Preview
Lauren O. Miller #279448
Joel H. Smith (Pro Hac Vice)
BOWMAN AND BROOKE
1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200
San Jose, California 95110
Telephone: (408) 5393
simile: (408) 5845
Joel.Smith@bowmanandbrooke.com
Lauren.Miller@bowmanandbrooke
Thomas Branigan (Pro Hac Vice)
BOWMAN AND BROOKE
41000 Woodward Avenue, Suite 200 East
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
Telephone: (248) 205.3300
Facsimile: (248) 205.3399
Thomas.Branigan@bowmanandbrooke.com
Attorneys for Defendant
Tesla, Inc.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
SZ HUA HUANG, Individually and as successor Case No. 1
in interest to WEI LUN HUANG, deceased;
TRINITY HUANG, a minor; TRISTAN HUANG, Assigned for all purposes o Hon. Evette
a minor; HSI KENG HU NG; and CHING FE nypacker; Dept. 6
HUANG,
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF LAUREN
Plaintiff, O. MILLER IN SUPPORT OF TESLA, INC.’S
MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER
vs. GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY
TES A, INC. TESLA MOTORS INC. THE RESPONSES AND THE DEPOSITION OF
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOE 1 through ELON MUSK
100,
Date:
Defendants. Time:
Dept: 6
23 Lauren O. Mill , declare:
| 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 defendant in
this matter.
SUPPLMENTAL DECLARATION OF LAUREN O. MILLER IN SUPPORT OF TESLA, INC.’S TION TO RECONSIDER
ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND TH
DEPOSITION OF ELON MU
| 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.
Subsequent to Tesla filing its Motion for Reconsideration on May 22, 2023, May 24,
2023, Plaintiffs served a unilaterally set Notice of Taking Deposition of Elon Musk A true and correct
py is attached as Exhibit
May 26, 2023, Tesla served its supplemental responses to the quest for
Admission
A true and correct copy of Tesla Verified Second Supplemental Responses to Request
r Admission, Set Two, are ttached as Exhibit
A true and correct copy of Tesla tified Supplemental Responses to Request fo
Admission, Set Three are ttached as Exhibit
A true and correct copy of Tesla _ Verified Supplemental Responses to Request fo
Admission re Genuineness, Set Three are ttached as Exhibit
On May 30, 2023, | met and conferred with Plaintiffs counsel Andrew McDevitt
regarding whether Plaintiffs would withdraw the deposition notice following receipt of the verified
supplemental responses He was still reviewing the Supplemental Responses and agreed to respond
on May 31, 2023.
On May 31, 2023, | again requested Plaintiffs counsel gree to withdraw the deposition
tice while on a video conference with all counsel. Plaintiffs counsel refused
| declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June
t San Jose, California.
ry
[#
ARF
Teel je
Laure’ O. Miller
SUPPLMENTAL DECLARATION OF LAUREN O. MILLER IN SUPPORT OF TESLA, INC. TION TO RECONSIDER
ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND TH
DEPOSITION OF ELON MU
B. MARK FONG, ESQ. (SBN 99672
mfong@minamitamaki.com
EEMA BHAT , 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
ICHAEL 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
WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER
650 California Street, 26 Floor
San Francisco, Ca 94108
Tel: (415) 981 7210
Fax: (415) 391 6965
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
HUA HUANG, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO WEI LUN
HUANG, DECEASED; TRINITY HUANG, A
MINOR; TRISTAN HUANG, A MINOR
UPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
SZ HUA HUANG, Individually and as Case No. 19CV346663
successor in interest to WEI LUN
HUANG, deceased; TRINITY HUANG, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES
a minor; TRISTAN HUANG, a minor; HON. EVETTE PENNYPACKER
HSI KENG HUANG; and CHING FEN DEPARTMENT
HUANG,
AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING
Plaintiffs, VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
ELON MUSK
TESLA INC. dba TESLA MOTORS,
INC., THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
and DOES 1 through 100,
Action Filed: April 26, 2019
Defendants. Trial Date: July 31, 2023
//1
//1
//1
W OFFICESOF
au ELODIA _ ELLY
sso Cauronwasraeer AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ELON MUSK [CCP § 2025.010
SAN FRANCISCO,Ca 98108 & 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 Public, 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
this office within five (5) days of the date of this notice to advise of same.
WITNESS: Elon Musk
DATE: June 9, 2023
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
LOCATION: Video Conference (link to be provided)
Dated: May 24, 2023 ALKUP ELODIA ELLY CHOENBERGER
By:
MICHAEL A. KELLY
DORIS CHENG
ANDREW P. McDEVITT
Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS, Sz Hua Huang,
Individually and as Successor in Interest to
Wei Lun Huang, deceased; Trinity Huang, a
minor; Tristan Huang, a minor
LAW oFFices OF
au ELODI ELLY
IOENI
sso Cauronwasraeer AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ELON MUSK [CCP § 2025.010
SAN FRANCISCO,Ca 98108 & 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.
Iam 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
s
to:
Vincent Galvin, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant
Lauren O. Miller, Esq. TESLA, INC.
Tom Branigan, Es Phone: (408) 279 5393
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP Fax: (408) 279 5845
1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200 Email:
San Jose, CA 95110 1364 vincent.galvin@bowmanandbrooke.com
lauren.miller@bowmanandbrooke.com
Thomas.branigan@bowmanandbrooke.com
Rebecca.Fuller@bowmanandbrooke.com
Debra.Wells@bowmanandbrooke.com
letty.robles@bowmanandbrooke.com
Landa Low, Deputy Attorney Attorneys For Defendant
Rosemary Love, Deputy Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Skitch Crosby, Esq. hone: 510 433 9100
Caltrans Legal Division :510 9167
Physical Address: mail landa.low@dot.ca.go'
111 Grand Ave., Suite 11 100 osemary.love@dot.ca.gov
Oakland, CA 94612 maria.cordonero@dot.ca.g
Mailing: Skitch. Crosby@dot.ca.gov
PO Box 24325
Oakland. CA 94623 1325
B. Mark Fong Counsel for Plaintiffs
Seema Bhatt Phone: (415) 788 9000
Minami Tamaki LLP Fax: (415) 398 3887
101 Montgomery Street, Suite 825 MFong@MinamiTamaki.com
San Francisco, CA 94104 SBhatt@MinamiTamaki.com
eoparowski@minamitamaki.com
ESullivan@minamitamaki.com
EEverett@MinamiTamaki.com
LAW oFFices OF
au ELODI ELLY
IOENI
sso Cauronwasraeer AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ELON MUSK [CCP § 2025.010
SAN FRANCISCO,Ca 98108 & CCP § 2025.220(a)(5)] CASE NO. 19CV346663
ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Pursuant to CCP 1010.6¢e), I
caused the above titled document(s) to be electronically served on the persons at the
electronic service addresses listed above.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 24, 2023, at San Francisco, California.
Ji Epnifed'shQy
LAW oFFices OF
ALKUP ELODIA ELLY
(650 CALIFORNIA STREET AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ELON MUSK [CCP § 2025.010
SAN FRANCISCO,Ca 98108 & CCP § 2025.220(a)(5)] CASE NO. 19CV346663
Joel Smith (Pro Hac Vice)
Lauren O. Miller #279448
BOWMAN AND BROOKE
1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200
San Jose, California 95110
Telephone: (408) 5393
simile: (408) 5845
Joel.Smith@bowmanandbrooke.com
auren. illee@bowmanandbrooke.com
as Branigan Pro Hac Vice)
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP.
101 West Big Beaver Road
Suite 1100
Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 205.3300
Facsimile: (248) 205.3399
Thomas. ranigan@bowmanandbrooke.com
orneys for Defendant
Tesla, Inc.
N THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
SZ HUA HUANG, Individually and as successor Case No. 1
in interest to WEI LUN HUANG, deceased;
TRINITY HUANG, a minor; TRISTAN HUANG, ) ssigned for all purposes to Hon. Evette
a minor; HSI KENG HUANG; and CHING FEN ) Pennypacker; Dept. 6
UANG,
laintiff, TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR
vs. ADMISSIONS, SET T
ESLA, INC. d TESLA MOTORS INC. THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOE 1 through
100,
efendants.
ROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Sz Hua Huang, Ind. & As Successor In Interest To Wei Lun
Huang, Trinity Huang, Tristan Huang
PONDING PARTY: Defendant Tesla, Inc.
NO.: cond Supplemental)
efendant Tesla Inc. hereby supplements its responses to Request for dmissions, Set Two
28] pursuant o California Code of Civil Procedure section 203 .010, served by Plaintiffs Sz Hua Huang,
TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET
TWO
Individually and as successor in interest to Wei Lun Huang, deceased Trinity Huang, a minor; and
Tristan Huang nor Hsi Keng Huang; and Ching Fen Huang have been dismissed.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
esla searched its records for the statements and recordings referenced in these requests and
wer able to locate copies. Tesla further conferred with CEO Elon Musk to determine whether he
had retained recordings, notes or other documentation which he or Tesla could rely upon to verify the
authenticity of the statements and recordings referenced in t ese requests and he had not. Tesla
further inquired of Mr. Mus s to whether he could independently recall the content of the statements
and recordings referenced in these request such that he could authenticate them as being accurate
could not. Tesla repeatedly requested Plaintiffs provide the sources of the statements and
recordings referenced in these requests and they refused to do so until ordered to do so by the Court.
Upon receiving the same, Teslas review did not reveal any modificatio r alteration of the media
provided by Plaintiffs. Consequently, not ithstanding the proliferation of modified, altered,
manufactured or otherwise faked content available on the internet, Tesla has supplemented its
responses to these requests to reflet its ood faith responses based on information reasonably
available it.
Tesla reserves the right to object to future discovery on the same or related matters and does
not waive any objection by providing the information reflected in these responses. esla further
reserves the right to object to the admissibility of any of these responses or related matters, in whole or
in part, at trial in this or any action, on any grounds, including, but not limited to, materiality, relevance,
d privilege. There s no evidence that Mr. Huang reviewed r was even aware of the existence of
any of the referenced statements, much less that he relied on the statements in connection with his
sion to purchase a Tesla, decline to purchase Full Self Dri Capability, or decision to play a
video game on his cell phone while driving his Mode on multiple drives, including in the moments
leading up to the crash.
TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET
TWO
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17:
Admit that the video linked below as Exhibit “A” fairly and accurately depicts parts of the test
drive referenced in RFA No. 16. Exhibit A: (See file saved on attached disc and/or this link:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wgxyuglezok2hrl/AACe0DZtfaJ8hWZf56ppERIma?dl=0)
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17:
Tesla objects that the request for admission is not full and complete in and of itself as required
by C.C.P. § 2033.060(d) and contains an improper requirement that reference must be made to other
documents in order to respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is not
relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because
demonstrations performed at events several years before Mr. Huang’s crash in March 2018 while he
was playing a video game on his phone and not paying attention, have no bearing on the matters at
issue in this lawsuit Plaintiff is using the requests for admissions to improperly put at issue/bring into
relevance video recordings relating to an individual that have not been proven to be the official
tatements of Tesla. Plaintiff seeks to introduce and/or bring into relevance, without foundation, third
party videos relating to an individual person as opposed to requesting information from defendant
regarding official statements. Tesla objects to the term “test drive” as argumentative and vague,
subject to multiple interpretations. Tesla further objects to this request insofar as it lacks foundation, is
argumentative, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as
Tesla has no obligation to authenticate a non Tesla document.
Subject to and without waiving its objections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the
matter requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily
obtainable because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording
of the entire demonstration. Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its right to
supplement its response.
TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET
TWO
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1
Subject to and without waiving the objections made in Tesla’s original response, Tesla has
undertaken a good faith investigation of sources reasonably available to it and is unable to admit or
deny the genuineness of the attachment as Tesla does not maintain possession, control or custody of a
recording of the discussion. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not made originals of the files available to Tesla
have refused to confirm in writing the source of the files. (C.C.P. § 2033.060(g).) n March 2,
2023, Tesla made the specific request to Plaintiffs to confirm the files were originals or unaltered copies
of original files, the URL of the source of the files along with the date and time of capture, the software
and means used to capture the files, and the MD5 or SHA 11 “hash value”, but Plaintiff did not
respond to the request Mr. Musk confirmed he did not independently record the discussion or maintain
a copy of the original video, nor did he take notes, and cannot recall the details depicted in the
referenced video sufficiently to admit or deny their accuracy. Consequently, while Tesla does not
expect the file has been altered or manipulated, it cannot authenticate a non Tesla document that it
cannot independently validate.
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1
Admit
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18:
Admit that the video linked as Exhibit “A” fairly and accurately depicts a portion or portions of the
test drive referenced in RFA No. 16.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18:
Tesla objects that the request for admission is not full and complete in and of itself as required
by C.C.P. § 2033.060(d) and contains an improper requirement that reference must be made to other
documents in order to respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is not
relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because
demonstrations performed at events years before Mr. Huang’s crash in March 2018 while he was
playing a video game on his phone and not paying attention, have no bearing on the matters at issue in
this lawsuit Tesla objects to the term “test drive” as argumentative and vague, subject to multiple
interpretations. Tesla further objects to this request insofar as it lacks foundation, is argumentative, and
TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET
TWO
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as Tesla has no
obligation to authenticate a non Tesla document.
Subject to and without waiving its objections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the
matter requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily
obtainable because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording
of the entire demonstration. Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its right to
supplement its response.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1
Subject to and without waiving the objections made in Tesla’s original response Tesla has
undertaken a good faith investigation of sources reasonably available to it and is unable to admit or
deny the genuineness of the attachment as Tesla does not maintain possession, control or custody of a
recording of the discussion. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not made originals of the files available to Tesla
and have refused to confirm in writing the source of the files. (C.C.P. § 2033.060(g).) On March 2,
2023, Tesla made the specific request to Plaintiffs to confirm the files were originals or unaltered copies
of original files, the URL of the source of the files along with the date and time of capture, the software
and means used to capture the files, and the MD5 or SHA 11 “hash value”, but Plaintiffs did not
respond to the request. Mr. Musk confirmed he did not independently record the discussion or maintain
a copy of the original video, nor did he take notes, and cannot recall the details depicted in the
referenced video sufficiently to admit or deny their accuracy. Consequently, while Tesla does not
expect the file has been altered or manipulated, it cannot authenticate a non Tesla document that it
cannot independently validate.
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.
Admit
EQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19:
Admit that the driver of the vehicle in in the video ked as Exhibit “A” is Elon Musk.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19:
Tesla objects that the request for admission is not full and complete in and of itself as required
by C.C.P. § 2033.060(d) and contains an improper requirement that reference must be made to other
TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET
TWO
documents in order to respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is not
relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because
emonstrations performed at events years before Mr. Huang’s crash in March 2018 while he was
playing a video game on his phone and not paying attention, have no bearing on the matters at issue in
this lawsuit Tesla further objects to this request insofar as it lacks foundation, is argumentative, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as Tesla has no obligation
o authenticate anon esla document.
Subject to and without waiving its objections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the
matter requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily
obtainable because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording
of the entire interview which is property of third parties. The only information known or readily
obtainable concerning this request is the hearsay evidence referred to in the request. Tesla cannot
verify the authenticity of media produced by external sources without unreasonable burden or expense.
Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its right to supplement its response.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1
Subject to and without waiving the objections made in Tesla’s original response, s e Tesla’s
Supplemental Response to Request for Admission No. 16
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1
dmit
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20:
Admit that the video nked as Exhibi t “A” is a fair and accurate recording of statements Elon
Musk made during the test drive referenced in RFA No. 16.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20:
Tesla objects that the request for admission is not full and complete in and of itself as required
by C.C.P. § 2033.060(d) and contains an improper requirement that reference must be made to other
documents in order to respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is no
relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because
demonstrations performed at events several years before Mr. Huang’s crash in March 2018 while he
TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET
TWO
was playing a video game on his phone and not paying attention, have no bearing on the matters a
issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff is using the requests for admissions to improperly put at issue/bring into
relevance video recordings relating to an individual that have not been proven to be the official
statements of Tesla. Plaintiff seeks to introduce and/or bring into relevance, without foundation, third
party videos relating to an individual person as opposed to requesting information from defendant
regarding official statements. Tesla objects to the term “test drive” as argumentative and vague,
bject to multiple interpretations. Tesla further objects to this request insofar as it lacks foundation, is
argumentative, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as
Tesla has no obligation to authenticate an individual’s media statements or any non Tesla document
Subject to and without waiving its objections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the
matter requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily
ainable because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording
of the entire demonstration. Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its right to
supplement its response.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.
Subject to and without waiving the objections made in Tesla’s original response, Tesla has
undertaken a good faith investigation of sources reasonably available to it and is unable to admit or
deny the genuineness of the attachment Tesla does not maintain possession, control or custody of a
recording of the discussion. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not made originals of the files available to Tesla
have refused to confirm in writing the source of the files. (C.C.P. § 2033.060(g).) n March 2,
2023, Tesla made the specific request to Plaintiffs to confirm the files were originals or unaltered copies
of original files, the URL of the source of the files along with the date and time of capture, the software
and means used to capture the files, and the MD5 or S 11 “hash value”, but Plaintiff did not
respond to the request Mr. Musk confirmed he did not independently record the discussion or maintain
a copy of the original video, nor did he take notes, and cannot recall the details depicted in the
referenced video sufficiently to admit or deny their accuracy. Consequently, while Tesla does not
expect the file has been altered or manipulated, it cannot authenticate a non Tesla document that it
cannot independently validate.
TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET
TWO
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.
Admit
EQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21:
Admit that the video nked as Exhibit “A” is a fair and accurate recording of some of the
statements Elon Musk made during the test drive referenced in RFA No. 16.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21:
Tesla objects that the request for admission is not full and complete in and of itself as required
by C.C.P. § 2033.060(d) and contains an improper requirement that reference must be made to other
documents in order to respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is not
relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because
demonstrations performed at events several year efore Mr. Huang’s crash in March 2018, where he
was playing a video game on his phone and not paying attention, have no bearing on the matters at
issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff is using the requests for admissions to improperly put at issue/bring into
levance video recordings relating to an individual that have not been proven to be the official
atements of Tesla. Plaintiff seeks to introduce and/or bring into relevance, without foundation, third
party videos relating to an individual person as opposed to requesting information from defendant
regarding official statements. Tesla objects the request is vague and ambiguous by use of the phrase
“some of’ and Tesla objects to the term “test drive” as argumentative and vague, subject to multiple
interpretations. Tesla further objects to this request insofar as it lacks foundation, is argumentative, an
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as Tesla has no
obligation to authenticate an individual’s media statement
Subject to and without waiving its objections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the
tter requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily
obtainable because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording
of the entire demonstration. Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its right to
supplement its response.
TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET
TWO
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.
Subject to and without waivin he objections made in Tesla’s original response, Tesla has
undertaken a good faith investigation of sources reasonably available to it and is unable to admit or
deny the genuineness of the attachment as Tesla does not maintain possession, control or custody of a
recording of the discussion. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not made originals of the files available to Tesla
have refused to confirm in writing the source of the files. (C.C.P. § 2033.060(g).) n March 2,
2023, Tesla made the specific request to Plaintiffs to confirm the files were originals or unaltered copies
of original files, the URL of the source of the files along with the date and time of capture, the software
and means used to capture the files, and the MD5 or SHA 11 “hash value”, but Plaintiff did not
spond to the request Mr. Musk confirmed he did not independently record the discussion or maintain
a copy of the original video, nor did he take notes, and cannot recall the details depicted in the
referenced video sufficiently to admit deny their accuracy. Consequently, while Tesla does not
expect the file has been altered or manipulated, it cannot authenticate a non Tesla document that it
cannot independently validate.
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.
dmi
EQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22:
Admit that during the Oct 2014 test drive referenced in RFA No. 16, Elon Musk took his hands
off the wheel and stated, “No hands, no feet, nothing.”
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22:
Tesla objects that the request for admission is not full and complete in and of itself as required
by C.C.P. § 2033.060(d) and contains an improper requirement that reference must be made to other
documents in order to respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is not
levant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because discussions
at conference events several years before Mr. Huang’s crash in March 2018, where he was playing a
video game on his phone and not paying tention, have no bearing on the matters at issue in this
lawsuit. Plaintiff is using the requests for admissions to improperly put at issue/bring into relevance
video recordings relating to an individual that have not been proven to be the official statements of
TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET
TWO
Tesla. Plaintiff seeks to introduce and/or bring into relevance, without foundation, third party videos
relating to an individual person as opposed to requesting information from defendant regarding official
statements. Tesla further objects to this request insofar as it lacks foundation, is argumentative, and
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as Tesla has no
obligation to authenticate a non Tesla document. Tesla objects to the term “test drive” as argumentative
and vague, subject to multiple interpretations.
Subject to and without waiving its objections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the
matter requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or read
obtainable because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording
of the entire interview which is property of third parties. The only information known or readily
obtainable concerning this request is the hearsay evidence referred to in the request. Tesla cannot
verify the authenticity of media produced by external sources without unreasonable burden or expense.
Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its right to supplement its response.
SUPPLEMENTA ESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.
Subject to and without waiving the objections made in Tesla’s original response, see Tesla’s
Supplemental Response to Request for Admission No. 16. Tesla admits that the video depicts the
driver without his hands on the steering wh during brief moments while still attentive Tesla has
undertaken a good faith investigation of sources reasonably available to it and is unable to admit or
deny the genuineness of the attachment as Tesla does not maintain possession _ ontrol or custody of a
recording of the discussion. Tesla does not maintain a repository of Elon Musk’s public statements or
media interviews. Tesla cannot admit or deny that the statements made by any speaker heard on the
video is accurate or complete cause Tesla was not provided with the original video or audio, or an
authenticated transcript of the audio. Mr. Musk confirmed he did not independently record the
discussion or maintain a copy of the original video, nor did he take notes, and cannot recall the details
icted in the referenced video suffici ently to admit or deny their accuracy. Consequently, while Tesla
does not expect the file has been altered or manipulated, it cannot authenticate a non Tesla document
that it cannot independently validate.
TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET
TWO
SECON SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.
Admit
EQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23:
Admit that during the Oct 2014 test drive referenced in RFA No. 16, Elon Musk stated, “if it
detected that there was something that was going to hit the car, it would do its best to mitigate the
impact velocity, so it would brake.”
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23:
Tesla objects that the request for admission is not full and complete in and of itself as required
by C.C.P. § 2033.060(d) and ntains an improper requirement that reference must be made to other
documents in order to respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is not
relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidencecause discus sions
at conference events several years before Mr. Huang’s crash in March 2018, where he was playing a
video game on his phone and not paying attention, have no bearing on the matters at issue in this
lawsuit. Plaintiff is using the requests for admissions to improperly put at issue/bring into relevance
video recordings relating to an individual that have not been proven to be the official statements of
Tesla. Plaintiff seeks to introduce and/or bring into relevance, without foundation, third party videos
relating to an individual person as opposed to requesting information from defendant regarding official
statements. Tesla further objects to this request insofar as it lacks foundation, is argumentative, and
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as Tesla has no
obligation to authenticate anon esla document. Tesla objects to the term “test drive” as argumentative
and vague, subject to multiple interpretations.
Subject to and without waiving its jections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the
matter requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily
obtainable because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording
of the entire interview which is property of third parties. The only information known or readily
obtainable concerning this request is the hearsay evidence referred to in the request. Tesla cannot
verify the authenticity of media produced by exter sources without unreasonable burden or expense.
Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its right to supplement its response.
TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET
TWO
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.
Subject to and without waiving the objecti made in Tesla’s original response, Tesla has
undertaken a good faith investigation of sources reasonably available to it and is unable to admit or
deny the genuineness of the attachment as Tesla does not maintain possession, control or custody of a
recording of the discussion. sla does not maintain a repository of Elon usk’s public statements or
dia interviews. Tesla cannot admit or deny that the statements made by any speaker heard on the
video is accurate or complete because Tesla was not provid with the original video or audio, or an
authenticated transcript of the audio Mr. Musk confirmed he did not independently record the
discussion or maintain a copy of the original video, nor did he take notes, and cannot recall the details
depicted in the referenced video sufficiently to admit or deny their accuracy. Consequently, while Tesla
does not expect the file has been altered or manipulated, cannot authenticate a non Tesla document
that it cannot independently validate.
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RE NSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.
Admit
EQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24:
mit that when Elon Musk stated “if it detected that there was something that was going to hit
the car, it would do its best to mitigate the impact velocity, so it would brake,” referenced in RFA No.
, the “it” Elon Musk was referring to was the Tesla autopilot technology.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24:
Tesla objects that the request for admission is not full and complete in and of itself as required
by C.C.P. § 2 .060(d) and contains an improper requirement that reference must be made to other
documents in order to respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is not
relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admi ble evidence because discussions
at conference events several years before Mr. Huang’s crash in March 2018, where he was playing a
video game on his phone and not paying attention, have no bearing on the matters at issue in this
lawsuit. Plaintiff is using the requests for admissions to improperly put at issue/bring into relevance
video recordings relating to an individual that have not been proven to be the official statements of
Tesla. Plaintiff seeks to introduce and/or bring into relevance, without fdation, third party video
TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET
TWO
relating to an individual person as opposed to requesting information from defendant regarding official
statements. Tesla further objects to this request insofar as it lacks foundation, is argumentative, and
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as Tesla has no
obligation to authenticate a non Tesla document.
Subject to and without waiving its objections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the
matter requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily
obtainable because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording
of the entire interview which is property of third parties. The only information known or readily
obtainable concerning this request is the hearsay evidence referred to in the request. Tesla has made a
reasonable inquiry about the matter requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the
information known or readily obtai by Tesla since Tesla cannot verify the authenticity of media
produced by external sources without unreasonable burden or expense. Discovery and investigation
continue, and Tesla reserves its right to supplement its response.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.
Subject to and without waiving the objections made
Preview
Lauren O. Miller #279448 Joel H. Smith (Pro Hac Vice) BOWMAN AND BROOKE 1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, California 95110 Telephone: (408) 5393 simile: (408) 5845 Joel.Smith@bowmanandbrooke.com Lauren.Miller@bowmanandbrooke Thomas Branigan (Pro Hac Vice) BOWMAN AND BROOKE 41000 Woodward Avenue, Suite 200 East Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303 Telephone: (248) 205.3300 Facsimile: (248) 205.3399 Thomas.Branigan@bowmanandbrooke.com Attorneys for Defendant Tesla, Inc. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SZ HUA HUANG, Individually and as successor Case No. 1 in interest to WEI LUN HUANG, deceased; TRINITY HUANG, a minor; TRISTAN HUANG, Assigned for all purposes o Hon. Evette a minor; HSI KENG HU NG; and CHING FE nypacker; Dept. 6 HUANG, SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF LAUREN Plaintiff, O. MILLER IN SUPPORT OF TESLA, INC.’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER vs. GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY TES A, INC. TESLA MOTORS INC. THE RESPONSES AND THE DEPOSITION OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOE 1 through ELON MUSK 100, Date: Defendants. Time: Dept: 6 23 Lauren O. Mill , declare: | 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 defendant in this matter. SUPPLMENTAL DECLARATION OF LAUREN O. MILLER IN SUPPORT OF TESLA, INC.’S TION TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND TH DEPOSITION OF ELON MU | 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. Subsequent to Tesla filing its Motion for Reconsideration on May 22, 2023, May 24, 2023, Plaintiffs served a unilaterally set Notice of Taking Deposition of Elon Musk A true and correct py is attached as Exhibit May 26, 2023, Tesla served its supplemental responses to the quest for Admission A true and correct copy of Tesla Verified Second Supplemental Responses to Request r Admission, Set Two, are ttached as Exhibit A true and correct copy of Tesla tified Supplemental Responses to Request fo Admission, Set Three are ttached as Exhibit A true and correct copy of Tesla _ Verified Supplemental Responses to Request fo Admission re Genuineness, Set Three are ttached as Exhibit On May 30, 2023, | met and conferred with Plaintiffs counsel Andrew McDevitt regarding whether Plaintiffs would withdraw the deposition notice following receipt of the verified supplemental responses He was still reviewing the Supplemental Responses and agreed to respond on May 31, 2023. On May 31, 2023, | again requested Plaintiffs counsel gree to withdraw the deposition tice while on a video conference with all counsel. Plaintiffs counsel refused | declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June t San Jose, California. ry [# ARF Teel je Laure’ O. Miller SUPPLMENTAL DECLARATION OF LAUREN O. MILLER IN SUPPORT OF TESLA, INC. TION TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND TH DEPOSITION OF ELON MU B. MARK FONG, ESQ. (SBN 99672 mfong@minamitamaki.com EEMA BHAT , 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 ICHAEL 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 WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER 650 California Street, 26 Floor San Francisco, Ca 94108 Tel: (415) 981 7210 Fax: (415) 391 6965 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS HUA HUANG, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO WEI LUN HUANG, DECEASED; TRINITY HUANG, A MINOR; TRISTAN HUANG, A MINOR UPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SZ HUA HUANG, Individually and as Case No. 19CV346663 successor in interest to WEI LUN HUANG, deceased; TRINITY HUANG, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES a minor; TRISTAN HUANG, a minor; HON. EVETTE PENNYPACKER HSI KENG HUANG; and CHING FEN DEPARTMENT HUANG, AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING Plaintiffs, VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ELON MUSK TESLA INC. dba TESLA MOTORS, INC., THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1 through 100, Action Filed: April 26, 2019 Defendants. Trial Date: July 31, 2023 //1 //1 //1 W OFFICESOF au ELODIA _ ELLY sso Cauronwasraeer AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ELON MUSK [CCP § 2025.010 SAN FRANCISCO,Ca 98108 & 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 Public, 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 this office within five (5) days of the date of this notice to advise of same. WITNESS: Elon Musk DATE: June 9, 2023 TIME: 10:00 a.m. LOCATION: Video Conference (link to be provided) Dated: May 24, 2023 ALKUP ELODIA ELLY CHOENBERGER By: MICHAEL A. KELLY DORIS CHENG ANDREW P. McDEVITT Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS, Sz Hua Huang, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Wei Lun Huang, deceased; Trinity Huang, a minor; Tristan Huang, a minor LAW oFFices OF au ELODI ELLY IOENI sso Cauronwasraeer AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ELON MUSK [CCP § 2025.010 SAN FRANCISCO,Ca 98108 & 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. Iam 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 s to: Vincent Galvin, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant Lauren O. Miller, Esq. TESLA, INC. Tom Branigan, Es Phone: (408) 279 5393 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP Fax: (408) 279 5845 1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200 Email: San Jose, CA 95110 1364 vincent.galvin@bowmanandbrooke.com lauren.miller@bowmanandbrooke.com Thomas.branigan@bowmanandbrooke.com Rebecca.Fuller@bowmanandbrooke.com Debra.Wells@bowmanandbrooke.com letty.robles@bowmanandbrooke.com Landa Low, Deputy Attorney Attorneys For Defendant Rosemary Love, Deputy Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA Skitch Crosby, Esq. hone: 510 433 9100 Caltrans Legal Division :510 9167 Physical Address: mail landa.low@dot.ca.go' 111 Grand Ave., Suite 11 100 osemary.love@dot.ca.gov Oakland, CA 94612 maria.cordonero@dot.ca.g Mailing: Skitch. Crosby@dot.ca.gov PO Box 24325 Oakland. CA 94623 1325 B. Mark Fong Counsel for Plaintiffs Seema Bhatt Phone: (415) 788 9000 Minami Tamaki LLP Fax: (415) 398 3887 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 825 MFong@MinamiTamaki.com San Francisco, CA 94104 SBhatt@MinamiTamaki.com eoparowski@minamitamaki.com ESullivan@minamitamaki.com EEverett@MinamiTamaki.com LAW oFFices OF au ELODI ELLY IOENI sso Cauronwasraeer AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ELON MUSK [CCP § 2025.010 SAN FRANCISCO,Ca 98108 & CCP § 2025.220(a)(5)] CASE NO. 19CV346663 ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Pursuant to CCP 1010.6¢e), I caused the above titled document(s) to be electronically served on the persons at the electronic service addresses listed above. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 24, 2023, at San Francisco, California. Ji Epnifed'shQy LAW oFFices OF ALKUP ELODIA ELLY (650 CALIFORNIA STREET AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ELON MUSK [CCP § 2025.010 SAN FRANCISCO,Ca 98108 & CCP § 2025.220(a)(5)] CASE NO. 19CV346663 Joel Smith (Pro Hac Vice) Lauren O. Miller #279448 BOWMAN AND BROOKE 1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, California 95110 Telephone: (408) 5393 simile: (408) 5845 Joel.Smith@bowmanandbrooke.com auren. illee@bowmanandbrooke.com as Branigan Pro Hac Vice) BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP. 101 West Big Beaver Road Suite 1100 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 205.3300 Facsimile: (248) 205.3399 Thomas. ranigan@bowmanandbrooke.com orneys for Defendant Tesla, Inc. N THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SZ HUA HUANG, Individually and as successor Case No. 1 in interest to WEI LUN HUANG, deceased; TRINITY HUANG, a minor; TRISTAN HUANG, ) ssigned for all purposes to Hon. Evette a minor; HSI KENG HUANG; and CHING FEN ) Pennypacker; Dept. 6 UANG, laintiff, TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR vs. ADMISSIONS, SET T ESLA, INC. d TESLA MOTORS INC. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOE 1 through 100, efendants. ROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Sz Hua Huang, Ind. & As Successor In Interest To Wei Lun Huang, Trinity Huang, Tristan Huang PONDING PARTY: Defendant Tesla, Inc. NO.: cond Supplemental) efendant Tesla Inc. hereby supplements its responses to Request for dmissions, Set Two 28] pursuant o California Code of Civil Procedure section 203 .010, served by Plaintiffs Sz Hua Huang, TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO Individually and as successor in interest to Wei Lun Huang, deceased Trinity Huang, a minor; and Tristan Huang nor Hsi Keng Huang; and Ching Fen Huang have been dismissed. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT esla searched its records for the statements and recordings referenced in these requests and wer able to locate copies. Tesla further conferred with CEO Elon Musk to determine whether he had retained recordings, notes or other documentation which he or Tesla could rely upon to verify the authenticity of the statements and recordings referenced in t ese requests and he had not. Tesla further inquired of Mr. Mus s to whether he could independently recall the content of the statements and recordings referenced in these request such that he could authenticate them as being accurate could not. Tesla repeatedly requested Plaintiffs provide the sources of the statements and recordings referenced in these requests and they refused to do so until ordered to do so by the Court. Upon receiving the same, Teslas review did not reveal any modificatio r alteration of the media provided by Plaintiffs. Consequently, not ithstanding the proliferation of modified, altered, manufactured or otherwise faked content available on the internet, Tesla has supplemented its responses to these requests to reflet its ood faith responses based on information reasonably available it. Tesla reserves the right to object to future discovery on the same or related matters and does not waive any objection by providing the information reflected in these responses. esla further reserves the right to object to the admissibility of any of these responses or related matters, in whole or in part, at trial in this or any action, on any grounds, including, but not limited to, materiality, relevance, d privilege. There s no evidence that Mr. Huang reviewed r was even aware of the existence of any of the referenced statements, much less that he relied on the statements in connection with his sion to purchase a Tesla, decline to purchase Full Self Dri Capability, or decision to play a video game on his cell phone while driving his Mode on multiple drives, including in the moments leading up to the crash. TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit that the video linked below as Exhibit “A” fairly and accurately depicts parts of the test drive referenced in RFA No. 16. Exhibit A: (See file saved on attached disc and/or this link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wgxyuglezok2hrl/AACe0DZtfaJ8hWZf56ppERIma?dl=0) RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Tesla objects that the request for admission is not full and complete in and of itself as required by C.C.P. § 2033.060(d) and contains an improper requirement that reference must be made to other documents in order to respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because demonstrations performed at events several years before Mr. Huang’s crash in March 2018 while he was playing a video game on his phone and not paying attention, have no bearing on the matters at issue in this lawsuit Plaintiff is using the requests for admissions to improperly put at issue/bring into relevance video recordings relating to an individual that have not been proven to be the official tatements of Tesla. Plaintiff seeks to introduce and/or bring into relevance, without foundation, third party videos relating to an individual person as opposed to requesting information from defendant regarding official statements. Tesla objects to the term “test drive” as argumentative and vague, subject to multiple interpretations. Tesla further objects to this request insofar as it lacks foundation, is argumentative, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as Tesla has no obligation to authenticate a non Tesla document. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the matter requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily obtainable because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording of the entire demonstration. Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its right to supplement its response. TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1 Subject to and without waiving the objections made in Tesla’s original response, Tesla has undertaken a good faith investigation of sources reasonably available to it and is unable to admit or deny the genuineness of the attachment as Tesla does not maintain possession, control or custody of a recording of the discussion. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not made originals of the files available to Tesla have refused to confirm in writing the source of the files. (C.C.P. § 2033.060(g).) n March 2, 2023, Tesla made the specific request to Plaintiffs to confirm the files were originals or unaltered copies of original files, the URL of the source of the files along with the date and time of capture, the software and means used to capture the files, and the MD5 or SHA 11 “hash value”, but Plaintiff did not respond to the request Mr. Musk confirmed he did not independently record the discussion or maintain a copy of the original video, nor did he take notes, and cannot recall the details depicted in the referenced video sufficiently to admit or deny their accuracy. Consequently, while Tesla does not expect the file has been altered or manipulated, it cannot authenticate a non Tesla document that it cannot independently validate. SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1 Admit REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit that the video linked as Exhibit “A” fairly and accurately depicts a portion or portions of the test drive referenced in RFA No. 16. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Tesla objects that the request for admission is not full and complete in and of itself as required by C.C.P. § 2033.060(d) and contains an improper requirement that reference must be made to other documents in order to respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because demonstrations performed at events years before Mr. Huang’s crash in March 2018 while he was playing a video game on his phone and not paying attention, have no bearing on the matters at issue in this lawsuit Tesla objects to the term “test drive” as argumentative and vague, subject to multiple interpretations. Tesla further objects to this request insofar as it lacks foundation, is argumentative, and TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as Tesla has no obligation to authenticate a non Tesla document. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the matter requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily obtainable because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording of the entire demonstration. Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its right to supplement its response. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1 Subject to and without waiving the objections made in Tesla’s original response Tesla has undertaken a good faith investigation of sources reasonably available to it and is unable to admit or deny the genuineness of the attachment as Tesla does not maintain possession, control or custody of a recording of the discussion. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not made originals of the files available to Tesla and have refused to confirm in writing the source of the files. (C.C.P. § 2033.060(g).) On March 2, 2023, Tesla made the specific request to Plaintiffs to confirm the files were originals or unaltered copies of original files, the URL of the source of the files along with the date and time of capture, the software and means used to capture the files, and the MD5 or SHA 11 “hash value”, but Plaintiffs did not respond to the request. Mr. Musk confirmed he did not independently record the discussion or maintain a copy of the original video, nor did he take notes, and cannot recall the details depicted in the referenced video sufficiently to admit or deny their accuracy. Consequently, while Tesla does not expect the file has been altered or manipulated, it cannot authenticate a non Tesla document that it cannot independently validate. SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. Admit EQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit that the driver of the vehicle in in the video ked as Exhibit “A” is Elon Musk. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Tesla objects that the request for admission is not full and complete in and of itself as required by C.C.P. § 2033.060(d) and contains an improper requirement that reference must be made to other TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO documents in order to respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because emonstrations performed at events years before Mr. Huang’s crash in March 2018 while he was playing a video game on his phone and not paying attention, have no bearing on the matters at issue in this lawsuit Tesla further objects to this request insofar as it lacks foundation, is argumentative, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as Tesla has no obligation o authenticate anon esla document. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the matter requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily obtainable because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording of the entire interview which is property of third parties. The only information known or readily obtainable concerning this request is the hearsay evidence referred to in the request. Tesla cannot verify the authenticity of media produced by external sources without unreasonable burden or expense. Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its right to supplement its response. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1 Subject to and without waiving the objections made in Tesla’s original response, s e Tesla’s Supplemental Response to Request for Admission No. 16 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1 dmit REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit that the video nked as Exhibi t “A” is a fair and accurate recording of statements Elon Musk made during the test drive referenced in RFA No. 16. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Tesla objects that the request for admission is not full and complete in and of itself as required by C.C.P. § 2033.060(d) and contains an improper requirement that reference must be made to other documents in order to respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is no relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because demonstrations performed at events several years before Mr. Huang’s crash in March 2018 while he TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO was playing a video game on his phone and not paying attention, have no bearing on the matters a issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff is using the requests for admissions to improperly put at issue/bring into relevance video recordings relating to an individual that have not been proven to be the official statements of Tesla. Plaintiff seeks to introduce and/or bring into relevance, without foundation, third party videos relating to an individual person as opposed to requesting information from defendant regarding official statements. Tesla objects to the term “test drive” as argumentative and vague, bject to multiple interpretations. Tesla further objects to this request insofar as it lacks foundation, is argumentative, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as Tesla has no obligation to authenticate an individual’s media statements or any non Tesla document Subject to and without waiving its objections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the matter requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily ainable because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording of the entire demonstration. Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its right to supplement its response. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. Subject to and without waiving the objections made in Tesla’s original response, Tesla has undertaken a good faith investigation of sources reasonably available to it and is unable to admit or deny the genuineness of the attachment Tesla does not maintain possession, control or custody of a recording of the discussion. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not made originals of the files available to Tesla have refused to confirm in writing the source of the files. (C.C.P. § 2033.060(g).) n March 2, 2023, Tesla made the specific request to Plaintiffs to confirm the files were originals or unaltered copies of original files, the URL of the source of the files along with the date and time of capture, the software and means used to capture the files, and the MD5 or S 11 “hash value”, but Plaintiff did not respond to the request Mr. Musk confirmed he did not independently record the discussion or maintain a copy of the original video, nor did he take notes, and cannot recall the details depicted in the referenced video sufficiently to admit or deny their accuracy. Consequently, while Tesla does not expect the file has been altered or manipulated, it cannot authenticate a non Tesla document that it cannot independently validate. TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. Admit EQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit that the video nked as Exhibit “A” is a fair and accurate recording of some of the statements Elon Musk made during the test drive referenced in RFA No. 16. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Tesla objects that the request for admission is not full and complete in and of itself as required by C.C.P. § 2033.060(d) and contains an improper requirement that reference must be made to other documents in order to respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because demonstrations performed at events several year efore Mr. Huang’s crash in March 2018, where he was playing a video game on his phone and not paying attention, have no bearing on the matters at issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff is using the requests for admissions to improperly put at issue/bring into levance video recordings relating to an individual that have not been proven to be the official atements of Tesla. Plaintiff seeks to introduce and/or bring into relevance, without foundation, third party videos relating to an individual person as opposed to requesting information from defendant regarding official statements. Tesla objects the request is vague and ambiguous by use of the phrase “some of’ and Tesla objects to the term “test drive” as argumentative and vague, subject to multiple interpretations. Tesla further objects to this request insofar as it lacks foundation, is argumentative, an not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as Tesla has no obligation to authenticate an individual’s media statement Subject to and without waiving its objections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the tter requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily obtainable because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording of the entire demonstration. Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its right to supplement its response. TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. Subject to and without waivin he objections made in Tesla’s original response, Tesla has undertaken a good faith investigation of sources reasonably available to it and is unable to admit or deny the genuineness of the attachment as Tesla does not maintain possession, control or custody of a recording of the discussion. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not made originals of the files available to Tesla have refused to confirm in writing the source of the files. (C.C.P. § 2033.060(g).) n March 2, 2023, Tesla made the specific request to Plaintiffs to confirm the files were originals or unaltered copies of original files, the URL of the source of the files along with the date and time of capture, the software and means used to capture the files, and the MD5 or SHA 11 “hash value”, but Plaintiff did not spond to the request Mr. Musk confirmed he did not independently record the discussion or maintain a copy of the original video, nor did he take notes, and cannot recall the details depicted in the referenced video sufficiently to admit deny their accuracy. Consequently, while Tesla does not expect the file has been altered or manipulated, it cannot authenticate a non Tesla document that it cannot independently validate. SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. dmi EQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admit that during the Oct 2014 test drive referenced in RFA No. 16, Elon Musk took his hands off the wheel and stated, “No hands, no feet, nothing.” RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Tesla objects that the request for admission is not full and complete in and of itself as required by C.C.P. § 2033.060(d) and contains an improper requirement that reference must be made to other documents in order to respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is not levant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because discussions at conference events several years before Mr. Huang’s crash in March 2018, where he was playing a video game on his phone and not paying tention, have no bearing on the matters at issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff is using the requests for admissions to improperly put at issue/bring into relevance video recordings relating to an individual that have not been proven to be the official statements of TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO Tesla. Plaintiff seeks to introduce and/or bring into relevance, without foundation, third party videos relating to an individual person as opposed to requesting information from defendant regarding official statements. Tesla further objects to this request insofar as it lacks foundation, is argumentative, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as Tesla has no obligation to authenticate a non Tesla document. Tesla objects to the term “test drive” as argumentative and vague, subject to multiple interpretations. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the matter requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or read obtainable because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording of the entire interview which is property of third parties. The only information known or readily obtainable concerning this request is the hearsay evidence referred to in the request. Tesla cannot verify the authenticity of media produced by external sources without unreasonable burden or expense. Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its right to supplement its response. SUPPLEMENTA ESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. Subject to and without waiving the objections made in Tesla’s original response, see Tesla’s Supplemental Response to Request for Admission No. 16. Tesla admits that the video depicts the driver without his hands on the steering wh during brief moments while still attentive Tesla has undertaken a good faith investigation of sources reasonably available to it and is unable to admit or deny the genuineness of the attachment as Tesla does not maintain possession _ ontrol or custody of a recording of the discussion. Tesla does not maintain a repository of Elon Musk’s public statements or media interviews. Tesla cannot admit or deny that the statements made by any speaker heard on the video is accurate or complete cause Tesla was not provided with the original video or audio, or an authenticated transcript of the audio. Mr. Musk confirmed he did not independently record the discussion or maintain a copy of the original video, nor did he take notes, and cannot recall the details icted in the referenced video suffici ently to admit or deny their accuracy. Consequently, while Tesla does not expect the file has been altered or manipulated, it cannot authenticate a non Tesla document that it cannot independently validate. TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO SECON SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. Admit EQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: Admit that during the Oct 2014 test drive referenced in RFA No. 16, Elon Musk stated, “if it detected that there was something that was going to hit the car, it would do its best to mitigate the impact velocity, so it would brake.” RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: Tesla objects that the request for admission is not full and complete in and of itself as required by C.C.P. § 2033.060(d) and ntains an improper requirement that reference must be made to other documents in order to respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidencecause discus sions at conference events several years before Mr. Huang’s crash in March 2018, where he was playing a video game on his phone and not paying attention, have no bearing on the matters at issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff is using the requests for admissions to improperly put at issue/bring into relevance video recordings relating to an individual that have not been proven to be the official statements of Tesla. Plaintiff seeks to introduce and/or bring into relevance, without foundation, third party videos relating to an individual person as opposed to requesting information from defendant regarding official statements. Tesla further objects to this request insofar as it lacks foundation, is argumentative, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as Tesla has no obligation to authenticate anon esla document. Tesla objects to the term “test drive” as argumentative and vague, subject to multiple interpretations. Subject to and without waiving its jections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the matter requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily obtainable because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording of the entire interview which is property of third parties. The only information known or readily obtainable concerning this request is the hearsay evidence referred to in the request. Tesla cannot verify the authenticity of media produced by exter sources without unreasonable burden or expense. Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its right to supplement its response. TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. Subject to and without waiving the objecti made in Tesla’s original response, Tesla has undertaken a good faith investigation of sources reasonably available to it and is unable to admit or deny the genuineness of the attachment as Tesla does not maintain possession, control or custody of a recording of the discussion. sla does not maintain a repository of Elon usk’s public statements or dia interviews. Tesla cannot admit or deny that the statements made by any speaker heard on the video is accurate or complete because Tesla was not provid with the original video or audio, or an authenticated transcript of the audio Mr. Musk confirmed he did not independently record the discussion or maintain a copy of the original video, nor did he take notes, and cannot recall the details depicted in the referenced video sufficiently to admit or deny their accuracy. Consequently, while Tesla does not expect the file has been altered or manipulated, cannot authenticate a non Tesla document that it cannot independently validate. SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RE NSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. Admit EQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: mit that when Elon Musk stated “if it detected that there was something that was going to hit the car, it would do its best to mitigate the impact velocity, so it would brake,” referenced in RFA No. , the “it” Elon Musk was referring to was the Tesla autopilot technology. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Tesla objects that the request for admission is not full and complete in and of itself as required by C.C.P. § 2 .060(d) and contains an improper requirement that reference must be made to other documents in order to respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admi ble evidence because discussions at conference events several years before Mr. Huang’s crash in March 2018, where he was playing a video game on his phone and not paying attention, have no bearing on the matters at issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff is using the requests for admissions to improperly put at issue/bring into relevance video recordings relating to an individual that have not been proven to be the official statements of Tesla. Plaintiff seeks to introduce and/or bring into relevance, without fdation, third party video TESLA, INC.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO relating to an individual person as opposed to requesting information from defendant regarding official statements. Tesla further objects to this request insofar as it lacks foundation, is argumentative, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as Tesla has no obligation to authenticate a non Tesla document. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the matter requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily obtainable because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording of the entire interview which is property of third parties. The only information known or readily obtainable concerning this request is the hearsay evidence referred to in the request. Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the matter requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily obtai by Tesla since Tesla cannot verify the authenticity of media produced by external sources without unreasonable burden or expense. Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its right to supplement its response. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. Subject to and without waiving the objections made