Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01539/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01539-21/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’ OBJECTIONS

TO BILL RIPPEE AND RON J. MONIS

(Witnesses)

vs.

GENERAL MOTORS CORP.,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On March 28, 2008, Defendants General Motors Corporation (“GM”) and Takata Seat Belts, Inc.

(“Takata”) (collectively “Defendants”) objected to Plaintiffs’ designation of Bill Rippee and Ron Monis

as witnesses at trial (Doc. 141). Plaintiffs responded to Defendants’ objections on April 2, 2008 (Doc.

193). The Court considered Defendants objections and Plaintiffs response, and issues the following

order.

In their response, Plaintiffs withdraw Bill Rippee as a witness. Based on Plaintiffs’ withdrawal

of Bill Rippee as a witness, no ruling is needed on Defendants’ objections to the designation of Bill

Rippee as a witness in this trial.

Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ designation of Ron Monis as a witness based on the grounds that

Plaintiffs did not identify him as a witness in any of the pre-trial disclosures and did not list Ron Monis

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 206 Filed 04/03/08 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

as a witness until after the August 24, 2007 cut-off date for non-expert discovery. In response, Plaintiffs

point out that Defendants failed to file their final witness list with this Court in a timely manner,

pursuant to the Pretrial Order (Doc. 96). Plaintiffs explain that Ron Monis is a foundational witness to

be used in the second phase of the trial and maintain that he should be permitted to testify.

Ron Monis is listed as a witness in this Court’s Pretrial Order (Doc. 96, 36:5-10). Defendants

did not object to Mr. Monis at the time he was designated nor raise the issue at the Pretrial Conference.

Defendants did not move to exclude Ron Monis’s testimony at the motion in limine hearing. Rather,

Defendants waited to object to Ron Monis’ testimony for the first time over month after they became

aware of the witness, and more importantly, less than one week before the trial is set to begin.

Accordingly, Defendants objection is unreasonable and untimely. 

For this reasons, this Court OVERRULES Defendants’ objections to Plaintiffs’ designation of

Ron Monis as a witness.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 206 Filed 04/03/08 Page 2 of 2