Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01539/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01539-36/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Motor Vehicle Product Liability

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONIQUE GUERRERO, et al., CASE NO. CV F 06-1539 LJO SMS

Plaintiffs, ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION

TO RE-OPEN LIMITED DISCOVERY

(Doc. 239)

vs.

GENERAL MOTORS CORP.,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Defendants General Motors Corporation and Takata Seat Belts, Incorporated (“Defendants”)

jointly move to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of conducting exemplar surrogate work based

on findings uncovered during the retractor disassembly that occurred on April 11, 2008. The retractor

disassembly took placed after this trial began pursuant to an October 29, 2007 order signed by Magistrate

Judge Sandra M. Snyder, granting in part Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiffs to produce the seatbelt

for testing (Doc. 68). Pursuant to that order, the parties kept intact the seat belt until it could be shown

to the jury. Thereafter, the seat belt would be disassembled. The parties conducted the April 11, 2008

disassembly pursuant to the Stipulation, Protocol and Order Regarding the Disassembly and Inspection

of the Seat Belt Used by Monique Guerrero At the Time of the Accident Forming the Basis For the

Instant Lawsuit (filed April 10, 2008, Doc. 234). 

The Court heard arguments on this motion on April 15, 2008. The Court record, including the

parties’ arguments, this Court’s complete reasoning, and this Court’s ruling, are hereby incorporated in

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 242 Filed 04/15/08 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

this order. 

At the hearing, the Court, in part, found that Defendants' basis for the additional discovery was

to provide better evidence. Defendants admitted that they have existing evidence to prove the same

issue, but wanted to reopen discovery to have the possibility to obtain better evidence. Because

Defendants’ motion was for redundant evidence, , this Court DENIED Defendants’ motion. (Doc. 239).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 242 Filed 04/15/08 Page 2 of 2