Motion-Secondary: Sz Huang et al vs Tesla Inc. et al

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

Preview
Vincent Galvin #104448
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
vincent.galvin@bowmanandbrooke.com
uren.miller@bowmanandbrooke.c

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.

IN 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,
DECLARATION OF LAUREN O. MILLER IN
Plaintiff, SUPPORT OF TESLA, INC.’S MOTION TO
RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING, IN PART,
vs. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL WRITTEN
DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND TH
TES A, INC. TESLA MOTORS INC. THE DEPOSITION OF ELON MUSK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOE 1 through
100, Date:
Time:
Defendants. 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.

H/1

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

A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of

Motion to Compel Tesla’s Responses to R quest for Admission, Set Two, is attached hereto as Exhibit

A true and correct copy of Tesla’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities support of

Motion for Pro ctive Order re Deposition of E. Musk is attached hereto as Exhibit

A true and correct copy of Teslas Resnses to R quest for Admission, Set Two, are

attached as Exhibit

A true and correct copy of Tesla’s Opposition to Motion for Sanctions is attached as

Exhibit

A true and correct copy of the Court's April 28, 2023 Order is attached hereto as Exhibit

While, e Order was entered on April 28, 2023, it was not served on counsel for Tesla

at day. Indeed, the Order was never served on Tesla by the Court Instead, on May 8, 2023 in the

course of meet and confer discussions, Tesla s counsel learn r the first time from Plaintiffs’ counsel

whom had been served with the Order) that the Order had been entered. hat day, Plaintiffs’ counsel

emailed Tesla s counsel a copy of that Order.

Plaintiffs had originally provided Tesla with .mp3 or .mp4 files for each recording that did

not disclose any information about each files’ origin. Tesla asked for the origin of these files a number

of times, but plaintiffs refused. After the Order was entered, Plaintiffs provided Tesla with the web

address where they had located each recording. Tesla is now able to compare the recordings at each

23 web address to the files Plaintiffs had provided to Tesla for authentication. This information will enable

Tesla to be able to admit the authenticity of the recordings.

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

that these admissions would be forthcoming. Thus far, Plaintiffs have been unwilling to accept Tesla’s

agreement to serve Supplemental Response in lieu of to forego Mr. Musk’s deposition

DECLARATION OF LAUREN O. MILLER IN SUPPORT OF TESLA, INC.'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING,
IN PART, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND THE DEPOSITION OF ELON
MUSK
| declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. . Executed on May 22

2 , at San Jose, California.

3
|
She ij
4
Laurea O. Miller
5

DECLARATION OF LAUREN O. MILLER IN SUPPORT OF TESLA, INC.'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING,
IN PART, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND THE DEPOSITION OF ELON
MUSK
B. MARK FONG, ESQ. (SBN 99672
mfong@minamitamaki.com
SEEMA BHAT, ESQ. (SBN 275278)
sbhatt@minamitamaki.com
MINAMI TAMAKI LLP
360 Post Street, 8th Floor
San Francisco, Ca 94108
Tel: (415) 788
Fax: (415) 398

MICHAEL A. KELLY (State Bar #71460)
mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com
DORIS CHENG (State Bar #197731)
dcheng@walkuplawoffice.com
ANDREW P. McDEVITT (State Bar #271371)
amcdevitt@walkuplawoffice.com
WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER
650 California Street, 26 Floor
San Francisco, Ca 94108
Tel: (415)
Fax: (415) 391

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; HSI
KENG HUANG; AND CHING FEN HUANG

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

SZ HUA HUANG, Individually and as Case No. 19CV346663
successor in interest to WE] LUN HUANG >
deceased; TRINITY HUANG, a minor; ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
TRISTAN HUANG, a minor; HSI KENG JUDGE CHRISTOPHER G. RUDY
HUANG; and CHING FEN HUANG, DEPARTMENT 7

Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES FROM TESLA INC
TESLA INC. dba TESLA MOTORS, INC., REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET
HE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES WO, FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET
1 through 100,, THREE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
SET THREE AND REQUEST FOR
Defendants. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET SIX

Date: to be set by court
Time:
Dept.: 7

Trial Date: March 27, 2023
LAW oFFices OF
ALKUP ELODIA ELLY
‘SCHOENBERGER
_apnovesonal CORPORATION
1650 CALIFORNIA STREET MPA ISO PLAINTIFFS MTC FURTHER RESP FROM TESLA INC. RE RFA2, FROG3, SROG3 AND
SAN FRANGSED, CA #308 RFPD6 CASE NO. 19CV346663
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

I INTRODUCTION 5

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 6

The Underlying Collision 6

Tesla s Autopilot System 7

Tesla s Discovery Responses 7

Objections attorney client privilege, and/or attorney work
product doctrine 8

Objections on the basis of overbreadth, burden, and
relevance 8

Meet and Confer 9

LEGAL ARGUMENT 9

The Court Should Compel Further Discovery Responses 9

Tesla Must Provide a Privilege Log

Tesla Must Produce Non Privileged Responsive Documents

Tesla Must Withdraw Its Objections on the Basis of Overbreadth,
Burden, and Relevance

This Motion is Timely

CONCLUSION

LAW oFFices OF
au ELODI ELLY
OENI
‘Doueawone! MPA ISO PLAINTIFFS MTC FURTHER RESP FROM TESLA INC. RE RFA2, FROG3, SROG3 AND
SAN FRANGSED, CA #308 RFPD6 CASE NO. 19CV346663
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 1181

Bullock v. Consumers’ Lumber Co., (1892) 3.Cal.Unrep. 609

Cembrook v. Sup. Ct. In and For City and County of San Francisco (1961) 56
Cal.2d 423

Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. V. Sup. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 785 9

Coy v. Superior of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal. 2d 210

Deyo v. Kilbourne, (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771

Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113

Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (City of San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 15399

Greyhound v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d, 35513

Pilliod v. Monsanto Company, (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 591

Sherman v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1152.

Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal. App. 1006

Suezaki v. Sup. Ct. (County of Santa Clara), (1962) 58 Cal.2d 166

Universal Underwriters, Ins. Co v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1967)
250 Cal. App. 2d 722

STATUTES

California Evidence Code § 1222

Code Civ. Proc . § 2017.0109

Code Civ. Proc . § 2030.220

Code Civ. Proc . § 2031.240(b)
Code Civ. Proc . § 2031.240(c)(1)
Code Civ. Proc . § 2031.310(a)
Code Civ. Proc . § 2031.310(b)(1)
Code Civ. Proc . § 2033.010
LAW oFFices OF
au ELODI ELLY
OENI
‘Doueawone! MPA ISO PLAINTIFFS MTC FURTHER RESP FROM TESLA INC. RE RFA2, FROG3, SROG3 AND
SAN FRANGSED, CA #308 RFPD6 CASE NO. 19CV346663
Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300 9

Code of Civ. Proc. § 2033.2109

LAW oFFices OF
ALKUP ELODIA ELLY
SCHOENBERGER
_apnovesonal CORPORATION
1650 CALIFORNIA STREET MPA ISO PLAINTIFFS MTC FURTHER RESP FROM TESLA INC. RE RFA2, FROG3, SROG3 AND
SAN FRANGSED, CA #308 RFPD6 CASE NO. 19CV346663
INTRODUCTION

This product liability action arises out of a fatal motor vehicle collision caused

by defects in features of Tesla s Autopilot. Plaintiffs allege that the Autopilot system

misread the lane lines on the roadway, failed to detect the concrete median and crash

cushion, failed to apply the brakes, and instead accelerated the car into the median.

Plaintiffs move to compel responsive answers to written discovery propounded

in August 2022. Tesla s responses are deficient for the following reasons:

Tesla withheld documents and information on the basis of attorney

client privilege, and the attorney work product doctrine. Yet it has failed to identify

responsive confidential documents or produce a privilege log or any other information

that would allow Plaintiffs to evaluate the merits of the objections.

Tesla s interrogatory and admission responses evade discovery requests

relating to statements made by CEO Elon Musk

Tesla claims it is under no obligation to admit or deny statements its

CEO made to the public in televised or otherwise recorded interviews.

Elon Musk has directed the development of Autopilot since Tesla announced

the feature in 2014. Musk decided that Autopilot would rely primarily on cameras

instead of Lidar. At each stage of Autopilot s development, Musk has been Tesla

spokesperson for its capabilities and safety efficacy. Musk personally tests

development versions of Autopilot. Musk has announced the direction of Autopilot

feature development to the public through press conferences, media interviews and

blog posts on Tesla s websites. Musk responds to customer feedback on Autopilot

performance via Twitter. Musk oversaw the creation of a video that purportedly

demonstrated Autopilot s capabilities; however, in reality, the demonstration relied

upon technology not available in customer vehicles. And, Musk has made claims that

are relevant to the design, manufacturer and consumer expectation about Autopilot’

abilities. For example, in September 2016, Musk authored a blog post where he made

the representation that, as a result of making onboard radar a primary control sensor
LAW oFFicesOF
ALKUP ELODIA ELLY
‘SCHOENBERGER
_apnovesonal CORPORATION
1650 CALIFORNIA STREET MPA ISO PLAINTIFFS MTC FURTHER RESP FROM TESLA INC. RE RFA2, FROG3, SROG3 AND
SAN FRANGSED, CA #308 RFPD6 CASE NO. 19CV346663
in Teslas, “the car should almost always hit the brakes correctly even if a UFO were

to land on the freeway in zero visibility conditions.”

Tesla has refused to produce Musk for deposition and filed a motion asking the

court to prevent Musk from being deposed. Tesla argues that written discovery can

be done instead of deposition Eon Musk, but Tesla refuses to admit or deny the

contents of Musk video recorded interviews, presentations, articles, and tweets

posted under the handle @elonmusk.

espite Musk s profile and status, Tesla is not entitled to special treatment in

discovery and does not have free reign to disregard its discovery obligations. Tesla

should be compelled to provide code compliant responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for

Admissions, Set Two; Form Interrogatories, Set Three; Special Interrogatories, Set

Six; and Requests for Production, Set Six.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Underlying Collision

On March 23, 2018, the Autopilot feature of Walter Huang s brand new Tesla

Model X misread the lane delineation and accelerated the car out of its lane and into

a concrete median barrier at nearly 70 mph. The concrete barrier was located inside

a marked gore area that the Autopilot software had not been programmed to identify

and avoid on the roadway. The crash avoidance features did not detect the concrete

barrier, and as a result, Mr. Huang died of injuries due to the blunt force trauma.

Against all of Tesla s advertisements and its CEO s widespread representations on

social media that the Autopilot could be trusted to navigate hands free, the Tesla

safety mechanisms either failed or did not exist.

Plaintiffs brings claims against Defendant Tesla, Inc. for strict product

liability (design, manufacture and failure to warn) and negligence, particularly as to

the function of Tesla s Autopilot features, which is a combination of Traffic Aware

Cruise Control” (an adaptive cruise control system that provides longitudinal control

that accelerates and decelerates) and Autosteer (a lane keeping assist system that
LAW oFFicesOF
ALKUP ELODIA ELLY
‘SCHOENBERGER
_apnovesonal CORPORATION
1650 CALIFORNIA STREET MPA ISO PLAINTIFFS MTC FURTHER RESP FROM TESLA INC. RE RFA2, FROG3, SROG3 AND
SAN FRANGSED, CA #308 RFPD6 CASE NO. 19CV346663
provides lateral control). Autopilot includes a suite of systems that is intended to (1)

monitor the path of travel, (2) maintain the set cruise control, (3) maintain the

vehicle s position in the travel lane, (4) brakes when it detects slower moving vehicles

ahead of Tesla, (5) decelerates and follows a slower moving vehicle ahead of the

Tesla. The hardware includes cameras, ultrasonic sensors, and radar. Autopilot is

supposed to be equipped with Forward Collision Warning (FCW) and Automatic

Emergency Braking (AEB) features that prevent collisions with fixed objects.

Tesla s Autopilot System

A major investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board identified

Tesla s Autopilot system as the primary cause of the crash. The NTSB found that the

Autopilot steered Walter s SUV into the highway gore area due to system

limitations.” The report noted that Walter may have been distracted at the time of

the collision, but that the Autopilot ineffective monitoring of driver engagement [. .

.] facilitated the driver s complacency and inattentiveness.” Accordingly, the

capabilities and limitations of the Autopilot feature and related technologies are

fundamental to Plaintiffs’ claim against Tesla.

On its website, Tesla has posted videos of its CEO, Elon Musk, making

statements regarding the safety, capabilities and limitations of the Autopilot system.

on Musk has made other such recorded statements on other platforms, at and

around the time of the Mr. Huang s crash. These statements related to Autopilot

ability to correct, respond to or address driver engagement or attentiveness.

Plaintiffs’ discovery requests included in this motion all relate to these statements

made by Elon Musk and likely consumed by and/ relied on by consumers of Tesla

Autopilot

Tesla s Discovery Responses

August 2022, Plaintiffs propounded Requests for Admissions Set Four,

equests for Productions Documents Set 6, Form Interrogatories Set 3, and Special

Interrogatories Set 3. (McDevitt Decl. { 3 Exhibits 1-4.) Tesla provided its responses
LAW oFFicesOF
ALKUP ELODIA ELLY
‘SCHOENBERGER
_apnovesonal CORPORATION
1650 CALIFORNIA STREET MPA ISO PLAINTIFFS MTC FURTHER RESP FROM TESLA INC. RE RFA2, FROG3, SROG3 AND
SAN FRANGSED, CA #308 RFPD6 CASE NO. 19CV346663
on September 30, 2022. (McDevitt Decl. § 4, Exhibits 5-8.) Tesla responded

primarily with the following boilerplate objections and insufficient responses.

Objections attorney lient privilege, and/or attorney work
product doctrine

Tesla objected to Requests for Production No. 214 and Special Interrogatories

Nos. 46 on the basis of attorney client privilege and/or attorney work product.

Tesla did not produce any confidential documents, did not identify confidential

documents responsive to the requests that were being withheld and did not provide a

privilege log or any other information up which Plaintiffs’ could evaluate merits of

the objections. Tesla failed to identify and produce non confidential responsive

documents beyond a publicly available Vehicle Safety Report posed on their site for

these requests Tesla failed to provide the underlying facts, witnesses and documents

that informed the Vehicle Safety Report. (McDevitt Decl. § 4, Exhibits 5-6.)

Objections on the basis of overbreadth, burden, and
relevance

Tesla objected Requests for Admissions No. 16 , 36, 37 40 and 42 52, on

the basis that the requests are irrelevant, lack foundation and that Tesla has no

obligation or the ability, to authenticate its CKO s media statements. For Requests,

37-40 and 42 52, Tesla s responded they were unable to admit or deny this

request based on the information known or readily obtainable” and cannot verify the

authenticity of media produced by external sources without unreasonable burden or

expense.” All these requests related to verifying statements made by Tesla CEO Elon

Musk to the public regarding the capabilities and limitations of Autopilot. Tesla

failed to provide any substantive response to Request No. 36, which requested Tesla

admit that Elon Musk was aware that the video listed as Exhibit “C” was posted on

the Tesla website in 2016.” (McDevitt Decl. § 4, Exhibit 7.)

Tesla objected on similar grounds to Requests for Production No. 214, Form

Interrogatory Set 3, No. 11.7, and Special Interrogatories Nos. 46 48 and provided
LAW oFFices OF
ALKUP ELODIA ELLY
‘SCHOENBERGER
_apnovesonal CORPORATION
1650 CALIFORNIA STREET MPA ISO PLAINTIFFS MTC FURTHER RESP FROM TESLA INC. RE RFA2, FROG3, SROG3 AND
SAN FRANGSED, CA #308 RFPD6 CASE NO. 19CV346663
materially limited responses to each of them. Tesla reasserted i s claim that public

statements by its CEO about Autopilot are irrelevant unless specific to Mr. Huang

crash. (McDevitt Decl. § 4, Exhibits 5, 6 and 8.)

Meet and Confer

After reviewing Tesla s responses, Plaintiffs’ counsel wrote to the defense on

November 2, 2022 and detailed Plaintiffs’ position regarding the above-noted

objections. In the letter, Plaintiffs’ counsel requested amended responses to cure the

defects and produce all responsive documents. (McDevitt Decl. Exhibit.) Tesla

provided its response on November 23, 2022 and failed to provide meaningful reply to

Plaintiffs’ concerns. Neither has it supplemented its responses to cure the defects

Plaintiffs identified. McDevitt Decl. 6, Exhibit .) This motion sanctions followed.

LEGAL ARGUMENT

The Court Should Compel Further Discovery Responses

Plaintiffs are generally entitled to discovery regarding any matter, not

privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to

the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself

admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010 For discovery purposes,

information should be regarded as relevant to the subject matter” if it might

reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating

settlement thereof. (Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (City of San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal. App.

4th 1539, 1546.) The relevance to the subject matter” and reasonably calculated to

lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standards are applied liberally; any doubt is

generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. V.

Sup. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 785, 790.)
Failure to respond to discovery in accordance with the Civil Discovery Act is

grounds for a Motion to Compel. See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300 (Interrogatories)

Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300 (Requests for Production) Code of Civ. Proc. § 2033.210
LAW oFFices OF
ALKUP ELODIA ELLY
‘SCHOENBERGER
_apnovesonal CORPORATION
1650 CALIFORNIA STREET MPA ISO PLAINTIFFS MTC FURTHER RESP FROM TESLA INC. RE RFA2, FROG3, SROG3 AND
SAN FRANGSED, CA #308 RFPD6 CASE NO. 19CV346663
(Requests for Admissions).)

Tesla Must Provide a Privilege Log

Tesla objected on the basis of attorney client privilege and/or attorney work

product doctrine to Requests for Production No. 214 and Special Interrogatories Nos.

The responding party has the burden of justifying each and every one of the

stated objections. (Coy v. Superior of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal. 2d 210

217.) Yet Tesla failed to provide any information whatsoever upon which Plaintiffs

could evaluate its claims of privilege.

The obligations under the Civil Discovery Act are clear: If the responding

party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or

category of item, the response shall do both of the following: (1) Identify with

particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information

falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being

made; (2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection.”

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(b); see also Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004)

119 Cal. App. 4th 1181, 1189 [responding party who objects to the demand for

inspection of a document still must identify with particularity the document and set

forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection and/or a
particular privilege].)

Tesla must provide further responses that, at a minimum, identify any

responsive documents that are protected” so that the parties may have a meaningful

discussion regarding the merits of the objections. Since Tesla is objecting based on a

claim of privilege, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other

parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.”

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(c)(1)

Tesla Must Produce Non Privileged Responsive Documents

In its responses, Tesla stated that it would not provide any further responsive

documents for Requests for Production No. 214, Form Interrogatories Set 3, No. 17.1,
LAW oFFices OF
ALKUP ELODIA ELLY
‘SCHOENBERGER
_apnovesonal CORPORATION
1650 CALIFORNIA STREET MPA ISO PLAINTIFFS MTC FURTHER RESP FROM TESLA INC. RE RFA2, FROG3, SROG3 AND
SAN FRANGSED, CA #308 RFPD6 CASE NO. 19CV346663
and Special Interrogatory No. 46 48. Tesla’s only substantive response to these

requests was a Vehicle Safety Report” listed on their website. Tesla refu d to

provide any of the underlying facts and information that informed the Vehicle Safety

Report citing ork roduct and the attorney client rivilege.

A party may move for an order compelling further response to a demand for

documents if any of the following are true: (1) A statement of compliance with the

demand is incomplete, (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate,

incomplete, or evasive, or (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too

general. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(a).) The moving party need only set forth facts

showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. §

2031.310()(1 Where there is no privilege issue or claim of attorney work product,

that burden is met by a fact specific showing of relevance. (Glenfed Development

Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.)

Where an interrogatory is specific and explicit, an answer that supplies only a

portion of the information sought is improper. Deyo v. Kilbourne, (1978) 84

Cal.App.3d 771, 783. In answering interrogatories, a party must furnish information

available from sources under the party s control. Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at 782 783. As

such, [a party] cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from

sources under [their] control.” Jd. Further, Tesla “must set forth the efforts made to

secure the information.” Id. According to the court in Universal Underwriters, Ins. Co

v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1967) 250 Cal. App. 2d 722,728 an

interrogatory calling on one s adversary to state whether he makes a particular

contention as to the facts or as to the possible issues in the case, is not only proper

but desirable.” Likewise, it is also improper to provide deftly worded conclusionar

answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at 783

Each answer in the response must be as complete and straightforward as the

information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an interrogatory

cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Code
LAW oFFicesOF
ALKUP ELODIA ELLY
‘SCHOENBERGER
_apnovesonal CORPORATION
1650 CALIFORNIA STREET MPA ISO PLAINTIFFS MTC FURTHER RESP FROM TESLA INC. RE RFA2, FROG3, SROG3 AND
SAN FRANGSED, CA #308 RFPD6 CASE NO. 19CV346663
Civ. Proc. § 2030.220

Here, good cause justifying the discovery exists because each of the requests

for production and contention interrogatories listed above are directly relevant to the

matters alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. As set forth in the requests themselves and

the Separate Statement provided herewith, these requests all deal with the subject

crash, Walter Huang s vehicle specifically, and/or Tesla s Autopilot system and

related technologies generally. (McDevitt Decl. (7-8, Exhibit 11.)

There is no legal basis for Tesla s position that Attorney Client Privilege and

Attorney Work Product Doctrine extends to the data that was analyzed and

published to create the Vehicle Safety Report merely because they pass through the

hands of an attorney. To receive these protections, the work must be done in

anticipation of litigation; reports that are created in the usual course of business are

not covered. See Suezaki v. Sup. Ct. (County of Santa Clara), (1962) 58 Cal.2d 166

) The Traffic Safety Report merely lists how many crashes involving a Tesla

occurred within a given year that had Autopilot engaged. Promotional materials used

to showcase statistics Tesla wishes to share with the public is not work prepared in

anticipation for litigation, specific to this litigation or otherwise Tesla must provide

supplemental responses identifying and producing all non privileged responsive

documents.

Tesla Must Withdraw Its Objections on the Basis of
Overbreadth, Burden, and Relevance

Tesla objected on the basis of overbreadth, burden, relevance, and related

theories to Requests for Production No. 214, Requests for Admissions No. ,

40 and 42 52, Form Interrogatories Set 3, No. 17.1 and Special Interrogatory No

48. It also materially limited its responses to all these requests on the grounds

that it was under no obligation to authenticate or address its own corporate officer

statements made to the public promoting and discussing Autopilot s capabilities.

The discovery statutes must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure
LAW oFFicesOF
ALKUP ELODIA ELLY
‘SCHOENBERGER
_apnovesonal CORPORATION
1650 CALIFORNIA STREET MPA ISO PLAINTIFFS MTC FURTHER RESP FROM TESLA INC. RE RFA2, FROG3, SROG3 AND
SAN FRANGSED, CA #308 RFPD6 CASE NO. 19CV346663
unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well established causes for denial.”

Greyhound v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d, 355, 377.) As explained by the

California Supreme Court, the proper rule is declared to be not only one of liberal

interpretation, but one that also recognizes that disclosure is a matter of right unless

statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it.” ( . at 378.)
Moreover, it is “ utterly indefensible for a party and attorney to “play judge

and jury and withhold evidence that “ in its opinion” are irrelevant or cumulative

or potentially privileged or otherwise inadmissible.” (Sherman v. Kinetic Concepts,

Inc. (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1152.) At this stage, [a]dmissibility is not the test and

information unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to

admissible evidence.” (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal. App.

1006, 1013.) For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably

assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement...”

Tesla is responsible for the statements made by its officers while acting as

corporate representatives. See Bullock v. Consumers’ Lumber Co., (1892)

3.Cal.Unrep. 609, 617 (statements from a corporation s president and managing

agent concerning a disputed contract could be used against the corporation). Per

California Evidence Code § 1222, the statements of Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla,

would unequivocally be deemed admissible as statements made by an authorized

agent.

Defendant s claims that the information cannot be authenticated due to a lack

of possession, custody, or control of original video recordings” or media produced by

external sources” are insufficient. Statements made by Defendant s CEO, acting in

within the scope of his authority can be authenticated by the CEO himself.

Additionally indefensible is Tesla s claim that Elon Musk s statements directly aimed

at convincing consumers of Autopilot s safety when drivers are distracted is

irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ claims.
LAW oFFicesOF
ALKUP ELODIA ELLY
‘SCHOENBERGER
_apnovesonal CORPORATION
1650 CALIFORNIA STREET MPA ISO PLAINTIFFS MTC FURTHER RESP FROM TESLA INC. RE RFA2, FROG3, SROG3 AND
SAN FRANGSED, CA #308 RFPD6 CASE NO. 19CV346663
The absurdity of Tesla s position is best demonstrated by their insistence that

such video statements that were placed on the Model X webpage during the time Mr.

Huang bought his Model X are irrelevant. See RFA Response No 36.) Public

statements by Teslas CEO regarding the capability, safety and limitations of

Autopilot pos ed on the Model X website directly speak to one of Plaintiffs theories of

liability: Tesla s marketing materials shaped consumer expectations. This is true

whether or not the model Tesla s CEO was driving in the subject video was the same

Model X Mr. Huang drove because they utilized the same software at issue. The

statements made by Tesla s CEO were specifically designed to encourage consumer

confidence in the safety of Autopilot, even when drivers do not use their hands or

feet. See Pilliod v. Monsanto Company, (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 591, 619 (consumer

expectations test was applicable in a case where defendant s marketing depicted

their herbicide as safe to use).

Further, the standard for relevancy for RFAs, per Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.010

and as explained in Cembrook v. Sup. Ct. In and For City and County of San

Francisco (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429, is relevancy to the subject matter, rather than

relevancy to the issues. Tesla s position inappropriately focuses on the exact issue

and admissibility of evidence, which California law does not support. Accordingly,

Tesla must withdraw their objections that statements made by its corporate officers

are irrelevant or otherwise outside the scope of discovery. Plaintiffs request an order

requiring production of responsive documents, answers to interrogatories and

requests for admissions not limited by prior objections.

E. This Motion is Timely

Tesla agreed to extend Plaintiffs’ deadline to file this Motion December 8,

2022. (McDevitt Decl. 49- Exhibits 12- It is therefore timely.

CONCLUSION

Tesla s responses to the at issue discovery are inadequate and fail to adhere to

the requirements of The Civil Discovery Act for the reasons stated above. The Court
LAW oFFicesOF
ALKUP ELODIA ELLY
‘SCHOENBERGER
_apnovesonal CORPORATION
1650 CALIFORNIA STREET MPA ISO PLAINTIFFS MTC FURTHER RESP FROM TESLA INC. RE RFA2, FROG3, SROG3 AND
SAN FRANGSED, CA #308 RFPD6 CASE NO. 19CV346663
should therefore grant this Motion and order Tesla to provide further responses

within two weeks of the hearing date.

Dated: December , 2022 ALKUP ELODIA ELLY CHOENBERGER

on Be Dy
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; HSI
KENG HUANG; AND CHING FEN HUANG

LAW oFFices OF
au ELODI ELLY
OENI
‘Doueawone! MPA ISO PLAINTIFFS MTC FURTHER RESP FROM TESLA INC. RE RFA2, FROG3, SROG3 AND
SAN FRANGSED, CA #308 RFPD6 CASE NO. 19CV346663
PROOF OF SERVICE

Huangv. Tesla, Inc., et. al.
Case No. 19CV346663

At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action.
I am employed in the county where the mailing took place, My business address is
650 California Street, 26th Floor, City and County of San Francisco, CA 94108 2615.

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

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM TESLA
INC. RE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO, FORM
INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET
THREE AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET SIX

Vincent Galvin, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant
Lauren O. Miller, Esq. TESLA, INC.
Tom Branigan, Esq. 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

Case Info

Judge

Sunil R. Kulkarni Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

May 22, 2023

Case Filing Date

April 26, 2019

County

Parties

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

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

Motion-Secondary: Sz Huang et al vs Tesla Inc. et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties