Preview
NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH LLP
Michael J. Hurvitz (SBN 249050)
mike.hurvitz@nelsonmullins.com
Ian G. Schuler (SBN 275052) _‘ a
ian.schuler@nelsonmullins.com 1
.b Ariel N. Redfern (SBN 3413 14)
W ”"-Y*“\"‘-‘~R§’im 9‘
ariel.redfern@nelsonmullins.com MW,
750 B Street, Suite 2200 Wm ,3 6
'3 3. Km
San Diego, CA 92101 ,
Telephone: 619.489.61 10 1:.» [I 57‘ /
\DOOQONU‘I
Facsimile: 619.821.2834 “yw’fffif‘dr”?
Attorneys for Defendant
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LLP
10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SCARBOROUGH
11 EDUARDO ESPINOSA and CELIA ESPINOSA, Case N0. CIVSB2207097
LAw
12 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA
8:
AT
DIEGO
MOTOR CO., INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL
RILEY 13 vs. SEPARATE STATEMENT IN
ATTORNEYS
SAN
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
MULLINS
14 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. a TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
California corporation, and DOES through 10,
1 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
15 inclusive, FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
NELSON
T0 DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR
16 Defendant. SANCTIONS
17 JUDGE: Hon. Winston Keh
DEPT: S33
18
Date: March 27, 2023
19 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept: S33
20
Trial Date:
21 Action Filed: April 6, 2022
22
23 Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc., (“AHM”) hereby submits its Supplemental
24 Opposition t0 Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement in Support 0f their Motion t0 Compel Further
25 Responses to Request for Production Nos. 18, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 62, and 64 from Defendant
26 American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and Request for Sanctions.
27 ///
28
1
DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR C0,, 1NC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’
FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:
The operative dealership agreement, if any, on the date of sale 0f the SUBJECT VEHICLE
between YOU and the dealership that sold the SUBJECT VEHICLE to Plaintiffs.
U‘I-PUJN
RESPONSE T0 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:
AHM objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome,
oppressive, and as asking for information that is not relevant to the subj ect matter 0f this action and
not reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, as phrased, the
overly broad, unduly burdensome, and fails to describe with reasonable particularity the
\OOOQQ
request is
documents or categories of documents being requested in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure
LLP
10 section 2031.030(c)(1). In addition, AHM objects to this request as calling for information that is
11 confidential, commercially sensitive, and proprietary 0r trade secret.
SCARBOROUGH
LAW
12 FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:
AT
5r DIEGO
RILEY
13 Subject to and Without waiving the objections stated above and pursuant t0 the meet and
ATTORNEYS
SAN
MULLINS
14 confer efforts of the parties, AHM provides the following further response:
15 In the interest of cooperation, although not a "dealership agreement," AHM will produce a
NELSON
16 blank copy of its standard Automobile Dealers Sales and Service Agreement, Which is confidential
17 and proprietary information and will be produced pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered
18 in this case.
19 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
20 As a preliminary matter, Defendant has not agreed to produce the document sought in
21 this request, but rather has offered t0 produce a blank agreement that has next t0 no
22 evidentiary value. The operative dealership agreement in effect 0n the date 0f sale 0f the
23 Subject Vehicle to Plaintiffs between AHM and the dealership that sold the Subject Vehicle is
24 the best evidence of the relationship between AHM and the selling dealership. This document
25 is relevant t0 Plaintiffs’ fraudulent inducement cause 0f action because it may show that the
26 acts and representations 0f the selling dealership and its employees during the course 0f the
27 Subject Vehicle’s sale were ratified by AHM and its corporate officers. However, a blank copy
28
2
DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
CO., INC.’S
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’
FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
Preview
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP Michael J. Hurvitz (SBN 249050) mike.hurvitz@nelsonmullins.com Ian G. Schuler (SBN 275052) _‘ a ian.schuler@nelsonmullins.com 1 .b Ariel N. Redfern (SBN 3413 14) W ”"-Y*“\"‘-‘~R§’im 9‘ ariel.redfern@nelsonmullins.com MW, 750 B Street, Suite 2200 Wm ,3 6 '3 3. Km San Diego, CA 92101 , Telephone: 619.489.61 10 1:.» [I 57‘ / \DOOQONU‘I Facsimile: 619.821.2834 “yw’fffif‘dr”? Attorneys for Defendant AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LLP 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SCARBOROUGH 11 EDUARDO ESPINOSA and CELIA ESPINOSA, Case N0. CIVSB2207097 LAw 12 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA 8: AT DIEGO MOTOR CO., INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RILEY 13 vs. SEPARATE STATEMENT IN ATTORNEYS SAN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION MULLINS 14 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. a TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO California corporation, and DOES through 10, 1 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS 15 inclusive, FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NELSON T0 DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR 16 Defendant. SANCTIONS 17 JUDGE: Hon. Winston Keh DEPT: S33 18 Date: March 27, 2023 19 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: S33 20 Trial Date: 21 Action Filed: April 6, 2022 22 23 Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc., (“AHM”) hereby submits its Supplemental 24 Opposition t0 Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement in Support 0f their Motion t0 Compel Further 25 Responses to Request for Production Nos. 18, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 62, and 64 from Defendant 26 American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and Request for Sanctions. 27 /// 28 1 DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR C0,, 1NC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: The operative dealership agreement, if any, on the date of sale 0f the SUBJECT VEHICLE between YOU and the dealership that sold the SUBJECT VEHICLE to Plaintiffs. U‘I-PUJN RESPONSE T0 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: AHM objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and as asking for information that is not relevant to the subj ect matter 0f this action and not reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, as phrased, the overly broad, unduly burdensome, and fails to describe with reasonable particularity the \OOOQQ request is documents or categories of documents being requested in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure LLP 10 section 2031.030(c)(1). In addition, AHM objects to this request as calling for information that is 11 confidential, commercially sensitive, and proprietary 0r trade secret. SCARBOROUGH LAW 12 FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: AT 5r DIEGO RILEY 13 Subject to and Without waiving the objections stated above and pursuant t0 the meet and ATTORNEYS SAN MULLINS 14 confer efforts of the parties, AHM provides the following further response: 15 In the interest of cooperation, although not a "dealership agreement," AHM will produce a NELSON 16 blank copy of its standard Automobile Dealers Sales and Service Agreement, Which is confidential 17 and proprietary information and will be produced pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered 18 in this case. 19 REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 20 As a preliminary matter, Defendant has not agreed to produce the document sought in 21 this request, but rather has offered t0 produce a blank agreement that has next t0 no 22 evidentiary value. The operative dealership agreement in effect 0n the date 0f sale 0f the 23 Subject Vehicle to Plaintiffs between AHM and the dealership that sold the Subject Vehicle is 24 the best evidence of the relationship between AHM and the selling dealership. This document 25 is relevant t0 Plaintiffs’ fraudulent inducement cause 0f action because it may show that the 26 acts and representations 0f the selling dealership and its employees during the course 0f the 27 Subject Vehicle’s sale were ratified by AHM and its corporate officers. However, a blank copy 28 2 DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ CO., INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS