Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01370/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01370-0/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

On January 4, 2006, the Court held a one hour and 45-minute discovery conference

call with the parties. Although fact discovery closed on December 16, 2005, the parties

raised a number of new discovery issues. The Court has held numerous discovery

conference calls with the parties and has advised them that additional ext ensions would

not likely be granted. See Docs. ##128, 178. This Order will address the issues discussed

during the January 4, 2006 conference.

1. On or shortly after December 16, 2005, Defendant s for the first time disclosed

the existence of and statements from a number of witnesses to factual events in the case.

The potential testimony of these witnesses appears to be relevant to several critical issues

in the case, including the condition of the gas cap on t he day of the accident, whether

Plaintiffs were aware of problems wit h t he gas cap and had tried to remedy them, use of the

vehicle in the days and hours before the accident, the process by which the vehicle was

started, use of the vehicle on streets in the neighborhood, and warnings to the victim’s

father about use of t he vehicle. Defendants contend that much of this information directly

Case 2:04-cv-01370-DGC Document 230 Filed 01/05/06 Page 1 of 5
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 -

contradict s t he Plaintiffs’ sworn testimony. Plaintiffs vigorously dispute the veracity of

this new evidence, but there can be no doubt about its potential relevance.

The quest ion for the Court, then, is whether the information could have been

discovered by Defendant s through the exercise of reasonable diligence during the

discovery period. Defendants contend that they learned of the information fortuitously

when their investigator visited the home of a previously-interviewed neighbor on

December 13, 2005, to obtain a final witness statement. Defendants contend that t he

neighbor disclosed on that dat e, for t he first time, the identity of others in the

neighborhood who were directly involved in the relevant events. Defendants contend

they acted quickly to contact these individuals in New M exico and elsewhere and thereby

obtained the new information. Defendants further claim that Plaintiffs failed to disclose the

identit y of these individuals even though they knew of their involvement in the events at

issue. For example, Defendants contend that the victim’s mother testified during her

deposition that the house where some of these individuals were living at the time of the

accident was in fact vacant at the time of the accident. Defendants further cont end that

Plaint iffs failed to disclose their contacts with some of these individuals during the days

and hours immediately before the accident despite the fact that the identities of the such

individuals had been sought in discovery requests. Thus, Defendant s contend, they could

not have known about these individuals before their fortuitous discovery on December 13,

2005, only three days before the discovery cut-off date. 

Plaint iffs argue that Defendants should and could have learned of the identities of

t hese individuals earlier in the case. Plaintiffs have obtained a declaration from t he

neighbor stating that he disclosed the identity of some of these individuals t o Defendant s’

investigator in May or June of 2005. Plaintiffs further assert t hat the locations of Plaintiffs’

residence and surrounding residences have been known to Defendants since June of 2004

and that the sister of some of the new witnesses lives next door and could easily have been

contacted by Defendants. Plaintiffs argue that the late disclosure of these witnesses

Case 2:04-cv-01370-DGC Document 230 Filed 01/05/06 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 -

substantially alt ers the nature of the case and will prejudice Plaintiffs by requiring

extensive additional discovery and expert work. 

T he Court concludes that Defendants have established “good cause” for modifying

t he discovery schedule in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Although defense counsel

have known of the Plaint iffs’ residence and the surrounding neighborhood throughout this

litigation, they did not know of t he existence of these individuals until shortly before the

close of discovery. The neighbor asserts that he mentioned some of the individuals to

Defendants’ investigator last summer, but the investigator did not report any such

communication to defense counsel. Although it may be true that Defendants could have

identified these individuals through thorough interviews with the sister who lives nearby

or other steps, it also appears true that the identities of these individuals and their contacts

with Plaintiffs were not disclosed, whether intentionally or unintentionally , by Plaintiffs in

response to discovery requests. The victim’s mother testified that the house where some

of these individuals lived was vacant at t he t ime of the accident. Thus, without making any

determination as to whether the actions of Plaintiffs were proper or improper, it appears

that the discovery provided by Plaintiffs failed to disclose these individuals. Because the

testimony of these individuals appears t o be highly relevant to this case, the Court will

extend the discovery schedule to permit its use at trial.

The Court will not extend discovery for all purposes. Rather, it will tailor a narrow

extension of the discovery periods in order to permit the parties to deal with this newly

discovered information. The revised schedule will appear at the end of this Order.

2. On the basis of the conference call, the Court ordered Plaintiffs’ counsel t o

disclose the expert files in their possession on January 4, 2006, and t o obt ain and disclose

any additional informat ion from their experts’ files on or before the close of business on

January 6, 2006. The Court further ordered Plaintiffs’ counsel to provide verification for

any previous int errogatory answers and supplementation of previous discovery responses

on or before the close of business on January 6, 2006. 

Case 2:04-cv-01370-DGC Document 230 Filed 01/05/06 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

3. Plaintiffs seek to obtain information needed by, and to disclose the opinions

of, two additional experts – one concerning halogen treatment of the gas cap in question

and another concerning the cost of possible cap modifications. T he Court normally would

be inclined to deny such a request, but the extension to address other matters will p rovide

an opport unity for this expert work to be completed. Plaintiffs will be permitted to obtain

this information and disclose the addit ional experts by the modified dates set forth below.

4. Defendants seek additional time to produce their expert reports in light of the

files of Plaintiffs’ experts to be disclosed this week and two newly disclosed experts whose

reports were provided on December 16, 2005. The modified schedule set forth below will

allow Defendants additional time to respond to Plaintiffs’ experts.

5. Discovery in this case is closed. In light of the foregoing, however, the Court

will permit the parties to conduct limited additional discovery as follows:

a. Additional factual discovery may be conducted with respect to the 11

new witnesses and statements disclosed by Defendants’ first supplement al disclosure and

the 5 new witnesses and statements disclosed by Defendants’ second supplemental

disclosure. T his discovery will be limited to information and issues raised by these new

witnesses and their statements. This factual discovery, which may include depositions,

shall be completed on or before February 16, 2006. No additional extensions will be

granted.

b. Expert disclosures and discovery shall occur on the following

schedule:

i. Plaintiffs shall supplement their existing expert reports to

address issues raised by this additional fact discovery, and shall provide full and complete

expert disclosures as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure with resp ect to the halogen treatment and cap cost experts, no later than

March 16, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01370-DGC Document 230 Filed 01/05/06 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

ii. Plaintiffs shall make their experts available for deposition

between March 16, 2006 and April 14, 2006.

iii. Defendants shall provide full and complete expert disclosures,

including final expert reports, as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, no later than April 14, 2006

iv. Defendant s shall make their experts available for deposition

between April 14, 2006 and May 12, 2006.

v. Rebuttal reports shall not be filed. Nor shall t he p arties be

permitted to supplement t he final reports to be disclosed by Plaintiffs on March 16, 2006

and by Defendants on April 14, 2006.

c. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before June 2, 2006. The

parties are reminded that the Case Management Order establishes a limit of one motion for

summary judgment per side. See Doc. #18, ¶ 7(b). The parties are also advised that the

Court will not be inclined to grant page extensions. T hey should complete their briefing

within the page limits established by the Local Rules.

d. All other terms of the Court ’s Case Management Order shall remain

in effect.

DATED this 5th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01370-DGC Document 230 Filed 01/05/06 Page 5 of 5