Preview
ORGINAL
KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP
Roger Kimos (SBN 283163) F I L E D
rogerk@knightlaw.com SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA
Timothy Lupinek (SBN 334876) COUNTY 0F SAN BEHNAHDINO
SAN BERNARDMO DISTRICT
Timothyl@knightlaw.com
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90067 NOV 2 8 2022
Telephone: (310) 552—2250
Fax: (310) 552-7973
\OOO\IO\UIAL»JN’—
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
é?“ PAOLAINIgUé .055???
EDUARDO ESPINOSA
and CELIA ESPINOSA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
0
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
EDUARDO ESPINOSA Case N0.: CIVSBZZO7097
and CELIA ESPINOSA,
Unlimited Jurisdiction
Plaintiffs,
DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY
VS. LUPINEK IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION,
a California Corporation, and DOES 1 SET ONE FROM DEFENDANT
through 10, inclusive, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
INC AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS
Defendants.
NNNNNNNNN—‘Ht—‘t—au—r—r—tt—p—p—n
Date: January 19, 2023
Time: 8:30 am.
Dept: S33
OONQMAUJNr-‘OKOOOVONUIhWNHO
Action filed: April 6, 2022
Trial: None
-1-
DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY LUPINEK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY LUPINEK
I, Timothy Lupinek, declare as follows:
v
1. I am an attorney licensed t0 practice before all Courts ofthe State of California, at Knight
UI-bWN
Law Group, LLP, attorneys of record for EDUARDO ESPINOSA and CELIA ESPINOSA v
(“Plaintiffs”) in the above-captioned matter.
2. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and, if called t0 testify regarding
those matters, I could and would competently testify thereto except as t0 matters stated on
\OOOQON
information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true based upon my review
of my firm’s files and records in this matter.
10 3. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to
11 Requests for Production, Set One, from American Honda Motor Co., and Request for
Inc.,
12 Sanctions.
13 4. Based 0n my review of the file and records in this case, on October 14, 2020, Plaintiffs
14 purchased a 2021 Honda Insight, VIN219XZE4F57ME001632 (the “Subject Vehicle”), which
15 was distributed and warranted by Defendant (“AHM”). Plaintiffs brought the vehicle in for repair
16 because of defects with the Subject Vehicle’s Honda Sensing system. Plaintiffs filed a complaint
17 against AHM, on April 7, 2022, to enforce the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
18 5. For this Court’s convenience, Ihave arranged this declaration under various subheadings.
19 PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS AND DEFENDANT’S INADEQUATE RESPONSES
20 6. On August 25, 2022, Plaintiffs propounded on AHM their First Set of Requests for
Production of Documents, a true and correct copy of which is attached here as Exhibit A.
21
7. Plaintiffs’ discovery requests seek, among other things, documents that can be broadly
22
23
categorized as the operative dealership agreement between AHM and the dealership that sold the
Subject Vehicle to Plaintiffs on the date of the sale of the Subject Vehicle to Plaintiffs (RFP No“
24
18.); all Technical Service Bulletins which have been issued for the same year, make, and model
25
as the Subject Vehicle (RFP No. 19.); all documents which evidence 0r discuss AHM’s decision
26
to issue Technical Service Bulletins for the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle
27
28 -2-
V
DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY LUPINEK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Preview
ORGINAL KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP Roger Kimos (SBN 283163) F I L E D rogerk@knightlaw.com SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA Timothy Lupinek (SBN 334876) COUNTY 0F SAN BEHNAHDINO SAN BERNARDMO DISTRICT Timothyl@knightlaw.com 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 NOV 2 8 2022 Telephone: (310) 552—2250 Fax: (310) 552-7973 \OOO\IO\UIAL»JN’— Attorneys for Plaintiff, é?“ PAOLAINIgUé .055??? EDUARDO ESPINOSA and CELIA ESPINOSA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 0 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO EDUARDO ESPINOSA Case N0.: CIVSBZZO7097 and CELIA ESPINOSA, Unlimited Jurisdiction Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY VS. LUPINEK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 SET ONE FROM DEFENDANT through 10, inclusive, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS Defendants. NNNNNNNNN—‘Ht—‘t—au—r—r—tt—p—p—n Date: January 19, 2023 Time: 8:30 am. Dept: S33 OONQMAUJNr-‘OKOOOVONUIhWNHO Action filed: April 6, 2022 Trial: None -1- DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY LUPINEK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY LUPINEK I, Timothy Lupinek, declare as follows: v 1. I am an attorney licensed t0 practice before all Courts ofthe State of California, at Knight UI-bWN Law Group, LLP, attorneys of record for EDUARDO ESPINOSA and CELIA ESPINOSA v (“Plaintiffs”) in the above-captioned matter. 2. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and, if called t0 testify regarding those matters, I could and would competently testify thereto except as t0 matters stated on \OOOQON information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true based upon my review of my firm’s files and records in this matter. 10 3. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to 11 Requests for Production, Set One, from American Honda Motor Co., and Request for Inc., 12 Sanctions. 13 4. Based 0n my review of the file and records in this case, on October 14, 2020, Plaintiffs 14 purchased a 2021 Honda Insight, VIN219XZE4F57ME001632 (the “Subject Vehicle”), which 15 was distributed and warranted by Defendant (“AHM”). Plaintiffs brought the vehicle in for repair 16 because of defects with the Subject Vehicle’s Honda Sensing system. Plaintiffs filed a complaint 17 against AHM, on April 7, 2022, to enforce the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. 18 5. For this Court’s convenience, Ihave arranged this declaration under various subheadings. 19 PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS AND DEFENDANT’S INADEQUATE RESPONSES 20 6. On August 25, 2022, Plaintiffs propounded on AHM their First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, a true and correct copy of which is attached here as Exhibit A. 21 7. Plaintiffs’ discovery requests seek, among other things, documents that can be broadly 22 23 categorized as the operative dealership agreement between AHM and the dealership that sold the Subject Vehicle to Plaintiffs on the date of the sale of the Subject Vehicle to Plaintiffs (RFP No“ 24 18.); all Technical Service Bulletins which have been issued for the same year, make, and model 25 as the Subject Vehicle (RFP No. 19.); all documents which evidence 0r discuss AHM’s decision 26 to issue Technical Service Bulletins for the same year, make, and model as the Subject Vehicle 27 28 -2- V DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY LUPINEK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION