The trial court prejudicially erred in granting plaintiff’s in limine motion to exclude defendant from introducing evidence and seeking allocation of fault to two defendants (the State of California and an adjoining landowner) which had settled out of the case before trial. Under Prop. 51, a defndant is entitled to have the jury allocate fault (and thus the share of nonecomonic damages) among all parties responsible for the injury even if some settled before trial. The ruling couldn’t be sustained on the ground that the defendant had answered an initial set of form interrogatories not naming the State and the landowner as potentially responsible parties. Plaintiff hadn’t sent supplemental interrogatories absent which defendant had no duty to supplement its prior answers. Furthermore, an issue sanction can be imposed only for violation of a court order compelling an answer, and no such order was sought or entered here. The $30 million verdict was also excessive and reversed in part due to the plaintiff’s counsel’s blatant (though unobjected to) misconduct in making ad hominem attacks on opposing counsel (saying he was lying) and in making a type of Golden Rule argument.