Party Discovery: Espinosa et al -v - American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                OR-SINAL
     KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP
     Roger Kirnos (SBN 283163)
     rogerk@knightlaw.com
     Timothy Lupinek (SBN 334876)                        SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
                                                           COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
     Timothyl@kni,   tlaw.com.                              SAN BERNARDINO CISTRICT
     10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 552-2250                                  NOV 28 2022
     Fax: (310) 552-7973
     Attorneys for Plaintiffs,                          BY.
     EDUARDO ESPINOSA
     and CELIA ESPINOSA
                                  SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
                                    COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

     EDUARDO ESPINOSA                                  Case No.: CIVSB2207097
     and CELIA ESPINOSA,
10                                                     Unlimited Jurisdiction

1                   Plaintiffs,                        PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN
                                                       SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
12           VS.                                       COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
                                                       TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
13                                                     REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION O
     AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,                   DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT,
14   a California Corporation, and DOES      1         AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,;
     through 10, inclusive,                            INC., AND REQUEST FOR
15                                                     SANCTIONS
16                  Defendants.                        [Submitted concurrently with Notice of]
                                                       Motion, Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement
17                                                     in Support of Motion, Declaration of
                                                       Timothy Lupinek in Support of
18                                                     Motion, and [Proposed] Order.
19
                                                       Date: January 19, 2023
20                                                     Time: 8:30 a.m.
                                                       Dept.: $33
21

22                                                     Action filed: April 6, 2022
                                                       Trial:        None
23
24

25

26
                                                 ii
27
         PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO.
        PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR
28                                           SANCTIONS
Table of Contents
     I. INTRODUCTION                                                                                    -14

     IL.             STATEMENT OF FACTS                                                                 -34

            A         Plaintiffs Met and Conferred in Writing, But Plaintiffs’ Efforts Have Been

            Unsuccessful                                                                                -34

     Ill.             ARGUMENT                                                                          -44

            A         Plaintiffs Are Entitled to an Order Compelling Further, Code-Complaint Responses - 4 +

            B.        The Discovery Sought Is Relevant to Plaintiffs’ Underlying Claims                 -44




                                                                                            :
10               1      Plaintiffs’ Requests are Relevant to Their Song-Beverly Act Claims              -54

lL               2      Plaintiffs’ Requests are Relevant to the Issue of Civil Penalties               -84
12
                 3      Evidence of Defendant’s Superior Knowledge of Defects with the Honda Sensing
13
                 System are Relevant to Prove Plaintiffs’ Fraud Claim                                  -ll4

14
            Cc        Defendant’s Objections Lack Merit and Do Not Comply with California Code of Civil
15
            Procedure, Section 2031.240                                                                -12-
16
                 1      Defendant’s “Overly Broad” and “not Limited in Time and Scope” Objections
17
                 Should be Overruled                                                                   -134
18

19               2      Defendant’s Unduly Burdensome Objections Are Conclusory and Evasive             144
20               3      Defendant’s Objections Based on Privacy and Confidentiality Are Unsupported and
21               Should Be Overruled and Plaintiffs Have Signed a Stipulation and Protective Order      144
22
     Iv.             MONETARY SANCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE.                                               -154
23
     V.              CONCLUSION                                                                        -15-
2:
25

26
                                                              iii
27
              PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
             PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR
28                                                SANCTIONS