Support CleanTechnica’s work through a Substack subscription or on Stripe.
On September 13, 2021, Nicholas Garcia and a passenger, Jazmin Alcala, were riding in a 2021 Tesla Model 3 near Coral Gables, Florida. Another motorist captured a video of the car as it sped through an intersection before veering off the road and hitting two trees before bursting into flames. Both Garcia and Alcala died in the crash.
According to The Verge, a police report filed after the accident said the Model 3 hit a hump in the road while going through the intersection, with the driver accelerating to beat a traffic signal that was about to turn red. A preliminary report by the National Transportation Safety Board said records from the car’s event data recorder indicated the car was traveling at up to 90 mph in the five seconds prior to the crash, and the driver never pressed the brake pedal.
Driver Error?
The first thought many might have is that the death of the two young people was a tragedy attributable to an inexperienced driver who failed to appreciate the power of the Tesla Model 3. Running red lights happens every day, but not every car on the road has the ability to accelerate as quickly as a Tesla. The video from the dashcam of another vehicle tends to support that conclusion.
But the families of the victims think there were other factors involved in the fatal crash. In a lawsuit filed against Tesla, they claim the car’s suspension failed, causing the bottom to hit a jump in the road hard enough to ignite a battery fire before it veered off the road. They also claim Garcia brought his vehicle to a Tesla service center four days before the incident, complaining of problems with its steering and suspension. The lawsuit claims the service manager was also at fault for negligently inspecting the car, while Tesla is responsible for the design of the vehicle and failing to assemble it in a safe manner.
Tesla Model 3 Recall
Reuters notes that in October, Tesla recalled 2,791 vehicles because of a front suspension lateral link that may not have been secured properly during manufacturing. The recall covered certain Model Ys built between March 2021 and June 2021 and certain Model 3s built between January 2019 and April 2021.
Whether Garcia’s Tesla was among those recalled is not mentioned in the lawsuit, nor is the recall itself. An amended report on the recall submitted on December 15th says Tesla recorded 133 warranty claims and 104 field reports received between October 14th, 2018, and September 15th, 2021, that could be related, but no injuries, deaths, or accidents were reported.
The Legal Process Begins
The lawsuit was filed in February 2022. The first step in any suit is a complaint, which sets out in lawyer-like language what the plaintiff claims the defendant did or failed to do that caused harm. That is followed by an answer, in which the defendant says in lawyer-like language why the plaintiff is wrong and the defendant did nothing wrong. Sometimes a defendant will bring a third party into a case, claiming he, she, or it is the responsible party.
Then the discovery process begins. The plaintiff demands records going back to the time of The Flood and the defendant claims they are not relevant or can’t be found. It’s a game that all lawyers play and it is a wonderful way to build up billable hours. The litigants may not enjoy all the depositions and answering interrogatories, but for defense lawyers, it’s what allows them to send their children to expensive colleges.
But sometimes the attorneys get a little too creative in their legal maneuvering. Every organization reflects the values of its leaders, and in this case, Elon Musk is a staunch proponent of mounting a vigorous defense. He always yells and screams about “lawfare,” but when it comes to playing legal hardball, nobody does it better.
Earlier this year, the corporation he heads refused to settle a case involving a Tesla driver who blew through a T intersection while using Autopilot and killed two innocent people on the other side of the road. So the case went to trial, and guess what? The jury awarded the plaintiff actual damages of $129 million and punitive damages of $200 million.
The Judge Has Enough
You might think that would maybe knock Tesla back a notch or two in the vehemence with which it defends itself against suits brought against it, but you would be wrong. On October 23, 2025, Florida state court judge Michael Robinson issued a blistering order in the case that was truly extraordinary.
The judge noted that Tesla had in fact conducted testing to determine what would happen in the event one of its vehicles encountered a raised road surface in a situation very similar to what happened to the Garcia vehicle. Tesla engineers documented each test protocol in writing and with videos in what the company refers to as Test Incident Reports. Those reports will play an important role in the court’s October 23 order.
Tesla’s attorneys told the court they had already supplied all the TIRs to the plaintiff’s attorneys in 2023. Then on March 7, 2025, five days before a scheduled deposition, they dropped 8,100 pages of reports on opposing counsel. The court found that many of those documents say on their face the testing is designed to simulate conditions “in which the battery pack and underbody is exposed to direct contact with the ground, bumps, curbs, and other damage objects. These test events are used to simulate severe, unintentional customer vehicle usage constituting an accident,” Judge Robinson wrote.
“One of the tests, labeled ‘Sine Wave Test,’ is specifically designed to simulate a scenario where the underside of the vehicle slammed into the ground after travelling over an elevation in the roadway that is substantially similar to the crest of the roadway that was involved in the subject incident.” The judge found that Tesla offered “no credible justification” for its claim that it had already produced those records, a claim the judge found demonstrably false.
On March 21, 2025, Tesla produced 200 more pages of documents, none of which were the requested TIRs. On March 31, 2025, Tesla produced another 5000 pages of documents but no TIRs. On Friday, July 25, 2025, Tesla produced 123,000 pages of TIRs, photos, videos and other testing documents.
The October 23, 2025 Court Order
The judge was not amused. In an order dated October 23, 2025, he lowered the boom on Tesla. Here is the conclusion of that order:
Based on the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing on July 29 and 30, 2025, this Court finds that Tesla acted willfully or with contumacious and deliberate disregard to the discovery Orders entered by this Court on September 20, 2023, and November 6, 2023. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion for Sanctions as follows:
1. Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.380(b)(2)(a) states:
If a party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a party or a person designated under rule 1.310(b)(6) or 1.320(a) to testify on behalf of a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order made under subdivision (a) of this rule or rule 1.360, the court in which the action is pending may make any of the following orders:
(a) An order that the matters regarding which the questions were asked or any other designated facts will be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order.
2. Given the repeated and on-going violation of this Court’s November 6, 2023, Order, requiring the production of vehicle testing documents, the repeated statements of Tesla’s Counsel as to its alleged compliance with this Order, the nature of the production actually made, the prejudice to the Plaintiffs in prosecuting this matter as a result, and the delays caused by Tesla’s conduct including the continuance of the Jury prequalification hearing and trial from September 8, 2025 to January 12, 2026, the Court rules that pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(b)(3), Tesla is to pay Plaintiffs reasonable attorney fees and costs for their failure to comply with the discovery Orders herein.
This will include, but not limited to, attorney’s fees and expert’s fees for the time spent reviewing the documents produced by the date of the hearing, preparing motions regarding Tesla’s deficient production and attending hearings. The Court does not find Tesla’s failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. The Court hereby RESERVES ruling on the amount owed, and GRANTS only Plaintiffs’ entitlement to recover those reasonable fees and expenses, and defers as to the amount to be decided at a later hearing.
3. Finally, continued violations of Court orders and Florida Rules of Civil Procedure may cause the Court to impose critical and severe sanctions against the offending party, including instructing the jury with a special instruction (adverse inference), striking pleadings or defenses.
Lawfare Is A Two-Way Street
And THAT is what happens when you poke the bear, legally speaking. Elon complains constantly that his opponents are practicing “lawfare” on him and his companies, by which we presume he means those litigants are treating him unfairly. And yet, he is the master of “lawfare” and appears to sanction the most aggressive, in-your-face legal tactics when the shoe is on the other foot.
In personal injury cases, the lawyers for the plaintiff typically never see a dime unless and until they are successful. Now, thanks to the intransigence of Tesla and its attorneys, the plaintiff’s attorneys in this case are assured of being fairly compensated for their time and that of their expert witnesses regardless of the outcome of the case.
Will Tesla learn a lesson from this? Naahh, probably not, just as long as Elon is in the background pulling the strings.
Sign up for CleanTechnica’s Weekly Substack for Zach and Scott’s in-depth analyses and high level summaries, sign up for our daily newsletter, and follow us on Google News!
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
Sign up for our daily newsletter for 15 new cleantech stories a day. Or sign up for our weekly one on top stories of the week if daily is too frequent.
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
CleanTechnica’s Comment Policy
