Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01773/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01773-22/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-

Proposed Order re Pl.’s Mot. to Amend Pretrial Order

Case No.: 1:06-cv-01773-OWW-DLB

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

David C. Wright, State Bar No. 177468

dcw@mccunewright.com

Kristy M. Arevalo, State Bar No. 216308

kma@mccunewright.com

McCUNEWRIGHT, LLP

2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216

Redlands, California 92374

Telephone: (909) 557-1250

Facsimile: (909) 557-1275

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRACY YU-SANTOS

Plaintiff,

v.

TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS 

INC. and ROBERT SANTOS,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:06-cv-01773-OWW-DLB

Judge Assigned: Hon. Oliver W. Wanger

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO AMEND THE PRE-TRIAL 

ORDER; 

Hearing Date: June 1, 2010

Time: 2:30 p.m.

Dep’t: 3

On June 1, 2010, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Pretrial Order came on for 

hearing in Department 3 of the above-entitled Court. After reviewing and considering 

Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendant’s Opposition, and Plaintiff’s Reply papers, and hearing and 

considering oral argument regarding the motion, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

Good cause appearing, to prevent manifest injustice to Plaintiff, and finding no 

surprise or prejudice to Defendant, the final Pretrial Order which was entered in this 

matter on March 9, 2010, is hereby amended as of the date of this Order to conform to the 

following:

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 188 Filed 06/07/10 Page 1 of 3
-2-

Order re Pl.’s Mot. to Amend Pretrial Order

Case No.: 1:06-cv-01773-OWW-DLB

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

At p. 1, line 21: (1) Manufacturing defects as to the right front seat belt, left rear 

seat belt, and right rear seat belt

At p. 1, lines 23-24: (3) Failure to warn (whether Defendant failed to adequately 

warn of any known or knowable risk relating to the right front, left rear, and right 

rear seating positions).

At p. 3, line 11, add: c. The parties dispute whether a manufacturing defect exists 

in the left rear seat belt webbing of the Ford Explorer that proximately caused 

damages to Plaintiff. 

At p. 3, line 16, add: The parties dispute whether Keilan Santos was seated in the 

left rear or right rear seat. 

At p. 3, line 18, add: The parties dispute the type of injuries Keilan Santos would 

have sustained if the webbing in the left rear seat belt assembly of the Ford

Explorer did not separate.

At p. 3, line 18, change No. 4 to read: The parties dispute whether, if Keilan 

Santos was seated in the right rear seat, he was wearing his seat belt at the time of 

the accident.

At p. 4, line 6, change No. 11 to read: The parties dispute whether Defendant failed 

to adequately warn of any known or knowable risk relating to the right front, left 

rear, and right rear seating positions of the Ford Explorer.

At p. 4, lines 22-25, change Nos. 18 and 19 to include: left rear passenger seating 

position. 

At p. 7, line 18, change “nephew Daniel Torres-Santos” to “the left rear seat 

belt,”...and change “that of Plaintiff’s son Keilan Santos,” to “the right rear,”.

Plaintiff is further ordered to include the following in the amended pretrial order under 

the subheading “Further Discovery or Motions”:

Pursuant to the Court’s order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Pretrial 

Order, the Court has ordered that the parties may conduct the following additional 

discovery :

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 188 Filed 06/07/10 Page 2 of 3
-3-

Order re Pl.’s Mot. to Amend Pretrial Order

Case No.: 1:06-cv-01773-OWW-DLB

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. Plaintiff shall immediately make her experts available to Defendant for redeposition on the sole issue of the left rear seat belt and seat.

2. Plaintiff shall immediately allow Defendant to inspect the seat belt assembly 

and seat in the left rear seating position.

3. Plaintiff shall be allowed to re-depose Defendant’s experts regarding their 

analyses and opinions concerning the left rear seat belt assembly and left rear seating 

position before they testify at trial.

4. The Court will authorize the issuance, on Defendant’s request, for subpoenas 

or subpoenas duces tecum for any witnesses that it thinks exist on the issue of the position 

of Keilan Santos in the left rear seat. Further, on shortened notice, the Court will permit 

Defendant to re-open discovery to conduct any further fact investigation and analysis 

surrounding the accident.

5. The parties shall be permitted to designate experts in the field of toxicology 

for the purposes of conducting a foundational hearing pursuant to Federal Rules of 

Evidence, Rule 104, regarding the admissibility of evidence of marijuana use by the 

driver of the subject vehicle, Christopher Miranda.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

emm0d64h

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 188 Filed 06/07/10 Page 3 of 3