Preview
NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH LLP
Michael J. Hurvitz (SBN 249050)
mike.hurvitz@nelsonmullins.com
Ian G. Schuler (SBN 275052)
ian.schuler@nelsonmullins.com
Ariel N. Redfern (SBN 3413 14)
ariel.redfem@nelsonmullins.com
750 B Street, Suite 2200
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619.489.6110
Facsimile: 619.821.2834
00\IO\
Attorneys for Defendant
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
00
LLP
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SCARBOROUGH
11 EDUARDO ESPINOSA and CELIA ESPINOSA, Case N0. CIVSB2207097
LAW
12 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA
K:
AT
DIEGO -
MOTOR CO., INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
RILEY
SAN
13 vs. PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT
ATTORNEYS
INSUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
MULLINS
14 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. a FURTHER RESPONSES TO
California corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
15 inclusive, FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
NELSON
TO DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR
16 Defendant. SANCTIONS
17 JUDGE: Hon. Winston Keh
DEPT.: S33
18
Date: January 19, 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 Opposition to
24 Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement in Support of their Motion to Compel Funher Responses t0 Request
25 for Production Nos. 18-20, 22, 26-31, 37-38, 42-44, and 52-64 from Defendant American Honda
26 Motor CO., Inc. and Request for Sanctions.
27 / / /
28 ///
1
DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET
OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:
The operative dealership agreement, if any, on the date of sale of the SUBJECT VEHICLE
between YOU and the dealership that sold the SUBJECT VEHICLE to Plaintiffs.
4;
RESPONSE TO 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 subject matter 0f this action and
\OOOQQ'JI
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, as phrased, the
request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and fails t0 describe With reasonable particularity the
documents 0r categories 0f documents being requested in Violation of Code 0f 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 or trade secret.
SCARBOROUGH
REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
LAW
12
AT
8t DIEGO
RILEY
13 This response is not Code compliant, is replete with meritless objections, and a further
ATTORNEYS
SAN
MULLINS
14 response should be compelled. The Code of Civil Procedure requires that a response to a request for
15 production must consist 0f: (1) an agreement t0 comply, stating Whether the productions or
NELSON
16 inspection will be allowed “in whole or in part,” and that all documents or things in the possession,
17 custody, or control of the respondent, as to which no objection is made, Will be included, by date set
18 for inspection (unless informally extended in writing, or the designated timing is subject to
19 objection); (2) a representation of inability to comply, with a specification of any person believed or
20 known t0 have possession of documents; 0r (3) objections and specification of withheld documents.
21 (§ 2031.210 subd. (a), 2031.220, 2031.270, 2031.280 subd. (b); Weil & Brown, CiV. Pro Before
22 Trial (The Rutter Group 2012) 1W 8: 1469-8:1474.) American Honda does not “identify With
23 particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within
24 [the] category of item in the demand,” as is required in the case of objections, and therefore fails to
25 comply with Section 203 1 .240(b)(1).
26 Further, the fact that Defendant calls the document in question a “dealership agreement” and
27 not a “franchise agreement” does not obviate Defendant’s obligation t0 produce the responsive
28 document.
2
DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET
OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
Preview
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP Michael J. Hurvitz (SBN 249050) mike.hurvitz@nelsonmullins.com Ian G. Schuler (SBN 275052) ian.schuler@nelsonmullins.com Ariel N. Redfern (SBN 3413 14) ariel.redfem@nelsonmullins.com 750 B Street, Suite 2200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619.489.6110 Facsimile: 619.821.2834 00\IO\ Attorneys for Defendant AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 00 LLP COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SCARBOROUGH 11 EDUARDO ESPINOSA and CELIA ESPINOSA, Case N0. CIVSB2207097 LAW 12 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA K: AT DIEGO - MOTOR CO., INC.’S OPPOSITION TO RILEY SAN 13 vs. PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT ATTORNEYS INSUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL MULLINS 14 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. a FURTHER RESPONSES TO California corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS 15 inclusive, FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NELSON TO DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR 16 Defendant. SANCTIONS 17 JUDGE: Hon. Winston Keh DEPT.: S33 18 Date: January 19, 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 Opposition to 24 Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement in Support of their Motion to Compel Funher Responses t0 Request 25 for Production Nos. 18-20, 22, 26-31, 37-38, 42-44, and 52-64 from Defendant American Honda 26 Motor CO., Inc. and Request for Sanctions. 27 / / / 28 /// 1 DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: The operative dealership agreement, if any, on the date of sale of the SUBJECT VEHICLE between YOU and the dealership that sold the SUBJECT VEHICLE to Plaintiffs. 4; RESPONSE TO 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 subject matter 0f this action and \OOOQQ'JI not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, as phrased, the request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and fails t0 describe With reasonable particularity the documents 0r categories 0f documents being requested in Violation of Code 0f 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 or trade secret. SCARBOROUGH REASONS WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED: LAW 12 AT 8t DIEGO RILEY 13 This response is not Code compliant, is replete with meritless objections, and a further ATTORNEYS SAN MULLINS 14 response should be compelled. The Code of Civil Procedure requires that a response to a request for 15 production must consist 0f: (1) an agreement t0 comply, stating Whether the productions or NELSON 16 inspection will be allowed “in whole or in part,” and that all documents or things in the possession, 17 custody, or control of the respondent, as to which no objection is made, Will be included, by date set 18 for inspection (unless informally extended in writing, or the designated timing is subject to 19 objection); (2) a representation of inability to comply, with a specification of any person believed or 20 known t0 have possession of documents; 0r (3) objections and specification of withheld documents. 21 (§ 2031.210 subd. (a), 2031.220, 2031.270, 2031.280 subd. (b); Weil & Brown, CiV. Pro Before 22 Trial (The Rutter Group 2012) 1W 8: 1469-8:1474.) American Honda does not “identify With 23 particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within 24 [the] category of item in the demand,” as is required in the case of objections, and therefore fails to 25 comply with Section 203 1 .240(b)(1). 26 Further, the fact that Defendant calls the document in question a “dealership agreement” and 27 not a “franchise agreement” does not obviate Defendant’s obligation t0 produce the responsive 28 document. 2 DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS