Preview
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 1 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
REED SMITH LLP
Formed in the State of Delaware
Diane A. Bettino, Esquire (033241991)
David G. Murphy, Esquire (069822013)
506 Carnegie Center, Suite 300
Princeton, NJ 08540
Tel. (609) 514-5954
Fax (609) 951-0824
Attorneys for Defendant AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc., d/b/a GM Financial
JEFFREY BELLO, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION, BURLINGTON COUNTY
Plaintiff,
Docket No. L-000638-18
V.
Civil Action
CADILLAC, A DIVISION OF GENERAL
MOTORS COMPANY, ET AL.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
DEPOSITIONS OF DEFENDANTS’ WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 2 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In this protracted products liability action, Plaintiff Jeffrey Bello (‘Plaintiff’) has filed a
motion seeking to compel the depositions of Defendant AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.,
d/b/a GM Financial’s (“GM Financial”) employees and the production of documents that have
already been the subject of two prior discovery motions in this action. Plaintiff's motion, on
multiple levels, is deficient and must be denied.
Procedurally, Plaintiff's motion is premature because Plaintiff never properly served
subpoenas on the witnesses he seeks to depose, nor has he complied with this Court’s prior
Orders regarding his repetitive demands for discovery. For the depositions of GM Financial
employees, the noticed dates for those depositions have not passed yet, and, critically, Plaintiff
has not conferred in good faith to resolve this discovery dispute as required by Rule 1:6-2.
While GM Financial sent a letter to Plaintiff in an attempt resolve this dispute in good faith,
Plaintiff rushed to Court with this motion. It is clear from Plaintiff's continuous vexatious
behavior that his objective in this matter is not to resolve this case on the merits, but to harass
GM Financial, its employees, and its counsel.
Substantively, Plaintiff's motion is deficient because Plaintiff does not (and cannot)
explain why his repetitive discovery demands or depositions are relevant to his cause of action.
Instead, in his first attempt to provide an explanation since this case started, Plaintiff claims that
his communications with GM Financial employees may show that there was “animus” in how
GM Financial handled Plaintiff's account. Plaintiff's conclusory assertion, however, is
meritless. The scope of Plaintiff’s claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) does not
permit Plaintiff to depose witnesses regarding communications that occurred before Plaintiff
submitted disputes to credit reporting agencies (the “CRAs’) or during this litigation, especially
-l-
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 3 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
for the sole purpose of obtaining subjective evidence. Contrary to Plaintiff's misapprehension of
the FCRA, there must be some relationship between the discovery sought and alleged harm
caused by GM Financial’s alleged failure to reasonably investigate his credit dispute.
For these reasons, Plaintiff's motion to compel should be denied.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case was initiated on March 22, 2018, and has a tortured procedural history, which
will not be restated here. With respect to discovery, on January 10, 2019 and February 13, 2019,
GM Financial responded to each of Plaintiff's discovery demands. Plaintiff, months later,
claimed through a motion that GM Financial’s responses were incomplete, evasive, or in bad
faith. The Court subsequently heard multiple discovery motions and issued an Order on May 2,
2019. Certification of David G. Murphy, Esq. (“Murphy Cert.” ), Ex. 1. This Order specifically
designated each parties’ obligations to supply discovery and GM Financial was not ordered to
provide any additional discovery to Plaintiff.
In June 2019, Plaintiff filed another discovery motion, contending that GM Financial’s
discovery responses, which were served in January and February 2019, were insufficient. On
July 11, 2019, the Court heard argument on Plaintiffs motion but reserved its decision because
Plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 1:6-2. Rather than deny the motion immediately, the Court
was lenient toward Plaintiff, and ordered him to “provide specific discovery requests and how
those requests apply to the cause of action by July 16, 2019.” This was memorialized in an
Order dated July 15, 2019. Murphy Cert, Ex. 2. On July 15, 2019, via email, Plaintiff sent GM
Financial a letter vaguely requesting “all communications” concerning Plaintiffs account with
GM Financial, copies of unspecified communications referenced in the documents produced by
-2-
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 4 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
GM Financial, and the names and titles of all individuals “involved” or “ha[ving] contact with”
Plaintiff. Murphy Cert., Ex. 3.
On August 6, 2019, GM Financial responded to Plaintiff’s letter and supplied responses
to the extent Plaintiffs demands were discernible. Murphy Cert., Ex. 4. After another hearing,
on August 12, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery because Plaintiff
failed to comply with the Court’s July 15, 2019 Order, as Plaintiff failed to specifically identify
which discovery responses were allegedly deficient and explain how his requests applied to his
claim. The Court memorialized the denial of Plaintiff's motion to compel in an Order dated
August 19, 2019. Murphy Cert, Ex. 5.
Starting on September 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed frivolous motions to enter default judgment
against the defendants in this action and seeking recusal of the Court. GM Financial filed a
cross-motion for sanctions, detailing Plaintiff's continuous pattern of frivolous and vexatious
behavior. The Court, in an Order filed November 13, 2019, denied Plaintiff's and GM
Financial’s motions, and granted defendant GM LLC’s motion to compel Plaintiff's deposition.
Murphy Cert., Ex. 6.
On February 12, 2020, at the conclusion of a case management conference before the
Court, Plaintiff provided GM Financial a document titled “Plaintiff's 2"! Demand for Production
of Documents and Answers to Interrogatories from the Defendant GM Financial et al,” dated
February 11, 2020. Murphy Cert., Ex. 7. This document, in relevant part, is identical to
Plaintiff's discovery demands dated July 15, 2019. Compare Murphy Cert., Ex. 3 with Murphy
Cert., Ex. 7. Plaintiff also sent to undersigned counsel notices to take the depositions of Angela
Donaldson, Tammy Ward, and “Kyle,” dated February 21, 2020. Murphy Cert. Ex. 8.
According to Plaintiffs notices, he scheduled the depositions for March 27, 2020. Id.
-3-
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 5 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
On March 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant “Notice of Motion to Compel Depositions of
Defendants Witnesses and Documents.” On March 13, 2020, GM Financial sent a letter to
Plaintiff objecting to his discovery demands and deposition notices, and offering to schedule a
deposition for a properly-noticed corporate representative of GM Financial in a good faith effort
to resolve this discovery dispute without unnecessary motion practice. Murphy Cert., Ex. 9.
Plaintiff did not respond to GM Financial’s letter, but instead filed a premature reply and
misconstrued GM Financial’s March 13, 2020 letter as a formal opposition to his motion. In his
improper reply brief, Plaintiff misapprehends the Court’s November 8, 2018 Order dismissing
individual parties from the case as license to conduct irrelevant depositions of employees as
“parties.” Pl.’s Reply at 1-2. Plaintiff also claims, with no citation to any authority (because
none exists), that “the penalties for violation of FCRA vary with the causation of the incorrect
reporting,” and that “[c]leary, if there were some level of animus at GM Financial against the
Plaintiff, this would be more than relevant to the Plaintiff’s case.” Pl.’s Reply Br. at 2.
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs motion should be denied.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY MUST BE DENIED FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 1:6-2(C)
As an initial matter, Plaintiff has failed to make any effort to resolve the alleged
discovery deficiencies with counsel for GM Financial prior to the filing of this motion, as
required by Rule 1:6-2(c). Rule 1:6-2(c) provides that a party is permitted to move for an order
compelling discovery only if the application is:
accompanied by a certification stating that the attorney for the
moving party has either (1) personally conferred orally or has
made a specifically described good faith attempt to confer orally
with the attorney for the opposing party in order to resolve the
issues raised by the motion by agreement or consent order and that
-4-
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 6 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
such effort at resolution has been unsuccessful, or (2) advised the
attorney for the opposing party by letter, after the default has
occurred, that continued non-compliance with a discovery
obligation will result in an appropriate motion being made without
further attempt to resolve the matter.
Plaintiff has not made a good faith effort to resolve his alleged issues prior to seeking
court intervention. See, e.g., Salazar v. MKGC Design, 458 N.J. Super. 551, 562 (App. Div.
2019) (holding certification pursuant to Rule 1:6-2(c) is a “mandatory provision[] of the rules
authorizing the imposition of sanctions for failing to make discovery”). Indeed, Plaintiff rushed
to Court by filing his motion on March 5, 2020, which is more than three weeks before the dates
Plaintiff indicated on his deposition notices. Plaintiff, as is clear by his constant filing of
motions in this matter, is more interested in wasting the parties’ and the Court’s resources with
repetitive applications rather than actually prosecuting this case in good faith. Plaintiff's failure
to attempt to resolve the alleged discovery deficiencies in good faith, in violation of Rule 1:6-
2(c), requires the denial of Plaintiff's Motion.
Il. GM FINANCIAL ALREADY PROVIDED TIMELY AND PROPER DISCOVERY
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF, AND PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO SHOW
RELEVANCE FOR HIS ADDITIONAL REQUESTS IN VIOLATION OF THE
COURT’S ORDERS
Plaintiff seeks to compel GM Financial to provide “all requested internal E-mails,
memos, and documents regarding the Plaintiff, Mr. Bello, Mr. Bello’s account at GM Financial,
or the subject vehicle (2014 Cadillac ELR) which forms the basis of this legal action from GM
Financial.” GM Financial has already provided proper discovery responses to Plaintiff, and
Plaintiff has already sought Court intervention via discovery motions have already been denied
twice. The mere passage of time does not absolve Plaintiff of his obligation to comply with the
Court’s Orders.
-5-
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 7 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
Critically, Plaintiff has not, because he cannot, meet the requirement of showing
relevance of his discovery demands to his FCRA cause of action against GM Financial.
Plaintiff's latest demands are identical to his demand titled “Plaintiff's Demand for Production of
Documents and Answers to Interrogatories from the Defendant GM Financial et al,” dated July
15, 2019. Compare Murphy Cert., Ex. 3 with Murphy Cert., Ex. 7. GM Financial’s responses
and objections to these requests have already been provided in undersigned counsel’s letter dated
August 6, 2019. Murphy Cert., Ex. 4.
Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Court’s prior Orders, Plaintiff's motion
should be denied. GM Financial should also be awarded fees for having to defendant against this
redundant and meritless motion.
Til. PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND REQUESTED DEPOSITIONS
FALL OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF PROPORTIONAL AND APPROPRIATE
DISCOVERY
Rule 4:10-2(g) provides that discovery may be limited where:
(1) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,
or is obtainable from other source that is more convenient, less
burdensome, or less expensive; (2) the party seeking discovery has
had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the
information sought; or (3) the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the
needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties resources,
the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the
importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues.
The trial court has the discretion to determine what discovery requests are “relevant,
reasonable and likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and what demands are
annoying, cumulative, oppressive or unduly burdensome.” HD Supply Waterworks Grp., Inc. v.
Di ir., Div. of Taxation, 29 N.J. Tax 573, 584085 (2017) (citing Berrie v. Berrie, 188 N.J. Super.
274, 278, 457 A.2d 76, 77 (Ch. Div. 1983)).
-6-
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 8 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
When adjudicating Plaintiff's two prior discovery motions, the Court Ordered Plaintiff to
provide an explanation for how is discovery requests were relevant to his FCRA claim. Indeed,
Plaintiff's latest discovery demands are repetitive, irrelevant and out of scope, and he seeks to
depose employees of GM Financial based on the fact that he had phone conversations with them.
In his improper reply, Plaintiff attempts, for the first time since this action was initiated
two years ago, to explain how his communications with GM Financial employees could be
relevant to credit disputes that were not even submitted to the CRAs until after this litigation was
initiated by Plaintiff. Plaintiff claims, in conclusory terms, that communications could be
relevant to whether GM Financial willfully or negligently failed to correct alleged inaccuracies
on Plaintiff's credit report because there may be “some level of animus at GM Financial against
the Plaintiff.” Pl.’s Reply Br. at 2. Plaintiff does not cite any support for his interpretation of the
law because no such authority exists.
Plaintiff should not be permitted to depose GM Financial employees for the vague
purpose of uncovering “some level of animus.” Indeed, subjective negative feelings, even if
such evidence were to come to light, is not relevant for showing “negligence, 9 «6, ‘willfulness,”
causation. The standard is objective. Indeed, causation is a critical element of an FCRA claim,
and the only relevant inquiry against a furnisher is whether its actions were reasonable after
receiving a notice of a dispute toa CRA. Under 15 U.S.C. § 16810, a plaintiff may be entitled to
“actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure” to reasonably investigate a
properly submitted credit dispute due to negligence. (Emphasis added). Similarly, under 15
U.S.C. § 1681n, upon a showing that the furnisher “willfully fail[ed]” to reasonably investigate a
properly submitted credit dispute, the plaintiff may be entitled to “any actual damages sustained
by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than
-7-
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 9 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
$1,000,” and punitive damages. (Emphasis added); see also Wright v. Santander Consumer
USA, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-3675, 2019 WL 5549278, at *4-5 (N.D. Ga. July 30, 2019), rep. and
rec. adopted, (N.D. Ga. Jan. 24, 2020) (dismissing FCRA complaint with prejudice and rejecting
request to flesh out claim in discovery because “Plaintiff does not allege any facts to establish
that Defendant failed to conduct an investigation after it received notice from the CRA of his
dispute, failed to review any information the CRA provided in its notice, or failed to report the
results of its investigation to the CRA”) (unpublished decisions attached to Murphy Cert. at
Exhibit 10); see also Bello v. Capital One Bank (USA) N.A., No. 1:20-cv-01218, at *4-6 (D.N.J.
Feb. 13, 2020) (dismissing, sua sponte, this Plaintiffs FCRA claim for failure to “allege
sufficient facts to state a claim under FCRA, even construed liberally”) (unpublished decisions
attached to Murphy Cert. at Exhibit 11).
Plaintiff's desire to seek out “animus” is precluded by the fact that he did not submit any
disputes with CRAs until after he initiated this litigation. See Schmidt v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., No. 2:17-cv-1708, 2019 WL 4943756, at *4-5 (D.N.J. Oct. 8, 2019) (dismissing RESPA
claim with prejudice where dispute letter was sent after litigation was initiated because the filing
of the complaint established that the plaintiffs “made up their mind about [Defendant]’s
conduct,” and no specific causation of harm could be alleged from an alleged failure to respond
to the dispute letter). To the extent Plaintiff communicated with any GM Financial employees,
whether before or after this lawsuit was initiated by Plaintiff, the relevance of those
communications for establishing the reasonableness of GM Financial’s investigation is impacted
by the fact that Plaintiff already sued GM Financial.
Indeed, GM Financial’s conduct cannot be found to be unreasonable as it is already the
subject of this litigation, and GM Financial’s actions in response to Plaintiff's lawsuit are not
-8-
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 10 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
susceptible to a subjective reasonableness-analysis under the FCRA. See Safeco Ins. Co. of Am.
v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 70, n.20, 127 S. Ct. 2202 (2007) (rejecting argument “that evidence of
subjective bad faith must be taken into account in determining whether a company acted
knowingly or recklessly” because “the company’s objective reading of [the relevant authority] is
objectively reasonable”). GM Financial had an objective basis to report Plaintiffs credit as it
did. Plaintiff was late and/or missed payments, and he failed to return the vehicle as required by
the express terms of the lease. Even if the outcome of this litigation were to suggest that GM
Financial should have taken different action, from an objective standpoint GM Financial’s
conduct cannot be determined to be “unreasonable,” thus, GM Financial cannot have willfully
violated the FCRA. Accordingly, there is no basis for Plaintiff to depose any GM Financial
employees to obtain subjective evidence. Nothing Plaintiff seeks in his depositions can alter the
objective reasonableness of GM Financial’s conduct.
In short, there is no basis for Plaintiff to seek discovery regarding communications that
occurred before he submitted any disputes to CRAs, as they are irrelevant for establishing if and
how GM Financial could have failed to reasonably investigate his disputes. Likewise, the
initiation of Plaintiff's lawsuit against GM Financial prior to submitting any credit disputes
effectively precludes Plaintiff from seeking to depose GM Financial employees whom he
communicated with while the litigation was pending. Plaintiffs motion to compel should be
denied.
Iv. PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION NOTICES FOR GM FINANCIAL EMPLOYEES
ARE DEFICIENT
Plaintiff seeks to depose GM Financial employees as fact-witnesses in their individual
capacities, and not as representatives of GM Financial. Not only are his notices to GM Financial
-9-
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 11 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
noncompliant with Rules 1:9-1, 4:14-1, 4:14-2, 4:14-7, and 4:14-9, as set forth above there is
simply no reason to depose any of these individuals.
Indeed, Plaintiff admittedly never appropriately served these subpoenas. Rather, Plaintiff
claims that his notices in lieu of subpoenas were sufficient under Rule 1:9-1. However, Plaintiff
misapprehends the Court Rules. Rule 1:9-1 provides that a corporate representative of a party, as
described in Rule 4:14-2(c), may be compelled to appear at trial via notice rather than trial
subpoena. In order to serve a notice of deposition on an organization, Plaintiff is required to
comply with Rule 4:14-2(c), which requires, among other things, that Plaintiff “designate with
reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested.” Rule 4:14-2(c) does not
give Plaintiff license to notice, in lieu of subpoena, any employee that he wishes to depose, but
rather only permits Plaintiff to seek testimony from a witness “designated within the spirit of
[Rule] 4:14—2(c) to give testimony on behalf of the corporate entity.” Avis Rent-A-Car, Inc. v.
Cooper, 273 N.J. Super. 198, 202, 641 A.2d 570, 572 (App. Div. 1994).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's notices to depose Tammy Ward, Angela Donaldson, and Kyle
are deficient under the Court Rules.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Depositions and Discovery against GM Financial should be
denied, and GM Financial should be awarded its costs, including attorneys’ fees, for having to
oppose Plaintiff's redundant and meritless application.
REED SMITH LLP
/s/ David G. Murphy
David G. Murphy
Dated: March 18, 2020
-10-
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 1 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
REED SMITH LLP
Formed in the State of Delaware
Diane A. Bettino, Esquire (033241991)
David G. Murphy, Esquire (069822013)
506 Carnegie Center, Suite 300
Princeton, NJ 08540
Tel. (609) 514-5954
Fax (609) 951-0824
Attorneys for Defendant AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc., d/b/a GM Financial
JEFFREY BELLO, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION, BURLINGTON COUNTY
Plaintiff,
Docket No. L-000638-18
V.
Civil Action
CADILLAC, A DIVISION OF GENERAL
MOTORS COMPANY, ET AL., CERTIFICATION OF
DAVID G. MURPHY, ESQ.
Defendants.
I, David G. Murphy, of full age, hereby certify as follow:
1 I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of New Jersey, and an attorney
with the law firm of Reed Smith LLP, counsel for Defendant AmeriCredit Financial Services,
Inc. d/b/a GM Financial (“GM Financial”). As such, I am fully familiar with the facts set forth
herein.
2 I make this Certification in support of Defendant GM Financial’s Opposition to
Plaintiff Jeffrey Bello’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Depositions of Defendants’ Witnesses
and Documents.
3 A true and correct copy of the Court’s Order, dated May 2, 2019, is attached
hereto as Exhibit 1.
4 A true and correct copy of the Court’s Order, dated July 15, 2019, is attached
hereto as Exhibit 2.
-l-
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 2 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
5 A true and correct copy of “Plaintiff's Demand for Production of Documents and
Answers to Interrogatories from the Defendant GM Financial et al,” which was received via
email on July 15, 2019, is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
6 A true and correct copy of GM Financial’s August 6, 2019 letter, sent in response
to Plaintiff's July 15, 2019 correspondence, is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
7
A true and correct copy of the Court’s Order, dated August 19, 2019, is attached
hereto as Exhibit 5.
8 A true and correct copy of the Court’s Order, dated November 13, 2019, is
attached hereto as Exhibit 6.
9 A true and correct copy of “Plaintiff's 2" Demand for Production of Documents
and Answers to Interrogatories from the Defendant GM Financial et al,” which was received on
February 12, 2020, is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
10. True and correct copies of Plaintiffs deposition notices directed to GM Financial
employees Tammy Ward, Angela Donaldson, and Kyle are attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
11. A true and correct copy of GM Financial’s Letter to Plaintiff, which was sent to
Plaintiff on March 13, 2020, is attached hereto as Exhibit 9.
12. A true and correct copy of the unpublished decision and adopting order in the
matter Wright v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-3675, 2019 WL 5549278 (N.D.
Ga. July 30, 2019) (unpublished), is attached hereto as Exhibit 10.
13. A true and correct copy of the unpublished decision in the matter Bello v. Capital
One Bank (USA) N.A., No. 1:20-cv-1218 (D.N.J. Feb. 13, 2020) (unpublished), is attached
hereto as Exhibit 11.
-2-
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 3 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
14. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any
of the foregoing statements made by me is willfully false, 1 am subject to punishment.
Dated: March 18, 2020 REED SMITH LLP
/s/ David G. Murphy
David G. Murphy
-3-
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 4 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
EXHIBIT 1
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM_Pg 5 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
Filed With The Court
MAY ~2 2019
Janet Z. Smith, J.8.C.
PREPARED BY THE COURT
JEFFERY BELLO SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff, BURLINGTON VICINAGE
DOCKET NO. BUR-L-000638-18
CIVIL ACTION
CADILLAC, a division of GENERAL
MOTORS COMPANY, et al., GENERAL ORDER
MOTORS HOLDINGS, LLC, GENERAL
MOTORS, LLC, HOLMAN CADILLAC, a
division of HOLMAN AUTOMOTIVE,
INC., ESIS, INC. a wholly owned
Subsidiary of THE CHUBB
CORPORATION, KERBECK
CADILLAC, INC., GENERAL MOTORS
FINANCIAL COMPANY, a wholly owned
Subsidiary of GENERAL MOTORS
COMPANY, AIRSEPT, INC., PRODUCT
DEFENSE INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES,
LLC; MARY T. BARRA, DANIEL E.
BERCE, MELINDA K. HOLMAN,
MICHAEL SCHWAB, STEVEN
MATTERN, CHRIS C. ROFFEY,
JOSHUA PREISTER, TAMMY WARD,
JOHN NEVITT, PATRICK RONALD
BURLEY, JOHN/JANE DOES #1-10
and/or ABC CORPORATIONS #1-10
Fictitious Corporations and/or
Commercial Entities, j/s/a
Defendant(s)
The above matter having been brought before the Court on multiple Motions to
Compel by all parties, and the Court having considered the motion papers filed by the
parties and having heard oral argument in the presence of Jeffrey Bello, Plaintiff,
Johnathan Delgado, Esq., attorney for Defendants General Motors Company, General
Page 1 of 6
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM_Pg 6 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
Motors Holdings LLC, General Motors LLC, ESIS, Inc., Holman Automotive, Inc., Kerbeck
Cadillac, Inc. ("GM Defendants"); David Murphy, Esq., attorney for Defendants General
Motors Financial; and Anne Delena, Esq., and Benjamin Muzi, Esq., attorney for
Defendant AirSept, Inc., and for the reasons stated on the record, and for good cause
shown:
IT1S on this Zn day of ft fy ORDERED as follows:
A. Plaintiff shall provide Defendant, GM Financial, with the following discovery:
4 Any and all inquiries and responses from credit reporting agencies;
2 Credit reports from before and after the alleged harm;
Any and all denials of credit from any entity;
Each and every application made for employment that was declined and the
reasons why it was declined;
Each and every incident and expense impacted by credit score; and
Any and all denials or reductions in credit for every credit card in Plaintiff's
possession.
0 Calculation of Damages caused by the actions of GM Financial.
Plaintiff shall provide the aforementioned discovery or certify that all information
available to him has been provided and that his responses are complete.
Plaintiff shall provide GM Defendants and Airsept, Inc. with the following
discovery:
4. Any and All documents related to any Workman's Compensation claim(s);
2. Any and All treatment records which indicate the medical providers and time
of treatment for all injuries claimed by Plaintiff;
Page 2 of 6
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27PM Pg 7 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
Any and All expenses incurred, indicating who paid for the expenses and
how much was paid;
Any and all discs in Plaintiff's possession related to the previous litigation
which have been represented to include depositions and medical expert
reports;
Any and all W-2's, employment records, and tax returns for the years of
2012 through 2019;
Any and all documents regarding any foreclosure action(s);
Any record of money given, borrowed, or owed to any lenders or other
individuals in relationship to this case that Plaintiff will seek reimbursement
of.
Plaintiff's calculation of damages caused by the actions of the GM
Defendants;
9 HIPAA Medical Authorizations;
10. Any and all audio recordings of phone calls between Plaintiff and all parties
and witnesses related to Defendants;
11.Any and all documents in support of Plaintiff's contention of the existence
of a defect;
12.Any and all photographs and videos of Plaintiffs injuries, vehicle, and
inspection of the vehicle with descriptions of who took the photo and when;
13.Any and all statements made by any witness or person affiliated with any
Defendants with the identity of who made the statement and when and
where the statement was made;
Page 3 of 6
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27
PM Pg 8 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
14. A list of any and all anticipated expert witnesse(s) and their curriculum
vitae(s); and
15.The names of any and all companies operated by Plaintiff from 2012 to
present.
Plaintiff shall provide the aforementioned discovery or certify that all information
available to him has been provided and that his responses are complete.
Plaintiff shall provide full responses to the following questions as they apply to
GM Defendants:
4
What is the alleged fraud?
2 What acts do you allege support your fraud claim against ESIS and Holman
Automotive, Inc.?
What acts do you allege support your claim of misrepresentation?
What omissions do you allege support your claim of misrepresentation?
What regulatory violations do you allege were committed by GM
Defendants?
What services did ESIS offer that you paid for and how much for such
services?
F. Plaintiff shall provide full responses to the following questions as they apply to
Airsept, Inc.:
4. What are the specifics of the alleged defect?
2. Are you alleging a design defect or manufacturing defect?
3. Is the defect you are alleging in the cooling coil coating, the 2014 Cadillac
ELR, or some combination of both?
Page 4 of 6
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27PM Pg 9 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
4. ls the defect the alleged presence of Cocamide DEA? If not, explain in
detail.
5. Do you allege that Cocamide DEA alone or added to a product makes it
defective?
6. Are you alleging that the product was applied unsafely or incorrectly?
7. \s the defect in the application of the cooling coil coating product or the
formulation of the cooling coil coating product?.
G. GM Defendants shall supply the Court with all statements, documents,
correspondence, and emails related to the April 5, 2016 report of Matthew
McGuire with a privilege log for in camera review. The privilege log shall outline
the basis for the claimed privilege. GM Defendants shall supply Plaintiff with
the privilege log.
GM Defendants shall supply Plaintiff with the following discovery:
4, Any and all records of contact by Plaintiff to customer care or executive
office from 2016 and 2017;
Any and all emails exchanged between any representative of GM
Defendants and Plaintiff;
A list of any and all persons involved with Plaintiffs dispute with GM
Defendants;
Any and all documents, emails, memos, etc., that relate to Plaintiff's dispute
with GM Defendants;
Holman Automotive's records and correspondence regarding the treatment
of the car;
Page 5 of 6
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27PM Pg 10 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
6. Any and all documents in support of the repair orders and correspondence
regarding repairs of the vehicle;
7. The name of the regional representative that denied Faulkner Cadillac's
ability to repair the car; and
8. Any and all internal communications among GM Defendants regarding the
vehicle in question.
| Defendant, Airsept, Inc., shall provide the following discovery to Plaintiff:
1. Any and all documents regarding the formulation of the allegedly defective
product;
2. Any and all information regarding safety labels from any source;
3. Any and all records pertaining to the testing of the product,
4. Any and all records pertaining to any complaints related to the product prior
to 2016.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all information required by this order shall be
supplied by May 24, 2019.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that a copy of this Order shall be deemed served via
ECourts. GM Defendants shall serve Plaintiff with a copy of this Order within five (5) days
of the date hereof.
f)
L finer
Jf Fen Janet ee
Z, brgor J.S.C.
V
Q Opposed
Q Unopposed
Page 6 of 6
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 11 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
EXHIBIT 2
FBUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 12 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
BUR L 000638-18 07/15/2019 Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20191249056
qth The Court
yy. 15 2008
C.
PREPARED BY THE COURT janet Z. Smith, J.8.
JEFFERY BELLO : SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff, BURLINGTON COUNTY
Vv.
DOCKET NO.: BUR-L-000638-18
CADILLAC, a division of
GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, et
al., GENERAL MOTORS CIVIL ACTION
HOLDINGS, LLC, GENERAL
MOTORS, LLC, HOLMAN
CADILLAC, a division of HOLMAN ORDER
AUTOMOTIVE, INC., ESIS, INC. a
wholly owned Subsidiary of THE
CHUBB CORPORATION,
KERBECK CADILLAC, INC.,
GENERAL MOTORS FINANCIAL
COMPANY, a wholly owned
Subsidiary of GENERAL MOTORS
COMPANY, AIRSEPT, INC.,
PRODUCT DEFENSE
INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES,
LLC; MARY T. BARRA, DANIEL
E, BERCE, MELINDA K.
HOLMAN, MICHAEL SCHWAB,
STEVEN MATTERN, CHRIS C. :
ROFFEY, JOSHUA PREISTER,
TAMMY WARD, JOHN NEVITT,
PATRICK RONALD
BURLEY, JOHN/JANE DOES #1-
10
and/or ABC CORPORATIONS #1-
10
Fictitious Corporations and/or
Commercial Entities, j/s/a
Defendant(s)
THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court upon application of
Jeffrey Bello, Plaintiff and a self-represented litigant, on a Motion to Compel bE
Page 1 of 2
FBUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 13 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
BUR L 000638-18 07/15/2019 Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20191249056
Discovery from Defendant, GM Financial; and the Court having considered the
submissions of counsel and having heard oral argument in the presence of
a self-represented litigant; Monica Marsico, Esq.,
E
Jeffrey Bello, Plaintiff and
attorney for Defendants, General Motors LLC, ESIS, Inc., Holman Automotive,
Inc., and Kerbeck Cadillac, Inc. (“GM Defendants’); Benjamin Muzzi, Esq.,
attorney for Defendant, Airsept, Inc.; and David Murphy, Esq., attorney for
Defendant, GM Financial; and for the reasons stated on the record; and good
cause having been shown;
IT 18 on this / oe of July, 2019, ORDERED that the motion to Compel
Discovery is carried to August 16, 2019.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall provide specific discovery
requests and how those requests apply to the cause of action by July 16, 2019.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant, GM Financial, shall respond
to Plaintiff's demands by August 6, 2019.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of the within Order shall be served
upon all counsel of record within seven (7) days of the date hereof.
on. Janet , Smith, J.S.C.
mutes
GQ UNOPPOSED
Page 2 of 2
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 14 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
EXHIBIT 3
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 15 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
JEFFREY BELLO
143 E. Warren Street
Edgewater Park, New Jersey 08010
bell9900@aol.com
(609) 668-9300
ProSE Plaintiff
JEFFREY BELLO SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Plaintiff /Petitioner LAW DIVISION
BURLINGTON COUNTY
Vs. Docket No.: L-638-18
GM FINANCIAL et al
Defendant /Respondents Civil Action
PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ANSWERS TO
INTERROGATORIES FROM THE DEFENDANT GM FINANCIAL et al
TO: Reed Smith, LLP
136 Main Street, Suite 250
Princeton, NJ 08540
Attorneys for Defendant GM Financial
Mr. Murphy,
As you have been so advised by the Court on July 11, 2019, please provide complete answers to
the Plaintiff's propounded discovery requests previously sent to you in the form of
interrogatories, admissions, and document requests.
In an effort to assist you, and pursuant to the Court’s directive, please provide ALL
communications regarding the Plaintiff's account with Defendant, GM FINANCIAL et al.
This should include ALL emails, internal memos, documents, and or communications
regarding the Plaintiff's account and/or the subject 2014 Cadillac. This would also include any
and ALL communications with ANY General Motors affiliate, franchise, individuals and/or
executives.
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 16 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
The call center log you have provided clearly refers to “emails” numerous times, yet no copies of
any emails have been provided? Additionally, the “call center” log makes no mention of AVP
Tammy Ward?
In your responses, please provide all parties “full names”, the entity where they were working at
the time of their involvement, their title(s) and job description.
In an effort to assist you, here are some of the names of the people that the Plaintiff has been
advised were involved, or he had contact with: Angela Donaldson, Tammy Ward, Daniel Berce,
Kyle (last name unknown), Tiffany (last name unknown), and Rhea Whitfield.
As you are aware, this defendant is required to furnish all information available pursuant to
R. 4:17-4(a), and it is permissible for interrogatories to include a request for a copy of a
document pursuant to R. 4:17-1(a). Additionally, as the Plaintiff's involvement with this
Defendant is of a “financial” nature, GM Financial is required to maintain ALL records
regarding the Plaintiff for not less than SLX years, pursuant to New Jersey statute.
Respectfully requested by: wer Jb
YEFFREY BELLO — Plaintifi/ProSe
Dated: July 15, 2019
PROOF OF SERVICE
In accordance with R. 1:5-3, I certify that the within discovery requests were served in
accordance with R. 1:5-2, by ordinary mail, postage prepaid, mailed on the date set forth below
on:
Reed Smith, LLP
136 Main Street, Suite 250
Princeton, NJ 08540
Attorneys for Defendant GM Financial
Dated: July 15, 2019 » JEFFREYLEBELLO AA
— Plaintiff ProSe
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 17 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
EXHIBIT 4
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 18 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496
Reodinith
through partnership
David G. Murph
Reed Smith LLP
Princeton Forrestal Village
136 Main Street - Suite 250
Princeton, NJ 08540-7839
+1 609 987 0050
Direct Phone: +1 609 514 5947 Fax +1 609 951 0824
Email: dmurphy@reedsmith.com reedsmith.com
August 6, 2019
Via Email and Overnight Mail
Jeffrey M. Bello
143 E. Warren Street
Edgewater Park, New Jersey 08010
Re: Jeffrey Bello v. Cadillac, et al.
Docket No. BUR-L-638-18
Dear Mr. Bello:
As you are aware, this firm represents Defendant AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a GM
Financial (“GM Financial’) in the above-referenced matter. We submit this letter in accordance with
Preview
BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 1 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 REED SMITH LLP Formed in the State of Delaware Diane A. Bettino, Esquire (033241991) David G. Murphy, Esquire (069822013) 506 Carnegie Center, Suite 300 Princeton, NJ 08540 Tel. (609) 514-5954 Fax (609) 951-0824 Attorneys for Defendant AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc., d/b/a GM Financial JEFFREY BELLO, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION, BURLINGTON COUNTY Plaintiff, Docket No. L-000638-18 V. Civil Action CADILLAC, A DIVISION OF GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF DEFENDANTS’ WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 2 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT In this protracted products liability action, Plaintiff Jeffrey Bello (‘Plaintiff’) has filed a motion seeking to compel the depositions of Defendant AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc., d/b/a GM Financial’s (“GM Financial”) employees and the production of documents that have already been the subject of two prior discovery motions in this action. Plaintiff's motion, on multiple levels, is deficient and must be denied. Procedurally, Plaintiff's motion is premature because Plaintiff never properly served subpoenas on the witnesses he seeks to depose, nor has he complied with this Court’s prior Orders regarding his repetitive demands for discovery. For the depositions of GM Financial employees, the noticed dates for those depositions have not passed yet, and, critically, Plaintiff has not conferred in good faith to resolve this discovery dispute as required by Rule 1:6-2. While GM Financial sent a letter to Plaintiff in an attempt resolve this dispute in good faith, Plaintiff rushed to Court with this motion. It is clear from Plaintiff's continuous vexatious behavior that his objective in this matter is not to resolve this case on the merits, but to harass GM Financial, its employees, and its counsel. Substantively, Plaintiff's motion is deficient because Plaintiff does not (and cannot) explain why his repetitive discovery demands or depositions are relevant to his cause of action. Instead, in his first attempt to provide an explanation since this case started, Plaintiff claims that his communications with GM Financial employees may show that there was “animus” in how GM Financial handled Plaintiff's account. Plaintiff's conclusory assertion, however, is meritless. The scope of Plaintiff’s claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) does not permit Plaintiff to depose witnesses regarding communications that occurred before Plaintiff submitted disputes to credit reporting agencies (the “CRAs’) or during this litigation, especially -l- BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 3 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 for the sole purpose of obtaining subjective evidence. Contrary to Plaintiff's misapprehension of the FCRA, there must be some relationship between the discovery sought and alleged harm caused by GM Financial’s alleged failure to reasonably investigate his credit dispute. For these reasons, Plaintiff's motion to compel should be denied. BRIEF STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This case was initiated on March 22, 2018, and has a tortured procedural history, which will not be restated here. With respect to discovery, on January 10, 2019 and February 13, 2019, GM Financial responded to each of Plaintiff's discovery demands. Plaintiff, months later, claimed through a motion that GM Financial’s responses were incomplete, evasive, or in bad faith. The Court subsequently heard multiple discovery motions and issued an Order on May 2, 2019. Certification of David G. Murphy, Esq. (“Murphy Cert.” ), Ex. 1. This Order specifically designated each parties’ obligations to supply discovery and GM Financial was not ordered to provide any additional discovery to Plaintiff. In June 2019, Plaintiff filed another discovery motion, contending that GM Financial’s discovery responses, which were served in January and February 2019, were insufficient. On July 11, 2019, the Court heard argument on Plaintiffs motion but reserved its decision because Plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 1:6-2. Rather than deny the motion immediately, the Court was lenient toward Plaintiff, and ordered him to “provide specific discovery requests and how those requests apply to the cause of action by July 16, 2019.” This was memorialized in an Order dated July 15, 2019. Murphy Cert, Ex. 2. On July 15, 2019, via email, Plaintiff sent GM Financial a letter vaguely requesting “all communications” concerning Plaintiffs account with GM Financial, copies of unspecified communications referenced in the documents produced by -2- BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 4 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 GM Financial, and the names and titles of all individuals “involved” or “ha[ving] contact with” Plaintiff. Murphy Cert., Ex. 3. On August 6, 2019, GM Financial responded to Plaintiff’s letter and supplied responses to the extent Plaintiffs demands were discernible. Murphy Cert., Ex. 4. After another hearing, on August 12, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s July 15, 2019 Order, as Plaintiff failed to specifically identify which discovery responses were allegedly deficient and explain how his requests applied to his claim. The Court memorialized the denial of Plaintiff's motion to compel in an Order dated August 19, 2019. Murphy Cert, Ex. 5. Starting on September 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed frivolous motions to enter default judgment against the defendants in this action and seeking recusal of the Court. GM Financial filed a cross-motion for sanctions, detailing Plaintiff's continuous pattern of frivolous and vexatious behavior. The Court, in an Order filed November 13, 2019, denied Plaintiff's and GM Financial’s motions, and granted defendant GM LLC’s motion to compel Plaintiff's deposition. Murphy Cert., Ex. 6. On February 12, 2020, at the conclusion of a case management conference before the Court, Plaintiff provided GM Financial a document titled “Plaintiff's 2"! Demand for Production of Documents and Answers to Interrogatories from the Defendant GM Financial et al,” dated February 11, 2020. Murphy Cert., Ex. 7. This document, in relevant part, is identical to Plaintiff's discovery demands dated July 15, 2019. Compare Murphy Cert., Ex. 3 with Murphy Cert., Ex. 7. Plaintiff also sent to undersigned counsel notices to take the depositions of Angela Donaldson, Tammy Ward, and “Kyle,” dated February 21, 2020. Murphy Cert. Ex. 8. According to Plaintiffs notices, he scheduled the depositions for March 27, 2020. Id. -3- BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 5 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 On March 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant “Notice of Motion to Compel Depositions of Defendants Witnesses and Documents.” On March 13, 2020, GM Financial sent a letter to Plaintiff objecting to his discovery demands and deposition notices, and offering to schedule a deposition for a properly-noticed corporate representative of GM Financial in a good faith effort to resolve this discovery dispute without unnecessary motion practice. Murphy Cert., Ex. 9. Plaintiff did not respond to GM Financial’s letter, but instead filed a premature reply and misconstrued GM Financial’s March 13, 2020 letter as a formal opposition to his motion. In his improper reply brief, Plaintiff misapprehends the Court’s November 8, 2018 Order dismissing individual parties from the case as license to conduct irrelevant depositions of employees as “parties.” Pl.’s Reply at 1-2. Plaintiff also claims, with no citation to any authority (because none exists), that “the penalties for violation of FCRA vary with the causation of the incorrect reporting,” and that “[c]leary, if there were some level of animus at GM Financial against the Plaintiff, this would be more than relevant to the Plaintiff’s case.” Pl.’s Reply Br. at 2. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs motion should be denied. LEGAL ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY MUST BE DENIED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 1:6-2(C) As an initial matter, Plaintiff has failed to make any effort to resolve the alleged discovery deficiencies with counsel for GM Financial prior to the filing of this motion, as required by Rule 1:6-2(c). Rule 1:6-2(c) provides that a party is permitted to move for an order compelling discovery only if the application is: accompanied by a certification stating that the attorney for the moving party has either (1) personally conferred orally or has made a specifically described good faith attempt to confer orally with the attorney for the opposing party in order to resolve the issues raised by the motion by agreement or consent order and that -4- BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 6 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 such effort at resolution has been unsuccessful, or (2) advised the attorney for the opposing party by letter, after the default has occurred, that continued non-compliance with a discovery obligation will result in an appropriate motion being made without further attempt to resolve the matter. Plaintiff has not made a good faith effort to resolve his alleged issues prior to seeking court intervention. See, e.g., Salazar v. MKGC Design, 458 N.J. Super. 551, 562 (App. Div. 2019) (holding certification pursuant to Rule 1:6-2(c) is a “mandatory provision[] of the rules authorizing the imposition of sanctions for failing to make discovery”). Indeed, Plaintiff rushed to Court by filing his motion on March 5, 2020, which is more than three weeks before the dates Plaintiff indicated on his deposition notices. Plaintiff, as is clear by his constant filing of motions in this matter, is more interested in wasting the parties’ and the Court’s resources with repetitive applications rather than actually prosecuting this case in good faith. Plaintiff's failure to attempt to resolve the alleged discovery deficiencies in good faith, in violation of Rule 1:6- 2(c), requires the denial of Plaintiff's Motion. Il. GM FINANCIAL ALREADY PROVIDED TIMELY AND PROPER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF, AND PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO SHOW RELEVANCE FOR HIS ADDITIONAL REQUESTS IN VIOLATION OF THE COURT’S ORDERS Plaintiff seeks to compel GM Financial to provide “all requested internal E-mails, memos, and documents regarding the Plaintiff, Mr. Bello, Mr. Bello’s account at GM Financial, or the subject vehicle (2014 Cadillac ELR) which forms the basis of this legal action from GM Financial.” GM Financial has already provided proper discovery responses to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff has already sought Court intervention via discovery motions have already been denied twice. The mere passage of time does not absolve Plaintiff of his obligation to comply with the Court’s Orders. -5- BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 7 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 Critically, Plaintiff has not, because he cannot, meet the requirement of showing relevance of his discovery demands to his FCRA cause of action against GM Financial. Plaintiff's latest demands are identical to his demand titled “Plaintiff's Demand for Production of Documents and Answers to Interrogatories from the Defendant GM Financial et al,” dated July 15, 2019. Compare Murphy Cert., Ex. 3 with Murphy Cert., Ex. 7. GM Financial’s responses and objections to these requests have already been provided in undersigned counsel’s letter dated August 6, 2019. Murphy Cert., Ex. 4. Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Court’s prior Orders, Plaintiff's motion should be denied. GM Financial should also be awarded fees for having to defendant against this redundant and meritless motion. Til. PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND REQUESTED DEPOSITIONS FALL OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF PROPORTIONAL AND APPROPRIATE DISCOVERY Rule 4:10-2(g) provides that discovery may be limited where: (1) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (2) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or (3) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues. The trial court has the discretion to determine what discovery requests are “relevant, reasonable and likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and what demands are annoying, cumulative, oppressive or unduly burdensome.” HD Supply Waterworks Grp., Inc. v. Di ir., Div. of Taxation, 29 N.J. Tax 573, 584085 (2017) (citing Berrie v. Berrie, 188 N.J. Super. 274, 278, 457 A.2d 76, 77 (Ch. Div. 1983)). -6- BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 8 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 When adjudicating Plaintiff's two prior discovery motions, the Court Ordered Plaintiff to provide an explanation for how is discovery requests were relevant to his FCRA claim. Indeed, Plaintiff's latest discovery demands are repetitive, irrelevant and out of scope, and he seeks to depose employees of GM Financial based on the fact that he had phone conversations with them. In his improper reply, Plaintiff attempts, for the first time since this action was initiated two years ago, to explain how his communications with GM Financial employees could be relevant to credit disputes that were not even submitted to the CRAs until after this litigation was initiated by Plaintiff. Plaintiff claims, in conclusory terms, that communications could be relevant to whether GM Financial willfully or negligently failed to correct alleged inaccuracies on Plaintiff's credit report because there may be “some level of animus at GM Financial against the Plaintiff.” Pl.’s Reply Br. at 2. Plaintiff does not cite any support for his interpretation of the law because no such authority exists. Plaintiff should not be permitted to depose GM Financial employees for the vague purpose of uncovering “some level of animus.” Indeed, subjective negative feelings, even if such evidence were to come to light, is not relevant for showing “negligence, 9 «6, ‘willfulness,” causation. The standard is objective. Indeed, causation is a critical element of an FCRA claim, and the only relevant inquiry against a furnisher is whether its actions were reasonable after receiving a notice of a dispute toa CRA. Under 15 U.S.C. § 16810, a plaintiff may be entitled to “actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure” to reasonably investigate a properly submitted credit dispute due to negligence. (Emphasis added). Similarly, under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n, upon a showing that the furnisher “willfully fail[ed]” to reasonably investigate a properly submitted credit dispute, the plaintiff may be entitled to “any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than -7- BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 9 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 $1,000,” and punitive damages. (Emphasis added); see also Wright v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-3675, 2019 WL 5549278, at *4-5 (N.D. Ga. July 30, 2019), rep. and rec. adopted, (N.D. Ga. Jan. 24, 2020) (dismissing FCRA complaint with prejudice and rejecting request to flesh out claim in discovery because “Plaintiff does not allege any facts to establish that Defendant failed to conduct an investigation after it received notice from the CRA of his dispute, failed to review any information the CRA provided in its notice, or failed to report the results of its investigation to the CRA”) (unpublished decisions attached to Murphy Cert. at Exhibit 10); see also Bello v. Capital One Bank (USA) N.A., No. 1:20-cv-01218, at *4-6 (D.N.J. Feb. 13, 2020) (dismissing, sua sponte, this Plaintiffs FCRA claim for failure to “allege sufficient facts to state a claim under FCRA, even construed liberally”) (unpublished decisions attached to Murphy Cert. at Exhibit 11). Plaintiff's desire to seek out “animus” is precluded by the fact that he did not submit any disputes with CRAs until after he initiated this litigation. See Schmidt v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2:17-cv-1708, 2019 WL 4943756, at *4-5 (D.N.J. Oct. 8, 2019) (dismissing RESPA claim with prejudice where dispute letter was sent after litigation was initiated because the filing of the complaint established that the plaintiffs “made up their mind about [Defendant]’s conduct,” and no specific causation of harm could be alleged from an alleged failure to respond to the dispute letter). To the extent Plaintiff communicated with any GM Financial employees, whether before or after this lawsuit was initiated by Plaintiff, the relevance of those communications for establishing the reasonableness of GM Financial’s investigation is impacted by the fact that Plaintiff already sued GM Financial. Indeed, GM Financial’s conduct cannot be found to be unreasonable as it is already the subject of this litigation, and GM Financial’s actions in response to Plaintiff's lawsuit are not -8- BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 10 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 susceptible to a subjective reasonableness-analysis under the FCRA. See Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 70, n.20, 127 S. Ct. 2202 (2007) (rejecting argument “that evidence of subjective bad faith must be taken into account in determining whether a company acted knowingly or recklessly” because “the company’s objective reading of [the relevant authority] is objectively reasonable”). GM Financial had an objective basis to report Plaintiffs credit as it did. Plaintiff was late and/or missed payments, and he failed to return the vehicle as required by the express terms of the lease. Even if the outcome of this litigation were to suggest that GM Financial should have taken different action, from an objective standpoint GM Financial’s conduct cannot be determined to be “unreasonable,” thus, GM Financial cannot have willfully violated the FCRA. Accordingly, there is no basis for Plaintiff to depose any GM Financial employees to obtain subjective evidence. Nothing Plaintiff seeks in his depositions can alter the objective reasonableness of GM Financial’s conduct. In short, there is no basis for Plaintiff to seek discovery regarding communications that occurred before he submitted any disputes to CRAs, as they are irrelevant for establishing if and how GM Financial could have failed to reasonably investigate his disputes. Likewise, the initiation of Plaintiff's lawsuit against GM Financial prior to submitting any credit disputes effectively precludes Plaintiff from seeking to depose GM Financial employees whom he communicated with while the litigation was pending. Plaintiffs motion to compel should be denied. Iv. PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION NOTICES FOR GM FINANCIAL EMPLOYEES ARE DEFICIENT Plaintiff seeks to depose GM Financial employees as fact-witnesses in their individual capacities, and not as representatives of GM Financial. Not only are his notices to GM Financial -9- BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 11 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 noncompliant with Rules 1:9-1, 4:14-1, 4:14-2, 4:14-7, and 4:14-9, as set forth above there is simply no reason to depose any of these individuals. Indeed, Plaintiff admittedly never appropriately served these subpoenas. Rather, Plaintiff claims that his notices in lieu of subpoenas were sufficient under Rule 1:9-1. However, Plaintiff misapprehends the Court Rules. Rule 1:9-1 provides that a corporate representative of a party, as described in Rule 4:14-2(c), may be compelled to appear at trial via notice rather than trial subpoena. In order to serve a notice of deposition on an organization, Plaintiff is required to comply with Rule 4:14-2(c), which requires, among other things, that Plaintiff “designate with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested.” Rule 4:14-2(c) does not give Plaintiff license to notice, in lieu of subpoena, any employee that he wishes to depose, but rather only permits Plaintiff to seek testimony from a witness “designated within the spirit of [Rule] 4:14—2(c) to give testimony on behalf of the corporate entity.” Avis Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Cooper, 273 N.J. Super. 198, 202, 641 A.2d 570, 572 (App. Div. 1994). Accordingly, Plaintiff's notices to depose Tammy Ward, Angela Donaldson, and Kyle are deficient under the Court Rules. CONCLUSION Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Depositions and Discovery against GM Financial should be denied, and GM Financial should be awarded its costs, including attorneys’ fees, for having to oppose Plaintiff's redundant and meritless application. REED SMITH LLP /s/ David G. Murphy David G. Murphy Dated: March 18, 2020 -10- BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 1 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 REED SMITH LLP Formed in the State of Delaware Diane A. Bettino, Esquire (033241991) David G. Murphy, Esquire (069822013) 506 Carnegie Center, Suite 300 Princeton, NJ 08540 Tel. (609) 514-5954 Fax (609) 951-0824 Attorneys for Defendant AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc., d/b/a GM Financial JEFFREY BELLO, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION, BURLINGTON COUNTY Plaintiff, Docket No. L-000638-18 V. Civil Action CADILLAC, A DIVISION OF GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, ET AL., CERTIFICATION OF DAVID G. MURPHY, ESQ. Defendants. I, David G. Murphy, of full age, hereby certify as follow: 1 I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of New Jersey, and an attorney with the law firm of Reed Smith LLP, counsel for Defendant AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a GM Financial (“GM Financial”). As such, I am fully familiar with the facts set forth herein. 2 I make this Certification in support of Defendant GM Financial’s Opposition to Plaintiff Jeffrey Bello’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Depositions of Defendants’ Witnesses and Documents. 3 A true and correct copy of the Court’s Order, dated May 2, 2019, is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 4 A true and correct copy of the Court’s Order, dated July 15, 2019, is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. -l- BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 2 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 5 A true and correct copy of “Plaintiff's Demand for Production of Documents and Answers to Interrogatories from the Defendant GM Financial et al,” which was received via email on July 15, 2019, is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 6 A true and correct copy of GM Financial’s August 6, 2019 letter, sent in response to Plaintiff's July 15, 2019 correspondence, is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 7 A true and correct copy of the Court’s Order, dated August 19, 2019, is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. 8 A true and correct copy of the Court’s Order, dated November 13, 2019, is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. 9 A true and correct copy of “Plaintiff's 2" Demand for Production of Documents and Answers to Interrogatories from the Defendant GM Financial et al,” which was received on February 12, 2020, is attached hereto as Exhibit 7. 10. True and correct copies of Plaintiffs deposition notices directed to GM Financial employees Tammy Ward, Angela Donaldson, and Kyle are attached hereto as Exhibit 8. 11. A true and correct copy of GM Financial’s Letter to Plaintiff, which was sent to Plaintiff on March 13, 2020, is attached hereto as Exhibit 9. 12. A true and correct copy of the unpublished decision and adopting order in the matter Wright v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-3675, 2019 WL 5549278 (N.D. Ga. July 30, 2019) (unpublished), is attached hereto as Exhibit 10. 13. A true and correct copy of the unpublished decision in the matter Bello v. Capital One Bank (USA) N.A., No. 1:20-cv-1218 (D.N.J. Feb. 13, 2020) (unpublished), is attached hereto as Exhibit 11. -2- BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 3 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 14. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me is willfully false, 1 am subject to punishment. Dated: March 18, 2020 REED SMITH LLP /s/ David G. Murphy David G. Murphy -3- BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 4 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 EXHIBIT 1 BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM_Pg 5 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 Filed With The Court MAY ~2 2019 Janet Z. Smith, J.8.C. PREPARED BY THE COURT JEFFERY BELLO SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION Plaintiff, BURLINGTON VICINAGE DOCKET NO. BUR-L-000638-18 CIVIL ACTION CADILLAC, a division of GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, et al., GENERAL ORDER MOTORS HOLDINGS, LLC, GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, HOLMAN CADILLAC, a division of HOLMAN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., ESIS, INC. a wholly owned Subsidiary of THE CHUBB CORPORATION, KERBECK CADILLAC, INC., GENERAL MOTORS FINANCIAL COMPANY, a wholly owned Subsidiary of GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, AIRSEPT, INC., PRODUCT DEFENSE INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, LLC; MARY T. BARRA, DANIEL E. BERCE, MELINDA K. HOLMAN, MICHAEL SCHWAB, STEVEN MATTERN, CHRIS C. ROFFEY, JOSHUA PREISTER, TAMMY WARD, JOHN NEVITT, PATRICK RONALD BURLEY, JOHN/JANE DOES #1-10 and/or ABC CORPORATIONS #1-10 Fictitious Corporations and/or Commercial Entities, j/s/a Defendant(s) The above matter having been brought before the Court on multiple Motions to Compel by all parties, and the Court having considered the motion papers filed by the parties and having heard oral argument in the presence of Jeffrey Bello, Plaintiff, Johnathan Delgado, Esq., attorney for Defendants General Motors Company, General Page 1 of 6 BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM_Pg 6 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 Motors Holdings LLC, General Motors LLC, ESIS, Inc., Holman Automotive, Inc., Kerbeck Cadillac, Inc. ("GM Defendants"); David Murphy, Esq., attorney for Defendants General Motors Financial; and Anne Delena, Esq., and Benjamin Muzi, Esq., attorney for Defendant AirSept, Inc., and for the reasons stated on the record, and for good cause shown: IT1S on this Zn day of ft fy ORDERED as follows: A. Plaintiff shall provide Defendant, GM Financial, with the following discovery: 4 Any and all inquiries and responses from credit reporting agencies; 2 Credit reports from before and after the alleged harm; Any and all denials of credit from any entity; Each and every application made for employment that was declined and the reasons why it was declined; Each and every incident and expense impacted by credit score; and Any and all denials or reductions in credit for every credit card in Plaintiff's possession. 0 Calculation of Damages caused by the actions of GM Financial. Plaintiff shall provide the aforementioned discovery or certify that all information available to him has been provided and that his responses are complete. Plaintiff shall provide GM Defendants and Airsept, Inc. with the following discovery: 4. Any and All documents related to any Workman's Compensation claim(s); 2. Any and All treatment records which indicate the medical providers and time of treatment for all injuries claimed by Plaintiff; Page 2 of 6 BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27PM Pg 7 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 Any and All expenses incurred, indicating who paid for the expenses and how much was paid; Any and all discs in Plaintiff's possession related to the previous litigation which have been represented to include depositions and medical expert reports; Any and all W-2's, employment records, and tax returns for the years of 2012 through 2019; Any and all documents regarding any foreclosure action(s); Any record of money given, borrowed, or owed to any lenders or other individuals in relationship to this case that Plaintiff will seek reimbursement of. Plaintiff's calculation of damages caused by the actions of the GM Defendants; 9 HIPAA Medical Authorizations; 10. Any and all audio recordings of phone calls between Plaintiff and all parties and witnesses related to Defendants; 11.Any and all documents in support of Plaintiff's contention of the existence of a defect; 12.Any and all photographs and videos of Plaintiffs injuries, vehicle, and inspection of the vehicle with descriptions of who took the photo and when; 13.Any and all statements made by any witness or person affiliated with any Defendants with the identity of who made the statement and when and where the statement was made; Page 3 of 6 BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 8 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 14. A list of any and all anticipated expert witnesse(s) and their curriculum vitae(s); and 15.The names of any and all companies operated by Plaintiff from 2012 to present. Plaintiff shall provide the aforementioned discovery or certify that all information available to him has been provided and that his responses are complete. Plaintiff shall provide full responses to the following questions as they apply to GM Defendants: 4 What is the alleged fraud? 2 What acts do you allege support your fraud claim against ESIS and Holman Automotive, Inc.? What acts do you allege support your claim of misrepresentation? What omissions do you allege support your claim of misrepresentation? What regulatory violations do you allege were committed by GM Defendants? What services did ESIS offer that you paid for and how much for such services? F. Plaintiff shall provide full responses to the following questions as they apply to Airsept, Inc.: 4. What are the specifics of the alleged defect? 2. Are you alleging a design defect or manufacturing defect? 3. Is the defect you are alleging in the cooling coil coating, the 2014 Cadillac ELR, or some combination of both? Page 4 of 6 BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27PM Pg 9 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 4. ls the defect the alleged presence of Cocamide DEA? If not, explain in detail. 5. Do you allege that Cocamide DEA alone or added to a product makes it defective? 6. Are you alleging that the product was applied unsafely or incorrectly? 7. \s the defect in the application of the cooling coil coating product or the formulation of the cooling coil coating product?. G. GM Defendants shall supply the Court with all statements, documents, correspondence, and emails related to the April 5, 2016 report of Matthew McGuire with a privilege log for in camera review. The privilege log shall outline the basis for the claimed privilege. GM Defendants shall supply Plaintiff with the privilege log. GM Defendants shall supply Plaintiff with the following discovery: 4, Any and all records of contact by Plaintiff to customer care or executive office from 2016 and 2017; Any and all emails exchanged between any representative of GM Defendants and Plaintiff; A list of any and all persons involved with Plaintiffs dispute with GM Defendants; Any and all documents, emails, memos, etc., that relate to Plaintiff's dispute with GM Defendants; Holman Automotive's records and correspondence regarding the treatment of the car; Page 5 of 6 BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27PM Pg 10 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 6. Any and all documents in support of the repair orders and correspondence regarding repairs of the vehicle; 7. The name of the regional representative that denied Faulkner Cadillac's ability to repair the car; and 8. Any and all internal communications among GM Defendants regarding the vehicle in question. | Defendant, Airsept, Inc., shall provide the following discovery to Plaintiff: 1. Any and all documents regarding the formulation of the allegedly defective product; 2. Any and all information regarding safety labels from any source; 3. Any and all records pertaining to the testing of the product, 4. Any and all records pertaining to any complaints related to the product prior to 2016. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all information required by this order shall be supplied by May 24, 2019. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that a copy of this Order shall be deemed served via ECourts. GM Defendants shall serve Plaintiff with a copy of this Order within five (5) days of the date hereof. f) L finer Jf Fen Janet ee Z, brgor J.S.C. V Q Opposed Q Unopposed Page 6 of 6 BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 11 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 EXHIBIT 2 FBUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 12 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 BUR L 000638-18 07/15/2019 Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20191249056 qth The Court yy. 15 2008 C. PREPARED BY THE COURT janet Z. Smith, J.8. JEFFERY BELLO : SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION Plaintiff, BURLINGTON COUNTY Vv. DOCKET NO.: BUR-L-000638-18 CADILLAC, a division of GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, et al., GENERAL MOTORS CIVIL ACTION HOLDINGS, LLC, GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, HOLMAN CADILLAC, a division of HOLMAN ORDER AUTOMOTIVE, INC., ESIS, INC. a wholly owned Subsidiary of THE CHUBB CORPORATION, KERBECK CADILLAC, INC., GENERAL MOTORS FINANCIAL COMPANY, a wholly owned Subsidiary of GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, AIRSEPT, INC., PRODUCT DEFENSE INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, LLC; MARY T. BARRA, DANIEL E, BERCE, MELINDA K. HOLMAN, MICHAEL SCHWAB, STEVEN MATTERN, CHRIS C. : ROFFEY, JOSHUA PREISTER, TAMMY WARD, JOHN NEVITT, PATRICK RONALD BURLEY, JOHN/JANE DOES #1- 10 and/or ABC CORPORATIONS #1- 10 Fictitious Corporations and/or Commercial Entities, j/s/a Defendant(s) THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court upon application of Jeffrey Bello, Plaintiff and a self-represented litigant, on a Motion to Compel bE Page 1 of 2 FBUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 13 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 BUR L 000638-18 07/15/2019 Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20191249056 Discovery from Defendant, GM Financial; and the Court having considered the submissions of counsel and having heard oral argument in the presence of a self-represented litigant; Monica Marsico, Esq., E Jeffrey Bello, Plaintiff and attorney for Defendants, General Motors LLC, ESIS, Inc., Holman Automotive, Inc., and Kerbeck Cadillac, Inc. (“GM Defendants’); Benjamin Muzzi, Esq., attorney for Defendant, Airsept, Inc.; and David Murphy, Esq., attorney for Defendant, GM Financial; and for the reasons stated on the record; and good cause having been shown; IT 18 on this / oe of July, 2019, ORDERED that the motion to Compel Discovery is carried to August 16, 2019. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall provide specific discovery requests and how those requests apply to the cause of action by July 16, 2019. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant, GM Financial, shall respond to Plaintiff's demands by August 6, 2019. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of the within Order shall be served upon all counsel of record within seven (7) days of the date hereof. on. Janet , Smith, J.S.C. mutes GQ UNOPPOSED Page 2 of 2 BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 14 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 EXHIBIT 3 BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 15 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 JEFFREY BELLO 143 E. Warren Street Edgewater Park, New Jersey 08010 bell9900@aol.com (609) 668-9300 ProSE Plaintiff JEFFREY BELLO SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY Plaintiff /Petitioner LAW DIVISION BURLINGTON COUNTY Vs. Docket No.: L-638-18 GM FINANCIAL et al Defendant /Respondents Civil Action PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES FROM THE DEFENDANT GM FINANCIAL et al TO: Reed Smith, LLP 136 Main Street, Suite 250 Princeton, NJ 08540 Attorneys for Defendant GM Financial Mr. Murphy, As you have been so advised by the Court on July 11, 2019, please provide complete answers to the Plaintiff's propounded discovery requests previously sent to you in the form of interrogatories, admissions, and document requests. In an effort to assist you, and pursuant to the Court’s directive, please provide ALL communications regarding the Plaintiff's account with Defendant, GM FINANCIAL et al. This should include ALL emails, internal memos, documents, and or communications regarding the Plaintiff's account and/or the subject 2014 Cadillac. This would also include any and ALL communications with ANY General Motors affiliate, franchise, individuals and/or executives. BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 16 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 The call center log you have provided clearly refers to “emails” numerous times, yet no copies of any emails have been provided? Additionally, the “call center” log makes no mention of AVP Tammy Ward? In your responses, please provide all parties “full names”, the entity where they were working at the time of their involvement, their title(s) and job description. In an effort to assist you, here are some of the names of the people that the Plaintiff has been advised were involved, or he had contact with: Angela Donaldson, Tammy Ward, Daniel Berce, Kyle (last name unknown), Tiffany (last name unknown), and Rhea Whitfield. As you are aware, this defendant is required to furnish all information available pursuant to R. 4:17-4(a), and it is permissible for interrogatories to include a request for a copy of a document pursuant to R. 4:17-1(a). Additionally, as the Plaintiff's involvement with this Defendant is of a “financial” nature, GM Financial is required to maintain ALL records regarding the Plaintiff for not less than SLX years, pursuant to New Jersey statute. Respectfully requested by: wer Jb YEFFREY BELLO — Plaintifi/ProSe Dated: July 15, 2019 PROOF OF SERVICE In accordance with R. 1:5-3, I certify that the within discovery requests were served in accordance with R. 1:5-2, by ordinary mail, postage prepaid, mailed on the date set forth below on: Reed Smith, LLP 136 Main Street, Suite 250 Princeton, NJ 08540 Attorneys for Defendant GM Financial Dated: July 15, 2019 » JEFFREYLEBELLO AA — Plaintiff ProSe BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 17 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 EXHIBIT 4 BUR-L-000638-18 03/18/2020 3:58:27 PM Pg 18 of 80 Trans ID: LCV2020557496 Reodinith through partnership David G. Murph Reed Smith LLP Princeton Forrestal Village 136 Main Street - Suite 250 Princeton, NJ 08540-7839 +1 609 987 0050 Direct Phone: +1 609 514 5947 Fax +1 609 951 0824 Email: dmurphy@reedsmith.com reedsmith.com August 6, 2019 Via Email and Overnight Mail Jeffrey M. Bello 143 E. Warren Street Edgewater Park, New Jersey 08010 Re: Jeffrey Bello v. Cadillac, et al. Docket No. BUR-L-638-18 Dear Mr. Bello: As you are aware, this firm represents Defendant AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a GM Financial (“GM Financial’) in the above-referenced matter. We submit this letter in accordance with