arrow left
arrow right
  • Leyva, Yesenia et al vs. General Motors, LLCCivil-Roseville document preview
  • Leyva, Yesenia et al vs. General Motors, LLCCivil-Roseville document preview
  • Leyva, Yesenia et al vs. General Motors, LLCCivil-Roseville document preview
  • Leyva, Yesenia et al vs. General Motors, LLCCivil-Roseville document preview
  • Leyva, Yesenia et al vs. General Motors, LLCCivil-Roseville document preview
  • Leyva, Yesenia et al vs. General Motors, LLCCivil-Roseville document preview
  • Leyva, Yesenia et al vs. General Motors, LLCCivil-Roseville document preview
  • Leyva, Yesenia et al vs. General Motors, LLCCivil-Roseville document preview
						
                                

Preview

ORIINAL uw Mary Lynn Arens, Bar No.: 282459 Mitchel Brim, Bar No.: 239341 ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC WN 3995 East Anaheim, La Palma California Avenue 92807 LED WwW SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA Tel: (949) 777-6032 COUNTY OF PLACER Fax: (714) 844-9035 kh marens@erskinelaw.com mbrim@erskinelaw.com AUG27 2019" MN JAKE CHATTERS Attorneys for Defendant EXECUTIVE OFF & CLERK HD By: E. Cava#og) Deputy GENERAL MOTORS LLC SN Se SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Co 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER 1 12 YESENIA LEYVA and JUAN C. LEYVA, Case No. SCV0041782 13 Plaintiffs, Ad GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S SEPARATE 14 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION 15 TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL XV4 THE DEPOSITION OF GENERAL MOTORS 16 LLC’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE GENERAL MOTORS LLC; and DOES | 17 through 10, inclusive, Filed Concurrently With: 18 Defendants. 1) Declaration of Mitchel Brim 2) Memorandum of Points and Authorities 19 Hearing Date: September 12, 2019 20 Hearing Time: 8:30 am 21 Department: LM 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CATEGORIES FOR EXAMINATION = CATEGORY NO. 1: YN Questions relating to the nature and extent of allof the service history and warranty history WD relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE; FSF OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 1: nH GM objects to this category because itis overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, DBD oppressive and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. GM also IN objects to this category because it seeks information that may be protected by the attorney-client eo privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Further, GM objects to this category on the oO grounds that it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. GM agrees to make a S&S le witness available to discuss this topic at amutually agreeable time and place. | FURTHER REASONS WHY A DEPONENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: NY This isa breach of warranty action involving Plaintiffs’ purchase of a used 2017 Chevrolet Ww ESS Traverse (“Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiffs seek an order compelling General Motors LLC’s (“GM”) FSF RR Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) to appear for deposition under Code of Civil Procedure De (“CCP”) §§ 2025.450 and 2025.480 and to compel GM to produce documents related to alleged suspension system defects in the Subject Vehicle. Despite having already received hundreds of SI mw pages of bates-stamped documents thatare directly responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests; and FH despite the fact that GM has already agreed to produce a PMK on appropriate categories, Plaintiffs OD now seek further information by means of a deposition notice containing 19 separate Categories for OD NO Examination (“categories”) and 35 Requests for Production (“requests”). FH NO The majority of Plaintiffs’ categories and requests pertain to GM’s internal “policies and NY BN procedures” concerning other consumers or their vehicles; GM’s internal analysis and WD NO investigation of breach of warranty claims in general; the design of specific component systems or FSP NHN parts; or GM’s internal analysis and investigation of the alleged “defects” in other vehicles. Such WW BHO information reveals nothing about Plaintiffs’ vehicle and is not relevant to this litigation.Plaintiffs DBD DP should not have free reign to conduct open-ended discovery into issues that have no relevance to NWN NN GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO oo NO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF GM’S PMK oc proving the elements of their simple breach of warranty action. This is especially true in this case, given that the prejudice to and burden on GM to produce these materials greatly outweighs any NY miniscule benefit that Plaintiffs might glean from the information. Additionally, much of the WY information sought isprivileged and/or proprietary, and is therefore protected from disclosure. Fe Moreover, Plaintiffs have failed to substantively meet and confer in good faith, as required AON by CCP §§ 2025.450 and 2025.480; and have failed to file a Separate Statement as required by Cal. DBO R. Court, rule 3.1345. Fortunately, this Court can put an end to Plaintiffs’ outrageous demands and SN abusive discovery practices. Therefore, GM respectfully requests that this Court deny Plaintiffs’ fe request for a court-ordered fishing expedition by denying Plaintiffs’ motion to compel in its entirety. Oo 10 Both CCP § 2025.450 and § 2025.480 require good faithmeet and confer efforts to be made 1 prior to the filing of a Motion to Compel. As with all discovery motions, the burden ison the party 12 moving to compel a deposition to show a reasonable good faith effort to resolve the dispute without 13 the need for motion practice. (CCP § 2025.450). Counsel must “attempt to talk the matter over, 14 compare their views, consult and deliberate.” (Townsend v.Sup.Ct. (EMC Mortg. Co.) (1998) 61 15 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1433). An object of the meet and confer requirement isto avoid motion practice. 16 (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016-1017). 17 Furthermore, the purpose of discovery is to facilitate the trial process, narrow issues in 18 dispute, and change trialfrom a game of chance and surprise to an orderly process of uncovering 19 actual facts. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 781, 149 Cal.Rptr. 499). However, 20 litigants do not possess unfettered access to allinformation they seek. (Covell v. Superior Court 21 (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 39, 42-43, 205 Cal.Rptr. 371). A key limitation on a litigant’s right to 22 discovery isthat the information sought must be relevant to the issues of the lawsuit. (National Steel 23 Products Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 476, 492-93, 210 Cal.Rptr. 535). Where 24 information sought in discovery does not relate, in any way, to the issues involved in a lawsuit, the 25 relevance requirement is not met and a court must invoke its broad discretion in supervising the 26 course and scope of discovery to limit the requests at issue. (Covell, 159 Cal.App.3d at42-43). By 27 exercising this discretion, the courts prevent litigants from abusing the discovery process in hopes 28 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN COMPEL SUPPORT OF DEPOSITION OPPOSITION OF GM’S TO PMK PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO sFs of uncovering supporting evidence that the party should have possessed prior to taking legal action or in an attempt to extort a higher settlement. Jd. LY Plaintiffs seek an order compelling GM’s PMK to appear for deposition and produce WD documents under CCP §§ 2025.450 and 2025.480. Indeed, CCP § 2025.450 provides litigants FF standing to compel depositions. Yet, subsection (a) provides that standing exists only when the OH responding party has failed to serve a “valid objection” under CCP § 2025.410. (CCP § DBD 2025.450(a)). Here, GM served appropriate objections that satisfied CCP § 2025.410, which NN requires that the objections be served three or more days in advance of the deposition and specifies CF “error or irregularity” in the notice of deposition. (Jd). GM’s objections to Plaintiffs’ Notice of oO Deposition were properly based on the overbroad and vague nature of Plaintiffs’ requests; their SC eet relevance; the undue burden to GM; and the nature of the documents sought, as set forth below. | GM’s objections were also proper because GM has already produced a substantial amount of NYO documents that are directly responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, and also offered to produce WD pm a PMK for deposition on appropriate categories in this case. Still, Plaintiffs needlessly seek to FF tm compel GM to produce a PMK on topics that GM has properly objected to, and on topics related to DOW mm documents already produced in this case. This Court should not reward Plaintiffs’ counsel’s gamesmanship and lack of good faith. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied in its ND entirety. Fe Plaintiffs’ analysis of the discoverability of the remaining categories and requests that GM OC RO has not agreed to is extremely broad-brushed and does not set forth — as isthe burden incumbent 93D on the moving party — the discoverability under existing law of each of the categories or items at RO | issue. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s discovery demands are merely unfounded assertions, with little(if any) NY KR analysis to the disputes and issues that are relevant to the pending case. Undoubtedly, Plaintiffs’ NO WD counsel’s goal in these discovery disputes isnot to obtain relevant and discoverable information F&F NO that may be helpful to the prosecution of the clients’ case. Rather, counsel’s primary goal is to KO Ww create irrelevant and unnecessary discovery disputes todrive up attorney fees, while trying to obtain DH BR an order that will provide leverage for a higher settlement from GM. sn HN GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT EN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DO ao COMPEL DEPOSITION OF GM’S PMK -4. To begin with, the information sought in many of Plaintiffs’ categories and requests is not inherently relevant to the reasonableness of repairs to Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Without an established NO link, such information does not have “any tendency inreason toprove or disprove any disputed fact WD that isof consequence to the determination of the action.” (Cal. Evid. Code § 210). Breach of FF warranty claims such as those asserted by Plaintiffs in this case are about the particular consumer, AO the particular vehicle, and the manufacturer’s particular response to the consumer’s vehicle DH concerns. There is nothing inthis framework that permits Plaintiffs to prove their case by pointing JN to GM’s internal analysis and investigations and/or policies and procedures involving other Oo lawsuits, other consumers’ claims and repurchase requests, or generic design issues concerning an Co alleged defect. Yet that is the very material that Plaintiffs seek toelicit from GM with the remaining SO mee categories and requests at issue. (See Zhang Decl. Ex. B). Plaintiffs have yet to substantiate why | they are entitled to this information — because undoubtedly, there isno means to support such an NH mee argument. WY CCP § 2017.020 is clear that a judge shall limit the scope of discovery: “(a) The court shall F&F mm limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that An discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of HB admissible evidence....(b) ...[the]cost, time, expense and disruption of normal business resulting ANA from an order compelling the discovery [is weighed] against the probative value of the material FF which might be disclosed ifthe discovery is ordered." Similarly, CCP §§ 2031.310(g) (3) and (4) CO DRO provide that the court may limit the extent of discovery if the party seeking discovery has had ample DT opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought, or the likely burden or |§ DR expense of proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefit. KR NY Citing Mannino v. Superior Court (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 776, the Calcor court also noted WY DQ that “[w]e are also aware the discovery process issubject to frequent abuse and, like a cancerous Ff KN growth, can destroy a meritorious cause or defense .... Our observations of the day-to-day practice Wn KR of law lead us to conclude this cancer is spreading and judges must become more aggressive in DBD KN curbing these abuses. Courts must insist discovery devices be used as tools to facilitate litigation nN bd GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO eo NO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF GM’S PMK 5. rather than as weapons to wage litigation. These tools should be well calibrated; the lancet isto be preferred over the sledge hammer.” (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 bh Cal.App.4th 216 (emphasis added). See also Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th WwW 424, 431 (noting that “[a]ny discovery request, even an initialone, can be misused in an attempt to &- generate settlement leverage by creating burden, expense, embarrassment, distraction, etc.”’)). NHN MN As in Calcor, Plaintiffs’ overly-broad categories and requests in this motion against GM are an outrageous abuse of the discovery system. Plaintiffs’ entire motion fails to provide evidence or facts from which the Court can determine that the categories or requests seek information that is Oo within the permissible scope of discovery. Plaintiffs instead simply make broad, argumentative, co 10 general statements that aPMK should be compelled and documents produced. As Calcor points il out, the tools of discovery should be well-calibrated and used to facilitate litigation. (/d. at 221). 12 Discovery should not be used as a weapon to wage a war and thereby inflate sham attorney’s fees 13 in case Plaintiffs are considered a “prevailing party” and may recoup them from GM at the end of 14 the day under California lemon law. (/d). 15 Clearly, Plaintiffs’ counsel is using the discovery process as a sledgehammer to wage war, 16 rather than like a lancet to facilitate litigation. This is not a class action or products liability suit, 17 though Plaintiffs’ counsel attempts to treat itas such with the irrelevant, improper, and harassing 18 discovery requests at issue. Further, these categories and requests seek information that has no 19 bearing on Plaintiffs’ individual complaints about their own vehicle or relate in any way to 20 documents produced in this case. In fact, some of Plaintiffs’ categories and requests are so broad 21 and vague that it is difficult for GM to even ascertain what Plaintiffs are seeking. Plaintiffs are 22 abusing the discovery process to conduct a court-sanctioned fishing expedition with no other 23 objective than to extort a higher settlement. In this case, GM has demonstrated that it fully 24 responded to or appropriately objected to any requests seeking materials specific to the Subject 25 Vehicle. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied. 26 The breadth of Plaintiffs’ categories and requests invites production of trade secret material. 27 Under California law, “[t]rade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, 28 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN COMPEL SUPPORT OF DEPOSITION OPPOSITION OF GM’S TO PMK PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO -6- program, device, method, technique, or process that: (1) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain WH economic value from itsdisclosure or use; and (2) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under WD the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” (McGuan v. Endovascular Technologies, Inc. (2010) S&F 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988-989; see also AFCS v. United Parcel Serv. Co. (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2012) HW 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106925 *10 [holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ND granting a medical device manufacturer’s motion to seal records where [1] the documents discussed the details of defendant’s quality system procedures, complaint handling procedures, device Se tracking procedures, process validation procedures, and corrective action procedures; [2] the Oo 10 records contain business methods and processes defendant developed to comply with FDA 11 regulations; [3] the value and utilityof this information could have application across a range of 12 medical devices; and [4] the records were maintained as confidential and disseminated within 13 defendant’s organization on a limited basis}). Because wholesale disclosure of GM’s internal, 14 confidential materials would cause GM competitive harm as well as harm in the marketplace, GM 15 should not be compelled to produce these confidential, proprietary documents without a heightened 16 showing of the need for the documents to prove Plaintiffs’ case. Such a showing has not been made 17 here. ! 18 GM respectfully requests that this Court deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Deposition 19 of GM’s PMK and Demand to Produce Documents in its entirety, based on the foregoing points 20 and authorities demonstrating: (1) Plaintiffs’ failure to meet and confer in good faith; (2) Plaintiffs’ 21 overbroad and unduly burdensome categories and requests — despite GM having already offered to 22 23 24 ' If the Court is not persuaded by GM’s objections regarding the production of trade secret, 25 confidential, and proprietary information and/or ifthe parties are unable to agree on the form of a suitable Protective Order, GM reserves itsright to file,and will file, a Motion for Protective Order 26 applicable to documents ordered compelled by this Court, if any. In said Motion for Protective Order, GM will fully address the issue for the need to protect its trade secret, proprietary, and 27 confidential information pursuant to a suitable Protective Order. 28 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN COMPEL SUPPORT OF DEPOSITION OPPOSITION OF GM’S TO PMK PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO cF's produce a PMK on appropriate categories and produced a plethora of responsive documents; and — (3) Plaintiffs’ failure to file aseparate statement, as required by Cal. R. Court, rule 3.1345. NHN In the alternative, GM has already agreed to produce itsPMK to appear for deposition under WwW CCP §§ 2025.450 and 2025.480 to testify about the information that Plaintiffs have requested in FF Category No. 1. wo DB CATEGORY NO. 2: AN Questions relating to all COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and Plaintiff, or anyone on Oo Plaintiffs behalf. Oo OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 2: OS GM objects to this category because itis overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, | mt oppressive and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. GM also NY objects to this category because it seeks information that may be protected by the attorney-client YH privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Further, GM objects to the category on the FR grounds that itseeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. No witness will be HW produced. DBD mmm FURTHER REASONS WHY A DEPONENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: HSI GM hereby incorporates itsreasons why no deponent should be compelled and reasons why SH Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Category No. 1. CO CF RO CATEGORY NO. 3: |§ DR Questions relating to all COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any other PERSON NY DN regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE. KO WD OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 3: SF KN GM objects to this category because itis overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, KO ON oppressive and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. GM also BO WP objects to this category because it seeks information that may be protected by the attorney-client st WN GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ao NO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF GM’S PMK -8- privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Further, GM objects to the category on the grounds that it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. GM agrees to make a WN witness available to discuss this topic at amutually agreeable time and place. Ww FURTHER REASONS WHY A DEPONENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: —- GM hereby incorporates itsreasons why no deponent should be compelled and reasons why NN Plaintiffs” Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Category No. 1. DH In the alternative, General Motors has already agreed to produce its PMK to appear for SI deposition under CCP §§ 2025.450 and 2025.480 to testify about the information that Plaintiffs ea have requested in Category No. 3. Co 10 11 CATEGORY NO. 4: 12 Questions relating to all service advisory notices, technical service bulletins, recalls, defect 13 investigations, and other REPAIR DOCUMENTS relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE; 14 OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 4: 15 GM objects to this category because itis not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 16 of admissible evidence. Further, the category is compound, vague, irrelevant, irrelevant, overbroad, 17 ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. The category also seeks information that may be 18 protected by attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Finally, the category 19 seeks confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information. No witness will be produced. 20 FURTHER REASONS WHY A DEPONENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 21 GM hereby incorporates itsreasons why no deponent should be compelled and reasons why 22 Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Category No. 1. 23 24 CATEGORY NO. 5: 25 Questions relating tothe process that is inplace and has been inplace for the last three years 26 relating to YOUR evaluations of requests by YOUR customers to have vehicles repurchased 27 pursuant to California Civil Code § 1793.2, including but not limited to any policies and procedures 28 GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN COMPEL SUPPORT OF DEPOSITION OPPOSITION OF GM’S TO PMK PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO _9. regarding the repurchasing of SUBJECT VEHICLE due to the SUSPENSION DEFECT; — OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 5: NH GM objects to this category because itis not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery WY of admissible evidence. Further, the category isvague and ambiguous to the term “SUSPENSION FP DEFECT," as itis irrelevant, over broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. The category also OH seeks information that may be protected by attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product DR doctrine. Finally, the category seeks confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information. No SN witness will be produced. Oo FURTHER REASONS WHY A DEPONENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: Co GM hereby incorporates itsreasons why no deponent should be compelled and reasons why SD me Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Category No. 1. — NY CATEGORY NO. 6: OO W Questions regarding the nature, extent, and substance of correspondence between YOU, and FP other persons or entities regarding the SUSPENSION DEFECT; TD OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 6: DBD GM objects to this category because itis not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery I rm of admissible evidence. Further, the category isvague and ambiguous to the term “SUSPENSION fH DEFECT," irrelevant, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. The category also seeks Oo RO information that may be protected by attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product CO doctrine. Finally, the category seeks confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information. No KN | witness will be produced. NHN KD FURTHER REASONS WHY A DEPONENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: NO WD GM hereby incorporates itsreasons why no deponent should be compelled and reasons why FF KN Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Category No. 1. nT HN BDH NO nN WHO GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ao NO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF GM’S PMK -10- CATEGORY NO. 7: Questions regarding YOUR refusal to promptly repurchase the SUBJECT VEHICLE; NY OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 7: Ww GM objects to this category because itis overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, vague, F&F ambiguous, oppressive and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible Wn evidence. GM also objects to this category because itseeks information that may be protected by DH the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Further, GM objects to the NY category on the grounds that it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. No fo witness will be produced. Oo FURTHER REASONS WHY A DEPONENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: UC OlUlUlUCCOUlUCCUCOUNSNUDNOCOCOUMOUWRllCUNGeN DS meme SC GM hereby incorporates itsreasons why no deponent should be compelled and reasons why Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Category No. 1. me me CATEGORY NO. 8: mm Questions regarding the nature of the SUSPENSION DEFECT, including the cause of the mmm SUSPENSION DEFECT, all available fixes that have been made available to your authorized dealers to date, and the subsequent results of such fixes; mm OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 8: GM objects to this category because itis not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery wm of admissible evidence. Further, the category isvague and ambiguous to the term "SUSPENSION NO El DEFECT," irrelevant, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. The category also seeks NO NOOO information that may be protected by attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product KN doctrine. Finally, the category seeks confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information. No WH ND witness will be produced. SP NO FURTHER REASONS WHY A DEPONENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: UR NO GM hereby incorporates itsreasons why no deponent should be compelled and reasons why DRO BO Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Category No. 1. tN NO GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO oo moO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF GM’S PMK -ll- CATEGORY NO. 9: — Questions regarding YOUR ongoing efforts to repair or remedy the SUSPENSION HY DEFECT, including all internal tests, investigations and the number of modification made to YOUR WH vehicles with the braking system used in the SUBJECT VEHICLE, including the number of such FP modifications made to YOUR vehicles which are the same year, make and model as the SUBJECT AD VEHICLE; DO OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 9: SS GM objects to this category because itis not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery F&F of admissible evidence. Further, the category isvague and ambiguous to the term “SUSPENSION Co DEFECT," irrelevant, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. The category also seeks & lle information that may be protected by attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product —-| doctrine. Finally, the category seeks confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information. No LY eS witness will be produced. WD FURTHER REASONS WHY A DEPONENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: FF OO GM hereby incorporates itsreasons why no deponent should be compelled and reasons why Dn Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied as set forth in response to Category No. 1. NIN CATEGORY NO. 10: FF OBO Questions regarding the terms of YOUR Owners manual, maintenance schedule, YOUR RO express warranty or any extended warranty that might be in effect, and as they relate to the 3D SUSPENSION DEFECT; RO [| OBJECTION TO CATEGORY NO. 10: NO NY GM objects to this category because itis not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery KRDO WD of admissible evidence. Further, the category isvague and ambiguous to the term “SUSPENSION FP KN DEFECT," irrelevant, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. The category also seeks OW KH information that may be protected by attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product BN KB doctrine. Finally, the category seeks confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information. No sS HN GM’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO oo BO