On September 21, 2020 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Brussard, James,
and
Does 1 Through 20,
General Motors, Llca Delaware Limited Liability Company,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
OCIGINAL
Mary Arens McBride, Esq. (SBN: 282459)
Kyle B. Roybal, Esq. (SBN: 291520)
Tavian King, Esq. (SBN: 334649)
ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC S /W‘
TY S AN BE
1576 N. Batavia St., Suite A
‘
BERNARDINO ggeffilCTo
Orange, CA 92867
Tel: (949) 777-6032
Fax: (714) 844-9035
Bal
Email: marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com
CHRISTINE LOCKMAN,
Email: kroybal@erskinelaw.com Dapmy
Email: tking@erskinelaw.c0m
OOONG
Attorneys for Defendant,
GENERAL MOTORS LLC
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO — SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER
12
JAMES BRUSSARD, an individual; CASE NO.: CIVD52019921
13 A8
Plaintiff, ASSIGNED T0:
14 Honorable Khymberli S. Apaloo
Xyzl
vs. Department 525
15
16 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; and DOES DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS
17 1 through 20, inclusive, LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION
18
Defendants. TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF
19
MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
THE DEPOSITION OF GENERAL
20 MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST
KNOWLEDGEABLE WITH
21 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
22 Filed Concurrently With:
1) Separate Statement
23
2) Declaration 0f Kyle B. Roybal
24
Action Filed: September 21, 2020
25 Trial Date: TBD
26
DATE: October 26,2021
27 TIME: 9:00 am.
DEPT: S25
28
IN OPPOSITION
DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES GENERAL
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTIONDTO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF
TO PLAINTIFF‘S
MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE WITH PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
V V
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff‘s motion t0 compel should be denied 0n the merits. In this simple breach 0f warranty
case about a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado, Plaintiff served _23_7 discovery requests: 76 Requests for
Form and 20
Production, 56 Requests for Admission, 63 Special lnterrogatories, 22
lnterrogatories,
Requests for Production in his deposition notice for GM’s Person(s) Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”)
demanding that GM produce a PMK on 24 different topics. GM timely responded and/or served valid
objections t0 all fl requests and, t0 date, has produced all these materials:
vehicle’s
o GM’s Global Warranty History Reports for Plaintiff’s Silverado, including that
warranty repairs for which — not Plaintiff — GM
Transaction History documenting all the
10 paid;
o GM’s Customer Assistance Center records reflecting communications regarding
11
Plaintiff’ s Silverado (i.e., the Service Request Activity History);
12 the
o the 2019 Chevrolet Limited Warranty and Owner Assistance Information (i.e.,
document containing the warranty at issue);
13
o the Lease Agreement for Plaintiff s Silverado;
14
Invoice reflecting the components included in Plaintiff’s Silverado at the time
of
o BARS
15 delivery and the corresponding MSRP value;
o repair orders obtained from GM-authorized dealership(s) that performed maintenance and
16
repairs 0n Plaintiff’s Silverado;
17
o the Vehicle Summary and Repair Order Details for Plaintiff’s Silverado reflecting the
amounts paid for warranty repairs;
18
o product brochures for the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado;
19
o the Service Manual applicable t0 the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado;
20
o the Owner’s Manual for the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado; and
21
o a list 0f technical service bulletins (“TSBs”) for the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado.
22
Notwithstanding GM’s production, Plaintiff wants to compel the deposition of
GM’s PMK and
23
force GM to produce documents that either have already been produced 0r are patently irrelevant. In fact,
24
Plaintiff filed this motion despite being offered a PMK deposition 0n the categories that are actually
25
pertinent t0 Plaintiff’s vehicle (Category Nos. 1-12 and 18-24). Indeed,
GM has agreed (and remains
26
made to Plaintiffs vehicle, recalls and technical
willing) to produce a witness to testify about repairs
27
service bulletins, warranties, and the reasons that GM did not repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle. Although
28
OPPOSITION T0
DEFENDANT GENEML MOTORS LLC’s MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1N MOTORS LLC’s
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE 0F MOTION AND MOTION T0 COMPEL THE DEPOSITION 0F GENERAL
PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE WITH PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS
_ 1 _
Document Filed Date
October 08, 2021
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
OCIGINAL Mary Arens McBride, Esq. (SBN: 282459) Kyle B. Roybal, Esq. (SBN: 291520) Tavian King, Esq. (SBN: 334649) ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC S /W‘ TY S AN BE 1576 N. Batavia St., Suite A ‘ BERNARDINO ggeffilCTo Orange, CA 92867 Tel: (949) 777-6032 Fax: (714) 844-9035 Bal Email: marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com CHRISTINE LOCKMAN, Email: kroybal@erskinelaw.com Dapmy Email: tking@erskinelaw.c0m OOONG Attorneys for Defendant, GENERAL MOTORS LLC 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO — SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER 12 JAMES BRUSSARD, an individual; CASE NO.: CIVD52019921 13 A8 Plaintiff, ASSIGNED T0: 14 Honorable Khymberli S. Apaloo Xyzl vs. Department 525 15 16 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS 17 1 through 20, inclusive, LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION 18 Defendants. TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF 19 MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF GENERAL 20 MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE WITH 21 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 22 Filed Concurrently With: 1) Separate Statement 23 2) Declaration 0f Kyle B. Roybal 24 Action Filed: September 21, 2020 25 Trial Date: TBD 26 DATE: October 26,2021 27 TIME: 9:00 am. DEPT: S25 28 IN OPPOSITION DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES GENERAL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTIONDTO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF TO PLAINTIFF‘S MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE WITH PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS V V MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff‘s motion t0 compel should be denied 0n the merits. In this simple breach 0f warranty case about a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado, Plaintiff served _23_7 discovery requests: 76 Requests for Form and 20 Production, 56 Requests for Admission, 63 Special lnterrogatories, 22 lnterrogatories, Requests for Production in his deposition notice for GM’s Person(s) Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) demanding that GM produce a PMK on 24 different topics. GM timely responded and/or served valid objections t0 all fl requests and, t0 date, has produced all these materials: vehicle’s o GM’s Global Warranty History Reports for Plaintiff’s Silverado, including that warranty repairs for which — not Plaintiff — GM Transaction History documenting all the 10 paid; o GM’s Customer Assistance Center records reflecting communications regarding 11 Plaintiff’ s Silverado (i.e., the Service Request Activity History); 12 the o the 2019 Chevrolet Limited Warranty and Owner Assistance Information (i.e., document containing the warranty at issue); 13 o the Lease Agreement for Plaintiff s Silverado; 14 Invoice reflecting the components included in Plaintiff’s Silverado at the time of o BARS 15 delivery and the corresponding MSRP value; o repair orders obtained from GM-authorized dealership(s) that performed maintenance and 16 repairs 0n Plaintiff’s Silverado; 17 o the Vehicle Summary and Repair Order Details for Plaintiff’s Silverado reflecting the amounts paid for warranty repairs; 18 o product brochures for the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado; 19 o the Service Manual applicable t0 the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado; 20 o the Owner’s Manual for the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado; and 21 o a list 0f technical service bulletins (“TSBs”) for the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado. 22 Notwithstanding GM’s production, Plaintiff wants to compel the deposition of GM’s PMK and 23 force GM to produce documents that either have already been produced 0r are patently irrelevant. In fact, 24 Plaintiff filed this motion despite being offered a PMK deposition 0n the categories that are actually 25 pertinent t0 Plaintiff’s vehicle (Category Nos. 1-12 and 18-24). Indeed, GM has agreed (and remains 26 made to Plaintiffs vehicle, recalls and technical willing) to produce a witness to testify about repairs 27 service bulletins, warranties, and the reasons that GM did not repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle. Although 28 OPPOSITION T0 DEFENDANT GENEML MOTORS LLC’s MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1N MOTORS LLC’s PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE 0F MOTION AND MOTION T0 COMPEL THE DEPOSITION 0F GENERAL PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE WITH PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS _ 1 _