Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of Placer
Raymond P. Boucher, State Bar No. 115364 09/16/2020
ray@ boucher.la
By: Laurel Sanders, Deputy Clerk
Maria L. Weitz, State Bar No. 268100
weitz@ boucher.la
Neal Butala, State Bar No. 289197
butala@ boucher.la
BOUCHER LLP
21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600
Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903
Tel: (818) 340-5400
Fax: (818) 340-5401
Steve Mikhov, Esq., State Bar No. 224676
stevem@ knightlaw.com
Amy Morse, Esgq., State Bar No. 290502
amym@ knightlaw.com
KNIGHT LAW GROUP LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 2500
10 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (310) 552-2250
11 Fax: (310) 552-7973
12 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jerry Michael
13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14 COUNTY OF PLACER
15
16 JERRY A. MICHAEL, Case No. S-CV-0042129
17 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF NEAL BUTALA IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN
18 Vv SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY
19 FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND
Company; AUBURN CDJR, INC.,a SET OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
20 Califoria Corporation, dba AUBURN FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST
CHRY SLER DODGE JEEP RAM; and DOES FOR SANCTIONS
21 1 through 10, inclusive,
Filed Concurrently with [REPLY ]
22 Defendants.
Date: September 18, 2020
23 Time: 8:30AM
Dept.: 3
24
Action Filed: November 14, 2018
25 Trial Date: October 19, 2020
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF NEAL BUTALA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
I, Neal Butala, declare as follows:
1. lam an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all of the courts of the State of
California. I am an associate at the law firm of Boucher, LLP, attorneys of record for Plaintiff
JERRY A. MICHAEL. I have personal knowledge of the following facts, and, if called to testify
regarding those matters, I could and would competently testify thereto.
2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Discovery
Responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of Request for Admissions from Defendant and Request for
Sanctions.
3. Plaintiff was the unfortunate purchaser ofa 2015 Dodge Ram 1500 (the “Subject
10 Vehicle”) manufactured and warranted by Defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”). Shortly after
11 purchasing the Subject Vehicle, Plaintiff was forced to deliver it for repair numerous times for
12 recurring and unpredictable defects, including electrical and mechanical problems with the engine,
13 among other things. Defendant was unable to repair the Subject Vehicle’s defects and the Subject
14 Vehicle was ultimately consumed by a fire, despite Plaintiff's frequent repair visits. Defendant
15 failed to make a prompt offer to repurchase or replace the vehicle in accordance with the Song-
16 Beverly Act. Left with no other choice, Plaintiff filed suit for Defendant’s alleged violations of the
17 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. During the pendency of the litigation Defendant sent
18 Plaintiff recall notice 19V-757 ("Recall Notice") to repair defects with the exhaust gas
19 recirculation cooler ("EGR") in the Subject Vehicle's 3.0L EcoDiesel Engine ("Engine"). The
20 recall notice specifically states that defects with the EGR can lead to vehicle fires if not repaired.
21 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit
A is a true and correct copy of the document entitled, "FCA
22 US LLC Chronology, 2014-2019 RAM 1500 Eco Diesel Engine Compartment, Submitted on
23 October 24, 2019" which I obtained from the NHTSA website.
24 5. In preparation for trial and possible mediation, on May 19, 2020, Plaintiff propounded
25 on Defendant Plaintiff's Second Set of Request for Admissions (“Plaintiff's RFAs”). Plaintiff's
26 RFAs seek information about warranty repairs and recalls involving specific defects and
27 nonconformities as set forth in the Subject Vehicle’s own repair orders produced by Defendant
28 and Recall Notice 19V-757 sent to Plaintiff by Defendant. Plaintiffs RFAs also seek information
2
DECLARATION OF NEAL BUTALA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
about Defendant's investigation into the vehicle fire that consumed the Subject Vehicle. A ttached
hereto as Exhibit Bis a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Second Set of Request for Admissions
6. On June 22, 2020, Defendant e-mailed its responses to Plaintiff's RFAs, but failed to
provide Code-compliant responses. Instead, in response to Plaintiff's RFAs, Defendant asserted
evasive objections that Plaintiff's requests are overly broad, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, and
burdensome or oppressive. A ttached hereto as ExhibitC is a true and correct copy of Defendant’s
responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of Request for Admissions.
7. OnJuly 10, 2020, Plaintiff began the meet and confer process by sending a letter to
Defendant specifying the deficiencies in Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff's RFAs and requesting
10 that they be corrected. A true and correct copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit
D.
11 8. On July 31, 2020 Defendant sent Plaintiff a meet and confer indicating that Defendant's
12 responses were full and complete. A true and correct copy of Defendant's meet and confer letter is
13 attached hereto as Exhibit E.
14 9. On September 4, 2020, Defendant served FCA US LLC's Amended Response to
15 Plaintiff's Request for Admissions to Defendant FCA UC LLC Set Two. A true and correct copy
16 of Defendant's amended responses is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
17
18
19
20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
21 foregoing is true and correct.
22 Executed September 11, 2020, in Woodland Hills, California.
23 BOUCHER LLP
24
25
By:
26 RAY MOND?. BOUCHER
MARIA L, WEITZ
27 NEAL BUTALA
Attomeys for Plaintiff, Jerry Michael
28
3
DECLARATION OF NEAL BUTALA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
EXHIBIT A
FCA US LLC Chronology
2014-2019 Ram 1500 Eco Diesel Engine Compartment
Submitted on October 24, 2019
On May 22, 2019, the FCA US LLC ("FCA US") Vehicle Safety and Regulatory
Compliance (“VSRC”) organization opened an investigation into engine compartment
fires in Ram 1500 3.0L Eco Diesel trucks.
e Starting May 24, 2019, and continuing throughJ une 2019, FCA US VSRC
reviewed all Ram 1500 3.0L Eco Diesel fires reported to FCA US, and determined
thata number of the fires originated in the general vicinity of the center of the
engine compartment.
e During the Month ofJ uly 2019, FCA US VSRC met with diesel engineers to
understand potential causes and competent ignition sources within the area of
origin.
e From Augustto September 2019, FCA US VSRC held weekly meetings with diesel
engineers to understand the circumstances in which fuel and oxygen interacted with a
competent ignition source, reviewed details related to failure incidents, and examined
returned parts from the field.
e On September 10, 2019, FCA US VSRC inspected a 2017 Ram 1500 3.0L diesel to
determine the origin and cause of a fire. The fire originated in the center of the engine,
between the intake manifold and the fuel rail. A hole was found in the manifold.
e Beginning on September 14, 2019, FCA US VSRC began reviewing warranty reports
and repair orders for 3.0L diesel Ram 1500 vehicles related to Exhaust Gas
Recirculation ("EGR") coolers cracking or leaking.
e On September 30, 2019, FCA US VSRC inspected a 2014 Ram 1500 3.0L diesel to
determine the origin and cause of a fire. The fire originated in the center of the engine,
between the intake manifold and the fuel rail. A hole was found in the manifold.
e On October 2, 2019, FCA US VSRC received and began analyzing multiple reports
of fires in 3.0L diesel Ram 1500 trucks from FCA Canada Inc. These reports allowed
FCA US VSRC to better understand the fire dynamics involved and to rule out
climate as a potential exacerbating factor.
e As of October 11, 2019, total EGR cooler warranty replacements is 8,909
reports at 49 Cs/1000.
e As of October 11, 2019, FCA US has identified approximately 1,289 CAIRs, and 61
field reports potentially related to EGR cooler failure.
e As of October 11, 2019, FCA US is unaware of any accidents and 4 minor injuries
potentially related to this issue.
e On October 17, 2019, FCA US determined, through the Vehicle Regulations
Committee, to conducta voluntary safety recall of the affected vehicles.
EXHIBIT B
Raymond P. Boucher, State Bar No. 115364
ray@ boucher.la
Maria L. Weitz, State Bar No. 268100
weitz@ boucher.la
Neal Butala, State Bar No. 289197
butala@ boucher.la
BOUCHER LLP
21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600
Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903
Tel: (818) 340-5400
Fax: (818) 340-5401
Steve Mikhov, Esq., State Bar No. 224676
stevem@ knightlaw.com
Amy Morse, Esq., State Bar No. 290502
amym@ knightlaw.com
KNIGHT LAW GROUP LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 2500
10 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (310) 552-2250
11 Fax: (310) 552-7973
12 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jerry Michael
13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14 COUNTY OF PLACER
15
16 JERRY A. MICHAEL, Case No. S-CV-0042129
17 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF JERRY MICHAEL’S
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO
18 Vv DEFENDANT FCA US LLC, SET TWO
19 FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Action Filed: November 14, 2018
Company; AUBURN CDJR, INC.,a Trial Date: July 20, 2020
20 Califoria Corporation, dba AUBURN
CHRY SLER DODGE JEEP RAM; and DOES
21 1 through 10, inclusive,
22 Defendants.
23
24 PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF JERRY A. MICHAEL
25 RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANT FCA US LLC
26 SET NUMBER: TWO
27
28
00165662.DOCX 1
PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT FCA US LLC, SET TWO
Pursuant
to Califomia Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.010, et seq., Plaintiff Jerry A.
Michael (“Plaintiff”) requests that Defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”) admit the truth of the
following specified matters separately and fully, in writing and under oath, within thirty (30) days
after service hereof.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
111. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was equipped with an Exhaust Gas
Recirculation (EGR) cooler.
As used herein, “SUBJECT VEHICLE” refers to the vehicle which
is the subject of this lawsuit and identified as the 2015 Dodge Ram
1500, Vehicle Identification Number 1C6RR7LM9FS710636.
10
11 112. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler may have
12 been susceptible to thermal fatigue.
13 113. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler was
14 susceptible to thermal fatigue.
15 114. Admit that thermal fatigue could cause the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas
16 Recirculation cooler to crack internally over time.
17 115. Admit that thermal fatigue caused the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas
18 Recirculation cooler to crack internally.
19 116. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler, if
20 cracked, would introduce pre-heated, vaporized coolant to the Exhaust Gas Recirculation system
21 while the engine is running.
22 117. Admit that a crack in the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler
23 introduced pre-heated, vaporized coolant to the Exhaust Gas Recirculation system while the
24 engine was running.
25 118. Admit that, in certain circumstances, the introduction of pre-heated, vaporized
26 coolant into the Exhaust Gas Recirculation system while the engine is running could potentially
27 result in combustion within the intake manifold, which may lead to a vehicle fire.
28 ///
00165662.DOCX 2
PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT FCA US LLC, SET TWO
119. Admit that the introduction of pre-heated, vaporized coolant into the SUBJECT
VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation system while the engine was running resulted in
combustion within the intake manifold and caused the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE.
As used herein, “SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE” refers to the January
2018 fire that resulted in a total loss of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
120. Admit that a vehicle fire, such as the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE, may increase the
risk of injury to occupants and persons outside the vehicle.
121. Admit that a vehicle fire, such as the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE, increases the risk
of property damage.
10 122. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler was a
11 safety risk.
12 123. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler exhibited
13 signs of thermal fatigue.
14 124. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler was
15 cracked internally.
16 125. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE originated within the intake manifold.
17 126. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE may have originated within the intake
18 manifold.
19 127. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE was, more likely than not, caused by
20 thermal fatigue and degradation of the Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler.
21 128. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE may have been caused by thermal
22 fatigue and degradation of the Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler.
23 129. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE was, more likely than not, caused by a
24 defective Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler.
25 130. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE may have been caused by a defective
26 Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler.
27 ///
28 ///
00165662.DOCX 3
PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT FCA US LLC, SET TWO
131. Admit that Y OU issued a nationwide safety recall on or about October 24, 2019,
which would have included the SUBJECT VEHICLE and would have replaced the SUBJECT
VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler with one that is not susceptible to thermal fatigue.
As used herein, “YOU” and “YOUR” refer to FCA US LLC and/or
any related entity, predecessor, parent, subsidiary and/or affiliate,
C
employee, agent, or an PERSON acting or purporting to act on
behalf of Defendant F A US LLC.
As used herein, “PERSON” includes any natural person, firm,
association, organization, partnership, business, trust, corporation, or
public entity.
132. Admit that Jerry Michael did not cause the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE.
10 133. Admit that Jerry Michael did not contribute to the cause of the SUBJECT
11 VEHICLE FIRE.
12 134. Admit that YOU engaged the services of Engineering Analysis A ssociates/Bosch
13 Automotive Service Solutions to inspect the SUBJECT VEHICLE after the fire.
14 135. Admit that YOU engage the services of Engineering Analysis A ssociates/Bosch
15 Automotive Service Solutions to conduct thousands of product investigations on YOUR behalf
16 each year.
17 136. Admit that YOU have engaged the services of Engineering Analysis
18 Associates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions to conduct thousands of product investigations on
19 YOUR behalf.
20 137. Admit that Engineering Analysis A ssociates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions
21 delivered a written report to Y OU regarding the inspection of the SUBJECT VEHICLE after the
22 fire.
23 138. Admit that YOU did not produce the findings of Engineering Analysis
24 Associates/B osch A utomotive Service Solutions in response to discovery requests in this case.
25 139. Admit that Engineering Analysis A ssociates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions
26 did not rule out the Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler as a potential cause of the SUBJECT
27 VEHICLE FIRE.
28 ///
00165662.DOCX 4
PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT FCA US LLC, SET TWO
140. Admit that Engineering Analysis A ssociates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions
informed Y OU that the Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler was a potential cause of the SUBJECT
VEHICLE FIRE.
141, Admit that Engineering Analysis A ssociates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions
did not rule out a manufacturing defect as a potential cause of the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE.
142. Admit that Engineering Analysis A ssociates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions
informed Y OU that a manufacturing defect was a potential cause of the SUBJECT VEHICLE
FIRE.
143. Admit that Engineering Analysis A ssociates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions
10 did not rule out a defective vehicle component as a potential cause of the SUBJECT VEHICLE
11 FIRE.
12 144, Admit that Engineering Analysis A ssociates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions
13 informed Y OU that a defective vehicle component was a potential cause of the SUBJECT
14 VEHICLE FIRE.
15 145. Admit that, as of February 19, 2018, YOU had information indicating that the
16 SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE was caused by a defect in the SUBJECT VEHICLE or its component
17 parts.
18 146. Admit that, as of February 19, 2018, YOU had information indicating that the
19 SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE may have been caused by a defect in the SUBJECT VEHICLE orits
20 component parts.
21 147. Admit that, as of February 19, 2018, YOU had no information suggesting the
22 SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE was caused by anything other than a defect in the SUBJECT
23 VEHICLE or its component parts.
24 148. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE was caused by a defect in the SUBJECT
25 VEHICLE’s powertrain control module.
26 149. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE may have been caused by a defect in the
27 SUBJECT VEHICLE’s powertrain control module.
28 ///
00165662.DOCX 5
PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT FCA US LLC, SET TWO
150. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE was caused by a defect in the SUBJECT
VEHICLE’s transmission valve body separator.
151. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE may have been caused by a defect in the
SUBJECT VEHICLE’s transmission valve body separator.
152. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE was caused by a defect in the SUBJECT
VEHICLE’s water pump or its component parts.
153. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE may have been caused by a defect in the
SUBJECT VEHICLE’s water pump or its component parts.
154. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE was caused by a defect in the SUBJECT
10 VEHICLE’s radio frequency hub.
11 155. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE may have been caused by a defect in the
12 SUBJECT VEHICLE’s radio frequency hub.
13 156. Admit that YOU were aware of a potential malfunction in the SUBJECT
14 VEHICLE’s radio frequency hub as early as February 2017.
15 157. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE was caused by a defect in the SUBJECT
16 VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation system.
17 158. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE may have been caused by a defect in the
18 SUBJECT VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation system.
19 159. Admit that YOU were aware of a potential malfunction in the SUBJECT
20 VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation system as early as August 2016.
21 160. Admit that Jerry Michael informed
Y OU of the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE on or
22 about February 5, 2018.
23 161. Admit that on or about February 19, 2018, YOU denied Jerry Michael’s request for
24 financial assistance related to the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE.
25 162. Admit that on or about February 6, 2018, Y OU sent an email to Engineering
26 Analysis A ssociates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
27 ///
28 ///
00165662.DOCX 6
PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT FCA US LLC, SET TWO
163. Admit that on or about February 6, 2018, Y OU sent a written request for inspection
of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to Engineering Analysis A ssociates/Bosch A utomotive Service
Solutions.
164. Admit that YOUR written communications with Engineering Analysis
Associates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE have been in
Y OUR possession, custody, or control.
165. Admit that YOU did not produce Y OUR written communications with Engineering
Analysis A ssociates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions in response to discovery in this case.
166. Admit that, as of February 19, 2018, YOU had no information suggesting the
10 SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE occurred for any reason not associated with the manufacturing
11 process.
12 DATED: May 19, 2020 BOUCHER LLP
13
14
By:
15 RAYMOND P. BOUCHER
MARIA L, WEITZ
16 NEAL BUTALA
Attomeys for Plaintiff, Jerry Michael
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
00165662.DOCX 7
PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT FCA US LLC, SET TWO
PROOF OF SERVICE
(Code of Civil Procedure § 1013a)
JERRY A. MICHAEL v. FCA US LLC, etal.
No. SCV0042129
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
ears and not a pi to the within action. My business address is 21600 Oxnard Street,
Suite 600, Woodland Hills, CA 91367-4903.
I served the foregoing documents described as:
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF FORM INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT, FCA
US LLC
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
10 TO DEFENDANT, FCA US LLC
11 PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT,
FCA US LLC
12
DECLARATION OF NEAL BUTALA REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF
13 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT, FCA US LLC
14 PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT,
FCA US LLC
15
DECLARATION OF NEAL BUTALA REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF
16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT, FCA US LLC
17 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
18 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 1010.6 and California Rule of Court 2.251, or pursuant to the Court’s order
19 authorizing electronic service, or by an agreement of the parties, I caused the document(s) to be
sent from e-mail address Butala@ boucher.la to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the
20 Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic
message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
21
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
22 foregoing is true and correct.
23 Executed on May 19, 2020, at Woodland Hills, California.
24
25
Neal Butala
26
27
28
SERVICE LIST
JERRY A. MICHAEL v. FCA US LLC, etal.
No. SCV0042129
Steve B. Mikhov, Esq. Jon D. Universal, Esq.
KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP UNIVERSAL & SHANNON, LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 2500 2240 Douglas Blvd., Suite 290
Los Angeles, CA 90067 Roseville, CA 95661
Tel.: (310) 552-2250 Tel.: (916) 780-4050
Fax: (310) 552-7973 Fax: (916) 780-9070
Email: stevem@knightlaw.com; Email: JUniversal@ uswlaw.com;
AmyM@knightlaw.com firm@ uswlaw.com; nnassirian@ uswlaw.com
mailservice@ knightlaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant, FCA US LLC.
Attorneys for Plaintiff, JERRY MICHAEL
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT C
JON D. UNIVERSAL, SBN 141255
JAMES P. MAYO, SBN 169897
NEJLA NASSIRIAN, SBN 308730
ADAM G. KHAN, SBN 296617
BRETT H. WANNER, SBN 314025
BOBBY C. WALKER, SBN 321788
UNIVERSAL & SHANNON, LLP
2240 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 290
Roseville, California 95661
Telephone: (916) 780-4050
Facsimile: (916) 780-9070
Attorneys for Defendants FCA US LLC AND AUBURN
CDJR, INC. dba AUBURN CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF PLACER
10
11 JERRY A. MICHAEL, Case No.: S-CV-0042129
12 Plaintiff, Action Filed: November 26, 2018
Trial Date: March 16, 2020
13 vs.
FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO
14 FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR
Company; AUBURN CDJR, INC. a California ADMISSIONS, SET TWO
15 Corporation, dba AUBURN CHRYSLER
DODGE JEEP RAM; and DOES | through 10,
16 inclusive,
17 Defendants.
18
19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff JERRY A. MICHAEL
20 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant FCA US LLC
21 SET NO.: TWO
22 Defendant FCA US LLC (“FCA US”) responds to Plaintiffs Second Set of Requests for
23 Admission as follows:
24 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
25 These responses are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each response is made
26 subject to all objections as to competence, materiality, relevance or other objection as to
27 admissibility that may apply in the event that any such response, or the information contained
28 therein, is sought to be used in court. FCA US expressly reserves all such objections.
1
FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO.
OBJECTION TO RE UEST NO. 111.
Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 112.
Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
10 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
11 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 113.
12 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
14 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
15 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
16 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 114.
17 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
19 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
20 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
21 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 115.
22 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
23 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
24 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
25 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
26 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 116.
27 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
28 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
2
FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO.
attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
OBJECTION TO RE UEST NO. 117.
Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 118.
Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
10 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
11 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
12 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
13 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 119.
14 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
15 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
16 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
17 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
18 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 120.
19 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
20 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
21 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
22 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
23 OBJECTION TO RE UEST NO. 121.
24 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
25 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
26 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
27 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
28
3
FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO.
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 122.
Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 123.
Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
10 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
11 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 124.
12 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
14 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
15 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
16 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 125.
17 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
19 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
20 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
21 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 126.
22 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
23 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
24 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
25 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
26 OBJECTION TO RE UEST NO. 127.
27 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
28 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
4
FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO.
attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 128.
Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 129.
10 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
11 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
12 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
13 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
14 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 130.
15 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
16 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
17 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
18 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
19 OBJECTION TO RE UEST NO. 131.
20 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
21 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
22 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
23 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
24 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 132.
25 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
26 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
27 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
28 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
5
FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO.
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 133.
Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 134.
Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
10 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
11 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 135.
12 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
14 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
15 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
16 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 136.
17 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
19 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
20 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
21 OBJECTION TO RE UEST NO. 137.
22 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
23 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
24 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
25 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
26 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 138.
27 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
28 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
6
FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO.
attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 139.
Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 140.
Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
10 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
11 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
12 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
13 OBJECTION TO RE UEST NO. 141.
14 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
15 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
16 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
17 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
18 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 142.
19 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
20 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
21 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
22 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
23 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 143.
24 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
25 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
26 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
27 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
28
7
FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO.
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 144.
Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 145.
Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
10 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
11 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 146.
12 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
14 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
15 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
16 OBJECTION TO RE UEST NO. 147.
17 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
19 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
20 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
21 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 148.
22 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
23 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
24 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
25 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
26 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 149.
27 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
28 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
8
FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO.
attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 150.
Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
OBJECTION TO RE UEST NO. 151.
Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
10 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
11 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
12 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
13 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 152.
14 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
15 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
16 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
17 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
18 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 153.
19 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
20 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
21 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
22 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
23 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 154.
24 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not
25 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the
26 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of
27 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties.
28
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of Placer Raymond P. Boucher, State Bar No. 115364 09/16/2020 ray@ boucher.la By: Laurel Sanders, Deputy Clerk Maria L. Weitz, State Bar No. 268100 weitz@ boucher.la Neal Butala, State Bar No. 289197 butala@ boucher.la BOUCHER LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903 Tel: (818) 340-5400 Fax: (818) 340-5401 Steve Mikhov, Esq., State Bar No. 224676 stevem@ knightlaw.com Amy Morse, Esgq., State Bar No. 290502 amym@ knightlaw.com KNIGHT LAW GROUP LLP 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 2500 10 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 552-2250 11 Fax: (310) 552-7973 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jerry Michael 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 COUNTY OF PLACER 15 16 JERRY A. MICHAEL, Case No. S-CV-0042129 17 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF NEAL BUTALA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN 18 Vv SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY 19 FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND Company; AUBURN CDJR, INC.,a SET OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 20 Califoria Corporation, dba AUBURN FROM DEFENDANT, AND REQUEST CHRY SLER DODGE JEEP RAM; and DOES FOR SANCTIONS 21 1 through 10, inclusive, Filed Concurrently with [REPLY ] 22 Defendants. Date: September 18, 2020 23 Time: 8:30AM Dept.: 3 24 Action Filed: November 14, 2018 25 Trial Date: October 19, 2020 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF NEAL BUTALA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS I, Neal Butala, declare as follows: 1. lam an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all of the courts of the State of California. I am an associate at the law firm of Boucher, LLP, attorneys of record for Plaintiff JERRY A. MICHAEL. I have personal knowledge of the following facts, and, if called to testify regarding those matters, I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of Request for Admissions from Defendant and Request for Sanctions. 3. Plaintiff was the unfortunate purchaser ofa 2015 Dodge Ram 1500 (the “Subject 10 Vehicle”) manufactured and warranted by Defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”). Shortly after 11 purchasing the Subject Vehicle, Plaintiff was forced to deliver it for repair numerous times for 12 recurring and unpredictable defects, including electrical and mechanical problems with the engine, 13 among other things. Defendant was unable to repair the Subject Vehicle’s defects and the Subject 14 Vehicle was ultimately consumed by a fire, despite Plaintiff's frequent repair visits. Defendant 15 failed to make a prompt offer to repurchase or replace the vehicle in accordance with the Song- 16 Beverly Act. Left with no other choice, Plaintiff filed suit for Defendant’s alleged violations of the 17 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. During the pendency of the litigation Defendant sent 18 Plaintiff recall notice 19V-757 ("Recall Notice") to repair defects with the exhaust gas 19 recirculation cooler ("EGR") in the Subject Vehicle's 3.0L EcoDiesel Engine ("Engine"). The 20 recall notice specifically states that defects with the EGR can lead to vehicle fires if not repaired. 21 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the document entitled, "FCA 22 US LLC Chronology, 2014-2019 RAM 1500 Eco Diesel Engine Compartment, Submitted on 23 October 24, 2019" which I obtained from the NHTSA website. 24 5. In preparation for trial and possible mediation, on May 19, 2020, Plaintiff propounded 25 on Defendant Plaintiff's Second Set of Request for Admissions (“Plaintiff's RFAs”). Plaintiff's 26 RFAs seek information about warranty repairs and recalls involving specific defects and 27 nonconformities as set forth in the Subject Vehicle’s own repair orders produced by Defendant 28 and Recall Notice 19V-757 sent to Plaintiff by Defendant. Plaintiffs RFAs also seek information 2 DECLARATION OF NEAL BUTALA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS about Defendant's investigation into the vehicle fire that consumed the Subject Vehicle. A ttached hereto as Exhibit Bis a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Second Set of Request for Admissions 6. On June 22, 2020, Defendant e-mailed its responses to Plaintiff's RFAs, but failed to provide Code-compliant responses. Instead, in response to Plaintiff's RFAs, Defendant asserted evasive objections that Plaintiff's requests are overly broad, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, and burdensome or oppressive. A ttached hereto as ExhibitC is a true and correct copy of Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of Request for Admissions. 7. OnJuly 10, 2020, Plaintiff began the meet and confer process by sending a letter to Defendant specifying the deficiencies in Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff's RFAs and requesting 10 that they be corrected. A true and correct copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 11 8. On July 31, 2020 Defendant sent Plaintiff a meet and confer indicating that Defendant's 12 responses were full and complete. A true and correct copy of Defendant's meet and confer letter is 13 attached hereto as Exhibit E. 14 9. On September 4, 2020, Defendant served FCA US LLC's Amended Response to 15 Plaintiff's Request for Admissions to Defendant FCA UC LLC Set Two. A true and correct copy 16 of Defendant's amended responses is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 17 18 19 20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 21 foregoing is true and correct. 22 Executed September 11, 2020, in Woodland Hills, California. 23 BOUCHER LLP 24 25 By: 26 RAY MOND?. BOUCHER MARIA L, WEITZ 27 NEAL BUTALA Attomeys for Plaintiff, Jerry Michael 28 3 DECLARATION OF NEAL BUTALA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS EXHIBIT A FCA US LLC Chronology 2014-2019 Ram 1500 Eco Diesel Engine Compartment Submitted on October 24, 2019 On May 22, 2019, the FCA US LLC ("FCA US") Vehicle Safety and Regulatory Compliance (“VSRC”) organization opened an investigation into engine compartment fires in Ram 1500 3.0L Eco Diesel trucks. e Starting May 24, 2019, and continuing throughJ une 2019, FCA US VSRC reviewed all Ram 1500 3.0L Eco Diesel fires reported to FCA US, and determined thata number of the fires originated in the general vicinity of the center of the engine compartment. e During the Month ofJ uly 2019, FCA US VSRC met with diesel engineers to understand potential causes and competent ignition sources within the area of origin. e From Augustto September 2019, FCA US VSRC held weekly meetings with diesel engineers to understand the circumstances in which fuel and oxygen interacted with a competent ignition source, reviewed details related to failure incidents, and examined returned parts from the field. e On September 10, 2019, FCA US VSRC inspected a 2017 Ram 1500 3.0L diesel to determine the origin and cause of a fire. The fire originated in the center of the engine, between the intake manifold and the fuel rail. A hole was found in the manifold. e Beginning on September 14, 2019, FCA US VSRC began reviewing warranty reports and repair orders for 3.0L diesel Ram 1500 vehicles related to Exhaust Gas Recirculation ("EGR") coolers cracking or leaking. e On September 30, 2019, FCA US VSRC inspected a 2014 Ram 1500 3.0L diesel to determine the origin and cause of a fire. The fire originated in the center of the engine, between the intake manifold and the fuel rail. A hole was found in the manifold. e On October 2, 2019, FCA US VSRC received and began analyzing multiple reports of fires in 3.0L diesel Ram 1500 trucks from FCA Canada Inc. These reports allowed FCA US VSRC to better understand the fire dynamics involved and to rule out climate as a potential exacerbating factor. e As of October 11, 2019, total EGR cooler warranty replacements is 8,909 reports at 49 Cs/1000. e As of October 11, 2019, FCA US has identified approximately 1,289 CAIRs, and 61 field reports potentially related to EGR cooler failure. e As of October 11, 2019, FCA US is unaware of any accidents and 4 minor injuries potentially related to this issue. e On October 17, 2019, FCA US determined, through the Vehicle Regulations Committee, to conducta voluntary safety recall of the affected vehicles. EXHIBIT B Raymond P. Boucher, State Bar No. 115364 ray@ boucher.la Maria L. Weitz, State Bar No. 268100 weitz@ boucher.la Neal Butala, State Bar No. 289197 butala@ boucher.la BOUCHER LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903 Tel: (818) 340-5400 Fax: (818) 340-5401 Steve Mikhov, Esq., State Bar No. 224676 stevem@ knightlaw.com Amy Morse, Esq., State Bar No. 290502 amym@ knightlaw.com KNIGHT LAW GROUP LLP 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 2500 10 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 552-2250 11 Fax: (310) 552-7973 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jerry Michael 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 COUNTY OF PLACER 15 16 JERRY A. MICHAEL, Case No. S-CV-0042129 17 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF JERRY MICHAEL’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO 18 Vv DEFENDANT FCA US LLC, SET TWO 19 FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Action Filed: November 14, 2018 Company; AUBURN CDJR, INC.,a Trial Date: July 20, 2020 20 Califoria Corporation, dba AUBURN CHRY SLER DODGE JEEP RAM; and DOES 21 1 through 10, inclusive, 22 Defendants. 23 24 PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF JERRY A. MICHAEL 25 RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANT FCA US LLC 26 SET NUMBER: TWO 27 28 00165662.DOCX 1 PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT FCA US LLC, SET TWO Pursuant to Califomia Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.010, et seq., Plaintiff Jerry A. Michael (“Plaintiff”) requests that Defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”) admit the truth of the following specified matters separately and fully, in writing and under oath, within thirty (30) days after service hereof. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS 111. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was equipped with an Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) cooler. As used herein, “SUBJECT VEHICLE” refers to the vehicle which is the subject of this lawsuit and identified as the 2015 Dodge Ram 1500, Vehicle Identification Number 1C6RR7LM9FS710636. 10 11 112. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler may have 12 been susceptible to thermal fatigue. 13 113. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler was 14 susceptible to thermal fatigue. 15 114. Admit that thermal fatigue could cause the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas 16 Recirculation cooler to crack internally over time. 17 115. Admit that thermal fatigue caused the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas 18 Recirculation cooler to crack internally. 19 116. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler, if 20 cracked, would introduce pre-heated, vaporized coolant to the Exhaust Gas Recirculation system 21 while the engine is running. 22 117. Admit that a crack in the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler 23 introduced pre-heated, vaporized coolant to the Exhaust Gas Recirculation system while the 24 engine was running. 25 118. Admit that, in certain circumstances, the introduction of pre-heated, vaporized 26 coolant into the Exhaust Gas Recirculation system while the engine is running could potentially 27 result in combustion within the intake manifold, which may lead to a vehicle fire. 28 /// 00165662.DOCX 2 PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT FCA US LLC, SET TWO 119. Admit that the introduction of pre-heated, vaporized coolant into the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation system while the engine was running resulted in combustion within the intake manifold and caused the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE. As used herein, “SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE” refers to the January 2018 fire that resulted in a total loss of the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 120. Admit that a vehicle fire, such as the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE, may increase the risk of injury to occupants and persons outside the vehicle. 121. Admit that a vehicle fire, such as the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE, increases the risk of property damage. 10 122. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler was a 11 safety risk. 12 123. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler exhibited 13 signs of thermal fatigue. 14 124. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler was 15 cracked internally. 16 125. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE originated within the intake manifold. 17 126. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE may have originated within the intake 18 manifold. 19 127. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE was, more likely than not, caused by 20 thermal fatigue and degradation of the Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler. 21 128. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE may have been caused by thermal 22 fatigue and degradation of the Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler. 23 129. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE was, more likely than not, caused by a 24 defective Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler. 25 130. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE may have been caused by a defective 26 Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler. 27 /// 28 /// 00165662.DOCX 3 PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT FCA US LLC, SET TWO 131. Admit that Y OU issued a nationwide safety recall on or about October 24, 2019, which would have included the SUBJECT VEHICLE and would have replaced the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler with one that is not susceptible to thermal fatigue. As used herein, “YOU” and “YOUR” refer to FCA US LLC and/or any related entity, predecessor, parent, subsidiary and/or affiliate, C employee, agent, or an PERSON acting or purporting to act on behalf of Defendant F A US LLC. As used herein, “PERSON” includes any natural person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business, trust, corporation, or public entity. 132. Admit that Jerry Michael did not cause the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE. 10 133. Admit that Jerry Michael did not contribute to the cause of the SUBJECT 11 VEHICLE FIRE. 12 134. Admit that YOU engaged the services of Engineering Analysis A ssociates/Bosch 13 Automotive Service Solutions to inspect the SUBJECT VEHICLE after the fire. 14 135. Admit that YOU engage the services of Engineering Analysis A ssociates/Bosch 15 Automotive Service Solutions to conduct thousands of product investigations on YOUR behalf 16 each year. 17 136. Admit that YOU have engaged the services of Engineering Analysis 18 Associates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions to conduct thousands of product investigations on 19 YOUR behalf. 20 137. Admit that Engineering Analysis A ssociates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions 21 delivered a written report to Y OU regarding the inspection of the SUBJECT VEHICLE after the 22 fire. 23 138. Admit that YOU did not produce the findings of Engineering Analysis 24 Associates/B osch A utomotive Service Solutions in response to discovery requests in this case. 25 139. Admit that Engineering Analysis A ssociates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions 26 did not rule out the Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler as a potential cause of the SUBJECT 27 VEHICLE FIRE. 28 /// 00165662.DOCX 4 PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT FCA US LLC, SET TWO 140. Admit that Engineering Analysis A ssociates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions informed Y OU that the Exhaust Gas Recirculation cooler was a potential cause of the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE. 141, Admit that Engineering Analysis A ssociates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions did not rule out a manufacturing defect as a potential cause of the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE. 142. Admit that Engineering Analysis A ssociates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions informed Y OU that a manufacturing defect was a potential cause of the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE. 143. Admit that Engineering Analysis A ssociates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions 10 did not rule out a defective vehicle component as a potential cause of the SUBJECT VEHICLE 11 FIRE. 12 144, Admit that Engineering Analysis A ssociates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions 13 informed Y OU that a defective vehicle component was a potential cause of the SUBJECT 14 VEHICLE FIRE. 15 145. Admit that, as of February 19, 2018, YOU had information indicating that the 16 SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE was caused by a defect in the SUBJECT VEHICLE or its component 17 parts. 18 146. Admit that, as of February 19, 2018, YOU had information indicating that the 19 SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE may have been caused by a defect in the SUBJECT VEHICLE orits 20 component parts. 21 147. Admit that, as of February 19, 2018, YOU had no information suggesting the 22 SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE was caused by anything other than a defect in the SUBJECT 23 VEHICLE or its component parts. 24 148. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE was caused by a defect in the SUBJECT 25 VEHICLE’s powertrain control module. 26 149. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE may have been caused by a defect in the 27 SUBJECT VEHICLE’s powertrain control module. 28 /// 00165662.DOCX 5 PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT FCA US LLC, SET TWO 150. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE was caused by a defect in the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s transmission valve body separator. 151. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE may have been caused by a defect in the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s transmission valve body separator. 152. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE was caused by a defect in the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s water pump or its component parts. 153. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE may have been caused by a defect in the SUBJECT VEHICLE’s water pump or its component parts. 154. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE was caused by a defect in the SUBJECT 10 VEHICLE’s radio frequency hub. 11 155. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE may have been caused by a defect in the 12 SUBJECT VEHICLE’s radio frequency hub. 13 156. Admit that YOU were aware of a potential malfunction in the SUBJECT 14 VEHICLE’s radio frequency hub as early as February 2017. 15 157. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE was caused by a defect in the SUBJECT 16 VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation system. 17 158. Admit that the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE may have been caused by a defect in the 18 SUBJECT VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation system. 19 159. Admit that YOU were aware of a potential malfunction in the SUBJECT 20 VEHICLE’s Exhaust Gas Recirculation system as early as August 2016. 21 160. Admit that Jerry Michael informed Y OU of the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE on or 22 about February 5, 2018. 23 161. Admit that on or about February 19, 2018, YOU denied Jerry Michael’s request for 24 financial assistance related to the SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE. 25 162. Admit that on or about February 6, 2018, Y OU sent an email to Engineering 26 Analysis A ssociates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE. 27 /// 28 /// 00165662.DOCX 6 PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT FCA US LLC, SET TWO 163. Admit that on or about February 6, 2018, Y OU sent a written request for inspection of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to Engineering Analysis A ssociates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions. 164. Admit that YOUR written communications with Engineering Analysis Associates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE have been in Y OUR possession, custody, or control. 165. Admit that YOU did not produce Y OUR written communications with Engineering Analysis A ssociates/Bosch A utomotive Service Solutions in response to discovery in this case. 166. Admit that, as of February 19, 2018, YOU had no information suggesting the 10 SUBJECT VEHICLE FIRE occurred for any reason not associated with the manufacturing 11 process. 12 DATED: May 19, 2020 BOUCHER LLP 13 14 By: 15 RAYMOND P. BOUCHER MARIA L, WEITZ 16 NEAL BUTALA Attomeys for Plaintiff, Jerry Michael 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 00165662.DOCX 7 PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT FCA US LLC, SET TWO PROOF OF SERVICE (Code of Civil Procedure § 1013a) JERRY A. MICHAEL v. FCA US LLC, etal. No. SCV0042129 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 ears and not a pi to the within action. My business address is 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600, Woodland Hills, CA 91367-4903. I served the foregoing documents described as: PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF FORM INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT, FCA US LLC PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 10 TO DEFENDANT, FCA US LLC 11 PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT, FCA US LLC 12 DECLARATION OF NEAL BUTALA REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF 13 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT, FCA US LLC 14 PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT, FCA US LLC 15 DECLARATION OF NEAL BUTALA REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF 16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT, FCA US LLC 17 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 18 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and California Rule of Court 2.251, or pursuant to the Court’s order 19 authorizing electronic service, or by an agreement of the parties, I caused the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address Butala@ boucher.la to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the 20 Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 22 foregoing is true and correct. 23 Executed on May 19, 2020, at Woodland Hills, California. 24 25 Neal Butala 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST JERRY A. MICHAEL v. FCA US LLC, etal. No. SCV0042129 Steve B. Mikhov, Esq. Jon D. Universal, Esq. KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP UNIVERSAL & SHANNON, LLP 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 2500 2240 Douglas Blvd., Suite 290 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Roseville, CA 95661 Tel.: (310) 552-2250 Tel.: (916) 780-4050 Fax: (310) 552-7973 Fax: (916) 780-9070 Email: stevem@knightlaw.com; Email: JUniversal@ uswlaw.com; AmyM@knightlaw.com firm@ uswlaw.com; nnassirian@ uswlaw.com mailservice@ knightlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant, FCA US LLC. Attorneys for Plaintiff, JERRY MICHAEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT C JON D. UNIVERSAL, SBN 141255 JAMES P. MAYO, SBN 169897 NEJLA NASSIRIAN, SBN 308730 ADAM G. KHAN, SBN 296617 BRETT H. WANNER, SBN 314025 BOBBY C. WALKER, SBN 321788 UNIVERSAL & SHANNON, LLP 2240 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 290 Roseville, California 95661 Telephone: (916) 780-4050 Facsimile: (916) 780-9070 Attorneys for Defendants FCA US LLC AND AUBURN CDJR, INC. dba AUBURN CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF PLACER 10 11 JERRY A. MICHAEL, Case No.: S-CV-0042129 12 Plaintiff, Action Filed: November 26, 2018 Trial Date: March 16, 2020 13 vs. FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO 14 FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR Company; AUBURN CDJR, INC. a California ADMISSIONS, SET TWO 15 Corporation, dba AUBURN CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM; and DOES | through 10, 16 inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff JERRY A. MICHAEL 20 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant FCA US LLC 21 SET NO.: TWO 22 Defendant FCA US LLC (“FCA US”) responds to Plaintiffs Second Set of Requests for 23 Admission as follows: 24 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 25 These responses are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each response is made 26 subject to all objections as to competence, materiality, relevance or other objection as to 27 admissibility that may apply in the event that any such response, or the information contained 28 therein, is sought to be used in court. FCA US expressly reserves all such objections. 1 FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO. OBJECTION TO RE UEST NO. 111. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 112. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 10 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 11 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 113. 12 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 14 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 15 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 16 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 114. 17 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 19 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 20 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 21 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 115. 22 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 23 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 24 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 25 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 26 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 116. 27 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 28 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 2 FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO. attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. OBJECTION TO RE UEST NO. 117. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 118. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 10 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 11 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 12 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 13 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 119. 14 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 15 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 16 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 17 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 18 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 120. 19 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 20 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 21 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 22 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 23 OBJECTION TO RE UEST NO. 121. 24 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 25 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 26 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 27 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 28 3 FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO. OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 122. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 123. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 10 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 11 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 124. 12 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 14 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 15 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 16 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 125. 17 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 19 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 20 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 21 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 126. 22 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 23 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 24 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 25 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 26 OBJECTION TO RE UEST NO. 127. 27 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 28 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 4 FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO. attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 128. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 129. 10 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 11 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 12 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 13 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 14 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 130. 15 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 16 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 17 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 18 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 19 OBJECTION TO RE UEST NO. 131. 20 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 21 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 22 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 23 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 24 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 132. 25 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 26 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 27 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 28 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 5 FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO. OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 133. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 134. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 10 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 11 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 135. 12 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 14 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 15 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 16 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 136. 17 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 19 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 20 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 21 OBJECTION TO RE UEST NO. 137. 22 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 23 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 24 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 25 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 26 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 138. 27 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 28 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 6 FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO. attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 139. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 140. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 10 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 11 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 12 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 13 OBJECTION TO RE UEST NO. 141. 14 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 15 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 16 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 17 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 18 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 142. 19 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 20 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 21 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 22 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 23 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 143. 24 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 25 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 26 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 27 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 28 7 FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO. OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 144. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 145. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 10 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 11 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 146. 12 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 14 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 15 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 16 OBJECTION TO RE UEST NO. 147. 17 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 19 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 20 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 21 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 148. 22 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 23 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 24 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 25 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 26 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 149. 27 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 28 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 8 FCA US LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET TWO. attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 150. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. OBJECTION TO RE UEST NO. 151. Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 10 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 11 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 12 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 13 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 152. 14 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 15 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 16 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 17 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 18 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 153. 19 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 20 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 21 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 22 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 23 OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 154. 24 Objection as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, irrelevant and not 25 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further objection as violating the 26 attorney-client, attorney work product and proprietary privileges. Further objection as violative of 27 the privacy interests of responding party and/or third parties. 28