Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01539/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01539-13/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 DEFENDANT GM’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RE:

JURY QUESTIONNAIRE

(Doc. 117)

vs.

GENERAL MOTORS CORP.,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The Court has received and reviewed Defendant General Motors Corporation’s (“GM’s”) motion

for reconsideration, Plaintiffs’ opposition and GM’s reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition. (Docs. 117, 118,

and 121). The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that both the original question (Doc. 99, 4:9-15) and the

newly-worded question (Doc. 117-1, 2:12-17) are attempts to precondition the jurors. The Court finds

further that a neutral question relating to the issue of the ability or inability to follow the law would

address GM’s concerns without preconditioning the jury panel. Accordingly, this Court:

1. DENIES GM’s motion for reconsideration, to the extent that GM moves to include the

question proposed in its motion; and

2. GRANTS GM’s motion for reconsideration, IF GM moves to insert a more neutral

question to address GM’s issue, such as the following: “Do you have strong views, one

way or the other, on the use or non-use of safety restraints for minors in a motor

vehicle?”

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 123 Filed 03/20/08 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

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 123 Filed 03/20/08 Page 2 of 2