In Brenner v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 365, a breath testing device gave two identical readings showing a .08 percent blood alcohol level. (Id. at p. 368.) At the DMV administrative hearing, the driver presented expert testimony to establish that calibration records for the testing device revealed the device was producing readings that overstated actual alcohol content by .002 percent. Thus, the expert opined that the driver's actual blood alcohol level was less than the .08 percent shown on his test results. (Ibid.) The DMV argued the calibration records were legally irrelevant in light of the fact that the .002 percent deviation fell within the accepted variance of .01 percent under the applicable regulations. (Id. at pp. 371-372.) This court disagreed and upheld a trial court order granting the driver's writ of mandate setting aside the driver's license suspension. (Id. at p. 373.) The Court reasoned that, "while the regulations require forensic testing agencies to ensure their instruments meet a minimum level of accuracy, nothing in the regulatory scheme precludes a driver from introducing evidence that the instrument used to test his or her blood alcohol concentration deviated by some measure less than .01 percent of the true value. Nor does any regulation bar a trial court from considering such a deviation in determining whether an administrative license suspension is supported by sufficient evidence." (Id. at p. 371.) The Court concluded the DMV satisfied its burden to set forth a prima facie case by presenting breath test results showing a .08 percent blood alcohol level. (Brenner, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at pp. 371-372.) The Court stated that "the arresting officer's testimony and plaintiff's blood alcohol concentration results were sufficient to establish the DMV's prima facie case" but that the driver had rebutted the DMV's prima facie case with evidence establishing that the recorded test results were inaccurate. (Id. at p. 371.)