Preview
kg ‘v
.4
EOWh-f-AP fiNE B(SBONOEE6L5LP SUPER 0R COURTOFECDALIFO RN IA
rian a a as i 4 05)
:
'
Theodore Dorenkamp m (SBN: 277004) CSEbTEVESfiAZADflNBSBTSfiw"
3343769)
§?8Wafi‘éé‘33”
es t treet, uite 700
JUL 2 1 2023
Torrance, California 90502
Tel No.2
Fax No.:
(310) 768-3068
(310)719-1019
BY:
J
Richard Machain, Deputy
Attorneys for Defendant
O(DWVGUIAQJN
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
BERNRADO HORTA RODRIGUEZ, )
CASE NO.: CIVSBZZ171 67
)
Plaintiff, )
Assigned to: Hon. Brian S. McCarviIle
)
Department: S30
vs. )
)
DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA
)
MOTOR CO., |NC.’S OPPOSITION
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., )
TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE
|NC., a California Corporation, and )
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, )
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
)
RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR
Defendant. )
PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS
)
SET ONE FROM DEFENDANT
)
)
Date: August 2, 2023
) Time: 8:30 a.m.
) Dept.: S30
)
) Action Filed: August 05,2022
) Trial: Not Yet Set
DefendantAmerican Honda Motor CO., |nc., (“AHM”) hereby submits its Opposition
to Plaintiffs Separate Statement in support of his Motion to Compel Further Discovery
Responses from Defendant, and Request for Sanctions - First Set of Request for
Production of Documents.
// /
/ / /
/ / /
28296114v1 1
DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., |NC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES T0 REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE FROM DEFENDANT
REQUEST FOR PROQJCTIQN N0. 18:
The operative Franchise Agreement, if any, on the date of sale of the SUBJECT
VEHICLE between YOU and the dealership that sold the SUBJECT VEHICLE to Plaintiff.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:
AHM objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly
O(OQNQU'IAQJNA
burdensome, oppressive, and as asking for information that is not relevant to the subject
matter of this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Moreover, as phrased, the request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
fails to describe with reasonable particularity the documents or categories of documents
being requested in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030(c)(1). Subject
to and without waiving these objections, not applicable. There are no franchise
agreements between AHM and its authorized dealerships.
EASON§ WHY A FLLRTHER R§§PONS§ SHOUIE COMPw
This response is not Code compliant, is replete with meritless objections, and a
further response should be compelled. The Code of Civil Procedure requires that a
response to a request for production must consist of: (1) an agreement to comply, stating
whether the productions or inspection will be allowed “in whole or in part,” and that all
documents or things in the possession, custody, or control of the respondent, as to which
NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA
mflmmth—‘OOQVODU'IAWNA
no objection is made, wi|| be included, by date set for inspection (unless informally
extended in writing, or the designated timing is subject to objection); (2) a representation
of inability to comply, with a specification of any person believed or known to have
possession of documents; or (3) objections and specification of withheld documents. (§
2031.210 subd. (a), 2031.220, 2031.270, 2031.280 subd. (b); Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro
Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2012) 1111 8: 1469-8z1474.) American Honda does not
“identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored
information falling within [the] category of item in the demand,” as is required in the case
of objections, and therefore fails to comply with Section 2031 .240(b)(1).
///
282961 14v1 2
DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., |NC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF‘S SEPARATE
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE FROM DEFENDANT
Preview
kg ‘v .4 EOWh-f-AP fiNE B(SBONOEE6L5LP SUPER 0R COURTOFECDALIFO RN IA rian a a as i 4 05) : ' Theodore Dorenkamp m (SBN: 277004) CSEbTEVESfiAZADflNBSBTSfiw" 3343769) §?8Wafi‘éé‘33” es t treet, uite 700 JUL 2 1 2023 Torrance, California 90502 Tel No.2 Fax No.: (310) 768-3068 (310)719-1019 BY: J Richard Machain, Deputy Attorneys for Defendant O(DWVGUIAQJN AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO BERNRADO HORTA RODRIGUEZ, ) CASE NO.: CIVSBZZ171 67 ) Plaintiff, ) Assigned to: Hon. Brian S. McCarviIle ) Department: S30 vs. ) ) DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA ) MOTOR CO., |NC.’S OPPOSITION AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., ) TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE |NC., a California Corporation, and ) STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, ) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ) RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR Defendant. ) PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS ) SET ONE FROM DEFENDANT ) ) Date: August 2, 2023 ) Time: 8:30 a.m. ) Dept.: S30 ) ) Action Filed: August 05,2022 ) Trial: Not Yet Set DefendantAmerican Honda Motor CO., |nc., (“AHM”) hereby submits its Opposition to Plaintiffs Separate Statement in support of his Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Defendant, and Request for Sanctions - First Set of Request for Production of Documents. // / / / / / / / 28296114v1 1 DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., |NC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES T0 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE FROM DEFENDANT REQUEST FOR PROQJCTIQN N0. 18: The operative Franchise Agreement, if any, on the date of sale of the SUBJECT VEHICLE between YOU and the dealership that sold the SUBJECT VEHICLE to Plaintiff. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: AHM objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly O(OQNQU'IAQJNA burdensome, oppressive, and as asking for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, as phrased, the request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and fails to describe with reasonable particularity the documents or categories of documents being requested in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030(c)(1). Subject to and without waiving these objections, not applicable. There are no franchise agreements between AHM and its authorized dealerships. EASON§ WHY A FLLRTHER R§§PONS§ SHOUIE COMPw This response is not Code compliant, is replete with meritless objections, and a further response should be compelled. The Code of Civil Procedure requires that a response to a request for production must consist of: (1) an agreement to comply, stating whether the productions or inspection will be allowed “in whole or in part,” and that all documents or things in the possession, custody, or control of the respondent, as to which NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA mflmmth—‘OOQVODU'IAWNA no objection is made, wi|| be included, by date set for inspection (unless informally extended in writing, or the designated timing is subject to objection); (2) a representation of inability to comply, with a specification of any person believed or known to have possession of documents; or (3) objections and specification of withheld documents. (§ 2031.210 subd. (a), 2031.220, 2031.270, 2031.280 subd. (b); Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2012) 1111 8: 1469-8z1474.) American Honda does not “identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within [the] category of item in the demand,” as is required in the case of objections, and therefore fails to comply with Section 2031 .240(b)(1). /// 282961 14v1 2 DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., |NC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF‘S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE FROM DEFENDANT