Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s administration was accused Wednesday of stonewalling discovery in a high-stakes lawsuit with the potential to force cash-strapped Chicago to refund $200 million in fines and late fees paid by motorists denied due process after receiving red-light camera and speed camera tickets.

Attorney Jacie Zolna said City Hall is trying to “delay the inevitable” by refusing to make a “corporate representative” available for a deposition in the high-stakes case.

The city has further refused to turn over “basic” information about how many red-light and speed camera tickets have been issued; how much money the city has collected from those citations; and how much of it is subject to being refunded after motorists were denied their constitutional right to due process, Zolna said.

Earlier this year, a Circuit Court judge accused City Hall of violating the “fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience” by issuing thousands of red-light and speed camera tickets. The motorists who sued alleged they were denied due process because they were not given a second notice of their violations.

Technically, Circuit Judge Kathleen Kennedy simply rejected the city’s motion to the dismiss the case and kept alive a lawsuit Zolna filed on behalf of three ticketed motorists.

But the wording of her ruling was so strong there is little doubt thousands of red-light and speed camera tickets issued since 2003 will ultimately be nullified, potentially forcing the city to refund hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and penalties already paid.

“The second notice provision is designed to protect a non-responding violator’s right to contest a violation before determination of liability issues. This right is generally injured by a directory reading,” the ruling stated.

“Therefore, the term ‘shall’ means mandatory in the second notice provisions. . . . Because the second notice requirement at issue is mandatory under the [municipal code of Chicago], the determinations of liability are void and subject to collateral attack.”

Kennedy ruled that the three named plaintiffs in the case — Delyn McKenzie-Lopez, Themasha Simpson and Erica Lieschke — had “sufficiently alleged facts showing that the city’s retention of payments from determinations made without a second notice violates the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience.”

“The alleged practice of accelerating late fees without statutory compliance is sufficient to show a violation of the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience,” the judge wrote.

Armed with that ruling, Zolna had hoped to forge ahead with his request for class-action status after months of discovery to determine precisely how many motorists are eligible for refunds.

Now, Zolna is accusing the city of trying to slow to a crawl a process that could ultimately force the city to pay $200 million to ticketed motorists denied their constitutional rights.

He’ll be back in court on Friday asking the judge to compel the city to cough up the records and produce a “corporate representative” for a deposition that, he claims, should have been routine.

“They clearly don’t want to have a city representative testify under oath as to whether or not they were operating these programs illegally for the past decade. That much I’m sure of,” Zolna said Wednesday.

“As for the damage information, we’re seeking to void these tickets. This information is clearly relevant. There’s no legal basis for them to withhold it. My only guess is, they don’t want the size of their exposure in this suit to be public record” because it’s such a massive amount.

Deputy Corporation Counsel Naomi Avendano categorically denied Zolna’s claim.

She argued that the city has already produced “hundreds of pages of documents” while cooperating “fully and completely with all the demands of discovery” in the case.

An individual with “knowledge of the issues” will be made available as discovery progresses on the “issue of class certification,” she said.

“There is “absolutely no stonewalling here,” Avendano said.

The stonewalling allegation marks the latest chapter in a long-running saga between Zolna and the city.

Days after Kennedy’s ruling, Zolna accused Emanuel of changing the rules in the middle of the game in a move, he branded an “admission of guilt” that strengthens his claim to refunds for motorists ticketed since 2003.

Without fanfare, Emanuel asked the City Council to amend Chicago’s municipal code to drop the step that Zolna’s lawsuit had accused City Hall of skipping.

No longer would the city be required to send a second notice of violation prior to issuing a determination of liability against motorists slapped with speed camera and red-light camera tickets.

In addition to abolishing the second-notice requirement that Zolna had accused the city of ignoring, City Hall made an administrative change to correct the due process violation cited in the lawsuit filed on behalf of three ticketed motorists.

Instead of assessing late penalties whenever motorists don’t pay up within 21 days of a liability determination, the city started abiding by the 25-day grace period required by law.