Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01370/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01370-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mario Casillas, et al, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

American Honda Motor Company, Inc., et

al, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-1370-PHX-DGC

ORDER

T he Court held a discovery conference call on January 24, 2006. On the basis of t he

conference call, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs shall immediately produce to Defendants the witness st at ements

obtained from Mr. Schultz, Mr. Gunther, Ms. Greschowski, and Ms. Pitts. Plaintiffs’

counsel stated during the conference call that they did not object to producing t he Schultz

and Gunther witness statement. The Court concludes that the showing required by Rule

26(b)(3) of t he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has been made with respect to the

Greschowski and Pitts witness statements. Therefore, although both parties agree that

witness statements can const it ut e work product, the showing necessary for discovery of

this work product has been established and disclosure will be required.

2. On or before January 27, 2006, each party shall disclose to t he opposing party

the names and addresses of witnesses identified in discovery.

3. In an Order filed on January 5, 2006, the Court stated that discovery in this

case is closed. The Court further ordered, however, that additional factual discovery may

Case 2:04-cv-01370-DGC Document 293 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

be conducted with respect to “information and issues raised by” the witnesses and

statements identified in the first and second supplemental disclosure statements. See Doc.

#230. Plaintiffs asked the Court to limit such addit ional discovery to witnesses identified

in t he first and second supplemental disclosure statements and other witnesses who had

been identified in the litigation as of the Court’s Order of January 5, 2006. The Court will

not so limit discovery. The intent of the Court ’s Order was to permit discovery into the

information and issues raised by the new witnesses. Some of this discovery may include

additional witnesses who have knowledge concerning the information and issues raised

in the first and second supp lemental disclosure statements. Discovery of such witnesses

will be permitted. Discovery is closed as to all other aspects of this case – facts unrelated

to the information and issues raised by the new witnesses and statements included in the

first and second supplemental disclosure statements.

DATED this 24th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01370-DGC Document 293 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 2