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
joel.smith@bowmanandbrooke.com
lauren.miller@bowmanandbrooke.com
Thomas Branigan (Pro Hac Vice)
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
41000 Woodward Avenue, Suite 200 East
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
Telephone: (248) 205.3300
Facsimile: (248) 205.3399
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 Hon. Evette
HSI KENG HUANG; and CHING FEN HUANG, Pennypacker; Dept. 6
17
DECLARATION OF RYAN A. MCCARTHY IN
18 Plaintiff, SUPPORT OF TESLA, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL
19 vs.
DATE: April 27, 2023
20 TESLA, INC. dba TESLA MOTORS INC. THE TIME: 00 a.m.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1 through DEPT.: 6
21 100,
22 Defendants.
23
24 I, Ryan A. McCarthy declare:
25 1 I am over the age of 18 years and competent to testify to the facts set forth in this
26 declaration, which are within my personal knowledge and, if called upon to testify, could testify truthfully as to
27 the same.
28
27883242v1 1
DECLARATION OF RYAN A. MCCARTHY IN SUPPORT OF TESLA, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND ELON MUSK DEPOSITION
2. I am Deputy General Counsel for the Product Litigation team at Tesla, Inc. In this role, | am
involved in directly litigating cases and managing outside counsel. In the course of my work at Tesla, I am directly
involved in gathering information for litigation.
3 Prior to Tesla, Inc. preparing and serving its Supplemental Responses to Request for Admission,
Set 2, Supplemental Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set 3, Supplemental Responses to Form Interrogatories,
Set 3, Supplemental Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set 6, Responses to Request for
Admission, Set 3, Request for Genuineness of Documents, Set 3, Form Interrogatories, Set 4, and Special
Interrogatories, Set 5, the language of the purported Elon Musk statements at issue in the discovery were provided
to Mr. Musk along with links to the video and audio recordings.
10 4 In response, Mr. Musk confirmed that he did not independently record the discussions, maintain
11 his own copies of the original recordings, did not take or have any notes, and could not specifically recall all of the
12 details of the video and audio recordings.
13 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 20, 2023, at
14 Glendale, California.
15
16
17
oS
18
19
20 Ryan A. McCarthy
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27883242v1 2
DECLARATION OF RYAN A. MCCARTHY IN SUPPORT OF TESLA, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND ELON MUSK DEPOSITION
Sz Hua Huang, et al. v. Tesla, Inc., et al.
Case No. 19CV346663
PROOF OF SERVICE
Iam over 18 years of age, not a party to this action and employed in San Jose, California at 1741
Technology Drive, Suite 200, San Jose, California 95110-1355.
On the date indicated below, I served the foregoing documents DECLARATION OF RYAN A.
McCARTHY IN SUPPORT OF TESLA’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL MUSK
STATEMENT, DISCOVERY AND DEPOSITION on all interested parties, or through their attorneys of
record, in the manner noted, addressed as follows:
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
B. Mark Fong
Seema Bhatt
10 Minami Tamaki LLP
101 Montgomery Street, 8" Floor
11 San Francisco, CA 94104
mfong@minamitamaki.com
12 sbhatt@minamitamaki.com
eoparowski@minamitamaki.com
13 Erica Sullivan: ESullivan@MinamiTamaki.com
Elise Everett: EEverett@MinamiTamaki.com
14
Michael A. Kelly
15 Doris Cheng
Andrew P. McDevitt
16 Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger
650 California Street, 26"" Floor
17 San Francisco, CA 94108
mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com
18 dcheng@walkuplawoffice.com
amcdevitt@walkuplawoffice.com
19 Ashley Freeman afreeman@walkuplawoffice.com
Marlena White mwhite@walkuplawoffice.com
20 Mahul Patel: mpatel@walkuplawoffice.com
serve@WalkupLawOffice.com
21
Attorneys for State of California
22 Landa Low
California Dept of Transportation-Legal Div.
23 P.O. Box 24325
Oakland, CA 94623-1325
24 Landa.low@dot.ca.go
Rosemary Love: rosemary.love@dot.ca.gov
25 Maria Cordonero: maria.cordonero@dot.ca.go
Skitch Crosby: skitch.crosby@dot.ca.gov
26
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL. I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at San Jose, California, in a
27 sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid thereof. I am readily familiar with the firms business practice for
collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. The mail is
28
4
21025562v1
deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is
more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
___ VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE. The documents were enveloped, properly
labeled, and caused to be deposited into an overnight delivery (Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc.)
receptacle or delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive
documents, in an envelope or a package designated by the express service carrier with delivery fees paid or
provided for, addressed to the person on whom it is to be served, at the office address as last given by that
person on any document filed in the case and served on that person; otherwise, at that person's place of
residence.
x BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE. The document was served electronically and the transmission was
reported as complete and without error. The document was served on the above parties in this action by causing
a true copy of said document to be transmitted by email pursuant to Emergency Rule 12 of Appendix I of the
California Rules of Court.
__ VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION. The document was served on the above party in this action by
10 causing a true copy of said document to be transmitted by facsimile to the number listed adjacent to the name on
this Proof of Service. The transmission was reported as complete and without error.
11
VIA PERSONAL SERVICE. I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand this date to the offices of
12 the addressee(s).
13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and
14 correct, and that this declaration was executed on April 20, 2023, at San Jose, California.
15
16
An
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21025562v1
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 joel.smith@bowmanandbrooke.com lauren.miller@bowmanandbrooke.com Thomas Branigan (Pro Hac Vice) BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP 41000 Woodward Avenue, Suite 200 East Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303 Telephone: (248) 205.3300 Facsimile: (248) 205.3399 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 Hon. Evette HSI KENG HUANG; and CHING FEN HUANG, Pennypacker; Dept. 6 17 DECLARATION OF RYAN A. MCCARTHY IN 18 Plaintiff, SUPPORT OF TESLA, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL 19 vs. DATE: April 27, 2023 20 TESLA, INC. dba TESLA MOTORS INC. THE TIME: 00 a.m. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1 through DEPT.: 6 21 100, 22 Defendants. 23 24 I, Ryan A. McCarthy declare: 25 1 I am over the age of 18 years and competent to testify to the facts set forth in this 26 declaration, which are within my personal knowledge and, if called upon to testify, could testify truthfully as to 27 the same. 28 27883242v1 1 DECLARATION OF RYAN A. MCCARTHY IN SUPPORT OF TESLA, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND ELON MUSK DEPOSITION 2. I am Deputy General Counsel for the Product Litigation team at Tesla, Inc. In this role, | am involved in directly litigating cases and managing outside counsel. In the course of my work at Tesla, I am directly involved in gathering information for litigation. 3 Prior to Tesla, Inc. preparing and serving its Supplemental Responses to Request for Admission, Set 2, Supplemental Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set 3, Supplemental Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set 3, Supplemental Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set 6, Responses to Request for Admission, Set 3, Request for Genuineness of Documents, Set 3, Form Interrogatories, Set 4, and Special Interrogatories, Set 5, the language of the purported Elon Musk statements at issue in the discovery were provided to Mr. Musk along with links to the video and audio recordings. 10 4 In response, Mr. Musk confirmed that he did not independently record the discussions, maintain 11 his own copies of the original recordings, did not take or have any notes, and could not specifically recall all of the 12 details of the video and audio recordings. 13 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 20, 2023, at 14 Glendale, California. 15 16 17 oS 18 19 20 Ryan A. McCarthy 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27883242v1 2 DECLARATION OF RYAN A. MCCARTHY IN SUPPORT OF TESLA, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND ELON MUSK DEPOSITION Sz Hua Huang, et al. v. Tesla, Inc., et al. Case No. 19CV346663 PROOF OF SERVICE Iam over 18 years of age, not a party to this action and employed in San Jose, California at 1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200, San Jose, California 95110-1355. On the date indicated below, I served the foregoing documents DECLARATION OF RYAN A. McCARTHY IN SUPPORT OF TESLA’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL MUSK STATEMENT, DISCOVERY AND DEPOSITION on all interested parties, or through their attorneys of record, in the manner noted, addressed as follows: Attorneys for Plaintiffs B. Mark Fong Seema Bhatt 10 Minami Tamaki LLP 101 Montgomery Street, 8" Floor 11 San Francisco, CA 94104 mfong@minamitamaki.com 12 sbhatt@minamitamaki.com eoparowski@minamitamaki.com 13 Erica Sullivan: ESullivan@MinamiTamaki.com Elise Everett: EEverett@MinamiTamaki.com 14 Michael A. Kelly 15 Doris Cheng Andrew P. McDevitt 16 Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger 650 California Street, 26"" Floor 17 San Francisco, CA 94108 mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com 18 dcheng@walkuplawoffice.com amcdevitt@walkuplawoffice.com 19 Ashley Freeman afreeman@walkuplawoffice.com Marlena White mwhite@walkuplawoffice.com 20 Mahul Patel: mpatel@walkuplawoffice.com serve@WalkupLawOffice.com 21 Attorneys for State of California 22 Landa Low California Dept of Transportation-Legal Div. 23 P.O. Box 24325 Oakland, CA 94623-1325 24 Landa.low@dot.ca.go Rosemary Love: rosemary.love@dot.ca.gov 25 Maria Cordonero: maria.cordonero@dot.ca.go Skitch Crosby: skitch.crosby@dot.ca.gov 26 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL. I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at San Jose, California, in a 27 sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid thereof. I am readily familiar with the firms business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. The mail is 28 4 21025562v1 deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. ___ VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE. The documents were enveloped, properly labeled, and caused to be deposited into an overnight delivery (Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc.) receptacle or delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, in an envelope or a package designated by the express service carrier with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person on whom it is to be served, at the office address as last given by that person on any document filed in the case and served on that person; otherwise, at that person's place of residence. x BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE. The document was served electronically and the transmission was reported as complete and without error. The document was served on the above parties in this action by causing a true copy of said document to be transmitted by email pursuant to Emergency Rule 12 of Appendix I of the California Rules of Court. __ VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION. The document was served on the above party in this action by 10 causing a true copy of said document to be transmitted by facsimile to the number listed adjacent to the name on this Proof of Service. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. 11 VIA PERSONAL SERVICE. I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand this date to the offices of 12 the addressee(s). 13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and 14 correct, and that this declaration was executed on April 20, 2023, at San Jose, California. 15 16 An 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21025562v1