Preview
19CV346663
Santa Clara — Civil
R. Burciaga
Vincent Galvin #104448
Joel Smith (Pro Hac Vice)
Lauren O. Miller #279448 Electronically Filed
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP by Superior Court of CA,
1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200 County of Santa Clara,
San Jose, California 95110-1364 on 4/20/2023 3:45 PM
Telephone: (408) 279-5393 Reviewed By: R. Burciaga
Facsimile: (408) 279-5845 Case #19CV346663
vincent.galvin@bowmanandbrooke.com Envelope: 11767156
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
10 Thomas.branigan@bowmanandbrooke.com
11 Attorneys for Defendant
Tesla, Inc.
12
13 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
15 SZ HUA HUANG, Individually and as successor in ) Case No. 19CV346663
interest to WEI LUN HUANG, deceased; TRINITY )
16 HUANG, a minor; TRISTAN HUANG, a minor; Assigned for all purposes to:
HSI KENG HUANG; and CHING FEN HUANG, Hon. Evette Pennypacker; Dept. 6
17
Plaintiff, TESLA’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS'
18 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
vs. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
19 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES FROM TESLA
TESLA, INC. dba TESLA MOTORS INC. THE INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET
20 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1| through TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET
100, THREE
21
Defendants. Date: April 27, 2023
22 Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 6
23
Defendant Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) hereby submits this Response to Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement in Support
24
of Motion To Compel Further Supplemental Responses From Tesla Inc. Regarding Requests For Admissions, Set
25
Two and Form Interrogatories, Sets Three. The following are the discovery requests and responses received,
26
Plaintiffs’ reasons why a further response to said request should be compelled, and Tesla’s response and reasons
27
why a further response to said request need not be compelled.
28 27863430 1
PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES,
SET THREE
UEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16:
Admit that in Oct 2014, Elon Musk took a Bloomberg journalist for a test drive of the Tesla Model S.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16:
Tesla objects to this request as it seeks information not relevant to the subject matter involved in the
pending action because demonstrations performed at 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. Tesla objects to this request as vague and ambiguous with regard to Plaintiffs' use of the
undefined terms and phrase "took a Bloomberg journalist for a test drive of the Tesla Model S." Tesla objects to
10 the term "test drive" as argumentative and vague, subject to multiple interpretations. Plaintiff is using the requests
11 for admissions to improperly put at issue/bring into relevance video recordings relating to an individual that have
12 not been proven to be the official statements of Tesla. Plaintiff seeks to introduce and/or bring into relevance,
13 without foundation, third party videos relating to an individual person as opposed to requesting information from
14 defendant regarding official statements.
15 Subject to and without waiving its objections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the matter
16 requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily obtainable
17 because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording of the entire interview
18 which is property of third parties. The only information known or readily obtainable concerning this request is the
19 hearsay evidence referred to in the request. Tesla cannot verify the authenticity of media produced by external
20 sources without unreasonable burden or expense. Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its
21 right to supplement its response.
22 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16:
23 Subject to and without waiving the objections made in Tesla's original response, Tesla admits that Elon
24 Musk drove journalists in a Tesla Model S during an October 2014 event covering the performance of electric
25 vehicles
26 tit
27 tit
28 27863430 2
PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES,
SET THREE
REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO RE UEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16 SHOULD BE
COMPELLED:
This response violates this Court's Order entered on February 24, 2023. This Court entered a
comprehensive order, finding:
"Plaintiffs did make efforts to use less intrusive means to obtain authentication
of Mr. Musk's statements; Tesla flatly refused to answer the questions. Plaintiffs
are correct that Tesla need not have a chain of custody like knowledge of the
videos attached to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions in order to determine
whether Mr. Musk actually conducted the interviews and the test drives and
made the statements that are depicted in the recordings. Tesla seems to want it
both ways: it wants to be protected from asking Mr. Musk to review Plaintiffs'
Requests for Admissions and from having Mr. Musk answer Plaintiffs' questions
about those statements directly in deposition. Tesla's position is untenable."
(Order at 9:16-23.)
10
11 The Court ordered "Tesla to respond to the propounded Requests for Admissions, Special Interrogatories
12 and Request for Production 214 that are the subject of the present motion to compel." The Court did not invite
13 Tesla to repeat objections or make new objections. (Order at 9:27 10:1.) Nonetheless, Tesla refuses to admit
14 the requests on grounds that the Court already rejected, e.g., Tesla does not have the original recording; it does not
15 have chain of custody knowledge; and Mr. Musk did not keep notes about his interviews. At the same time, Tesla
16 concedes in each of these responses that "Tesla does not expect the file has been altered or manipulated." Since
17 Tesla does not believe the recordings were altered or manipulated, then it must admit the requests. Its refusal to
18 do so constitutes contempt of court and abuse of discovery. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)-)
19 Additionally, the response must answer the substance of the requested admission, not evade it. (Civ.
20 Proc. Code §§ 2033.210 and 2033.220.) This response fails to answer to do so.
21 TESLA’S RESPONSE TO NO. 16:
22 The Code permits responses that “[a]dmit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either
23 as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party. Civ. Proc. Code §
24 2033.220(b)(1). Additionally, the Code requires responses to “be as complete and straightforward as the
25 information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” Tesla’s response complies with both of these
26 provisions.
27
28 27863430 3
PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES,
SET THREE
“QUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17:
Admit that the video linked below as Exhibi 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/wgxyug1ezok2hrl/AA Ce0DZtfaJ8hW Zf56ppERIma?dI=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.
10 Huang's crash in March 2018 while he was playing a video game on his phone and not paying attention, have no
11 bearing on the matters at issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff is using the requests for admissions to improperly put at
12 issue/bring into relevance video recordings relating to an individual that have not been proven to be the official
13 statements of Tesla. Plaintiff seeks to introduce and/or bring into relevance, without foundation, third party videos
14 relating to an individual person as opposed to requesting information from defendant regarding official
15 statements. Tesla objects to the term "test drive" as argumentative and vague, subject to multiple interpretations.
16 Tesla further objects to this request insofar as it lacks foundation, is argumentative, and not reasonably calculated
17 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as Tesla has no obligation to authenticate a non-Tesla
18 document.
19 Subject to and without waiving its objections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the matter
20 requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily obtainable
21 because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording of the entire
22 demonstration. Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its right to supplement its response.
23 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17:
24 Subject to and without waiving the objections made in Tesla's original response, Tesla has undertaken a
25 good faith investigation of sources reasonably available to it and is unable to admit or deny the genuineness of the
26 attachment as Tesla does not maintain possession, control or custody of a recording of the discussion. Moreover,
27 Plaintiffs have not made originals of the files available to Tesla and have refused to confirm in writing the source
28 27863430 4
PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES,
SET THREE
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 MDS 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.
REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17 SHOULD BE
10 COMPELLED:
11 This response violates this Court's Order entered on February 24, 2023. This Court entered a
12 comprehensive order, finding:
13 "Plaintiffs did make efforts to use less intrusive means to obtain authentication
of Mr. Musk's statements; Tesla flatly refused to answer the questions. Plaintiffs
14 are correct that Tesla need not have a chain of custody like knowledge of the
videos attached to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions in order to determine
15 whether Mr. Musk actually conducted the interviews and the test drives and
made the statements that are depicted in the recordings. Tesla seems to want it
16 both ways: it wants to be protected from asking Mr. Musk to review Plaintiffs’
Requests for Admissions and from having Mr. Musk answer Plaintiffs' questions
17 about those statements directly in deposition. Tesla's position is untenable."
(Order at 9:16-23.)
18
19 The Court ordered "Tesla to respond to the propounded Requests for Admissions, Special Interrogatories
20 and Request for Production 214 that are the subject of the present motion to compel." The Court did not invite
21 Tesla to repeat objections or make new objections. (Order at 9:27 — 10:1.) Nonetheless, Tesla refuses to admit
22 the requests on grounds that the Court already rejected, e.g., Tesla does not have the original recording; it does not
23 have chain of custody knowledge; and Mr. Musk did not keep notes about his interviews. At the same time, Tesla
24 concedes in each of these responses that "Tesla does not expect the file has been altered or manipulated." Since
25 Tesla does not believe the recordings were altered or manipulated, then it must admit the requests. Its refusal to
26 do so constitutes contempt of court and abuse of discovery. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 (c), (d), (e), (), (g)-)
27 tit
28 27863430 5
PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES,
SET THREE
TESLA’S RESPONSE TO NO. 17:
Plaintiffs’ Motion in regard to this Request should be denied for two reasons. First, it is factually
incorrect. Tesla did not merely deny upon grounds that the Court had already rejected. Instead, after the Order
was entered, Tesla provided Mr. Musk with a copy of the purported recording of the above-referenced video. Mr.
Musk confirmed that he did not independently record the discussion or maintain a copy of the original recording,
did not take notes, and cannot specifically recall the details about the discussion or statements (all of which Tesla
explained in its new responses). Additionally, Tesla requested Plaintiffs provide information about the origins of
the recording because such information might be useful in determining its authenticity. Plaintiffs refused to
provide this information. Therefore, Tesla conducted additional inquiry, including the specific inquiry
10 (consultation with Mr. Musk) that the Court ordered. Nevertheless, Tesla remains unable to admit or deny that
11 the recording is authentic.
12 While this might seem unusual at first blush, Mr. Musk, like many public figures, is the frequent target of
13 “deepfake” audio and video that purports to show him saying and doing things he did not actually say or do.
14 Understanding this, Tesla’s inability to authenticate, despite extensive inquiry, is perfectly reasonable. Which
15 leads to the second reason Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied: they argue Tesla’s statement that, because Tesla
16 does not believe the recording has been altered or manipulated, means Tesla must admit it is authenticate. This is
17 simply incorrect. There is a clear difference between saying, under penalty of perjury, that there is no reason to
18 believe something has been manipulated and saying that the that thing is actually authentic. Tesla’s response was
19 truthful, complete, and complied with the Court’s Order and the Code. Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied.
20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18:
21 Admit that the video linked as Exhibit "A" fairly and accurately depicts a portion or portions of the test
22 drive referenced in RFA No. 16.
23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18:
24 Tesla objects that the request for admission is not full and complete in and of itself as required by C.C.P.
25 § 2033.060(d) and contains an improper requirement that reference must be made to other documents in order to
26 respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to
27 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because demonstrations performed at events years before Mr.
28 27863430 6
PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES,
SET THREE
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 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.
10 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18:
11 Subject to and without waiving the objections made in Tesla's original response, Tesla has undertaken a
12 good faith investigation of sources reasonably available to it and is unable to admit or deny the genuineness of the
13 attachment as Tesla does not maintain possession, control or custody of a recording of the discussion. Moreover,
14 Plaintiffs have not made originals of the files available to Tesla and have refused to confirm in writing the source
15 of the files. (C.C.P. § 2033.060(g).) On March 2, 2023, Tesla made the specific request to Plaintiffs to confirm
16 the files were originals or unaltered copies of original files, the URL of the source of the files along with the date
17 and time of capture, the software and means used to capture the files, and the MDS or SHA-11 "hash value", but
18 Plaintiffs did not respond to the request. Mr. Musk confirmed he did not independently record the discussion or
19 maintain a copy of the original video, nor did he take notes, and cannot recall the details depicted in the
20 referenced video sufficiently to admit or deny their accuracy. Consequently, while Tesla does not expect the file
21 has been altered or manipulated, it cannot authenticate a non-Tesla document that it cannot independently
22 validate.
23 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18 SHOULD B!
24 COMPELLED:
25 This response violates this Court's Order entered on February 24, 2023. This Court entered a
26 comprehensive order, finding:
27 "Plaintiffs did make efforts to use less intrusive means to obtain authentication
of Mr. Musk's statements; Tesla flatly refused to answer the questions. Plaintiffs
28 7
27863430
PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES,
SET THREE
are correct that Tesla need not have a chain of custody like knowledge of the
videos attached to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions in order to determine
whether Mr. Musk actually conducted the interviews and the test drives and
made the statements that are depicted in the recordings. Tesla seems to want it
both ways: it wants to be protected from asking Mr. Musk to review Plaintiffs'
Requests for Admissions and from having Mr. Musk answer Plaintiffs' questions
about those statements directly in deposition. Tesla's position is untenable."
(Order at 9:16-23.)
The Court ordered "Tesla to respond to the propounded Requests for Admissions, Special Interrogatories
and Request for Production 214 that are the subject of the present motion to compel." The Court did not invite
Tesla to repeat objections or make new objections. (Order at 9:27 10:1.) Nonetheless, Tesla refuses to admit
the requests on grounds that the Court already rejected, e.g., Tesla does not have the original recording; it does not
have chain of custody knowledge; and Mr. Musk did not keep notes about his interviews. At the same time, Tesla
10
concedes in each of these responses that "Tesla does not expect the file has been altered or manipulated." Since
11
Tesla does not believe the recordings were altered or manipulated, then it must admit the requests. Its refusal to
12
do so constitutes contempt of court and abuse of discovery. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)-)
13
TESLA’S RESPONSE TO NO. 18:
14
Plaintiffs’ Motion in regard to this Request should be denied for two reasons. First, it is factually
15
incorrect. Tesla did not merely deny upon grounds that the Court had already rejected. Instead, after the Order
16
was entered, Tesla provided Mr. Musk with a copy of the purported recording of the above-referenced video. Mr.
17
Musk confirmed that he did not independently record the discussion or maintain a copy of the original recording,
18
did not take notes, and cannot specifically recall the details about the discussion or statements (all of which Tesla
19
explained in its new responses). Additionally, Tesla requested Plaintiffs provide information about the origins of
20
the recording because such information might be useful in determining its authenticity. Plaintiffs refused to
21
provide this information. Therefore, Tesla conducted additional inquiry, including the specific inquiry
22
(consultation with Mr. Musk) that the Court ordered. Nevertheless, Tesla remains unable to admit or deny that
23
the recording is authentic.
24
While this might seem unusual at first blush, Mr. Musk, like many public figures, is the frequent target of
25
“deepfake” audio and video that purports to show him saying and doing things he did not actually say or do.
26
Understanding this, Tesla’s inability to authenticate, despite extensive inquiry, is perfectly reasonable. Which
27
leads to the second reason Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied: they argue Tesla’s statement that, because Tesla
28 27863430 8
PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES,
SET THREE
does not believe the recording has been altered or manipulated, means Tesla must admit it is authenticate. This is
simply incorrect. There is a clear difference between saying, under penalty of perjury, that there is no reason to
believe something has been manipulated and saying that the that thing is actually authentic. Tesla’s response was
truthful, complete, and complied with the Court’s Order and the Code. Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19:
Admit that the driver of the vehicle in in the video linked 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 documents in order to
10 respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to
11 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because demonstrations performed at events years before Mr.
12 Huang's crash in March 2018 while he was playing a video game on his phone and not paying attention, have no
13 bearing on the matters at issue in this lawsuit. Tesla further objects to this request insofar as it lacks foundation, is
14 argumentative, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as Tesla has
15 no obligation to authenticate a non-Tesla document.
16 Subject to and without waiving its objections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the matter
17 requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily obtainable
18 because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording of the entire interview
19 which is property of third parties. The only information known or readily obtainable concerning this request is the
20 hearsay evidence referred to in the request. Tesla cannot verify the authenticity of media produced by external
21 sources without unreasonable burden or expense. Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its
22 right to supplement its response.
23 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19:
24 Subject to and without waiving the objections made in Tesla's original response, see Tesla’s Supplemental
25 Response to Request for Admission No. 16.
26 //1
27 tit
28 27863430 9
PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES,
SET THREE
REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO RE UEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19 SHOULD BE
COMPELLED:
This response violates this Court's Order entered on February 24, 2023. This Court entered a
comprehensive order, finding:
"Plaintiffs did make efforts to use less intrusive means to obtain authentication
of Mr. Musk's statements; Tesla flatly refused to answer the questions. Plaintiffs
are correct that Tesla need not have a chain of custody like knowledge of the
videos attached to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions in order to determine
whether Mr. Musk actually conducted the interviews and the test drives and
made the statements that are depicted in the recordings. Tesla seems to want it
both ways: it wants to be protected from asking Mr. Musk to review Plaintiffs'
Requests for Admissions and from having Mr. Musk answer Plaintiffs' questions
about those statements directly in deposition. Tesla's position is untenable."
(Order at 9:16-23.)
10
The Court ordered "Tesla to respond to the propounded Requests for Admissions, Special Interrogatories
11
and Request for Production 214 that are the subject of the present motion to compel." The Court did not invite
12
Tesla to repeat objections or make new objections. (Order at 9:27 — 10:1.) Nonetheless, Tesla refuses to admit
13
the requests on grounds that the Court already rejected, e.g., Tesla does not have the original recording; it does not
14
have chain of custody knowledge; and Mr. Musk did not keep notes about his interviews. At the same time, Tesla
15
concedes in each of these responses that "Tesla does not expect the file has been altered or manipulated." Since
16
Tesla does not believe the recordings were altered or manipulated, then it must admit the requests. Its refusal to
17
do so constitutes contempt of court and abuse of discovery. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)-)
18
TESLA’S RESPONSE TO NO. 19:
19
The Code permits responses that “[a]dmit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either
20
as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party. Civ. Proc. Code §
21
2033.220(b)(1). Additionally, the Code requires responses to “be as complete and straightforward as the
22
information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” Tesla’s response complies with both of these
23
provisions.
24
Plaintiffs’ Motion in regard to this Request should be denied for two reasons. First, it is factually
25
incorrect. Tesla did not merely deny upon grounds that the Court had already rejected. Instead, after the Order
26
was entered, Tesla provided Mr. Musk with a copy of the purported recording of the above-referenced video. Mr.
27
Musk confirmed that he did not independently record the discussion or maintain a copy of the original recording,
28 27863430 10
PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES,
SET THREE
did not take notes, and cannot specifically recall the details about the discussion or statements (all of which Tesla
explained in its new responses). Additionally, Tesla requested Plaintiffs provide information about the origins of
the recording because such information might be useful in determining its authenticity. Plaintiffs refused to
provide this information. Therefore, Tesla conducted additional inquiry, including the specific inquiry
(consultation with Mr. Musk) that the Court ordered. Nevertheless, Tesla remains unable to admit or deny that
the recording is authentic.
While this might seem unusual at first blush, Mr. Musk, like many public figures, is the frequent target of
“deepfake” audio and video that purports to show him saying and doing things he did not actually say or do.
Understanding this, Tesla’s inability to authenticate, despite extensive inquiry, is perfectly reasonable. Which
10 leads to the second reason Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied: they argue Tesla’s statement that, because Tesla
11 does not believe the recording has been altered or manipulated, means Tesla must admit it is authenticate. This is
12 simply incorrect. There is a clear difference between saying, under penalty of perjury, that there is no reason to
13 believe something has been manipulated and saying that the that thing is actually authentic. Tesla’s response was
14 truthful, complete, and complied with the Court’s Order and the Code. Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied.
15 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20:
16 Admit that the video linked as Exhibit "A" is a fair and accurate recording of statements Elon Musk made
17 during the test drive referenced in RFA No. 16.
18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20:
19 Tesla objects that the request for admission is not full and complete in and of itself as required by C.C.P.
20 § 2033.060(d) and contains an improper requirement that reference must be made to other documents in order to
21 respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to
22 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because demonstrations performed at events several years before Mr.
23 Huang's crash in March 2018 while he was playing a video game on his phone and not paying attention, have no
24 bearing on the matters at issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff is using the requests for admissions to improperly put at
25 issue/bring into relevance video recordings relating to an individual that have not been proven to be the official
26 statements of Tesla. Plaintiff seeks to introduce and/or bring into relevance, without foundation, third party videos
27 relating to an individual person as opposed to requesting information from defendant regarding official
28 27863430 ll
PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES,
SET THREE
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 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 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. 20:
10 Subject to and without waiving the objections made in Tesla's original response, Tesla has undertaken a
11 good faith investigation of sources reasonably available to it and is unable to admit or deny the genuineness of the
12 attachment as Tesla does not maintain possession, control or custody of a recording of the discussion. Moreover,
13 Plaintiffs have not made originals of the files available to Tesla and have refused to confirm in writing the source
14 of the files. (C.C.P. § 2033.060(g).) On March 2, 2023, Tesla made the specific request to Plaintiffs to confirm
15 the files were originals or unaltered copies of original files, the URL of the source of the files along with the date
16 and time of capture, the software and means used to capture the files, and the MD5 or SHA-11 "hash value", but
17 Plaintiffs did not respond to the request. Mr. Musk confirmed he did not independently record the discussion or
18 maintain a copy of the original video, nor did he take notes, and cannot recall the details depicted in the
19 referenced video sufficiently to admit or deny their accuracy. Consequently, while Tesla does not expect the file
20 has been altered or manipulated, it cannot authenticate a non-Tesla document that it cannot independently
21 validate.
22 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20 SHOULD BE
23 COMPELLED:
24 This response violates this Court's Order entered on February 24, 2023. This Court entered a
25 comprehensive order, finding:
26 "Plaintiffs did make efforts to use less intrusive means to obtain authentication
of Mr. Musk's statements; Tesla flatly refused to answer the questions. Plaintiffs
27 are correct that Tesla need not have a chain of custody like knowledge of the
videos attached to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions in order to determine
28 27863430 12
PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES,
SET THREE
whether Mr. Musk actually conducted the interviews and the test drives and
made the statements that are depicted in the recordings. Tesla seems to want it
both ways: it wants to be protected from asking Mr. Musk to review Plaintiffs'
Requests for Admissions and from having Mr. Musk answer Plaintiffs' questions
about those statements directly in deposition. Tesla's position is untenable."
(Order at 9:16-23.)
The Court ordered "Tesla to respond to the propounded Requests for Admissions, Special Interrogatories
and Request for Production 214 that are the subject of the present motion to compel." The Court did not invite
Tesla to repeat objections or make new objections. (Order at 9:27 — 10:1.) Nonetheless, Tesla refuses to admit
the requests on grounds that the Court already rejected, e.g., Tesla does not have the original recording; it does not
have chain of custody knowledge; and Mr. Musk did not keep notes about his interviews. At the same time, Tesla
concedes in each of these responses that "Tesla does not expect the file has been altered or manipulated." Since
10
Tesla does not believe the recordings were altered or manipulated, then it must admit the requests. Its refusal to
11
do so constitutes contempt of court and abuse of discovery. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)-)
12
TESLA’S RESPONSE TO NO. 20:
13
Plaintiffs’ Motion in regard to this Request should be denied for two reasons. First, it is factually
14
incorrect. Tesla did not merely deny upon grounds that the Court had already rejected. Instead, after the Order
15
was entered, Tesla provided Mr. Musk with a copy of the purported recording of the above-referenced video. Mr.
16
Musk confirmed that he did not independently record the discussion or maintain a copy of the original recording,
17
did not take notes, and cannot specifically recall the details about the discussion or statements (all of which Tesla
18
explained in its new responses). Additionally, Tesla requested Plaintiffs provide information about the origins of
19
the recording because such information might be useful in determining its authenticity. Plaintiffs refused to
20
provide this information. Therefore, Tesla conducted additional inquiry, including the specific inquiry
21
(consultation with Mr. Musk) that the Court ordered. Nevertheless, Tesla remains unable to admit or deny that
22
the recording is authentic.
23
While this might seem unusual at first blush, Mr. Musk, like many public figures, is the frequent target of
24
“deepfake” audio and video that purports to show him saying and doing things he did not actually say or do.
25
Understanding this, Tesla’s inability to authenticate, despite extensive inquiry, is perfectly reasonable. Which
26
leads to the second reason Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied: they argue Tesla’s statement that, because Tesla
27
does not believe the recording has been altered or manipulated, means Tesla must admit it is authenticate. This is
28 27863430 13
PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES,
SET THREE
simply incorrect. There is a clear difference between saying, under penalty of perjury, that there is no reason to
believe something has been manipulated and saying that the that thing is actually authentic. Tesla’s response was
truthful, complete, and complied with the Court’s Order and the Code. Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied.
QUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21:
Admit that the video linked 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
10 respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to
11 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because demonstrations performed at events several years before Mr.
12 Huang's crash in March 2018, where he was playing a video game on his phone and not paying attention, have no
13 bearing on the matters at issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff is using the requests for admissions to improperly put at
14 issue/bring into relevance video recordings relating to an individual that have not been proven to be the official
15 statements of Tesla. Plaintiff seeks to introduce and/or bring into relevance, without foundation, third party videos
16 relating to an individual person as opposed to requesting information from defendant regarding official
17 statements. Tesla objects the request is vague and ambiguous by use of the phrase "some of" and Tesla objects to
18 the term "test drive" as argumentative and vague, subject to multiple interpretations. Tesla further objects to this
19 request insofar as it lacks foundation, is argumentative, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
20 admissible evidence insofar as Tesla has no obligation to authenticate an individual's media statements.
21 Subject to and without waiving its objections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the matter
22 requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily obtainable
23 because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording of the entire
24 demonstration. Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its right to supplement its response.
25 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21:
26 Subject to and without waiving the objections made in Tesla's original response, Tesla has undertaken a
27 good faith investigation of sources reasonably available to it and is unable to admit or deny the genuineness of the
28 27863430 14
PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES,
SET THREE
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
10 validate.
11 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21 SHOULD BE
12 COMPELLED:
13 This response violates this Court's Order entered on February 24, 2023. This Court entered a
14 comprehensive order, finding:
15 "Plaintiffs did make efforts to use less intrusive means to obtain authentication
of Mr. Musk's statements; Tesla flatly refused to answer the questions. Plaintiffs
16 are correct that Tesla need not have a chain of custody like knowledge of the
videos attached to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions in order to determine
17 whether Mr. Musk actually conducted the interviews and the test drives and
made the statements that are depicted in the recordings. Tesla seems to want it
18 both ways: it wants to be protected from asking Mr. Musk to review Plaintiffs'
Requests for Admissions and from having Mr. Musk answer Plaintiffs' questions
19 about those statements directly in deposition. Tesla's position is untenable."
(Order at 9:16-23.)
20
The Court ordered "Tesla to respond to the propounded Requests for Admissions, Special Interrogatories
21
and Request for Production 214 that are the subject of the present motion to compel." The Court did not invite
22
Tesla to repeat objections or make new objections. (Order at 9:27 — 10:1.) Nonetheless, Tesla refuses to admit
23
the requests on grounds that the Court already rejected, e.g., Tesla does not have the original recording; it does not
24
have chain of custody knowledge; and Mr. Musk did not keep notes about his interviews. At the same time, Tesla
25
concedes in each of these responses that "Tesla does not expect the file has been altered or manipulated." Since
26
Tesla does not believe the recordings were altered or manipulated, then it must admit the requests. Its refusal to
27
do so constitutes contempt of court and abuse of discovery. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)-)
28 27863430 15
PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES,
SET THREE
TESLA’S RES
Preview
19CV346663 Santa Clara — Civil R. Burciaga Vincent Galvin #104448 Joel Smith (Pro Hac Vice) Lauren O. Miller #279448 Electronically Filed BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP by Superior Court of CA, 1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200 County of Santa Clara, San Jose, California 95110-1364 on 4/20/2023 3:45 PM Telephone: (408) 279-5393 Reviewed By: R. Burciaga Facsimile: (408) 279-5845 Case #19CV346663 vincent.galvin@bowmanandbrooke.com Envelope: 11767156 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 10 Thomas.branigan@bowmanandbrooke.com 11 Attorneys for Defendant Tesla, Inc. 12 13 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 15 SZ HUA HUANG, Individually and as successor in ) Case No. 19CV346663 interest to WEI LUN HUANG, deceased; TRINITY ) 16 HUANG, a minor; TRISTAN HUANG, a minor; Assigned for all purposes to: HSI KENG HUANG; and CHING FEN HUANG, Hon. Evette Pennypacker; Dept. 6 17 Plaintiff, TESLA’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' 18 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF vs. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER 19 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES FROM TESLA TESLA, INC. dba TESLA MOTORS INC. THE INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET 20 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1| through TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET 100, THREE 21 Defendants. Date: April 27, 2023 22 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: 6 23 Defendant Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) hereby submits this Response to Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement in Support 24 of Motion To Compel Further Supplemental Responses From Tesla Inc. Regarding Requests For Admissions, Set 25 Two and Form Interrogatories, Sets Three. The following are the discovery requests and responses received, 26 Plaintiffs’ reasons why a further response to said request should be compelled, and Tesla’s response and reasons 27 why a further response to said request need not be compelled. 28 27863430 1 PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE UEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit that in Oct 2014, Elon Musk took a Bloomberg journalist for a test drive of the Tesla Model S. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Tesla objects to this request as it seeks information not relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action because demonstrations performed at 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. Tesla objects to this request as vague and ambiguous with regard to Plaintiffs' use of the undefined terms and phrase "took a Bloomberg journalist for a test drive of the Tesla Model S." Tesla objects to 10 the term "test drive" as argumentative and vague, subject to multiple interpretations. Plaintiff is using the requests 11 for admissions to improperly put at issue/bring into relevance video recordings relating to an individual that have 12 not been proven to be the official statements of Tesla. Plaintiff seeks to introduce and/or bring into relevance, 13 without foundation, third party videos relating to an individual person as opposed to requesting information from 14 defendant regarding official statements. 15 Subject to and without waiving its objections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the matter 16 requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily obtainable 17 because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording of the entire interview 18 which is property of third parties. The only information known or readily obtainable concerning this request is the 19 hearsay evidence referred to in the request. Tesla cannot verify the authenticity of media produced by external 20 sources without unreasonable burden or expense. Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its 21 right to supplement its response. 22 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: 23 Subject to and without waiving the objections made in Tesla's original response, Tesla admits that Elon 24 Musk drove journalists in a Tesla Model S during an October 2014 event covering the performance of electric 25 vehicles 26 tit 27 tit 28 27863430 2 PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO RE UEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: This response violates this Court's Order entered on February 24, 2023. This Court entered a comprehensive order, finding: "Plaintiffs did make efforts to use less intrusive means to obtain authentication of Mr. Musk's statements; Tesla flatly refused to answer the questions. Plaintiffs are correct that Tesla need not have a chain of custody like knowledge of the videos attached to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions in order to determine whether Mr. Musk actually conducted the interviews and the test drives and made the statements that are depicted in the recordings. Tesla seems to want it both ways: it wants to be protected from asking Mr. Musk to review Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions and from having Mr. Musk answer Plaintiffs' questions about those statements directly in deposition. Tesla's position is untenable." (Order at 9:16-23.) 10 11 The Court ordered "Tesla to respond to the propounded Requests for Admissions, Special Interrogatories 12 and Request for Production 214 that are the subject of the present motion to compel." The Court did not invite 13 Tesla to repeat objections or make new objections. (Order at 9:27 10:1.) Nonetheless, Tesla refuses to admit 14 the requests on grounds that the Court already rejected, e.g., Tesla does not have the original recording; it does not 15 have chain of custody knowledge; and Mr. Musk did not keep notes about his interviews. At the same time, Tesla 16 concedes in each of these responses that "Tesla does not expect the file has been altered or manipulated." Since 17 Tesla does not believe the recordings were altered or manipulated, then it must admit the requests. Its refusal to 18 do so constitutes contempt of court and abuse of discovery. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)-) 19 Additionally, the response must answer the substance of the requested admission, not evade it. (Civ. 20 Proc. Code §§ 2033.210 and 2033.220.) This response fails to answer to do so. 21 TESLA’S RESPONSE TO NO. 16: 22 The Code permits responses that “[a]dmit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either 23 as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party. Civ. Proc. Code § 24 2033.220(b)(1). Additionally, the Code requires responses to “be as complete and straightforward as the 25 information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” Tesla’s response complies with both of these 26 provisions. 27 28 27863430 3 PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE “QUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit that the video linked below as Exhibi 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/wgxyug1ezok2hrl/AA Ce0DZtfaJ8hW Zf56ppERIma?dI=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. 10 Huang's crash in March 2018 while he was playing a video game on his phone and not paying attention, have no 11 bearing on the matters at issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff is using the requests for admissions to improperly put at 12 issue/bring into relevance video recordings relating to an individual that have not been proven to be the official 13 statements of Tesla. Plaintiff seeks to introduce and/or bring into relevance, without foundation, third party videos 14 relating to an individual person as opposed to requesting information from defendant regarding official 15 statements. Tesla objects to the term "test drive" as argumentative and vague, subject to multiple interpretations. 16 Tesla further objects to this request insofar as it lacks foundation, is argumentative, and not reasonably calculated 17 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as Tesla has no obligation to authenticate a non-Tesla 18 document. 19 Subject to and without waiving its objections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the matter 20 requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily obtainable 21 because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording of the entire 22 demonstration. Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its right to supplement its response. 23 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: 24 Subject to and without waiving the objections made in Tesla's original response, Tesla has undertaken a 25 good faith investigation of sources reasonably available to it and is unable to admit or deny the genuineness of the 26 attachment as Tesla does not maintain possession, control or custody of a recording of the discussion. Moreover, 27 Plaintiffs have not made originals of the files available to Tesla and have refused to confirm in writing the source 28 27863430 4 PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE 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 MDS 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. REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17 SHOULD BE 10 COMPELLED: 11 This response violates this Court's Order entered on February 24, 2023. This Court entered a 12 comprehensive order, finding: 13 "Plaintiffs did make efforts to use less intrusive means to obtain authentication of Mr. Musk's statements; Tesla flatly refused to answer the questions. Plaintiffs 14 are correct that Tesla need not have a chain of custody like knowledge of the videos attached to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions in order to determine 15 whether Mr. Musk actually conducted the interviews and the test drives and made the statements that are depicted in the recordings. Tesla seems to want it 16 both ways: it wants to be protected from asking Mr. Musk to review Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions and from having Mr. Musk answer Plaintiffs' questions 17 about those statements directly in deposition. Tesla's position is untenable." (Order at 9:16-23.) 18 19 The Court ordered "Tesla to respond to the propounded Requests for Admissions, Special Interrogatories 20 and Request for Production 214 that are the subject of the present motion to compel." The Court did not invite 21 Tesla to repeat objections or make new objections. (Order at 9:27 — 10:1.) Nonetheless, Tesla refuses to admit 22 the requests on grounds that the Court already rejected, e.g., Tesla does not have the original recording; it does not 23 have chain of custody knowledge; and Mr. Musk did not keep notes about his interviews. At the same time, Tesla 24 concedes in each of these responses that "Tesla does not expect the file has been altered or manipulated." Since 25 Tesla does not believe the recordings were altered or manipulated, then it must admit the requests. Its refusal to 26 do so constitutes contempt of court and abuse of discovery. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 (c), (d), (e), (), (g)-) 27 tit 28 27863430 5 PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE TESLA’S RESPONSE TO NO. 17: Plaintiffs’ Motion in regard to this Request should be denied for two reasons. First, it is factually incorrect. Tesla did not merely deny upon grounds that the Court had already rejected. Instead, after the Order was entered, Tesla provided Mr. Musk with a copy of the purported recording of the above-referenced video. Mr. Musk confirmed that he did not independently record the discussion or maintain a copy of the original recording, did not take notes, and cannot specifically recall the details about the discussion or statements (all of which Tesla explained in its new responses). Additionally, Tesla requested Plaintiffs provide information about the origins of the recording because such information might be useful in determining its authenticity. Plaintiffs refused to provide this information. Therefore, Tesla conducted additional inquiry, including the specific inquiry 10 (consultation with Mr. Musk) that the Court ordered. Nevertheless, Tesla remains unable to admit or deny that 11 the recording is authentic. 12 While this might seem unusual at first blush, Mr. Musk, like many public figures, is the frequent target of 13 “deepfake” audio and video that purports to show him saying and doing things he did not actually say or do. 14 Understanding this, Tesla’s inability to authenticate, despite extensive inquiry, is perfectly reasonable. Which 15 leads to the second reason Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied: they argue Tesla’s statement that, because Tesla 16 does not believe the recording has been altered or manipulated, means Tesla must admit it is authenticate. This is 17 simply incorrect. There is a clear difference between saying, under penalty of perjury, that there is no reason to 18 believe something has been manipulated and saying that the that thing is actually authentic. Tesla’s response was 19 truthful, complete, and complied with the Court’s Order and the Code. Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied. 20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: 21 Admit that the video linked as Exhibit "A" fairly and accurately depicts a portion or portions of the test 22 drive referenced in RFA No. 16. 23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: 24 Tesla objects that the request for admission is not full and complete in and of itself as required by C.C.P. 25 § 2033.060(d) and contains an improper requirement that reference must be made to other documents in order to 26 respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to 27 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because demonstrations performed at events years before Mr. 28 27863430 6 PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE 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 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. 10 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: 11 Subject to and without waiving the objections made in Tesla's original response, Tesla has undertaken a 12 good faith investigation of sources reasonably available to it and is unable to admit or deny the genuineness of the 13 attachment as Tesla does not maintain possession, control or custody of a recording of the discussion. Moreover, 14 Plaintiffs have not made originals of the files available to Tesla and have refused to confirm in writing the source 15 of the files. (C.C.P. § 2033.060(g).) On March 2, 2023, Tesla made the specific request to Plaintiffs to confirm 16 the files were originals or unaltered copies of original files, the URL of the source of the files along with the date 17 and time of capture, the software and means used to capture the files, and the MDS or SHA-11 "hash value", but 18 Plaintiffs did not respond to the request. Mr. Musk confirmed he did not independently record the discussion or 19 maintain a copy of the original video, nor did he take notes, and cannot recall the details depicted in the 20 referenced video sufficiently to admit or deny their accuracy. Consequently, while Tesla does not expect the file 21 has been altered or manipulated, it cannot authenticate a non-Tesla document that it cannot independently 22 validate. 23 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18 SHOULD B! 24 COMPELLED: 25 This response violates this Court's Order entered on February 24, 2023. This Court entered a 26 comprehensive order, finding: 27 "Plaintiffs did make efforts to use less intrusive means to obtain authentication of Mr. Musk's statements; Tesla flatly refused to answer the questions. Plaintiffs 28 7 27863430 PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE are correct that Tesla need not have a chain of custody like knowledge of the videos attached to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions in order to determine whether Mr. Musk actually conducted the interviews and the test drives and made the statements that are depicted in the recordings. Tesla seems to want it both ways: it wants to be protected from asking Mr. Musk to review Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions and from having Mr. Musk answer Plaintiffs' questions about those statements directly in deposition. Tesla's position is untenable." (Order at 9:16-23.) The Court ordered "Tesla to respond to the propounded Requests for Admissions, Special Interrogatories and Request for Production 214 that are the subject of the present motion to compel." The Court did not invite Tesla to repeat objections or make new objections. (Order at 9:27 10:1.) Nonetheless, Tesla refuses to admit the requests on grounds that the Court already rejected, e.g., Tesla does not have the original recording; it does not have chain of custody knowledge; and Mr. Musk did not keep notes about his interviews. At the same time, Tesla 10 concedes in each of these responses that "Tesla does not expect the file has been altered or manipulated." Since 11 Tesla does not believe the recordings were altered or manipulated, then it must admit the requests. Its refusal to 12 do so constitutes contempt of court and abuse of discovery. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)-) 13 TESLA’S RESPONSE TO NO. 18: 14 Plaintiffs’ Motion in regard to this Request should be denied for two reasons. First, it is factually 15 incorrect. Tesla did not merely deny upon grounds that the Court had already rejected. Instead, after the Order 16 was entered, Tesla provided Mr. Musk with a copy of the purported recording of the above-referenced video. Mr. 17 Musk confirmed that he did not independently record the discussion or maintain a copy of the original recording, 18 did not take notes, and cannot specifically recall the details about the discussion or statements (all of which Tesla 19 explained in its new responses). Additionally, Tesla requested Plaintiffs provide information about the origins of 20 the recording because such information might be useful in determining its authenticity. Plaintiffs refused to 21 provide this information. Therefore, Tesla conducted additional inquiry, including the specific inquiry 22 (consultation with Mr. Musk) that the Court ordered. Nevertheless, Tesla remains unable to admit or deny that 23 the recording is authentic. 24 While this might seem unusual at first blush, Mr. Musk, like many public figures, is the frequent target of 25 “deepfake” audio and video that purports to show him saying and doing things he did not actually say or do. 26 Understanding this, Tesla’s inability to authenticate, despite extensive inquiry, is perfectly reasonable. Which 27 leads to the second reason Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied: they argue Tesla’s statement that, because Tesla 28 27863430 8 PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE does not believe the recording has been altered or manipulated, means Tesla must admit it is authenticate. This is simply incorrect. There is a clear difference between saying, under penalty of perjury, that there is no reason to believe something has been manipulated and saying that the that thing is actually authentic. Tesla’s response was truthful, complete, and complied with the Court’s Order and the Code. Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit that the driver of the vehicle in in the video linked 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 documents in order to 10 respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to 11 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because demonstrations performed at events years before Mr. 12 Huang's crash in March 2018 while he was playing a video game on his phone and not paying attention, have no 13 bearing on the matters at issue in this lawsuit. Tesla further objects to this request insofar as it lacks foundation, is 14 argumentative, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as Tesla has 15 no obligation to authenticate a non-Tesla document. 16 Subject to and without waiving its objections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the matter 17 requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily obtainable 18 because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording of the entire interview 19 which is property of third parties. The only information known or readily obtainable concerning this request is the 20 hearsay evidence referred to in the request. Tesla cannot verify the authenticity of media produced by external 21 sources without unreasonable burden or expense. Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its 22 right to supplement its response. 23 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: 24 Subject to and without waiving the objections made in Tesla's original response, see Tesla’s Supplemental 25 Response to Request for Admission No. 16. 26 //1 27 tit 28 27863430 9 PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO RE UEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: This response violates this Court's Order entered on February 24, 2023. This Court entered a comprehensive order, finding: "Plaintiffs did make efforts to use less intrusive means to obtain authentication of Mr. Musk's statements; Tesla flatly refused to answer the questions. Plaintiffs are correct that Tesla need not have a chain of custody like knowledge of the videos attached to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions in order to determine whether Mr. Musk actually conducted the interviews and the test drives and made the statements that are depicted in the recordings. Tesla seems to want it both ways: it wants to be protected from asking Mr. Musk to review Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions and from having Mr. Musk answer Plaintiffs' questions about those statements directly in deposition. Tesla's position is untenable." (Order at 9:16-23.) 10 The Court ordered "Tesla to respond to the propounded Requests for Admissions, Special Interrogatories 11 and Request for Production 214 that are the subject of the present motion to compel." The Court did not invite 12 Tesla to repeat objections or make new objections. (Order at 9:27 — 10:1.) Nonetheless, Tesla refuses to admit 13 the requests on grounds that the Court already rejected, e.g., Tesla does not have the original recording; it does not 14 have chain of custody knowledge; and Mr. Musk did not keep notes about his interviews. At the same time, Tesla 15 concedes in each of these responses that "Tesla does not expect the file has been altered or manipulated." Since 16 Tesla does not believe the recordings were altered or manipulated, then it must admit the requests. Its refusal to 17 do so constitutes contempt of court and abuse of discovery. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)-) 18 TESLA’S RESPONSE TO NO. 19: 19 The Code permits responses that “[a]dmit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either 20 as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party. Civ. Proc. Code § 21 2033.220(b)(1). Additionally, the Code requires responses to “be as complete and straightforward as the 22 information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” Tesla’s response complies with both of these 23 provisions. 24 Plaintiffs’ Motion in regard to this Request should be denied for two reasons. First, it is factually 25 incorrect. Tesla did not merely deny upon grounds that the Court had already rejected. Instead, after the Order 26 was entered, Tesla provided Mr. Musk with a copy of the purported recording of the above-referenced video. Mr. 27 Musk confirmed that he did not independently record the discussion or maintain a copy of the original recording, 28 27863430 10 PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE did not take notes, and cannot specifically recall the details about the discussion or statements (all of which Tesla explained in its new responses). Additionally, Tesla requested Plaintiffs provide information about the origins of the recording because such information might be useful in determining its authenticity. Plaintiffs refused to provide this information. Therefore, Tesla conducted additional inquiry, including the specific inquiry (consultation with Mr. Musk) that the Court ordered. Nevertheless, Tesla remains unable to admit or deny that the recording is authentic. While this might seem unusual at first blush, Mr. Musk, like many public figures, is the frequent target of “deepfake” audio and video that purports to show him saying and doing things he did not actually say or do. Understanding this, Tesla’s inability to authenticate, despite extensive inquiry, is perfectly reasonable. Which 10 leads to the second reason Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied: they argue Tesla’s statement that, because Tesla 11 does not believe the recording has been altered or manipulated, means Tesla must admit it is authenticate. This is 12 simply incorrect. There is a clear difference between saying, under penalty of perjury, that there is no reason to 13 believe something has been manipulated and saying that the that thing is actually authentic. Tesla’s response was 14 truthful, complete, and complied with the Court’s Order and the Code. Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied. 15 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: 16 Admit that the video linked as Exhibit "A" is a fair and accurate recording of statements Elon Musk made 17 during the test drive referenced in RFA No. 16. 18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: 19 Tesla objects that the request for admission is not full and complete in and of itself as required by C.C.P. 20 § 2033.060(d) and contains an improper requirement that reference must be made to other documents in order to 21 respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to 22 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because demonstrations performed at events several years before Mr. 23 Huang's crash in March 2018 while he was playing a video game on his phone and not paying attention, have no 24 bearing on the matters at issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff is using the requests for admissions to improperly put at 25 issue/bring into relevance video recordings relating to an individual that have not been proven to be the official 26 statements of Tesla. Plaintiff seeks to introduce and/or bring into relevance, without foundation, third party videos 27 relating to an individual person as opposed to requesting information from defendant regarding official 28 27863430 ll PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE 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 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 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. 20: 10 Subject to and without waiving the objections made in Tesla's original response, Tesla has undertaken a 11 good faith investigation of sources reasonably available to it and is unable to admit or deny the genuineness of the 12 attachment as Tesla does not maintain possession, control or custody of a recording of the discussion. Moreover, 13 Plaintiffs have not made originals of the files available to Tesla and have refused to confirm in writing the source 14 of the files. (C.C.P. § 2033.060(g).) On March 2, 2023, Tesla made the specific request to Plaintiffs to confirm 15 the files were originals or unaltered copies of original files, the URL of the source of the files along with the date 16 and time of capture, the software and means used to capture the files, and the MD5 or SHA-11 "hash value", but 17 Plaintiffs did not respond to the request. Mr. Musk confirmed he did not independently record the discussion or 18 maintain a copy of the original video, nor did he take notes, and cannot recall the details depicted in the 19 referenced video sufficiently to admit or deny their accuracy. Consequently, while Tesla does not expect the file 20 has been altered or manipulated, it cannot authenticate a non-Tesla document that it cannot independently 21 validate. 22 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20 SHOULD BE 23 COMPELLED: 24 This response violates this Court's Order entered on February 24, 2023. This Court entered a 25 comprehensive order, finding: 26 "Plaintiffs did make efforts to use less intrusive means to obtain authentication of Mr. Musk's statements; Tesla flatly refused to answer the questions. Plaintiffs 27 are correct that Tesla need not have a chain of custody like knowledge of the videos attached to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions in order to determine 28 27863430 12 PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE whether Mr. Musk actually conducted the interviews and the test drives and made the statements that are depicted in the recordings. Tesla seems to want it both ways: it wants to be protected from asking Mr. Musk to review Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions and from having Mr. Musk answer Plaintiffs' questions about those statements directly in deposition. Tesla's position is untenable." (Order at 9:16-23.) The Court ordered "Tesla to respond to the propounded Requests for Admissions, Special Interrogatories and Request for Production 214 that are the subject of the present motion to compel." The Court did not invite Tesla to repeat objections or make new objections. (Order at 9:27 — 10:1.) Nonetheless, Tesla refuses to admit the requests on grounds that the Court already rejected, e.g., Tesla does not have the original recording; it does not have chain of custody knowledge; and Mr. Musk did not keep notes about his interviews. At the same time, Tesla concedes in each of these responses that "Tesla does not expect the file has been altered or manipulated." Since 10 Tesla does not believe the recordings were altered or manipulated, then it must admit the requests. Its refusal to 11 do so constitutes contempt of court and abuse of discovery. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)-) 12 TESLA’S RESPONSE TO NO. 20: 13 Plaintiffs’ Motion in regard to this Request should be denied for two reasons. First, it is factually 14 incorrect. Tesla did not merely deny upon grounds that the Court had already rejected. Instead, after the Order 15 was entered, Tesla provided Mr. Musk with a copy of the purported recording of the above-referenced video. Mr. 16 Musk confirmed that he did not independently record the discussion or maintain a copy of the original recording, 17 did not take notes, and cannot specifically recall the details about the discussion or statements (all of which Tesla 18 explained in its new responses). Additionally, Tesla requested Plaintiffs provide information about the origins of 19 the recording because such information might be useful in determining its authenticity. Plaintiffs refused to 20 provide this information. Therefore, Tesla conducted additional inquiry, including the specific inquiry 21 (consultation with Mr. Musk) that the Court ordered. Nevertheless, Tesla remains unable to admit or deny that 22 the recording is authentic. 23 While this might seem unusual at first blush, Mr. Musk, like many public figures, is the frequent target of 24 “deepfake” audio and video that purports to show him saying and doing things he did not actually say or do. 25 Understanding this, Tesla’s inability to authenticate, despite extensive inquiry, is perfectly reasonable. Which 26 leads to the second reason Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied: they argue Tesla’s statement that, because Tesla 27 does not believe the recording has been altered or manipulated, means Tesla must admit it is authenticate. This is 28 27863430 13 PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE simply incorrect. There is a clear difference between saying, under penalty of perjury, that there is no reason to believe something has been manipulated and saying that the that thing is actually authentic. Tesla’s response was truthful, complete, and complied with the Court’s Order and the Code. Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied. QUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit that the video linked 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 10 respond. Tesla objects to this request insofar as it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to 11 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because demonstrations performed at events several years before Mr. 12 Huang's crash in March 2018, where he was playing a video game on his phone and not paying attention, have no 13 bearing on the matters at issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff is using the requests for admissions to improperly put at 14 issue/bring into relevance video recordings relating to an individual that have not been proven to be the official 15 statements of Tesla. Plaintiff seeks to introduce and/or bring into relevance, without foundation, third party videos 16 relating to an individual person as opposed to requesting information from defendant regarding official 17 statements. Tesla objects the request is vague and ambiguous by use of the phrase "some of" and Tesla objects to 18 the term "test drive" as argumentative and vague, subject to multiple interpretations. Tesla further objects to this 19 request insofar as it lacks foundation, is argumentative, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 20 admissible evidence insofar as Tesla has no obligation to authenticate an individual's media statements. 21 Subject to and without waiving its objections, Tesla has made a reasonable inquiry about the matter 22 requested and is unable to admit or deny this request based on the information known or readily obtainable 23 because Tesla does not have possession, custody, or control of an original video recording of the entire 24 demonstration. Discovery and investigation continue, and Tesla reserves its right to supplement its response. 25 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: 26 Subject to and without waiving the objections made in Tesla's original response, Tesla has undertaken a 27 good faith investigation of sources reasonably available to it and is unable to admit or deny the genuineness of the 28 27863430 14 PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE 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 10 validate. 11 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21 SHOULD BE 12 COMPELLED: 13 This response violates this Court's Order entered on February 24, 2023. This Court entered a 14 comprehensive order, finding: 15 "Plaintiffs did make efforts to use less intrusive means to obtain authentication of Mr. Musk's statements; Tesla flatly refused to answer the questions. Plaintiffs 16 are correct that Tesla need not have a chain of custody like knowledge of the videos attached to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions in order to determine 17 whether Mr. Musk actually conducted the interviews and the test drives and made the statements that are depicted in the recordings. Tesla seems to want it 18 both ways: it wants to be protected from asking Mr. Musk to review Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions and from having Mr. Musk answer Plaintiffs' questions 19 about those statements directly in deposition. Tesla's position is untenable." (Order at 9:16-23.) 20 The Court ordered "Tesla to respond to the propounded Requests for Admissions, Special Interrogatories 21 and Request for Production 214 that are the subject of the present motion to compel." The Court did not invite 22 Tesla to repeat objections or make new objections. (Order at 9:27 — 10:1.) Nonetheless, Tesla refuses to admit 23 the requests on grounds that the Court already rejected, e.g., Tesla does not have the original recording; it does not 24 have chain of custody knowledge; and Mr. Musk did not keep notes about his interviews. At the same time, Tesla 25 concedes in each of these responses that "Tesla does not expect the file has been altered or manipulated." Since 26 Tesla does not believe the recordings were altered or manipulated, then it must admit the requests. Its refusal to 27 do so constitutes contempt of court and abuse of discovery. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)-) 28 27863430 15 PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE TESLA’S RES