Wadeea v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MASHID WADEEA, Individually and on Case No.: 24-cv-1587-H-DDL Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND Plaintiff, 13 DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S v. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 14 ORDER MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, a 15 Delaware Corporation, [Dkt. No. 95] 16 Defendant. 17

19 20 Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“MBUSA”) moves for a protective order 21 limiting the topics in Plaintiff Mashid Wadeea’s deposition notice under Federal Rule of 22 Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). The Court has considered the parties’ briefing and counsel’s 23 arguments at the September 18, 2025 motion hearing. For the reasons set forth below and 24 at the September 18 hearing, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 LEGAL STANDARDS 2 “The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from 3 annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 26(c)(1). “The burden is upon the party seeking the order to ‘show good cause’ by 5 demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the discovery.” Ribera v. NIBCO, 6 Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). 7 Rule 30(b)(6) “imposes reciprocal obligations on proponent and deponent: the 8 proponent must specify which subject matters it intends to inquire into, and the deponent 9 must take affirmative steps to learn about those topics.” Coppel v. Sea World Parks & 10 Ent., Inc., No. 21-CV-1430-RSH-DDL, 2024 WL 4472352, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 11 2024). The party noticing the deposition must describe “with reasonable particularity” the 12 matters upon which the organization will be asked to testify. Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 30(b)(6)). “For Rule 30(b)(6) to ‘effectively function, the requesting party must take care 14 to designate, with painstaking specificity, the particular subject areas that are intended to 15 be questioned, and that are relevant to the issues in dispute.’” Coppel, 2024 WL 4472352, 16 at *6 (quoting Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp., 308 F.R.D. 656, 661 (D. Or. 2015)). 17 “[C]ourts have repeatedly emphasized the practical constraints on the scope of a Rule 18 30(b)(6) deposition in that it is not feasible for a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to know the intimate 19 details of everything.” Alvarado-Herrera v. Acuity, 344 F.R.D. 103, 107 (D. Nev. 2023), 20 aff’d sub nom. Alvarado-Herrera v. Acuity A Mut. Ins. Co., No. 222CV00438CDSNJK, 21 2023 WL 5035323 (D. Nev. Aug. 4, 2023) (citation omitted); see also Apple v. Samsung 22 Elecs. Co., No. C 11-1846 LHK PSG, 2012 WL 1511901, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2012) 23 (229-topic 30(b)(6) notice “render[s] unworkable the obligation of the responding party to 24 make a conscientious, good-faith effort to designate knowledgeable persons . . . and to 25 prepare them to fully and unevasively answer questions about the designated subject 26 matter”). 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 DISCUSSION 2 Wadeea’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice contains 47 topics, 41 of which are 3 disputed. Dkt. No. 118-2. The 6 undisputed topics include the deponent’s background 4 (Topic 1), three topics that Wadeea agreed to limit as proposed by MBUSA (Topics 37, 5 38, 44) and two topics Wadeea agreed to withdraw (Topics 9, 42). Id. 6 Notwithstanding the parties’ representation that they engaged in a fulsome meet and 7 confer process regarding the deposition topics, their inability to agree on the remaining 41 8 topics (i.e., 87%) strongly suggests otherwise. And over the course of the September 18 9 hearing, it was apparent to the Court that the parties are unable or unwilling to engage with 10 each other in the constructive manner that the District’s Local Rules and the undersigned’s 11 Chambers Rules require. See Civil Local Rules 2.1 and 26.1; Chambers Rules for the 12 Honorable David D. Leshner, § III.A. The Court will address those shortcomings in a 13 separate order. 14 At the September 18 hearing, the Court provided tentative rulings with respect to all 15 41 disputed topics. An overarching issue is MBUSA’s assertion that it does not possess 16 responsive information with respect to 28 disputed topics either because the information 17 does not exist or because the information is not within its knowledge (although it has agreed 18 to produce a witness as to certain aspects of some of those topics). Dkt. No. 118-2 (Topics 19 3, 10-28, 31-35, 40, 41, 46). MBUSA correctly points out that Rule 30(b)(6) “does not 20 require one entity which is not under the control of a second entity to inquire into and 21 testify as to the knowledge of the second entity.” Luken v. Christensen Grp. Inc., No. C16- 22 5214 RBL, 2018 WL 1994121, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018). And it makes sense 23 that a Rule 30(b)(6) topic seeking nonexistent information “would be an exercise in futility 24 resulting in waste of time, effort, money, and resources.” Jones v. Hernandez, No. 16-CV- 25 1986-W(WVG), 2018 WL 539082, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018), objections overruled, 26 No. 16-CV-1986 W (WVG), 2018 WL 1981207 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2018). But neither 27 Luken nor Jones supports MBUSA’s refusal to designate a witness on the topics under the 28 circumstances presented here. 1 In Luken the plaintiff sought to compel two entities, CGI and the Christensen Trust, 2 “to answer questions that largely have to do with the inner workings of CSL,” a third entity. 3 Luken, 2018 WL 1994121, at *3. As such, the Luken court declined to “require CGI and 4 the Christensen Trust’s designees to familiarize themselves with the broad range of topics 5 contained in Luken’s 30(b)(6) notices that are unrelated to those organizations.” Id. The 6 disputed topic in Jones sought information about Border Patrol “agents’ completion of 7 various investigation reports,” but the plaintiff had “deposed various agents on their 8 practices,” and the defendants represented “that no written policies are known to exist.” 9 Jones, 2018 WL 539082, at *4. The court found a deposition on the topic of policies 10 “would be an exercise in futility” given “the depositions of individual agents, and accepting 11 Defendants’ representation that known written policies do not exist.” Id. 12 Here, unlike Luken, Wadeea’s Rule 30(b)(6) notice does not, on its face, seek to 13 require MBUSA to testify about the inner workings of another entity. Nor does the current 14 record demonstrate that Wadeea is able to depose individuals on the disputed topics as was 15 the case in Jones. For example, Topic 10 seeks, in part, “[i]nformation within the 16 possession, custody or control of [MBUSA], or its subsidiaries and agents, relating to the 17 design, development and manufacture of class vehicles.” Dkt. No. 118-2 at 9. This topic 18 is broad, and it might not otherwise withstand scrutiny given that Rule 30(b)(6) does not 19 require a responding party to prepare a witness “on every facet of the litigation.” Apple 20 Inc., 2012 WL 1511901, at *2. But MBUSA instead argues that because it “does not 21 develop, design, test, analyze, produce, or manufacture the Class Vehicles or their 22 component parts,” it does not have responsive information and “will not designate a 23 witness on that basis.” Dkt. No. 118-2 at 9. Simply because MBUSA did not design or 24 produce the Class Vehicles does not mean it necessarily lacks information on this topic. 25 Moreover, the record does not contain evidence, whether in the form of a declaration or a 26 verified discovery response, showing that MBUSA does not possess responsive 27 information or that any responsive information would be so diffuse within MBUSA as to 28 render it unduly burdensome to prepare a witness to testify. Accordingly, as stated at the 1 ||September 18 motion hearing, the Court denies MBUSA’s motion for a protective order 2 ||insofar as it seeks to preclude any inquiry on these topics in their entirety. If MBUSA 3 || determines that it does not possess responsive information or that any such information 1s 4 ||so scattered within MBUSA that it cannot reasonably collect it for a deponent to review, 5 ||then the witness may so testify under oath subject to targeted follow-up questioning by 6 || Wadeea’s counsel. 7 Exhibit A contains the parties’ chart (Dkt. No. 118-2) with the disputed Rule 8 ||30(b)(6) topics, the parties’ respective positions and the Court’s ruling on each topic. As 9 || discussed at the September 18 hearing, MBUSA shall determine its designee for each topic 10 ||as to which its motion is denied and shall be prepared to identify its designee(s) at the 11 ||September 25 status conference. The parties also shall meet and confer prior to September 12 regarding the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition logistics, including the date and location. If the 13 || parties cannot agree on the logistics, the Court will issue an appropriate order on September 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: September 22, 2025 ents i Cb! lobue 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Topic 1: The deponents’ current While MBUSA objects to Undisputed. Denied as moot. job title, duties and responsibilities, | these Topics as inappropriate reporting employees, employees to | for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition whom they report, and Curriculum | of a corporate entity, as they Vitae. are better suited for depositions of individuals under Rule 30(b)(1), MBUSA will designate a witness to testify about Topic 1. Topic 2: Mercedes-Benz USA, Corporate structure is, at most, | In addition to the issue of | Granted in part. The LLC’s corporate structure, including | minimally relevant to the MBUSA’s claimed deposition shall be limited as the divisions/departments and claims in this case (particularly | ignorance not excusing it | proposed by MBUSA but identity of employees within as document production is from its discovery with 2(a) to include divisions Defendant responsible for: (a) substantially complete) obligations as a party to | or departments responsible designing, testing, producing, (Sheikh v. Spinnaker Ins. Co., | this lawsuit (see for “servicing” Class manufacturing, servicing, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS Plaintiff’s Opp. §§ I-D., | Vehicles and 2(b) to include advertising, marketing, and selling | 121834, at*9(E.D.Cal. June | ILE.), Defendant’s divisions or departments the Class Vehicles, including the 24, 2025); see also Harris v. limitations with respect | responsible for Tires and Wheels; (b) investigating | Best Buy Stores, L.P., 2015 to subparts (b) and (c) “investigating” complaints as TIRE OR WHEEL ISSUES in Class | U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141303, at are improper because requested by Wadeea at the Vehicles, including receiving and *13 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16,2015) | "impact and road hazard | motion hearing. responding to consumer complaints, | (denying plaintiff’s request to | issues" cannot be whether made directly to Defendant | compel corporate testimony on | excluded and or in the public domain (and known | corporate structure, holding comunication with to Defendant), regarding the Tires “filing a lawsuit does not Government Agencies is or Wheels in Class Vehicles; (c) empower Plaintiff to embark relevant to MBUSA’s communicating with Authorized on a fishing expedition”)), knowledge of the defect Dealerships and Government there exists a large burden and parts replacements Agencies regarding TIRE OR when preparing a Rule coverage (see id. § ILA). WHEEL ISSUES for Class Vehicles | 30(b)(6) deponent to answer and Warranty claims or coverage for | questions about corporate replacing and/or repairing the Tires | structure, MBUSA does not

and Wheels in the Class Vehicles, design, manufacture, or service and, in particular, repairs or the Class Vehicles, and this is replacements related to issues not a recall case involving blowouts, tire and/or wheel government agencies, replacement; and (d) determining nonetheless, MBUSA agrees to whether those replacements and/or | designate a witness to testify repairs are covered under the new about: 2(a) with respect to vehicle Warranty provided with the | divisions or departments that Class Vehicles. are responsible for advertising, marketing, and selling putative Class Vehicles; 2(b) with respect to the divisions or departments that are responsible for receiving and responding to consumer complaints made to MBUSA regarding the Tires or Wheels in Class Vehicles for non- impact or road hazard issues; and 2(c) with respect to the divisions or departments that are responsible for communicating with Authorized Dealerships regarding warranty claims or coverage for replacing and/or repairing the Tires or Wheels in the Class Vehicles for non- impact or road hazard issues. Topic 3: The identity of Mercedes- | As stated in MBUSA’s Answer | MBUSA’s claimed Denied. Benz USA, LLC personnel who are | to the Complaint, the ignorance does not most familiar with the Class Responses to multiple excuse it from its

Vehicles’ Tires and Wheels interrogatories, and stamped discovery obligations as (including their design, production, | on plaintiff’s vehicle, MBUSA | a party to this lawsuit, supply, distribution, assembly, as “does not develop, design, test, | contradicts its own well as presale and post-sale analyze, produce, or representations to federal testing), attempted countermeasures | manufacture the Class Vehicles | agencies and consumers, for any issues with the Tires and or their component parts,” as and belies reality (see Wheels, and, in particular, to the alleged defect as pleaded | Plaintiff’s Opp. § ILD.: countermeasures for TIRE OR in plaintiff’s complaint, and see also id. § ILE.). WHEEL ISSUES, and a general MBUSA is not required to understanding of each identified testify about information not engineers’ job duties and known or reasonably available responsibilities. to it (See Luken v. Christensen Grp. Inc., 2018 WL 1994121, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis. Topic 4: The manner in which MBUSA’s record keeping Understanding MBUSA’s | Granted. meetings among Mercedes-Benz practices are not the subject of | recordkeeping practices USA, LLC’s executives are proper corporate representative | will not only expedite memorialized, including the form of | testimony, as this would be discovery in this case those records, who prepares them, impermissible “discovery (given past confusions and how such records are kept □□□ □ about discovery,” (Watkins v. regarding MBUSA’s stored, and records of meetings HireRight, Inc., 2013 U.S. document storage during which TIRE OR WHEEL Dist. LEXIS 189558, at *12 systems and MBUSA’s ISSUES in Class Vehicles are (S. D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)), resistance to providing discussed and where in MBUSA’s and as there are no non- further explanation), but document production information privileged meetings between is also directly relevant about such discussions is located. MBUSA executives there were | to MBUSA’s ability to memorialized in writing identify, track, and regarding the claimed tire or address vehicle issues in wheel issues in the putative the field, while

class vehicles as pleaded in MBUSA’s claims that plaintiff's complaint, “a responsive information deposition on this subject does not exist cannot be would be an exercise in futility | accepted at face value resulting in waste of time, (see Plaintiff’s Opp. § effort, money, and resources,” | ILF.; see also id. § ILD.). (Jones v. Hernandez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10930, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis. Topic 5: The private websites, MBUSA’s record keeping Understanding MBUSA’s | Denied. intranets, networks, and/or private practice are not the subject of | ability to, and actual databases and systems owned, proper corporate representative | practice of, managed, or controlled by testimony, as this would be communicating with Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC to share, | impermissible “discovery other entities related to send or receive, or communicate about discovery,” (Watkins v. Class Vehicles (i.e. information with Authorized HireRight, Inc., 2013 U.S. dealerships and parent Dealerships, Mercedes-Benz AG or | Dist. LEXIS 189558, at *12 companies) is directly Mercedes-Benz Group AG, (S. D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)), relevant to MBUSA’s including warranty-related and these topics seek ability to identify, track, information, financial or Authorized | information regardless of its and address vehicle Dealership account information, relevance to the alleged defect | issues in the field, and and/or TSBs or updates, by or putative class vehicle, and there is no reason to whatever characterization, e.g., MBUSA will not designate a believe that these myMBFS and XENTRY. witness on that basis. methods of communication vary by vehicle type or are specific to the "alleged defect" (see Plaintiff’s Opp. § ILF.).

Topic 6: The identities of MBUSA’s record keeping Understanding MBUSA’s | Granted. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC’s practice are not the subject of | efforts and approach to Information Technology (“IT”) proper corporate representative | its identification, Department’s employees, their testimony, as this would be preservation, and duties and roles in preservation and | impermissible “discovery production of documents collection efforts as to documents or | about discovery,” (Watkins v. relevant to Plaintiff’s data related to TIRE OR WHEEL HireRight, Inc., 2013 U.S. claims will improve ISSUES, including the type(s) of Dist. LEXIS 189558, at *12 discovery in this case such data/documents for which each | (S. D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)), (given past confusions employee had and/or has and these topics seek regarding MBUSA’s responsibility. information regardless of its document storage relevance to the alleged defect | systems and MBUSA’s or putative class vehicle, and _| resistance to providing MBUSA will not designate a further explanation), and witness on that basis. this Topic is specifically limited to information relevant to this case as it concerns "documents or data related to TIRE OR WHEEL ISSUES" (see Plaintiff’s Opp. § IL.F; see also id. § II.C.)). Topic 7: Mercedes-Benz USA, MBUSA’s record keeping Understanding MBUSA’s | Granted. LLC’s record creation, record practice are not the subject of | recordkeeping practices collection, record maintenance, and | proper corporate representative | will not only expedite record retention policies, practices | testimony, as this would be discovery in this case and procedures in relation to impermissible “discovery (given past confusions receipt, distribution, and the sale or | about discovery,” (Watkins v. regarding MBUSA’s

lease of Class Vehicles, including HireRight, Inc., 2013 U.S. document storage income or earnings from the sale or | Dist. LEXIS 189558, at *12 systems and MBUSA’s lease of Class Vehicles. (S. D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)), resistance to providing and these topics seek further explanation), but information regardless of its is also directly relevant relevance to the alleged defect | to MBUSA’s ability to or putative class vehicle, and identify, track, and MBUSA will not designate a address vehicle issues in witness on that basis. the field, and this Topic is specifically limited to information relevant to this case as it concerns "Class Vehicles" (see Plaintiff's Opp. § ILF.; see also id. § II.C.). Topic 8: To the extent Mercedes- MBUSA’s record keeping Understanding Granted. Benz USA, LLC is aware of any practice are not the subject of | limitations on MBUSA’s lost or missing documents, proper corporate representative | records related to this presentations, and ESI related to testimony, as this would be action is relevant to this action that were sought by impermissible “discovery MBUSA’s ability to Plaintiff’s requests for production of | about discovery,” (Watkins v. identify, track, and documents, the identity of andlast | HireRight, Inc., 2013 U.S. address vehicle issues in known location of such documents | Dist. LEXIS 189558, at *12 the field, and this Topic or ESI, and the identity of the (S. D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)), is explicitly limited to custodian(s) responsible for those and these topics seek information "related to documents or ESI. information regardless of its this action" (see relevance to the alleged defect | Plaintiff’s Opp. § IF; or putative class vehicle, and __| see also id. § ILC.). MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis.

Topic 9: Authentication of MBUSA’s record keeping Undisputed. Denied as moot. documents produced by Mercedes- | practice are not the subject of Benz USA, LLC in this litigation. proper corporate representative testimony, as this would be impermissible “discovery about discovery,” (Watkins v. HireRight, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189558, at *12 (S. D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)), and these topics seek information regardless of its relevance to the alleged defect or putative class vehicle, and this request is overly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case as it can be done through less burdensome means, such as through stipulation or a request for admission (Sheikh v. Spinnaker Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121834, at *9 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2025)), MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis, but is willing, subject to reserving all rights as to all other objections to the admission of these records into evidence, to stipulate that the documents from MBUSA produced in this

ee business records.

Topic 10: Information within the As stated in MBUSA’s Answer | MBUSA’s claimed Denied. MBUSA shall possession, custody or control of to the Complaint, the ignorance does not designate a witness who shall Mercedes- Benz USA, LLC, or its Responses to multiple excuse it from its explain why this information subsidiaries and agents, relating to: | interrogatories, and stamped discovery obligations as_| is neither known nor (i) the design, development and on plaintiff’s vehicle, MBUSA | a party to this lawsuit, reasonable available to manufacture of the Class Vehicles; | “does not develop, design, test, | contradicts its own MBUSA, including the steps (11) verifications, specifications analyze, produce, or representations to federal | taken by MBUSA to (both design and vehicle manufacture the Class Vehicles | agencies and consumers, | ascertain whether responsive specifications), installation, or their component parts,” as and belies reality (see information exists. engineering designs and drawings to the alleged defect as pleaded | Plaintiff’s Opp. § IL.D.; for the Class Vehicles; (iti) in plaintiff’s complaint, and see also id. § ILE.). modifications, changes, or revisions | MBUSA is not required to considered for Class Vehicles Tires | testify about information not and Wheels, during the design, known or reasonably available development, and manufacturing to it (See Luken v. Christensen process; and (iv) manufacturing Grp. Inc., 2018 WL 1994121, costs, purchase price, and at *3 (W_D. Wash. Apr. 27, acquisition costs of the Tires and 2018)), and MBUSA will not Wheels and any alternatives that designate a witness on that were evaluated or considered either | basis. prior to or after production of the Class Vehicles. Topic 11: Whether Mercedes-Benz | As stated in MBUSA’s Answer | MBUSA’s claimed Denied. MBUSA shall USA, LLC has communicated or to the Complaint, the ignorance does not designate a witness who shall communicates with Mercedes-Benz | Responses to multiple excuse it from its explain why this information AG or Mercedes-Benz Group AG interrogatories, and stamped discovery obligations as_ | is neither known nor about, or has access to, the on plaintiff’s vehicle, MBUSA | a party to this lawsuit, reasonable available to

following: (i) the design, “does not develop, design, test, | contradicts its own MBUSA, including the steps development and manufacture of analyze, produce, or representations to federal | taken by MBUSA to the Class Vehicles; (ii) verifications, | manufacture the Class Vehicles | agencies and consumers, | ascertain whether responsive specifications (both design and or their component parts,” as and belies reality (see information exists. vehicle specifications), installation, | to the alleged defect as pleaded | Plaintiff’s Opp. § IL-D.; engineering designs and drawings in plaintiff’s complaint, and see also id. § ILE.). for the Class Vehicles; (111) MBUSA is not required to modifications, changes, or revisions | testify about information not considered for Class Vehicles Tires | known or reasonably available and Wheels, during the design, to it (See Luken v. Christensen development, and manufacturing Grp. Inc., 2018 WL 1994121, process; and (iv) manufacturing at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, costs, purchase price, and 2018)), and MBUSA will not acquisition costs of the Tires and designate a witness on that Wheels and any alternatives that basis. were evaluated or considered either prior to or after production of the Class Vehicles. Topic 12: The identities of all As stated in MBUSA’s Answer | MBUSA’s claimed Denied. MBUSA shall manufacturers, suppliers, and to the Complaint, the ignorance does not designate a witness who shall distributors of the Tires and Wheels | Responses to multiple excuse it from its explain why this information in the Class Vehicles (e.g., Pirelli interrogatories, and stamped discovery obligations as_ | is neither known nor and Ronal). on plaintiff’s vehicle, MBUSA | a party to this lawsuit, reasonable available to “does not develop, design, test, | contradicts its own MBUSA, including the steps analyze, produce, or representations to federal | taken by MBUSA to manufacture the Class Vehicles | agencies and consumers, | ascertain whether responsive or their component parts,” as and belies reality (see information exists. to the alleged defect as pleaded | Plaintiff’s Opp. § I-D-; in plaintiff’s complaint, and see also id. § ILE.). MBUSA is not required to testify about information not

known or reasonably available to it (See Luken v. Christensen Grp. Inc., 2018 WL 1994121, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis. Topic 13: Information within the As stated in MBUSA’s Answer | MBUSA’s claimed Denied. MBUSA shall possession, custody or control of to the Complaint, the ignorance does not designate a witness who shall Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, or its Responses to multiple excuse it from its explain why this information subsidiaries and agents, relating to | interrogatories, and stamped discovery obligations as_ | is neither known nor contracts, including, but not limited | on plaintiff’s vehicle, MBUSA | a party to this lawsuit, reasonable available to to, indemnity agreements and “does not develop, design, test, | contradicts its own MBUSA, including the steps master purchase orders, related to analyze, produce, or representations to federal | taken by MBUSA to the design and testing of the Tires manufacture the Class Vehicles | agencies and consumers, | ascertain whether responsive and Wheels in Class Vehicles, or their component parts,” as and belies reality (see information exists. including the availability of data to the alleged defect as pleaded | Plaintiff’s Opp. § I-D-; showing the prices Mercedes-Benz _ | in plaintiff’s complaint, and see also id. § ILE.). USA, LLC paid to suppliers for MBUSA is not required to Tires and Wheels in Class Vehicles. | testify about information not known or reasonably available to it (See Luken v. Christensen Grp. Inc., 2018 WL 1994121, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis. Topic 14: Compliance with As stated in MBUSA’s Answer | MBUSA’s claimed Denied. MBUSA shall standards, including Mercedes-Benz | to the Complaint, the ignorance does not designate a witness who shall USA, LLC’s standards, NHTSA’s Responses to multiple excuse it from its explain why this information standards, and Mercedes-Benz interrogatories, and stamped discovery obligations as_ | is neither known nor USA, LLC suppliers’ standards as it | on plaintiff’s vehicle, MBUSA | a party to this lawsuit, reasonable available to 10

pertains to the Tires and Wheels “does not develop, design, test, | contradicts its own MBUSA, including the steps used for Class Vehicles. analyze, produce, or representations to federal | taken by MBUSA to manufacture the Class Vehicles | agencies and consumers, | ascertain whether responsive or their component parts,” as and belies reality (see information exists. to the alleged defect as pleaded | Plaintiff’s Opp. § I.D.; in plaintiff’s complaint, and see also id. § ILE.). MBUSA is not required to testify about information not known or reasonably available to it (See Luken v. Christensen Grp. Inc., 2018 WL 1994121, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis.

Topic 15: Tests, failure analyses, As stated in MBUSA’s Answer | MBUSA’s claimed Denied. MBUSA shall studies, simulations, investigations, | to the Complaint, the ignorance does not designate a witness who shall forecasting, modeling, predictive Responses to multiple excuse it from its explain why this information analyses, reports, and evaluations interrogatories, and stamped discovery obligations as_ | is neither known nor concerning Tire or Wheel failures in | on plaintiff’s vehicle, MBUSA | a party to this lawsuit, reasonable available to Class Vehicles not attributable to “does not develop, design, test, | contradicts its own MBUSA, including the steps normal wear, failure rates for the analyze, produce, or representations to federal | taken by MBUSA to Tires and Wheels in Class Vehicles, | manufacture the Class Vehicles | agencies and consumers, | ascertain whether responsive Weibull analysis, Process Failure or their component parts,” as and belies reality, while | information exists. Mode Effects Analysis (“PFMEA”), | to the alleged defect as pleaded | its carefully phrased and Design Failure Mode Effects in plaintiff’s complaint, and assertion that no Analysis (“DFMEA”). MBUSA is not required to responsive information testify about information not exists cannot be accepted known or reasonably available | at face value (see 11

to it (See Luken v. Christensen | Plaintiff’s Opp. §§ ILD., Grp. Inc., 2018 WL 1994121, | ILE.). at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018)), and as MBUSA did not conduct any such “tests, failure analyses, studies, simulations, investigations, forecasting, modeling, predicative analyses, reports, and evaluations” regarding the alleged defect in the Tires or Wheels as pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint, “a deposition on this subject would be an exercise in futility resulting in waste of time, effort, money, and resources,” (Jones v. Hernandez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10930, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis. Topic 16: The process within As stated in MBUSA’s Answer | MBUSA’s claimed Denied. MBUSA shall Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC that to the Complaint, the ignorance does not designate a witness who shall occurs when Mercedes-Benz USA, | Responses to multiple excuse it from its explain why this information LLC identifies a safety-related interrogatories, and stamped discovery obligations as_ | is neither known nor issue, such as the process for on plaintiff’s vehicle, MBUSA | a party to this lawsuit, reasonable available to distinguishing safety-related issues | “does not develop, design, test, | contradicts its own MBUSA, including the steps from issues that do not concern analyze, produce, or representations to federal | taken by MBUSA to safety, and any heightened or manufacture the Class Vehicles | agencies and consumers, | ascertain whether responsive special procedures that are triggered | or their component parts,” as and belies reality, while information exists. 12

when that safety-threshold is to the alleged defect as pleaded | its carefully phrased crossed for the Class Vehicles. This | in plaintiff’s complaint, and assertion that no topic pertains in particular to MBUSA is not required to responsive information whether Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC | testify about information not exists cannot be accepted considered or employed any special | known or reasonably available | at face value (see “safety-related” testing or reporting | to it (See Luken v. Christensen | Plaintiff’s Opp. §§ II.D., procedures in response to Tire or Grp. Inc., 2018 WL 1994121, | ILE.). Wheel failures on Class Vehicles at *3 (W_D. Wash. Apr. 27, not attributable to normal wear, e.g., | 2018)), and as MBUSA did not tire blowouts. conduct any such “tests, failure analyses, studies, simulations, investigations, forecasting, modeling, predicative analyses, reports, and evaluations” regarding the alleged defect in the Tires or Wheels as pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint, “a deposition on this subject would be an exercise in futility resulting in waste of time, effort, money, and resources,” (Jones v. Hernandez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10930, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis. Topic 17: Mercedes-Benz USA, As stated in MBUSA’s Answer | In addition to the issue of | Granted in part. The topic LLC’s discovery of or notice of the | to the Complaint, the MBUSA’s claimed shall be limited as proposed risks and incidents of premature Responses to multiple ignorance not excusing it | by MBUSA. failures with the Tires and Wheels interrogatories, and stamped from its discove 13

of Class Vehicles, including notice | on plaintiff’s vehicle, MBUSA | obligations as a party to of issues pertaining to blowouts “does not develop, design, test, | this lawsuit (see and/or rim deformation/damage, analyze, produce, or Plaintiff’s Opp. §§ ILD., which Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC manufacture the Class Vehicles | IIE.), Defendant’s received or was aware of during the | or their component parts,” as limitations on the witness design and development of the Tires | to the alleged defect as pleaded | it agrees to designate are and Wheels or thereafter, including | in plaintiff’s complaint, and improper because there is notice received through MBUSA is not required to no justification for preproduction testing, customer (or | testify about information not restricting the other Class Vehicle driver) feedback | known or reasonably available | questioning to just three or complaints, Authorized to it (See Luken v. Christensen | documents, and Dealership reports, and aggregate Grp. Inc., 2018 WL 1994121, | MBUSA’s “discovery of Warranty repair request data. at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, or notice of the risks” 2018)), nonetheless MBUSA _ | associate with the alleged agrees to designate a witness defect are not to testify about: Topic 17 with | realistically confined to a respect to the communications | single state (see id. § from California customers ILA. fn. 1). regarding alleged complaints or feedback as to the alleged defect in the putative class vehicles as pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint, as previously produced as MBUSA_WADEEA 0006529 and MBUSA_WADEEA _ 0006530, and aggregate warranty repair request data related to the alleged defect in the putative class vehicles as pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint, as 14

MBUSA WADEEA 0005864. Topic 18: Complaints (formal and | As stated in MBUSA’s In addition to the issue of | Granted in part. The topic informal), claims, inquiries, Responses and Objections to MBUSA’s claimed shall be limited as proposed reported failures or defects, and Plaintiff's Interrogatories and | ignorance not excusing it | by MBUSA. Warranty claims known to MBUSA | Requests for Production, from its discovery concerning the Tires and Wheels in | MBUSA does not have obligations as a party to Class Vehicles, including any denial | knowledge regarding the this lawsuit (see of Warranty coverage for repair or suppliers for the Tires and Plaintiff’s Opp. §§ ILD., replacement related to Tires and Wheels, and did not have any | ILE.), Defendant’s Wheels in Class Vehicles, whether communications with NHTSA, | limitations on the witness made directly to MBUSA or DOT, or any other it agrees to designate are communicated indirectly through governmental agencies that improper because there is third parties such as Authorized relate to plaintiff’s alleged no justification for Dealerships, suppliers, consumers, | defect, and MBUSA is not restricting the or made to third parties such as required to testify about questioning to to just NHTSA or online (e.g., information not known or three documents, and mbworld.org, benzforum.com, and _ | reasonably available to it (See | MBUSA’s “discovery of reddit.com) where such complaints | Laken v. Christensen Grp. Inc., | or notice of the risks” were collected and reviewed by 2018 WL 1994121, at *3 associate with the alleged Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC or its (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018)), | defect are not agents. nonetheless MBUSA agrees to | realistically confined to a designate a witness to testify single state (see id. § about: Topic 18 with respect to | ILA. fn. 1). the communications from California customers regarding alleged complaints or feedback as to the alleged defect in the putative class vehicles as pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint, as previously produced as 15

MBUSA_WADEEA 0006529 and MBUSA_WADEEA _ 0006530, and aggregate warranty repair request data related to the alleged defect in the putative class vehicles as pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint, as previously produced as MBUSA_ WADEEA 0005864. Topic 19: Audits, investigations, As stated in MBUSA’s Answer | MBUSA’s claimed Denied. MBUSA shall reports, studies or surveys to the Complaint, the ignorance does not designate a witness who shall conducted or prepared by or on Responses to multiple excuse it from its explain why this information behalf of either Mercedes-Benz interrogatories, and stamped discovery obligations as_ | is neither known nor USA, LLC, or otherwise known to | on plaintiff’s vehicle, MBUSA | a party to this lawsuit, reasonable available to Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, “does not develop, design, test, | contradicts its own MBUSA, including the steps concerning TIRE OR WHEEL analyze, produce, or representations to federal | taken by MBUSA to ISSUES related to Class Vehicles. manufacture the Class Vehicles | agencies and consumers, | ascertain whether responsive or their component parts,” as and belies reality (see information exists. to the alleged defect as pleaded | Plaintiff’s Opp. § ILD.: in plaintiff’s complaint, and see also id. § ILE.). MBUSA is not required to testify about information not known or reasonably available to it (See Luken v. Christensen Grp. Inc., 2018 WL 1994121, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis.

Topic 20: The costs to Mercedes- | MBUSA objects to the extent | In addition to the issue of | Granted in part. The topic Benz USA, LLC, Authorized this topic to the extent it MBUSA’s claimed shall be limited as proposed Dealerships, and consumers attempts to extend the scope of | ignorance not excusing it | by MBUSA. associated with repairing or discovery to information in the | from its discovery replacing Tires and Wheels in the possession, custody, or control | obligations as a party to Class Vehicles, and specifically, of individuals other than this lawsuit (see parts sales data—1.e., data regarding | MBUSA, as MBUSA 1s not Plaintiff’s Opp. §§ II.D., the number of and prices for the required to testify about ILE.), Defendant’s sales of replacement parts information not known or limitations on the witness attributable to premature Tire or reasonably available to it (See | it agrees to designate are Wheel failures. Luken v. Christensen Grp. Inc., | improper because there is 2018 WL 1994121, at *3 no justification for (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018)), | excluding MBUSA from nonetheless MBUSA agrees to | the entities whose "costs designate a witness to testify ... associated with about: Topic 20 with respect to | repairing or replacing MBUSA’s costs paid to either | Tires and Wheels in the Authorized Dealerships or Class Vehicles" are consumers associated with discussed (see id. § ILA. repairing or replacing Tires or | fn. 1). Wheels in the putative class vehicles based on the alleged defect as pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint. Topic 21: The process by which MBUSA objects to the extent | MBUSA’s claimed Denied. MBUSA shall Defendant analyzes and reviews this topic to the extent it ignorance does not designate a witness who shall results from Mercedes-Benz USA, | attempts to extend the scope of | excuse it from its explain why this information LLC’s inspections or investigations | discovery to information in the | discovery obligations as_ | is neither known nor conducted in response to reported possession, custody, or control | a party to this lawsuit, reasonable available to TIRE OR WHEEL ISSUES in Class | of individuals other than contradicts its own MBUSA, including the steps Vehicles. This topic also seeks MBUSA, as MBUSA is not representations to federal | taken by MBUSA to testimony regarding how decisions | required to testify about agencies and consumers, 17

are made to close investigations or | information not known or and belies reality, while | ascertain whether responsive to pursue further action related to reasonably available to it (See | its carefully phrased information exists. premature failures of Tire or Wheels | Luken v. Christensen Grp. Inc., | assertion that no in Class Vehicles. 2018 WL 1994121, at *3 responsive information (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018)), | exists cannot be accepted and as MBUSA did not at face value (see conduct any such “inspections | Plaintiff’s Opp. §§ II.D., or investigations” regarding ILE.). the alleged defect in the Tires and Wheels as pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint, “a deposition on this subject would be an exercise in futility resulting in waste of time, effort, money, and resources,” (Jones v. Hernandez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10930, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis. Topic 22: The identities of any MBUSA objects to the extent | MBUSA’s claimed Denied. MBUSA shall individuals or those of other entities | this topic to the extent it ignorance does not designate a witness who shall involved in the specific attempts to extend the scope of | excuse it from its explain why this information investigations or inquires into TIRE | discovery to information in the | discovery obligations as_ | is neither known nor OR WHEEL ISSUES in Class possession, custody, or control | a party to this lawsuit, reasonable available to Vehicles, excluding legal counsel of individuals other than contradicts its own MBUSA, including the steps and their staff. MBUSA, as MBUSA is not representations to federal | taken by MBUSA to required to testify about agencies and consumers, | ascertain whether responsive information not known or and belies reality, while information exists. reasonably available to it (See | its carefully phrased Luken v. Christensen Grp. Inc., | assertion that no 18

2018 WL 1994121, at *3 responsive information (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018)), | exists cannot be accepted and as MBUSA did not at face value (see conduct any such “specific Plaintiff's Opp. §§ I.D., investigations or inquiries” ILE.). regarding the alleged defect in the Tires and Wheels as pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint, “a deposition on this subject would be an exercise in futility resulting in waste of time, effort, money, and resources,” (Jones v. Hernandez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10930, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis. Topic 23: MBUSA’s relationship As stated in MBUSA’s Answer | MBUSA’s claimed Denied. MBUSA shall with suppliers of Tires and Wheels | to the Complaint, the ignorance does not designate a witness who shall in Class Vehicles, particularly Ronal | Responses to multiple excuse it from its explain why this information and Pirelli, regarding interrogatories, and stamped discovery obligations as_ | is neither known nor reimbursement repairs or on plaintiff’s vehicle, MBUSA | a party to this lawsuit, reasonable available to replacements of Tires and Wheels in | “does not develop, design, test, | contradicts its own MBUSA, including the steps Class Vehicles, including written analyze, produce, or representations to federal | taken by MBUSA to contract(s) with suppliers governing | manufacture the Class Vehicles | agencies and consumers, | ascertain whether responsive reimbursement repairs or or their component parts,” as and belies reality (see information exists. replacements of Tires and Wheels to the alleged defect as pleaded | Plaintiff’s Opp. § I-D-; involving the Class Vehicles. in plaintiff’s complaint, and as | see also id. § ILE.). stated in MBUSA’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests 19

for Production, MBUSA does not have knowledge regarding the suppliers for the Tires and Wheels, and MBUSA is not required to testify about information not known or reasonably available to it (See Luken v. Christensen Grp. Inc., 2018 WL 1994121, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis. Topic 24: Compensation by MBUSA objects to the extent | MBUSA’s claimed Denied. MBUSA shall MBUSA to Authorized Dealerships | this topic to the extent it ignorance does not designate a witness who shall for replacing Tires and Wheels in attempts to extend the scope of | excuse it from its explain why this information Class Vehicles and the manner in discovery to information in the | discovery obligations as__| is neither known nor which that compensation is possession, custody, or control | a party to this lawsuit, reasonable available to determined, including Authorized of individuals other than contradicts its own MBUSA, including the steps Dealerships’ goodwill discounts. MBUSA, as MBUSA does not | representations to federal | taken by MBUSA to issue payments to Authorized | agencies and consumers, | ascertain whether responsive Dealerships for replacing Tires | and belies reality (see information exists. and Wheels in Class Vehicles | Plaintiff’s Opp. § I.D.; for the defect as pleaded in see also id. § ILE.). plaintiff’s complaint, and therefore has no knowledge of these Topics, as MBUSA 1s not required to testify about information not known or reasonably available to it (See Luken v. Christensen Grp. Inc., 2018 WL 1994121, at *3 20

(W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis. Topic 25: Communication between | As stated in MBUSA’s MBUSA’s claimed Denied. MBUSA shall Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Responses and Objections to ignorance does not designate a witness who shall NHTSA (and any other similar Plaintiff's Interrogatories and | excuse it from its explain why this information governmental regulatory agency) Requests for Production, discovery obligations as_ | is neither known nor regarding TIRE OR WHEEL MBUSA does not have a party to this lawsuit, reasonable available to ISSUES in Class Vehicles. knowledge regarding the contradicts its own MBUSA, including the steps suppliers for the Tires and representations to federal | taken by MBUSA to Wheels, and did not have any | agencies and consumers, | ascertain whether responsive communications with NHTSA, | and belies reality (see information exists. DOT, or any other Plaintiff's Opp. § IL-D.; governmental agencies that see also id. § ILE.). relate to plaintiff’s alleged defect, and MBUSA is not required to testify about information not known or reasonably available to it (See Luken v. Christensen Grp. Inc., 2018 WL 1994121, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis. Topic 26: Communications As stated in MBUSA’s MBUSA’s claimed Denied. MBUSA shall between Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC | Responses and Objections to ignorance does not designate a witness who shall and suppliers of the Tires and Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and | excuse it from its explain why this information Wheels in Class Vehicles, Requests for Production, discovery obligations as_ | is neither known nor particularly, Ronal and Pirelli, MBUSA does not have a party to this lawsuit, reasonable available to relating to TIRE OR WHEEL knowledge regarding the contradicts its own MBUSA, including the steps 21

ISSUES, the normal or typical life | suppliers for the Tires and representations to federal | taken by MBUSA to expectancy of the Tires and Wheels | Wheels, and MBUSA is not agencies and consumers, | ascertain whether responsive in Class Vehicles, and warranty required to testify about and belies reality, while | information exists. rates regarding the Tires and Wheels | information not known or its carefully phrased in Class Vehicles. reasonably available to it (See | assertion that no Luken vy. Christensen Grp. Inc., | responsive information 2018 WL 1994121, at *3 exists cannot be accepted (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018)), | at face value (see and there are no Plaintiff’s Opp. §§ ILD., communications between ILE.). MBUSA and the suppliers regarding the alleged defect as pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint, “a deposition on this subject would be an exercise in futility resulting in waste of time, effort, money, and resources,” (Jones v. Hernandez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10930, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis. Topic 27: Specific warranty As stated in MBUSA’s Answer | MBUSA’s claimed Denied. MBUSA shall extensions, service bulletins or to the Complaint, the ignorance does not designate a witness who shall similar manufacturer Responses to multiple excuse it from its explain why this information communications written by interrogatories, and stamped discovery obligations as_ | is neither known nor Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC relating | on plaintiff’s vehicle, MBUSA | a party to this lawsuit, reasonable available to to TIRE OR WHEEL ISSUES “does not develop, design, test, | contradicts its own MBUSA, including the steps concerning the Class Vehicles. This | analyze, produce, or representations to federal | taken by MBUSA to topic also seeks testimony regarding | manufacture the Class Vehicles | agencies and consumers, | ascertain whether responsive the way in which those specific or their component parts,” as and belies reality, while information exists. 22

service bulletins or warranty to the alleged defect as pleaded | its carefully phrased extensions were developed. in plaintiff’s complaint, and assertion that no MBUSA is not required to responsive information testify about information not exists cannot be accepted known or reasonably available | at face value (see to it (See Luken v. Christensen | Plaintiff’s Opp. §§ ILD., Grp. Inc., 2018 WL 1994121, | ILE.). at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018)), and there are no warranty extensions, service bulletins, or similar manufacturer communications, “a deposition on this subject would be an exercise in futility resulting in waste of time, effort, money, and resources,” (Jones v. Hernandez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10930, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis. Topic 28: Internal communications | As stated in MBUSA’s Answer | MBUSA’s claimed Denied. MBUSA shall and analyses within Mercedes-Benz | to the Complaint, the ignorance does not designate a witness who shall USA, LLC regarding specific Responses to multiple excuse it from its explain why this information watranty extensions, service interrogatories, and stamped discovery obligations as_ | is neither known nor bulletins or similar manufacturer on plaintiff’s vehicle, MBUSA | a party to this lawsuit, reasonable available to communications written by “does not develop, design, test, | contradicts its own MBUSA, including the steps Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC relating | analyze, produce, or representations to federal | taken by MBUSA to to TIRE OR WHEEL ISSUES in manufacture the Class Vehicles | agencies and consumers, | ascertain whether responsive Class Vehicles. or their component parts,” as and belies reality, while | information exists. to the alleged defect as pleaded | its carefully phrased 23

in plaintiff’s complaint, and assertion that no MBUSA is not required to responsive information testify about information not exists cannot be accepted known or reasonably available | at face value (see to it (See Luken v. Christensen | Plaintiff’s Opp. §§ ILD., Grp. Inc., 2018 WL 1994121, | ILE.). at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018)), and there are no watranty extensions, service bulletins, or similar manufacturer communications, “a deposition on this subject would be an exercise in futility resulting in waste of time, effort, money, and resources,” (Jones v. Hernandez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10930, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis. Topic 29: Communications MBUSA objects to plaintiff's | This Topic is limited Denied. between Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC | terms “Tire or Wheel Issues,” | temporally and in scope and Mercedes-Benz Group AG “Class Vehicles,” and the lack | to Class Vehicles (2021- relating to TIRE OR WHEEL of temporal limitation as 2024 S-Class models) ISSUES in Class Vehicles, overbroad and unduly and relevant issues including warranty rates. burdensome, as they seek ("TIRE OR WHEEL information regardless of its ISSUES"), and relevance to the alleged defect | Defendant’s implicit or the putative class vehicles, | limitation is improper nonetheless MBUSA agrees to | because there is no designate a witness to testi justification for 24

about: Topic 29 with respect to | excluding relevant communications between discussions between MBUSA and MBG to the MBUSA and its parent alleged defect in the putative entity which don’t class vehicles as pleaded in conform to MBUSA’s plaintiff’s complaint. construction of the "alleged defect" (see Plaintiff’s Opp. §§ IL.C., ILA. fn. 1). Topic 30: Communications MBUSA objects to plaintiff’s | This Topic is limited Denied. between Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC | terms “Tire or Wheel Issues,” | temporally and in scope and Mercedes-Benz AG relating to | “Class Vehicles,” and the lack | to Class Vehicles (2021- TIRE OR WHEEL ISSUES in Class | of temporal limitation as 2024 S-Class models) Vehicles, including warranty rates. | overbroad and unduly and relevant issues burdensome, as they seek ("TIRE OR WHEEL information regardless of its ISSUES"), and relevance to the alleged defect | Defendant’s implicit or the putative class vehicles, | limitation is improper nonetheless MBUSA agrees to | because there is no designate a witness to testify justification for about: Topic 29 with respect to | excluding relevant communications between discussions between MBUSA and MBAG to the MBUSA and its parent alleged defect in the putative entity which don’t class vehicles as pleaded in conform to MBUSA’s plaintiff’s complaint. construction of the "alleged defect" (see Plaintiff’s Opp. §§ IL.C., ILA. fn. 1). Topic 31: The background facts As stated in MBUSA’s Answer | MBUSA’s claimed Denied. MBUSA shall and safety-related concerns, if any, | to the Complaint, the ignorance does not designate a witness who shall rise to any specific warran’ Responses to multiple excuse it from its explain why this information 25

extensions, service bulletins or interrogatories, and stamped discovery obligations as_ | is neither known nor similar manufacturer on plaintiff’s vehicle, MBUSA | a party to this lawsuit, reasonable available to communications written by “does not develop, design, test, | contradicts its own MBUSA, including the steps Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC relating | analyze, produce, or representations to federal | taken by MBUSA to to TIRE OR WHEEL ISSUES in manufacture the Class Vehicles | agencies and consumers, | ascertain whether responsive Class Vehicles. This topic seeks or their component parts,” as and belies reality, while | information exists. testimony regarding: (a) the identity | to the alleged defect as pleaded | its carefully phrased and the number of Class Vehicles in plaintiff’s complaint, and assertion that no subject to any Bulletins (b) MBUSA is not required to responsive information communications between testify about information not exists cannot be accepted Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and known or reasonably available | at face value (see consumers or Class Vehicle to it (See Luken v. Christensen | Plaintiff’s Opp. §§ ILD., owners/lessees about these Grp. Inc., 2018 WL 1994121, | ILE.). Bulletins, (c) communications at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, between Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC | 2018)), and there are no and NHTSA (or similar wattranty extensions, service governmental regulatory bodies) bulletins, or similar regarding these Bulletins, (d) manufacturer communications, communications between “a deposition on this subject Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and would be an exercise in futility Authorized Dealerships regarding resulting in waste of time, these Bulletins, (e) any proposed effort, money, and resources,” procedures or remedies set forth in | (Jones v. Hernandez, 2018 these Bulletins, and (f) any U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10930, at available data regarding the *14 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)), application of the repairs set forth in | and MBUSA will not these Bulletins, and Manufacturer designate a witness on that Communications, and whether any | basis. additional Manufacturer Communications or Manufacturer Communications expansions are being contemplated by Mercedes- 26

Benz USA, LLC relating to TIRE OR WHEEL ISSUES in Class Vehicles. Topic 32: Whether Mercedes-Benz | As stated in MBUSA’s Answer | MBUSA’s claimed Denied. USA, LLC is currently preparing to the Complaint, the ignorance does not any additional specific warranty Responses to multiple excuse it from its extensions, service bulletins or interrogatories, and stamped discovery obligations as similar manufacturer on plaintiff’s vehicle, MBUSA | a party to this lawsuit, communications written by “does not develop, design, test, | contradicts its own Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC relating | analyze, produce, or representations to federal to TIRE OR WHEEL ISSUES in manufacture the Class Vehicles | agencies and consumers, Class Vehicles. or their component parts,” as and belies reality, while to the alleged defect as pleaded | its carefully phrased in plaintiff’s complaint, and assertion that no MBUSA is not required to responsive information testify about information not exists cannot be accepted known or reasonably available | at face value (see to it (See Luken v. Christensen | Plaintiff’s Opp. §§ ILD., Grp. Inc., 2018 WL 1994121, | ILE.). at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018)), and there are no specific warranty extensions, service bulletins, or similar manufacturer communications, “a deposition on this subject would be an exercise in futility resulting in waste of time, effort, money, and resources,” (Jones v. Hernandez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10930, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)),

and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis. Topic 33: Mercedes-Benz USA, As stated in MBUSA’s Answer | MBUSA’s claimed Denied. MBUSA shall LLC’s internal communications, to the Complaint, the ignorance does not designate a witness who shall and communications with any third | Responses to multiple excuse it from its explain why this information parties including suppliers, interrogatories, and stamped discovery obligations as_ | is neither known nor Authorized Dealerships, on plaintiff’s vehicle, MBUSA | a party to this lawsuit, reasonable available to Government Agencies, and “does not develop, design, test, | contradicts its own MBUSA, including the steps consumers regarding any remedial | analyze, produce, or representations to federal | taken by MBUSA to actions taken related to premature manufacture the Class Vehicles | agencies and consumers, | ascertain whether responsive failure of Tires of Wheels in Class or their component parts,” as and belies reality, its information exists. Vehicles. to the alleged defect as pleaded | objection based on Rule in plaintiff’s complaint, and as | 407 conflates stated in MBUSA’s Responses | discoverability with to Interrogatories and Requests | admissibility, its for Production, MBUSA does _ | carefully phrased not have communications with | assertion that no the suppliers for the Tires and | responsive information Wheels and did not have any exists cannot be accepted communications with NHTSA, | at face value, and DOT, or any other MBUSA’s failure to take governmental agencies that any remedial actions is relate to plaintiff’s alleged itself relevant and defect, and MBUSA is not discoverable (see required to testify about Plaintiff’s Opp. §§ ILD., information not known or ILE., I.G.). reasonably available to it (See Luken v. Christensen Grp. Inc., 2018 WL 1994121, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018)), subsequent remedial measures 28

are not admissible evidence and not the subject of proper corporate representative deposition testimony (See Fed. R. Evid. 407; see also Klatt v. Arpaio, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198426, at *6 (D. Ariz. July 18, 2016)), and there are no remedial actions taken related to the alleged defect in the putative class vehicles as pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint, “a deposition on this subject would be an exercise in futility resulting in waste of time, effort, money, and resources,” (Jones v. Hernandez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10930, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis.

Topic 34: The implementation of || As stated in MBUSA’s Answer | MBUSA’s claimed Denied. MBUSA shall any Change Notices related to the to the Complaint, the ignorance does not designate a witness who shall Tires and Wheels in Class Vehicles, | Responses to multiple excuse it from its explain why this information including the process for developing | interrogatories, and stamped discovery obligations as_ | is neither known nor and issuing the Change Notices on plaintiff’s vehicle, MBUSA | a party to this lawsuit, reasonable available to from start to finish, and the reasons | “does not develop, design, test, | contradicts its own MBUSA, including the steps for issuing the Change Notices. analyze, produce, or representations to federal | taken by MBUSA to 29

manufacture the Class Vehicles | agencies and consumers, | ascertain whether responsive or their component parts,” as and belies reality, while | information exists. to the alleged defect as pleaded | its carefully phrased in plaintiff’s complaint, and assertion that no MBUSA is not required to responsive information testify about information not exists cannot be accepted known or reasonably available | at face value (see to it (See Luken v. Christensen | Plaintiff’s Opp. §§ ILD., Grp. Inc., 2018 WL 1994121, | ILE.). at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018)), and there are no Change Notices related to the alleged defect in the putative class vehicles as pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint, “a deposition on this subject would be an exercise in futility resulting in waste of time, effort, money, and resources,” (Jones v. Hernandez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10930, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis. Topic 35: Change Notice As stated in MBUSA’s Answer | MBUSA’s claimed Denied. MBUSA shall performance and analysis, including | to the Complaint, the ignorance does not designate a witness who shall the testing, evaluation, analysis, Responses to multiple excuse it from its explain why this information statistical (prevalence, percentage, | interrogatories, and stamped discovery obligations as_ | is neither known nor or other means of considering on plaintiff’s vehicle, MBUSA | a party to this lawsuit, reasonable available to effectiveness of this “does not develop, design, test, | contradicts its own MBUSA, including the steps countermeasure) review and analyze, produce, or representations to federal | taken by MBUSA to 30

consideration of performance and manufacture the Class Vehicles | agencies and consumers, | ascertain whether responsive effectiveness, the history and or their component parts,” as and belies reality, while | information exists. success or failure, and any other to the alleged defect as pleaded | its carefully phrased consideration, review or analysis of | in plaintiff’s complaint, and assertion that no any Change Notice related to the MBUSA is not required to responsive information Tires and Wheels in Class Vehicles. | testify about information not exists cannot be accepted known or reasonably available | at face value (see to it (See Luken v. Christensen | Plaintiff’s Opp. §§ ILD., Grp. Inc., 2018 WL 1994121, | ILE.). at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018)), and there are no Change Notices related to the alleged defect in the putative class vehicles as pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint, “‘a deposition on this subject would be an exercise in futility resulting in waste of time, effort, money, and resources,” (VJones v. Hernandez, 2018 US. Dist. LEXIS 10930, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis.

Topic 36: When MBUSA began MBUSA objects to plaintiff's | This Topic is limited Denied. advertising and marketing each terms “Tire,” “Wheels,” “Class | temporally and in scope model of the Class Vehicles in Vehicles,” and the lack of to Class Vehicles (2021- California, the targeted geographic temporal limitation as 2024 S-Class models 31

locations of such advertising and overbroad and unduly which MBUSA markets marketing, and the mediums by burdensome, as they seek in California, rendering which such advertising and information regardless of its its carefully phrased marketing campaigns are carried out | relevance to the alleged defect | assertion that no (i.e., magazine, billboard, email ads, | or the putative class vehicles, | responsive information etc.), including whether the and MBUSA’s marketing to exists unrealistic and advertisements and marketing putative class members in subject to scrutiny (see specifically refer to the Tire or California related to the Plaintiff’s Opp. §§ ILC., Wheels. putative class vehicles did not | ILE.). target the 21-inch Tires with Pirellis, as such, “a deposition on this subject would be an exercise in futility resulting in waste of time, effort, money, and resources,” (Jones v. Hernandez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10930, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis. Topic 37: The total number Class | MBUSA objects to this topic Undisputed Denied as moot. Vehicles distributed by Mercedes- on the grounds that it is neither Benz USA, LLC to Authorized proportional, narrowly Dealerships, broken down by tailored, nor calculated to lead model-year. to the production of evidence relevant to the underlying dispute, which is limited to plaintiff and a putative California class regarding the alleged defect in the putative class vehicles as pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint, and this 32

topic is better answered through interrogatories or requests for production, particularly as MBUSA has already produced documents relevant to this topic (Jones v. Hernandez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10930, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)), nonetheless MBUSA agrees to designate a witness to testify about: topic 37 with respect to the sales data for California, as previously produced as MBUSA WADEEA 0005832. Topic 38: The total number Class | MBUSA objects to this topic Undisputed Denied as moot. Vehicles for which Mercedes-Benz | on the grounds that it is neither USA, LLC received income from an | proportional, narrowly original sale of the Class Vehicles tailored, nor calculated to lead within California, broken down by | to the production of evidence model-year. relevant to the underlying dispute, which is limited to plaintiff and a putative California class regarding the alleged defect in the putative class vehicles as pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint, and this topic is better answered through interrogatories or requests for production, particularly as MBUSA has already produced documents 33

relevant to this topic (Jones v. Hernandez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10930, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)), nonetheless MBUSA agrees to designate a witness to testify about: topic 38 with respect to the sales data for California, as previously produced as MBUSA_WADEEA 0005832. Topic 39: The total number of MBUSA objects to this topic In addition to the fact Granted in part. The topic Tires and Wheels replaced in the on the grounds that it is neither | that MBUSA’s carefully | shall be limited as proposed Class Vehicles (i.e., not as originally | proportional, narrowly phrased assertion thatno | by MBUSA. equipped in new vehicles) within tailored, nor calculated to lead | responsive information the United States at a Mercedes- to the production of evidence | exists cannot be accepted Benz authorized dealership. This relevant to the underlying at face value (see request seeks testimony pertaining | dispute, which is limited to Plaintiff's Opp. §§ I.D., to the sales of parts under warranty, | plaintiff and a putative ILE.), Defendant’s goodwill, and parts sales not California class regarding the | limitations on the witness covered under warranty or alleged defect in the putative it agrees to designate are goodwill. class vehicles as pleaded in improper because there is plaintiff’s complaint, and this | no justification for topic is better answered excluding any discussion through interrogatories or of "parts sales not requests for production, covered under warranty particularly as MBUSA has or goodwill" (see id. § already produced documents ILA. fn. 1). relevant to this topic (Jones v. Hernandez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10930, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)), nonetheless MBUSA agrees to 34

designate a witness to testify about: topic 39 with respect to the warranty and goodwill data for California, as previously produced as MBUSA_WADEEA 0005864. Topic 40: Studies conducted or MBUSA objects to plaintiff's | This Topic is limited Denied. MBUSA shall paid for, by or on behalf of lack of temporal limitation as | temporally andin scope | designate a witness who shall Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (e.g., overbroad and unduly to Class Vehicles (2021- | explain why this information contingent value studies, conjoint burdensome, she seeks 2024 S-Class models) is neither known nor surveys, quantitative market information regardless of its which MBUSA markets | reasonable available to research, or price comparison relevance to the alleged defect | in California, rendering | MBUSA, including the steps analysis), for the purpose of or the putative class vehicles, | its carefully phrased taken by MBUSA to marketing any of the Class Vehicles, | and MBUSA’s marketing to assertion that no ascertain whether responsive including setting the prices of the putative class members in responsive information information exists. Class Vehicles. California related to the exists unrealistic and putative class vehicles did not | subject to scrutiny (see target the 21-inch Tires with Plaintiff’s Opp. §§ IL.C., Pirellis, and did not conduct or | ILE.). pay for any marketing studies related to the Tires and Wheels, as such, “a deposition on this subject would be an exercise in futility resulting in waste of time, effort, money, and resources,” (Jones v. Hernandez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10930, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis.

Topic 41: Information in the MBUSA objects to this topic This Topic is limited Denied. possession, custody or control of on the grounds that it is neither | temporally and in scope MBUSA pertaining to the marginal, | proportional, narrowly to Class Vehicles (2021- actual, and incremental cost of tailored, nor calculated to lead | 2024 S-Class models) manufacturing of the Class to the production of evidence | which MBUSA markets Vehicles, as well as the marginal, relevant to the underlying in California, rendering actual, and incremental cost of dispute, which is limited to its carefully phrased selling Class Vehicles through or by | plaintiff and a putative assertion that no Authorized Dealerships. California class regarding the | responsive information alleged defect in the putative exists unrealistic and class vehicles as pleaded in subject to scrutiny, and plaintiff’s complaint, and as MBUSA’s claimed stated in MBUSA’s Answer to | ignorance does not the Complaint, the Responses | excuse it from its to multiple interrogatories, and | discovery obligations as stamped on plaintiff’s vehicle, | a party to this lawsuit, MBUSA “does not develop, contradicts its own design, test, analyze, produce, | representations to federal or manufacture the Class agencies and consumers, Vehicles or their component and belies reality (see parts,” as to the alleged defect | Plaintiff’s Opp. §§ II-C.- as pleaded in plaintiff’s E.). complaint, MBUSA is not an “Authorized Dealership,” and does not sell vehicles to anyone other than “Authorized Dealerships,” and so it does not have information as to the “marginal, actual, and incremental cost of selling Class Vehicles through or by Authorized Dealerships,” and 36

MBUSA is not required to testify about information not known or reasonably available to it (See Luken v. Christensen Grp. Inc., 2018 WL 1994121, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis. Topic 42: The Class Vehicles’ MBUSA objects to this topic Undisputed. Granted. market share. as irrelevant to any issue or claim in this case and will not designate a witness on this subject. Topic 43: Authorized Dealership MBUSA objects to this topic Plaintiff cannot confirm, | Denied as moot. invoice pricing relating to Class on the grounds that it is neither | and does not concede, Vehicles. proportional, narrowly that MBUSA’s limitation tailored, nor calculated to lead | on its witness is to the production of evidence | appropriate, given that it relevant to the underlying is premised on material dispute, which is limited to not yet produced; plaintiff and a putative nevertheless, reserving California class regarding the | her rights, this Topic is alleged defect in the putative undisputed. class vehicles as pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint, nonetheless MBUSA agrees to designate a witness to testify about: topic 43 with to the sales data for California, as will be produced in response to

ise TT Production Number 101.

Topic 44: Requests known to MBUSA objects to this topic Undisputed. Granted in part. The topic Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC for on the on the grounds that it is shall be limited as proposed Warranty coverage relating the neither proportional, narrowly by MBUSA. Wheels and Tires by Authorized tailored, nor calculated to lead Dealerships or absent Class to the production of evidence members, and Mercedes-Benz relevant to the underlying USA, LLC’s response thereto, dispute, which is limited to including any policy adjustments, plaintiff and a putative warranty denials, or goodwill California class regarding the denials. alleged defect in the putative class vehicles as pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint, and this topic is better answered through interrogatories or requests for production, particularly as MBUSA has already produced documents relevant to this topic (Jones v. Hernandez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10930, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)), nonetheless MBUSA agrees to designate a witness to testify about: topic 44 with respect to the warranty and goodwill data for California, as previous]

ee MBE one] MBUSA WADEEA 0005864. Topic 45: Information identifying | MBUSA objects to this topic This Topic is limited Denied. the number of Class Vehicles that on the on the grounds that itis | temporally and in scope have had the Tires and/or Wheels neither proportional, narrowly | to Class Vehicles (2021- replaced and/or repaired by an tailored, nor calculated to lead | 2024 S-Class models), Authorized Dealership. to the production of evidence | and MBUSA does not relevant to the underlying dictate the method by dispute, which is limited to which Plaintiff conducts plaintiff and a putative discovery (see Plaintiff’s California class regarding the | Opp. § ILC.). alleged defect in the putative class vehicles as pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint, and this topic is better answered through interrogatories or requests for production, particularly as MBUSA has already produced documents relevant to this topic (Jones v. Hernandez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10930, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis. Topic 46: Information relating to As stated in MBUSA’s MBUSA’s claimed Denied. MBUSA shall any legal claim or lawsuit by Responses and Objections to ignorance does not designate a witness who shall Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC against | Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and | excuse it from its explain why this information any suppliers arising out of or Requests for Production, discovery obligations as_ | is neither known nor related to TIRE OR WHEEL MBUSA does not have a party to this lawsuit, reasonable available to ISSUES in Class Vehicles. knowledge regarding the contradicts its own MBUSA, including the steps suppliers for the Tires and representations to federal | taken by MBUSA to 39

Wheels, and MBUSA is not agencies and consumers, | ascertain whether responsive required to testify about and belies reality, while | information exists. information not known or its carefully phrased reasonably available to it (See | assertion that no Luken v. Christensen Grp. Inc., | responsive information 2018 WL 1994121, at *3 exists cannot be accepted (W.D. Wash. Apr. 27, 2018)), at face value (see and MBUSA has not filed any | Plaintiff's Opp. §§ ILD., legal claims or lawsuits against | ILE.). any suppliers arising out of or related to the alleged defect in the putative class vehicles as pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint, “a deposition on this subject would be an exercise in futility resulting in waste of time, effort, money, and resources,” (Jones v. Hernandez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10930, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)), and MBUSA will not designate a Ty Topic 47: Information and MBUSA objects to this topic To the extent MBUSA Granted. documents currently known to on the on the grounds that itis | has a factual basis for its Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC that it neither proportional, narrowly | thirty-three affirmative anticipates using to support its tailored, nor calculated to lead | defenses, it should asserted Affirmative Defenses in the | to the production of evidence | designate a witness Answer, excluding the First, Second | relevant to the underlying knowledgeable about the AO

and Thirty-Fifth Affirmative dispute, which is limited to information and Defenses. plaintiff and a putative documents supporting California class regarding the | those defenses, as this alleged defect in the putative information is within class vehicles as pleaded in MBUSA’s knowledge plaintiff’s complaint, this topic | and appropriate for is better answered through discovery (see Plaintiff’s interrogatories or requests for | Opp. § ILB.). production, particularly as MBUSA has already produced documents relevant to this topic (Jones v. Hernandez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10930, at *14 (S._D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)), this topic constitutes an impermissible catch-all topic which attempts to shift the burden of a parties’ discovery needs (United States v. Nolen, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174694, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 26, 2024)), and MBUSA will not designate a witness on that basis.

Al