On September 21, 2020 a
Motion,Ex Parte
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, Esq. (SBN 282459)
Cameron Major, Esq. (SBN 325986)
ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC ELECTRONICALLY FILED
1592 N. Batavia Suite 1A SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
St.,
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Orange, CA 92867 SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
Tel: (949) 777-6032
10/12/2023 3:24 PM
Fax: (714) 844-9035
Email: marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com By: Paola Iniguez Solorio, DEPUTY
KOOONONUILUJNH
Email: cmajor@erskinelaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant,
GENERAL MOTORS LLC
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
JAMES BRUSSARD, an individual, CASE NO.: CIVDSZOI9921
Plaintiff, ASSIGNED T0:
Honorable Jeffrey R. Erickson
vs. Department SI 4
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware Date Filed: September 21, 2020
DOES
Limited Liability Company; and Trial Date: October 23, 2023
1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
COMPELLING DEFENDANT GENERAL
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH
MOTORS LLC’S COMPLIANCE WITH
THIS COURT’S SEPTEMBER 26, 2023
OONONMJ>UJNHOKOOONONUIJ>WNHO
ORDER, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR
AN ORDER EXCLUDING DEFENDANT’S
EXPERT WITNESS JAMES OAKS FROM
TESTIFYING AT TRIAL
Filed Concurrently With:
1) Declaration 0f Cameron Major
Date: October 13, 2023
Time: 8:30 am.
Dept: Sl4
Page 1 0f6
DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN
ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S COMPLIANCE WITH THIS COURT’S
SEPTEMBER 26, 2023 ORDER, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER EXCLUDING DEFENDANT’S
EXPERT WITNESS JAMES OAKS FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL
Plaintiff brings this Ex Parte Application, without good cause, for an Order Compelling
GM’s Compliance with this Court’s September 26, 2023 Order, 0r in the alternative, for an Order
excluding Defendant’s Expert Witness James Oaks from Testifying at Trial. Plaintiff is bringing
this Ex Parte application without allowing GM t0 oppose Plaintiffs motion 0n the regularly
noticed calendar. Plaintiff seeks t0 circumvent GM’s due process rights by falsely claiming
KOOONONUILUJNH
exigent circumstances without affording GM the opportunity it deserves t0 adequately oppose
Plaintiffs motion. (Declaration 0f Cameron Major (“Major Decl.”), at 11 3). There is absolutely n0
exigency to grant Plaintiffs Ex Parte Application t0 compel GM’s expert witness deposition, as
Plaintiff is not at risk 0f suffering irreparable harm if the application is denied. Plaintiff cannot
establish irreparable harm 0r immediate danger if he is not allowed t0 bring his motion. Indeed,
the only one facing potential irreparable harm here is GM. If the Court were t0 grant Plaintiffs Ex
Parte application, GM would be severely prejudiced by not having the opportunity t0 adequately
oppose Plaintiffs motion, which should be heard 0n regular calendar.
First, there are n0 exigent circumstances requiring Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application, nor is
there good cause t0 shorten time for hearing 0n Plaintiffs motion. Both parties are well aware
that n0 expert deposition can move forward until the Subject Vehicle is inspected. The Subject
Vehicle was only inspected by both expert witnesses 0n October 4, 2023. GM’s expert witness
was unavailable t0 attend the October 9th deposition date. GM made it clear t0 Plaintiff that it
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH
would produce an alternative date for the deposition. (See Declaration 0f Logan G.
OONONMJ>UJNHOKOOONONUIJ>WNHO
Pascal, EX.
10-11.) GM had also requested deposition dates for Plaintiffs expert witness as well, with
Plaintiff neglected t0 respond t0. (Id.) Instead 0f agreeing t0 find resolution regarding deposition
dates, Plaintiff simply sent an email t0 GM 0n October 6, 2023, demanding the deposition 0f
GM’s expert g0 forward. (Id.) Plaintiff had ample time t0 present the Subject Vehicle for
inspection, but instead waited until the eve 0f trial t0 d0 so. Any “exigency” is nothing more
than a circumstance 0f Plaintiffs own creation. Plaintiff should not be permitted t0 use an “ex
parte” application t0 deprive GM 0f its due process rights. Importantly, GM has offered its
Page 2 0f6
DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN
ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S COMPLIANCE WITH THIS COURT’S
SEPTEMBER 26, 2023 ORDER, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER EXCLUDING DEFENDANT’S
EXPERT WITNESS JAMES OAKS FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL
Document Filed Date
October 12, 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, Esq. (SBN 282459) Cameron Major, Esq. (SBN 325986) ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC ELECTRONICALLY FILED 1592 N. Batavia Suite 1A SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA St., COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Orange, CA 92867 SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT Tel: (949) 777-6032 10/12/2023 3:24 PM Fax: (714) 844-9035 Email: marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com By: Paola Iniguez Solorio, DEPUTY KOOONONUILUJNH Email: cmajor@erskinelaw.com Attorneys for Defendant, GENERAL MOTORS LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO JAMES BRUSSARD, an individual, CASE NO.: CIVDSZOI9921 Plaintiff, ASSIGNED T0: Honorable Jeffrey R. Erickson vs. Department SI 4 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware Date Filed: September 21, 2020 DOES Limited Liability Company; and Trial Date: October 23, 2023 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT GENERAL NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH MOTORS LLC’S COMPLIANCE WITH THIS COURT’S SEPTEMBER 26, 2023 OONONMJ>UJNHOKOOONONUIJ>WNHO ORDER, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER EXCLUDING DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESS JAMES OAKS FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL Filed Concurrently With: 1) Declaration 0f Cameron Major Date: October 13, 2023 Time: 8:30 am. Dept: Sl4 Page 1 0f6 DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S COMPLIANCE WITH THIS COURT’S SEPTEMBER 26, 2023 ORDER, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER EXCLUDING DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESS JAMES OAKS FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL Plaintiff brings this Ex Parte Application, without good cause, for an Order Compelling GM’s Compliance with this Court’s September 26, 2023 Order, 0r in the alternative, for an Order excluding Defendant’s Expert Witness James Oaks from Testifying at Trial. Plaintiff is bringing this Ex Parte application without allowing GM t0 oppose Plaintiffs motion 0n the regularly noticed calendar. Plaintiff seeks t0 circumvent GM’s due process rights by falsely claiming KOOONONUILUJNH exigent circumstances without affording GM the opportunity it deserves t0 adequately oppose Plaintiffs motion. (Declaration 0f Cameron Major (“Major Decl.”), at 11 3). There is absolutely n0 exigency to grant Plaintiffs Ex Parte Application t0 compel GM’s expert witness deposition, as Plaintiff is not at risk 0f suffering irreparable harm if the application is denied. Plaintiff cannot establish irreparable harm 0r immediate danger if he is not allowed t0 bring his motion. Indeed, the only one facing potential irreparable harm here is GM. If the Court were t0 grant Plaintiffs Ex Parte application, GM would be severely prejudiced by not having the opportunity t0 adequately oppose Plaintiffs motion, which should be heard 0n regular calendar. First, there are n0 exigent circumstances requiring Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application, nor is there good cause t0 shorten time for hearing 0n Plaintiffs motion. Both parties are well aware that n0 expert deposition can move forward until the Subject Vehicle is inspected. The Subject Vehicle was only inspected by both expert witnesses 0n October 4, 2023. GM’s expert witness was unavailable t0 attend the October 9th deposition date. GM made it clear t0 Plaintiff that it NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH would produce an alternative date for the deposition. (See Declaration 0f Logan G. OONONMJ>UJNHOKOOONONUIJ>WNHO Pascal, EX. 10-11.) GM had also requested deposition dates for Plaintiffs expert witness as well, with Plaintiff neglected t0 respond t0. (Id.) Instead 0f agreeing t0 find resolution regarding deposition dates, Plaintiff simply sent an email t0 GM 0n October 6, 2023, demanding the deposition 0f GM’s expert g0 forward. (Id.) Plaintiff had ample time t0 present the Subject Vehicle for inspection, but instead waited until the eve 0f trial t0 d0 so. Any “exigency” is nothing more than a circumstance 0f Plaintiffs own creation. Plaintiff should not be permitted t0 use an “ex parte” application t0 deprive GM 0f its due process rights. Importantly, GM has offered its Page 2 0f6 DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S COMPLIANCE WITH THIS COURT’S SEPTEMBER 26, 2023 ORDER, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER EXCLUDING DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESS JAMES OAKS FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL