Motion for Reconsideration or Rehearing in Sz Huang et al vs Tesla Inc. et al| Trellis.Law

On April 26, 2019 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Ching Fen Huang, Hsi Keng Huang, Hsi Keng Huang, Sz Hua Huang, Sz Hua Huang, Wei Lun Huang, Trinity Huang, Tristan Huang, and Tesla Inc., Tesla, Inc., The State Of California, Department Of Transportation, for Other PI/PD/WD Unlimited (23) in the District Court of Santa Clara County.

Preview
Lauren O. Miller #279448
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
tLe
1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200
San Jose, California 95110-1364 JUN -8 2023
Telephone: (408) 279-5393 Clerk of thi
ourt
of Santa Clara
Facsimile: (408) 279-5845 Superior Court of CA DEPUTY
Lauren.Miller@bowmanandbrooke.com BY.

Thomas Branigan (Pro Hac Vice) “Ton
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
41000 Woodward Avenue, Suite 200 East
Mit.
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
Telephone: (248) 205.3300
Facsimile: (248) 205.3399
Thomas.branigan@bowmanandbrooke.com

Joel Smith (Pro Hac Vice)
Kevin Malloy (Pro Hac Vice)
10 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
1441 Main Street, Suite 1200
1 Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 726-7420
12 Facsimile: (803) 726-7421
Joel.Smith@bowmanandbrooke.com
13. Kevin.malloy@bowmanandbrooke.com

14 Attorneys for Defendant
Tesla, Inc.
15

16 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

17 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

18 SZ HUA HUANG, Individually and as successor ) Case No. 19CV346663
in interest to WEI LUN HUANG, deceased; )
19 TRINITY HUANG, a minor; TRISTAN HUANG, ) TESLA, INC.’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
a minor; HSI KENG HUANG; and CHING FEN ) AN ORDER SPECIALLY SETTING HEARING
20 HUANG, ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER
GRANTING, IN PART, MOTION TO COMPEL
21 Plaintiff, WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND
DEPOSITION OF ELON MUSK AND
22 vs. RENEWED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER RE THE DEPOSITION OF ELON
23 TESLA, INC. dba TESLA MOTORS INC. THE MUSK; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1 through AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION
24 100, OF LAUREN O. MILLER

25 Defendants. [Proposed Order Filed Concurrently]

26 Assigned for all purposes to:
Hon. Evette Pennypacker; Dept. 6
27 ‘1

28 28124384 1
TESLA, INC.’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SPECIALLY SETTING HEARING;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF LAUREN O.
MILLER
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Tesla, Inc. ("Tesla") will apply ex parte for an order shortening

time and specially setting hearing on Tesla, Inc.’s Motion To Reconsider Order Granting, In Part,

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Written Discovery Responses And The Deposition Of Elon Musk filed on

May 22, 2023 (‘Motion to Reconsider”) and Renewed Motion for Protective Order re the Deposition of

Elon Musk filed on June 5, 2023 (“Renewed Motion for a Protective Order’)

This ex parte application is made upon the following grounds: the Court specifically directed

Tesla to seek relief to set an expedited date on its motions related to the deposition of Mr. Musk via

ex parte application. Tesla timely filed the Motion to Reconsider, but the clerk's office has not

10 assigned a hearing date. Despite the pendency of that motion, Plaintiffs’ unilaterally set the deposition

1 of Mr. Musk for June 9, 2023, requiring Tesla to additionally file a Renewed Motion for a Protective

12 Order. The Renewed Motion for Protective Order has also not been assigned a hearing date. Tesla is

13 entitled to have the Court rule on its properly filed motions and may sustain irreparable harm if forced

14 to proceed towards a July 31, 2023 trial date without ruling on its motions.

15 Pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1204(a), all interested parties to whom notice is

16 due have received notice regarding this matter. (Miller Decl. | 10.)

17 This ex parte application is brought under Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1200, et seq. and is

18 based upon this Application, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the

19 Declaration of Lauren O. Miller filed in support, the pleadings and papers filed in this and related

20 actions, and such further evidence and arguments that may be considered by this Court in connection

21 with this Application

22 Dated: June 8, 2023 BOWMAN- AND BROOKE LLP

24
fib —
/ Lauren O. Miller
Avlomeys for Defendant
25 Tesla, Inc.

28 28124384 2
TESLA, INC.’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SPECIALLY SETTING HEARING;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF LAUREN O.
MILLER
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

| INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to the Court's June 7, 2023 email correspondence, Tesla is requesting the Court

specially set hearing and briefing schedules to address its Motion To Reconsider Order Granting, in

part, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Written Discovery Responses and The Deposition of Elon Musk filed

on May 22, 2023 (“Motion to Reconsider’) and Renewed Motion for Protective Order re the

Deposition of Elon Musk filed on June 5, 2023 (“Renewed Motion for a Protective Order’. To date,

the clerk’s office has not assigned these motions a hearing date. (Declaration of Lauren O. Miller

(‘Miller Decl.”) {| 5.)

10 As stated in Tesla's Motion to Reconsider filed on May 22, 2023, Tesla previously

1 objected to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission demanding Tesla authenticate and respond to

12 requests relating to non-Tesla-generated media, in part, based on Plaintiffs’ refusal to identify

13 where they obtained the media. As part of its April 28 Order, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to

14 provide that information by May 12. Plaintiffs provided the information on May 12, save one

15 recording for which they evidently needed to keep their source secret and would only reveal it

16 (or them) in camera. In any event, now that Plaintiffs have provided Tesla with source

17 information for the various recordings that were the basis of their Requests for Admission, Tesla

18 was in a position to further supplement its responses to those Requests and directly admit or

19 deny them. The Supplemental Responses, served on May 26, 2023, provided Plaintiffs the

20 information they argued they needed via Mr. Musk’s deposition, and satisfy fully the limited

21 scope deposition the Court ordered. The purported need for Mr. Musk’s deposition has been

22 mooted. (Miller Decl. {| 3.)

23 Notwithstanding the pendency of the Motion to Reconsider, on May 24, 2023, Plaintiffs’

24 unilaterally noticed Mr. Musk’s deposition for June 9, 2023. Tesla timely served written objections to

25 the deposition notice and, in the abundance of caution, additionally filed a Renewed Motion for

26 Protective Order to address the new deposition notice. The clerk's office has not yet set a hearing

27 date for the Renewed Motion for Protective Order. (Miller Decl. {J 4-6.)

28
27972889 4
MEMO OF P & As IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SPECIALLY SETTING
HEARING
Tesla, therefore, respectfully requests the Court specially set a hearing date for its Motion to

Reconsider and Renewed Motion for Protective Order to resolve the issue of whether Mr. Musk’s

deposition is prohibited in its entirety.

i. ARGUMENT

A. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR EX PARTE RELIEF (Rule 3.1202(c))

To date, Plaintiffs have refused to withdraw their request for Mr. Musk’s deposition. (Miller

Decl. | 7.) As such, because the parties were unable to informally resolve the issue, Tesla timely

filed motions seeking relief from the order compelling the limited deposition of Mr. Musk and is

entitled to have the Court's ruling on those motions prior to having to produce Mr. Musk for a

10 deposition which is no longer necessary. There is good cause to specially set the hearing on Tesla’s

11 Motion to Reconsider and Renewed Motion for Protective Order because the clerk’s office has not yet

12 assigned a hearing date and the case has a July 31, 2023 trial date. Counsel for Tesla sought

13 guidance from the Court on how to obtain a hearing date and was directed by the Department clerk to

14 file an ex parte application. (Miller Decl. ] 8.)

15 B. NO PARTIES OPPOSE THE SPECIALLY SET HEARING; NO PARTIES WILL BE
PREJUDICED IF THE MOTION ARE HEARD ON SHORTENED TIME AT AN
16 ADVANCED HEARING DATE

17 No parties have indicated that they oppose the specially set hearing date on the Motion

18 to Reconsider and Renewed Motion for Protective Order. Indeed, upon receipt of Tesla’s

19 Renewed Motion for Protective Order, Plaintiffs’ counsel actually requested Tesla get a hearing

20 date ASAP. (Miller Decl. {] 9.)

21 it

22 Mt

23 Mf

24 Ml

25 M1

26 Ml

27 M1

28
27972889 2
MEMO OF P & As IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SPECIALLY SETTING
HEARING
I. CONCLUSION

Tesla, Inc. respectfully requests that the Court grant its ex parte application for an order

shortening time and specially setting hearing on Tesla, Inc.'s Motion To Reconsider Order Granting,

In Part, Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Written Discovery Responses And The Deposition Of Elon Musk

and Renewed Motion for Protective Order re the Deposition of Elon Musk.

Dated: June 8, 2023 BOWMAN-AND BROOKE LLP

GS te
ot
UV J 1
¥
y Laurdén O. Miller
ht orneys for Defendant
Tesla, Inc.

28
27972889 3
MEMO OF P & As IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SPECIALLY SETTING
HEARING
DECLARATION OF LAUREN O. MILLER

|, Lauren O. Miller, declare:

1 | am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the Courts in the State of

California and am an attorney at the law firm of Bowman and Brooke LLP, attorneys for Tesla, Inc.

(‘Tesla’) in this matter.

2 | have personal knowledge of each of the matters stated herein and if called upon to

testify to any of these matters, | can do so in a truthful and competent manner.

3. On May 22, 2023, Tesla filed a Motion To Reconsider Order Granting, in part,

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Written Discovery Responses and the Deposition of Elon Musk (“Motion

10 to Reconsider’). A true and correct copy of the Motion to Reconsider is attached as Exhibit A. Tesla

11 also filed a Supplemental Declaration in support of the Motion to Reconsider on June 5, 2023. A true

12 and correct copy of the Supplemental Declaration is attached as Exhibit B.

13 4 On June 5, 2023, Tesla filed a Renewed Motion for Protective Order re the Deposition

14 of Elon Musk filed (“Renewed Motion for a Protective Order’). A true and correct copy of the

15 Renewed Motion for a Protective Order is attached as Exhibit C.

16 5. To date, the clerk's office has not assigned these motions a hearing date.

17 6 Notwithstanding the pendency of the Motion to Reconsider, on May 24, 2023,

18 Plaintiffs’ unilaterally noticed Mr. Musk’s deposition for June 9, 2023. Tesla timely served written

19 objections to the deposition notice.

20 7. To date, Plaintiffs have refused to withdraw their request for Mr. Musk’s deposition.

21 8 On June 5, 2023, | sought guidance from the Court on how to obtain a hearing date

22 and was directed by the Department clerk to file an ex parte application. A true and correct copy of

23 the Court's June 7, 2023 email is attached as Exhibit D.

24 9 No parties have indicated that they oppose the specially set hearing date on the

25 Motion to Reconsider and Renewed Motion for Protective Order. Indeed, upon receipt of Tesla’s

26 Supplemental Declaration in support of Motion to Reconsider, Plaintiffs’ counsel actually requested

27 Tesla get a hearing date ASAP. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ June 5, 2023 email

28 correspondence is attached as Exhibit E.
27972889 4
DEC OF LAUREN O. MILLER IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SPECIALLY
SETTING HEARING
1 10. On June 7, 2023, before 10:00 a.m., my office provided all counsel notice of Tesla’s

2} intent to file this ex parte application. A true and correct copy of my office’s email to all counsel is

3] attached as Exhibit F.

4 | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is

5] true and correct. Executed on June 8, 2023 at San Jose, California.

7
Laurer: 9) Milley
8

28
27972889 2
DEC OF LAUREN O. MILLER IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SPECIALLY
SETTING HEARING
Vincent Galvin #104448
Lauren O; Miller #279448
Joel H. Smith (Pro Hac Vice)
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200
San Jose, California 95110-1364
Telephone: (408) 279-5393
Facsimile: (408) 279-5845
vincent.galvin@bowmanandbrooke.com
lauren.miller@bowmanandbrooke.com

Thomas Branigan (Pro Hac Vice)
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
41000 Woodward Avenue, Suite 200 East
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
Telephone: (248) 205.3300
Facsimile: (248) 205.3399
Thomas.branigan@bowmanandbrooke.com
10
Attorneys for Defendant
11 Tesla, Inc.

12
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
14
SZ HUA HUANG, Individually and as successor ) Case No. 19CV346663
15 in interest to WEI LUN HUANG, deceased;
TRINITY HUANG, a minor; TRISTAN HUANG, Assigned for all purposes to Hon. Evette
16 a minor; HSI KENG HUANG; and CHING FEN Pennypacker; Dept. 6
HUANG,
17 TESLA, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
Plaintiff, MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER
18 GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
vs. TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY
19 RESPONSES AND THE DEPOSITION OF
TESLA, INC. dba TESLA MOTORS INC. THE ELON MUSK; DECLARATION OF LAUREN O.
20 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1 through MILLER IN SUPPORT THEREOF
100,
21 Date:
Defendants. Time:
22 Dept: 6

23 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on , 2023 in Department 6 before the

24 Honorable Evette Pennypacker, located at 191 N. First Street in San Jose, California 95113,

25 Defendant Tesla, Inc. (‘Tesla’) will and hereby moves the Court for a Motion to Reconsider Order

26 Granting, in Part, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Written Discovery Responses and the Deposition of Elon

27 Musk.

28 28048036
4 EXHIBIT A
TESLA, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING, IN PART,
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND THE DEPOSITION OF ELON
MUSK; DECLARATION OF LAUREN O. MILLER IN SUPPORT THEREOF
This Motion is based on this Notice, and the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the

Declaration of Lauren O. Miller and Exhibits and pleadings, records, and papers on file, and upon such

other evidence and oral arguments as may be received by this Court at the time of hearing

Dated: May 22, 2023 zowwan’ AND BROOKE LLP

pe2Mib
aiotauren O. Miller
rneys for Defendant
Tesla, Inc.

28 28048036. 2
TESLA, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING, IN PART,
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND THE DEPOSITION OF ELON
MUSK; DECLARATION OF LAUREN O. MILLER IN SUPPORT THEREOF
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Tesla brings this motion under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a) and hereby respectfully moves

the Court reconsider the portion of its April 28, 2023, Order (hereinafter, “the Order’) that compelled the

limited deposition of Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk. Tesla seeks: reconsideration because the facts and

circumstances that formed the basis of the Order have changed. Specifically, now that Plaintiffs have

provided Tesla with information about the sources of the various recordings that were the basis of

Requests for Admission that “[sought] to confirm whether Mr. Musk was at the specific interviews/public

engagements and made the specific statements already identified in those Requests for Admission{,]”

Tesla will now be able to further supplement its responses to those Requests and it will do so by

10 directly admitting or denying those requests. See Exhibit A, 4/28/23 Order, at p. 12. These

1 Supplemental Responses will provide Plaintiffs with the information they had argued they needed to

12 obtain through Mr. Musk’s deposition and that this Court ordered would be the scope of that deposition

13 pursuant to its Order of April 28, 2023.

14 I The Timing of this Motion

15 At the outset, it should be noted that this Motion is timely. CCP 1008(a) provides that motions

16 to reconsider must be filed “within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the

17 order[.J” Here, the Order was entered on April 28, 2023, but it was not served on counsel for Tesla that

18 day. (Lauren Miller's Decl. {| 11.). Indeed, the Order was never served on Tesla by the Court. (/d.).

19 Instead, in the course of meet and confer discussions on May 8, 2023, Tesla’s counsel learned from

20 Plaintiffs’ counsel (whom had been served with the Order) that the Order had been entered. (Id).

21 Later that day, Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed Tesla’s counsel a copy of that Order, which was the first time

22 Tesla’s counsel received the Order. (Id.).

23 May 18, 2023 was the tenth day after Tesla’s counsel was emailed a copy of the Order. (Id.).

24 CCP 1013(g) provides that “[e]lectronic service shall be permitted pursuant to Section 1010.6 and the

25 tules of electronic service in the California Rules. of Court.”. When a document is served electronically,

26 CCP 1010.6(3)(B) provides a two-day extension for acting in response to that document, which was

27 Saturday May 20, 2023 in the case of the Order. Pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 1.10, an

28 28048036. 4
MEMO OF P&AS IN SUPPORT OF TESLA, INC.'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING, IN PART,
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND THE DEPOSITION OF ELON
MUSK
action that would otherwise be due on a Saturday is due the following Monday. In this instance, that is

today, Monday May 22, 2023. Thus, this Motion is timely.

I. Legal Standard

CCP 1008(a) permits parties to move for reconsideration of an order when there are “new or

different facts, circumstances, or law|.]" Parties that make such motions must “show diligence with a

satisfactory explanation for not having presented the new or different information earlier.” Even Zohar

Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 831. However,

changes in law are not a prerequisite for the granting of motions to reconsider because courts have

“inherent jurisdiction to reconsider [] interim ruling[s].” Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2015) 238

10 Cal.App.4th 227, 237. Thus, courts have “broad discretion” in ruling on motions to reconsider so long

11 as that discretion is “exercised reasonably.” Monroy v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th

12 248, 265.

13 tl. The Court Should Reconsider Its Order Compelling a Limited Deposition of Mr. Musk

14 This dispute began when Plaintiffs served Requests for Admission on Tesla requesting that

15 Tesla verify the authenticity of certain recordings (audio and video) that appeared to show Mr. Musk

16 making a variety of statements generally related to the subjects of Tesla’s Autopilot and advanced

7 driver assistance systems more generally. (Exhibits A and B, Plaintiffs’ Original MTC and Tesla’s MPO

18 re Musk depo.). Initially, Tesla indicated that it could not admit or deny these because it could not verify

19 whether the apparent recordings were legitimate. (Exhibit C, Tesla’s initial RFA Responses). The

20 Court ordered Tesla to provide further responses, which it did after consulting with Mr. Musk. (Exhibit

21 D, Tesla’s Response to Motion for Sanctions/Musk Depo/Compel further responses). However, Tesla

22 was still unable to admit or deny most of these Requests. (/d.). The Court then ordered that Mr. Musk

23 make himself available for a deposition for the limited purpose of “address[ing] Plaintiffs’ already served

24 Requests for Admission that seek to confirm whether Mr. Musk was at the specific interviews/public

25 engagements and made the specific statements already identified in those Requests for Admission.”

26 Exhibit E, 4/28/23 Order, at p. 12.

28 28048036, 2
MEMO OF P&AS IN SUPPORT OF TESLA, INC.’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING, IN PART,
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND THE DEPOSITION OF ELON
MUSK
In the same Order, the Court required Plaintiffs to “identify to Tesla on or before May 12, 2023

information sufficient to identify precisely where Plaintiffs retrieved the recordings identified in their

Requests for Admission[,]’ which they had been unwilling to do, despite Tesla’s requests, prior to the

Order. /d. at pp. 12-13. This newly provided information has enabled Tesla to be able to supplement

its Response to the Requests for Admission that will include direct admissions or denials of the

requests.’ Last week, in meet and confer discussions, Tesla’s counsel informed Plaintiffs’ counsel that

these admissions would.be forthcoming. (Miller Decl. J 13.). Thus far, Plaintiffs have been unwilling to

accept Tesla’s agreement to serve Supplemental Response in lieu of Mr. Musk’s deposition. (/d.).

Tesla’s Supplemental Responses will obviate the need for Mr. Musk’s limited scope deposition,

10 which the Court had ordered take place only for the purpose of discovering whether he had made the

1 statements in the recordings. Thus, the objective of the Order will have been achieved. Likewise,

12 Plaintiffs’ objective in requesting Mr. Musk’s deposition will have been achieved. Any further pursuit of

13 this deposition is unnecessary and would suggest Plaintiffs’ stated purpose for seeking it has been a

14 pretext.

15 Wl

16 Wt

17 WL

18 Wt

19 Hl

20 WL

21 Mf

22 Ml

25
1 To elaborate: Plaintiffs had originally provided Tesla with .mp3 and .mp4 files for each recording that did not
26 disclose any information about each files origin. (Miller Decl. J 12.). Tesla asked for the origin of these files a
number of times, but Plaintiffs refused. (/d.) After the Order was entered, Plaintiffs provided Tesla with the web
address where they had located each recording. (Miller Decl, J 12.). Tesla was then able to compare the
27 recordings at each web address to the files Plaintiffs provided. (Miller Decl. ] 12.) This information will enable
Tesla to be able to admit the authenticity of the recordings. (Miller Decl. | 12.).
28 28048036
MEMO OF P&AS IN SUPPORT OF TESLA, INC.'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING, IN PART,
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND THE DEPOSITION OF ELON
MUSK
For these reasons, the facts and circumstances that led to the Court’s Order have changed.

The statements will now be authenticated, whereas before they could not be. Therefore, Tesla

respectfully requests the Court reconsider its ruling and issue a new order that prohibits Mr. Musk’s

deposition in this case.

Dated: May 22, 2023 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP

Ce py
Len je
\ Yauren (0. Miller
Attoteys for Defendant
Tesla, Inc.

28 28048036 4
MEMO OF P&AS IN SUPPORT OF TESLA, INC.’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING, IN PART,
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND THE DEPOSITION OF ELON
MUSK
Sz Hua Huang, et al. v. Tesla, Inc., et al.
Case No. 19CV346663

PROOF OF SERVICE

| am over 18 years of age, not a party to this action and employed in San Jose, California at

1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200, San Jose, California 95110-1355.

On the date indicated below, | served the foregoing documents TESLA, INC.’S NOTICE
OF MOTION AND MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND THE DEPOSITION OF
ELON MUSK on all interested parties, or through their attorneys of record, in the manner noted,
addressed as follows:

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
B. Mark Fong
10 Seema Bhatt
Minami Tamaki LLP
11 101 Montgomery Street, 8" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
12 mfong@minamitamaki.com
sbhatt@minamitamaki.com
13 eoparowski@minamitamaki.com
Erica Sullivan: ESullivan@MinamiTamaki.com
14 Elise Everett: EEverett@MinamiTamaki.com

15 Michael A. Kelly
Doris Cheng
16 Andrew P. McDevitt
Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger
17 650 California Street, 26" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
18 mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com
dchen walkuplawoffice.com
19 mecdevitt@walkuplawoffice.com
Ashley Freeman afreeman@walkuplawoffice.com
20 Marlena White mwhite@walkuplawoffice.com
Mahul Patel: mpatel@walkuplawoffice.com
21 serve@WalkupLawOffice.com

22 Attorneys for State of California
Landa Low
23 California Dept of Transportation-Legal Div.
P.O. Box 24325
24 Oakland, CA 94623-1325
Landa.low@dot.ca.go
25 Rosemary Love: rosemary.love@dot.ca.qo'
Maria Cordonero: maria.cordonero@dot.ca.go
26 Skitch Crosby: skitch.crosby@dot.ca.gov

27 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL. | caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at San Jose,
California, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid thereof. 1 am readily familiar with the firms
28
4
21025562v1
business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States
Postal Service. The mail is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary
course of business. | am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the
postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for
mailing in affidavit.

VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE. The documents were enveloped, properly
labeled, and caused to be deposited into an overnight delivery (Federal Express, United Parcel
Service, etc.) receptacle or delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the express
service carrier to receive documents, in an envelope or a package designated by the express service
carrier with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person on whom it is to be served, at
the office address as last given by that person on any document filed in the case and served on that
person; otherwise, at that person's place of residence.

X BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE. The.document was served electronically and the transmission
was reported as complete and without error. The document was served on the above parties in this
action by causing a true copy of said document to be transmitted by email pursuant to Emergency
Rule 12 of Appendix | of the California Rules of Court.
10
_. VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION. The document was served on the above party in this
11 action by causing a true copy of said document to be transmitted by facsimile to the number listed
adjacent to the name on this Proof of Service. The transmission was reported as complete and
12 without error.

13 VIA PERSONAL SERVICE. | caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand this date to the
offices of the addressee(s).
14
| declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
15
true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on May 22, 2023, at San Jose, California.
16

21025562v1
Lauren O. Miller #279448
Joel H. Smith (Pro Hac Vice)
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200
San Jose, California 95110-1364
Telephone: (408) 279-5393
Facsimile: (408) 279-5845
Joel.Smith@bowmanandbrooke.com
Lauren.Miller@bowmanandbrooke.com

10 Attorneys for Defendant
Tesla, Inc.
1

12 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

13 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

14 SZ HUA HUANG, Individually and as successor ) Case No. 19CV346663
in interest to WEI LUN HUANG, deceased;
15 TRINITY HUANG, a minor, TRISTAN HUANG, Assigned for all purposes to Hon. Evette
a minor; HSI KENG HUANG; and CHING FEN Pennypacker; Dept. 6
16 HUANG,
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF LAUREN
17 Plaintiff, O. MILLER IN SUPPORT OF TESLA, INC.’S
MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER
18 vs. GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY
19 TESLA, INC. dba TESLA MOTORS INC. THE RESPONSES AND THE DEPOSITION OF
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1 through ELON MUSK
20 100,
Date:
21 Defendants. Time:
Dept: 6
22

23 |, Lauren O. Miller, declare:

24 1 lam an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the Courts in the State of

25 California and am an attorney at the law firm of Bowman and Brooke LLP, attorneys for defendant in

26 this matter.

27 Hd

28
28094202 4 EXHIBIT B
SUPPLMENTAL DECLARATION OF LAUREN O. MILLER IN SUPPORT OF TESLA, INC.'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER
ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND THE
DEPOSITION OF ELON MUSK
2. | have personal knowledge of each of the matters stated herein and if called upon to

testify to any of these matters, | can do so in a truthful and competent manner.

3 Subsequent to Tesla filing its Motion for Reconsideration on May 22, 2023, on May 24, .

2023, Plaintiffs served a unilaterally set Notice of Taking Deposition of Elon Musk. A true and correct

copy is attached as Exhibit A.

4. On May 26, 2023, Tesla served its supplemental responses to the Request for

Admission.

5 A true and correct copy of Tesla’s Verified Second Supplemental Responses to Request

for Admission, Set Two, are attached as Exhibit B.

10 6. A true and correct copy of Tesla’s Verified Supplemental Responses to Request for

11 Admission, Set Three, are attached as Exhibit C.

12 7. A true and correct copy of Tesla’s Verified Supplemental Responses to Request for

13 Admission re Genuineness, Set Three, are attached as Exhibit D.

14 8. On May 30, 2023, | met and conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel Andrew McDevitt

15 regarding whether Plaintiffs would withdraw the deposition notice following receipt of the verified

16 supplemental responses. He was still reviewing the Supplemental Responses and agreed to respond

17 on May 31, 2023.

18 9 On May 31, 2023, | again requested Plaintiffs’ counsel agree to withdraw the deposition

19 notice while on a video conference with all counsel. Plaintiffs’ counsel refused.

20 | declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 5,

21 2023, at San Jose, California.
fi
22

23
SK ‘be—~
Lauiea O. Miller
24

28094202 2
SUPPLMENTAL DECLARATION OF LAUREN O. MILLER IN SUPPORT OF TESLA, INC.’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER
ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND THE
DEPOSITION OF ELON MUSK
B. MARK FONG, ESQ. (SBN 99672)
mfong@minamitam 1.com
SEEMA BHATT, ESQ. (SBN 275278)
sbhatt@minamitamaki.com
MINAMI TAMAKI LLP
360 Post Street, 8th Floor
San Francisco, Ca 94108-4903
Tel: (415) 788-9000
Fax: (415) 398-3887
MICHAEL A. KELLY (State Bar #71460)
mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com
DORIS CHENG (State Bar #197731)
dcheng@walkuplawoffice.com
ANDREW P. McDEVITT (State Bar #271371)
amcdevitt@walkuplawoffice.com
9 WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER
650 California Street, 26 Floor
10 San Francisco, Ca 94108
Tel: (415) 981-7210
11 Fax: (415) 391-6965
12 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
SZ HUA HUANG, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
13 SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO WEI LUN
HUANG, DECEASED; TRINITY HUANG, A
14 MINOR; TRISTAN HUANG, A MINOR

15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
16 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
17 SZ HUA HUANG, Individually and as Case No. 19CV346663
successor in interest to WEI LUN
18 HUANG, deceased; TRINITY HUANG, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES
a minor; TRISTAN HUANG, a minor; TO HON. EVETTE PENNYPACKER
19 HSI KENG HUANG; and CHING FEN DEPARTMENT 6
HUANG,
20 AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING
Plaintiffs, VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
21 ELON MUSK
Vv.
22
TESLA INC. dba TESLA MOTORS,
23 INC., THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
and DOES 1 through 100,
24 Action Filed: April 26, 2019
Defendants. Trial Date: July 31, 2023
25
26 HI

27 HI

28 //1
Wane Mepis KELLY
SSeeoreaa eonrennTON 1 EXHIBIT A
650 CAUFORNIA STREET AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ELON MUSK [CCP § 2025.010
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 84108
(415) 981-7210 & CCP § 2025.220(a)(5)] - CASE NO. 19CV346663
TO: ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant C.C.P. § 2025.010, the following

deposition will be taken before a duly qualified Notary Pubkc, at the time and place
specified, and continued from day to day thereafter, Sundays and holidays excepted

until completed, on behalf of the plaintiff.

Pursuant to C.C.P. § 2025.220(a)(5) notice is given that the deposing party

intends to record the testimony by audio and video technology in addition to the
stenographic method. Notice is hereby given that the video is intended for use at

trial. If an interpreter is required for this deposition, it is necessary that you notify
10 this office within five (5) days of the date of this notice to advise of same.

11 WITNESS: Elon Musk
12 DATE: June 9, 2023
13 TIME: 10:00 a.m.

14 LOCATION: Video Conference (link to be provided)

15
Dated: May 24, 2023 WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER
16
17
18 By:
MICHAEL A. KELLY
19 DORIS CHENG
20 ANDREW P. McDEVITT
Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS, Sz Hua Huang,
21 Individually and as Successor in Interest to
Wei Lun Huang, deceased; Trinity Huang, a
22
minor; Tristan Huang, a minor
23
24

25
26

28
aw oF
WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY 2
Sevan
so cauFontuastREET AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ELON MUSK [CCP § 2025.010
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 98108,
(ans) sen710 & CCP § 2025.220(a)(5)] - CASE NO. 19CV346663
PROOF OF SERVICE
Huang v. Tesla, Inc., et. al.
Case No. 19CV346663
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action.
I am employed in the county where the mailing took place, My business address is
650 California Street, 26th Floor, City and County of San Francisco, CA 94108-2615.

On the date set forth below, I caused to be served true copies of the following
document(s) described as

AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ELON

to:
9
Vincent Galvin, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant
10 Lauren O. Miller, Esq. TESLA, INC.
Tom Branigan, Esq. Phone: (408) 279-5393
11 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP Fax: (408) 279-5845
1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200 Email:
12 San Jose, CA 95110-1364 vincent.galvin@bowmanandbrooke.com
lauren.miller@bowmanandbrooke.com
13 Thomas. branigan@bowmanandbrooke.com
Rebecca.Fuller@bowmanandbrooke.com
14 Debra.Wells@bowmanandbrooke.com
lettv.robles@bowmanandbrooke.com
15
Landa Low, Deputy Attorney Attorneys For Defendant
16 Rosemary Love, Deputy Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Skitch Crosby, Esq. Phone: 510-433-9100
17 Caltrans Legal Division Fax: 510-433-9167
Physical Address: Email: landa.low@dot.ca.gov
18 111 Grand Ave., Suite 11-100 rosemary.love@dot.ca.gov
Oakland, CA 94612 maria.cordonero@dot.ca.gov
19 Mailing: Skitch.Crosby@dot.ca.gov
PO Box 24325
20 Oakland. CA 94623-1325
21 B. Mark Fong Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs
Seema Bhatt Phone: (415) 788-9000
22 Minami Tamaki LLP Fax: (415) 398-3887
101 Montgomery Street, Suite 825 MFong@MinamiTamaki.com
23 San Francisco, CA 94104 SBhatt@MinamiTamaki.com
eoparowski@minamitamaki.com
24 ESullivan@minamitamaki.com
EEverett@MinamiTamaki.com
25

27
28
Law oFFicesOF
‘WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY 3
Seki coon GER
‘650 CALIFORNIA STREET AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ELON MUSK [CCP § 2025.010
san aaniaico, ch 908
{ats} a81 7210 & CCP § 2025.220(a)(5)] - CASE NO. 19CV346663
1 ONLY BY ELECTRONIC

Case Info

Judge

Sunil R. Kulkarni Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

June 08, 2023

Case Filing Date

April 26, 2019

County

Parties

Apple Inc. Other
B. Mark Fong Attorney
B. Mark Fong Attorney For The Plaintiff
Ching Fen Huang Plaintiff
Daniel C Posner Attorney For The Defendant
Doris Cheng Attorney For The Plaintiff
Hsi Keng Huang Plaintiff
Hsi Keng Huang Plaintiff
James Badger Witness
Landa Siu Low Attorney For The Defendant
Odette Harris Witness
Rosemary Iola Love Attorney For The Defendant
Sz Hua Huang Plaintiff
Sz Hua Huang Plaintiff
Tesla Inc. Defendant
Tesla, Inc. Defendant
The State of California, Department of Transportation Defendant
Trinity Huang Minor - Plaintiff
Tristan Huang Minor - Plaintiff
Vincent Galvin Attorney For The Defendant
Wei Lun Huang Plaintiff
Lauren Miller Attorneys for Defendants
Brian Fong Attorney
Ember Oparowski Attorney
Michael Kelly Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Andrew McDevitt Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Seema Bhatt Attorney
JOEL SMITH Attorneys for Defendants
Kevin Mahoney Attorneys for Defendants
Skitch Crosby Attorneys for Defendants
Dale Minami Attorney
Lilan Huang Attorney
Ryan McCarthy Attorney
Philip DiBoise Attorney
Ashley Franco Attorney
Howard Strong Attorney
Robert Brundage Attorneys for Defendants
Renee Castagna Attorney
Jessica Viramontes Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Michael Alfred Attorneys for Plaintiffs

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: Sz Huang et al vs Tesla Inc. et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties