Preview
BUR L 000638-18 01/19/2021 Pg 1 of5 Trans ID: LCV2021185179
BURLINGTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
J AN 19 2021
EDITED BY THE COURT James J. Ferrelli, J.S.C.
JEFFREY BELLO SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Plaintiff LAW DIVISION
BURLINGTON COUNTY
Vs. Docket No.: L-638-18
CADILLAC, a division of GENERAL
MOTORS COMPANY, et al., GENERAL
MOTORS HOLDINGS, LLC, GENERAL
MOTORS, LLC, HOLMAN CADILLAC,
a division of HOLMAN AUTOMOTIVE,
INC., ESIS, INC. a wholly owned
Subsidiary of THE CHUBB CORPORATION Civil Action.
KERBECK CADILLAC, INC., GENERAL
MOTORS FINANCIAL COMPANY,
a wholly owned Subsidiary of
GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY
AIRSEPT, INC., PRODUCT DEFENSE
INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, LLC; MARY
T. BARRA, DANIEL E. BERCE, MELINDA
K. HOLMAN, MICHAEL SCHWAB, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
STEVEN MADDERN, CHRIS C. ROFFEY, MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
JOSHUA PREISTER, TAMMY WARD,
JOHN NEVITT, PATRICK RONALD
BURLEY , JOHN/JANE DOES #1-10
and/or ABC CORPORATIONS #1-10
Fictitious Corporations and/or Commercial
Entities, j/s/a
THESE MATTERS being brought before the Court by Jeffrey Bello, Pro Se Plaintiff, on a
Motion to Compel and a Motion to Recuse Judge Smith, and the Court having carefully considered the
written submissions of the parties, and having heard oral argument on January 14, 2021 in the presence of
Plaintiff Jeffrey Bello, appearing Pro Se on his own behalf, Monica Marisco, Esq., attorney for
Defendants GM LLC, ESIS, Holman Cadillac, and Kerbeck Cadillac, Anne Dalena, Esq., attorney for
Airsept Inc., and Greyson VanDyke, Esq., attorney for GM Financial, and for the reasons stated on the
record and good cause shown;
IT IS, on this 19" day of January 2021,
BUR L 000638-18 01/19/2021 Pg 2 of5 Trans ID: LCV2021185179
ORDERED that Plaintiff Bello’s Motion to Recuse Judge Smith is hereby DENIED as moot, as
Judge Smith has since retired; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, with regard to Plaintiff Bello’s Motion to Compel, as follows:
1) Defendants GM LLC and ESIS shall produce Mr. McMath’s last known address and
telephone number, if they have it, by February 1, 2021. If Defendants do not have access
to such information, each Defendant shall produce by that date a certification by a person
with knowledge that the company has performed a thorough search for Mr. McMath’s
last known address, and providing the specific details of the search undertaken, as
explained and for the reasons stated on the record; and
2) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the production of the “Early Technical Assessment” Report
prepared for Defendant ESIS by GM Manageris hereby DENIED, as this report
constitutes work product, as explained and for the reasons stated on the record; and
3) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel more specific answers to interrogatories is hereby
GRANTED, with the relief on this motion as set forth in paragraphs 4(a) through (i)
below. The Court finds on the record presently before the Court that on its face, Joshua
Preister’s deposition testimony concerning his knowledge of cases involving “similar”
complaints to Plaintiff's complaint in this matter suggests that Defendant General
Motors’ discovery responses regarding other claims “similar” to Plaintiff's allegations in
this case may be incomplete or inaccurate. Accordingly, in order to clarify this issue, it is
appropriate to order further deposition questioning of Mr. Preister as set forth herein.
4) Defendants shall produce ESIS Team Leader Joshua Preister for a continued deposition
on or before February 19, 2021, on a date to be mutually arranged among Plaintiff and
counsel. This deposition shall proceed as follows:
a. Plaintiff may ask Mr. Preister for clarification, details and further explanation
regarding the following testimony in his May 20, 2020 deposition: (1) that Mr.
BUR L 000638-18 01/19/2021 Pg 3 of5 Trans ID: LCV2021185179
Preister recalled cases between 2015 and 2020 with “similar” complaints to
Plaintiff Bello’s complaint “that when he [Mr. Bello] turned the air conditioner
on, a chemical odor was being emitted from the HVAC system,” ie. “cases
where people have complained that they turn on the HVAC and that they detect
an unusual odor,” cases “involv[ing] some type of bodily injury,” and (2) that
Mr. Preister has “definitely seen at least . . . in General Motors specifically, at
least 30 different cases involving some type of chemical exposure,” all of which
“had some sort of medical involvement.” (Preister Dep. at 10-11, 50). Plaintiff
may ask Mr. Preister specifically about details concerning these types of claims
and/or cases, including but not limited to the identity of the parties involved,
dates of the claims and alleged incidents, vehicles and specific component parts
involved, chemicals/substances and/or alleged chemicals/substances involved in
each case, whether the claims and/or cases resulted in and/or involved litigation,
and the extent to which there are documents relating to each of these claims
and/or cases.
Plaintiff may also ask Mr. Preister questions to determine whether any of the
claims and/or cases referenced in subpart (a) above fall within or outside the
description of lawsuits and not-in-suit matters for which Defendants GM and
ESIS searched in response to Plaintiff's Form C(4) Interrogatories, Question 10:
those “involving claims of personal injury as a result of exposure to chemical
odors of residual Cooling Coil Coating part number 1234691 (Airsept Product)
after the performance of TSB 99-01-39-004H conducted in a model year 2016 or
earlier GM Passenger Car or Truck (excluding 2013-2016 Cadillac ATS and
2014-2016 Cadillac CTS [VIN A]) equipped with air conditioning.”
BUR L 000638-18 01/19/2021 Pg 4 of 5 Trans ID: LCV2021185179
During this deposition, Mr. Preister shall bring to the deposition and shall use his
General Motors supplied laptop so that he may “access the General Motors files
on the General Motors system” in order to provide specific information regarding
the claims and/or cases referenced in subpart (a) above in response to Plaintiff's
questions regarding the number and details of such other claims that are similar
to the claims in this matter. (Preister Dep. at 60-61).
Plaintiff may also ask Mr. Preister about any oral or written communications
regarding Plaintiff's claims or Mr. Priester’s preparation for the deposition that
Mr. Preister has had with any representatives of or counsel for any of the other
Defendants in this matter aside from his employer, Defendant ESIS. To the
extent that Plaintiff seeks privileged or attomey work product communications,
an appropriate objection and/or instruction to not answer the question may be
asserted by the interested Defendant or Defendants, and an appropriate Motion
for Protective Order may be filed following the completion of the deposition.
This Order is without waiver of any appropriate objections and does not
constitute a determination that any information obtained in Mr. Preister’s
deposition will be admissible at trial.
Based on the testimony elicited in the continued deposition of Mr. Preister,
Plaintiff may make an application to this Court if he believes further discovery or
more specific discovery responses from Defendants should be ordered based on
the additional testimony from Mr. Preister.
In order to protect the Defendants from the possibility of inappropriate disclosure
to the public or third parties of confidential information that would properly be
subject to a Protective Order, pending further Order of the Court, Mr. Preister’s
testimony in his resumed deposition shall be subject to a temporary Protective
Order pending further Court Order, in order to afford Defendants an opportunity
4
BUR L 000638-18 01/19/2021 Pg 5 of5 Trans ID: LCV2021185179
to file a motion for Protective Order prior to the disclosure of the information
from the deposition to third parties. Neither Plaintiff nor any other party or
counsel shall publish or disclose the testimony or its substance to anyone not a
party in this litigation (including publication or disclosure via the internet or
other electronic means). Within ten (10) days of receiving the transcript of the
resumed Preister deposition, any interested party may designate those portions it
deems confidential and either submit a Consent Order or file a Motion for
Protective Order with the Court. Pending a determination of such Motion for
Protective Order, the parties shall remain prohibited from publishing and/or
disclosing the testimony or its substance to anyone not a party to this litigation.
In the event no Consent Order or Motion for Protective Order is filed within ten
(10) days of receipt of this transcript, Plaintiff may advise the Court by letter
filed on eCourts (not to exceed 3 pages) and the Court may thereafter enter an
Order vacating the non-disclosure provisions of this subparagraph g.
This deposition of Mr. Preister shall be completed on or before Friday, February
19, 2021.
Mr. Preister’s deposition shall be completed virtually, to be arraigned by
Plaintiff Bello. If Mr. Bello desires to take this deposition in person, he may
make arrangements to do so, but the deposition shall be taken in the location
where the witness is located, at Mr. Bello’s option and expense.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order be served on all parties within seven (7)
days of this Order being posted on eCourts.
LF Feusk
tf CALLE ____
HONO. |. FERRELLI, J.S.C
(X) Opposed
( ) Unopposed
Preview
BUR L 000638-18 01/19/2021 Pg 1 of5 Trans ID: LCV2021185179 BURLINGTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT J AN 19 2021 EDITED BY THE COURT James J. Ferrelli, J.S.C. JEFFREY BELLO SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY Plaintiff LAW DIVISION BURLINGTON COUNTY Vs. Docket No.: L-638-18 CADILLAC, a division of GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, et al., GENERAL MOTORS HOLDINGS, LLC, GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, HOLMAN CADILLAC, a division of HOLMAN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., ESIS, INC. a wholly owned Subsidiary of THE CHUBB CORPORATION Civil Action. KERBECK CADILLAC, INC., GENERAL MOTORS FINANCIAL COMPANY, a wholly owned Subsidiary of GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY AIRSEPT, INC., PRODUCT DEFENSE INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, LLC; MARY T. BARRA, DANIEL E. BERCE, MELINDA K. HOLMAN, MICHAEL SCHWAB, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S STEVEN MADDERN, CHRIS C. ROFFEY, MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY JOSHUA PREISTER, TAMMY WARD, JOHN NEVITT, PATRICK RONALD BURLEY , JOHN/JANE DOES #1-10 and/or ABC CORPORATIONS #1-10 Fictitious Corporations and/or Commercial Entities, j/s/a THESE MATTERS being brought before the Court by Jeffrey Bello, Pro Se Plaintiff, on a Motion to Compel and a Motion to Recuse Judge Smith, and the Court having carefully considered the written submissions of the parties, and having heard oral argument on January 14, 2021 in the presence of Plaintiff Jeffrey Bello, appearing Pro Se on his own behalf, Monica Marisco, Esq., attorney for Defendants GM LLC, ESIS, Holman Cadillac, and Kerbeck Cadillac, Anne Dalena, Esq., attorney for Airsept Inc., and Greyson VanDyke, Esq., attorney for GM Financial, and for the reasons stated on the record and good cause shown; IT IS, on this 19" day of January 2021, BUR L 000638-18 01/19/2021 Pg 2 of5 Trans ID: LCV2021185179 ORDERED that Plaintiff Bello’s Motion to Recuse Judge Smith is hereby DENIED as moot, as Judge Smith has since retired; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, with regard to Plaintiff Bello’s Motion to Compel, as follows: 1) Defendants GM LLC and ESIS shall produce Mr. McMath’s last known address and telephone number, if they have it, by February 1, 2021. If Defendants do not have access to such information, each Defendant shall produce by that date a certification by a person with knowledge that the company has performed a thorough search for Mr. McMath’s last known address, and providing the specific details of the search undertaken, as explained and for the reasons stated on the record; and 2) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the production of the “Early Technical Assessment” Report prepared for Defendant ESIS by GM Manageris hereby DENIED, as this report constitutes work product, as explained and for the reasons stated on the record; and 3) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel more specific answers to interrogatories is hereby GRANTED, with the relief on this motion as set forth in paragraphs 4(a) through (i) below. The Court finds on the record presently before the Court that on its face, Joshua Preister’s deposition testimony concerning his knowledge of cases involving “similar” complaints to Plaintiff's complaint in this matter suggests that Defendant General Motors’ discovery responses regarding other claims “similar” to Plaintiff's allegations in this case may be incomplete or inaccurate. Accordingly, in order to clarify this issue, it is appropriate to order further deposition questioning of Mr. Preister as set forth herein. 4) Defendants shall produce ESIS Team Leader Joshua Preister for a continued deposition on or before February 19, 2021, on a date to be mutually arranged among Plaintiff and counsel. This deposition shall proceed as follows: a. Plaintiff may ask Mr. Preister for clarification, details and further explanation regarding the following testimony in his May 20, 2020 deposition: (1) that Mr. BUR L 000638-18 01/19/2021 Pg 3 of5 Trans ID: LCV2021185179 Preister recalled cases between 2015 and 2020 with “similar” complaints to Plaintiff Bello’s complaint “that when he [Mr. Bello] turned the air conditioner on, a chemical odor was being emitted from the HVAC system,” ie. “cases where people have complained that they turn on the HVAC and that they detect an unusual odor,” cases “involv[ing] some type of bodily injury,” and (2) that Mr. Preister has “definitely seen at least . . . in General Motors specifically, at least 30 different cases involving some type of chemical exposure,” all of which “had some sort of medical involvement.” (Preister Dep. at 10-11, 50). Plaintiff may ask Mr. Preister specifically about details concerning these types of claims and/or cases, including but not limited to the identity of the parties involved, dates of the claims and alleged incidents, vehicles and specific component parts involved, chemicals/substances and/or alleged chemicals/substances involved in each case, whether the claims and/or cases resulted in and/or involved litigation, and the extent to which there are documents relating to each of these claims and/or cases. Plaintiff may also ask Mr. Preister questions to determine whether any of the claims and/or cases referenced in subpart (a) above fall within or outside the description of lawsuits and not-in-suit matters for which Defendants GM and ESIS searched in response to Plaintiff's Form C(4) Interrogatories, Question 10: those “involving claims of personal injury as a result of exposure to chemical odors of residual Cooling Coil Coating part number 1234691 (Airsept Product) after the performance of TSB 99-01-39-004H conducted in a model year 2016 or earlier GM Passenger Car or Truck (excluding 2013-2016 Cadillac ATS and 2014-2016 Cadillac CTS [VIN A]) equipped with air conditioning.” BUR L 000638-18 01/19/2021 Pg 4 of 5 Trans ID: LCV2021185179 During this deposition, Mr. Preister shall bring to the deposition and shall use his General Motors supplied laptop so that he may “access the General Motors files on the General Motors system” in order to provide specific information regarding the claims and/or cases referenced in subpart (a) above in response to Plaintiff's questions regarding the number and details of such other claims that are similar to the claims in this matter. (Preister Dep. at 60-61). Plaintiff may also ask Mr. Preister about any oral or written communications regarding Plaintiff's claims or Mr. Priester’s preparation for the deposition that Mr. Preister has had with any representatives of or counsel for any of the other Defendants in this matter aside from his employer, Defendant ESIS. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks privileged or attomey work product communications, an appropriate objection and/or instruction to not answer the question may be asserted by the interested Defendant or Defendants, and an appropriate Motion for Protective Order may be filed following the completion of the deposition. This Order is without waiver of any appropriate objections and does not constitute a determination that any information obtained in Mr. Preister’s deposition will be admissible at trial. Based on the testimony elicited in the continued deposition of Mr. Preister, Plaintiff may make an application to this Court if he believes further discovery or more specific discovery responses from Defendants should be ordered based on the additional testimony from Mr. Preister. In order to protect the Defendants from the possibility of inappropriate disclosure to the public or third parties of confidential information that would properly be subject to a Protective Order, pending further Order of the Court, Mr. Preister’s testimony in his resumed deposition shall be subject to a temporary Protective Order pending further Court Order, in order to afford Defendants an opportunity 4 BUR L 000638-18 01/19/2021 Pg 5 of5 Trans ID: LCV2021185179 to file a motion for Protective Order prior to the disclosure of the information from the deposition to third parties. Neither Plaintiff nor any other party or counsel shall publish or disclose the testimony or its substance to anyone not a party in this litigation (including publication or disclosure via the internet or other electronic means). Within ten (10) days of receiving the transcript of the resumed Preister deposition, any interested party may designate those portions it deems confidential and either submit a Consent Order or file a Motion for Protective Order with the Court. Pending a determination of such Motion for Protective Order, the parties shall remain prohibited from publishing and/or disclosing the testimony or its substance to anyone not a party to this litigation. In the event no Consent Order or Motion for Protective Order is filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this transcript, Plaintiff may advise the Court by letter filed on eCourts (not to exceed 3 pages) and the Court may thereafter enter an Order vacating the non-disclosure provisions of this subparagraph g. This deposition of Mr. Preister shall be completed on or before Friday, February 19, 2021. Mr. Preister’s deposition shall be completed virtually, to be arraigned by Plaintiff Bello. If Mr. Bello desires to take this deposition in person, he may make arrangements to do so, but the deposition shall be taken in the location where the witness is located, at Mr. Bello’s option and expense. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order be served on all parties within seven (7) days of this Order being posted on eCourts. LF Feusk tf CALLE ____ HONO. |. FERRELLI, J.S.C (X) Opposed ( ) Unopposed