Court Opinion

ID: 9494552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:40:10.44052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:28.047120
License: Public Domain

TRAXLER, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with the majority that Silvestri failed to discharge his duty to preserve the accident vehicle or at least notify General Motors that the vehicle was potential evidence. Therefore, I concur in sections I-IIB of Judge Niemeyer’s opinion.
I believe, however, that the complete dismissal of the case was an excessive sanction. Keith S. Schultz, General Motors’ expert witness and corporate desig-nee, formed the opinion that “[t]he change in velocity, or the ‘delta V’, of the vehicle when it impacted the telephone pole was not sufficient and not directionally correct to deploy the air bags” because “[t]he right front corner of the vehicle struck the telephone pole as it was sliding sideways off the roadway.” J.A. 378. During his deposition, Schultz agreed that “General Motors does not need any information between what the vehicle looked like from these photographs immediately after the accident and the present time in order to support its position,” J.A. 584, and that he had “sufficient information in order to form the opinions that [he had] expressed,” J.A. 268.
In light of Schultz’s ability to form an expert opinion, I am not convinced that General Motors suffered such prejudice that dismissal was the only solution. The district court did not conduct a hearing before dismissing the case, and there is nothing in the record indicating whether the court considered lesser sanctions. I would remand for the district court to consider imposing a sanction short of outright dismissal. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent only from section IIC of the majority opinion.