Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. Poalston
JAD25-03
Cal. Ct. App.Mar 20, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Cavalry SPV I, LLC sued defendant Stan Poalston as assignee of Citibank for account stated and money lent in a limited civil action.
- The original trial led to a judgment for Cavalry, but Poalston successfully moved for a new trial; a retrial was then scheduled.
- Prior to retrial, Poalston served a new request under Code Civ. Proc. § 96 for the names and addresses of Cavalry’s trial witnesses.
- Cavalry responded by designating generic “custodians of records” instead of specifying names and addresses as required.
- At retrial, Cavalry called a Citibank custodian whose name had not been previously disclosed; Poalston moved to exclude the testimony due to noncompliance with § 96.
- The trial court denied the motion, allowed the testimony, and again entered judgment for Cavalry; Poalston appealed, citing procedural error and hearsay concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of § 96 request after new trial granted | Request was untimely since it was not after the original set trial date | Request was timely since it was made after the new trial was set following the motion for a new trial | Request was timely; time period runs from new trial date after an order granting new trial |
| Sufficiency of § 96 witness disclosure | Listing “Custodian of Records” is sufficient and specific | Must disclose actual names and addresses of witnesses as the statute requires | Disclosure was insufficient; generic witness designation did not comply with the statute |
| Exclusion of undisclosed witnesses under § 97 | Exclusion should not apply; complied with the spirit of the rule | Testimony of undisclosed witness should be excluded under § 97 | Testimony should have been excluded as required by § 97; judgment reversed due to prejudicial error |
| Application of good faith exception for witness testimony | Plaintiff acted in good faith and could not be more specific | No good faith evidence; plaintiff’s justifications were unsupported by declarations or evidence | No competent evidence supported good faith; exception did not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 22 Cal.4th 245 (Cal. 2000) (interprets discovery cutoff dates following grant of new trial)
- Beverly Hospital v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.App.4th 1289 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (additional discovery allowed after order granting new trial)
- Wilcox v. Birtwhistle, 21 Cal.4th 973 (Cal. 1999) (uses extrinsic aids to interpret ambiguous statutory language)
- Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., 166 Cal.App.4th 952 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (discusses standard of review for discovery rulings)