Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01539/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01539-7/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONIQUE GUERRERO, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-01539-LJO-SMS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT

TAKATA SEAT BELTS, INC.’S MOTION

TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO PRODUCE

SEATBELT FOR FURTHER INSPECTION

AND TESTING (DOC. 42)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT TAKATA’S

MOTION TO STRIKE MATERIAL (DOC.

59)

Plaintiffs are proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(1) and 72-303.

Pending before the Court is a motion to compel production

and further testing of a seat belt filed by Defendant Takata Seat

Belts, Inc. (Takata), on August 29, 2007, including a joint

statement of discovery dispute; declarations of Robert

Gratzinger, Michael Belcher, William Broadhead, and Douglas

Gordon, and all exhibits attached thereto; and the objections of

Defendant Takata Seat Belts, Inc. The Court has viewed still

photography and a DVD of x-rays of the seat belt.

On September 21, 2007, Defendant’s motion came on regularly

for hearing at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 7 before the Honorable

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 68 Filed 10/29/07 Page 1 of 12
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

Sandra M. Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge. Eugene M.

Genson and Michael Belcher appeared on behalf of Defendant

Takata; Anthony S. Thomas appeared on behalf of Defendant General

Motors Corporation; and Douglas L. Gordon appeared on behalf of

Plaintiffs. After argument and observation of the seat belt by

the Court, the matter was submitted to the Court for decision.

I. Motion to Compel Production of Seatbelt for Further

 Testing

In this action for damages resulting from an automobile

accident, Plaintiffs claim that at the time of impact, the

seatbelt retractor mechanism jammed, and the belt’s webbing

slipped off the spool and became entangled with retractor teeth

that are stamped into the retractor frame immediately adjacent to

the spool. Plaintiffs allege that the absence of any separation

of the retractor teeth, on the one hand, and the belt or webbing

material on the other, constitutes a design defect. Plaintiffs

contend that the present condition of the belt, namely, the

engagement between the webbing and the retractor teeth, is

clearly visible and is documented in photographic evidence.

(Gordon Decl., Ex. 4 [photos]; Broadhead Decl. [video of the

inspection of October 16, 2006].)

Defendants dispute the claim of a defective belt design and

also dispute that the engagement of the webbing and the teeth has

occurred or is visible. (Decl. of Michael Belcher, Ex. F [video

of x-rays of seatbelt and retractor taken on August 4, 2007];

Gratzinger Decl.) Defendants acknowledge that the webbing is offcenter on the spool and seek to compel Plaintiffs to produce the

seatbelt to allow Defendants to unroll the belt in order to

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 68 Filed 10/29/07 Page 2 of 12
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

determine whether the webbing is engaged with the retractor teeth

and, if so, whether the cause is engagement of some sort with the

locking retractor teeth, a twist or twists in the webbing that

was introduced on to the retractor spool, or some other factor or

factors. Further, Defendants seek to determine how the belt,

which Plaintiffs claim had been stuck for about six weeks before

the accident, could have auto-retracted an estimated five to

seven inches during an inspection carried out on July 27, 2006.

Because the inspection and testing that the Defendant Takata

seeks to perform will irrevocably change the condition of the

belt, including the ability of an observer to see the meeting of

the webbing and the spool in its present condition, the Court has

determined to evaluate the request with the standards applicable

to destructive testing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1).

Further, in connection with this motion, the Court notes

Plaintiffs’ request to take judicial notice of the substance and

contents of an order dated October 3, 2002, rendered in the Davis

case in Placer County, concerning Defendants’ expert, Gratzinger.

(Gordon Decl., Ex. 1.) The Court further notes the objection of

Defendant Takata and motion to strike the references to the

material referring to the Davis case. It appears that the order

of October 3 was vacated and sealed, and there was a specific

prohibition against anyone’s citing the order as a decision of

the court or source of reliance. The Court denies the request for

judicial notice and grants Defendant’s motion to strike the

materials pertaining to the Davis case.

State courts have described the pertinent test as a

balancing of the costs of irreversibly altering the object and

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 68 Filed 10/29/07 Page 3 of 12
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

the benefits of obtaining the evidence sought in the case, with

consideration being given to lessening the costs by the use of

safeguards, photography of the item in the pre-testing condition,

and by searching for alternative, non-destructive means of

obtaining the desired evidence; the court should consider whether

the testing is reasonable and necessary. Cameron v. District

Court, 193 Colo. 286 (1977).

An instructive federal case is Mirchandani v. Home Depot,

U.S.A., Inc., 235 F.R.D. 611 (D.Md. 2006), in which the court

determined that pursuant to Rule 34(a)(1), the plaintiff buyers

who sought damages for injuries sustained from an allegedly

defective ladder could conduct metallurgical and hardness tests

on a bolt from the ladder. There the court summarized the

analysis that is appropriately undertaken with respect to

problems of destructive testing as follows:

Based on the discussion in Cameron, the undersigned

identifies four specific inquiries relevant to the

balancing test. They are: 1) Whether the proposed

testing is reasonable, necessary, and relevant to

proving the movant's case; 2) Whether the non-movant's

ability to present evidence at trial will be hindered,

or whether the non-movant will be prejudiced in some

other way; 3) Whether there are any less prejudicial

alternative methods of obtaining the evidence sought;

and 4) Whether there are adequate safeguards to minimize

prejudice to the non-movant, particularly the non-movant's

ability to present evidence at trial.

Mirchandani, 235 F.R.D. at 614.

Here, Defendants seek to examine the webbing and pull on it

incrementally at five-inch lengths to see if it can be moved,

and, if so, whether the webbing will be retracted; Defendants

seek then to drill a hole in the plastic housing on the outside

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 68 Filed 10/29/07 Page 4 of 12
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 The ALR function locks the belt to facilitate a secure and snug connection during use with carseats for 1

minor passengers.

5

of the retractor frame to release the ALR lever, which would 1

allow gradual and full unspooling of the webbing. The things that

are possibly to be learned from the inspection and testing

involve the condition of the webbing, including the presence or

absence of any anomalies in the webbing and any marks or evidence

of involvement with the teeth, the orientation of the webbing on

the spool, and further to permit documentation of the condition

and orientation of the webbing in all respects.

Although it may be, as Broadhead declares, that the position

of the webbing and any engagement of any teeth may be ascertained

from measurements, it does not appear that the actual condition

of the webbing that is not visible right now may be ascertained

without unspooling the belt. The parties dispute the importance

of the position of the belt at the time of the accident, whether

or not engagement of teeth in the webbing occurred and inhibited

the ability of the belt to retract, and the interaction of the

belt with, and the effect of, the ALR system on the belt’s

operation. All these issues are related to the question of the

cause/s of the condition and operation of the belt at the

pertinent time, a matter material and essential to the

Defendant’s defense as well as to the Plaintiff’s claim. The

testing is likely to tend to show what the cause of any failure

of the belt was, and thus it is relevant. 

The Court finds that the testing is reasonable, necessary,

and relevant to proving Defendant’s case.

With respect to whether or not the non-movant’s ability to

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 68 Filed 10/29/07 Page 5 of 12
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

6

present evidence at trial will be hindered, or whether the nonmovant will be prejudiced in some other way, Plaintiffs seek to

present the belt and retractor in their present condition to the

jury. The Court observed the seat belt at the hearing, including

the portion of the belt that may be observed by one’s looking

into the small space inside the seat belt retractor mechanism

where an edge of the webbing is near, next to, or under what

appear to be tiny teeth. It is very difficult to describe the

precise interaction of the belt and the teeth. From the Court’s

observation as well as from the radically differing conclusions

drawn by the declarants in this case, it is clear to the Court

that persons observing the interior of the mechanism and the belt

might come to different conclusions regarding the condition of

the belt and the extent to which the belt and teeth are engaged,

if at all. Further, after observing the best still photographic

images of the retractor and belt, the Court concludes that the

photographs do not adequately represent what can be seen, and

they do not provide a satisfactory substitute for actual viewing

of the belt in the retractor. The Court has also viewed the DVD

supplied at the hearing entitled “X-Rays Of Accident/Retractor

8/4/07" filmed by Image Quest Plus LLC. With all due respect to

the best efforts and intentions of all counsel as well as the

technicians who performed the x-ray version of cinema verite, the

Court was fairly certain she was viewing psychedelic black-andwhite pop art, incapable of any description whatsoever.

Acknowledging that an expert and/or a technician and/or legal

counsel would make every effort to explain and clarify what was

being viewed, it is this Court’s strong opinion that a lay jury

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 68 Filed 10/29/07 Page 6 of 12
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

7

will struggle as much with this DVD as with the still

photographs. This has to do with the unique circumstances of this

case, including the fact that the phenomenon in question, namely,

the extent of engagement of the belt and teeth, involves

perception of depth and not just a flat image, in a very small

space; the fact that few individuals would have had any

experience in observing the workings of seat belt retractors; and

the fact that it is very difficult for an observer of the

photographs and DVD to orient himself or herself properly with

respect to the actual appearance and operation of the belt

itself. 

Because of this, the Court acknowledges the argument that

the testing would result in irreversible alteration of the

evidence. Plaintiff’s ability to present the most direct, and

arguably the only adequate, evidence of the present condition of

the belt would be lost if this testing is allowed. 

It has been asserted that the belt in its present condition

is not sufficiently important to obstruct testing because the

belt in not presently in the condition in which it was at the

time of the accident. The position of Plaintiffs is that for

about six weeks before the accident, the seat belt was stuck and

would not move or retract. Apparently there were no photographs

taken immediately after the accident, which occurred on April 6,

2006. However, the belt was observed and photographed on May 17,

2006, with the belt stuck in position. (Del. of Belcher, Ex. J.)

During an inspection on July 27, 2006, in the presence of GM

engineers and counsel, but without the presence of any

representative to Defendant Takata, the belt “auto-retracted” an

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 68 Filed 10/29/07 Page 7 of 12
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

8

estimated five to seven inches onto the retractor spool, and this

may have added one to two layers of webbing around the retractor

spool. (Id., Ex. K.) On October 6, 2006, the belt was removed

from the vehicle; Plaintiffs found that it then had webbing

unevenly spooled in the retractor, off the edge of the retractor

spool, and caught in the retractor teeth. On October 16, 2006,

while being videotaped, engineer David Peruski unclasped the

spring clips holding the webbing in place and pulled upward to

see if he could extract the webbing, which caused the so-called

auto-retraction. The suit was filed on October 30, 2006;

thereafter, Plaintiffs decided to add Takata, the designer and

manufacturer of the belt, as a defendant. Defendant Takata was

first permitted a visual inspection on May 23, 2007; on August 4,

2007, the seat belt and retractor were x-rayed. 

The Court is not persuaded by the argument or evidence that

because some change in the condition of the belt has occurred,

the present condition of the belt is not sufficiently important

to preserve. See, Mirchandani at p. 615. The Court concludes that

all the available evidence as to the condition of the belt at

each successive stage during the development of this controversy

and lawsuit is material and relevant; the past and present

condition of the belt, as can be ascertained by all pertinent

discovery, is key evidence with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim

as well as Defendant’s defense, and is the best available

evidence from which experts may be able to determine what

transpired during the accident. The Court has before it expert

opinion to this effect, and at this point, the parties must be

permitted to allow their experts to obtain the data they seek in

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 68 Filed 10/29/07 Page 8 of 12
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

9

order to formulate their opinions. The fact that there was an

“auto-retraction” may complicate or may shed light on the precise

mechanisms and processes at work; however, it would be

inappropriate for the Court to conclude at this juncture and on

the basis of what is now before it that in view of the “autoretraction,” the present condition of the belt is of such

diminished importance that it is not worth preserving.

With respect to the availability of a less prejudicial,

alternative method of obtaining the evidence, there does not

appear to be any way to discover the facts concerning the

condition of the belt and any undiscovered indicia of the

processes that were at work on it without actually unspooling or

unrolling the belt. 

In summary, because the testing is reasonable, necessary to

determine a central issue, and relevant, it should be permitted.

However, there does not appear to be any effective way of

preserving the present evidence, namely, the present condition of

the belt in the retractor, during the testing. 

The undersigned Magistrate Judge has conferred with the

trial judge and concludes that the only possible way to preserve

the weighty interests of each side in preserving the evidence and

discovering the truth is to permit the trier of fact in this case

to observe the seatbelt in its present condition, and then to

permit the Defendants’ experts thereafter to undertake the

inspection and testing they seek to conduct, and to have the

Court consider and permit any follow-up processes thought to be

necessary by any party. This will require the cooperation of the

parties, their counsel, and their experts to permit the testing

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 68 Filed 10/29/07 Page 9 of 12
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

10

to occur within a short time-frame and to anticipate and estimate

any follow-up processes; it will also require the parties

presently to consider the entire course of discovery remaining in

the case in order to assure that the remainder of the case is

ready to be tried before the trial commences, and to proceed with

a minimum of disruption of the resources of the Court and the

parties.

In that regard, the fourth consideration, namely, adequate

safeguards to minimize any prejudice from the testing, is of even

greater importance than in the usual case. The safeguards

suggested in Mirchandani, 235 F.R.D. at 617, include an adequate

opportunity to photograph or otherwise record or document the

condition before testing; notice to nonmovants regarding the

testing time, manner, and place; a reasonable opportunity to

observe, record, participate in, and share the results and costs

of testing; and any follow-up determined to be necessary under

the circumstances, such as granting the non-movants leave to

depose the movants’ experts, and any others substantially

involved in the performance of the tests, about the testing

procedures and results of the test. 

The protocol suggested by Defendant Takata includes constant

videotaping of the process as well as each party’s own still

photography, to be shared among the parties; identification of

the consultants to engage in the inspection and testing process;

specification of the procedures to be followed and the order in

which they will be undertaken; and specification of the condition

in which the belt and associated housing are to be left at the

conclusion of the process. (Decl. of Gratzinger, Ex. N.) The

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 68 Filed 10/29/07 Page 10 of 12
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

11

Court realizes that the parties should be given an opportunity to

suggest additional procedures and/or safeguards in light of the

fact that the inspection and testing will occur after trial has

begun.

The parties therefore are directed to meet and confer and

include in their joint pretrial conference statement a plan to

proceed pursuant to this order. Specifically, counsel shall

determine a time frame whereby the trial can commence, a jury can

be seated, opening statements can be made, and Plaintiff’s

counsel can begin with presentation of evidence consisting of

testimony about, and the showing of, the seatbelt mechanism in

question to the trier of fact. The extent of the presentation of

evidence regarding the seatbelt mechanism at the beginning of the

trail before testing remains within the purview of the

negotiations of counsel. It is a given that court will need to be

recessed for a period of time after the jury is empaneled and

after initial presentation of the seatbelt so that the testing

that is the subject of this motion can be conducted, allowing

time for experts to prepare reports as well as for any

depositions to be taken of experts, all within a very tight,

shortened time frame. The trial judge has asked this Court to

admonish counsel that if they cannot reach an agreement how best

to proceed in this unique situation, he/the Honorable Lawrence

O’Neill will set up the procedures for the parties. Counsel are

directed to include either their stipulation for this procedure

in the joint pretrial conference statement or their statement set

forth in that same document that no agreement can be reached.

Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 68 Filed 10/29/07 Page 11 of 12
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

12

1) Defendant Takata’s motion to compel production and

further testing of the seat belt IS GRANTED in part; and

2) Counsel for all parties are ordered to meet and confer

and present a protocol for testing to Judge O’Neill at the

pretrial conference; and

3) Defendant Takata’s motion to strike the materials

referring to the Davis case in Placer County IS GRANTED, and

Plaintiffs’ request that the Court take judicial notice of the

order or materials from the Davis case IS DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 68 Filed 10/29/07 Page 12 of 12