On September 21, 2020 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Brussard, James,
and
Does 1 Through 20,
General Motors, Llca Delaware Limited Liability Company,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
Mary Arens McBride, (SBN 282459)
Esq. ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Autc >)
Yohannes Moore, Esq. (SBN 330561) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFC >RNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIN o
Xylon Quezada, Esq. (SBN 324802)
10/1 6/2023 10:46 PM
ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC
1592 N. Batavia St., Suite 1A
Orange, CA 92867
Tel: (949) 777-6032
Fax: (714) 844-9035
Email: marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com
Email: ymoore@erskinelaw.com
Email: xquezada@erskinelaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant,
GENERAL MOTORS LLC
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
12
13 JAMES BRUSSARD, an individual, CASE NO.: CIVDSZOI9921
14
Plaintiff, ASSIGNED T0:
15 Honorable Jeffrey R. Erickson
vs. Department SI 4
16
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware Date Filed: September 21, 2020
17 Limited Liability Company; and DOES Trial Date: October 23, 2023
1 through 20, inclusive,
18
19 Defendants. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
20 AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO
21
PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF
22
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS NEVER
IDENTIFIED IN DISCOVERY BY
23 DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC
24 [Filed concurrently with Declaration 0f Yohannes
Moore]
25
26
27
28
Page 1 0f 7
DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS
NEVER IDENTIFIED IN DISCOVERY BY DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC
Plaintiffs motion in limine seeks t0 prohibit a nebulous universe 0f witnesses and documents
allegedly never identified during discovery by General Motors LLC (“GM”), claiming that he will suffer
prejudice absent exclusion. Plaintiffs Motion should be denied.
I. INTRODUCTION
The record is clear that GM has not been “evasive” during discovery; t0 the contrary, GM’s
responses have been appropriate and code-complaint. Plaintiff” s Motion lacks merit and therefore should
be denied for several reasons.
First, Plaintiffs Motion is improper as it contains vague and overly broad references t0 the
evidence and witnesses it seeks t0 exclude, making it impossible for GM 0r this Court t0 discern the
10 boundaries 0f the evidence Plaintiff seeks t0 exclude. As such, Plaintiffs Motion must be denied t0 the
11 extent it seeks relief beyond the proper scope 0f a motion in limine.
12 Second, GM in fact identified and properly disclosed documents and witnesses during discovery,
13 including in response t0 Plaintiff’s discovery requests and through its expert designation. GM has
14 produced hundreds 0f documents t0 date in this case and complied with all Court orders. As such,
15 Plaintiff” s claim that GM “should be precluded from introducing any witnesses and/or evidence that was
16 requested by Plaintiff and not identified during discovery” has n0 basis in fact.
17 Third, Plaintiffs prejudice claim is wholly misplaced and is belied by the record. Plaintiff has
18 known for months the documents and witnesses GM intends t0 introduce 0r otherwise rely 0n at trial.
19 For example, Plaintiff has undeniably known for several years the identity 0f service technicians who
20 performed work 0n Plaintiffs vehicle, and the dealership(s) where they work. Plaintiff affirmatively
21 chose t0 not depose any 0f the service technicians 0r advisers from the dealership(s) which made repairs
22 to their vehicle. Plaintiff thus affirmatively and knowingly waived the right t0 discover what the service
23 technicians may testify t0 at trial before trial. Plaintiff cannot now foreclose appropriate witnesses from
24 trial in this matter due t0 their own indifference.
25 II. ARGUMENT
26 A. Plaintiff’s Motion is Impermissibly Vague and Overbroad.
27 The purpose 0f a motion in limine is t0 preclude specific, well-defined evidentiary items. (See
28 Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 669.) “The scope 0f such motion is any
Page 2 0f 7
DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS
PLAINTIFF’S
NEVER IDENTIFIED IN DISCOVERY BY DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC
Document Filed Date
October 16, 2023
Case Filing Date
September 21, 2020
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Mary Arens McBride, (SBN 282459) Esq. ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Autc >) Yohannes Moore, Esq. (SBN 330561) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFC >RNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIN o Xylon Quezada, Esq. (SBN 324802) 10/1 6/2023 10:46 PM ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC 1592 N. Batavia St., Suite 1A Orange, CA 92867 Tel: (949) 777-6032 Fax: (714) 844-9035 Email: marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com Email: ymoore@erskinelaw.com Email: xquezada@erskinelaw.com Attorneys for Defendant, GENERAL MOTORS LLC 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 12 13 JAMES BRUSSARD, an individual, CASE NO.: CIVDSZOI9921 14 Plaintiff, ASSIGNED T0: 15 Honorable Jeffrey R. Erickson vs. Department SI 4 16 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware Date Filed: September 21, 2020 17 Limited Liability Company; and DOES Trial Date: October 23, 2023 1 through 20, inclusive, 18 19 Defendants. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 20 AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO 21 PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF 22 WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS NEVER IDENTIFIED IN DISCOVERY BY 23 DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC 24 [Filed concurrently with Declaration 0f Yohannes Moore] 25 26 27 28 Page 1 0f 7 DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS NEVER IDENTIFIED IN DISCOVERY BY DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC Plaintiffs motion in limine seeks t0 prohibit a nebulous universe 0f witnesses and documents allegedly never identified during discovery by General Motors LLC (“GM”), claiming that he will suffer prejudice absent exclusion. Plaintiffs Motion should be denied. I. INTRODUCTION The record is clear that GM has not been “evasive” during discovery; t0 the contrary, GM’s responses have been appropriate and code-complaint. Plaintiff” s Motion lacks merit and therefore should be denied for several reasons. First, Plaintiffs Motion is improper as it contains vague and overly broad references t0 the evidence and witnesses it seeks t0 exclude, making it impossible for GM 0r this Court t0 discern the 10 boundaries 0f the evidence Plaintiff seeks t0 exclude. As such, Plaintiffs Motion must be denied t0 the 11 extent it seeks relief beyond the proper scope 0f a motion in limine. 12 Second, GM in fact identified and properly disclosed documents and witnesses during discovery, 13 including in response t0 Plaintiff’s discovery requests and through its expert designation. GM has 14 produced hundreds 0f documents t0 date in this case and complied with all Court orders. As such, 15 Plaintiff” s claim that GM “should be precluded from introducing any witnesses and/or evidence that was 16 requested by Plaintiff and not identified during discovery” has n0 basis in fact. 17 Third, Plaintiffs prejudice claim is wholly misplaced and is belied by the record. Plaintiff has 18 known for months the documents and witnesses GM intends t0 introduce 0r otherwise rely 0n at trial. 19 For example, Plaintiff has undeniably known for several years the identity 0f service technicians who 20 performed work 0n Plaintiffs vehicle, and the dealership(s) where they work. Plaintiff affirmatively 21 chose t0 not depose any 0f the service technicians 0r advisers from the dealership(s) which made repairs 22 to their vehicle. Plaintiff thus affirmatively and knowingly waived the right t0 discover what the service 23 technicians may testify t0 at trial before trial. Plaintiff cannot now foreclose appropriate witnesses from 24 trial in this matter due t0 their own indifference. 25 II. ARGUMENT 26 A. Plaintiff’s Motion is Impermissibly Vague and Overbroad. 27 The purpose 0f a motion in limine is t0 preclude specific, well-defined evidentiary items. (See 28 Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 669.) “The scope 0f such motion is any Page 2 0f 7 DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS PLAINTIFF’S NEVER IDENTIFIED IN DISCOVERY BY DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC