Preview
1 Arash Khorsandi, Esq. (Bar No. 249405)
Adina A. Ostoia, Esq. (Bar No. 265470)
2 Adina A. Ostoia, Esq. (Bar No. 259187)
THE LEMON PROS, LLP
3 9025 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse
Beverly Hills, California 90211
4 Telephone: (310) 430-7757
Fax: (310) 430-7753
5 Email: service@thelemonpros.com
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Oscar Marroquin
7 E-mails for electronic service:
eghazarian@thelemonpros.com
8 mzazueta@thelemonpros.com
jacosta@thelemonpros.com
9 service@thelemonpros.com
aostoia@thelemonpros.com
10 msaeedian@thelemonpros.com
11
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12
FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN
13
14
OSCAR MARROQUIN CASE NO.: BCV-23-103755
15 [Assigned for All Purposes to The Hon. David
Plaintiff, Zulfa, Department J]
16
v. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
17 MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION
FCA US, LLC, a Delaware Limited ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF
18 Liability Company DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA US
BAKERSFIELD CHRYSLER JEEP, a LLC’S PERSON MOST
19 KNOWLEDGEABLE; MEMORANDUM IN
business entity form unknown SUPPORT OF MOTION; DECLARATION
20 OF ADINA A. OSTOIA
Defendants.
21 [[Proposed] Order filed Concurrently]
22
Date: May 08, 2024
23 Time: 08:30 a.m.
Dept.: J
24
25 Complaint Filed: November 8, 2023
Trial Date: None Set
26
27
///
28
i
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE
1 TO DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 08, 2024, at 08:30 a.m. in Department J of the
3
Superior Court for the County of Kern, located at: 1215 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA
4
93301, Plaintiff, OSCAR MARROQUIN (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) will, and hereby does move
5
this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, sections 2025.450 subdivision (a) and
6
2025.480 subdivision (a) for an order compelling Defendant FCA US LLC (hereinafter "FCA")
7
to produce its Person(s) Most Knowledgeable and Custodian of Records to be deposed in
8
accordance with Code of Civil Procedure, section 2025.230.
9
This motion is based upon the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto,
10
the Declaration of Adina A. Ostoia in Support of the Motion and supporting exhibits filed
11
herewith, the records on file in this action, and upon such evidence, oral and documentary, which
12
may be presented at the hearing on this matter.
13
14
Dated: March 21, 2024 THE LEMON PROS, LLP
15
16
By:
17 ADINA A. OSTOIA, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Oscar Marroquin
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ii
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 Plaintiff, OSCAR MARROQUIN (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) has attempted multiple times
4 through meet and confer efforts to get a date set for the deposition of FCA’s corporate
5 representative. Counsel for FCA has thus far refused to produce its PMK for a deposition and has
6 not provided dates which the deposition may occur. This testimony is essential for Plaintiff to
7 get facts about what FCA knew about the repair history, what steps if any it took to investigate
8 those repairs, and what actions it took or did not take to comply with California law. It is
9 Plaintiff’s burden to put forth evidence that FCA knew of its legal obligations but intentionally
10 declined to follow them. (CACI 3244) This information relies upon documents produced in
11 discovery and the testimony of the corporate witness about what the company knew about the
12 repair history of the Plaintiff’s Vehicle, what actions were taken and not taken, and when those
13 actions were taken.
14 Plaintiff seeks to compel the deposition of Defendant FCA's Person(s) Most
15 Knowledgeable ("PMK") and Custodian of Records. Plaintiff’s vehicle was at FCA’s authorized
16 repair facility on multiple occasions for the repairs of check engine warning light, electrical
17 system, and engine, and other serious nonconformities. In order to be paid for the warranty work
18 completed, Defendant FCA requires the authorized repair facilities to submit the invoices
19 detailing the repair work done for each customer vehicle. FCA has denied liability entirely in this
20 case, including any liability for civil penalties. Given that the primary source of information
21 related to whether or not civil penalties may apply is FCA itself, it is inequitable that FCA
22 refuses to designate and produce a witness who is competent to testify on the policies and
23 procedures of FCA.
24 Plaintiff has a right to discover relevant information about what FCA knew about the
25 Subject Vehicle’s problems and when it first gained knowledge about them. This is also key
26 information that Plaintiff needs to contribute to a valuation of the case for potential settlement.
27 Unfortunately, FCA has strategically delayed the deposition of its PMK for several months and
28 has still failed to produce a witness. FCA may claim that there is simply a lack of dates for the
1
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE
1 witness to appear; however, it is up to FCA to have sufficient witnesses who are able to testify
2 on behalf of the company when it sells hundreds of thousands of new vehicles in California each
3 year. This is particularly egregious now that virtually every deposition occurs remotely by Zoom,
4 substantially reducing the cost, time, and effort required to complete this type of deposition.
5 Plaintiff should not need the Court's intervention to obtain the deposition of the FCA’s PMK. No
6 authority exists to support the proposition that FCA can repeatedly stall to prevent Plaintiff from
7 timely obtaining relevant evidence by simply serving objections and refusing to produce its
8 witness.
9 Because of FCA’s blatant disregard for the Discovery Act and Plaintiff’s repeated
10 attempts to meet and confer regarding the deposition of FCA’s PMK, Plaintiff has no choice but
11 to seek an order compelling FCA to make its PMK(s) available for deposition.
12 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PLAINTIFF MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS
13 This is a lemon law case arising from Plaintiff’s Purchased a New 2023 Jeep Grand
14 Cherokee 4xe, having VIN: 1C4RJYB69PC596089 (hereinafter "Subject Vehicle”) from
15 Bakersfield Chrysler Jeep with thirteen (13) miles on the odometer. As a result of persistent
16 manufacturing defects that FCA’s authorized dealerships were unable to repair, Defendant FCA
17 did not promptly repurchase or replace the Plaintiff’s vehicle under California law, resulting in
18 the present lawsuit. This case was then filed on November 8, 2023.
19 1. Plaintiff’s Meet and Confer Efforts
20 On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of FCA’s Person(s) Most
21 Knowledgeable, with production of documents. The deposition notice sought discovery into
22 FCA’s policies and procedures for evaluating California consumers repurchase requests under
23 California’s lemon law and other facts related to this case. The deposition was set to occur on
24 March 11, 2024. (Ostoian Decl.,¶¶ 3, Exhibit “1.”)
25 Furthermore, the deadline for the Defendant to raise objections to the deposition of their
26 PMK was March 6, 2024, Defendant presented no objections and did not attend the deposition.
27 On March 11, 2024, on the date on which the deposition of FCA’s PMK was initially noticed,
28 Plaintiff’s counsel appeared and requested a certificate of non-appearance, which is attached as
2
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE
1 Exhibit 2. (Ostoian Decl.,¶¶ 5, Exhibit “2.”) Plaintiff understands that FCA’s counsel may have
2 a busy schedule which did not permit the initial deposition to occur. However, FCA’s counsel
3 has the ability to speak with their client to arrive at one or more alternative dates to complete the
4 deposition. This is not difficult and is done all the time in every type of litigation. Additionally,
5 this is not some sort of Apex deposition; Plaintiff is not expecting nor seeking to depose a high-
6 level executive of FCA. In other similar depositions, the witness put forth has been a field
7 service engineer or the manager of the call center team handling lemon law claims. At times it
8 has also been the assigned analyst for FCA who made an assessment to decline to repurchase or
9 replace the Plaintiff’s vehicle. No deposition can occur, however, if one party ignores reasonable
10 requests for deposition dates and never makes an honest effort to schedule a deposition to occur.
11 At no point up to the filing of this motion has FCA offered any dates that such a deposition
12 might occur.
13 FCA remains reluctant to produce a witness to discuss all categories contained within
14 Plaintiff’s notice. FCA has not even stated it will produce a witness for some of the categories,
15 which Plaintiff would equally accept, with the remainder happening with a different witness at
16 some future date. Having exhausted all meet and confer efforts and suffered through months of
17 FCA's delay tactics, Plaintiff now files the current motion to compel FCA's PMK deposition
18 based on Plaintiff’s original Notices of Deposition.
19 III. ARGUMENT
20 A. Good Cause Exists to Compel FCA to Produce its Person(s) Most Knowledgeable
and Custodian of Records because Plaintiff’s Properly Noticed the Deposition and
21 the Information Sought is Relevant and Necessary to Plaintiff’s Case
22 Plaintiff properly noticed the deposition of FCA's PMK and Custodian of Records and
23 good cause exists to compel the deposition(s). Code of Civil Procedure, section 2017.010
24 provides in pertinent part:
25 “Unless otherwise limited by order of the court ... any party may
obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is
relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . if
26 the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
27 evidence [... ] Discovery may be obtained [as to] the identity and
location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter,
28 as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition,
and location of any document, tangible thing, or land or other
3
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE
property.”
1
California courts construe the discovery statutes broadly so as to uphold the right to
2
discovery wherever possible. (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 377-
3
378.) In furtherance of this interpretation, the relevance standards are applied liberally, with any
4
doubts as to relevance generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Colonial Life and
5
Accident Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.)
6
It is well established in California that the taking of the deposition of a party is always
7
permitted to gather information before trial. (Verdier v. Superior Court (1948) 88 Cal.App.2d
8
527, 535.) To that end, "[a]ny party may obtain discovery ... by taking in California the oral
9
deposition of any person, including any party to the action. The person deposed may be a natural
10
person, an organization such as a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a
11
governmental agency." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) If the named deponent is not a natural
12
person:
13
“[T]he deposition notice shall describe with reasonable
14 particularity the matters on which examination is requested. In that
event, the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition
15 those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or
agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those
16 matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably
available to the deponent.” (Code Civ. Proc.,§ 2025.230; emphasis
added.)
17
The service of a deposition notice pursuant to section 2025.240 is effective to require any
18
party deponent (including the designated Person(s) Most Knowledgeable) to attend and testify
19
and to produce any requested document for inspection and copy. (Code Civ. Proc., §
20
2025.280(a).) It is well-settled that no showing of good cause or prior court order is required to
21
compel the party deponent's deposition. In discussing substantially similar predecessor statutes,
22
the court in Snyder v. Superior Court, held that deposition proceedings are "initiated by notice
23
alone. The statutes confer upon litigants the right to take the deposition in a pending case ...
24
without prior court order and without a showing of good cause. As stated in Greyhound Corp. v.
25
Superior Court [citation]: 'The discovery act... authorizes some vehicles of discovery
26
(depositions, interrogatories, and requests for admission) as a matter of right and without prior
27
court order."' (Snyder v. Superior Court (1970) Cal.App.3d 579, 585-586.)
28
4
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE
1 A motion to compel deposition attendance and production of documents must set forth
2 specific facts showing good cause justifying the relief requested. (Code Civ. Proc., §
3 2025.450(b).) Good cause is established by showing that the request is made in good faith and
4 the documents sought are relevant to the subject matter of the action, and material to the issues in
5 the litigation. (Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 588.) The
6 purpose of civil discovery is clear; in enacting the discovery statutes the Legislature "intended to
7 take the 'game' element out of trial preparation" by assisting the parties in obtaining the facts and
8 evidence necessary to expeditious resolution of their dispute, (Greyhound, supra.)
9 Here, Plaintiff properly and timely served a Notice of Deposition of FCA's Person Most
10 Knowledgeable and Custodian of Records, thus obligating FCA's attendance. (Ostoian Decl.,¶¶
11 3, Exhibit “1.”) (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280(a).) Plaintiff properly served a Notice of
12 Deposition of FCA's PMK(s) and Custodian of Records in an attempt to secure testimony for the
13 full scope of matters being sought. Plaintiff has followed up on several occasions to try to get
14 any alternative date and FCA has provided nothing. Unfortunately, FCA has refused to produce a
15 PMK as to any of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition.
16 FCA has created the need for this Motion by refusing to produce its PMK(s) and
17 custodian(s) of record, FCA is purposefully impeding Plaintiff’s ability to conduct basic
18 discovery and to handicap Plaintiff at trial by denying them any opportunity to inquire about the
19 criteria and documents FCA utilized in assessing Plaintiff’s vehicle for repurchase and assessing
20 civil penalties. Because FCA has not filed a motion to stay the deposition and there has been no
21 Motion for Protective Order, FCA has no right to repeatedly refuse to produce its PMK. Yet,
22 FCA has done just that by simply stonewalling Plaintiff. Unless the Court orders FCA to comply
23 with its obligations under the Discovery Act, Plaintiff will not be unable to effectively prepare its
24 case for trial and FCA's strategy of refusing to comply with a proper notice of deposition will
25 have been successful.
26 B. THE MATTERS AND DOCUMENTS REQUESTED ARE RELEVANT
i. Plaintiff’s Matters for Examination and Categories of Documents Speak Directly to
27 the Elements of Plaintiff’s Song-Beverly Cause of Action.
28 There is good cause to compel the deposition of FCA's PMK and production of
5
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE
1 documents because the evidence sought is relevant to Plaintiff’s cause of action under the Song-
2 Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. To prove a cause of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer
3 Warranty Act, Plaintiff must prove, inter alia, that their vehicle had a defect covered by the
4 manufacturer's warranty that substantially impaired the use, value, or safety of the vehicle, and
5 which FCA was unable to repair after a reasonable number of repair attempts. ( CACI No. 3201.
6 ) Under the Act, a Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of civil penalties if he can establish that a
7 manufacturer's refusal to promptly repurchase or replace a vehicle was a "willful" failure to
8 comply with the Act. ( Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (c). )
9 Though the Act does not require consumers to take any affirmative steps to bring about a
10 repurchase or replacement, California courts have previously found a willful violation of the Act
11 where the manufacturer "stalled and frustrated" the Plaintiff attempts to obtain restitution for
12 many weeks even though the Plaintiff made an initial and periodic personal request for
13 restitution under the Act. (Krotin v. Porsche (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 294, 302-03; Lukather v.
14 General Motors, LLC (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1049.) This can also be shown where a
15 manufacturer knows of its legal obligations but intentionally declines to follow them. ( CACI
16 3244. )
17 Pursuant to Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, the manufacturer has an affirmative
18 obligation under California law to promptly repurchase or replace a vehicle when it qualifies. (
19 Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC (2020) 9 Cal. 5th 966, 984. ) FCA’s knowledge of the
20 repair history and specifics of the repairs, including when it received such information, is
21 relevant to determine whether or not FCA should have repurchased the vehicle but elected not to
22 which will subject FCA to civil penalties. ( CACI 3244 ) If FCA failed to offer to repurchase
23 Plaintiff’s vehicle with knowledge of its obligation, or if FCA erected unreasonable obstacles to
24 such a request with its policies and procedures, then FCA committed a "willful" violation of the
25 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. If sufficient facts exist that an intentional failure to
26 repurchase can be proven, this directly affects the damages available to the Plaintiff either by
27 way of settlement or from a jury.
28 Regardless of whether or not FCA “believes” it is liable, it cannot simply refuse to allow
6
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE
1 its corporate witness to be deposed. A common objection FCA in cases similar to this where they
2 are refusing to produce a witness is an argument that FCA has made a repurchase offer. This
3 does not provide any “protection” because post-litigation offers to settle cannot be used by either
4 party to prove or disprove liability. (Evid. Code 1152.) Thus, a refused offer of settlement does
5 not remove any liability of FCA and does not justify a failure to produce a witness for a
6 deposition.
7 In this case, Plaintiff seeks deposition testimony regarding FCA's belief (per its discovery
8 responses) that the vehicle does not qualify for repurchase under California law and FCA has no
9 obligation to do so. The facts surrounding this topic go directly toward liability under the Act
10 and toward whether or not civil penalties may apply.
11 Accordingly, the requested documents and categories of examination are reasonably
12 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the
13 Court compel FCA to produce its Person(s) Most Knowledgeable.
14 ///
15 ///
16 ///
17 ///
18 ///
19 ///
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
7
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE
1 IV.CONCLUSION
2
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests that this Court order FCA (i) to produce its
3
deponents most qualified to testify as to each matter of examination contained in the Notice of
4
Deposition, and (ii) to produce the documents requested in the Notice of Deposition. FCA has
5
failed to produce an individual to be deposed as its PMK and has failed to provide dates of
6
availability for its PMK. FCA's objections to the items set forth in Plaintiff’s Notice of
7
Deposition do not excuse FCA from producing an individual at deposition or failing to provide
8
alternative dates. FCA has unequivocally shown its disregard for the relevant sections of the
9
Discovery Act and it should be compelled to produce its Person(s) Most Knowledgeable for
10
Deposition.
11
12 Dated: March 21, 2024 THE LEMON PROS, LLP
13
14 By:
ADINA A. OSTOIA, ESQ.
15 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Oscar Marroquin
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE
1 DECLARATION OF ADINA A. OSTOIA
2 I, Adina A. Ostoia, declare as follow:
3 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in all of the courts of California and I
4 am a partner with The Lemon Pros, LLP, attorneys of record for the Plaintiff, OSCAR
5 MARROQUIN. I am the attorney with primary handling responsibility of this matter. I am
6 therefore familiar with all activities and all proceedings in this case. Accordingly, if called upon
7 as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the following based upon my own
8 personal knowledge and on information and belief, regarding communications and documents
9 sent and received by individuals working in my law office. I make this declaration in support of
10 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance and Production of Documents by Defendant
11 FCA’s Person(s) Most Knowledgeable.
12 2. This is a lemon law case arising from Plaintiff’s Purchased a New 2023 Jeep
13 Grand Cherokee 4xe, having VIN: 1C4RJYB69PC596089 from Bakersfield Chrysler Jeep with
14 Thirteen (13) miles on the odometer.
15 3. On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of FCA’s Person(s) Most
16 Knowledgeable, with production of documents. The deposition notice sought discovery into
17 Defendant’s policies and procedures for evaluating California consumers repurchase requests
18 under California’s lemon law. The deposition was set to occur on March 11, 2024. A true and
19 correct copy of this letter and deposition notice is attached hereto as Exhibit “1.”
20 4. My client OSCAR MARROQUIN regularly contacts myself for updates on this
21 case. I had previously informed my client that we were taking the deposition of FCA’s corporate
22 witness on March 11, 2024. My client was expecting an update from me based upon the results
23 of the PMK deposition, but the deposition never occurred.
24 5. FCA remains reluctant to produce a witness to discuss all categories contained
25 within Plaintiff’s notice. FCA has made no real effort at all to meet and confer on alternative
26 dates for any deposition to occur, including the same delay game occurring with the dealership
27 depositions.
28 6. To this day, FCA still refuses to produce a witness to discuss all categories
1
DECLARATION OF ADINA A. OSTOIA
1 contained within Plaintiff’s deposition notice. The nonappearance of FCA’s PMK at the properly
2 noticed deposition and the refusal of FCA to produce a witness to discuss all the categories
3 contained within the deposition notice and produce the requested documents has necessitated the
4 filing of this motion.
5 7. FCA’s Answer indicates that FCA believed in good faith that its actions were
6 legal in not promptly repurchasing or replacing Plaintiff’s vehicle.
7 8. Plaintiff has good cause for this Court to order the production of the documents
8 related to the PMK deposition. In the context of a Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
9 lawsuit, it is axiomatic that Plaintiff be permitted to obtain discovery directly related to FCA’s
10 decision to ultimately decline to repurchase the Vehicle. Such documents are not only relevant,
11 they are highly relevant. While FCA may believe it did nothing wrong, the policies and
12 procedures for complying with California law (or the lack thereof) are relevant to civil penalties.
13 9. Further, as a result of having to file this unnecessary motion, my client has
14 incurred attorney’s fees and costs and expects to incur additional fees and costs in further
15 proceedings associated with this motion to compel FCA’s PMK Deposition, as follows:
16 (a) My usual hourly rate is $695.00 per hour, which I charge my hourly clients and
17 each of my Song-Beverly clients accepted on a full contingency basis.
18 (b) I have spent 1.0 hours researching the applicable law, identifying relevant exhibits
19 and preparing this motion and the accompanying supporting separate statement as well as my
20 supporting Declaration and proposed order.
21 (c) I anticipate that I will spend an additional 1.5 hours analyzing any opposition
22 and preparing a reply memoranda. I anticipate spending approximately 30 minutes of time at
23 any hearing on this matter.
24 (e) Plaintiff will also have incurred a $60.00 filing fee, in addition to a $6.75
25 electronic filing convenience fee for this motion.
26 10. Plaintiff’s fees and costs are summarized as follows:
27 Item Hourly Fee/Cost Amount
3.00 hours attorney time $695/hr. $2085
28 Motion Filing fee $60.00 $60.00
2
DECLARATION OF ADINA A. OSTOIA
Electronic Filing Fee $6.75 $6.75
1 TOTAL $2,151.75
2 14. However, Plaintiff is not seeking savnctions against Defendant or its counsel in
3 connection with this motion.
4 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
5 foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on March 21, 2024, in
6 Beverly Hills, California.
7 By:
ADINA A. OSTOIA, ESQ.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
DECLARATION OF ADINA A. OSTOIA
EXHIBIT 1
Arash Khorsandi, Esq. (Bar No. 249405)
1 Michael Saeedian, Esq. (Bar No. 265470)
Adina A. Ostoia, Esq. (Bar No. 259187)
2 THE LEMON PROS, LLP
9025 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse
3 Beverly Hills, California 90211
Telephone: (310) 430-7757
4 Fax: (310) 430-7753
Email: service@thelemonpros.com
5
E-mails for electronic service:
6 eghazarian@thelemonpros.com
jacosta@thelemonpros.com
7 service@thelemonpros.com
aostoia@thelemonpros.com
8 msaeedian@thelemonpros.com
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Oscar Marroquin
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN
13
14 OSCAR MARROQUIN, an individual, CASE NO.: BCV-23-103755
[Assigned for All Purposes to The Hon. David
15 Plaintiff, Zulfa, Department J]
16 v. PLAINTIFF OSCAR MARROQUIN’S
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF
17 FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON(S)
Liability Company; BAKERSFIELD MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND
18 CHRYSLER JEEP, a business entity form CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS
unknown; and DOES 1 through 50,
19 inclusive, Complaint Filed: November 14, 2023
Trial Date: None Set
20 Defendants.
Date: March 11, 2024
21 Time: 10:00 a.m.
Location: Via Remote Appearance
22
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
23
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT Plaintiff OSCAR MARROQUIN (hereinafter
24
“Plaintiff”), through counsel, will take the deposition of Defendant FCA US LLC’s (hereinafter
25
“Defendant”) Person(s) Most Knowledgeable and Custodian(s) of Record in the above matter, at
26
the date, time and location noticed in the caption of this document.
27
This deposition will be taken for the purpose of discovery and/or for use as evidence in
28
1
PLAINTIFF OSCAR MARROQUIN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST
KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS
1 said matter. This deposition will be taken pursuant to sections 2016.010, 2017.010, 2019.010(a),
2 2025 and 2025.310 of the Code of Civil Procedure and California Rules of Court Emergency
3 Rule 11 and will be based on the records and files in the above-entitled action before a certified
4 shorthand reporter who is authorized to administer an oath.
5 This deposition may be recorded on videotape. If the deposition is not completed on the
6 date set out above, the taking of the deposition will continue from day to day thereafter, except
7 for weekends and holidays, at the same place, until completed.
8 This deposition will be taken remotely via videoconference set up by Veritex. Due to the
9 current COVID-19 pandemic, the deposition is scheduled to proceed via Video Conference,
10 please take further notice that:
11 1. The deposition will be conducted remotely, using audio-visual conference
12 technology, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2025.220 and §2025.330;
13 2. The court reporter will report the deposition from a location separate from the
14 witness;
15 3. Counsel for the parties and their clients will be participating from various,
16 separate locations;
17 4. The court reporter will administer the oath to the witness remotely;
18 5. The witness will be required to provide government-issued identification
19 satisfactory to the court reporter, and this identification must be legible on camera;
20 6. Each participating attorney may be visible to all other participants, and their
21 statements will be audible to all participants;
22 7. All exhibits will be provided simultaneously and electronically to the witness and
23 all participants;
24 8. The court reporter will record the testimony, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
25 §2025.220;
26 9. Instant visual display of testimony may be used pursuant to Code of Civil
27 Procedure §2025.220;
28 10. The audio-visual recording may be used at trial, pursuant to Code of Civil
2
PLAINTIFF OSCAR MARROQUIN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST
KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS
1 Procedure §2025.620;
2 11. The deposition may be recorded electronically; and
3 12. Counsel for all parties will be required to stipulate on the record;
4 (a) Their consent to this manner of deposition; and
5 (b) Their waiver of any objection to this manner of deposition, including any
6 objection to the admissibility at trial of this testimony based on this
7 manner of deposition.
8 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.230, Defendant shall designate and
9 produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents
10 who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to the existence, authenticity, and manner of
11 keeping of the DOCUMENTS described in Exhibit A, and if such persons differ, the officers,
12 directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify as to the
13 contents and interpretation of such DOCUMENTS.
14 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
15 NOTICE IS GIVEN that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220,
16 subdivision (a)(4), the Deponent shall produce to the undersigned counsel of record, on or before
17 5:00 p.m. on March 6, 2024, the documents referenced in Exhibit “A.”
18 In the event that the deposition is continued by agreement or for any other reason, each
19 and every DOCUMENT shall be produced on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 6, 2024, regardless
20 of such continuation.
21 DEFINITIONS
22 1. “INCIDENT” includes the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged
23 accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding.
24 2. The words “YOU” and “YOUR” refer to Defendant and/or any related entity,
25 predecessor, parent, subsidiary and/or affiliate, employee, agent (including, but not limited to,
26 any mortgage servicing agent), or any person acting or purporting to act on Defendant’s behalf.
27 3. The word “DOCUMENT” refers to all matters that fall within the definition of
28 Evidence Code §250, and includes written or printed matter of any kind, including the originals
3
PLAINTIFF OSCAR MARROQUIN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST
KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS
1 and all non-identical copies thereof, whether different from the original by reason of any notation
2 made on such copies or otherwise including, but not limited to, the following: advertisements,
3 booklets, brochures, pamphlets, circulars, notices, periodicals, papers, contracts, agreements,
4 photographs, minutes, memoranda, messages, appraisals, analyses, reports, financial calculations
5 and representations, invoices, accounting and diary entries, inventory sheets, diaries,
6 appointment books or calendars, teletypes, facsimiles, ledgers, trial balances, correspondence,
7 telegrams, press releases, notes, working papers, drawings, schedules, tabulations, projections,
8 mails, information or programs stored in a computer (whether or not ever printed out or
9 displayed), and all drafts, alterations, modifications, changes or amendments of any of the
10 foregoing, and all graphic or manual records or representations of any kind including, but not
11 limited to, the following: microfiche, microfilm, audiotapes, videotapes, recordings and motion
12 pictures, and all electronic, mechanical or electronic records or representations of any kind
13 including, but not limited to, the following: Tapes, cassettes, discs, magnetic cards and
14 recordings. “DOCUMENT” expressly includes all ELECTRONIC RECORDS, included but, not
15 limited to electronic mail.
16 4. “PERSON” includes any natural person, firm, association, organization,
17 partnership, business, trust, corporation, or public entity.
18 5. “ADDRESS” means the street address, including the city, state, and zip code.
19 6. The words “SUBJECT VEHICLE” the vehicle that is the subject of this lawsuit,
20 specifically, the 2023 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe bearing VIN: 1C4RJYB69PC596089.
21 7. To “IDENTIFY” an entity that is not a natural person means to state the name of
22 the entity and its present or last known business address. To “IDENTIFY” a natural person
23 means to state the name, present or last known phone number, present or last known employer,
24 present or last known business address, and present or last known employment position held. To
25 “IDENTIFY” a document means to means to describe it with sufficient particularity to enable it
26 to be identified for the purposes of a Motion to Compel Production of such DOCUMENT.
27 8. “CONTACT” includes any transmittal, conveyance, or exchange of information
28 between or among PERSONS by any means, whether verbal or nonverbal, tangible or
4
PLAINTIFF OSCAR MARROQUIN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST
KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS
1 intangible, oral or written, and/or direct or indirect, including, without limitation,
2 conversations, meetings, statements, letters, correspondence, notes, memoranda, recordings,
3 electronic or computer data.
4 MATTERS FOR EXAMINATION
5 1. Plaintiff’s request(s) for repurchase/replacement of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
6 2. All communications with Plaintiff or anyone acting on their behalf regarding
7 the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
8 3. All warranty claims made to YOU with regard to the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
9 4. All repairs and service performed on the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
10 5. All DOCUMENTS that YOU reviewed, if any, in determining YOUR response to
11 any of Plaintiff’s buyback requests.
12 6. All DOCUMENTS that YOU reviewed, if any, in investigating the cause of the
13 complaints alleged regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
14 7. All persons that YOU talked to or interviewed or made any other type of inquiries
15 from, in determining YOUR response to any of Plaintiff’s buyback requests.
16 8. Any other investigation that YOU conducted in determining YOUR response to
17 any of Plaintiff’s buyback requests.
18 9. All telephone calls made by anyone (including Plaintiff) to YOUR 1-800
19 customer assistance number regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
20 10. The results of any failure mode analysis, warranty parts return analysis, or other
21 analysis or evaluation conducted by YOU, YOUR agents, or by any other person or entity known
22 to YOU, pertaining to any of the parts or components of the SUBJECT VEHICLE that were
23 replaced by YOU or YOUR agents and not returned to Plaintiff.
24 11. YOUR policies, procedures, or other guidelines regarding responding to
25 consumer complaints in which the consumer alleges FCA US LLC’s vehicle is defective from
26 2017 to present.
27 12. Defendant’s policies, procedures, or other guidelines for repurchasing or
28 replacing vehicles under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (hereinafter “Song-Beverly
5
PLAINTIFF OSCAR MARROQUIN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST
KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS
1 Act” or the “Act”).
2 13. All DOCUMENTS (including all recordings) produced by YOU in this litigation
3 thus far.
4 14. The nature of YOUR relationship with any company who handles calls from
5 consumers to YOUR 1-800 number.
6 15. The policies and procedures to be followed by any company who handles calls
7 from consumers to YOUR 1-800 number, when receiving a call from a consumer regarding a
8 FCA US LLC vehicle.
9 16. YOUR oversight of any company who handles calls from consumers to YOUR 1-
10 800 number.
11 17. YOUR policies and procedures (including proposals) for reduction of warranty
12 claim buybacks under the Act from 2017 to present.
13 18. YOUR goal for any company who handles calls from consumers to YOUR 1-800
14 number to reduce the number of repurchases or vehicle replacements in California from 2017 to
15 present.
16 19. All tasks and duties YOU authorized any company who handles calls from
17 consumers to YOUR 1-800 number, to perform in connection with the handling, management,
18 implementation, decision making, review, auditing, and implementation of any claims made
19 related to a FCA US LLC vehicle pursuant to the Act from 2017 to present.
20 20. Any guidance provided by YOU to any company who handles calls from
21 consumers to YOUR 1-800 number, regarding what constitutes a “non-conformity” under the
22 Act from 2017 to present.
23 21. Any guidance provided by YOU to any company who handles calls from
24 consumers to YOUR 1-800 number, regarding what constitutes a “reasonable number of repair
25 attempts” under the Act from 2017 to present.
26 22. All policies and procedures related to YOUR auditing of any company who
27 handles calls from consumers to YOUR 1-800 number, handling of customer complaints under
28 the Act.
6
PLAINTIFF OSCAR MARROQUIN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST
KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS
1 23. YOUR understanding of any and all changes in any company who handles calls
2 from consumers to YOUR 1-800 number, policies and procedures for handling customer
3 complaints, which were directed to YOUR, relating to the Act from 2017 to present.
4 24. YOUR policies and procedures for the implementation of any changes,
5 alterations, interpretations in new case law, or other modifications of its policies in administering
6 its obligations under the Act.
7 25. All changes in YOUR policies and procedures related to handling customer
8 complaints in California from 2017 to present.
9 26. The number of repurchases or replacements that YOU offered California
10 consumers in response to their personal request for a repurchase (i.e. a consumer request without
11 an attorney involved) for each year from 2017 to present, including:
12 (a) The number of vehicles repurchased or replaced pursuant to goodwill.
13 (b) The number of vehicles repurchased or replaced that were determined to
14 be lemon law eligible.
15 (c) The number of personal requests for a repurchase that were denied.
16 (d) The number of cash settlements (not a repurchase) offered in response to a
17 personal request for a repurchase.
18
19 EXHIBIT A
20 NOTICE IS GIVEN that, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220,
21 subdivision (a)(4), Defendant shall bring and produce on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 6, 2024,
22 the following documents:
23 DEFINITIONS
24 1. The word “DOCUMENT” refers to all matters that would fall within the
25 definition of Evidence Code §250, and includes written or printed matter of any kind, including
26 the originals and all non-identical copies thereof, whether different from the original by reason
27 of any notation made on such copies or otherwise including, but not limited to, the
28 following: advertisements, booklets, brochures, pamphlets, circulars, Amended Notices,
7
PLAINTIFF OSCAR MARROQUIN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST
KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS
1 periodicals, papers, contracts, agreements, photographs, minutes, memoranda, messages,
2 appraisals, analyses, reports, financial calculations and representations, invoices, accounting
3 and diary entries, inventory sheets, diaries, appointment books or calendars, teletypes,
4 facsimiles, ledgers, trial balances, correspondence, telegrams, press releases, notes, working
5 papers, drawings, schedules, tabulations, projections, mails, information or programs stored in a
6 computer (whether or not ever printed out or displayed), and all drafts, alterations, modifications,
7 changes or amendments of any of the foregoing, and all graphic or manual records or
8 representations of any kind including, but not limited to, the following: microfiche, microfilm,
9 audiotapes, videotapes, recordings and motion pictures, and all electronic, mechanical or
10 electronic records or representations of any kind including, but not limited to, the following:
11 Tapes, cassettes, discs, magnetic cards and recordings. Note: This definition includes electronic
12 mail.
13 2. The words “YOU” and “YOUR” refer to Defendant and/or any related entity,
14
Preview
1 Arash Khorsandi, Esq. (Bar No. 249405) Adina A. Ostoia, Esq. (Bar No. 265470) 2 Adina A. Ostoia, Esq. (Bar No. 259187) THE LEMON PROS, LLP 3 9025 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse Beverly Hills, California 90211 4 Telephone: (310) 430-7757 Fax: (310) 430-7753 5 Email: service@thelemonpros.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Oscar Marroquin 7 E-mails for electronic service: eghazarian@thelemonpros.com 8 mzazueta@thelemonpros.com jacosta@thelemonpros.com 9 service@thelemonpros.com aostoia@thelemonpros.com 10 msaeedian@thelemonpros.com 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN 13 14 OSCAR MARROQUIN CASE NO.: BCV-23-103755 15 [Assigned for All Purposes to The Hon. David Plaintiff, Zulfa, Department J] 16 v. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND 17 MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION FCA US, LLC, a Delaware Limited ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF 18 Liability Company DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA US BAKERSFIELD CHRYSLER JEEP, a LLC’S PERSON MOST 19 KNOWLEDGEABLE; MEMORANDUM IN business entity form unknown SUPPORT OF MOTION; DECLARATION 20 OF ADINA A. OSTOIA Defendants. 21 [[Proposed] Order filed Concurrently] 22 Date: May 08, 2024 23 Time: 08:30 a.m. Dept.: J 24 25 Complaint Filed: November 8, 2023 Trial Date: None Set 26 27 /// 28 i PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE 1 TO DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 08, 2024, at 08:30 a.m. in Department J of the 3 Superior Court for the County of Kern, located at: 1215 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 4 93301, Plaintiff, OSCAR MARROQUIN (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) will, and hereby does move 5 this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, sections 2025.450 subdivision (a) and 6 2025.480 subdivision (a) for an order compelling Defendant FCA US LLC (hereinafter "FCA") 7 to produce its Person(s) Most Knowledgeable and Custodian of Records to be deposed in 8 accordance with Code of Civil Procedure, section 2025.230. 9 This motion is based upon the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto, 10 the Declaration of Adina A. Ostoia in Support of the Motion and supporting exhibits filed 11 herewith, the records on file in this action, and upon such evidence, oral and documentary, which 12 may be presented at the hearing on this matter. 13 14 Dated: March 21, 2024 THE LEMON PROS, LLP 15 16 By: 17 ADINA A. OSTOIA, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff, Oscar Marroquin 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 Plaintiff, OSCAR MARROQUIN (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) has attempted multiple times 4 through meet and confer efforts to get a date set for the deposition of FCA’s corporate 5 representative. Counsel for FCA has thus far refused to produce its PMK for a deposition and has 6 not provided dates which the deposition may occur. This testimony is essential for Plaintiff to 7 get facts about what FCA knew about the repair history, what steps if any it took to investigate 8 those repairs, and what actions it took or did not take to comply with California law. It is 9 Plaintiff’s burden to put forth evidence that FCA knew of its legal obligations but intentionally 10 declined to follow them. (CACI 3244) This information relies upon documents produced in 11 discovery and the testimony of the corporate witness about what the company knew about the 12 repair history of the Plaintiff’s Vehicle, what actions were taken and not taken, and when those 13 actions were taken. 14 Plaintiff seeks to compel the deposition of Defendant FCA's Person(s) Most 15 Knowledgeable ("PMK") and Custodian of Records. Plaintiff’s vehicle was at FCA’s authorized 16 repair facility on multiple occasions for the repairs of check engine warning light, electrical 17 system, and engine, and other serious nonconformities. In order to be paid for the warranty work 18 completed, Defendant FCA requires the authorized repair facilities to submit the invoices 19 detailing the repair work done for each customer vehicle. FCA has denied liability entirely in this 20 case, including any liability for civil penalties. Given that the primary source of information 21 related to whether or not civil penalties may apply is FCA itself, it is inequitable that FCA 22 refuses to designate and produce a witness who is competent to testify on the policies and 23 procedures of FCA. 24 Plaintiff has a right to discover relevant information about what FCA knew about the 25 Subject Vehicle’s problems and when it first gained knowledge about them. This is also key 26 information that Plaintiff needs to contribute to a valuation of the case for potential settlement. 27 Unfortunately, FCA has strategically delayed the deposition of its PMK for several months and 28 has still failed to produce a witness. FCA may claim that there is simply a lack of dates for the 1 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE 1 witness to appear; however, it is up to FCA to have sufficient witnesses who are able to testify 2 on behalf of the company when it sells hundreds of thousands of new vehicles in California each 3 year. This is particularly egregious now that virtually every deposition occurs remotely by Zoom, 4 substantially reducing the cost, time, and effort required to complete this type of deposition. 5 Plaintiff should not need the Court's intervention to obtain the deposition of the FCA’s PMK. No 6 authority exists to support the proposition that FCA can repeatedly stall to prevent Plaintiff from 7 timely obtaining relevant evidence by simply serving objections and refusing to produce its 8 witness. 9 Because of FCA’s blatant disregard for the Discovery Act and Plaintiff’s repeated 10 attempts to meet and confer regarding the deposition of FCA’s PMK, Plaintiff has no choice but 11 to seek an order compelling FCA to make its PMK(s) available for deposition. 12 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PLAINTIFF MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS 13 This is a lemon law case arising from Plaintiff’s Purchased a New 2023 Jeep Grand 14 Cherokee 4xe, having VIN: 1C4RJYB69PC596089 (hereinafter "Subject Vehicle”) from 15 Bakersfield Chrysler Jeep with thirteen (13) miles on the odometer. As a result of persistent 16 manufacturing defects that FCA’s authorized dealerships were unable to repair, Defendant FCA 17 did not promptly repurchase or replace the Plaintiff’s vehicle under California law, resulting in 18 the present lawsuit. This case was then filed on November 8, 2023. 19 1. Plaintiff’s Meet and Confer Efforts 20 On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of FCA’s Person(s) Most 21 Knowledgeable, with production of documents. The deposition notice sought discovery into 22 FCA’s policies and procedures for evaluating California consumers repurchase requests under 23 California’s lemon law and other facts related to this case. The deposition was set to occur on 24 March 11, 2024. (Ostoian Decl.,¶¶ 3, Exhibit “1.”) 25 Furthermore, the deadline for the Defendant to raise objections to the deposition of their 26 PMK was March 6, 2024, Defendant presented no objections and did not attend the deposition. 27 On March 11, 2024, on the date on which the deposition of FCA’s PMK was initially noticed, 28 Plaintiff’s counsel appeared and requested a certificate of non-appearance, which is attached as 2 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE 1 Exhibit 2. (Ostoian Decl.,¶¶ 5, Exhibit “2.”) Plaintiff understands that FCA’s counsel may have 2 a busy schedule which did not permit the initial deposition to occur. However, FCA’s counsel 3 has the ability to speak with their client to arrive at one or more alternative dates to complete the 4 deposition. This is not difficult and is done all the time in every type of litigation. Additionally, 5 this is not some sort of Apex deposition; Plaintiff is not expecting nor seeking to depose a high- 6 level executive of FCA. In other similar depositions, the witness put forth has been a field 7 service engineer or the manager of the call center team handling lemon law claims. At times it 8 has also been the assigned analyst for FCA who made an assessment to decline to repurchase or 9 replace the Plaintiff’s vehicle. No deposition can occur, however, if one party ignores reasonable 10 requests for deposition dates and never makes an honest effort to schedule a deposition to occur. 11 At no point up to the filing of this motion has FCA offered any dates that such a deposition 12 might occur. 13 FCA remains reluctant to produce a witness to discuss all categories contained within 14 Plaintiff’s notice. FCA has not even stated it will produce a witness for some of the categories, 15 which Plaintiff would equally accept, with the remainder happening with a different witness at 16 some future date. Having exhausted all meet and confer efforts and suffered through months of 17 FCA's delay tactics, Plaintiff now files the current motion to compel FCA's PMK deposition 18 based on Plaintiff’s original Notices of Deposition. 19 III. ARGUMENT 20 A. Good Cause Exists to Compel FCA to Produce its Person(s) Most Knowledgeable and Custodian of Records because Plaintiff’s Properly Noticed the Deposition and 21 the Information Sought is Relevant and Necessary to Plaintiff’s Case 22 Plaintiff properly noticed the deposition of FCA's PMK and Custodian of Records and 23 good cause exists to compel the deposition(s). Code of Civil Procedure, section 2017.010 24 provides in pertinent part: 25 “Unless otherwise limited by order of the court ... any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . if 26 the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 27 evidence [... ] Discovery may be obtained [as to] the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, 28 as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, tangible thing, or land or other 3 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE property.” 1 California courts construe the discovery statutes broadly so as to uphold the right to 2 discovery wherever possible. (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 377- 3 378.) In furtherance of this interpretation, the relevance standards are applied liberally, with any 4 doubts as to relevance generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Colonial Life and 5 Accident Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.) 6 It is well established in California that the taking of the deposition of a party is always 7 permitted to gather information before trial. (Verdier v. Superior Court (1948) 88 Cal.App.2d 8 527, 535.) To that end, "[a]ny party may obtain discovery ... by taking in California the oral 9 deposition of any person, including any party to the action. The person deposed may be a natural 10 person, an organization such as a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a 11 governmental agency." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) If the named deponent is not a natural 12 person: 13 “[T]he deposition notice shall describe with reasonable 14 particularity the matters on which examination is requested. In that event, the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition 15 those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those 16 matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent.” (Code Civ. Proc.,§ 2025.230; emphasis added.) 17 The service of a deposition notice pursuant to section 2025.240 is effective to require any 18 party deponent (including the designated Person(s) Most Knowledgeable) to attend and testify 19 and to produce any requested document for inspection and copy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 20 2025.280(a).) It is well-settled that no showing of good cause or prior court order is required to 21 compel the party deponent's deposition. In discussing substantially similar predecessor statutes, 22 the court in Snyder v. Superior Court, held that deposition proceedings are "initiated by notice 23 alone. The statutes confer upon litigants the right to take the deposition in a pending case ... 24 without prior court order and without a showing of good cause. As stated in Greyhound Corp. v. 25 Superior Court [citation]: 'The discovery act... authorizes some vehicles of discovery 26 (depositions, interrogatories, and requests for admission) as a matter of right and without prior 27 court order."' (Snyder v. Superior Court (1970) Cal.App.3d 579, 585-586.) 28 4 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE 1 A motion to compel deposition attendance and production of documents must set forth 2 specific facts showing good cause justifying the relief requested. (Code Civ. Proc., § 3 2025.450(b).) Good cause is established by showing that the request is made in good faith and 4 the documents sought are relevant to the subject matter of the action, and material to the issues in 5 the litigation. (Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 588.) The 6 purpose of civil discovery is clear; in enacting the discovery statutes the Legislature "intended to 7 take the 'game' element out of trial preparation" by assisting the parties in obtaining the facts and 8 evidence necessary to expeditious resolution of their dispute, (Greyhound, supra.) 9 Here, Plaintiff properly and timely served a Notice of Deposition of FCA's Person Most 10 Knowledgeable and Custodian of Records, thus obligating FCA's attendance. (Ostoian Decl.,¶¶ 11 3, Exhibit “1.”) (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280(a).) Plaintiff properly served a Notice of 12 Deposition of FCA's PMK(s) and Custodian of Records in an attempt to secure testimony for the 13 full scope of matters being sought. Plaintiff has followed up on several occasions to try to get 14 any alternative date and FCA has provided nothing. Unfortunately, FCA has refused to produce a 15 PMK as to any of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition. 16 FCA has created the need for this Motion by refusing to produce its PMK(s) and 17 custodian(s) of record, FCA is purposefully impeding Plaintiff’s ability to conduct basic 18 discovery and to handicap Plaintiff at trial by denying them any opportunity to inquire about the 19 criteria and documents FCA utilized in assessing Plaintiff’s vehicle for repurchase and assessing 20 civil penalties. Because FCA has not filed a motion to stay the deposition and there has been no 21 Motion for Protective Order, FCA has no right to repeatedly refuse to produce its PMK. Yet, 22 FCA has done just that by simply stonewalling Plaintiff. Unless the Court orders FCA to comply 23 with its obligations under the Discovery Act, Plaintiff will not be unable to effectively prepare its 24 case for trial and FCA's strategy of refusing to comply with a proper notice of deposition will 25 have been successful. 26 B. THE MATTERS AND DOCUMENTS REQUESTED ARE RELEVANT i. Plaintiff’s Matters for Examination and Categories of Documents Speak Directly to 27 the Elements of Plaintiff’s Song-Beverly Cause of Action. 28 There is good cause to compel the deposition of FCA's PMK and production of 5 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE 1 documents because the evidence sought is relevant to Plaintiff’s cause of action under the Song- 2 Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. To prove a cause of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer 3 Warranty Act, Plaintiff must prove, inter alia, that their vehicle had a defect covered by the 4 manufacturer's warranty that substantially impaired the use, value, or safety of the vehicle, and 5 which FCA was unable to repair after a reasonable number of repair attempts. ( CACI No. 3201. 6 ) Under the Act, a Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of civil penalties if he can establish that a 7 manufacturer's refusal to promptly repurchase or replace a vehicle was a "willful" failure to 8 comply with the Act. ( Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (c). ) 9 Though the Act does not require consumers to take any affirmative steps to bring about a 10 repurchase or replacement, California courts have previously found a willful violation of the Act 11 where the manufacturer "stalled and frustrated" the Plaintiff attempts to obtain restitution for 12 many weeks even though the Plaintiff made an initial and periodic personal request for 13 restitution under the Act. (Krotin v. Porsche (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 294, 302-03; Lukather v. 14 General Motors, LLC (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1049.) This can also be shown where a 15 manufacturer knows of its legal obligations but intentionally declines to follow them. ( CACI 16 3244. ) 17 Pursuant to Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, the manufacturer has an affirmative 18 obligation under California law to promptly repurchase or replace a vehicle when it qualifies. ( 19 Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC (2020) 9 Cal. 5th 966, 984. ) FCA’s knowledge of the 20 repair history and specifics of the repairs, including when it received such information, is 21 relevant to determine whether or not FCA should have repurchased the vehicle but elected not to 22 which will subject FCA to civil penalties. ( CACI 3244 ) If FCA failed to offer to repurchase 23 Plaintiff’s vehicle with knowledge of its obligation, or if FCA erected unreasonable obstacles to 24 such a request with its policies and procedures, then FCA committed a "willful" violation of the 25 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. If sufficient facts exist that an intentional failure to 26 repurchase can be proven, this directly affects the damages available to the Plaintiff either by 27 way of settlement or from a jury. 28 Regardless of whether or not FCA “believes” it is liable, it cannot simply refuse to allow 6 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE 1 its corporate witness to be deposed. A common objection FCA in cases similar to this where they 2 are refusing to produce a witness is an argument that FCA has made a repurchase offer. This 3 does not provide any “protection” because post-litigation offers to settle cannot be used by either 4 party to prove or disprove liability. (Evid. Code 1152.) Thus, a refused offer of settlement does 5 not remove any liability of FCA and does not justify a failure to produce a witness for a 6 deposition. 7 In this case, Plaintiff seeks deposition testimony regarding FCA's belief (per its discovery 8 responses) that the vehicle does not qualify for repurchase under California law and FCA has no 9 obligation to do so. The facts surrounding this topic go directly toward liability under the Act 10 and toward whether or not civil penalties may apply. 11 Accordingly, the requested documents and categories of examination are reasonably 12 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the 13 Court compel FCA to produce its Person(s) Most Knowledgeable. 14 /// 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 7 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE 1 IV.CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests that this Court order FCA (i) to produce its 3 deponents most qualified to testify as to each matter of examination contained in the Notice of 4 Deposition, and (ii) to produce the documents requested in the Notice of Deposition. FCA has 5 failed to produce an individual to be deposed as its PMK and has failed to provide dates of 6 availability for its PMK. FCA's objections to the items set forth in Plaintiff’s Notice of 7 Deposition do not excuse FCA from producing an individual at deposition or failing to provide 8 alternative dates. FCA has unequivocally shown its disregard for the relevant sections of the 9 Discovery Act and it should be compelled to produce its Person(s) Most Knowledgeable for 10 Deposition. 11 12 Dated: March 21, 2024 THE LEMON PROS, LLP 13 14 By: ADINA A. OSTOIA, ESQ. 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Oscar Marroquin 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE 1 DECLARATION OF ADINA A. OSTOIA 2 I, Adina A. Ostoia, declare as follow: 3 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in all of the courts of California and I 4 am a partner with The Lemon Pros, LLP, attorneys of record for the Plaintiff, OSCAR 5 MARROQUIN. I am the attorney with primary handling responsibility of this matter. I am 6 therefore familiar with all activities and all proceedings in this case. Accordingly, if called upon 7 as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the following based upon my own 8 personal knowledge and on information and belief, regarding communications and documents 9 sent and received by individuals working in my law office. I make this declaration in support of 10 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance and Production of Documents by Defendant 11 FCA’s Person(s) Most Knowledgeable. 12 2. This is a lemon law case arising from Plaintiff’s Purchased a New 2023 Jeep 13 Grand Cherokee 4xe, having VIN: 1C4RJYB69PC596089 from Bakersfield Chrysler Jeep with 14 Thirteen (13) miles on the odometer. 15 3. On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of FCA’s Person(s) Most 16 Knowledgeable, with production of documents. The deposition notice sought discovery into 17 Defendant’s policies and procedures for evaluating California consumers repurchase requests 18 under California’s lemon law. The deposition was set to occur on March 11, 2024. A true and 19 correct copy of this letter and deposition notice is attached hereto as Exhibit “1.” 20 4. My client OSCAR MARROQUIN regularly contacts myself for updates on this 21 case. I had previously informed my client that we were taking the deposition of FCA’s corporate 22 witness on March 11, 2024. My client was expecting an update from me based upon the results 23 of the PMK deposition, but the deposition never occurred. 24 5. FCA remains reluctant to produce a witness to discuss all categories contained 25 within Plaintiff’s notice. FCA has made no real effort at all to meet and confer on alternative 26 dates for any deposition to occur, including the same delay game occurring with the dealership 27 depositions. 28 6. To this day, FCA still refuses to produce a witness to discuss all categories 1 DECLARATION OF ADINA A. OSTOIA 1 contained within Plaintiff’s deposition notice. The nonappearance of FCA’s PMK at the properly 2 noticed deposition and the refusal of FCA to produce a witness to discuss all the categories 3 contained within the deposition notice and produce the requested documents has necessitated the 4 filing of this motion. 5 7. FCA’s Answer indicates that FCA believed in good faith that its actions were 6 legal in not promptly repurchasing or replacing Plaintiff’s vehicle. 7 8. Plaintiff has good cause for this Court to order the production of the documents 8 related to the PMK deposition. In the context of a Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act 9 lawsuit, it is axiomatic that Plaintiff be permitted to obtain discovery directly related to FCA’s 10 decision to ultimately decline to repurchase the Vehicle. Such documents are not only relevant, 11 they are highly relevant. While FCA may believe it did nothing wrong, the policies and 12 procedures for complying with California law (or the lack thereof) are relevant to civil penalties. 13 9. Further, as a result of having to file this unnecessary motion, my client has 14 incurred attorney’s fees and costs and expects to incur additional fees and costs in further 15 proceedings associated with this motion to compel FCA’s PMK Deposition, as follows: 16 (a) My usual hourly rate is $695.00 per hour, which I charge my hourly clients and 17 each of my Song-Beverly clients accepted on a full contingency basis. 18 (b) I have spent 1.0 hours researching the applicable law, identifying relevant exhibits 19 and preparing this motion and the accompanying supporting separate statement as well as my 20 supporting Declaration and proposed order. 21 (c) I anticipate that I will spend an additional 1.5 hours analyzing any opposition 22 and preparing a reply memoranda. I anticipate spending approximately 30 minutes of time at 23 any hearing on this matter. 24 (e) Plaintiff will also have incurred a $60.00 filing fee, in addition to a $6.75 25 electronic filing convenience fee for this motion. 26 10. Plaintiff’s fees and costs are summarized as follows: 27 Item Hourly Fee/Cost Amount 3.00 hours attorney time $695/hr. $2085 28 Motion Filing fee $60.00 $60.00 2 DECLARATION OF ADINA A. OSTOIA Electronic Filing Fee $6.75 $6.75 1 TOTAL $2,151.75 2 14. However, Plaintiff is not seeking savnctions against Defendant or its counsel in 3 connection with this motion. 4 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 5 foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on March 21, 2024, in 6 Beverly Hills, California. 7 By: ADINA A. OSTOIA, ESQ. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 DECLARATION OF ADINA A. OSTOIA EXHIBIT 1 Arash Khorsandi, Esq. (Bar No. 249405) 1 Michael Saeedian, Esq. (Bar No. 265470) Adina A. Ostoia, Esq. (Bar No. 259187) 2 THE LEMON PROS, LLP 9025 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse 3 Beverly Hills, California 90211 Telephone: (310) 430-7757 4 Fax: (310) 430-7753 Email: service@thelemonpros.com 5 E-mails for electronic service: 6 eghazarian@thelemonpros.com jacosta@thelemonpros.com 7 service@thelemonpros.com aostoia@thelemonpros.com 8 msaeedian@thelemonpros.com 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Oscar Marroquin 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN 13 14 OSCAR MARROQUIN, an individual, CASE NO.: BCV-23-103755 [Assigned for All Purposes to The Hon. David 15 Plaintiff, Zulfa, Department J] 16 v. PLAINTIFF OSCAR MARROQUIN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF 17 FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON(S) Liability Company; BAKERSFIELD MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND 18 CHRYSLER JEEP, a business entity form CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS unknown; and DOES 1 through 50, 19 inclusive, Complaint Filed: November 14, 2023 Trial Date: None Set 20 Defendants. Date: March 11, 2024 21 Time: 10:00 a.m. Location: Via Remote Appearance 22 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 23 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT Plaintiff OSCAR MARROQUIN (hereinafter 24 “Plaintiff”), through counsel, will take the deposition of Defendant FCA US LLC’s (hereinafter 25 “Defendant”) Person(s) Most Knowledgeable and Custodian(s) of Record in the above matter, at 26 the date, time and location noticed in the caption of this document. 27 This deposition will be taken for the purpose of discovery and/or for use as evidence in 28 1 PLAINTIFF OSCAR MARROQUIN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS 1 said matter. This deposition will be taken pursuant to sections 2016.010, 2017.010, 2019.010(a), 2 2025 and 2025.310 of the Code of Civil Procedure and California Rules of Court Emergency 3 Rule 11 and will be based on the records and files in the above-entitled action before a certified 4 shorthand reporter who is authorized to administer an oath. 5 This deposition may be recorded on videotape. If the deposition is not completed on the 6 date set out above, the taking of the deposition will continue from day to day thereafter, except 7 for weekends and holidays, at the same place, until completed. 8 This deposition will be taken remotely via videoconference set up by Veritex. Due to the 9 current COVID-19 pandemic, the deposition is scheduled to proceed via Video Conference, 10 please take further notice that: 11 1. The deposition will be conducted remotely, using audio-visual conference 12 technology, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2025.220 and §2025.330; 13 2. The court reporter will report the deposition from a location separate from the 14 witness; 15 3. Counsel for the parties and their clients will be participating from various, 16 separate locations; 17 4. The court reporter will administer the oath to the witness remotely; 18 5. The witness will be required to provide government-issued identification 19 satisfactory to the court reporter, and this identification must be legible on camera; 20 6. Each participating attorney may be visible to all other participants, and their 21 statements will be audible to all participants; 22 7. All exhibits will be provided simultaneously and electronically to the witness and 23 all participants; 24 8. The court reporter will record the testimony, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 25 §2025.220; 26 9. Instant visual display of testimony may be used pursuant to Code of Civil 27 Procedure §2025.220; 28 10. The audio-visual recording may be used at trial, pursuant to Code of Civil 2 PLAINTIFF OSCAR MARROQUIN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS 1 Procedure §2025.620; 2 11. The deposition may be recorded electronically; and 3 12. Counsel for all parties will be required to stipulate on the record; 4 (a) Their consent to this manner of deposition; and 5 (b) Their waiver of any objection to this manner of deposition, including any 6 objection to the admissibility at trial of this testimony based on this 7 manner of deposition. 8 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.230, Defendant shall designate and 9 produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents 10 who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to the existence, authenticity, and manner of 11 keeping of the DOCUMENTS described in Exhibit A, and if such persons differ, the officers, 12 directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify as to the 13 contents and interpretation of such DOCUMENTS. 14 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION 15 NOTICE IS GIVEN that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, 16 subdivision (a)(4), the Deponent shall produce to the undersigned counsel of record, on or before 17 5:00 p.m. on March 6, 2024, the documents referenced in Exhibit “A.” 18 In the event that the deposition is continued by agreement or for any other reason, each 19 and every DOCUMENT shall be produced on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 6, 2024, regardless 20 of such continuation. 21 DEFINITIONS 22 1. “INCIDENT” includes the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged 23 accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding. 24 2. The words “YOU” and “YOUR” refer to Defendant and/or any related entity, 25 predecessor, parent, subsidiary and/or affiliate, employee, agent (including, but not limited to, 26 any mortgage servicing agent), or any person acting or purporting to act on Defendant’s behalf. 27 3. The word “DOCUMENT” refers to all matters that fall within the definition of 28 Evidence Code §250, and includes written or printed matter of any kind, including the originals 3 PLAINTIFF OSCAR MARROQUIN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS 1 and all non-identical copies thereof, whether different from the original by reason of any notation 2 made on such copies or otherwise including, but not limited to, the following: advertisements, 3 booklets, brochures, pamphlets, circulars, notices, periodicals, papers, contracts, agreements, 4 photographs, minutes, memoranda, messages, appraisals, analyses, reports, financial calculations 5 and representations, invoices, accounting and diary entries, inventory sheets, diaries, 6 appointment books or calendars, teletypes, facsimiles, ledgers, trial balances, correspondence, 7 telegrams, press releases, notes, working papers, drawings, schedules, tabulations, projections, 8 mails, information or programs stored in a computer (whether or not ever printed out or 9 displayed), and all drafts, alterations, modifications, changes or amendments of any of the 10 foregoing, and all graphic or manual records or representations of any kind including, but not 11 limited to, the following: microfiche, microfilm, audiotapes, videotapes, recordings and motion 12 pictures, and all electronic, mechanical or electronic records or representations of any kind 13 including, but not limited to, the following: Tapes, cassettes, discs, magnetic cards and 14 recordings. “DOCUMENT” expressly includes all ELECTRONIC RECORDS, included but, not 15 limited to electronic mail. 16 4. “PERSON” includes any natural person, firm, association, organization, 17 partnership, business, trust, corporation, or public entity. 18 5. “ADDRESS” means the street address, including the city, state, and zip code. 19 6. The words “SUBJECT VEHICLE” the vehicle that is the subject of this lawsuit, 20 specifically, the 2023 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe bearing VIN: 1C4RJYB69PC596089. 21 7. To “IDENTIFY” an entity that is not a natural person means to state the name of 22 the entity and its present or last known business address. To “IDENTIFY” a natural person 23 means to state the name, present or last known phone number, present or last known employer, 24 present or last known business address, and present or last known employment position held. To 25 “IDENTIFY” a document means to means to describe it with sufficient particularity to enable it 26 to be identified for the purposes of a Motion to Compel Production of such DOCUMENT. 27 8. “CONTACT” includes any transmittal, conveyance, or exchange of information 28 between or among PERSONS by any means, whether verbal or nonverbal, tangible or 4 PLAINTIFF OSCAR MARROQUIN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS 1 intangible, oral or written, and/or direct or indirect, including, without limitation, 2 conversations, meetings, statements, letters, correspondence, notes, memoranda, recordings, 3 electronic or computer data. 4 MATTERS FOR EXAMINATION 5 1. Plaintiff’s request(s) for repurchase/replacement of the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 6 2. All communications with Plaintiff or anyone acting on their behalf regarding 7 the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 8 3. All warranty claims made to YOU with regard to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 9 4. All repairs and service performed on the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 10 5. All DOCUMENTS that YOU reviewed, if any, in determining YOUR response to 11 any of Plaintiff’s buyback requests. 12 6. All DOCUMENTS that YOU reviewed, if any, in investigating the cause of the 13 complaints alleged regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 14 7. All persons that YOU talked to or interviewed or made any other type of inquiries 15 from, in determining YOUR response to any of Plaintiff’s buyback requests. 16 8. Any other investigation that YOU conducted in determining YOUR response to 17 any of Plaintiff’s buyback requests. 18 9. All telephone calls made by anyone (including Plaintiff) to YOUR 1-800 19 customer assistance number regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 20 10. The results of any failure mode analysis, warranty parts return analysis, or other 21 analysis or evaluation conducted by YOU, YOUR agents, or by any other person or entity known 22 to YOU, pertaining to any of the parts or components of the SUBJECT VEHICLE that were 23 replaced by YOU or YOUR agents and not returned to Plaintiff. 24 11. YOUR policies, procedures, or other guidelines regarding responding to 25 consumer complaints in which the consumer alleges FCA US LLC’s vehicle is defective from 26 2017 to present. 27 12. Defendant’s policies, procedures, or other guidelines for repurchasing or 28 replacing vehicles under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (hereinafter “Song-Beverly 5 PLAINTIFF OSCAR MARROQUIN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS 1 Act” or the “Act”). 2 13. All DOCUMENTS (including all recordings) produced by YOU in this litigation 3 thus far. 4 14. The nature of YOUR relationship with any company who handles calls from 5 consumers to YOUR 1-800 number. 6 15. The policies and procedures to be followed by any company who handles calls 7 from consumers to YOUR 1-800 number, when receiving a call from a consumer regarding a 8 FCA US LLC vehicle. 9 16. YOUR oversight of any company who handles calls from consumers to YOUR 1- 10 800 number. 11 17. YOUR policies and procedures (including proposals) for reduction of warranty 12 claim buybacks under the Act from 2017 to present. 13 18. YOUR goal for any company who handles calls from consumers to YOUR 1-800 14 number to reduce the number of repurchases or vehicle replacements in California from 2017 to 15 present. 16 19. All tasks and duties YOU authorized any company who handles calls from 17 consumers to YOUR 1-800 number, to perform in connection with the handling, management, 18 implementation, decision making, review, auditing, and implementation of any claims made 19 related to a FCA US LLC vehicle pursuant to the Act from 2017 to present. 20 20. Any guidance provided by YOU to any company who handles calls from 21 consumers to YOUR 1-800 number, regarding what constitutes a “non-conformity” under the 22 Act from 2017 to present. 23 21. Any guidance provided by YOU to any company who handles calls from 24 consumers to YOUR 1-800 number, regarding what constitutes a “reasonable number of repair 25 attempts” under the Act from 2017 to present. 26 22. All policies and procedures related to YOUR auditing of any company who 27 handles calls from consumers to YOUR 1-800 number, handling of customer complaints under 28 the Act. 6 PLAINTIFF OSCAR MARROQUIN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS 1 23. YOUR understanding of any and all changes in any company who handles calls 2 from consumers to YOUR 1-800 number, policies and procedures for handling customer 3 complaints, which were directed to YOUR, relating to the Act from 2017 to present. 4 24. YOUR policies and procedures for the implementation of any changes, 5 alterations, interpretations in new case law, or other modifications of its policies in administering 6 its obligations under the Act. 7 25. All changes in YOUR policies and procedures related to handling customer 8 complaints in California from 2017 to present. 9 26. The number of repurchases or replacements that YOU offered California 10 consumers in response to their personal request for a repurchase (i.e. a consumer request without 11 an attorney involved) for each year from 2017 to present, including: 12 (a) The number of vehicles repurchased or replaced pursuant to goodwill. 13 (b) The number of vehicles repurchased or replaced that were determined to 14 be lemon law eligible. 15 (c) The number of personal requests for a repurchase that were denied. 16 (d) The number of cash settlements (not a repurchase) offered in response to a 17 personal request for a repurchase. 18 19 EXHIBIT A 20 NOTICE IS GIVEN that, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220, 21 subdivision (a)(4), Defendant shall bring and produce on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 6, 2024, 22 the following documents: 23 DEFINITIONS 24 1. The word “DOCUMENT” refers to all matters that would fall within the 25 definition of Evidence Code §250, and includes written or printed matter of any kind, including 26 the originals and all non-identical copies thereof, whether different from the original by reason 27 of any notation made on such copies or otherwise including, but not limited to, the 28 following: advertisements, booklets, brochures, pamphlets, circulars, Amended Notices, 7 PLAINTIFF OSCAR MARROQUIN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CUSTODIAN(S) OF RECORDS 1 periodicals, papers, contracts, agreements, photographs, minutes, memoranda, messages, 2 appraisals, analyses, reports, financial calculations and representations, invoices, accounting 3 and diary entries, inventory sheets, diaries, appointment books or calendars, teletypes, 4 facsimiles, ledgers, trial balances, correspondence, telegrams, press releases, notes, working 5 papers, drawings, schedules, tabulations, projections, mails, information or programs stored in a 6 computer (whether or not ever printed out or displayed), and all drafts, alterations, modifications, 7 changes or amendments of any of the foregoing, and all graphic or manual records or 8 representations of any kind including, but not limited to, the following: microfiche, microfilm, 9 audiotapes, videotapes, recordings and motion pictures, and all electronic, mechanical or 10 electronic records or representations of any kind including, but not limited to, the following: 11 Tapes, cassettes, discs, magnetic cards and recordings. Note: This definition includes electronic 12 mail. 13 2. The words “YOU” and “YOUR” refer to Defendant and/or any related entity, 14