American chulNcl. Inc.
f
K
4‘2.
\vww Fgm|s\VQrkFlg\v.cgu]
-‘
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
COUNTY OF FRESNO )
I, the undersigned, am employed in the City and County 0f Fresno by the Law Office of
A.L. Hinton, 1616 West Shaw Avenue, Suite B7, Fresno, California 9371 1, email
alicia@alhintonlaw.com. 1 am over the age 0f 1 8 years and not a party to the within action.
On April 28, 2020, I served the foregoing document(s) described as — REQUEST FOR
PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE — 0n the interested pa11y(ies) in said action,
addressed as follows:
William L. Baker, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM L. BAKER
1050 Fulton Avenue, Suite 2 1 8
Sacramento, California 95825
Tel: (916) 978-0772
Fax: (916) 481-5080
Email: bill@wlbakerlaw.com
Attorneyfor Defendants Keystone RV
Company & Turlock R V Center, Inc.
(_) U.S. MAIL: by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage
thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Post Office mailbox at Fresno, California,
addressed as shown above.
(__) FEDERAL EXPRESS NEXT DAY AIR: by placing a true copy thereofenclosed in a
sealed envelope, prepaid, deposited with the FEDERAL EXPRESS carrier/box at
Fresno, California addressed as shown above.
(_) FACSIMILE: by placing a true copy thereofinto a facsimile machine addressed Io the
person at the facsimile number shown above.
(XX) ELECTRONIC MAIL: The documents were transmitted via email to each of the
parties at the email address(es) listed herein and the transmission(s) were reported
complete and without error from: tina@alhintonlaw.com.
Ideclare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State 0f California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 28, 2020, at Fresno, California.
TINA PAGOUp LATOS
PROOF 0F SERVICE PAGE l()l:
l
Preview
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT A'ITORNEY (Name, state bar number.and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY Alicia L. Hinton, Esq., (SBN 292849) LAW OFFlCE OF A.L. HINTON 1616 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. B7, Fresno, CA 93711 TELEPHONE NO: (559) 691-6900 FAX N01 (559) 421-0373 E-FILED ATIORNEY FOR (Name): p|aimiff, 5/4/2020 8:00 AM Superior Court of California SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF FRESNO Civll Divlsion County of Fresno I130 O Street By: Sergio Lopez, Deputy Fresno, California 93721-2220 PLAINTIFF/PEHTIONER: Mark Trost DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Keystone RV erroneously named as Thor Motor Coach CASE NUMBER: REQUEST FOR PRETRIAI. DISCOVERY CONFERENCE 19CE0600562 E Ploinfiffls) D Defendonfls) DCross—complainonfls) D Cross-defendanfls) Dotheds) Requesta PretrialDiscovery Conference. A Pretrial Discovery Conference isbeing requested for the following reasons: E A dispute hos arisen regarding o request for production of documents. D A dispute hos arisen regarding form or special interrogatories. D A dispute hos arisen regarding c deposition subpoena. D A dispute hos arisen regarding o deposition notice, production of documents at a questions. deposition or deposition D A dispute hos arisen regarding monetary, issue,evidence or terminating sanctions. D Privilege isthe basis for the refusal fo produce documents with Local Rule 2.] and a privilege log isofioched which complies .I7(B). The parties hove engaged in ’rhe following meaningful meet and confer efforts prior to filing this request: (Describe in detail allmeet and confer efforts including any narrowing of the issues or resolufions reached via these efforts.) Plaintiffsent a meet and confer on March letter 9,2020 requesting a supplemental response by March 27, 2020, and granted an extension for supplemental responses to April 15, 2020. On April an email 14, 2020, plaintiff sent todefense counsel asking for a statusupdate on the supplemental responses due on April 15, 2020. Defendant responded on April 16,2020, to further meet and confer, and stating that request for production no. 16 was overbroad (the same objection to itsresponses documents). to plaintiffs request for production of Plaintiffresponded on Apn'l 16.2020, explaining the relevance of the request for production no. 16, and offering to compromise on the terms of request. As of this date. defendant has not responded. A brief summary of the dispute, including the focfs and legal arguments of issue is os follows: (Excepfing o privilege log if checked above, no pleadings, exhibits, declarations, or attachments shall be ofioched.) PCV-7O R06—1 4 Fresno Counfy Superior Court Monda1ory REQUEST FOR PRE‘IRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Local Rule 2.1 .1 7 Amman chllNel. Int. claims violations under the Song—Beverly Warranty Act related to his purchase of a new 2016 Alpine 3510-RE Plaintiff fifthwheel recreational vehicle manufactured by defendant. The primary complaint is that the RV's slide-outs do not stay closed when the RV is being driven, but instead creep open requiring plaintiff to regularly pull over to correct the problem. The manufacturer has not been able to repair theproblem after at least six repair attemptsand more than 300 days inthe repair shop. propounded discovery to Keystone on October 11, 2019, including request number 16: "All DOCUMENTS Plaintiff relating toany customer complaints concerning the slide-outs for vehicles ofthe same year, make and model, from January 1, 2015 to the present." Defendant objected: "This Request seeks documents containing proprietary and/or trade secret cost or price information protected from disclosure under California law. In addition,the Request is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible so as to make a response impossible without speculation as to itsmeaning. Furthermore, this Request is overbroad, burdensome and without reasonable scope and limitation in calls forthe production of documents not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." responded by meet and confer Plaintiff "Documents letter: related other consumer complaints of the defect that plaintiff complains of isnot proprietary. The request isspecifically limited to thesame year, make and model as plaintiffs and limited to aspecified period of time, therefore itisnot vague or overbroad. Information related to thesame defect as the plaintiff's vehicle, for same year, make and model is highly relevant." On April 15, 2020, Keystone responded: "Keystone is standing by itsposition and objections regarding this request. To request documents for all consumer complaints regarding slideouts for units of thesame year, make and model is burdensome and overbroad. There are a number of potential issues that could pertain to a slideout that do not relate or pertain to the issues encountered by your client. Iam willing to explore some compromise but to produce all documents regarding allslideout issues for thesame year, make and model isunreasonable." On April 16, 2020, responded: "As to request for production plaintiff 16, request plaintiff‘s is limited to onlyone year of production of a specific make and model, and further limited to complaints only about slideouts. Has Keystone even performed this search? The response may be only five complaints. lfKeystone states that the search would take 40 hours to perform, 0r would result in thousands of records unrelated t0Mr. Trost‘s complaint, then we would know where to compromise. But, my guess is be that the result of this limited search will relatively small. Please either ask Keystone to perform the search or provide me with Keystone's more specific concern that this limitedsearch is overbroad and burdensome. Of course, since the source of the problem for the "creeping" slideouts has not been determined, I'm not sure how to narrow the search. Alternatively,|could modify the request to ask for customer complaints specifically about slideouts creeping open while the make and model units are stationary or in transit for Trost's fora 6 year period beginning 3 years prior to Mr. Trost's year unit." Defendant has not responded to this request,which believes plaintiff is highly relevant to the case. understood that If is fhe filing of ’rhis request for o Prefriol Discovery Conference tolls the time for filing o motion To compel discovery on The dispuTed issues for The number of doys between The filing of The request 0nd issuance by The Court of o subsequent order pertaining To The discovery dispute. Opposing Pon‘y was served with o copy of REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE on: fig? Z£030 Date Pursuant To Local Rule 2.1 .1 7(A)(] ), any opposition To o request for o Pretrial Discovery Conference must also be filedon 0n approved form 0nd must be filed within five (5) courT days of service of ’rhe request for o Pretrial Discovery Conference, extended five (5) days for service by moil, 0nd mus’r be served on opposing counsel. |declare 0nd o1e ' a7? under correct. PCV—7O ROM 4 Mandatory 020 penalty of perjury é’ZQ Type under '4 the #4143417 orPrin’TNome lows of The State of REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE W California o that fhe re ofPorfy J foregoing is orAfiomeyforPorfy true Fresno County Superior Court Local Rule 2.] .17 American chulNcl. Inc. f K 4‘2. \vww Fgm|s\VQrkFlg\v.cgu] -‘ PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF FRESNO ) I, the undersigned, am employed in the City and County 0f Fresno by the Law Office of A.L. Hinton, 1616 West Shaw Avenue, Suite B7, Fresno, California 9371 1, email alicia@alhintonlaw.com. 1 am over the age 0f 1 8 years and not a party to the within action. On April 28, 2020, I served the foregoing document(s) described as — REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE — 0n the interested pa11y(ies) in said action, addressed as follows: William L. Baker, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM L. BAKER 1050 Fulton Avenue, Suite 2 1 8 Sacramento, California 95825 Tel: (916) 978-0772 Fax: (916) 481-5080 Email: bill@wlbakerlaw.com Attorneyfor Defendants Keystone RV Company & Turlock R V Center, Inc. (_) U.S. MAIL: by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Post Office mailbox at Fresno, California, addressed as shown above. (__) FEDERAL EXPRESS NEXT DAY AIR: by placing a true copy thereofenclosed in a sealed envelope, prepaid, deposited with the FEDERAL EXPRESS carrier/box at Fresno, California addressed as shown above. (_) FACSIMILE: by placing a true copy thereofinto a facsimile machine addressed Io the person at the facsimile number shown above. (XX) ELECTRONIC MAIL: The documents were transmitted via email to each of the parties at the email address(es) listed herein and the transmission(s) were reported complete and without error from: tina@alhintonlaw.com. Ideclare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State 0f California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 28, 2020, at Fresno, California. TINA PAGOUp LATOS PROOF 0F SERVICE PAGE l()l: l