Breaking Barriers to Justice
improperly withheld internal memos and crash test reports showing it had known for twenty years that its lap belts were dangerous. The plaintiff filed five discovery motions. While the ultimate motion for sanctions arose out of a failure to comply with a PMK notice, the court looked to the long pattern of Ford’s conduct in persistently refusing to comply with discovery requests ( Karlsson , supra , 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 1202). The court barred Ford from presenting evidence on warnings and the technical feasibility of a safer seat belt design. The court also vacated its earlier order striking plaintiff's punitive damages claim, reinstating it on the ground that Ford's concealment warranted reconsideration. The jury awarded over $30 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The Court of Appeal affirmed. ( Karlsson , supra , 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 1202). The lesson of Karlsson : each motion you file, even if denied, documents a pattern. The cumulative record supported issue preclusion, evidence exclusion, and the reinstatement of claims the defendant thought it had already won. Sometimes the truth surfaces even later—after trial. This is where persistence really pays off. Most recently in Higginson , the Court of Appeal reversed a defense verdict, ordered a new trial, and directed the trial court to impose sanctions on Kia to cover Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs for the entire first trial and appeal. The court found that Kia’s verified responses that no documents exist were “erroneous” and “wrong” and that Kia had obstructed discovery to the extent that it deprived plaintiff a fair trial. This amounted to an irregularity in the proceedings under Code of Civil Procedure § 657(1).
Jasleen’s Steps to Success: Hold Your Ground
Think Outside the Box
Persist To, Through, & After Trial
If you never find sufficient proof to contradict “no documents exist” and to warrant a motion to compel or for sanctions, strategize for trial. Tell the jury. A manufacturer markets, advertises, and sells a product or service to consumers in the United States, but has not a single document to show regarding its design, performance, quality control, or safety? Not one? Expose the absurdity. The takeaway spans three decades of California appellate law. When a responding party verifies that responsive documents were stolen, never existed, or are out of reach, the weight of that response lies with them. Hold your ground. Look outside the box. And when the truth emerges—use it. Corporate defendants who hide the ball are betting that plaintiffs’ counsel will either never source the truth or give up in the process. By refusing to accept “no documents exist” at face value, we ensure that feigned ignorance is not bliss—and that even if a defendant like Kia “got away with one today, … eventually the court will figure that out, and there will be a way of balancing the scales of justice” ( Higginson , supra , 118 Cal.App.5th at p. 352).
23
Consumer Attorneys of California
FORUM July/August 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs