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
THE BARRY LAW FIRM ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ. (SBN 219230) ggfiflwggggflggfifigfifl'A
LOGAN G. PASCAL, ESQ. (SBN 324733) SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
dbarry@mylemonr1ghts.com
11845 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1270 10/1 1/2023 6:25 PM
Los Angeles, CA 90064 .
Telephone: (310) 684_5859
_
By. Betty DaVIdson, DEPUTY
Facsimile: (3 10) 862-4539
Attorneys for Plaintiff, JAMES BRUSSARD
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO — SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER
10
JAMES BRUSSARD, an individual, Case N0. CIVD32019921
11
12
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’SMOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8
13 TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION
V. OF OPINION TESTIMONY NOT
14 OFFERED AT THE TIME OF THE
DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S
15 PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE;
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A Delaware DECLARATION 0F LOGAN G. PASCAL,
16 ES Q .
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through
17
20, inclusive,
18 Trial Readiness Conference:
Date: October 19, 2023
19 Time: 9:00 a.m.
Defendants. Dept.: Sl4
20
Action Filed: September 21, 2020
21 Jury Trial: October 23, 2023
22
Assignedfor allpurposes t0 Hon. Jefi’rey R.
23 Erickson - Dept. S14
24
25 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8
26 Plaintiff JAMES BRUSSARD (“Plaintiff’) hereby moves this Court, in limine, for an order
27 that Defendant GENERAL MOTORS, LLC’s (“Defendant” or “GM”) Pers0n(s) Most
28 Knowledgeable be precluded from introducing opinion testimony and evidence at the time 0f trial
-1-
PLAINTIFF’SMOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF OPINION
TESTIMONY NOT OFFERED AT THE TIME OF THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON(S)
MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE; DECLARATION OF LOGAN G. PASCAL, ESQ.
that was previously withheld during the time 0f their depositions. Allowing Defendant to offer
additional testimony and evidence in response t0 categories 0f testimony that Defendant’s PMKs
were deposed on, and t0 Which Defendant stated that it had no knowledge of, would severely
prejudice Plaintiff as Defendant had an obligation t0 divulge all such information at the time
Defendant, by and through its own Person(s) Most Knowledgeable, were deposed. Defendant should
not be permitted to now state that it has looked further in depth into the matter and acquired additional
evidence that it intends t0 offer at the time 0f trial.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff anticipates that Defendant’s Persons Most Knowledgeable will testify as to
10 Defendant’s handling of Plaintiff’s pre-litigation contacts t0 Defendant, Defendant’s evaluation of
11 Whether 0r not the Subj ect Vehicle qualified for repurchase 0r replacement, and in-depth regarding
12 Defendant’s corporate policies and procedures for handling pre-litigation requests for repurchase or
13 replacement. During deposition, Defendant’s Persons Most Knowledgeable were unable t0 clearly
14 testify as to the reasoning behind Defendant’s denial of the repurchase or replacement request,
15 beyond stating that each evaluation is conducted on a case-by-case basis and that Defendant takes
16 into account all factors in reaching a determination.
17 Plaintiff has reason to believe that Defendant Will attempt t0 present evidence 01‘ testimony
18 at trial that was not properly disclosed during discovery, by offering precise testimony regarding how
19 Defendant acted in good faith in evaluating Plaintiff’s request for repurchase or replacement and
20 subsequently denying it. Defendant’s PMK(s) should not now be allowed to testify as to the specifics
21 of the evaluation particularly since Defendant’s PMK(s) had an obligation to inquire into such topics
22 of deposition prior t0 appearing t0 testify 0n Defendant’s behalf.
23 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
24 This lawsuit stems from Plaintiff’s purchase of a new 2016 Chevrolet Silverado
25 manufactured by the Defendant. The Subject Vehicle was manufactured and distributed by
26 Defendant, and the Subj ect Vehicle was covered by Defendant’s limited warranty and a Powertrain
27 Warranty. Also, included with the sale of the Subject Vehicle was an implied warranty of
28 merchantability.
-2-
PLAINTIFF’SMOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF OPINION
TESTIMONY NOT OFFERED AT THE TIME OF THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON(S)
MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE; DECLARATION OF LOGAN G. PASCAL, ESQ.
Document Filed Date
October 11, 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
THE BARRY LAW FIRM ELECTRONICALLY FILED DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ. (SBN 219230) ggfiflwggggflggfifigfifl'A LOGAN G. PASCAL, ESQ. (SBN 324733) SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT dbarry@mylemonr1ghts.com 11845 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1270 10/1 1/2023 6:25 PM Los Angeles, CA 90064 . Telephone: (310) 684_5859 _ By. Betty DaVIdson, DEPUTY Facsimile: (3 10) 862-4539 Attorneys for Plaintiff, JAMES BRUSSARD SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO — SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER 10 JAMES BRUSSARD, an individual, Case N0. CIVD32019921 11 12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’SMOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 13 TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION V. OF OPINION TESTIMONY NOT 14 OFFERED AT THE TIME OF THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S 15 PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE; GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A Delaware DECLARATION 0F LOGAN G. PASCAL, 16 ES Q . Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 17 20, inclusive, 18 Trial Readiness Conference: Date: October 19, 2023 19 Time: 9:00 a.m. Defendants. Dept.: Sl4 20 Action Filed: September 21, 2020 21 Jury Trial: October 23, 2023 22 Assignedfor allpurposes t0 Hon. Jefi’rey R. 23 Erickson - Dept. S14 24 25 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 26 Plaintiff JAMES BRUSSARD (“Plaintiff’) hereby moves this Court, in limine, for an order 27 that Defendant GENERAL MOTORS, LLC’s (“Defendant” or “GM”) Pers0n(s) Most 28 Knowledgeable be precluded from introducing opinion testimony and evidence at the time 0f trial -1- PLAINTIFF’SMOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF OPINION TESTIMONY NOT OFFERED AT THE TIME OF THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE; DECLARATION OF LOGAN G. PASCAL, ESQ. that was previously withheld during the time 0f their depositions. Allowing Defendant to offer additional testimony and evidence in response t0 categories 0f testimony that Defendant’s PMKs were deposed on, and t0 Which Defendant stated that it had no knowledge of, would severely prejudice Plaintiff as Defendant had an obligation t0 divulge all such information at the time Defendant, by and through its own Person(s) Most Knowledgeable, were deposed. Defendant should not be permitted to now state that it has looked further in depth into the matter and acquired additional evidence that it intends t0 offer at the time 0f trial. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff anticipates that Defendant’s Persons Most Knowledgeable will testify as to 10 Defendant’s handling of Plaintiff’s pre-litigation contacts t0 Defendant, Defendant’s evaluation of 11 Whether 0r not the Subj ect Vehicle qualified for repurchase 0r replacement, and in-depth regarding 12 Defendant’s corporate policies and procedures for handling pre-litigation requests for repurchase or 13 replacement. During deposition, Defendant’s Persons Most Knowledgeable were unable t0 clearly 14 testify as to the reasoning behind Defendant’s denial of the repurchase or replacement request, 15 beyond stating that each evaluation is conducted on a case-by-case basis and that Defendant takes 16 into account all factors in reaching a determination. 17 Plaintiff has reason to believe that Defendant Will attempt t0 present evidence 01‘ testimony 18 at trial that was not properly disclosed during discovery, by offering precise testimony regarding how 19 Defendant acted in good faith in evaluating Plaintiff’s request for repurchase or replacement and 20 subsequently denying it. Defendant’s PMK(s) should not now be allowed to testify as to the specifics 21 of the evaluation particularly since Defendant’s PMK(s) had an obligation to inquire into such topics 22 of deposition prior t0 appearing t0 testify 0n Defendant’s behalf. 23 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 24 This lawsuit stems from Plaintiff’s purchase of a new 2016 Chevrolet Silverado 25 manufactured by the Defendant. The Subject Vehicle was manufactured and distributed by 26 Defendant, and the Subj ect Vehicle was covered by Defendant’s limited warranty and a Powertrain 27 Warranty. Also, included with the sale of the Subject Vehicle was an implied warranty of 28 merchantability. -2- PLAINTIFF’SMOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF OPINION TESTIMONY NOT OFFERED AT THE TIME OF THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE; DECLARATION OF LOGAN G. PASCAL, ESQ.