Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00554/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00554-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 315
Nature of Suit: Airplane Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARILYN GOETZKE, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-03-0554 GEB JFM

vs. (Consolidated with No. S-03-0603 GEB JFM)

SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORP., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ADRIAN VILLARUZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORP., et al.,

 /

CROMAN CORPORATION, an 

Oregon corporation,

vs. ORDER

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY;

SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORP., et al.,

 /

Case 2:03-cv-00554-GEB -JFM Document 168 Filed 08/18/06 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

 When Steven O. Rosen, counsel for plaintiff Croman, asked that he be allowed to 1

participate in this argument by telephone, he was given permission to do so, however, he was

cautioned that a land line was essential for a reliable connection. When counsel asked that he be

allowed to use his cell phone, he was advised of the likelihood of a bad connection but chose to

proceed. When the connection failed the discussion proceeded without Mr. Rosen’s participation.

2

Defendant Sikorsky’s motion for protective order came on regularly for hearing

August 17, 2006. Robert Hopkins and Brenda Posada appeared telephonically for plaintiffs

Goetzke and Villaruz. Garry L. Montanari appeared telephonically for defendant Sikorsky. 

1

Upon review of the motion and the documents in support and opposition, upon

hearing the arguments of counsel and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS

FOLLOWS:

Defendant Sikorsky seeks an order sealing a document which has been part of the

public record of this court since July 5, 2005. This court has found no authority which would

allow, much less require, a result fraught with so much mischief. Accordingly, defendant’s

motion for protective order is denied.

DATED: August 17, 2006.

/001; goetzke.oah6

Case 2:03-cv-00554-GEB -JFM Document 168 Filed 08/18/06 Page 2 of 2