Preview
1 KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP
Roger Kirnos (SBN 283163)
2
rogerk@knightlaw.com
3 Phil A Thomas (SBN 248517)
philt@knightlaw.com
4 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
5
Telephone: (310) 552-2250
6 Fax: (310) 552-7973
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
8 MA ARMENTA ZAVALA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
10
11
MA ARMENTA ZAVALA, Case No.: 23CV001042
12 Unlimited Jurisdiction
13 Plaintiff,
DECLARATION OF PHIL A THOMAS
14
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
15 vs. COMPEL DEPOSITION
ATTENDANCE OF DEFENDANT
16
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S PERSON
17 Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN
through 10, inclusive, OF RECORDS; REQUEST FOR
18
SANCTIONS
19 Defendants.
[Filed Concurrently with Notice of Motion
20 and Motion, Separate Statement, and
21 [Proposed] Order]
22 Hearing Date: May 3, 2024
Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m.
23 Department: 15
24
25 Complaint Filed: April 6, 2023
Trial Date: May 3, 2025
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF PHIL A THOMAS
1 DECLARATION OF PHIL A THOMAS
2 I, Phil A Thomas, declare as follows:
3 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all of the courts of the State
4 of California. I am counsel of record for Plaintiff Ma Armenta Zavala (“Plaintiff”). I have
5 personal knowledge of the following facts, and, if called to testify regarding those matters, I could
6 and would competently testify thereto.
7 2. On December 3, 2021, Plaintiff purchased a new 2022 Chevrolet Tahoe (the
8 “Subject Vehicle”). The sale of the vehicle was accompanied by express and implied warranties
9 by which Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant” or “GM”) undertook to preserve or
10 maintain the utility or performance of Plaintiff’s vehicle or to provide compensation if there was
11 a failure in such utility or performance. Shortly after purchasing the vehicle, Plaintiff began to
12 experience serious defects and nonconformities to warranty, including, but not limited to,
13 electrical defects. Notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff has delivered the vehicle to an authorized
14 repair facility on numerous occasions, Defendant has been unable to conform the vehicle to its
15 applicable warranties and has refused to offer restitution or replacement of Plaintiff’s vehicle as
16 required under the Song- Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the “Song-Beverly Act”). Based on
17 Defendant’s misconduct, Plaintiff filed suit alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Act.
18 3. In preparation for trial, on January 26, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant with a
19 Notice of Deposition of Defendant’s Person(s) Most Qualified and Custodian(s) of Records.
20 Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition identified with reasonable particularity four (4) matters for
21 examination and six (6) requests for document production. Plaintiff’s matters for examination
22 included matters related to GM’s pre-litigation analysis as to whether the Subject Vehicle should
23 be repurchased, all repairs and service performed on the Subject Vehicle. GM’s policies and
24 procedures for determining whether a vehicle qualifies for a repurchase or replacement under the
25 Song-Beverly Act, and GM’s training for evaluating a pre-litigation repurchase request under the
26 Song-Beverly Act. Attached hereto as Exhibit A, is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Notice
27 of Deposition of Defendant, General Motors LLC’s Person(s) Most Qualified and Custodian(s)
28 of Records.
-1-
DECLARATION OF PHIL A THOMAS
1 4. Although the deposition was noticed for March 12, 2024, Plaintiff requested that
2 Defendant provide alternative dates for the deposition by February 20, 2024 if that date did not
3 work. A true and correct copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
4 5. On February 29, 2024, Defendant served Objections to Plaintiff’s Notice of
5 Deposition stating that no witness would be produced on the noticed date. Defendant stated that
6 it would be willing to produce a witness on all noticed matters for examination (“MFEs”) subject
7 to numerous unilaterally imposed restrictions on a “mutually agreeable” date, but offered no dates
8 for the deposition to go forward. Defendant also objected to each of Plaintiff’s Categories of
9 Documents to be Produced, but stated that it had already produced responsive documents in
10 response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production. Defendant produced some documents that may
11 be responsive to some of Plaintiff’s RFPs on February 15, 2024. However, what Defendant
12 produced is hundreds of pages identified only by a bates number. Defendant did not serve verified
13 supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs that identify which documents are responsive to which
14 requests as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280(a). Plaintiff therefore has no way to
15 determine which, if any, documents Defendant has produced are responsive to this request. A
16 true and correct copy of these Objections is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
17 6. On March 6, 2024, Plaintiff sent Defendant a detailed meet and confer letter
18 addressing the deficiencies in Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition, and
19 offering to meet and confer by telephone at a mutually agreeable date and time. A true and correct
20 copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
21 7. On March 12, 2024, Plaintiff sent Defendant a video link to enable Defendant’s
22 witness to participate in the deposition. See Exhibit B.
23 8. On March 12, 2024, at 1:00 p.m., Plaintiff logged on to the video link for the
24 deposition and stayed on for 30 minutes but Defendant did not appear. Plaintiff then sent
25 Defendant an email inquiring about the non appearance and offering Defendant an additional
26 three business days to provide dates for the deposition. Plaintiff also addressed Defendant’s
27 objections to all MFEs and offered to meet and confer by phone at a mutually agreeable date and
28 time. Defendant did not respond to this email. A true and correct copy of this email is attached
-2-
DECLARATION OF PHIL A THOMAS
1 hereto as Exhibit E.
2 9. Plaintiff sent one final email to Defendant on March 18, 2024 requesting dates for
3 the deposition. In total, Plaintiff sent Defendant five requests for the dates Defendant claims to
4 be willing to provide, along with two offers to meet and confer by telephone, and not once did
5 Defendant respond. See Exhibits B, D and E.
6 10. Since July 31, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel has served approximately 400 nearly
7 identical notices of deposition for Defendant’s PMQ. In every case in which Defendant has
8 remembered to serve objections, Defendant has refused to produce a witness. Defendant often
9 states that it would be willing to produce a witness for some or all noticed MFEs (subject to
10 numerous unilaterally imposed restrictions) “on a mutually agreeable date” but provides
11 Plaintiff’s counsel with no dates. Indeed, despite making this claim on nearly 300 occasions, not
12 one has Defendant offered and kept deposition dates for all noticed MFEs.
13 11. Since November 9, 2023, after losing a number of motions to compel, Defendant
14 has offered a total of nine dates for depositions, all of which Plaintiff’s counsel accepted. 18
15 partial depositions were scheduled for these dates, but seven were cancelled by Defendant. Ten
16 depositions have gone forward on MFEs 1 and 2, and one on MFEs 3 and 4.
17 12. Defendant’s practice when offering dates for depositions is to send a list of 10-15
18 cases and to tell Plaintiff’s counsel to choose which cases will have depositions taken in the 1 or
19 2 available time slots, although this case has never been on any of Defendants’ lists. Defendant
20 then states in opposition papers and in hearings on all of the 10-15 listed cases that it has offered
21 dates for deposition in all of those cases. Defendant’s claim is at a minimum misleading, as it is
22 impossible for Plaintiff’s counsel to take 10-15 depositions in 1 or 2 time slots.
23 13. On the rare occasions when Defendant does offer deposition dates, Plaintiff’s
24 counsel schedules no more than two partial depositions per day. This is because Plaintiff’s
25 counsel expects Defendant to provide competent witnesses, for whom a partial deposition could
26 take up to three hours. However, in all of the eleven partial depositions that have gone forward,
27 Defendant has failed to provide a competent witness. As Defendant’s witnesses knew little about
28 the subject matter for which they were presented, Plaintiff’s counsel terminated these depositions
-3-
DECLARATION OF PHIL A THOMAS
1 after approximately one hour. Defendant may argue in its opposition papers or at oral argument
2 that there is something improper about Plaintiff’s counsel concluding depositions sooner than
3 Defendant would like. This argument is irrelevant at this stage, as Defendant has offered no dates
4 for deposition in this case. This argument is also inapposite, as the fault lies solely with Defendant
5 due to its failure to provide competent witnesses.
6 14. In 46 cases, Defendant has been ordered to produce a witness on some or all
7 noticed MFEs by March 18, 2023, but not once has Defendant fully complied. Defendant’s
8 strategy is clearly to run out the clock and hope that the trial date arrives before Plaintiff’s counsel
9 can successfully compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMQ.
10 15. Defendant will complain in its Opposition that Plaintiff have failed to meet and
11 confer regarding the substance of Defendant’s objections, but this claim is without merit for two
12 reasons. First is that Plaintiff’s counsel has addressed the substance of Defendant’s objections in
13 this and hundreds of other cases in writing, and—on the few occasions when Defendant has been
14 willing and has kept appointments it made—by telephone. On those occasions when Defendant
15 does respond to Plaintiff’s counsel’s meet and confer efforts, its answer is always no. Second is
16 that the substance of Defendant’s objections is simply irrelevant given Defendant’s stated
17 willingness to produce a witness on a “mutually agreeable” date.
18 16. As a result of Defendant’s failure to provide Code-compliant responses and the
19 time and effort it took Plaintiff to meet and confer, Plaintiff respectfully request that this Court
20 award monetary sanctions for the costs associated with Plaintiff’s preparation of this motion. The
21 total legal fees incurred of preparing the motion and supportive papers will be as follows:
22 a. I spent a total of 1.5 hours drafting the instant motion, proposed order,
23 notice of motion, and declaration, at my normal billing rate of $450.00 per
24 hour, for a total of $675.00.
25 b. It is also reasonably anticipated that I will spend an additional 1.5 hours
26 reviewing Defendant’s opposition and drafting a reply at my normal
27 billing rate of $450.00 per hour, for a total of $675.00.
28 c. Finally, it is reasonably anticipated that I will spend an additional one (1)
-4-
DECLARATION OF PHIL A THOMAS
1 hour preparing for and attending the scheduled hearing on this matter at
2 my normal billing rate of $450.00, for a total of $450.00.
3 d. In all, legal fees will total $1,800.00.
4 17. Our office was forced to spend $60.00 in filing the instant motion.
5 18. Adding up the figures above equals a total of $1,860.00. These sanctions are sought
6 against Defendant General Motors LLC and its attorneys of record, Erskine Law Group.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
16 foregoing is true and correct.
17
18 Executed March 19, 2024, in Oakland, California.
19
20
21
____________________________
22
Phil A Thomas (SBN 248517)
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
DECLARATION OF PHIL A THOMAS
EXHIBIT A
KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP
1
Roger Kirnos (SBN 283163)
2 Rogerk@knightlaw.com
Phil A Thomas (SBN 248517)
3 Philt@knightlaw.com
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500
4
Los Angeles, CA 90067
5 Telephone: (310) 552-2250
Fax: (310) 552-7973
6
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Ma Armenta Zavala
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
10
11
MA ARMENTA ZAVALA, Case No.: 23CV001042
12 Unlimited Jurisdiction
13
Plaintiff, NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF
14 DEFENDANT’S PERSON(S) MOST
vs.
15 QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF
RECORDS; REQUEST FOR
16 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION
Limited Liability Company, et al.,
17
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND
CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS
1 TO EACH PARTY AND TO THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY:
2 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1010,
3 on March 12, 2024 at 1:00 P.M., remotely before a Certified Court Reporter, Plaintiff Ma Armenta
4 Zavala, through counsel, will take the deposition of GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware
5 Limited Liability Company (“General Motors LLC”)’s Person(s) Most Qualified and Custodian(s)
6 of Record in the above matter.
7 Notice is further given that we reserve the right to conduct this deposition utilizing the
8 secure web-based deposition option afforded by a virtual meeting platform or telephonically to
9 provide remote access for those parties wishing to participate via the internet and/or telephone.
10 Please also take notice that the court reporter may be appearing remotely and may not be in the
11 presence of the deponent. Please also take notice that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
12 2025.330, the deposition shall be recorded by stenographic method and may also be recorded via
13 videotape. Please also take notice that pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections
14 2025.220(a) and 2025.620, Plaintiff reserves the right to use at the trial of this action the recording
15 or transcript of the deposition of the deponent. This deposition is being taken for the purpose of
16 discovery, for use at trial, and for such other purposes as are permitted under the California Code
17 of Civil Procedure.If the deposition is not completed on the date set out above, the taking of the
18 deposition will continue from day to day thereafter, except for weekends and holidays until
19 completed.
20 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.230, Defendant shall designate and
21 produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents
22 who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to the existence, authenticity, and manner of
23 keeping of the DOCUMENTS described in Exhibit A, and if such persons differ, the officers,
24 directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify as to the
25 contents and interpretation of such DOCUMENTS.
26 Each and every DOCUMENT shall be produced by 10:00 AM on the day prior to the
27 deposition. The documents can be sent electronically to Knight Law Group at
28 emailservice@knightlaw.com. In the event that the deposition is continued by agreement or for
-2-
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND
CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS
1 any other reason, each and every DOCUMENT shall be produced by 10:00 AM on the day before
2 the date originally set above for deposition, regardless of such continuation.
3
4 MATTERS FOR EXAMINATION
5
6 1. General Motors LLC’s pre-litigation analysis as to whether the 2022 Chevrolet TAHOE,
7 VIN: 1GNSKNKT5NR136657 should be repurchased.
8 2. All repairs and service performed on the 2022 Chevrolet TAHOE, VIN:
9 1GNSKNKT5NR136657.
10 3. General Motors LLC’s policies and procedures for determining whether a vehicle qualifies
11 for a repurchase or replacement under the Song-Beverly Act.
12 4. General Motors LLC’s training for evaluating a pre-litigation repurchase request under the
13 Song-Beverly Act.
14
15 Dated: January 26, 2024 KNIGHT LAW GROUP LLP
16
17 ___________________________
Roger Kirnos (SBN 283163)
18 Phil A Thomas (SBN 248517)
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
19
MA ARMENTA ZAVALA
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND
CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS
1 EXHIBIT A
2 NOTICE IS GIVEN that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220,
3 subdivision (a)(4), Defendant shall bring and produce at the depositions at the time and place set
4 out above, the following document:
5 DEFINITIONS
6 1. The word “DOCUMENT” refers to all matters that would fall within the definition of
7 Evidence Code §250, and includes written or printed matter of any kind, including the originals
8 and all non-identical copies thereof, whether different from the original by reason of any notation
9 made on such copies or otherwise including, but not limited to, the following: advertisements,
10 booklets, brochures, pamphlets, circulars, Amended Notices, periodicals, papers, contracts,
11 agreements, photographs, minutes, memoranda, messages, appraisals, analyses, reports, financial
12 calculations and representations, invoices, accounting and diary entries, inventory sheets, diaries,
13 appointment books or calendars, teletypes, facsimiles, ledgers, trial balances, correspondence,
14 telegrams, press releases, notes, working papers, drawings, schedules, tabulations, projections,
15 mails, information or programs stored in a computer (whether or not ever printed out or displayed),
16 and all drafts, alterations, modifications, changes or amendments of any of the foregoing, and all
17 graphic or manual records or representations of any kind including, but not limited to, the
18 following: microfiche, microfilm, audiotapes, videotapes, recordings and motion pictures, and all
19 electronic, mechanical or electronic records or representations of any kind including, but not
20 limited to, the following: Tapes, cassettes, discs, magnetic cards and recordings. Note: This
21 definition includes electronic mail.
22 2. The words “YOU” and “YOUR” refer to General Motors LLC and/or any related entity,
23 predecessor, parent, subsidiary and/or affiliate, employee, agent, or any person acting or purporting
24 to act on Defendant, General Motors LLC’s behalf.
25 3. “SUBJECT VEHICLE” refers to the 2022 Chevrolet TAHOE, VIN:
26 1GNSKNKT5NR136657.
27 ///
28 ///
EXHIBIT A
1 CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED
2 All DOCUMENTS related in any way to the foregoing categories.
3 1. YOUR entire pre-litigation file regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
4 2. YOUR pre-litigation communications with Plaintiff regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
5 3. YOUR policies and procedures for determining whether a vehicle qualifies for a repurchase
6 under the Song-Beverly Act.
7 4. All training materials provided to YOUR employees or YOUR call-center agents regarding
8 the handling of pre-litigation consumer requests for a vehicle repurchase in California.
9 5. All DOCUMENTS evidencing your pre-litigation evaluation of whether the SUBJECT
10 VEHICLE qualified for a repurchase under the Song-Beverly Act.
11 6. All DOCUMENTS that YOU reviewed in YOUR pre-litigation evaluation of whether the
12 SUBJECT VEHICLE qualified for a repurchase under the Song-Beverly Act.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT A
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
(Code of Civil Procedure §1013a)
2
I am employed in the City of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
3 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 10250 Constellation Blvd, Ste
2500, Los Angeles, California 90067.
4
5 I served an electronic copy of the following documents described as:
6 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED
AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS; REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AT
7 DEPOSITION
8 On the intended parties in this action as follows:
9 Mary Arens McBride, Esq.
10 Arash Yaraghchian, Esq.
THE ERSKINE LAW GROUP, P.C.
11 1592 N. Batavia St., Suite 1A
Orange, CA 92867
12
marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com
13 ayaraghchian@erskinelaw.com
eservice-ca@erskinelaw.com
14
Counsel for Defendant,
15
GENERAL MOTORS LLC
16
XX BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on a court order or an
17 agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused
18 the documents to be sent to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed above. I did not
receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other
19 indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
21 foregoing is true and correct.
22 Executed on January 26, 2024 at Los Angeles, California.
23 _____________________________
24 David Ramos Vasquez
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT B
From: David Ramos Vasquez
To: eservice-ca@erskinelaw.com; marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com; "xquezada@erskinelaw.com"
Cc: Phil Thomas; Deepak Devabose; Lisette Santacruz; Jakob Salazar; Elvira Kamosko; Karina Gastelum
Subject: RE: Armenta Zavala, Ma v. GM - PMQ Deposition
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 9:39:39 AM
Counsel,
Following up on our M&C letter dated 03/06/2024. Again, if the noticed date does not work for GM
or the deponent, please advise on alternate mutually agreeable dates.
In the event that your office does not provide alternative mutually agreeable dates for this
deposition to protect our clients’ rights we will proceed with the deposition to memorialize your
failure to appear.
Please see zoom info below:
Topic: Armenta Zavala, Ma v. GM - PMQ Deposition
Time: Mar 12, 2024 01:00 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada)
Join Zoom Meeting
https://knightlaw.zoom.us/j/81265970672
Meeting ID: 812 6597 0672
David Ramos Vasquez | Legal Secretary
Schedule a Meeting with Me
Knight Law Group, LLP
10250 Constellation Blvd, Ste 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
T 310.552.2250 | F 310.552.7973
DRVasquez@knightlaw.com | KnightLaw.com
Note: This email contains information from Knight Law Group, LLP that may be proprietary, confidential, or protected under the attorney-
client privilege or work-product doctrine. This email is intended only for the use of the named recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient named above, you are strictly prohibited from reading, disclosing, copying, or distributing this email or its contents, and from
taking any action in reliance on the contents of this email. If you received this email in error, please delete this message and respond
immediately by email to the author or call 310.552.2250.
From: David Ramos Vasquez
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 12:42 PM
To: eservice-ca@erskinelaw.com; marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com; 'xquezada@erskinelaw.com'
Cc: Phil Thomas ; Deepak Devabose ; Lisette
Santacruz ; Jakob Salazar
Subject: RE: Armenta Zavala, Ma v. GM - PMQ Deposition
Counsel,
We are in receipt of your objections to the notice of deposition for GM’s PMQ set for Tuesday,
March 12, 2024 at 1:00 pm ; however, no alternative dates were provided for the deponent.
Please advise as to an alternative, mutually convenient date so we may be able to re-notice this PMQ
depo accordingly. In addition, Please see M&C Letter regarding categories of examination.
Thank you,
David Ramos Vasquez | Legal Secretary
Schedule a Meeting with Me
Knight Law Group, LLP
10250 Constellation Blvd, Ste 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
T 310.552.2250 | F 310.552.7973
DRVasquez@knightlaw.com | KnightLaw.com
Note: This email contains information from Knight Law Group, LLP that may be proprietary, confidential, or protected under the attorney-
client privilege or work-product doctrine. This email is intended only for the use of the named recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient named above, you are strictly prohibited from reading, disclosing, copying, or distributing this email or its contents, and from
taking any action in reliance on the contents of this email. If you received this email in error, please delete this message and respond
immediately by email to the author or call 310.552.2250.
From: David Ramos Vasquez
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 1:06 PM
To: eservice-ca@erskinelaw.com; marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com
Cc: Phil Thomas ; Deepak Devabose ; Lisette
Santacruz ; Jakob Salazar ; Jacqueline Martinez
Subject: RE: Armenta Zavala, Ma v. GM - PMQ Deposition
Counsel,
Although your objections are not due yet, I am following up to inquire whether the date for
deposition of GM's PMQ is acceptable. If the noticed date does not work for GM's PMQ, please
provide alternative dates for the deposition.
Thank you,
David Ramos Vasquez | Legal Secretary
Schedule a Meeting with Me
Knight Law Group, LLP
10250 Constellation Blvd, Ste 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
T 310.552.2250 | F 310.552.7973
DRVasquez@knightlaw.com | KnightLaw.com
Note: This email contains information from Knight Law Group, LLP that may be proprietary, confidential, or protected under the attorney-
client privilege or work-product doctrine. This email is intended only for the use of the named recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient named above, you are strictly prohibited from reading, disclosing, copying, or distributing this email or its contents, and from
taking any action in reliance on the contents of this email. If you received this email in error, please delete this message and respond
immediately by email to the author or call 310.552.2250.
From: David Ramos Vasquez
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 3:01 PM
To: eservice-ca@erskinelaw.com; marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com
Cc: Phil Thomas ; Deepak Devabose ; Lisette
Santacruz ; Jakob Salazar ; Jacqueline Martinez
Subject: Armenta Zavala, Ma v. GM - PMQ Deposition
Counsel,
Please find the attached Notice of Deposition of GM’s PMQ. If you are not available on the date in
the enclosed notice, please provide our office with a date in which your witness will be produced for
deposition by Tuesday, February 20, 2024.
Thank you,
David Ramos Vasquez | Legal Secretary
Schedule a Meeting with Me
Knight Law Group, LLP
10250 Constellation Blvd, Ste 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
T 310.552.2250 | F 310.552.7973
DRVasquez@knightlaw.com | KnightLaw.com
Note: This email contains information from Knight Law Group, LLP that may be proprietary, confidential, or protected under the attorney-
client privilege or work-product doctrine. This email is intended only for the use of the named recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient named above, you are strictly prohibited from reading, disclosing, copying, or distributing this email or its contents, and from
taking any action in reliance on the contents of this email. If you received this email in error, please delete this message and respond
immediately by email to the author or call 310.552.2250.
EXHIBIT C
Mary Arens McBride, Esq. (SBN 282459)
1 Xylon Quezada, Esq. (SBN 324802)
2 ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC
1592 N. Batavia St., Suite 1A
3 Orange, CA 92867
Tel: (949) 777-6032
4 Fax: (714) 844-9035
Email: marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com
5
Email: xquezada@erskinelaw.com
6
Attorneys for Defendant,
7 GENERAL MOTORS LLC
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY
11
MA ARMENTA ZAVALA, CASE NO.: 23CV001042
12
Plaintiff, ASSIGNED TO:
13
Honorable Thomas W. Wills
14 vs. Department 15
15 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware Date Filed: April 6, 2023
Limited Liability Company; and DOES Trial Date: March 3, 2025
16 1 through 10, inclusive,
17
Defendants. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S
18 OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF
DEPOSITION OF GENERAL MOTORS
19 LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND
CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS; REQUEST
20 FOR DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION
21
22 Date: March 12, 2024
Time: 1:00 p.m.
23 Location: Remotely
24
25
26 General Motors LLC (“GM”) hereby objects to Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition of GM’s
27 Person(s) Most Qualified and Custodian(s) of Records; Request for Documents at Deposition
28 (“Deposition Notice”), scheduled for March 12, 2024, at 1:00 P.M., remotely, as follows:
Page 1 of 10
DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF
GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS; REQUEST FOR
DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION
1 GENERAL OBJECTIONS
2 1. GM objects to the Deposition Notice on grounds it was unilaterally noticed without
3 consulting GM’s counsel to determine counsel’s availability, GM’s availability, and/or the witness’s
4 availability. GM will not produce the witness at the date and time noticed, but GM may produce
5 him/her at a mutually convenient time and place.
6 2. GM objects to this Deposition Notice to the extent it exceeds the scope of discovery
7 permitted by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2017.010.
8 3. GM objects to the Deposition Notice to the extent that the document requests are
9 compound, overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, seek irrelevant information, and are
10 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Allen v. Superior Ct.
11 (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 447.
12 4. GM objects to the Deposition Notice to the extent that it seeks information and
13 testimony that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work-product
14 doctrine.
15 5. GM objects to the Deposition Notice to the extent that the requests for information
16 call for speculation and do not meet the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure Section
17 2025.220(a)(4), which requires a specification with reasonable particularity of any materials or
18 category of material to be produced by the deponent.
19 6. GM objects to the Deposition Notice to the extent the requests seek documents about
20 vehicles other than the 2022 Chevrolet Tahoe, VIN: 1GNSKNKT5NR136657 at issue in this
21 litigation (the “SUBJECT VEHICLE”).
22 7. GM objects to the requests in the Deposition Notice to the extent that Plaintiff seeks
23 information and the production of documents for an unlimited period of time. Moreover, GM objects
24 to the Notice because the time set for production of documents is unreasonable, as it was not served
25 a sufficient time in advance of the deposition to provide a reasonable opportunity to find and produce
26 the requested records.
27 8. GM objects to the Deposition Notice to the extent that the requests seek third party
28 documents, documents outside of GM’s custody, possession, or control, or documents that are
Page 2 of 10
DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF
GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS; REQUEST FOR
DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION
1 equally available to Plaintiff.
2 9. GM objects to the Deposition Notice to the extent that it imposes more stringent
3 requirements than the California Code of Civil Procedure or the California Evidence Code.
4 10. GM objects to the Deposition Notice to the extent it assumes facts not in evidence.
5 By objecting or responding to any of the categories of Plaintiff’s Deposition Notice, GM does not
6 intend to, and does not, admit that any fact or circumstance alleged in the Deposition Notice occurred
7 or existed. GM’s responses shall not be construed as an agreement or concurrence with Plaintiff’s
8 characterization of any fact or circumstance.
9 11. GM objects to the Deposition Notice on grounds the time set for production of
10 documents is unreasonable as it was not served a sufficient time in advance of the deposition to
11 provide a reasonable opportunity to find and produce the requested records.
12 GM incorporates each of these General Objections into each of the specific responses set
13 forth below.
14
15 MATTERS ON WHICH THE DEPONENT IS TO BE EXAMINED
16 CATEGORY NO. 1
17 General Motors LLC’s pre-litigation analysis as to whether the 2022 Chevrolet TAHOE,
18 VIN: 1GNSKNKT5NR136657 should be repurchased.
19 OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 1
20 GM objects to this Category on grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague,
21 ambiguous, oppressive, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
22 evidence. GM also objects to this Category to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade
23 secret information. GM further objects to this Category to the extent it seeks information that may
24 be protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine.
25 Subject to and without waiving its objections, GM will produce a witness at mutually
26 agreeable time and place to discuss the relevant and nonprivileged aspects of this Category.
27
28 CATEGORY NO. 2
Page 3 of 10
DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF
GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS; REQUEST FOR
DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION
1 All repairs and service performed on the 2022 Chevrolet TAHOE, VIN:
2 1GNSKNKT5NR136657.
3 OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 2
4 GM objects to this Category on grounds the terms "repairs" and "service" are vague and
5 ambiguous. GM also objects to this Category on grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome,
6 oppressive and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not
7 limited to the issues in this action. GM also objects to this Category on grounds that it seeks
8 information beyond GM's knowledge. GM also objects to this Category to the extent it seeks
9 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. GM further objects to this Category to the
10 extent it seeks information that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney
11 work-product doctrine.
12 Subject to and without waiving these objections, GM states that the SUBJECT VEHICLE
13 was repaired and serviced by an authorized GM repair facility, not GM. GM will produce a witness
14 at a mutually agreeable time and place to discuss the relevant and nonprivileged aspects of this
15 Category, with such relevance being specified as those alleged issues that Plaintiff has clearly
16 articulated as being the basis for recovery in this case. In any event, the witness will not be prepared
17 to address anything beyond the records already produced in this case related to these issues.
18 Specifically, with regard to repairs and service, the witness will be prepared to testify relating to the
19 repairs and service as reflected on the Global Warranty History Report applicable to the SUBJECT
20 VEHICLE only.
21
22 CATEGORY NO. 3
23 General Motors LLC’s policies and procedures for determining whether a vehicle qualifies
24 for a repurchase or replacement under the Song-Beverly Act.
25 OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 3
26 GM objects to this Category on grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague,
27 ambiguous, oppressive, irrelevant, not reasonably limited in time, and not reasonably calculated to
28 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue
Page 4 of 10
DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF
GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS; REQUEST FOR
DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION
1 in this case. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Category violates
2 Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567.
3 Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
4 is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Category. GM also objects
5 to this Category to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the
6 form of GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Category to the extent it
7 seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine.
8 Subject to and without waiving its objections, GM will produce a witness at a mutually
9 agreeable time and place to testify about whether GM received a request from Plaintiff to repurchase
10 the SUBJECT VEHICLE and, if so, how GM responded.
11
12 CATEGORY NO. 4
13 General Motors LLC’s training for evaluating a pre-litigation repurchase request under the
14 Song-Beverly Act.
15 OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 4
16 GM objects to this Category on grounds the terms "training" and "evaluating" are vague and
17 ambiguous. GM also objects to this Category on grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome,
18 oppressive, irrelevant, not reasonably limited in time, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
19 discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited to the SUBJECT VEHICLE or issues in this
20 case. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Category violates
21 Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567.
22 Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
23 is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Category. GM also objects
24 to this Category to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the
25 form of GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Category to the extent it
26 seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine.
27 Subject to and without waiving its objections, GM will produce a witness at a mutually
28 agreeable time and place to testify about whether GM received a request from Plaintiff to repurchase
Page 5 of 10
DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF
GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS; REQUEST FOR
DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION
1 the SUBJECT VEHICLE and, if so, how GM responded.
2
3 ITEMS TO BE PRODUCED
4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
5 YOUR entire pre-litigation file regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
6 OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
7 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term "entire pre-litigation file" is vague and
8 ambiguous. GM objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive,
9 irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not
10 limited to the issues in this case. For example, this Request is so broad that it would encompass
11 documents on the SUBJECT VEHICLE which are not relevant to the subject of this lawsuit. GM
12 also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret
13 information. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the
14 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine.
15 Subject to and without waiving these objections, GM will comply in part and refers Plaintiff
16 to any Service Request Activity Report(s), the CEC case assessment worksheet(s), the factory
17 invoice, the Global Warranty History Report, Repair Order Details, Repair Order Summary, and
18 any incidentally obtained repair orders applicable to the SUBJECT VEHICLE produced in response
19 to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, and not in response to this Deposition Notice.
20 No additional documents will be produced.
21
22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
23 YOUR pre-litigation communications with Plaintiff regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
24 OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
25 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term "communications" is vague and ambiguous.
26 GM objects to this Request on grounds the documents are equally available to Plaintiff, or already
27 in Plaintiff’s possession. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad, unduly
28 burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
Page 6 of 10
DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF
GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS; REQUEST FOR
DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION
1 admissible evidence, as it is not limited to the issues in this case. GM also objects to this Request to
2 the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret. GM further objects to this Request to
3 the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product
4 doctrine.
5 Subject to and without waiving these objections, GM will comply in part and refers Plaintiff
6 to any Service Request Activity Report(s), the Global Warranty History Report, and any incidentally
7 obtained repair orders produced in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents,
8 and not in response to this Deposition Notice. No additional documents will be produced.
9
10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
11 YOUR policies and procedures for determining whether a vehicle qualifies for a repurchase
12 under the Song-Beverly Act.
13 OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
14 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term "determining" is vague and ambiguous. GM
15 also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant,
16 not reasonably limited in time, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
17 evidence, as it is not limited to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this case. This is a simple,
18 individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc.
19 v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is
20 entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and
21 incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the
22 extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal
23 policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information
24 protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine.
25 Subject to and without waiving any objections, GM refers Plaintiff to GM's response(s) to
26 Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents and documents identified therein, if any.
27
28 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
Page 7 of 10
DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF
GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS; REQUEST FOR
DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION
1 All training materials provided to YOUR employees or YOUR call-center agents regarding
2 the handling of pre-litigation consumer requests for a vehicle repurchase in California.
3 OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
4 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term "training materials," "YOUR employees,"
5 "agents" and "handling" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is
6 overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant, not reasonably limited in time, and not
7 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited to the
8 SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this case. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited
9 issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court
Preview
1 KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP Roger Kirnos (SBN 283163) 2 rogerk@knightlaw.com 3 Phil A Thomas (SBN 248517) philt@knightlaw.com 4 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 5 Telephone: (310) 552-2250 6 Fax: (310) 552-7973 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 8 MA ARMENTA ZAVALA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF MONTEREY 10 11 MA ARMENTA ZAVALA, Case No.: 23CV001042 12 Unlimited Jurisdiction 13 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF PHIL A THOMAS 14 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 15 vs. COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE OF DEFENDANT 16 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S PERSON 17 Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN through 10, inclusive, OF RECORDS; REQUEST FOR 18 SANCTIONS 19 Defendants. [Filed Concurrently with Notice of Motion 20 and Motion, Separate Statement, and 21 [Proposed] Order] 22 Hearing Date: May 3, 2024 Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. 23 Department: 15 24 25 Complaint Filed: April 6, 2023 Trial Date: May 3, 2025 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF PHIL A THOMAS 1 DECLARATION OF PHIL A THOMAS 2 I, Phil A Thomas, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all of the courts of the State 4 of California. I am counsel of record for Plaintiff Ma Armenta Zavala (“Plaintiff”). I have 5 personal knowledge of the following facts, and, if called to testify regarding those matters, I could 6 and would competently testify thereto. 7 2. On December 3, 2021, Plaintiff purchased a new 2022 Chevrolet Tahoe (the 8 “Subject Vehicle”). The sale of the vehicle was accompanied by express and implied warranties 9 by which Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant” or “GM”) undertook to preserve or 10 maintain the utility or performance of Plaintiff’s vehicle or to provide compensation if there was 11 a failure in such utility or performance. Shortly after purchasing the vehicle, Plaintiff began to 12 experience serious defects and nonconformities to warranty, including, but not limited to, 13 electrical defects. Notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff has delivered the vehicle to an authorized 14 repair facility on numerous occasions, Defendant has been unable to conform the vehicle to its 15 applicable warranties and has refused to offer restitution or replacement of Plaintiff’s vehicle as 16 required under the Song- Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the “Song-Beverly Act”). Based on 17 Defendant’s misconduct, Plaintiff filed suit alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Act. 18 3. In preparation for trial, on January 26, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant with a 19 Notice of Deposition of Defendant’s Person(s) Most Qualified and Custodian(s) of Records. 20 Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition identified with reasonable particularity four (4) matters for 21 examination and six (6) requests for document production. Plaintiff’s matters for examination 22 included matters related to GM’s pre-litigation analysis as to whether the Subject Vehicle should 23 be repurchased, all repairs and service performed on the Subject Vehicle. GM’s policies and 24 procedures for determining whether a vehicle qualifies for a repurchase or replacement under the 25 Song-Beverly Act, and GM’s training for evaluating a pre-litigation repurchase request under the 26 Song-Beverly Act. Attached hereto as Exhibit A, is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Notice 27 of Deposition of Defendant, General Motors LLC’s Person(s) Most Qualified and Custodian(s) 28 of Records. -1- DECLARATION OF PHIL A THOMAS 1 4. Although the deposition was noticed for March 12, 2024, Plaintiff requested that 2 Defendant provide alternative dates for the deposition by February 20, 2024 if that date did not 3 work. A true and correct copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 4 5. On February 29, 2024, Defendant served Objections to Plaintiff’s Notice of 5 Deposition stating that no witness would be produced on the noticed date. Defendant stated that 6 it would be willing to produce a witness on all noticed matters for examination (“MFEs”) subject 7 to numerous unilaterally imposed restrictions on a “mutually agreeable” date, but offered no dates 8 for the deposition to go forward. Defendant also objected to each of Plaintiff’s Categories of 9 Documents to be Produced, but stated that it had already produced responsive documents in 10 response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production. Defendant produced some documents that may 11 be responsive to some of Plaintiff’s RFPs on February 15, 2024. However, what Defendant 12 produced is hundreds of pages identified only by a bates number. Defendant did not serve verified 13 supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs that identify which documents are responsive to which 14 requests as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280(a). Plaintiff therefore has no way to 15 determine which, if any, documents Defendant has produced are responsive to this request. A 16 true and correct copy of these Objections is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 17 6. On March 6, 2024, Plaintiff sent Defendant a detailed meet and confer letter 18 addressing the deficiencies in Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition, and 19 offering to meet and confer by telephone at a mutually agreeable date and time. A true and correct 20 copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 21 7. On March 12, 2024, Plaintiff sent Defendant a video link to enable Defendant’s 22 witness to participate in the deposition. See Exhibit B. 23 8. On March 12, 2024, at 1:00 p.m., Plaintiff logged on to the video link for the 24 deposition and stayed on for 30 minutes but Defendant did not appear. Plaintiff then sent 25 Defendant an email inquiring about the non appearance and offering Defendant an additional 26 three business days to provide dates for the deposition. Plaintiff also addressed Defendant’s 27 objections to all MFEs and offered to meet and confer by phone at a mutually agreeable date and 28 time. Defendant did not respond to this email. A true and correct copy of this email is attached -2- DECLARATION OF PHIL A THOMAS 1 hereto as Exhibit E. 2 9. Plaintiff sent one final email to Defendant on March 18, 2024 requesting dates for 3 the deposition. In total, Plaintiff sent Defendant five requests for the dates Defendant claims to 4 be willing to provide, along with two offers to meet and confer by telephone, and not once did 5 Defendant respond. See Exhibits B, D and E. 6 10. Since July 31, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel has served approximately 400 nearly 7 identical notices of deposition for Defendant’s PMQ. In every case in which Defendant has 8 remembered to serve objections, Defendant has refused to produce a witness. Defendant often 9 states that it would be willing to produce a witness for some or all noticed MFEs (subject to 10 numerous unilaterally imposed restrictions) “on a mutually agreeable date” but provides 11 Plaintiff’s counsel with no dates. Indeed, despite making this claim on nearly 300 occasions, not 12 one has Defendant offered and kept deposition dates for all noticed MFEs. 13 11. Since November 9, 2023, after losing a number of motions to compel, Defendant 14 has offered a total of nine dates for depositions, all of which Plaintiff’s counsel accepted. 18 15 partial depositions were scheduled for these dates, but seven were cancelled by Defendant. Ten 16 depositions have gone forward on MFEs 1 and 2, and one on MFEs 3 and 4. 17 12. Defendant’s practice when offering dates for depositions is to send a list of 10-15 18 cases and to tell Plaintiff’s counsel to choose which cases will have depositions taken in the 1 or 19 2 available time slots, although this case has never been on any of Defendants’ lists. Defendant 20 then states in opposition papers and in hearings on all of the 10-15 listed cases that it has offered 21 dates for deposition in all of those cases. Defendant’s claim is at a minimum misleading, as it is 22 impossible for Plaintiff’s counsel to take 10-15 depositions in 1 or 2 time slots. 23 13. On the rare occasions when Defendant does offer deposition dates, Plaintiff’s 24 counsel schedules no more than two partial depositions per day. This is because Plaintiff’s 25 counsel expects Defendant to provide competent witnesses, for whom a partial deposition could 26 take up to three hours. However, in all of the eleven partial depositions that have gone forward, 27 Defendant has failed to provide a competent witness. As Defendant’s witnesses knew little about 28 the subject matter for which they were presented, Plaintiff’s counsel terminated these depositions -3- DECLARATION OF PHIL A THOMAS 1 after approximately one hour. Defendant may argue in its opposition papers or at oral argument 2 that there is something improper about Plaintiff’s counsel concluding depositions sooner than 3 Defendant would like. This argument is irrelevant at this stage, as Defendant has offered no dates 4 for deposition in this case. This argument is also inapposite, as the fault lies solely with Defendant 5 due to its failure to provide competent witnesses. 6 14. In 46 cases, Defendant has been ordered to produce a witness on some or all 7 noticed MFEs by March 18, 2023, but not once has Defendant fully complied. Defendant’s 8 strategy is clearly to run out the clock and hope that the trial date arrives before Plaintiff’s counsel 9 can successfully compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMQ. 10 15. Defendant will complain in its Opposition that Plaintiff have failed to meet and 11 confer regarding the substance of Defendant’s objections, but this claim is without merit for two 12 reasons. First is that Plaintiff’s counsel has addressed the substance of Defendant’s objections in 13 this and hundreds of other cases in writing, and—on the few occasions when Defendant has been 14 willing and has kept appointments it made—by telephone. On those occasions when Defendant 15 does respond to Plaintiff’s counsel’s meet and confer efforts, its answer is always no. Second is 16 that the substance of Defendant’s objections is simply irrelevant given Defendant’s stated 17 willingness to produce a witness on a “mutually agreeable” date. 18 16. As a result of Defendant’s failure to provide Code-compliant responses and the 19 time and effort it took Plaintiff to meet and confer, Plaintiff respectfully request that this Court 20 award monetary sanctions for the costs associated with Plaintiff’s preparation of this motion. The 21 total legal fees incurred of preparing the motion and supportive papers will be as follows: 22 a. I spent a total of 1.5 hours drafting the instant motion, proposed order, 23 notice of motion, and declaration, at my normal billing rate of $450.00 per 24 hour, for a total of $675.00. 25 b. It is also reasonably anticipated that I will spend an additional 1.5 hours 26 reviewing Defendant’s opposition and drafting a reply at my normal 27 billing rate of $450.00 per hour, for a total of $675.00. 28 c. Finally, it is reasonably anticipated that I will spend an additional one (1) -4- DECLARATION OF PHIL A THOMAS 1 hour preparing for and attending the scheduled hearing on this matter at 2 my normal billing rate of $450.00, for a total of $450.00. 3 d. In all, legal fees will total $1,800.00. 4 17. Our office was forced to spend $60.00 in filing the instant motion. 5 18. Adding up the figures above equals a total of $1,860.00. These sanctions are sought 6 against Defendant General Motors LLC and its attorneys of record, Erskine Law Group. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 16 foregoing is true and correct. 17 18 Executed March 19, 2024, in Oakland, California. 19 20 21 ____________________________ 22 Phil A Thomas (SBN 248517) 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5- DECLARATION OF PHIL A THOMAS EXHIBIT A KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP 1 Roger Kirnos (SBN 283163) 2 Rogerk@knightlaw.com Phil A Thomas (SBN 248517) 3 Philt@knightlaw.com 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 4 Los Angeles, CA 90067 5 Telephone: (310) 552-2250 Fax: (310) 552-7973 6 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Ma Armenta Zavala 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF MONTEREY 10 11 MA ARMENTA ZAVALA, Case No.: 23CV001042 12 Unlimited Jurisdiction 13 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF 14 DEFENDANT’S PERSON(S) MOST vs. 15 QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS; REQUEST FOR 16 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION Limited Liability Company, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS 1 TO EACH PARTY AND TO THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY: 2 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1010, 3 on March 12, 2024 at 1:00 P.M., remotely before a Certified Court Reporter, Plaintiff Ma Armenta 4 Zavala, through counsel, will take the deposition of GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware 5 Limited Liability Company (“General Motors LLC”)’s Person(s) Most Qualified and Custodian(s) 6 of Record in the above matter. 7 Notice is further given that we reserve the right to conduct this deposition utilizing the 8 secure web-based deposition option afforded by a virtual meeting platform or telephonically to 9 provide remote access for those parties wishing to participate via the internet and/or telephone. 10 Please also take notice that the court reporter may be appearing remotely and may not be in the 11 presence of the deponent. Please also take notice that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 12 2025.330, the deposition shall be recorded by stenographic method and may also be recorded via 13 videotape. Please also take notice that pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 14 2025.220(a) and 2025.620, Plaintiff reserves the right to use at the trial of this action the recording 15 or transcript of the deposition of the deponent. This deposition is being taken for the purpose of 16 discovery, for use at trial, and for such other purposes as are permitted under the California Code 17 of Civil Procedure.If the deposition is not completed on the date set out above, the taking of the 18 deposition will continue from day to day thereafter, except for weekends and holidays until 19 completed. 20 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.230, Defendant shall designate and 21 produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents 22 who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to the existence, authenticity, and manner of 23 keeping of the DOCUMENTS described in Exhibit A, and if such persons differ, the officers, 24 directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify as to the 25 contents and interpretation of such DOCUMENTS. 26 Each and every DOCUMENT shall be produced by 10:00 AM on the day prior to the 27 deposition. The documents can be sent electronically to Knight Law Group at 28 emailservice@knightlaw.com. In the event that the deposition is continued by agreement or for -2- NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS 1 any other reason, each and every DOCUMENT shall be produced by 10:00 AM on the day before 2 the date originally set above for deposition, regardless of such continuation. 3 4 MATTERS FOR EXAMINATION 5 6 1. General Motors LLC’s pre-litigation analysis as to whether the 2022 Chevrolet TAHOE, 7 VIN: 1GNSKNKT5NR136657 should be repurchased. 8 2. All repairs and service performed on the 2022 Chevrolet TAHOE, VIN: 9 1GNSKNKT5NR136657. 10 3. General Motors LLC’s policies and procedures for determining whether a vehicle qualifies 11 for a repurchase or replacement under the Song-Beverly Act. 12 4. General Motors LLC’s training for evaluating a pre-litigation repurchase request under the 13 Song-Beverly Act. 14 15 Dated: January 26, 2024 KNIGHT LAW GROUP LLP 16 17 ___________________________ Roger Kirnos (SBN 283163) 18 Phil A Thomas (SBN 248517) Attorneys for Plaintiff, 19 MA ARMENTA ZAVALA 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS 1 EXHIBIT A 2 NOTICE IS GIVEN that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, 3 subdivision (a)(4), Defendant shall bring and produce at the depositions at the time and place set 4 out above, the following document: 5 DEFINITIONS 6 1. The word “DOCUMENT” refers to all matters that would fall within the definition of 7 Evidence Code §250, and includes written or printed matter of any kind, including the originals 8 and all non-identical copies thereof, whether different from the original by reason of any notation 9 made on such copies or otherwise including, but not limited to, the following: advertisements, 10 booklets, brochures, pamphlets, circulars, Amended Notices, periodicals, papers, contracts, 11 agreements, photographs, minutes, memoranda, messages, appraisals, analyses, reports, financial 12 calculations and representations, invoices, accounting and diary entries, inventory sheets, diaries, 13 appointment books or calendars, teletypes, facsimiles, ledgers, trial balances, correspondence, 14 telegrams, press releases, notes, working papers, drawings, schedules, tabulations, projections, 15 mails, information or programs stored in a computer (whether or not ever printed out or displayed), 16 and all drafts, alterations, modifications, changes or amendments of any of the foregoing, and all 17 graphic or manual records or representations of any kind including, but not limited to, the 18 following: microfiche, microfilm, audiotapes, videotapes, recordings and motion pictures, and all 19 electronic, mechanical or electronic records or representations of any kind including, but not 20 limited to, the following: Tapes, cassettes, discs, magnetic cards and recordings. Note: This 21 definition includes electronic mail. 22 2. The words “YOU” and “YOUR” refer to General Motors LLC and/or any related entity, 23 predecessor, parent, subsidiary and/or affiliate, employee, agent, or any person acting or purporting 24 to act on Defendant, General Motors LLC’s behalf. 25 3. “SUBJECT VEHICLE” refers to the 2022 Chevrolet TAHOE, VIN: 26 1GNSKNKT5NR136657. 27 /// 28 /// EXHIBIT A 1 CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED 2 All DOCUMENTS related in any way to the foregoing categories. 3 1. YOUR entire pre-litigation file regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 4 2. YOUR pre-litigation communications with Plaintiff regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 5 3. YOUR policies and procedures for determining whether a vehicle qualifies for a repurchase 6 under the Song-Beverly Act. 7 4. All training materials provided to YOUR employees or YOUR call-center agents regarding 8 the handling of pre-litigation consumer requests for a vehicle repurchase in California. 9 5. All DOCUMENTS evidencing your pre-litigation evaluation of whether the SUBJECT 10 VEHICLE qualified for a repurchase under the Song-Beverly Act. 11 6. All DOCUMENTS that YOU reviewed in YOUR pre-litigation evaluation of whether the 12 SUBJECT VEHICLE qualified for a repurchase under the Song-Beverly Act. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT A PROOF OF SERVICE 1 (Code of Civil Procedure §1013a) 2 I am employed in the City of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 3 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 10250 Constellation Blvd, Ste 2500, Los Angeles, California 90067. 4 5 I served an electronic copy of the following documents described as: 6 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS; REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AT 7 DEPOSITION 8 On the intended parties in this action as follows: 9 Mary Arens McBride, Esq. 10 Arash Yaraghchian, Esq. THE ERSKINE LAW GROUP, P.C. 11 1592 N. Batavia St., Suite 1A Orange, CA 92867 12 marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com 13 ayaraghchian@erskinelaw.com eservice-ca@erskinelaw.com 14 Counsel for Defendant, 15 GENERAL MOTORS LLC 16 XX BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on a court order or an 17 agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused 18 the documents to be sent to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other 19 indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 21 foregoing is true and correct. 22 Executed on January 26, 2024 at Los Angeles, California. 23 _____________________________ 24 David Ramos Vasquez 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE EXHIBIT B From: David Ramos Vasquez To: eservice-ca@erskinelaw.com; marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com; "xquezada@erskinelaw.com" Cc: Phil Thomas; Deepak Devabose; Lisette Santacruz; Jakob Salazar; Elvira Kamosko; Karina Gastelum Subject: RE: Armenta Zavala, Ma v. GM - PMQ Deposition Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 9:39:39 AM Counsel, Following up on our M&C letter dated 03/06/2024. Again, if the noticed date does not work for GM or the deponent, please advise on alternate mutually agreeable dates. In the event that your office does not provide alternative mutually agreeable dates for this deposition to protect our clients’ rights we will proceed with the deposition to memorialize your failure to appear. Please see zoom info below: Topic: Armenta Zavala, Ma v. GM - PMQ Deposition Time: Mar 12, 2024 01:00 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://knightlaw.zoom.us/j/81265970672 Meeting ID: 812 6597 0672 David Ramos Vasquez | Legal Secretary Schedule a Meeting with Me Knight Law Group, LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd, Ste 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 T 310.552.2250 | F 310.552.7973 DRVasquez@knightlaw.com | KnightLaw.com Note: This email contains information from Knight Law Group, LLP that may be proprietary, confidential, or protected under the attorney- client privilege or work-product doctrine. This email is intended only for the use of the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient named above, you are strictly prohibited from reading, disclosing, copying, or distributing this email or its contents, and from taking any action in reliance on the contents of this email. If you received this email in error, please delete this message and respond immediately by email to the author or call 310.552.2250. From: David Ramos Vasquez Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 12:42 PM To: eservice-ca@erskinelaw.com; marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com; 'xquezada@erskinelaw.com' Cc: Phil Thomas ; Deepak Devabose ; Lisette Santacruz ; Jakob Salazar Subject: RE: Armenta Zavala, Ma v. GM - PMQ Deposition Counsel, We are in receipt of your objections to the notice of deposition for GM’s PMQ set for Tuesday, March 12, 2024 at 1:00 pm ; however, no alternative dates were provided for the deponent. Please advise as to an alternative, mutually convenient date so we may be able to re-notice this PMQ depo accordingly. In addition, Please see M&C Letter regarding categories of examination. Thank you, David Ramos Vasquez | Legal Secretary Schedule a Meeting with Me Knight Law Group, LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd, Ste 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 T 310.552.2250 | F 310.552.7973 DRVasquez@knightlaw.com | KnightLaw.com Note: This email contains information from Knight Law Group, LLP that may be proprietary, confidential, or protected under the attorney- client privilege or work-product doctrine. This email is intended only for the use of the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient named above, you are strictly prohibited from reading, disclosing, copying, or distributing this email or its contents, and from taking any action in reliance on the contents of this email. If you received this email in error, please delete this message and respond immediately by email to the author or call 310.552.2250. From: David Ramos Vasquez Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 1:06 PM To: eservice-ca@erskinelaw.com; marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com Cc: Phil Thomas ; Deepak Devabose ; Lisette Santacruz ; Jakob Salazar ; Jacqueline Martinez Subject: RE: Armenta Zavala, Ma v. GM - PMQ Deposition Counsel, Although your objections are not due yet, I am following up to inquire whether the date for deposition of GM's PMQ is acceptable. If the noticed date does not work for GM's PMQ, please provide alternative dates for the deposition. Thank you, David Ramos Vasquez | Legal Secretary Schedule a Meeting with Me Knight Law Group, LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd, Ste 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 T 310.552.2250 | F 310.552.7973 DRVasquez@knightlaw.com | KnightLaw.com Note: This email contains information from Knight Law Group, LLP that may be proprietary, confidential, or protected under the attorney- client privilege or work-product doctrine. This email is intended only for the use of the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient named above, you are strictly prohibited from reading, disclosing, copying, or distributing this email or its contents, and from taking any action in reliance on the contents of this email. If you received this email in error, please delete this message and respond immediately by email to the author or call 310.552.2250. From: David Ramos Vasquez Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 3:01 PM To: eservice-ca@erskinelaw.com; marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com Cc: Phil Thomas ; Deepak Devabose ; Lisette Santacruz ; Jakob Salazar ; Jacqueline Martinez Subject: Armenta Zavala, Ma v. GM - PMQ Deposition Counsel, Please find the attached Notice of Deposition of GM’s PMQ. If you are not available on the date in the enclosed notice, please provide our office with a date in which your witness will be produced for deposition by Tuesday, February 20, 2024. Thank you, David Ramos Vasquez | Legal Secretary Schedule a Meeting with Me Knight Law Group, LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd, Ste 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 T 310.552.2250 | F 310.552.7973 DRVasquez@knightlaw.com | KnightLaw.com Note: This email contains information from Knight Law Group, LLP that may be proprietary, confidential, or protected under the attorney- client privilege or work-product doctrine. This email is intended only for the use of the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient named above, you are strictly prohibited from reading, disclosing, copying, or distributing this email or its contents, and from taking any action in reliance on the contents of this email. If you received this email in error, please delete this message and respond immediately by email to the author or call 310.552.2250. EXHIBIT C Mary Arens McBride, Esq. (SBN 282459) 1 Xylon Quezada, Esq. (SBN 324802) 2 ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC 1592 N. Batavia St., Suite 1A 3 Orange, CA 92867 Tel: (949) 777-6032 4 Fax: (714) 844-9035 Email: marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com 5 Email: xquezada@erskinelaw.com 6 Attorneys for Defendant, 7 GENERAL MOTORS LLC 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY 11 MA ARMENTA ZAVALA, CASE NO.: 23CV001042 12 Plaintiff, ASSIGNED TO: 13 Honorable Thomas W. Wills 14 vs. Department 15 15 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware Date Filed: April 6, 2023 Limited Liability Company; and DOES Trial Date: March 3, 2025 16 1 through 10, inclusive, 17 Defendants. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S 18 OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GENERAL MOTORS 19 LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS; REQUEST 20 FOR DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION 21 22 Date: March 12, 2024 Time: 1:00 p.m. 23 Location: Remotely 24 25 26 General Motors LLC (“GM”) hereby objects to Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition of GM’s 27 Person(s) Most Qualified and Custodian(s) of Records; Request for Documents at Deposition 28 (“Deposition Notice”), scheduled for March 12, 2024, at 1:00 P.M., remotely, as follows: Page 1 of 10 DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS; REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION 1 GENERAL OBJECTIONS 2 1. GM objects to the Deposition Notice on grounds it was unilaterally noticed without 3 consulting GM’s counsel to determine counsel’s availability, GM’s availability, and/or the witness’s 4 availability. GM will not produce the witness at the date and time noticed, but GM may produce 5 him/her at a mutually convenient time and place. 6 2. GM objects to this Deposition Notice to the extent it exceeds the scope of discovery 7 permitted by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2017.010. 8 3. GM objects to the Deposition Notice to the extent that the document requests are 9 compound, overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, seek irrelevant information, and are 10 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Allen v. Superior Ct. 11 (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 447. 12 4. GM objects to the Deposition Notice to the extent that it seeks information and 13 testimony that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work-product 14 doctrine. 15 5. GM objects to the Deposition Notice to the extent that the requests for information 16 call for speculation and do not meet the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 17 2025.220(a)(4), which requires a specification with reasonable particularity of any materials or 18 category of material to be produced by the deponent. 19 6. GM objects to the Deposition Notice to the extent the requests seek documents about 20 vehicles other than the 2022 Chevrolet Tahoe, VIN: 1GNSKNKT5NR136657 at issue in this 21 litigation (the “SUBJECT VEHICLE”). 22 7. GM objects to the requests in the Deposition Notice to the extent that Plaintiff seeks 23 information and the production of documents for an unlimited period of time. Moreover, GM objects 24 to the Notice because the time set for production of documents is unreasonable, as it was not served 25 a sufficient time in advance of the deposition to provide a reasonable opportunity to find and produce 26 the requested records. 27 8. GM objects to the Deposition Notice to the extent that the requests seek third party 28 documents, documents outside of GM’s custody, possession, or control, or documents that are Page 2 of 10 DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS; REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION 1 equally available to Plaintiff. 2 9. GM objects to the Deposition Notice to the extent that it imposes more stringent 3 requirements than the California Code of Civil Procedure or the California Evidence Code. 4 10. GM objects to the Deposition Notice to the extent it assumes facts not in evidence. 5 By objecting or responding to any of the categories of Plaintiff’s Deposition Notice, GM does not 6 intend to, and does not, admit that any fact or circumstance alleged in the Deposition Notice occurred 7 or existed. GM’s responses shall not be construed as an agreement or concurrence with Plaintiff’s 8 characterization of any fact or circumstance. 9 11. GM objects to the Deposition Notice on grounds the time set for production of 10 documents is unreasonable as it was not served a sufficient time in advance of the deposition to 11 provide a reasonable opportunity to find and produce the requested records. 12 GM incorporates each of these General Objections into each of the specific responses set 13 forth below. 14 15 MATTERS ON WHICH THE DEPONENT IS TO BE EXAMINED 16 CATEGORY NO. 1 17 General Motors LLC’s pre-litigation analysis as to whether the 2022 Chevrolet TAHOE, 18 VIN: 1GNSKNKT5NR136657 should be repurchased. 19 OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 1 20 GM objects to this Category on grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, 21 ambiguous, oppressive, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 22 evidence. GM also objects to this Category to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade 23 secret information. GM further objects to this Category to the extent it seeks information that may 24 be protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. 25 Subject to and without waiving its objections, GM will produce a witness at mutually 26 agreeable time and place to discuss the relevant and nonprivileged aspects of this Category. 27 28 CATEGORY NO. 2 Page 3 of 10 DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS; REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION 1 All repairs and service performed on the 2022 Chevrolet TAHOE, VIN: 2 1GNSKNKT5NR136657. 3 OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 2 4 GM objects to this Category on grounds the terms "repairs" and "service" are vague and 5 ambiguous. GM also objects to this Category on grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 6 oppressive and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not 7 limited to the issues in this action. GM also objects to this Category on grounds that it seeks 8 information beyond GM's knowledge. GM also objects to this Category to the extent it seeks 9 confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. GM further objects to this Category to the 10 extent it seeks information that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney 11 work-product doctrine. 12 Subject to and without waiving these objections, GM states that the SUBJECT VEHICLE 13 was repaired and serviced by an authorized GM repair facility, not GM. GM will produce a witness 14 at a mutually agreeable time and place to discuss the relevant and nonprivileged aspects of this 15 Category, with such relevance being specified as those alleged issues that Plaintiff has clearly 16 articulated as being the basis for recovery in this case. In any event, the witness will not be prepared 17 to address anything beyond the records already produced in this case related to these issues. 18 Specifically, with regard to repairs and service, the witness will be prepared to testify relating to the 19 repairs and service as reflected on the Global Warranty History Report applicable to the SUBJECT 20 VEHICLE only. 21 22 CATEGORY NO. 3 23 General Motors LLC’s policies and procedures for determining whether a vehicle qualifies 24 for a repurchase or replacement under the Song-Beverly Act. 25 OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 3 26 GM objects to this Category on grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, 27 ambiguous, oppressive, irrelevant, not reasonably limited in time, and not reasonably calculated to 28 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue Page 4 of 10 DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS; REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION 1 in this case. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Category violates 2 Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. 3 Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act 4 is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Category. GM also objects 5 to this Category to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the 6 form of GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Category to the extent it 7 seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. 8 Subject to and without waiving its objections, GM will produce a witness at a mutually 9 agreeable time and place to testify about whether GM received a request from Plaintiff to repurchase 10 the SUBJECT VEHICLE and, if so, how GM responded. 11 12 CATEGORY NO. 4 13 General Motors LLC’s training for evaluating a pre-litigation repurchase request under the 14 Song-Beverly Act. 15 OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 4 16 GM objects to this Category on grounds the terms "training" and "evaluating" are vague and 17 ambiguous. GM also objects to this Category on grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 18 oppressive, irrelevant, not reasonably limited in time, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 19 discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited to the SUBJECT VEHICLE or issues in this 20 case. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Category violates 21 Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. 22 Specifically, whether Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act 23 is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Category. GM also objects 24 to this Category to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the 25 form of GM's internal policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Category to the extent it 26 seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. 27 Subject to and without waiving its objections, GM will produce a witness at a mutually 28 agreeable time and place to testify about whether GM received a request from Plaintiff to repurchase Page 5 of 10 DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS; REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION 1 the SUBJECT VEHICLE and, if so, how GM responded. 2 3 ITEMS TO BE PRODUCED 4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 5 YOUR entire pre-litigation file regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 6 OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 7 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term "entire pre-litigation file" is vague and 8 ambiguous. GM objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, 9 irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not 10 limited to the issues in this case. For example, this Request is so broad that it would encompass 11 documents on the SUBJECT VEHICLE which are not relevant to the subject of this lawsuit. GM 12 also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret 13 information. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the 14 attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. 15 Subject to and without waiving these objections, GM will comply in part and refers Plaintiff 16 to any Service Request Activity Report(s), the CEC case assessment worksheet(s), the factory 17 invoice, the Global Warranty History Report, Repair Order Details, Repair Order Summary, and 18 any incidentally obtained repair orders applicable to the SUBJECT VEHICLE produced in response 19 to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, and not in response to this Deposition Notice. 20 No additional documents will be produced. 21 22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: 23 YOUR pre-litigation communications with Plaintiff regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 24 OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: 25 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term "communications" is vague and ambiguous. 26 GM objects to this Request on grounds the documents are equally available to Plaintiff, or already 27 in Plaintiff’s possession. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad, unduly 28 burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of Page 6 of 10 DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS; REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION 1 admissible evidence, as it is not limited to the issues in this case. GM also objects to this Request to 2 the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret. GM further objects to this Request to 3 the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product 4 doctrine. 5 Subject to and without waiving these objections, GM will comply in part and refers Plaintiff 6 to any Service Request Activity Report(s), the Global Warranty History Report, and any incidentally 7 obtained repair orders produced in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, 8 and not in response to this Deposition Notice. No additional documents will be produced. 9 10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 11 YOUR policies and procedures for determining whether a vehicle qualifies for a repurchase 12 under the Song-Beverly Act. 13 OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 14 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term "determining" is vague and ambiguous. GM 15 also objects to this Request on grounds it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant, 16 not reasonably limited in time, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 17 evidence, as it is not limited to the SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this case. This is a simple, 18 individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. 19 v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiff is 20 entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and 21 incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the 22 extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information in the form of GM's internal 23 policies and procedures. GM further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information 24 protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. 25 Subject to and without waiving any objections, GM refers Plaintiff to GM's response(s) to 26 Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents and documents identified therein, if any. 27 28 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Page 7 of 10 DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS; REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION 1 All training materials provided to YOUR employees or YOUR call-center agents regarding 2 the handling of pre-litigation consumer requests for a vehicle repurchase in California. 3 OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: 4 GM objects to this Request on grounds the term "training materials," "YOUR employees," 5 "agents" and "handling" are vague and ambiguous. GM also objects to this Request on grounds it is 6 overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant, not reasonably limited in time, and not 7 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it is not limited to the 8 SUBJECT VEHICLE at issue in this case. This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited 9 issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court