Preview
URgslNAL
KNIGHT LAW GROUP LLP
SteveMikhov (SBN 224676)
stevem@kngihtlaw.com
Amy Morse (SBN 290502)
amym@knightlaw.com
Erum Siddiqui (SBN 325984)
erums@knight1aw.c0m
10250 Constellation Blvd. Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
\OOONQUI-th
Telephone: (310) 552-2250
Fax: (310) 552-7973
Attorneys for Plaintiff, . _-
MOISES VILLANUEVA
'
_
I
w
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
11
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
12
MOISES VILLANUEVA, Case No.2 CIVDSI939390
13
Unlimited Jurisdiction
14
Plaintiff,
15
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
VS
16
'
FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION FROM DEFENDANT
17
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, AND
California Corporation, and DOES l REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
18 through 10, inclusive,
[Submitted concurrently With Notice of Motion
19
and Motion t0 Compel Further Responses,
Defendants
Statement 0f Items in Dispute, Declaration of
20
Erum Siddiqui in Support of Motion, and
[Proposed] Order.]
21
22 Hearing Date: January 11, 2021
Hearing Time: 9:00 AM
23
Department: $22
24
Complaint Filed: December 31, 2019
25
Trial: July 12, 2021
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY
RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Moises Villanueva (“Plaintiff’) was the unfortunate purchaser of a defective
2019 Nissan Sentra (the “vehicle”), Which was distributed and warranted by Defendant NISSAN
NORTH AMERICA, INC. (“Defendant”). (Complaint, 1] 8.) Plaintiff invested thousands 0f
dollars in What he hoped would be a reliable, long-term vehicle. Instead, Plaintiff received a
\OOOQQUIAUJNw
defective and unsafe vehicle with recurring and unpredictable electrical problems. Despite
Plaintiffs frequent repair Visits and Defendant’s inability to eliminate the problems with the
vehicle after a reasonable number of attempts, Defendant failed to make a prompt offer t0
repurchase or replace the vehicle in accordance With the Song-Beverly Act.
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant for Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act on December 3 1, 2019. On February 24, 2020, Plaintiff propounded his first set of
discovery requests, including Requests for Production ofDocuments (“RFPs”), to investigate and
develop their case. (Declaration of Erum Siddiqui “Siddiqui Decl.”, 11 4; Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s
Requests for Production 0f Documents sought, among other things, information regarding
Nissan’s repurchases 0f vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Plaintiff’s vehicle, for
consumer complaints similar to those affecting Plaintiff vehicle made in connection t0 vehicles
of the same year, make, and model vehicle. (Exh. A)
On July 1, 2020, Defendant mailed its responses to Plaintiffs discovery requests.
NNNNNNNNNHi—‘p—t—HHHHt—H
(Siddiqui Decl., 1] 5; Exh. B.) Many 0f Defendant’s responses to RFPs failed to either agree t0
OOflQUl-bktJNflONOOOflQUl-PWNHO
produce documents, claim inability t0 comply With Plaintiff s Requests, or properly object in the
manner required by the Code of Civil Procedure. (Siddiqui Decl., 1] 7; Exh. B.) From August 2020
0n, the parties requested and agreed to extensions to the written discovery and motion t0 compel
deadlines in efforts t0 resolve the deficiencies in the production of documents informally.
(Siddiqui Decl., 1] 8; Exh. C.) Both parties agreed to each extension request With a final extension
on the motion to compel deadline to November 18, 2020. (Siddiqui Decl., 1] 8; Exh. C.) Since
July 2020, parties have engaged in three mediations in an attempt to resolve cases. Both parties
agreed t0 focus on mediation t0 avoid unnecessary attorney fees and costs and to expeditiously
resolve the cases. (Siddiqui Decl., 1] 9.) However, after three months of settlement discussions
-2-
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY
RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT
Preview
URgslNAL KNIGHT LAW GROUP LLP SteveMikhov (SBN 224676) stevem@kngihtlaw.com Amy Morse (SBN 290502) amym@knightlaw.com Erum Siddiqui (SBN 325984) erums@knight1aw.c0m 10250 Constellation Blvd. Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 \OOONQUI-th Telephone: (310) 552-2250 Fax: (310) 552-7973 Attorneys for Plaintiff, . _- MOISES VILLANUEVA ' _ I w 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 12 MOISES VILLANUEVA, Case No.2 CIVDSI939390 13 Unlimited Jurisdiction 14 Plaintiff, 15 PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL VS 16 ' FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM DEFENDANT 17 NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, AND California Corporation, and DOES l REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 18 through 10, inclusive, [Submitted concurrently With Notice of Motion 19 and Motion t0 Compel Further Responses, Defendants Statement 0f Items in Dispute, Declaration of 20 Erum Siddiqui in Support of Motion, and [Proposed] Order.] 21 22 Hearing Date: January 11, 2021 Hearing Time: 9:00 AM 23 Department: $22 24 Complaint Filed: December 31, 2019 25 Trial: July 12, 2021 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Moises Villanueva (“Plaintiff’) was the unfortunate purchaser of a defective 2019 Nissan Sentra (the “vehicle”), Which was distributed and warranted by Defendant NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. (“Defendant”). (Complaint, 1] 8.) Plaintiff invested thousands 0f dollars in What he hoped would be a reliable, long-term vehicle. Instead, Plaintiff received a \OOOQQUIAUJNw defective and unsafe vehicle with recurring and unpredictable electrical problems. Despite Plaintiffs frequent repair Visits and Defendant’s inability to eliminate the problems with the vehicle after a reasonable number of attempts, Defendant failed to make a prompt offer t0 repurchase or replace the vehicle in accordance With the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant for Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act on December 3 1, 2019. On February 24, 2020, Plaintiff propounded his first set of discovery requests, including Requests for Production ofDocuments (“RFPs”), to investigate and develop their case. (Declaration of Erum Siddiqui “Siddiqui Decl.”, 11 4; Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s Requests for Production 0f Documents sought, among other things, information regarding Nissan’s repurchases 0f vehicles of the same year, make, and model as the Plaintiff’s vehicle, for consumer complaints similar to those affecting Plaintiff vehicle made in connection t0 vehicles of the same year, make, and model vehicle. (Exh. A) On July 1, 2020, Defendant mailed its responses to Plaintiffs discovery requests. NNNNNNNNNHi—‘p—t—HHHHt—H (Siddiqui Decl., 1] 5; Exh. B.) Many 0f Defendant’s responses to RFPs failed to either agree t0 OOflQUl-bktJNflONOOOflQUl-PWNHO produce documents, claim inability t0 comply With Plaintiff s Requests, or properly object in the manner required by the Code of Civil Procedure. (Siddiqui Decl., 1] 7; Exh. B.) From August 2020 0n, the parties requested and agreed to extensions to the written discovery and motion t0 compel deadlines in efforts t0 resolve the deficiencies in the production of documents informally. (Siddiqui Decl., 1] 8; Exh. C.) Both parties agreed to each extension request With a final extension on the motion to compel deadline to November 18, 2020. (Siddiqui Decl., 1] 8; Exh. C.) Since July 2020, parties have engaged in three mediations in an attempt to resolve cases. Both parties agreed t0 focus on mediation t0 avoid unnecessary attorney fees and costs and to expeditiously resolve the cases. (Siddiqui Decl., 1] 9.) However, after three months of settlement discussions -2- PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT