Order | Filed: June 23, 2026
| Entered: June 23, 2026
Wilson v. Weistec Engineering
Contract: Other | Massachusetts
Order
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Extensive litigation and judicial involvement were required to reach a satisfactory protocol for testing plaintiff Wilson’s vehicle—the subject of this lawsuit. See Doc. Nos. 109–125. Pursuant to multiple Court orders, Doc. Nos. 116, 122, 124, the parties were to conduct dynojet testing of Wilson’s vehicle at Prime Speed Tuning at 10:00 a.m. on June 16, 2026. The testing was to follow an agreed-upon and Court-approved protocol and testing instructions. See Doc. No. 125-1. Defendant Weistec Engineering now reports that the testing did not occur because Wilson brought the vehicle to Prime Speed Tuning in a condition that rendered it unsafe for dynojet testing. Doc. No. 126. Specifically, Weistec CEO Michael Weiss (who, along with Weistec’s director of operations, traveled from California to Massachusetts to attend the scheduled testing) avers that:
(1) Wilson and his counsel arrived fifteen minutes late. Doc. No. 126-1 ¶ 11.
(2) When Wilson arrived, his vehicle had an active “check engine” light. Id. ¶ 12.
(3) The vehicle was misfiring. Id. ¶¶ 12, 13.
(4) Diagnostic testing of the vehicle revealed “multiple active faults,” including “P0175: System Too Rich” and “Internal Control Module Torque Calculation Performance.” Id. ¶ 14.
(5) As a result of (2)–(4), there was a substantial risk of significant engine damage if dynojet testing was conducted, and the parties ultimately decided not to go forward with the testing. Id. ¶¶ 20, 21.
(6) The vehicle was running on E-85 fuel. Id. ¶¶ 13, 15. The parties’ testing instructions had called for Prime Speed Tuning to “top off the vehicle with fresh 91 or 93 octane top-tier pump gas.” Doc. No. 125-1 at 6 (paragraph 1.2).
(7) Wilson stated that the E-85 fuel would produce “a couple more hundred horsepower.” Doc. No. 126-1 ¶ 15. This statement suggested he was attempting to manipulate the testing results. Id. ¶ 19.
(8) The vehicle had undisclosed, non-cosmetic modifications, including (a) disassembled dashboard with exposed wiring, (2) installed PedalBox device and remote, and (3) exhaust cutouts. Id. ¶¶ 23, 25 & n.1.
(9) Weiss was not given the opportunity to conduct a complete inspection of the vehicle or to look under its hood. Id. ¶ 23.
(10) Weiss learned from Prime Speed Tuning that Wilson, accompanied by counsel, had Prime Speed Tuning conduct dynojet testing on the subject vehicle on January 3, 2025. Id. ¶¶ 5, 6.
(11) The January 2025 testing was not previously disclosed to Weistec. Id. ¶¶ 6, 7.
(12) Prime Speed Tuning sent Weiss the January 2025 test results, which revealed that the subject vehicle produced substantially less horsepower than the Weistec Media Article vehicle. Id. ¶¶ 8–10.
These factual allegations, if true, appear to amount to both willful disregard of prior Court orders and the obligations of the discovery process. By June 30, 2026, Wilson SHALL file a response that (1) responds to each enumerated factual allegation above; (2) as to factual allegation #11, specifies whether Wilson believes he was required to disclose the January 2025 testing to Weistec under the Rules and any applicable interrogatories or requests for production propounded by Weistec; (3) identifies any additional facts Wilson wishes to put before the Court to provide necessary context, and (4) SHOWS CAUSE why—if the Court determines that these factual allegations are true—the Court should not (a) dismiss this case as a sanction for Wilson’s willful disregard of the Court’s orders and his discovery obligations as well as his spoilation of the subject vehicle and deliberate efforts to manipulate testing or (b) impose some lesser sanction or (c) impose no sanctions on Wilson at all.
There is one more issue. Weistec says that RayTeam has produced Wilson’s Granite State Dyno testing results in its possession pursuant to the Court’s May 19 Order, Doc. Nos. 117, 126-6, that Weistec has reason to believe RayTeam possesses additional responsive documents, and that the Court should order RayTeam to produce “all documents relating to or concerning Plaintiff Steve Wilson and the Subject Vehicle, including but not limited to, any testing, tuning, diagnostic, repair, modification, inspection, or performance-related records, and communications including emails, letters, invoices, or text messages.&... (truncated)