Free Affidavit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 Marshall Meyers (020584)
Jack Gunn ( 21110})
2 Krohn & Moss, LT
111 W. Monroe, Suite 711
3 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
4 (602) 275-5588
5
6
7
S
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i
10 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA I
H LANE SENNETT, ) Case No., CV 04-0l6l PHX ROS
12 ) SPECIAL AFFIDAVIT OF JACK
I3 Plaintiff; ) GUNN PROFFERED FOR THE
) EXCLUSIVE PURPOSE OF
14 vs., ) COMPLYING WITH THE COUR'I"S
15 ) ORDER OF JULY 8, 2005 I
FLEETWOOD MOTOR HOMES OF)
I6 CALIFORNIA INC AND) g
WORKHORSE CUSTOM CHASSIS,)
iv ;
LLC ) E
18 ) E
Defendant. f
19 ,
20
21 NOW COMES the Affiant, being fir st duly sworn and under oath, and hereby
22 attests to the following: ..
23 11. I am over eighteen years of age and competent to testify in a court of J
24 Q
25 law ifcalled to do sor.
26 2.1 I am one of` the attorneys for the Plaintiff and I make this Affidavit
27 pursuant to the Court’s Order., The Court Ordered my Affidavit based
28 g
on representations made by Fleetwood and its counsel regarding a pre-
1
Case 2:04—cv—00161—ROS Document 128 Filed 08/26/2005 Paget of4

1 deposition conversation prompted by Fleetwood’s defiance of` a
2 subpoena/request for production to the deponent.
2
4 3. My experience litigating cases such as these reveals it is industry
5 standard for Motor Home manufactures to have lemon law training and
6 awareness. I base this particular assumption on the facts described
7
S below.
9 4. In litigating cases such as these, I have seen lemon iaw training from
10 Damon (attached hereto as Exhibit A), Coachmen (attached hereto as
1; Exhibit B), Monaco (attached hereto as Exhibit C), Winnebago
13 (attached hereto as Exhibit D), and Workhorse (this is provided under
14 protective order in this case and can be provided to the Court upon
is
16 request).
ity 5. This training contains statements that can be used against
lg manufacturers and as such the training has often been heavily protected
li by the manufacturers from discovery.
I 21 6. For instance, Defendant Workhorse claimed repeatedly that it did not
22 have any Eemon law training in this case and my law firm received the
ii training in another lawsuit showing that Workhorse did in fact have
25 lemon law training which has now been provided under protective
26 order.
27 7. F1eetwood’s in its r·esponses to discovery in this case indicate that it Z
28 (
performs lemon law training, just not in written form, which based on i
{[4 above, would make them different f`rom the rest ofthe industry. .
2 :
ase 2:04—cv—00161—FlOS Document 128 Filed 08/26/2005 Page 2 of 4 Q

I S. In fact, after the conference with the Court, I personally deposed Frank
2 lacks (in relation to Kemper v Coachmen, ND. Ill. No. 03C 9392), who
2
4 is an ex-employee of'Fleetwood.
5 9. Frank lacks testified that Fleetwood had written lemon law training
6 during his employment there. Specifically, Jacks’ testified “lemon law
7
S training" was industry standard, was generally found in policy and
9 procedures manuals, and that Iacks’ wrote the Fleetwood policy and
10 procedures manual. See pages 35-36, 40-42 attached hereto as Exhibit
ll
12 “E"”
13 10. Furthermore, I am a member of a listserv of consumer protection
14 attorneys and recently in another deposition Frank lacks testified that
3; RVIA (Recreational Vehicle Industries Association), which upon
17 information and belief, Fleetwood is a member of, has distributed to the
IS recreational vehicle manufactures a four (4) volume set of lemon law
Lg guidance manuals. See email attached hereto as Exhibit "F..”
21 1 1. Based upon all ofthe above I believe my prior assertion that Fleetwood
22 has written lemon law training is likely. My assumption it came from
23 Fleetwood’s TIME program was based on the correspondence attached
24
25 her·eto as Exhibit "G." It seems as though this assumption is wrong as
26 counsel for Fleetwood has personally averred to this Court Fleetwood’s
27 TIME program does not contain lemon law training, and I have no
28 .
basis to doubt that averment. Had counsel for Fleetwood not provided
ase 2:04—cv—00161—FIOS Document 128 Filed 08/26/2005 Page 3 of 4

1 me the correspondence attached hereto as Exhibit "G" I would not have
2
assumed Fleetwood’s TIME program contained lemon law tr aining.,
2
4 12.1 I have not, and do not, intend to testify in this case as to these matters
5 or any other matters despite Fleetwood’s representations to the
6
contrary. Rather, I intend to examine any witness offered by Fleetwood
A1
8 on this subject and inquire accordingly, without reference to any
9 particular credentials or experience I may have, like any other lawyer
10 . . .
doing hrs job would.
ll
12 FURTHER AFFIANI SAYETH NAU GHI 1
is
M / xw}
15 ck Gunn
16 ___
111 [C tw {Q I ___,
18 Sworn and subscribed to this ( = day of Q 2 / , 20051.
19 "Â¥ I E
20 I .'
21 2 'lii 6
i i elk - if Ewan 2
9 J I Q l r-E"i:?Ei€'-Aliiigfig
22 ‘ l" W'} hi .. 2 liét sg ,
N 0 é ` { b 1 C = / EE. iiitég -
23 ·_ J ` ;
24
25
26 i
27 I
28
4
Case 2:04-cv—00161-ROS Document 128 Filed 08/26/2005 Page 4 of 4 ’

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 128

Filed 08/26/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 128

Filed 08/26/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 128

Filed 08/26/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 128

Filed 08/26/2005

Page 4 of 4