Party Statement: Kevin Murphy vs. FCA US LLC

On November 16, 2017 a Party Statement was filed involving a dispute between Murphy, Julia, Murphy, Kevin, and Fca Us Llc, for 06 Unlimited - Breach of Contract/Warranty in the District Court of Fresno County.

Preview
E-FILED
8/14/2019 2:56 PM
Superior Court of California
County of Fresno
Brian K. Cline, State Bar no.: 246747
Nia K. Perkins, State Bar no.: 323892 By: L. Whipple, Deputy
CLINE, APC
7855 Ivanhoe Ave., Suite 408
La Jolla, CA 92037
858/373.9337
ia@clineapc.com

Attomey for Plaintiffs KEVIN MURPHY
and JULIA MURPHY

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO

B. F. SISK COURTHOUSE

10
KEVIN MURPHY Case Number: 17CECG03873
11 and JULIA MURPHY,

12 Plaintiffs,
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF NIA
13 VS.
K. PERKINS IN SUPPORT OF
14 PLAINTIFFS’REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S
FCA US, LLC.; and DOES 1 through 10, OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
15 inclusive, TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF
DEFENDANT’S PERSON MOST
16 Defendants. KNOWLEDGEABLE
17 Date: August 21, 2019
Time: 3:30 pm
18 Place: Department 403
19

PERKINS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY
DECLARATION OF NIA K. PERKINS

I, NIA K. PERKINS, declare as follows:

1 lam over the age of 18 and not a party to the action. I am an attorney at law, duly

admitted and licensed to practice before all courts of this State. | am an attorney for Plaintiffs,

KEVIN MURPHY AND JULIA MURPHY (“Plaintiffs”), in this action and my knowledge of

the information and events described herein derives from a combination of my personal

knowledge and a careful review of the file, and relevant court records, and if called as a witness,

I could and would competently testify thereto.

2 I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition

10 of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable and production of documents.

11 Defendant’s Continuous Obstruct and Delay Tactics

12 3 On November 26, 2018, Plaintiffs served Defendant with a Notice of Deposition

13 of its Person Most Knowledgeable and Production of Documents. A true and correct copy of

14 Plaintiffs’ Deposition Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

15 4 On January 2, 2019, Defendant responded to Plaintiffs’ deposition notice with

16 objections. Defendant objected to the date itself as well as every single category and document

17 request. A true and correct copy of Defendant’s discovery responses are attached hereto as

18 Exhibit 2.

19 5 Upon receiving the objections to the Plaintiffs’ Notice, Declarant began attempting

20 to obtain dates from Defendant. Declarant emailed Defendant’s counsel on several occasions

21 asking for deposition dates. Declarant also spoke to Defendant’s counsel, Brett Wanner on the

22 telephone personally, requesting deposition dates to which Defendant’s counsel assured

23 Defendant would provide. Defendant’s counsel never provided such dates and effectively ignored

24 my requests. True and correct copies of Plaintiffs’ requests for deposition dates are attached

25 hereto as Exhibit 3.

26 Ml

27 Ml

28
1
PERKINS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF
DEFENDANT’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Defendant’s Mischaracterization of Declarant’s Email Correspondence

6. Defendant’s Opposition quoted Declarants email statements out of context. Below

is the full context wherein Plaintiff emailed statements regarding the Court’s order from the

Informal Discovery Conference.
7
On August 6, 2019, Defendant’s counsel, Mr. Wanner emailed Declarant,

requesting Plaintiffs take their Motion off calendar. Declarant explained that she would remove

the Motion to Compel as soon as the parties exchanged dates pursuant to the Court’s order, and

that the parties did not have to wait until August 16, 2019 to exchange dates. Declarant further

explained that since the Court ordered Defendant’s dealership PMK to be deposed first, Plaintiffs

10 were awaiting Defendant’s availability. Once received, Declarant would provide Mr. Wanner with

11 Plaintiffs’ availability. A true and correct copies of the August 6, 2019 email correspondence

12 between Mr. Wanner and Declarant is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.

13 8 On August 8, 2019, Mr. Wanner emailed Declarant, insisting that Plaintiffs remove

14 the Motion to Compel immediately, and threatened to pursue sanctions. Declarant responded that

15 that it was her understanding that the Motion to Compel would be removed pursuant to

16 compliance with the Court order. Declarant also explained that she was happy to take the Motion

17 off Calendar that very day, if Defendant would stipulate that Plaintiffs could place the Motion

18 back on calendar without Defendant objecting to timeliness if Defendant failed to comply with

19 the Court order and provide Deposition dates. A true and correct copies of the August 8, 2019

20 email correspondence between Mr. Wanner and Declarant is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.

21 9 Defendant refused to stipulate to act in compliance with the Court order and allow

22 Plaintiffs to place the Motion back on calendar upon failure to comply.

23 10. On August 13, 2019, Plaintiffs’ reached out to Defendant via email, as an effort to

24 meet and confer over the deposition dates. In good faith, Declarant provided Plaintiffs’

25 availability for August through October. Declarant explained that Plaintiffs’ were flexible in

26 September and October and that whatever date Defendant could provide, Plaintiffs’ would be

27 open to be deposed soon thereafter. In response, Defendant rejected Plaintiffs’ meet and confer

28
2
PERKINS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF
DEFENDANT’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
effort, insisted that Plaintiffs’ had somehow “forced [Defendant] to oppose”, accused Plaintiffs’

counsel of “backtracking,” and failed to provide Plaintiffs’ with Defendant’s availability. A true

and correct copy of the August 13, 2019 email correspondence between Mr. Wanner and

Declarant is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.

11. The deadline to file a Reply to Defendant’s Opposition has approached, and to this

day, Defendant has yet to provide dates for their PMK to be deposed.

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

true and correct.

10
DATED: August 14, 2019
11
/?
12 lla x
13 NI K. PERKINS

28
3
PERKINS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF
DEFENDANT’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
EXHIBIT 1
BRIAN K. CLINE, SBN 246747
MICHAEL DEVLIN, SBN 265365
7855 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 408
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: 858. 459.2603
Facsimile: 858.454.3548

Attorneys for Plaintiff KEVIN MURPHY
And JULIA MURPHY

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF FRESNO - B.F. SISK COURTHOUSE

10 KEVIN MURPHY and JULIA MURPHY, Case Number: 17CECG03873

11 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
OF THE PERSON MOST
12 vs.
KNOWLEDGEABLE FOR FCA US, LLC
13 FCA US, LLC; and DOES | through 10, AND DEMAND TO PRODUCE
inclusive, DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION
14

15 Defendants. DATE: January 7, 2019
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
16
PLACE: 12777 W. Jefferson Blvd
17 Bldg. D, Ste 300
Los Angeles, CA 90066
18

20 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

21 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff KEVIN MURPHY and JULIA MURPHY

22 (“Plaintiff”) will take the deposition of the Person(s) Most Knowledgeable of Defendant FCA US.

23 LLC (“Defendant”) on January 7, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., at 12777 W. Jefferson Blvd, Bldg. D, Ste

24 300, Los Angeles, CA 90066, before a person qualified under Code of Civil Procedure §2025.230|

25 Said deposition will be taken pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2025.010, et seq.; it wil

26 be taken upon oral examination before a qualified Notary Public and Reporter authorized to

27 administer oaths, with a written record made thereof, and may be videotaped to be used at the time

Page |
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
of trial. If for any reason the deposition cannot be completed on the aforementioned date, at the

option of the party noticing this deposition it shall either be continued from day to day, Saturdays.

Sundays, and holidays excluded, or continued until a date certain as determined by the part

noticing this deposition.

YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that FCA US, LLC is hereby requested and required ta

“designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents.

employees or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf” as to those matters described)

in Exhibit “A” hereto known or reasonably available to the deponent.

YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedurd

10 §2025.220(a)(4), Plaintiff hereby requests that you produce for inspection and copying the

11 documents described and set forth in Exhibit “B” hereto.

12 Said documents are within the possession, custody or control of Defendant or Defendant's

13 agents or attorneys, are relevant to the subject matter of this action or reasonably calculated to lead)

14 to the discovery of admissible evidence, and are not privileged.

15 Said documents shall be produced for inspection and copying at the above location.

16 Said documents to be produced shall be the originals thereof, unless said originals are

17 destroyed or unavailable, in which case true, correct and legible copies thereof may be produced 1

18 lieu of said originals.

19 If an interpreter is required to translate testimony, notice that an interpreter is needed mus

20 be given at least three (3) days before the deposition date, including the specific dialect needed.

21
Dated: November 26, 2018
2 2
23
Brow ~

24 MICHAEL DEVLIN
25 Attorney for Plaintiff KEVIN MURPHY

Page 2
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS TO “EXHIBIT A” & “EXHIBIT B”

1 The term “YOU,” “YOUR,” and “DEFENDANT” shall mean Defendant FCA US,

LLC and any and all agents, representatives, assigns, successors, dealerships, individuals, and/or

businesses who represent themselves to be affiliated with, or work for, FCA US, LLC.

2. The term “DOCUMENT” shall be interpreted in accordance with California

Evidence Code section 250 and also to include electronic mails and electronically stored

information.

3 The term “PERSON” means and includes natural persons, corporations,

10 partnerships, associations, or any type of entity, and agents, servants, employees and

11 representatives thereof.

12 4 The term “SUBJECT VEHICLE” means 2015 Dodge Ram 2500; Vehicle

13 Identification Number 3C6URSCL7FG628983, purchased by Plaintiff.

14 5 The term “FCA VEHICLES” refers to all vehicles of the same make, model, and

15 year as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

16 6. The term “ENGINE DEFECT(S)” shall refer to problems that manifest in the

17 activation of the check engine light (CEL), oil leaking from the front and/or rear
18 of the engine/drivetrain, persistent oil/fluid residue from fluid leak, fluid/oil leak
19 from rear main seal area of the drivetrain, consistent low engine oil, or any other

20 similar concern identified in the repair history for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
7
21 The term “REPAIR DOCUMENTS” shall mean any and all documents which

22 describe, outline, detail, or otherwise specify diagnostic and repair procedures to be used by

23 Defendant’s technicians. Such term shall be understood to include relevant portions of the

24 Workshop Manual, Technical Service Bulletins, Recall Notices, Special Service Messages,

25 Campaign Bulletins, Diagnostic Flow Charts, Diagnostic Trouble Code or Fault Code Diagnosis

26 Keys, power point presentations, internal investigation reports, field reports, causal factor

Page 3
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
analyses, failed component analyses, and/or any other document which refer to, relate, or

concern the repairs performed by Defendant’s technicians.

8 The term “LEMON LAW DOCUMENTS” means any and all documents relating

to Defendant’s handling of state Lemon Law obligations, including documents describing

Lemon Law Situations, Lemon Law Prevention, Repeat Repair Attempts, Consumer Protection

Laws, Lemon Laws, Lemon Law Manuals, Lemon Law Complaints, and Magnusson Moss Act,

State lemon Laws and/or Lemon Law advice. This term includes portions of any and all manuals

containing discussions of state Lemon Law requirements, Defendant’s policies and procedures

regarding ensuring compliance with state Lemon Law requirements, Defendant’s instructions to

10 its employees, agents, and representatives regarding state Lemon Law requirements,

11 Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding repeat repair visits, Defendant’s policies and

12 procedures regarding defect reporting, Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding technical

13 service bulletin drafting, Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding recall drafting,

14 Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding Lemon Law prevention, Defendant’s policies and

15 procedures regarding warranty claims, etc.

Page 4
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
EXHIBIT “A”

MATTERS ON WHICH THE DEPONENT IS TO BE EXAMINED

1 Questions relating to the nature and extent of all of the service history and warranty

history relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE;

2. Questions relating to the applicable warranties provided by YOU covering the

SUBJECT VEHICLE;

3 Questions relating to all COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any other

PERSON regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

4 Questions relating to all service advisory notices, technical service bulletins, recalls,

10 defect investigations, and other REPAIR DOCUMENTS relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE;

11 5 Questions regarding the nature, extent, and substance of correspondence between

12 YOU, and other persons or entities regarding ENGINE DEFECTS in FCA VEHICLES;

13 6. Questions regarding the nature of the ENGINE DEFECTS, including the cause of

14 the ENGINE DEFECTS in FCA VEHICLES, all available fixes that have been made available

15 to your authorized dealers to date, and the subsequent results of such fixes;
7
16 Questions regarding YOUR ongoing efforts to repair or remedy the ENGINE

17 DEFECTS, including all internal tests, investigations and the number of modifications made to

18 the body panels or related parts, as a result of ENGINE DEFECTS;

19 8 Questions regarding the terms of YOUR Owners’ manual, maintenance schedule,

20 YOUR express warranty or any extended warranty that might be in effect for the SUBJECT

21 VEHICLE;

22 9. Questions regarding all REPAIR DOCUMENTS that YOU have issued to YOUR

23 dealers and/or consumers regarding the ENGINE DEFECTS or other non-conformities

24 experienced by Plaintiff with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE;

25 10. Questions regarding all available repairs for the ENGINE DEFECTS and

26 approximate dates on which those repairs were made available to your dealers;

Page 5
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
11. Questions relating to all COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and Plaintiff, or

anyone on Plaintiff's behalf;

12. Questions regarding YOUR failure to promptly repurchase the SUBJECT

VEHICLE;

13. Questions regarding YOUR reason for not offering a repurchase or replacement

prior to the commencement of this lawsuit;

14. Questions regarding the factual and evidentiary support for your denials listed in

your Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint;

15. Questions regarding the factual and evidentiary support for the affirmative defenses

10 listed in your Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint;

11 16. Questions regarding the factual and evidentiary support for any contention that the

12 SUBJECT VEHICLE does not qualify for a repurchase or replacement under the Song-Beverly

13 Consumer Warranty Act;

14 17. Questions relating to the process that is in place and has been in place for the last

15 three years relating to YOUR evaluations of requests by YOUR customers to have vehicles

16 repurchased pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1793.2, including any policies and

17 procedures regarding the repurchasing of SUBJECT VEHICLE due to ENGINE DEFECTS;

18 18. Questions regarding YOUR policies and procedures to ensure you are in compliance

19 with the requirements of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act;

20 19. Questions regarding your procedures to implement YOUR compliance with the

21 requirements of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act;

22 20. Questions regarding YOUR third-party dispute resolution program;

23 21. Questions concerning how YOU calculate restitution offered to consumers pursuant

24 to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act;

25 22. Questions regarding YOUR efforts to preserve relevant and discoverable

26 information in this matter, including, but not limited to, any preservation letters, the custodians

Page 6
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
upon whom such preservation letters were sent, the efforts undertaken to prevent against the

deletion or destruction of information, etc.

23. Questions regarding YOUR efforts to search for documents and information

responsive to Plaintiff's discovery requests in this matter, including, but not limited to, the

sources of information (both hard copy and electronic databases) searched, the search methods

employed, the search terms employed, the identification of custodians for such sources of

information, etc.

24. Questions regarding YOUR document retention policy from 2015 to the present,

including retention policies for electronic data and communications.

Page 7
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
EXHIBIT “B”

ITEMS TO BE PRODUCED

1 All post-delivery and pre-delivery repair orders pertaining to the SUBJECT

VEHICLE in your possession and control, including all technicians’ and/or mechanics’ notes

pertaining to the vehicle.

2 The warranty repair history relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE as kept in its

ordinary course of business by YOU and/or YOUR authorized repair facilities.

3 All internal reports, memoranda, correspondence, and regional field reports

pertaining to the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

10 4. All reports, memoranda, correspondence, zone office reports and/or any othe:

11 documentation created by YOU or YOUR authorized dealership(s) due to Plaintiff's contact wit!

12 YOU or YOUR authorized dealership(s) by way of either writing, telephone, or in person.

13 5 All records, invoices, and other documentation relating to the lease of the SUBJECT]

14 VEHICLE.

15 6. All copies of all written warranties issued by YOU and/or its authorized dealership(s

16 regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE. This request is being made to obtain an authentic, unaltere:

17 copy.
7
18 Any and all documents relied upon by YOU in formulating YOUR Answer an

19 affirmative defenses.

20 8 The Workshop Manual or comparable repair manual kept in electronic format fo

21 technicians to use in repairing FCA VEHICLES, as well as any and all related diagnostic and/o!

22 repair procedures.

23 9 All documents YOU provide YOUR authorized repair facilities regarding diagnosing

24 and repairing ENGINE DEFECTS in FCA VEHICLES.

25 10. All documents upon which YOU rely upon in believing that YOUR failure to

26 promptly repurchase the SUBJECT VEHICLE was not willful.

27 11. All documents YOU have issued with respect to the ENGINE DEFECTS that

Page 8
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
Plaintiff has experienced with the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

12. Any and all documents, papers, correspondence, memos, repair orders, work orders.

computer print-outs, vehicle inquiry reports, documents, or receipts evidencing the performance o

any repair work, whether covered under YOUR warranty or not, done to the SUBJECT VEHICLE

13. YOUR Warranty Policy & Procedure Manual kept in the ordinary course of business

and distributed to YOUR authorized repair facilities.

14. All documents that YOU or YOUR representatives use to evaluate consumers

request for vehicle repurchase, including any all documents used to evaluate consumers’ requests

for vehicle repurchase related to the ENGINE DEFECTS.

10 15. Please produce all documents, including electronically stored information (including

11 electronic data and e-mails), concerning or relating to any communications YOU have had regarding

12 the ENGINE DEFECTS, including the cause of the defect.

13 16. Please produce all documents, including electronically stored information (including

14 electronic data and e-mails), concerning or relating in any way to any decision to issue any notices.

15 letters, campaigns, warranty extensions, technical service bulletins and recalls concerning th¢

16 ENGINE DEFECTS.

17 17. Please produce all documents, including electronically stored information (including

18 electronic data and e-mails), concerning or relating in any way to any decision to modify the bod.

19 panels and/or any of the related component parts used in YOUR vehicles which are the same year.

20 make, and model as the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

21 18. Please produce all documents, including electronically stored information (including

22 electronic data and e-mails), concerning or relating in any way to any internal analysis o1

23 investigation by YOU or on YOUR behalf regarding the ENGINE DEFECTS in FCA VEHICLES.

24 19. Please produce all documents, records and data, including electronically store

25 information (including electronic data and e-mails), concerning customer complaints, claims.

26 reported failures, and warranty claims related to the ENGINE DEFECTS, including any databases

27 in YOUR possession with information from dealers, service departments, parts departments, o

Page 9
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
warranty departments, and all documents concerning YOUR response to each complaint, claim, o

reported failure.

20. Please produce each and every service bulletin, warranty extension, recall, or othe

similar communications, notifications, correspondence or writings between YOU and dealers.

technicians, or owners concerning the ENGINE DEFECTS, whether national, regional, general

safety, voluntary or mandatory, along with any related documents, data or other informatio!

concerning the same.

21. Please produce all correspondence, including letters, notes, memos, emails, an

notices, between YOU and any manufacturer or material supplier concerning problems or potential

10 problems or concerns about the ENGINE DEFECTS.

11 22. Please produce all documents, including electronically stored information (including

12 electronic data and e-mails), concerning or relating to any fixes for the ENGINE DEFECTS.

13 23. Please produce all documents, including electronically stored information (including

14 electronic data and e-mails), concerning or relating to any permanent fixes of the ENGINH

15 DEFECTS.

16 24. Please produce all documents, including electronically stored information (including

17 electronic data and e-mails), that YOU have in YOUR possession that relate to the casual o

18 contributing factors of the ENGINE DEFECTS.

19 25. Please produce all LEMON LAW DOCUMENTS.

20 26. Please produce all documents, including electronically stored information (including

21 electronic data and e-mails), concerning or relating in any way to any BMW OF NORTH

22 AMERICA, LLC, employee, subsidiary, department, and/or division reporting or organizationa

23 structure and/or charts effective from 2015 to the present, including any organizational chart or othe

24 documents describing any reporting or superior subordinate relationship, or any policies an

25 procedures regarding communications between employees, subsidiaries, departments, and/o

26 divisions.

27 27. Please produce all documents, including electronically stored information (including

Page 10
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
1 electronic data and e-mails), setting forth YOUR document retention policy from 2015 to th¢

present, including retention policies for electronic data and communications.

28. Please produce all DOCUMENTS relating to all COMMUNICATIONS betwee:

YOU and any other PERSON regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

Page 11
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
EXHIBIT 2
JON D. UNIVERSAL, SBN 141255
JAMES P. MAYO, SBN 169897
NEJLA NASSIRIAN, SBN 308730
ADAM G. KHAN, SBN 296617
BRETT H. WANNER, SBN 314025
BOBBY C. WALKER, SBN 321788
UNIVERSAL & SHANNON, LLP
2240 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 290
Roseville, California 95661
Telephone: (916) 780-4050
Facsimile: (916) 780-9070
Attomeys for Defendant FCA US LLC

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF FRESNO
10

MW
KEVIN MURPHY and Case No.: 17CECG03873
12 JULIA MURPHY, Assigned to Judge Rosemary McGuire,
Department 403
13
Plaintiffs, Action Filed: November 22, 2017
14 Trial Date: April 15,2019
vs.
15 DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S
FCA US LLC; and DOES |through 10, OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE
16 OF DEPOSITION OF THE PERSON
Defendants. MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE FOR FCA
7 US, LLC AND DEMAND TO PRODUCH
DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION
18
DATE: January 7, 2019
19 TIME: 10:00 a.m.
PLACE: 12777 W, Jefferson Blvd.
20 Bldg. D, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA eeeee
21

22 Defendant FCA US LLC (“FCA”) hereby objects to Plaintiff's Notice ofDepoititin bf
Most Knowledgeable for FCA US, LLC and Demand to Produce Documents pt
the Person

4 Deposition dated November 26, 2018 and noticed for January 7, 2019, as follows:
25 GENERAL OBJECTIONS
26 1 Neither FCA US’ witness(es) nor its legal counsel are available on the date and

27 time noticed. FCA further objects because the date, location and time of the deposition were

28 unilaterally set without regard to defense counsel's availability or the availability of the witnessqs.
1
DEFENDANT FCA US LLC'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF THE PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEAB! iE
FOR FCA US, LLC AND DEMAND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION
2 FCA US also objects to the deposition location as burdensome and oppressive.

OBJECTIONS TO WITNESS MATTERS OF EXAMINATION CATEGORIES
1 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, and seeks expert
opinion.
2. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad and lacks foundation.
3. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, and neither relevarit

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as
seeking information which may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attomey work-

product doctrine.
10 4. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, seeks expert
i opinion, neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

12 Further objection as vague, ambiguous and overbroad as to the terms “REPAIR DOCUMENTS)’.
13 5. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, seeks expert
14 opinion, neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

15 Further objection as vague, ambiguous and overbroad as to the terms “ENGINE DEFECTS” and
16 “FCA VEHICLES”. Further objection as seeking information which may be protected by the
17 attorney-client privilege and the attommey work-product doctrine.

18 6. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, seeks expert

19 opinion, neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
20 Further objection as vague, ambiguous and overbroad as to the terms “ENGINE DEFECTS” and
21 “FCA VEHICLES”, Further objection as seeking information which may be protected by the
attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine.
23 7. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, seeks expert
24 opinion, neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Further objection as vague, ambiguous and overbroad as to the terms “ENGINE DEFECTS”.
26 Further objection as seeking information which may be protected by the attomey-client privilege
ar and the attorney work-product doctrine.
28 8. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, seeks expert
2
DEFENDANT FCA US LLC'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF THE PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABUE
FCA US, LLC AND DEMAND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITI
opinion, neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidencp.
Further objection as vague, ambiguous and overbroad as to the term “YOUR”. Further objectiqn
as seeking information which may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorngy
work-product doctrine,
9. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, seeks expert

opinion, neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Further objection as vague, ambiguous and overbroad as to the terms “YOUR”, “ENGINE
DEFECTS” and “REPAIR DOCUMENTS”. Further objection as seeking information which may
be protected by the attomey-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine.
10 10. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, seeks expert

i opinion, neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
12 Further objection as vague, ambiguous and overbroad as to the terms “ENGINE DEFECTS)”.

B Further objection as seeking information which may be protected by the attorney-client privilege
14 and the attorney work-product doctrine.
15 11. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, and neither relevant
16 nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
7 12, Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, seeks expert

18 opinion, neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
19 Further objection as vague, ambiguous and overbroad as to the term “YOUR”.
20 13, Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, seeks expert and le;
21 opinion, neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible eviden
22 Further objection as vague, ambiguous and overbroad as to the term “YOUR”.
23 14, Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, seeks expert and le;
24 opinion, neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible eviden
25 Further objection as vague, ambiguous and overbroad as to the term “YOUR”.
15. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, seeks expert and le;
27 opinion, neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible eviden
28 Further objection as vague, ambiguous and overbroad as to the term “YOUR”.
3
DEFENDANT FCA US LLC'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF THE PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEAB!
FOR FCA US, LLC AND DEMAND TO. DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION
16, Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, seeks legal and
expert opinion, and neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence
17. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, seeks expert and leghl
opinion, neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Further objection as vague, ambiguous and overbroad as to the terms “YOUR” “ENGINE
DEFECTS”.
18. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, seeks expert and legal
opinion, neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidenc|

10 Further objection as vague, ambiguous and overbroad as to the term “YOUR”.
iW 19. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, seeks expert and leg}
12 opinion, neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
13 Further objection as vague, ambiguous and overbroad as to the term “YOUR”
4 20. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, neither relevant no

15 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as vague,
16 ambiguous and overbroad as to the term “YOUR”.
17 21. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, seeks expert and le;

18 opinion, neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible eviden
19 Further objection as vague, ambiguous and overbroad as to the term “YOU”.
20 22. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, seeks expert and le;
21 opinion, neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible eviden
22 Further objection as vague, ambiguous and overbroad as to the term “YOUR”
23 23. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, seeks expert and le;

24 opinion, neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible eviden
25 Further objection as vague, ambiguous and overbroad as to the term “YOUR”.
26 24, Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, lacks foundation, seeks expert and le;

opinion, neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of ee eviden
28 Further objection as vague, ambiguous and overbroad as to the term “YOUR”.
4
DEFENDANT
FCA US LLC'S IFFS’ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF THE PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEAB!
FOR FCA US, LUC AND DEMAND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AT DEPCSITION
IONS TO R PR IN IME)

1. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
2. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
3. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
4, Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence.
10 5. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the

MW discovery of admissible evidence.
12 6. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the

3 discovery of admissible evidence.
4 7. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the
1s discovery of admissible evidence.

16 8. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the

17 discovery of admissible evidence.
18 9. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the
19 discovery of admissible evidence.
20 10, Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the
21 discovery of admissible evidence.
11. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the
23 discovery of admissible evidence.
24 12. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the

25 discovery of admissible evidence.

26 13. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant anit not calculated to lead to the
27 discovery of admissible evidence.
28 14. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to te
5
DEFENDANT FCA US LLC'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF THE PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE
FOR FCA US, LLC AND DEMAND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION
discovery of admissible evidence.
15, Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence,
16, Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence.
17. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence.
18, Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.

10 19. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the
i discovery of admissible evidence.

12 20. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the

13 discovery of admissible evidence.
14 21. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the
15 discovery of admissible evidence.
16 22. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the
17 discovery of admissible evidence.

18 23. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the
9 discovery of admissible evidence.

20 24. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the
21 discovery of admissible evidence.
22 25. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the

23 discovery of admissible evidence.
24 26. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the

25 discovery of admissible evidence.

26 27. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the

27 discovery of admissible evidence.

28 //1
6
DEFENDANT FCA US LLC'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF THE PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE
FOR FCA US, LLC AND DEMAND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITIO}
28. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.

DATED: January be 2019 UNIVERSAL & SHANNON, LLP
-

D. UNIVERSAL,
NEJLA NASSIRIAN, E!
Attorneys for Defendant FCA US LLC

7
DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF THE PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGE. saa iE
FOR FCA US, LLC AND DEMAND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION
PROOF OF SERVICE
MERE wets & ‘al V. FCA US He ET At sacausets

I am employed in the County of Placer, State of California. 1 am over the age of 18 and
not a arty to the within action. My business address is 2240 Douglas Blvd., Suite 290,
Roseville, California 95661.
On the date below, I served the following document described as DEFENDANT FCA
US LLC’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’, NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF THE
PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE FOR FCA US, LLC AND DEMAND TO
PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION on all interested parties in this action by
lacing a true copy Othe original thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as
follows:

Brian K. Cline, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff
10 Michael Devlin, Esq. PH: (858) 459-2603
i
CLINE A

Case Info

Judge

McGuire, Rosemary Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

August 14, 2019

Case Filing Date

November 16, 2017

County

Parties

Cline, Brian K. Attorney for the Plaintiff
FCA US LLC Defendant
Murphy, Julia Plaintiff
Murphy, Kevin Plaintiff
Universal, Jon D. Attorney for the Defendant
Nia Perkins Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Michael Devlin Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Robert Pecora Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Lukas Bylund Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Nejla Nassirian Attorneys for Defendants
Mark Julius Attorneys for Defendants
Jason Braxton Attorneys for Defendants
Adam Khan Attorneys for Defendants
Brett Wanner Attorneys for Defendants
Bobby Walker Attorneys for Defendants

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

Party Statement: Kevin Murphy vs. FCA US LLC

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties