Wins

GMSR’s consumer client sued an automaker under California’s lemon law and alleged that his car had engine defects.  During discovery, the consumer demanded production of documents about the automaker’s internal investigations and communications with government agencies regarding alleged engine defects.  The automaker swore that it had no responsive documents, but later admitted that it had relied on an unreasonably narrow search—running a 37-word, block-quote query of electronic materials, designed to return no results.

The trial court called the automaker’s conduct “criminally stupid”; “a garbage argument”; and a tactic “destined to discover no responsive documents” but did not order a mistrial.  Over the consumer’s objections, the parties completed the trial and the jury rendered a defense verdict.  The trial court denied the consumer’s motion for a new trial based on “irregularity of the proceedings.”

The Court of Appeal reversed.  In a first-of-its-kind published opinion, the court held that bad-faith discovery searches for electronically stored information that result in the withholding of relevant documents constituted an irregularity in the proceedings requiring a new trial, and ordered the automaker to pay the consumer’s trial and appellate costs, including attorney’s fees.

To read the Court of Appeal’s opinion, click here:  Higginson v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2026) __ Cal.5th __ [2026 WL 82098].