Siqueiros v. General Motors LLC

Background

The plaintiffs are current owners of certain General Motors LLC trucks and sport utility vehicles that allegedly have an excessive oil-consumption defect caused primarily by wear in the engines’ piston-ring assembly. GM denies that the alleged defect exists and asserts affirmative defenses.

The order concerns preparation for a jury trial limited to the claims of class representatives Garet Tarvin, William Davis, Jr., and Gabriel Del Valle. Tarvin asserts a California breach-of-implied-warranty claim on behalf of a California class; Davis asserts a North Carolina breach-of-implied-warranty claim on behalf of a North Carolina class; and Del Valle asserts an Idaho Consumer Protection Act claim on behalf of an Idaho class.

Trial and Case-Management Rulings

The court scheduled a hearing about jury questionnaires for September 12, 2022, jury selection for September 13, and the jury trial to begin September 19. The trial was set for eight days, with each side limited to fifteen hours to present its case. The parties were required to provide advance notice of witnesses and exhibits, file written objections on the required schedule, narrow their deposition objections, and meet and confer about the verdict form. The court also set courtroom vaccination, testing, and masking requirements.

The court ruled that the statute of limitations for Davis’s North Carolina implied-warranty claim is four years. GM conceded that period during the hearing because the plaintiffs seek the value of defective vehicles rather than damages for personal injury or property damage.

Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine

The court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 1. The motion sought to exclude evidence from a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration booklet stating that excessive oil consumption is an example of a defect not considered safety-related, as well as evidence or argument that the class vehicles had not been recalled. The court found the evidence relevant, not unfairly prejudicial, and admissible under the public-record exception to the hearsay rule. The booklet could also potentially be read to the jury as a learned treatise if GM’s expert established it as a reliable authority.

The court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 2, which sought to prevent GM from arguing that it fixed or cured the alleged defect. The court concluded that conflicting evidence was not the type of jury confusion addressed by the evidence rules and that GM had identified evidence supporting its position. Plaintiffs could use contrary deposition testimony for cross-examination.

The court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 3 but required GM’s expert, Robert Kuhn, not to mischaracterize a chart showing in-warranty piston-ring repairs. The chart could not be presented as capturing all oil-consumption complaints or all vehicles affected by the alleged defect. Plaintiffs remained free to argue that the warranty data did not capture the full range of complaints or repairs.

The court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 4. It excluded two GM charts summarizing oil-consumption-related warranty data because the charts were hearsay and did not qualify as business records or summaries of voluminous records. GM had not provided the underlying data for inspection. The court nevertheless allowed GM to present testimony about the underlying piston-ring repair data if the required foundation was established.

GM’s Motions in Limine

The court denied GM’s Motion in Limine No. 1, which sought to exclude evidence about other Gen IV engine models and Gen IV engines manufactured before February 10, 2011. The court found that evidence about related engines could make it more likely that the alleged defect existed in the class LC9 engines and that GM knew about it. GM could challenge the weight of the evidence through cross-examination.

The court granted in part and denied in part GM’s Motion in Limine No. 2 concerning former plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Jeffrey K. Ball. The court excluded Dr. Ball’s expert reports as hearsay because Plaintiffs had not established an applicable exception. The court denied the motion as to Dr. Ball’s deposition testimony because he had died, was unavailable to testify, and GM had had an opportunity to cross-examine him at his deposition. The court limited that deposition testimony to the quality and scope of GM’s warranty data and barred designations covering subjects that Dr. Dahm would address.

The court denied GM’s Motion in Limine No. 3, which sought to exclude testimony from non-class plaintiffs, including Raul Siqueiros and Todd and Jill Cralley. Although the court found that the testimony was less obviously useful because it concerned non-class vehicles and was anecdotal, it concluded that GM had not shown that the risk of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed its probative value.

The court granted in part and denied in part GM’s Motion in Limine No. 4 concerning the later Gen V engine. Plaintiffs could use Gen V evidence to impeach any contention that GM lacked knowledge of an alleged defect in the Gen IV engines. They could not use Gen V design differences to argue that those differences proved an oil-consumption defect in the Gen IV class vehicles, and they could not introduce unnecessary details about the Gen V design.

The court denied GM’s Motion in Limine No. 5 as to testimony from non-class members but otherwise granted the motion. Thus, non-class-member testimony could be elicited, while evidence about the total number or status of other lawsuits and claims, and settlements or negotiations with third parties, was otherwise excluded.

Other Evidentiary Rulings and Disposition

The court adopted or directed further rulings on objections to proposed exhibits through an attached chart. It also ruled that deposition testimony from four GM witnesses who would be available to testify in person was inadmissible hearsay because those witnesses were not unavailable under the evidence rules. The order ended with the court’s statement that it was so ordered and was signed by Judge Edward M. Chen.

This was a final pretrial conference order. It established trial procedures and evidentiary limits; it did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute about whether the alleged oil-consumption defect exists or whether GM is liable.