Opinion
22-cv-04380-PCP (VKD)
03-12-2024
SYLVIA JACKSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TESLA, INC., Defendant.
ORDER RE MARCH 5, 2024 DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE: DKT. NO. 40
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI, United States Magistrate Judge.
The parties ask the Court to resolve a dispute concerning plaintiffs' access to certain data and other information concerning the accident at issue in this action. Dkt. No. 40. The Court held a hearing on this dispute on March 12, 2024. Dkt. No. 42.
At the hearing, the parties advised that they had agreed Tesla will produce to plaintiffs a list of the signals available for the drive cycle relevant to the accident so that plaintiffs may select any additional signals for which they would like to receive data values. Plaintiffs additionally requested that Tesla identify the signals associated with the following functions: Pedal Misapplication Mitigation (“PMM”), Automatic Emergency Braking (“AEB”), and Obstacle-Aware Acceleration (“OAA”). Tesla agreed to investigate whether such identification could be made, and if so, how much time would be required to make the identification. In view of this discussion at the hearing, the Court directs the parties to confer further regarding Tesla's production of the signals list, including a schedule for such production. The Court encourages the parties to prepare and file a stipulation memorializing their agreement.
With respect to plaintiffs' request for access to information that will permit plaintiffs and their expert to visualize and understand the data Tesla maintains regarding the accident, the Court orders as follows:
1. Tesla shall prepare and produce to plaintiffs a video or screen recording of the APViz software modeling the accident. The video need not be “exported” from the APViz tool itself; all that is required is a video or screen recording of APViz modeling the accident so that plaintiffs' counsel and expert can use it to prepare for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Tesla. Tesla must produce the video or screen recording to plaintiffs by March 20, 2024, unless the parties agree to a different date.
2. Tesla must make a corporate designee available to testify regarding the topics listed in plaintiffs' Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. Additionally, the Court adopts Tesla's suggestion that such designee will “take counsel through the [APViz] program for the Jackson incident” and will facilitate “screen recording, screen grabs, and video recording” upon plaintiffs' counsel's request during the deposition. See Dkt. No. 40 at 9. Only counsel may pose questions to the Rule 30(b)(6) designee. Tesla must make its corporate designee available for deposition no later than April 16, 2024, unless the parties agree otherwise and obtain relief from the current fact discovery deadline.
3. The Court will not require Tesla to provide plaintiffs with remote access to APViz at this time.
Tesla produced screenshots from the APViz software model, but asserts that “exporting and saving the video within APViz is impossible.” Dkt. No. 40 at 8.
The parties did not brief any specific disagreements about the noticed topics in their joint discovery dispute letter.
The parties shall file a status report regarding the status of this dispute and their compliance with the Court's directions above by March 22, 2024.
IT IS SO ORDERED.