Mazzocchi v. General Motors LLC et al

Filing 203

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: New GM's Motion in Limine 32, which seeks an across-the-board ruling categorically excluding certain evidence relating to Cobalt Vehicles, is DENIED. That denial, however, is without prejudice to renewal by New GM when the record is fully developed and without prejudice to New GM's objection, pursuant to the MDL's standard procedures, to specific evidence that a plaintiff seeks to offer from the evidence at issue here. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate 14-MD-2543, Docket No. 3738, and as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/4/2017) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (ras)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x

05/04/2017

IN RE:
14-MD-2543 (JMF)
GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH LITIGATION

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

This Document Relates To All Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
[Regarding New GM’s Motion in Limine To Exclude Certain Cobalt Conduct Evidence
from Bellwether Phase Two, Category C Trials (Motion in Limine No. 32)]
At the February 10, 2017 status conference in this multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) —
familiarity with which is assumed — the Court agreed to entertain “accelerated” motion in limine
briefing on certain issues relating to trials in Category C of Bellwether Phase Two, cases
involving non-Cobalt Unintended Key Rotation Vehicles with airbag non-deployment. (MDL
Order No. 122 (Docket No. 3703); see also MDL Order Nos. 107 (Docket No. 3081) and 121
(Docket No. 3659)). Thereafter, New GM filed a motion seeking to exclude — on a categorical
basis — “four discrete categories of Cobalt-related evidence,” namely (1) the Statement of Facts
accompanying the Deferred Prosecution Agreement; (2) the Valukas Report; (3) the NHTSA
Consent Decree, “Path Forward” Report, and “Workforce Assessment” Report; and (4)
purported other similar incident (“OSI”) evidence arising from accidents involving Cobalt
Vehicles. (Docket No. 3739 (“New GM Mem.”), at 1-2; see Docket No. 3738).
Upon review of the parties’ briefing (Docket Nos. 3739, 3766, and 3783), New GM’s
motion is DENIED as premature and overbroad, substantially for the reasons stated in Plaintiffs’
memorandum of law. (Docket No. 3766 (“Pls.’ Mem”)). New GM’s motion is premised on the

theory that the evidence at issue is specific to Cobalt Vehicles and that non-Cobalt Vehicles are
“different cars with different ignition switches and systems.” (New GM Mem. 2). But Plaintiffs
make a strong argument that New GM exaggerates the differences, citing New GM’s own
descriptions and treatment of the two kinds of ignition switches. (Pls.’ Mem. 2-7, 14-15). And,
in any event, Plaintiffs have not had an adequate opportunity to fully develop the record on the
issue, as expert opinions in connection with the first Category C trial were not due until last
week. (MDL Order No. 118 (Docket No. 3559), ¶ 21(a); see Pls.’ Mem. 5 n.11).
In any event, the Court is not prepared, let alone on the current record, to categorically
exclude the evidence at issue. As Plaintiffs note, the Statement of Facts, the Valukas Report, and
the NHTSA Consent Order all “contain admissions regarding Old GM’s and New GM’s
structure, knowledge, conduct, and culture that are equally applicable” to the Cobalt Vehicle
recalls and the recalls of non-Cobalt Vehicles. (Pls.’ Mem. 7-9, 12-14). That is, some evidence
concerning Cobalt Vehicles is plainly relevant to Category C Plaintiffs’ claims as it tends to
prove, among other things, New GM’s notice of the alleged defect and its awareness that the
alleged defect raised serious safety issues. Further, on the present record, the Court cannot find
as a categorical matter that the probative value of the evidence is outweighed, let alone
substantially so, by the dangers of unfair prejudice, jury confusion, and waste of time. See Fed.
R. Evid. 403. Relatedly, on the present record, the Court cannot make the fact-specific
determinations necessary to resolve whether Cobalt Vehicle OSI evidence would be admissible
in a Category C trial. See Cockram OSI Op. (Docket No. 3239), at 8 (“[T]he OSI evidence that
may be admitted in any given case will turn on the particular facts of the case, the legal claims
being asserted, and the applicable law — all of which are likely to vary somewhat between and
among cases.”).

2

None of that is to say that the evidence New GM seeks to exclude should or will be
admitted whole hog at any future Category C trial. New GM may be able to make the case for
excluding specific evidence relating to Cobalt Vehicles — on the grounds of confusion,
cumulativeness, or waste of time, for example. But the appropriate time to address those
arguments is closer to trial, when the record will be more fully developed and the contours of the
trial will be clearer. In connection with prior bellwether trials, the Court developed effective
procedures to raise and address precisely such objections. (See, e.g., MDL Order No. 100
(Docket No. 2836), ¶ 2(i); MDL Order No. 120 (Docket No. 3651), ¶ 2(i); see also Docket No.
2019 (ruling on New GM’s targeted Rule 403 objections to specific excerpts of the Valukas
Report selected by the plaintiff for admission at trial, after having denied New GM’s motion to
exclude the Valukas Report in its entirety)). Put simply, New GM fails to provide any reason to
depart from those time-tested procedures in its present motion. 1
Accordingly, New GM’s Motion in Limine 32, which seeks an across-the-board ruling
categorically excluding certain evidence relating to Cobalt Vehicles, is DENIED. That denial,
however, is without prejudice to renewal by New GM when the record is fully developed and
without prejudice to New GM’s objection, pursuant to the MDL’s standard procedures, to
specific evidence that a plaintiff seeks to offer from the evidence at issue here.

1

The Court agreed with New GM’s argument in favor of entertaining this “accelerated”
motion in limine — namely, that, having presided over this MDL for close to three years, it has a
more intimate familiarity with the issues raised than any other tribunal and that its early
consideration of New GM’s arguments might promote efficiency by providing helpful guidance
to state courts with upcoming trials raising similar issues. (Feb. 10, 2017 Status Conf. Tr. 1727). The interest in efficiency, however, does not trump the Court’s interest in ensuring that its
decisions are based on a properly developed record — and the need to provide the parties with an
adequate opportunity to develop the record and present their strongest arguments.

3

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate 14-MD-2543, Docket No. 3738.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 4, 2017
New York, New York

4