Motion-Secondary: Sz Huang et al vs Tesla Inc. et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Thomas P. Branigan (Pro Hac Vice)
  BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
2     West Big Beaver Road, Suite 100
  Troy, MI 48084
3 Telephone: (248) 205.3300
  Facsimile: (248) 205.3399
4 Thomas.branigan@bowmanandbrooke.com

5 Joel Smith (Pro Hac Vice)
  Kevin Malloy (Pro Hac Vice)
6 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
  1441 Main Street, Suite 1200
7 Columbia, SC 29201
  Telephone: (803) 726 7420
8 Facsimile: (803) 726 7421
  Joel.Smith@bowmanandbrooke.com
9 Kevin.malloy@bowmanandbrooke.com

  Lauren O. Miller #279448
  Tesla, Inc.
  901 Page Avenue
  Fremont, California 94538
  MillerL@tesla.com

  Attorneys for Defendant
  Tesla, Inc.


                  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

   SZ HUA HUANG, Individually and as successor       Case No. 19CV346663
   in interest to WEI LUN HUANG, deceased;       )
   TRINITY HUANG, a minor; TRISTAN HUANG,        )   TESLA’s RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO
   a minor; HSI KENG HUANG; and CHING FEN        )   CALTRANS’ MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT
   HUANG,                                        )   WITNESS INFORMATION; DECLARATION OF
                                                 )   THOMAS P. BRANIGAN
                              Plaintiff,         )
                                                 )   Date: November 7, 2023
   vs.                                           )   Time: 9:00 a.m.
                                                 )   Dept.: 6
   TESLA, INC. dba TESLA MOTORS INC. THE         )
   STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1 through       )   Assigned for all purposes to:
   100,                                          )   Hon. Evette Pennypacker; Dept. 6
                                                 )
                              Defendants.        )
                                                 )




                                            1
         TESLA’s RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO CALTRANS’ MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT
                                 WITNESS INFORMATION
       Tesla, Inc., by its undersigned Counsel, Bowman and Brooke LLP, responds in

opposition to Caltrans’ Motion to Augment Expert Witness Information and for the reasons

stated below, this Motion can and should be denied:

                                      FACTS AND BACKGROUND

       As this Court knows, this is an automotive product liability case that has been pending

and in discovery since 2019 The case arises from a crash that occurred in March 2018 Walter

Huang crashed his 2017 Tesla Model X into a crash attenuator on south bound U.S. 101 in

Mountain iew, California because he was not paying attention to the road. Sadly, he died in the

crash. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigated the crash and determined

he was playing a video game on his cell phone at the time. Data from the Model X showed he

had engaged Autopilot a feature combining adaptive cruise control with lane centering

his hands were not detected on the steering wheel in the leadup to the crash.

       In its Motion, Caltrans claims that after the agreed upon date for disclosure of experts by

all parties (May 1, 2023), its retained ccident econstruction expert performed additional work

that “… raised new questions about when and how the Tesla driver suffered the injuries which

ultimately led to his death.” (Caltrans Memorandum of Points and Authorities at p. 2). However,

Caltrans also correctly stated that “[t]he National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

investigated the subject collision and found that if the crash attenuator had been “in a functional

condition before the March 23, 2018, crash, the Tesla driver most likely would have survived the

collision.” (Id.). The NTSB completed its investigation of the subject crash and announced its

findings in a report that was issue in 2020    over three years before the agreed upon date of

May 1, 2023 for expert disclosure in this case. The NTSB report is publicly available and

presumably, Caltrans has had possession of that report since it was issued over three years

ago. See relevant portion of the NTSB Report attached as Exhibit A.

       Both laintiffs and Tesla disclosed iomechanical engineering experts timely on May 1,

. Caltrans had until May 22      to supplement its expert witness disclosures to add an expert to


    TESLA’s RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO CALTRANS’ MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT
                            WITNESS INFORMATION
“express an opinion on a subject to be covered by an expert designated by an adverse party to

the exchange, if the party supplementing an expert witness list has not previously retained an

expert to testify on that subject.” Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.280. Caltrans failed to supplement its

expert disclosure by May 22, 2023.

       Besides it knowledge of the NTSB’s findings related to the damaged crash attenuator as

the cause of Mr. Huang’s death which made his cause of death an issue of potential controversy

and one that would require expert analysis, in form interrogatory responses Caltrans served in

2020, it indicated that the “condition of the attenuator was not a substantial factor to Walter

Huang’s death . . . .” See Caltrans Response to Form Interrogatories (Set Three) attached as

Exhibit B. Thus, Caltrans has known from the earliest stage of this case that an expert qualified

in the field of Biomechanics would be a key causation expert in the case.

                                      II.     LAW AND ARGUMENT

       The decision to deny Caltrans’ Motion requesting relief due to its admitted failure to

designate an expert witness is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be

disturbed on appeal absent a showing of manifest abuse of that discretion. (Dickison v. Howen

(1990) 220 Cal. App. 3d 1471, 1476.)

       The court shall grant leave to augment an expert witness list or declaration if the

following conditions are satisfied:

               (a)    The court has taken into account the extent to which the
               opposing party has relied on the list of expert witnesses.

               (b)    The court has determined that any party opposing the
               motion will not be prejudiced in maintaining that party's action or
               defense on the merits.


(Code Civ. Proc. §2034.620 (a) (b).)

       In addition, the court must find either that Caltrans would not “in the exercise of

  asonable diligence” have determined to call that expert witness (Code Civ. Proc. §2034.620

(c)(1)), or that the failure to call that expert witness was as a result of “mistake, inadvertence,


     TESLA’s RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO CALTRANS’ MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT
                             WITNESS INFORMATION
surprise, or excusable neglect” and the party promptly sought leave to augment and promptly

served a copy of the proposed expert witness information on all parties. (Code Civ. Proc.

§2034.620 (c)(2)(A) (B).)

       The motion “shall be made at a sufficient time in advance of the time limit for the

completion of discovery under Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 2024.010) to permit the

deposition of any expert to whom the motion relates to be taken within that time limit. Under

exceptional circumstances, the court may permit the motion to be made at a later time.” (Code

Civ. Proc. §2034.610(b).) Finally, the motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer

declaration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.610(c).)

       In short, Caltrans has failed to establish that it has met any of the requirements under

Code Civ. Proc. §2034.620 and the court should deny its Motion. First, Caltrans does not claim

“mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” as its reason for failing to disclose a

Biomechanic expert. Instead, it argues that it could not have determined the need to disclose a

Biomechanic expert until after the disclosure dates had passed. However, the notion that

Caltrans could not have known through the “exercise of reasonable diligence” that such

expert would be necessary to support its position and defense related to cause of death until

after its Accident Reconstruction expert performed “additional work” is implausible. Caltrans

knew or should have known that such an expert ould be ed to support             its contention that

the condition of the attenuator at the time of the subject crash was inconsequential at least as of

2020 when the NTSB announced its findings about the role played by the inoperable crash

attenuator in causation of Mr. Huang’s death. For reasons known only to Caltrans, it failed to act

on that information and it chose to not disclose a Biomechanic to address this topic.

       Even if it were true that Caltrans did not realize it needed a iomechan until after some

additional work” by its Accident Reconstruction expert that occurred after May 1, Caltrans had

to know a iomechanical expert was needed after receiving the expert disclosures on May 1

that included disclosures of Biomechanic experts by Tesla and Plaintiffs. Still, Caltrans decided


    TESLA’s RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO CALTRANS’ MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT
                            WITNESS INFORMATION
ainst disclosing a supplemental expert when it had the opportunity to do so         without leave of

the court Instead, Caltrans waited until July 25, 2023 to raise its request to “augment” its expert

disclosures with Tesla and Plaintiff (Ex    Correspondence from Caltrans Counsel).

        The following language from the Court of Appeal, though it addresses supplemental

expert disclosure, applies equally here: “When it comes to issues that both sides anticipate will

be disputed at trial, a party cannot merely ‘reserve its right’ to designate experts in the initial

exchange, wait to see what experts are designated by the opposition, and then name its expert

only as purported ‘rebuttal’ witnesses.” Fairfax v. Lords (2006) 138 Cal. App. 4 1019, 1021.

Not only did Caltrans wait for Tesla and Plaintiffs to disclose experts, but Caltrans also waited

until after both opposing parties’ ccident econstruction experts testified and after Tesla’s

 iomechanic expert testified before making its request. California law does not permit this type

of litigation conduct. Simultaneous expert exchange is required per Code Civ. Proc.

 2034.260(a) and one party cannot hold off on disclosing an expert until after an opposing

parties’ experts have turned over their experts’ files, produced their experts’ work product and

analysis       have already been deposed.

        Tesla will be unfairly prejudiced if Caltrans’ Motion is granted. Tesla’s Biomechanic was

timely disclosed and Caltrans has had the benefit of receiving that expert’s disclosure, the

entirety of his expert file materials and his deposition testimony. If Caltrans is now permitted to

disclose a Biomechanic expert, that late disclosed expert will sit in a rebuttal position relative to

the timely disclosed Biomechanic experts of Tesla and Plaintiffs. This will create the need for

the Biomechanic experts of Tesla and Plaintiffs to respond to Caltrans’ expert but it will also

require Tesla’s Accident Reconstruction expert to perform additional work to support Tesla’s

Biomechanic. While it is true that rial in this matter is not set to start until March 2024, the

parties have completed expert discovery on a schedule agreed upon by the parties and their

focus at this stage of case should be on trial preparation including motions to challenge experts




     TESLA’s RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO CALTRANS’ MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT
                             WITNESS INFORMATION
if necessary. Caltrans’ Motion is essentially a request to reset the expert discovery table while it

has failed to meet the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.610.

                                          III.    CONCLUSION

       Caltrans’ belated request to add an expert to offer opinions on biomechanical

engineering can be considered nothing more than an attempt to take advantage of the opposing

parties’ compliance with the expert disclosure rules and schedule. For the reasons stated

above, this court can and should deny Caltrans’ Motion.

 Dated: October 25, 2023                                        BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP




                                                             Thomas P. Branigan (Pro Hac Vice
                                                                 Attorneys for Defendant
                                                                        Tesla, Inc.




    TESLA’s RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO CALTRANS’ MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT
                            WITNESS INFORMATION
                                   DECLARATION OF THOMAS P. BRANIGAN

2            Thomas P. Branigan, declare:

3                   I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the Courts in the State of

4 Michigan, Illinois and Ohio and I am admitted in this case on a Pro Hac Vice basis. I am

5    ttorney and Partner with the law firm of Bowman and Brooke LLP, attorneys for          efendant

6 Tesla in this matter.

7                   I have personal knowledge of each of the matters stated herein and if called

8 upon to testify to any of these matters, I can do so in a truthful and competent manner.

9                   The National Transportation Safety Board investigated the subject collision and

    found that if the crash attenuator had been “in a functional condition before the March 23, 2018,

    crash, the Tesla driver most likely would have survived the collision.” Attached hereto as

    “Exhibit A” is a true and correct copy of relevant pages of the National Transportation Safety

    Board report.

                    A true and correct copy of Caltrans’ Response to Form Interrogatories (Set

    Three) dated October 21, 2020 is attached as “Exhibit B.”

                    A true and correct copy of Caltrans’ correspondence dated July 25, 2023 wherein

    its Counsel first raised its request to “augment” it’s expert disclosures with Tesla and Plaintiffs is

    attached as “Exhibit C.”

           I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

    foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 25, 2023 at Troy, Michigan.




                                                   Thomas P. Branigan




                                                      1
         TESLA’s RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO CALTRANS’ MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT
                                 WITNESS INFORMATION
0L
     C2
 RIN E. HOLBROOK, Chief Counsel
G. MICHAEL HARRINGTON, Deputy Chief Counsel
LANDA LOW, Assistant Chief Counsel (SBN 125121)
 OSEMARY LOVE, Deputy Attorney (SBN 257907)
 KITCH W. CROSBY, Deputy Attorney (SBN
      rand Avenue, Suite 11-100, Oakland, CA 94612
Mail: P.O. Box 24325, Oakland, California 94623
Telephone: (510 33-9100, Fax: (5       33-9167
  ttorneys for Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA
acting by and through the Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”)



                       UPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                                        OUNTY OF SANTA CLARA



SZ HUA HUANG, Individually and as successor in                                o. 19CV346663
interest to WEI LUN HUANG, deceased; TRINITY
HUANG, a minor; TRISTAN HUANG, a minor;
HIS KENG HUANG; and CHING FEN HUANG,                                           FENDANT CALTRANS’
                                                                            RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’
                             intiffs,                                       FORM INTERROGATORIES
                                                                             SET HREE)
          .
TESLA INC.dba TESLA MOTORS, INC., THE                                        omplaint Filed: April 26, 2019
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and Does 1 through

                            efendants.


   OPOUNDING PA              Y: Plaintiffs SZ HUA HUANG, Individually and as successor in interest to
                                    I LUNG HUAN, deceasedTRINITY HUANG, a m inor; TRISTAN
                                HUANG, a minor       KENG HUANG;and CHING FEN HUANG
 ESPONDING PARTY:                 Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH
                                  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
 NUMBER:                          THREE (3)
TO PLAINTIFFS AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

        Pursuant to the provisions of California Codof Civil procedure sections 2030.010, et seq.

Defendant State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation (“Cal rans”)

hereby responds to plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories(Set             hree)      is defendant expressly reserves all

its rights to move to exclude from admission into evidence or to otherwise object to any of the

responses recited therein.

  _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
     DEFENDANT CALTRANS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET THREE
        It should be noted that this responding party has not fully completed its investigation of the facts

relating to thiscase, has not fully completed in its discovery in this action andhas not completed its

preparation for trial. The responsescontained herein are based only u pon such information and

documents which are presently available and specifically known tothis responding party and disclose

only those contentions which are presently within the knowledge of this responding party.

        Further, it should be noted that this responding party has large number of branches, not all

of which have completed investigation and/or preparation of information in response to this

discovery and only such information as is currently known as to this responding party is set forth

herein. It is anticipated that further discovery, independent investigation, legal esearch and analysis

will supply additional facts, as well as establish entirely new factual conclusions and legal

contentions, all of which may lead to substantial additions to, changes in, and variations from, the

contentions set forth.

        The following      sponses are given without prejudice to this responding party’s right to produce

evidence of any subsequently discovered factsThe responses co ntained herein are made in good faith

effort to supply as much factual information and as many specif legal contentions al ong with their

factual basis as is presently known, but should no way be used to the prejudice of this responding party

in relation to further discovery, research or analysis.

        The following individual responses are made solely for t purpose of this acti on. Each

response is subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, admissibility,

and any and all other objections on grounds that require the exclusion of any statement contained in this

discovery aif made by the witnes s testifying in court, all of which objections and grounds are reserved

and may be imposed at the time of trial.

        Without waving the        regoing, Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIAacting by and through the

Department of Transportation “Caltrans” hereby responds to Plaintiffs Form Interroga tories, Set

 hree

 ORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1

        State the name, ADDRESS, telephone number, and relationship to you of each PERSON

who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to these interrogatories. (Do not identify


   _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________
        DEFENDANT CALTRANS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS FORM INTERROGATORIES (SE HREE
anyone who simply typed or reproduced theresponses

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1:

       Landa Low, Attorney for DefendanCaltrans

       Alex Smith, Claims Officer

       Tara CabezudDispatcher Clerk Supervisor, Cal trans District 4

FORM INTERROGATORY NO.

       Identify each denial of a material allegation and each specialor affirmative defense in your

pleadings and for each:

                    te all facts upon which you base thedenial or special or affirmative defense;

                Statethe names, ADDRESSES and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have

                knowledgeof those facts; and

                Identify all DOCUMEN              and other tangible things that support your denial or

                special or affirmative defenseand the              RSO who has each DOCUMENT

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1

General enial, First, Second, welfth, Thirteenth ffirmative efenses

   (a) The subject accident was caused by Walter Huang who was distracted aninattentive to the

       driving taskwhile driving on a high peed multi lane freeway. An associated factor was his

       overreliance on the Autopilot featureof his Tesla automobile which he knew to be unreli able

       becausehad steered hi        m towards the gore at thesubject accident location on numerous

       prior occasio On the da y of the accident he should have been more vigilantand steered or

       braked his vehicle to avoicollision with the highly visible and wel                marked attenuator

       which was further marked with a pla             barricade and traffic cones The accident occur red at

       high speed in excess of 70 miles per hour and may haveexceeded the capacity of the impact

       energy attenuat even if full y functioning. The subject locationincludingthe crash

       attenuatordid         constitute dangerous condition of public property on the da te of the

       accident because did not create a s ubstantial risk of injury to personsusing due care in

       reasonably      reseeable manner.The condition of the crash attenu ator was not a substantia

       factor to Walter Huang s deathand the State of California acti ng by and throughthe

   _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________
      DEFENDANT CALTRANS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS FORM INTERROGATORIES (SE HREE
         Departmentof Transportationis not liable for Walter Huang s death.

   (b)      jection: calls for the premature disclosureof expe rt witnesses in contravention of CCP

         section 20et seq.            Subject to the foregoing objections, Caltrans responds: Numerous

         persons identif ed in the TCR, MAIT Supplemental Report, NTSB preliminary report(s) and

         related documentsmerous Calt           rans employees within the Traffic Safety and other

         Division

   (c) TCR         d MAIT supplementalreport, N TSB preliminaryand fina report(s) and related

         documents

Third     ourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and EleventhAffirmative Defense

   (a) None knownat this time . Investigationdiscovery and tr ial preparation are on

   (b) None known

   (c) None known

Sixthand Seventh Affirmative Defense

   (a) On March 20,2018, a Cal trans Maintenance                anager idenfied the damaged attenuator

         while passing through the ar and notified the local Maintenance S upervisor. mai ntenance

         crew was sentto the scene where the workers             termined that the impact          ergy absorbing

         crash attenuator was damaged beyond repair             could not be reset but had to be removed

         andreplaced. The crew immediate ly placed sawhorse type ba cade and several bright

         orang traffic co     to warn passing motorists of t he damaged device

         The maintenance supervisor had to locate a eplacement device and assemble wo crews

               ersons total and heavy equipment          forthe installation and for traffic co trol in the

         igh     raff area    evere rainstormsover he next few day requiredthe local crew to conduct

               hour storm patrol shifts throughout the day and             e to    the ri sk of mudslides and

         other storm damage requiringimmediate              ention. The attenuator repair wathere ore

         scheduled for the next business day, Monday, March 26, 2018at which time it was repaired

         just six daysafter Caltrans first learned of the d amage. In the meantime, the subject accident

         occurred on March 23, 2018.

   (b) Ernesto L Ramirez and other Caltrans personnel

   _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________
         DEFENDANT CALTRANS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS FORM INTERROGATORIES (SE HREE
   (c) tatement of Ernesto L. Ramirez

FORM INTERROGATORY NO.

          Do you contend that        PERSON, other than you or plaintiff, contributed               the occurrence

  the INCIDENT or the injuries or damages claimedy plaintiff? If so , for each PERSON

           tate the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON

           tate all facts upon whichyou base            contention;

           tate the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONSwho have

          knowledgeof the facts; and

          Identify all DOCUMENTSand other tangible things that support                      contentionand state

          thename, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSONwho has each DOCUMENT

          or thing.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1

   (a) Tesla Inc

   (b) There may have beenlimitations in the Tesla s Autopilot and OEDR                      stems which may

          have caused or contributed to the decedent Tesla to steer out of its lane of travel, and to not

          brake or slow the vehicle despite approaching a fixed object. Investigation, discovery and

          trial preparationare ongoing

   (c) Employees of Tesla

   (d) Tesladocuments

FORM INTERROGATORY NO.

          Do you contend tha the injuries or the extent of the injuries claimed by plaintiff as disclosed

in discovery proceedings thus far in this ca e were not caused by theINCIDENT ? If so, for each

injury:

           dentify

           tate all facts upon which you base your contention;

            ate the names, ADDRESSESand telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have

          knowledge of the facts; and

           dentify all DOCUMENTSand other tangible things that support your contentionand state

   _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________
          DEFENDANT CALTRANS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS FORM INTERROGATORIES (SE HREE
            the nameADDRESS , and telephone number of the PERSONwho has each DOCUMENT

            or thing.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1

            Not at this time. Investigation, discovery and trial preparation are ongoing.

FORM INTERROGATORY NO.

            Do you contend that any part of the loss of earningsor income claimed by plaintiff in

discovery proceedings thus far in this c se was unreasonableor was not caused by the INCIDENT

so:

              ate the names, ADDRESSESand telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have

            knowledge of the facts; an

             dentify all DOCUMENTSand other tangible things that support your contentionand state

            the nameADDRESS , and telephone number of the PERSONwho has each DOCUMENT

            or thing.

              ate the names, ADDRESSESand telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have

            knowledge of the facts; and

             dentify all DOCUMENTSand other tangible things that support your contentionand state

            the nameADDRESS , and telephone number of the PERSONwho has each DOCUMENT

            or thing.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO.

            Not at this time. Investigation, discovery and trial preparation are ongoing.

FORM INTERROGATORY NO.

            Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an

unqualified admission? If not, for ach response that is not an unqualified admission

      (a)        tate the number of the request;

      (b)        tate facts u pon which you base your response:

      (c)      state the name ADDRESS               , and telephone number of all PERSONwho have

                        ledge of those facts; and

      (d)      identify all       CUMENTSand other tangible things that support your response and

      _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________
            DEFENDANT CALTRANS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS FORM INTERROGATORIES (SE HREE
                state the name, ADDRESS, andtelephone number of the PERSONwho has each

                DOCUMENTor things.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1

          No.

    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself. Caltrans is unable toadmit the truth of the matter stated, bu

          merely that the referenced document contains the statement.

    (c)    umerous persons within Caltransincludingthose in the Maintenance Division have

          nowledge

    (d) Maintenance Memo dated 7/31/15

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself. Caltrans is unable to admit thetruth of the matter stated, but

          merely that the referenced document contains the statement.

    (c)    umerous persons within Caltransincludingthose in the Mainten ance Division have

          nowledge

    (d) Maintenance        emo dated 7/31/15

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself. Caltrans is unable to admit thetruth of the matter stated, but

          merely that the referenced documentcontains the statement.

    (c)    umerous personswithin Caltrans includingthose in the Maintenance Division have

          nowledge

    (d) Maintenance Memo dated 7/31/15

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself. Caltrans is unable to admit thetruth of the matter stated, but

          merely that the referenced document contains the statement.

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________
          DEFENDANT CALTRANS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS FORM INTERROGATORIES (SE HREE
    (c)    umerous persons within Caltransincludingthose in the Maintenance Division have

          nowledge

    (d) Maintenance Memo dated 7/31/15

----------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself. Caltrans is unable to admit thetruth of the matter stated, but

          merely that the referenced document contains the statement.

    (c)    umerous persons within Caltransincludingthose in the Maintenance Division have

          nowledge

    (d) Maintenance Memo dated 7/31/15

------------------------------------------------------------

    (e)

          The document speaks for itself. Caltrans is unable to admit thetruth of the matter stated, but

          merely that the referenced document contains the statement.

    (g)    umerous persons within Caltransincludingthose in the Maintenance Division have

          nowledge

    (h) Maintenance Memo dated 7/31/15

    (a) None known.

--------------------------------------- --------------------

    (a)

    (b) The document speaksfor itself. Caltrans is unable to admit the truth of the matter stated, but

          merely that the referenced document contains the statement.

    (c)    umerous persons within Caltransincludingthose in the Maintenance Division have

          nowledge

    (d) Maintenance Memo dated 7/31/15

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself. Caltrans is unable to admit thetruth of the matter stated,

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________
          DEFENDANT CALTRANS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS FORM INTERROGATORIES (SE HREE
          that the referenced document contains the statementbecause the request is unintelligible.

    (c)    one known

    (d) Maintenance Memo dated 7/31/1

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself. Caltrans is unable to admit thetruth of the matter stated, but

          merely that the referenced document contains statem entwhich has been paraphrased

    (c)    umerous persons within Caltransincludingthose in the Maintenance Division have

          nowledge

    (d) Maintenance Memo dated 7/31/15

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself. Caltrans is unable to admit thetruth of the matter stated, but

          merely that the referenced document contains the statement.

    (c)    umerous persons within Caltransincludingthose in the Maintenance Division have

          nowledge

    (d) Maintenance Memo dated 7/31/15

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself. Caltrans is unable to admit thetruth of the matter stated, but

          merely that the referenced document contains the statement.

    (c)    umerous persons within Caltransincluding               ose in the Maintenance Division have

               ledge

    (d) Maintenance Memo dated 7/31/15

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself. Caltrans is unable to admit thetruth of the matter stated, but

          merely that the referenced document contains the statement

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________
          DEFENDANT CALTRANS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS FORM INTERROGATORIES (SE HREE
    (c)    umerous persons within Caltransincludingthose in the Maintenance Division have

          nowledge

    (d) Maintenance Memo dated 7/31/15

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself. Caltrans is unable to admit the ruth of the matter stated, but

          merely that the referenced document contains the statement.

    (c)    umerous persons within Caltransincludingthose in the Maintenance Division have

          nowledge

    (d) Maintenance Memo dated 7/31/15

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself. Caltrans has no personal knowledge about what the NTSB

          declared. Based on lack of information and belief, Caltrans is unable to admit or deny the

          truth of the matter stated

    (c) Unknown persons at NTSB

    (d)      ne known

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) The NTSB issued a single safety recommendation to CalSTA, not multiple

          recommendations.

    (c)    umerous persons within Caltransand CalSTA.

    (d) Letter from NTSB to CalSTA dated September 9, 201

------ ---------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) This request is compound andis there fore improper.

    (c)    ounsel for Caltrans

    (d) CCP §2030.060(f)

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________
          DEFENDANT CALTRANS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS FORM INTERROGATORIES (SE HREE
----------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) This request is compound andis the refore imroper. In addition, Caltrans previously

          responded to these two requests which werenumbered Requests for Admission numbers 6 &

          7. Caltrans has no personal knowledge about the details of the March 12, 2018 accident, nor

          the injuries of thedriver. Based on lack of informationand belief, Caltrans is unable to admit

          or den

    (c) None kno

    (d) CCP §2030.060(f)

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b)      TCR reflects that in the field notifie            a box was checked yes n the report As to the

          meaningof the check mark, Caltrans lacks sufficient information or belief to ad                 it or deny.

    (c) CHP reporting officer

    (d) TCR dated 3/12/

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) CHP did not notify Caltrans that the crash attenuator at the subject accident locationhad been

          damaged due to an accident on March 12, 2018

    (c) TaraCabezud, and oth           persons in the TMCCHP personnel

    (d)    one known

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) Caltrans TMC did not receive notice that the crash attenuator at the subject accident location

          had been damaged due to the accidentMarch 12, 2018.

    (c) TaraCabezud, an other          persons in the TMC CHP personnel

    (d)    one known

------------------------------------------------------------

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________
          DEFENDANT CALTRANS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS FORM INTERROGATORIES (SE HREE
    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself. Caltrans has no personal knowledge about what the NTSB

          investigators determined. Caltrans is unable to admit th truth of the matter stated based on

          lack of information and belief.

    (c) Unknown

    (d) None known.

-------------------- --------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) his requestseeks an admissionabout the subject location compared to various locations

          which are remote from and dissimilar to the subject locationover an unspe cified period of

                 his request requires        comp ilation and analysis of accident and repair datafor all

          attenuator locations throughout District 4 which is comprised of nine Bay Area Counties.

          Based on the objectionsstated in response to Request for Admiss ion number 55Caltrans is

          unable to admit or den

    (c) Caltrans employees in D04 Traffic Safety

    (d) None known.

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) Caltrans has no personal knowledge about what the NTSB determinedBased on lack of

          informationand belief Caltrans is unable t o admit or deny thetruth of the matter stated

    (c) Unknown.

    (d) Unknown.

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself. Caltrans has no personal knowledge about what NTSB

            entifiedBased on lack of information and belief, Caltrans is unable to admit or deny the

          truth of the matter stated

    (c) Unknown persons at NTSB

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________
          DEFENDANT CALTRANS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS FORM INTERROGATORIES (SE HREE
    (d) None known

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself. The request is misleading andmischaracterizes the

          Maintenance ManualWhile there is a refer ence to energy dissipaters the Manual does not

          describe crash attenuators as enerissipators.

    (c) Various persons in Caltrans

    (d) MaintenanceMan ual, Chapter M

--------- -------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself. The portion of the request in quotes misstates the

          Maintenance Manual

    (c) Various persons in Caltrans

    (d) MaintenanceMan ual, Chapter M

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself. The portion of the request in quotes misstates the

          Maintenance Manual

    (c) Various persons in Caltrans

    (d) MaintenanceMan ual, Chapter M

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself. The request ismisleading and mischaracterizes the

          Maintenance ManualObjection: vague as to the phrase                 safety item. Subject to the

          foregoing objection, Caltrans admits that for repair or replacementof an attenuator the

             intenance type is “safetBut the Maint             enance Manual does not providethat s a

            safety item which te rm is undefined

    (c) Various persons in Caltrans

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________
          DEFENDANT CALTRANS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS FORM INTERROGATORIES (SE HREE
    (d) MaintenanceMan

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself. The request is misleading andmischa racterizes the

          Maintenance Manualin effe ct on the day of the accident.

    (c) Various persons in Caltrans

    (d) MaintenanceMan ual

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself. The request is misleading and                 ischaracterizes the

          Maintenance Manualin effe ct on the day of the accident.

    (c) Various personsin Caltrans

    (d) MaintenanceMan ual

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself. Caltrans has no personal knowledge aout what the NTSB

          identified. Caltrans is unable to admit thetruth of the matter stated based on lack of

          information and belief.

    (c) Unknown persons at NTSB

    (d) None known

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself. The request is misleading andmischaracterizes the

          Maintenance Manual It is also vague as to time as the requirements changed over time.

    (c) Various persons in Caltrans

    (d) MaintenanceMan ual

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________
          DEFENDANT CALTRANS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS FORM INTERROGATORIES (SE HREE
    (b) here is no evidence that the two accidents happened under substantially simil conditions,

          that the vehicle characteristics and dynamics were similarand that speed and other factors

          did not affectthe ultim outcome of the collisionsThese are the pr oper subject of xpert

            tness analysisand opinionBased on lack of information and belief                as to the comparability

          and survivability of the two accidents, Caltrans is unable to admit or deny.

    (c) Various persons in Caltrans; undisclosed expert consultants

    (d)    ne known

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) There is no evidence that the two accidents happened under substantially simil conditions,

          that the vehicle characteristics and dynamics were similarand that speed and other facto

          did not affectthe ult       outcome of the collisionsThese are the proper subject of                 xpert

          witness analysisand opinionBased on lack of information and belief                as to the comparability

          and survivability of the two accidents, Caltrans is unable to admit or deny.

    (c) Various persons in Caltrans; undisclosed expert consultants

    (d)    one known

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) Caltrans has no personalknowledge as to the level of injury in the March 12, 2018 accident

          and as a result,Caltrans is unable to admit or deny.

    (c) None known

    (d)    one known

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) The NTSB reports speak for themselves. Caltrans has no personal knowledge about what the

          NTSB concluded other than as stated in thereports and orrespondenceto Caltrans /CalSTA

          Caltrans is unable to admit thetruth of the matter stated based on lack of personal

          knowledge.

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________
          DEFENDANT CALTRANS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS FORM INTERROGATORIES (SE HREE
    (c) Unknown persons at NTSB

    (d) None known

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) This request eeks information and analysis ofCaltrans maintenance and repair program

          relative to the timely repair of traffic safety hardware in 12 separate Districts statewide for an

          unspecified period of time. This analysis would take hundreds of manhours and is therefore

          burdensome and oppressive, and harassing.

    (c) Traffic Safety and Maintenance personnel

    (d) None known

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) he statute speaks for itselfand provides that titl            is vestedin the name of the peopl e of the

          Stateof California not the State of California as stated in therequest.

    (c)    umerous persons

    (d) S&H Code §233

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) To the extent the Department of Transportation is an integral pa of the                  tate of California

          and acts on behalf of the StateCaltrans does hold legal title to               However, title to the

          roadway is vested in thepeople of the State of California.

    (c)    umerousperson

    (d) S&H Code §233

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) Caltrans is an integral part of the State of California,but the State epartment                s and gencies

          have been recognized as a separate entity for purposes of litigationSee, Templo v State

          (2018) 24 CalApp.        730and cases cited therein ; Greyhound Lines, Inc v Departmentof the

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________
          DEFENDANT CALTRANS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS FORM INTERROGATORIES (SE HREE
          CaliforniaHighway Patrol (2013) 213 Cal App

    (c) Numerous persons

    (d) See citedcases

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) CHPis an integral p art of the State of California, but the State epartments and                   gencies

          have been recognized as a separate entity for purposes of litigationSee, Templo v State

          (2018) 24 CalApp.        730and cases cited therein; Greyhound Lines, Inc v Departmentof the

          CaliforniaHighway Patrol (2013) 213 Cal App

    (c) Numerous persons

    (d) See citedcases

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) Caltransis an administrative segment of the State of California, but the State epa                   rtment

          and gencies have been recognized as a separate entity for purposes of litigationSee, Templo

           State (2018) 24 Cal App.          and cases cited therein; Greyhound Lines, Inc v

          Departmentof the California Highway Patrol (2013) 213 Cal App

    (c) Numerous persons

    (d) See citedcases

---------------------- -------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) CHPis an administrative segmentof the State of California,but the State epartments and

           gencies have been recognized as a separate entity for purposes of litigationSee, Templo v

          State(2018) 24 Cal App.         and cases cited therein; Greyhound Lines, Inc v Department

          of theCalifornia Highway Patrol (2013) 213 Cal App

    (c) Numerous persons

    (d) See citedcases

------------------------------------------------------------

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________
          DEFENDANT CALTRANS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS FORM INTERROGATORIES (SE HREE
    (a)

    (b) The document speaks for itself.

    (c)    umerousperson

    (d) Govt Code §11150

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) he TMC has a duty to notify Caltrans Maintenance when TMC personnel have been notified

          of damage to a Caltrans structure or facility but            ot have such ty when it has not been

          notified of damageto Caltrans structure or facility

    (c) Tara Cabezud and others in CaltransTMC

    (d)    one known

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) TMC staff includes only Caltrans personnel.                  Officers who work in the TMC do not

            port to Caltrans        o their own      rgeantThose officers are not CHP dispatch

    (c) Tara abezud and various persons in Caltrans; CHP Officers

    (d) None known

------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)

    (b) Caltrans TMC staff did not know that the crash attenuatorlocated at southbound US 101 at

          the State Route 85 onramp wasdamaged on and after March 12, 2018.Had they been

          notified,the notification would be refl ected in the CHP dispatch log, but such a record does

          not exist. If CHP ispatch had notified the TMC, then the TMC would have acknowledge

          with    1039 DOTCC              no such record exists.

    (c) Tara Cabezud and arious persons in Caltrans; CHP                   spatch

    (d) CHP dispatch records; TMC records

------------------------------------------------------------