Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01539/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01539-31/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’ MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION RE: WITNESS RON 

MONIS (Doc. 211)

vs.

GENERAL MOTORS CORP.,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Defendants General Motors Corporation and Takata Seat Belts, Inc. (“Defendants”) moved for

reconsideration of this Court’s April 3, 2008 order overruling Defendants’ objections to Plaintiffs’

designation of Ron Monis as a trial witness. Defendants argue that this Court committed error by

finding that Defendants failed to object in a timely manner to Plaintiffs’ designation of Ron Monis as

a trial witness. This Court ordered additional briefing on this motion. Pursuant to the Order on

Additional Briefing Regarding witness Ron Monis(Doc. 217), Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendants’

motion for reconsideration (Doc. 219). The Court read and considered Defendants’ opposition,

Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ opposition, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration and Plaintiffs’

response to the instant motion for reconsideration. 

Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ designation of Ron Monis (“Mr. Monis”) as a witness.

Defendants argue that this Court should exclude Mr. Monis as a witness, because Plaintiffs’ did not

identify Mr. Monis as a witness until February 2008, after the non-expert discovery cut-off. Defendants

argue further that Mr. Monis should be excluded because Plaintiffs failed to disclose Mr. Monis as a

witness pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Defendants point out that they objected to Mr. Monis as a

witness when he was first identified by Plaintiffs in February 2008. 

Plaintiffs do not disagree with Defendants regarding when Mr. Monis was first disclosed as a

witness. Plaintiffs assert that theywere not required to identifyMr. Monis as a witness prior to the filing

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 221 Filed 04/04/08 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

of the Joint Pretrial Statement, as Mr. Monis is a foundational witness, analogous to a custodian of

records. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ posture of refusing to answer certain interrogatories put them

in the position of relying on public records. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ position required the

testimony of Mr. Monis to lay the foundation as to where those public documents were acquired and to

identify the entries of earnings and profits.

Based on Defendants position on the issue and formal responses to the relevant interrogatories,

the preferable solution would have been for Plaintiffs to bring a timelymotion to compel or Defendants’

to bring a timely request for a protective order. Neither was done.

The Court finds that based on the background provided by Plaintiffs in their response to this

Court’s order for additional briefing, Plaintiffs were not required to disclose Mr. Monis as a witness

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Mr. Monis is a foundation witness only and will be permitted to testify

in this limited capacity. Mr. Monis will be permitted to testify in this limited role in the second phase

of this bifurcated trial, if the case proceeds to the second phase. If the case does not proceed to the

second phase, this order will have no impact. Moreover, if counsel stipulate as to the worth of the

Defendant, this Order becomes moot.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court:

(1) GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ motion for reconsideration regarding

this Court’s order on Defendants’ objections to Mr. Monis as a witness (Doc. 211); and

(2) LIMITS Mr. Monis to testify only as a custodian of records, for the purpose of attempting

to authenticate the records and to establish their admissibility.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 221 Filed 04/04/08 Page 2 of 2