Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Mary Arens McBride, Esq.(SBN: 282459) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Alexandria O. Pappas, Esq. (SBN: 326149) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ERSKINE LAW GROUP, APC SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
1592 N. Batavia Street, Suite 1A 10/20/2023 3:41 PM
Orange, CA 92867
By: Betty Davidson, DEPUTY
Telephone: (949) 777-6032
Facsimile: (714) 844-9035
marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com
apappas@erskinelaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant,
GENERAL MOTORS LLC
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
MANUEL RODRIGUEZ AND LUCIA DE LA Case N0.: CIVSB2228894
11
ROSA DAVILA,
Case Initiated: December 30, 2022
12
Plaintiffs,
13 Hon. Winston Keh
V. Dept. S33
14
GENERAL MOTORS LLC; and DOES 1 DECLARATION OF ALEXANDRIA 0.
15 through 10, inclusive, PAPPAS IN SUPPORT OF GENERAL
MOTORS LLC’S OPPOSITION TO
16 Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION T0 COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO
17 PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS, SET
18 ONE AND REQUEST FOR
MONETARY SANCTIONS
19
Filed Concurrently With:
20 1) Separate Statement
2) Memo 0f Points and Authorities
21
Date: November 2, 2023
22 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept: S33
23
24
25
26
27
28
I, Alexandria O. Pappas, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice before all courts in the State 0f
California. I am an attorney with the law firm Erskine Law Group, APC, counsel to Defendant
General Motors LLC (“GM”). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if
called t0 testify, could and would testify competently thereto.
2. On June 7, 2023, Plaintiffs propounded 91 requests for production (“RFP”), 29 of
the requests Which are at issue here. Many 0f these requests were irrelevant and/or overbroad.
(Declaration of Rosario Stoliker (“Stoliker Decl.”), EX. 5.)
3. That same day, Plaintiffs sent GM a form letter, sent in every case, about
10 Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”). (Id, Ex. 7.) That form letter did not address GM’S
11 responses and/or objections t0 any discovery requests, nor could it; GM had just received the
12 discovery requests. Essentially, Plaintiffs sent a unilateral demand t0 GM regarding ESI, and
13 couched it as a meet and confer letter. This letter is n0 way a “good faith” effort to “meet and
14 confer” about a discovery “dispute.” Regardless, GM responded in good faith 0n July 19, 2023.
15 (Id., EX. 8.)
16 4. GM served Plaintiffs With discovery responses on July 7, 2023, and sent its
17 verifications 0n August 7, 2023. (1d,, EX. 6.) GM objected t0 specific requests to the extent they
18 sought information (1) outside GM’s possession, custody, or control, (2) about vehicles or issues
19 unrelated to Plaintiffs’ Silverado, (3) protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product
20 doctrine, or Section 2034.010, et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, and/or (4) that is
21 confidential, proprietary, or competitively sensitive in nature. GM answered certain requests by
22 referring Plaintiffs to responsive documents that Will be produced.
23 5. On August 23, 2023, Plaintiffs sent GM a letter about its discovery responses but
24 rather than narrow the scope 0f the discovery requests at issue, Plaintiffs took the position that
25 each was appropriate and necessary, and demanded that GM withdraw its objections and
26 supplement its previous production. (Id, EX. 9.) This form letter is identical t0 the letters
27 Plaintiffs’ attorneys send in each lemon law case against GM.
28 DECLARATION 0F ALEXANDRIA 0. PAPPAS 1N SUPPORT 0F GM’S OPPOSITION T0 PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION T0 COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 0F
DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
_ 2 _
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Mary Arens McBride, Esq.(SBN: 282459) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA Alexandria O. Pappas, Esq. (SBN: 326149) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ERSKINE LAW GROUP, APC SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT 1592 N. Batavia Street, Suite 1A 10/20/2023 3:41 PM Orange, CA 92867 By: Betty Davidson, DEPUTY Telephone: (949) 777-6032 Facsimile: (714) 844-9035 marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com apappas@erskinelaw.com Attorneys for Defendant, GENERAL MOTORS LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 MANUEL RODRIGUEZ AND LUCIA DE LA Case N0.: CIVSB2228894 11 ROSA DAVILA, Case Initiated: December 30, 2022 12 Plaintiffs, 13 Hon. Winston Keh V. Dept. S33 14 GENERAL MOTORS LLC; and DOES 1 DECLARATION OF ALEXANDRIA 0. 15 through 10, inclusive, PAPPAS IN SUPPORT OF GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S OPPOSITION TO 16 Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION T0 COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO 17 PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS, SET 18 ONE AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 19 Filed Concurrently With: 20 1) Separate Statement 2) Memo 0f Points and Authorities 21 Date: November 2, 2023 22 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: S33 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, Alexandria O. Pappas, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice before all courts in the State 0f California. I am an attorney with the law firm Erskine Law Group, APC, counsel to Defendant General Motors LLC (“GM”). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called t0 testify, could and would testify competently thereto. 2. On June 7, 2023, Plaintiffs propounded 91 requests for production (“RFP”), 29 of the requests Which are at issue here. Many 0f these requests were irrelevant and/or overbroad. (Declaration of Rosario Stoliker (“Stoliker Decl.”), EX. 5.) 3. That same day, Plaintiffs sent GM a form letter, sent in every case, about 10 Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”). (Id, Ex. 7.) That form letter did not address GM’S 11 responses and/or objections t0 any discovery requests, nor could it; GM had just received the 12 discovery requests. Essentially, Plaintiffs sent a unilateral demand t0 GM regarding ESI, and 13 couched it as a meet and confer letter. This letter is n0 way a “good faith” effort to “meet and 14 confer” about a discovery “dispute.” Regardless, GM responded in good faith 0n July 19, 2023. 15 (Id., EX. 8.) 16 4. GM served Plaintiffs With discovery responses on July 7, 2023, and sent its 17 verifications 0n August 7, 2023. (1d,, EX. 6.) GM objected t0 specific requests to the extent they 18 sought information (1) outside GM’s possession, custody, or control, (2) about vehicles or issues 19 unrelated to Plaintiffs’ Silverado, (3) protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product 20 doctrine, or Section 2034.010, et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, and/or (4) that is 21 confidential, proprietary, or competitively sensitive in nature. GM answered certain requests by 22 referring Plaintiffs to responsive documents that Will be produced. 23 5. On August 23, 2023, Plaintiffs sent GM a letter about its discovery responses but 24 rather than narrow the scope 0f the discovery requests at issue, Plaintiffs took the position that 25 each was appropriate and necessary, and demanded that GM withdraw its objections and 26 supplement its previous production. (Id, EX. 9.) This form letter is identical t0 the letters 27 Plaintiffs’ attorneys send in each lemon law case against GM. 28 DECLARATION 0F ALEXANDRIA 0. PAPPAS 1N SUPPORT 0F GM’S OPPOSITION T0 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION T0 COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS _ 2 _