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
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
THE BARRY LAW FIRM SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ. (SBN 219230) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
LOGAN G. PASCAL, ESQ. (SBN 324733) SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
dbarry@mylem0nrights.com 10/1 1/2023 6:24 PM
11845 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1270
Los Angeles, CA 90064 By: Betty Davidson, DEPUTY
Telephone: (310) 684-5859
Facsimile: (310) 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
Case N0. CIVD82019921
11
JAMES BRUSSARD, an individual,
PLAINTIFF’SMOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2
12 TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS
13 NEVER IDENTIFIED IN DISCOVERY BY
DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC;
14 DECLARATION OF LOGAN G. PASCAL,
ESQ.
15
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A Delaware
16 Trial Readiness Conference:
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through Date: October 19, 2023
17 Time: 9:00 a.m.
20, inclusive, Dept.: Sl4
18
Defendants. Action Filed: September 21, 2020
19 Jury Trial: October 23, 2023
20
Assignedfor all purposes t0 Hon. Jeflrey R.
21 Erickson - Dept. $14
22
23 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2
24 Plaintiff JAMES BRUSSARD (“Plaintiff’) hereby moves this Court in limine for an order
25 that Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC (“Defendant”) be precluded from introducing any
26 witnesses at trial whose identities were not disclosed, and any documents that were not disclosed
27 during discovery at trial. For example, Defendant did not identify the technicians that
28 diagnosed/repaired Plaintiff’s vehicle 0r the individuals who evaluated and denied Plaintiff’s pre-
-1-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES AND
DOCUMENTS NEVER IDENTIFIED IN DISCOVERY BY DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC;
DECLARATION OF LOGAN G. PASCAL, ESQ.
litigation repurchase 0r replacement request. Additionally, Defendant did not produce its policies
and procedures for evaluating and investigating whether a vehicle qualifies for repurchase or
replacement under California lemon law. The aforementioned information and documents were
sought Via Plaintiff s written discovery requests.
Further, Plaintiff moves in limine t0 instruct all parties and their counsel and t0 advise all 0f
their Witnesses:
1. Not to mention, refer to, 0r attempt t0 convey t0 the jury in any manner, either directly
0r indirectly, any of the facts and/or opinions mentioned 0r subsumed by this Motion, without first
obtaining permission 0f the court outside of the presence and hearing 0f the jury;
10 2. Not t0 make any reference of the fact that this Motion has been filed; and
11 3. To warn and caution everyone t0 strictly follow these same instructions.
12 I. INTRODUCTION
13 Plaintiff anticipates that Defendant will introduce witnesses and/or documents at trial that
14 were not properly disclosed during discovery. Defendant may argue that Plaintiff had the opportunity
15 t0 conduct discovery in order to prepare for trial. However, Plaintiff did conduct discovery, which
16 included written discovery requests t0 Defendant and the deposition of Defendant’s Person(s) Most
17 Knowledgeable.
18 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
19 On July 25, 2016, Plaintiff purchased a new 2016 Chevrolet Silverado (“Subject Vehicle”).
20 The Subject Vehicle was manufactured and distributed by Defendant, and the Subject Vehicle was
21 covered by Defendant’s warranty. Also included with the sale 0f the Subj ect Vehicle was an implied
22 warranty 0f merchantability.
23 Shortly after purchase, Plaintiff began t0 have significant problems with the Subj ect Vehicle.
24 Plaintiff delivered the Subject Vehicle t0 Defendant’s authorized repair facilities 0n several
25 occasions for repairs. Due t0 Plaintiff’s ongoing problems With the Subject Vehicle, Defendant’s
26 inability t0 repair the Subject Vehicle and Defendant’s refusal t0 repurchase 0r replace the Subject
27 Vehicle, Plaintiff filed suit 0n September 21, 2020.
28 Plaintiff has propounded written discovery and Defendant has served responses thereto.
-2-
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES AND
PLAINTIFF’S
DOCUMENTS NEVER IDENTIFIED IN DISCOVERY BY DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC;
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
ELECTRONICALLY FILED THE BARRY LAW FIRM SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ. (SBN 219230) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO LOGAN G. PASCAL, ESQ. (SBN 324733) SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT dbarry@mylem0nrights.com 10/1 1/2023 6:24 PM 11845 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1270 Los Angeles, CA 90064 By: Betty Davidson, DEPUTY Telephone: (310) 684-5859 Facsimile: (310) 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 Case N0. CIVD82019921 11 JAMES BRUSSARD, an individual, PLAINTIFF’SMOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 12 TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS 13 NEVER IDENTIFIED IN DISCOVERY BY DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC; 14 DECLARATION OF LOGAN G. PASCAL, ESQ. 15 GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A Delaware 16 Trial Readiness Conference: Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through Date: October 19, 2023 17 Time: 9:00 a.m. 20, inclusive, Dept.: Sl4 18 Defendants. Action Filed: September 21, 2020 19 Jury Trial: October 23, 2023 20 Assignedfor all purposes t0 Hon. Jeflrey R. 21 Erickson - Dept. $14 22 23 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 24 Plaintiff JAMES BRUSSARD (“Plaintiff’) hereby moves this Court in limine for an order 25 that Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC (“Defendant”) be precluded from introducing any 26 witnesses at trial whose identities were not disclosed, and any documents that were not disclosed 27 during discovery at trial. For example, Defendant did not identify the technicians that 28 diagnosed/repaired Plaintiff’s vehicle 0r the individuals who evaluated and denied Plaintiff’s pre- -1- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS NEVER IDENTIFIED IN DISCOVERY BY DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC; DECLARATION OF LOGAN G. PASCAL, ESQ. litigation repurchase 0r replacement request. Additionally, Defendant did not produce its policies and procedures for evaluating and investigating whether a vehicle qualifies for repurchase or replacement under California lemon law. The aforementioned information and documents were sought Via Plaintiff s written discovery requests. Further, Plaintiff moves in limine t0 instruct all parties and their counsel and t0 advise all 0f their Witnesses: 1. Not to mention, refer to, 0r attempt t0 convey t0 the jury in any manner, either directly 0r indirectly, any of the facts and/or opinions mentioned 0r subsumed by this Motion, without first obtaining permission 0f the court outside of the presence and hearing 0f the jury; 10 2. Not t0 make any reference of the fact that this Motion has been filed; and 11 3. To warn and caution everyone t0 strictly follow these same instructions. 12 I. INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff anticipates that Defendant will introduce witnesses and/or documents at trial that 14 were not properly disclosed during discovery. Defendant may argue that Plaintiff had the opportunity 15 t0 conduct discovery in order to prepare for trial. However, Plaintiff did conduct discovery, which 16 included written discovery requests t0 Defendant and the deposition of Defendant’s Person(s) Most 17 Knowledgeable. 18 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 19 On July 25, 2016, Plaintiff purchased a new 2016 Chevrolet Silverado (“Subject Vehicle”). 20 The Subject Vehicle was manufactured and distributed by Defendant, and the Subject Vehicle was 21 covered by Defendant’s warranty. Also included with the sale 0f the Subj ect Vehicle was an implied 22 warranty 0f merchantability. 23 Shortly after purchase, Plaintiff began t0 have significant problems with the Subj ect Vehicle. 24 Plaintiff delivered the Subject Vehicle t0 Defendant’s authorized repair facilities 0n several 25 occasions for repairs. Due t0 Plaintiff’s ongoing problems With the Subject Vehicle, Defendant’s 26 inability t0 repair the Subject Vehicle and Defendant’s refusal t0 repurchase 0r replace the Subject 27 Vehicle, Plaintiff filed suit 0n September 21, 2020. 28 Plaintiff has propounded written discovery and Defendant has served responses thereto. -2- MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES AND PLAINTIFF’S DOCUMENTS NEVER IDENTIFIED IN DISCOVERY BY DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC; DECLARATION OF LOGAN G. PASCAL, ESQ.