Perry v. Kia Motors America CA4/3
91 Cal.App.5th 1088
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- On April 21, 2019, Perry was a front‑seat passenger in a 2015 Kia Forte that rolled over after being T‑boned; she suffered a brain injury and sued Kia for design defect and negligence.
- Central discovery dispute: Kia (U.S. distributor) initially said it did not possess vehicle design documents and pointed to Kia Motors Corporation; later, more than 22,000 pages produced by a defense expert two weeks before trial included engineering documents Perry said had been withheld.
- Perry moved in limine for issue sanctions (ruling the pretensioner was defectively designed) or, alternatively, for a jury instruction that Kia had concealed evidence; the court found Kia should have produced the documents but declined to find intentional concealment and denied the instruction.
- Perry sought to call Kia’s paralegal (who verified discovery responses) to testify; the court excluded her under Evidence Code § 352 as cumulative, confusing, and prejudicial.
- Jury deliberated about one hour in a small room during the COVID‑19 pandemic and returned a unanimous defense verdict; Perry’s later motion for new trial argued the small room coerced haste.
- On appeal the court affirmed: Perry forfeited the jury‑instruction claim for misrepresenting the record, no abuse of discretion in excluding the paralegal, and the jury‑room objection was waived for lack of an on‑the‑record timely objection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court refused to give jury instruction that Kia concealed evidence | Perry: court found Kia improperly concealed documents and should have instructed jury to infer concealment | Kia: court never made a finding of intentional concealment; instruction inappropriate absent such finding | Court: issue forfeited for misrepresentation of record; in any event instruction improper because court made no finding of concealment |
| Exclusion of paralegal testimony who verified discovery responses | Perry: paralegal verification bears on whether Kia concealed or mishandled documents | Kia: paralegal lacked personal knowledge; verification is corporate agent acting on information and belief; testimony cumulative and prejudicial | Court: no abuse of discretion under Evidence Code § 352; testimony not sufficiently probative and risked confusion |
| Jury deliberation room size during COVID‑19 (due process/irregularity) | Perry: small room coerced quick deliberation (one hour) and compromised fairness | Kia: no juror complained; no on‑record timely objection; no evidence deliberations were compromised | Court: objection waived for failure to timely object on the record; new‑trial motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Van v. LanguageLine Solutions, 8 Cal.App.5th 73 (2017) (discretionary standard for discovery‑sanctions rulings)
- Levine v. Berschneider, 56 Cal.App.5th 916 (2020) (duty of candor to court; counsel obligations)
- Paine v. State Bar, 14 Cal.2d 150 (1939) (misleading a judge is a serious offense)
- People v. Pineda, 13 Cal.5th 186 (2022) (standard of review for Evidence Code § 352 rulings)
- Weathers v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 5 Cal.3d 98 (1971) (timely on‑record objection required to preserve jury‑misconduct/irregularity claim)