On September 21, 2020 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Clark, Jeryl,
and
General Motors, Llca Delaware Limited Liability Company,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ. (SBN 219230)
BRIAN J. KIM, ESQ. (SBN 333821) ERmRDINO
THE BARRY LAW FIRM CSWBFSSASRQMO mSTRICT
11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1270W
Los Angeles, CA 90064 MAR 0 1 2022
Telephone: 310.684.5859
A Facsimile: 310.862.4539
Attorneys for Plaintiff, JERYL CLARK
a
J30
\OOONONU‘
1f
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO — SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER
10
11 JERYL CLARK, an individual, Case No. CIVDSZOZOO 1 0
12 PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF IN
Plaintiff, SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
13 COMPEL DEPOSITION OF GENERAL
MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST
14 KNOWLEDGEABLE, WITH
PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS
15
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A Delaware
16
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 Date: March 8, 2022
17 Time: 9:00 a.m.
through 20, inclusive, Dept: $23
18
Defendants.
19 Action Filed: September 21, 2021
Trial date: May 31, 2022
20
21 Assignedfor all purposes t0
THE HONORABLE DONALD AL VAREZ
22 in Dept. S23
23
24
///
26
///
27
///
28
_1_
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION 0F
BRIEF IN
DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST_KNOWLEDGEABLE, _WlTH V
“‘" “ "V
Dunn] 1f‘TInN nF nnf‘l TMFNTQ- MFMOD ANI'“ TM (IF DOINTQ 'ANT‘ A‘ITTI—IODIWFFQ'“
’4 r '
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant General Motors, LLC’s (“Defendant” or “GM”) Opposition fails to support its
AWN contention that Plaintiff is not entitled to depose GM’s Person(s) Most Knowledgeable as to all
Categories contained in the Notice of Deposition. This is nothing but an improper attempt to
confuse the actual issue — GM’s objections and discovery responses are clearly deficient. There is
no authority that absolves a responding party from providing sufficient discovery responses under
\DOOVO‘xU‘I
the guise that some categories have been offered or documents were produced.
First, Plaintiff notes that GM makes objections based on relevance, yet fails to substantiate
these objections. As detailed further below, existing case law has established the relevance of the
10 testimony that Plaintiff seeks, and further supports a finding of good cause for Plaintiff’s requests
11 for the production of documents.
12 GM has failed to articulate even one basis for why Plaintiff’s motion to compel should not
13 be granted. Despite GM’s arguments to the contrary, the discovery sought by Plaintiff in this
14 matter is permitted under CCP §2017.010 which permits “discovery regarding any matter, not
15 privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved... if the matter either is itself admissible
16 in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
17 Given the broad scope of discovery in California, and the absence of authority provided by GM to
18 prevent this deposition from going forward, Plaintiff s Motion should be granted.
19 Contrary to GM’s Opposition (3:17-28, 421-2), Plaintiff engaged in reasonable and good
20 faith meet and confer efforts in regard to this dispute, as discussed fully below. GM’s refusal to
21 do so is indicative of GM’s consistent, bad faith disregard for the meet and confer process. As
22 stated in his moving papers, Plaintiff seeks to depose GM’s PMK as t0 categories directly related
23 to the nonconformities Plaintiff experienced with the subject vehicle.
24 Finally, Plaintiffs would like to briefly address GM’s inappropriate reliance on comments
by two different judges 0n discovery motions in completely different lemon law cases handled by
26 another lawfirm and another lawyer. The cases referenced by GM are not connected to Plaintiffs’
27 counsel and do not even involve the same discovery. This attempt t0 mislead the Court by relying
28
-2-
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION 0F
DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE,,WITH_. “ " . ,V . .
Dpnl'“ TFTInN OF hnf‘ITMl‘NTQ- MFMnD ANDUM nFPnINTQ 1NTY AITTHDDITIFQ
’ ‘ ‘ ‘
Document Filed Date
March 04, 2022
Case Filing Date
September 21, 2020
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ. (SBN 219230) BRIAN J. KIM, ESQ. (SBN 333821) ERmRDINO THE BARRY LAW FIRM CSWBFSSASRQMO mSTRICT 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1270W Los Angeles, CA 90064 MAR 0 1 2022 Telephone: 310.684.5859 A Facsimile: 310.862.4539 Attorneys for Plaintiff, JERYL CLARK a J30 \OOONONU‘ 1f SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO — SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER 10 11 JERYL CLARK, an individual, Case No. CIVDSZOZOO 1 0 12 PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF IN Plaintiff, SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 13 COMPEL DEPOSITION OF GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST 14 KNOWLEDGEABLE, WITH PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS 15 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A Delaware 16 Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 Date: March 8, 2022 17 Time: 9:00 a.m. through 20, inclusive, Dept: $23 18 Defendants. 19 Action Filed: September 21, 2021 Trial date: May 31, 2022 20 21 Assignedfor all purposes t0 THE HONORABLE DONALD AL VAREZ 22 in Dept. S23 23 24 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 _1_ PLAINTIFF’S REPLY SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION 0F BRIEF IN DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST_KNOWLEDGEABLE, _WlTH V “‘" “ "V Dunn] 1f‘TInN nF nnf‘l TMFNTQ- MFMOD ANI'“ TM (IF DOINTQ 'ANT‘ A‘ITTI—IODIWFFQ'“ ’4 r ' I. INTRODUCTION Defendant General Motors, LLC’s (“Defendant” or “GM”) Opposition fails to support its AWN contention that Plaintiff is not entitled to depose GM’s Person(s) Most Knowledgeable as to all Categories contained in the Notice of Deposition. This is nothing but an improper attempt to confuse the actual issue — GM’s objections and discovery responses are clearly deficient. There is no authority that absolves a responding party from providing sufficient discovery responses under \DOOVO‘xU‘I the guise that some categories have been offered or documents were produced. First, Plaintiff notes that GM makes objections based on relevance, yet fails to substantiate these objections. As detailed further below, existing case law has established the relevance of the 10 testimony that Plaintiff seeks, and further supports a finding of good cause for Plaintiff’s requests 11 for the production of documents. 12 GM has failed to articulate even one basis for why Plaintiff’s motion to compel should not 13 be granted. Despite GM’s arguments to the contrary, the discovery sought by Plaintiff in this 14 matter is permitted under CCP §2017.010 which permits “discovery regarding any matter, not 15 privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved... if the matter either is itself admissible 16 in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” 17 Given the broad scope of discovery in California, and the absence of authority provided by GM to 18 prevent this deposition from going forward, Plaintiff s Motion should be granted. 19 Contrary to GM’s Opposition (3:17-28, 421-2), Plaintiff engaged in reasonable and good 20 faith meet and confer efforts in regard to this dispute, as discussed fully below. GM’s refusal to 21 do so is indicative of GM’s consistent, bad faith disregard for the meet and confer process. As 22 stated in his moving papers, Plaintiff seeks to depose GM’s PMK as t0 categories directly related 23 to the nonconformities Plaintiff experienced with the subject vehicle. 24 Finally, Plaintiffs would like to briefly address GM’s inappropriate reliance on comments by two different judges 0n discovery motions in completely different lemon law cases handled by 26 another lawfirm and another lawyer. The cases referenced by GM are not connected to Plaintiffs’ 27 counsel and do not even involve the same discovery. This attempt t0 mislead the Court by relying 28 -2- PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION 0F DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE,,WITH_. “ " . ,V . . Dpnl'“ TFTInN OF hnf‘ITMl‘NTQ- MFMnD ANDUM nFPnINTQ 1NTY AITTHDDITIFQ ’ ‘ ‘ ‘