LEMUEL MARQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. JORGE BARRAGAN LLAMAS, et al., Defendants.
Case No.: 19STCV05420
Hearing Date: November 19, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
Plaintiff Lemuel Marquez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Jorge Barragan Llamas and M & B Carriers, Inc. (“Defendants”) following a motor vehicle collision. On October 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application seeking an order preserving the Event Data Recorder (“EDR”) and/or Engine Control Module (“ECM”) in the vehicle at issue. Plaintiff’s application also sought production of any such devices and payment of sanctions. The Court issued an order preserving this evidence but treated the remainder of the ex parte application as a noticed motion, which Defendants oppose.
This collision occurred on December 19, 2017. According to Defendants’ counsel, the vehicle at issue did not have an EDR. (Defendant’s Opposition, p. 3:9-10; see also Declaration of Eddy Cruz, ¶¶ 6-7.) According to
Hearing Date
November 19, 2020
Type
Motor Vehicle - Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
LEMUEL MARQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. JORGE BARRAGAN LLAMAS, et al., Defendants.
Case No.: 19STCV05420
Hearing Date: November 19, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
Plaintiff Lemuel Marquez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Jorge Barragan Llamas and M & B Carriers, Inc. (“Defendants”) following a motor vehicle collision. On October 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application seeking an order preserving the Event Data Recorder (“EDR”) and/or Engine Control Module (“ECM”) in the vehicle at issue. Plaintiff’s application also sought production of any such devices and payment of sanctions. The Court issued an order preserving this evidence but treated the remainder of the ex parte application as a noticed motion, which Defendants oppose.
This collision occurred on December 19, 2017. According to Defendants’ counsel, the vehicle at issue did not have an EDR. (Defendant’s Opposition, p. 3:9-10; see also Declaration of Eddy Cruz, ¶¶ 6-7.) According to