Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-01218/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-01218-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 315
Nature of Suit: Airplane Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Barbara Mezaki, individually and as

guardian ad litem of Amanda M. Mezaki,

Natalie A. Mezaki and Miles J. Mezaki,

minors, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Eurocopter, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1218 PCT-DGC

ORDER SETTING TRIAL

A Final Pretrial Conference was held on April 30, 2008. Counsel appeared on behalf

of Plaintiff and Defendants. On the basis of the parties’ written submissions and matters

discussed during the conference, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Trial in this matter shall begin in Prescott, Arizona, on September 2, 2008, at

9:00 a.m.

2. The trial shall last 16 days (September 2-5, 9-12, 16-19, and 23-26, 2008).

Plaintiff shall be allotted 48 hours of trial time and Defendants shall be allotted 36 hours of

trial time. The Court will keep track of each side’s time. Opening and closing statements,

direct examination, and cross-examination shall be counted against the parties’ allotted time.

3. The parties’ proposed final pretrial order was approved by the Court as the

final pretrial order in this case. The order shall govern the presentation of evidence and other

Case 3:06-cv-01218-DGC Document 126 Filed 05/06/08 Page 1 of 10
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 -

trial issues, and, pursuant to Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, shall be

modified only to prevent manifest injustice. Evidence, objections, legal arguments, and relief

not requested or identified in the order shall not be available at trial, except to prevent

manifest injustice. 

4. A hearing will be held on July 1-2, 2008, beginning at 9:00 a.m., in

Courtroom 603, Sandra Day O’Connor Federal Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street,

Phoenix, Arizona 85003. The Court will set aside six hours each day for the hearing, but

anticipates that less time will be required. The following matters will be addressed during

the hearing: 

a. The parties shall provide comments on the Court’s proposed preliminary

jury instructions and jury questionnaire, both of which were provided to the parties at the

Final Pretrial Conference. The jury questionnaire must be mailed by the Court’s jury office

by mid-July.

b. The parties shall identify the portions of NTSB reports that they cannot

agree are admissible. The parties shall confer in advance of the July 1-2, 2008 hearing to

identify portions of the reports on which they disagree. These issues were raised in

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4 (Dkt. #72) and Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4 (Dkt.

#83). Once the Court has received copies of the reports on which the parties disagree, the

Court will rule on their admissibility.

c. The parties shall present focused evidence on the admissibility of the

hydraulic exemplar test performed by Plaintiff’s expert as addressed in the parties’ briefing

on Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 7 (Dkt. #86). 

d. The parties shall present focused evidence on the Daubert and Federal

Rule of Evidence 702 issues raised with respect to Plaintiff’s expert witness Coffman as

addressed in the parties’ briefing on Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 8 (Dkt. #87). 

e. The parties shall present focused evidence on the Daubert and Rule 702

issues raised with respect to Plaintiff’s expert witness Moffat as addressed in the parties’

briefing on Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 11 (Dkt. #90). 

Case 3:06-cv-01218-DGC Document 126 Filed 05/06/08 Page 2 of 10
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 -

f. On or before the close of business on June 25, 2008, each side shall

submit one ten page memorandum addressing the Daubert issues to be considered at the

hearing. No responses or replies will be permitted.

5. The Court addressed Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 (Dkt. #69). For

reasons stated on the record, the Court denied the motion with respect to passenger

complaints regarding the flying of Mr. Mezaki. The Court concluded that the four-part test

set forth in Duran v. City of Maywood, 220 F.3d 1127, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2000), was

satisfied, and that the complaints about Mr. Mezaki’s flying were relevant to prove that

Sundance – a non-party at fault in this case – had notice of Mr. Mezaki’s allegedly reckless

flying. The Court granted the motion with respect to the 2001 videos addressed in the

motion. It does not appear that the videos are relevant to the issue of Sundance’s notice, and

they appear otherwise to fall within Rule 404(b). The Court granted the motion, however,

without prejudice to Defendants seeking the admission of the videos at trial. 

6. The Court addressed Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2 (Dkt. #70). This

motion concerned an FAA Airworthiness Directive (“AD”) concerning modifications to the

aircraft that post-dated the accident. The Court denied the motion without prejudice to the

parties raising it again at the time of trial. Because there is some uncertainty as to the level

of collaboration that occurred between Defendants and the FAA in connection with the

issuance of the AD, the Court concluded that it would not be able to rule on this issue until

trial. If the Court concludes that Defendants and the FAA collaborated in the issuance of the

AD, the Court will be more inclined to conclude that admission of the AD would implicate

the policies of Rule 407. On the other hand, if the FAA issued the AD on the basis of its

independent determination, not on the basis of Defendants’ suggestions or service bulletins,

the Court will be more inclined to conclude that admission of the AD will not implicate the

policies of Rule 407. See Weinstein’s Federal Evidence §407.05[3]. Because the Court has

not yet ruled on the admissibility of the AD, it should not be mentioned to the jury until after

the Court has ruled.

Case 3:06-cv-01218-DGC Document 126 Filed 05/06/08 Page 3 of 10
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 -

7. The Court addressed Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 3 (Dkt. #71). For

reasons stated on the record, the Court granted the motion. Defendants will not be permitted

to present evidence concerning Mr. Mezaki’s failure of a check ride in 2000. 

8. The Court addressed Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4 (Dkt. #72). The

parties disagree on what kind of NTSB reports, and what portions of NTSB reports, are

admissible in evidence. The parties seem to agree that purely factual reports are admissible.

The parties disagree on whether factual portions of an NTSB safety recommendation or

probable cause determination are admissible, with Plaintiff contending that no portion of

such documents are admissible and Defendants contending that factual portions of such

documents are admissible. The Court directed the parties to confer about the specific

documents that will be presented by the parties and to agree, to the extent possible, on which

documents or portions of documents are admissible. The parties shall be prepared to provide

the Court with copies of disputed portions of documents at the hearing on July 1-2, 2008.

The Court will then rule on the admissibility of these disputed portions. For this reason, the

Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 4 without prejudice to the issues to be

addressed at the July hearing.

9. The Court addressed Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 5 (Dkt. #73). For

reasons stated on the record, the Court denied the motion. The Court will not preclude

defense experts Heaslip and Kadlec from expressing opinions on the air speed, descent rate,

and attitude of the aircraft during the accident. 

10. The Court addressed Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 6 (Dkt. #74). For

reasons stated on the record, the Court denied the motion. The Court concluded that Ms.

Velez may testify about matters she observed and experienced. The Court will consider

objections to her lay opinion testimony at trial. Because the Court has not yet been provided

with a transcript of Ms. Velez’s testimony concerning statements allegedly made to her by

Mr. Mezaki, the Court could not consider whether the statements were admissions against

interest. Nor could the Court consider whether Mr. Mezaki’s statements to Ms. Velez are

admissible as statements against interest by a decedent whose fault is attributable to Plaintiff.

Case 3:06-cv-01218-DGC Document 126 Filed 05/06/08 Page 4 of 10
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

- 5 -

Because the Court must address these issues during trial, the parties should not mention the

statements allegedly made by Mr. Mezaki to Ms. Velez until after the Court has ruled on

their admissibility. 

11. The Court considered Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 (Dkt. #80).

Because it appears that Exhibits 19 and 20 – 2003 versions of the aircraft’s flight manual –

and Exhibits 45, 47, and 49 – the entire flight manual, the maintenance manual, and the parts

catalog – fall within Rule 407 as subsequent remedial measures, the Court granted

Defendants’ motion. If Plaintiff believes that some or all of these exhibits may be used as

impeachment evidence within the meaning of Rule 407, Plaintiff may raise that issue during

trial. The Court notes, however, that Weinstein’s Federal Evidence states that Courts should

exercise “special care” when applying the impeachment exception of Rule 407 because there

is a risk of undercutting the policies of Rule 407. Almost all corrective actions can be said

in some sense to contradict the defendant’s assertion that he was exercising due care. Courts,

according to Weinstein, should therefore require a clear nexus between the remedial

measures and the specific statements to be impeached. See Weinstein § 407.07[1] at 407-33.

Because the Court cannot tell today whether the documents at issue in Defendants’ Motion

in Limine No. 1 will constitute such direct impeachment of evidence to be presented by

Defendants during trial, the Court cannot conclude that the documents will be admissible for

impeachment purposes. For this reason, the Court granted the motion, but did so without

prejudice to Plaintiff seeking to use the documents as impeachment at trial.

12. The Court considered Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 (Dkt. #81). This

motion concerned a service letter issued by Defendants in 2006, some three years after the

accident. The Court concluded that the service letter constituted subsequent remedial

measures within the meaning of Rule 407. The document was not relevant to Defendants’

knowledge because it post-dated the accident. The Court therefore granted the motion, but

did so without prejudice to Plaintiff raising the question at trial of whether this document

may be used for impeachment under Rule 407. (See discussion in paragraph11 above.)

Case 3:06-cv-01218-DGC Document 126 Filed 05/06/08 Page 5 of 10
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 -

13. The Court considered Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3 (Dkt. #82). For

reasons stated on the record, the Court denied the motion with respect to Exhibit 8, a preaccident service bulletin that implemented use of the new Poly V belt. Because this was not

a post-accident measure, it is not precluded by Rule 407. Nor is it precluded by A.R.S. § 12-

686 because it goes to Defendants’ knowledge of possible problems with the hydraulic

assembly before the accident in question. See Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel, 719 P.2d

1058, 1063 (Ariz. 1986) (pre-accident product modifications can provide “strong evidence”

that defendant had knowledge of the danger posed by the design of the product and of the

precautions necessary to correct the problems; “[s]ince plaintiffs advance both negligence

and strict liability theories of recovery, this knowledge was relevant to the issue of whether

the danger from the design of its product was foreseeable to defendant,” which “in turn, [is]

a factor which plaintiffs must prove in order to prevail on a negligent design theory”). The

Court granted the motion with respect to Exhibits 91 and 92 which are post-accident

remedial measured barred by Rule 407. If Plaintiff believes that these exhibits may be used

as impeachment under Rule 407, she may raise this issue with the Court during trial. (See

discussion of impeachment in paragraph 11 above.)

14. The Court addressed Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4 (Dkt. #83). This

motion concerned an NTSB safety recommendation. Because Plaintiff’s counsel took the

position at the Final Pretrial Conference that all portions of a NTSB safety recommendation

are precluded from evidence by federal law, Plaintiff conceded that this motion is well-taken.

The Court accordingly granted the motion, without prejudice to Plaintiff raising this issue

at trial if the Court rules, as a result of the July hearings, that factual portions of NTSB safety

recommendations are admissible. 

15. The Court addressed Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 5 (Dkt. #84). This

motion concerned Canadian Airworthiness Documents marked as Exhibits 12 and 13.

Assuming Plaintiff can provide authentication for these documents under Rules 901 or 902,

the Court concludes that two portions of the documents are not barred as hearsay. These

include the statements in Exhibit 12 recommending a pre-flight accumulator check (a

Case 3:06-cv-01218-DGC Document 126 Filed 05/06/08 Page 6 of 10
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 -

recommendation that Plaintiff claims put Defendants on notice of potential accumulator

problems), and a statement in Exhibit 13 in which Eurocopter confirmed, in a meeting with

the Canadian TSB and French authorities, that uncommanded movements can occur when

one lateral accumulator is depleted and the other is charged. The Court concluded that the

Canadian documents overcome hearsay problems through Rule 803(8), and that the specific

statement attributed to Eurocopter in Exhibit 13, although an additional level of hearsay,

appears to be a party admission and, in any event, is reasonably trustworthy. The Court

therefore denied Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 5 with respect to the specific statements

in Exhibits 12 and 13 identified above. If Plaintiff seeks to introduce any other portions of

these exhibits, Plaintiff shall raise this issue with the Court outside the hearing of the jury.

16. The Court considered Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6 (Dkt. #85). This

motion concerned Australian military reports marked as Exhibits 52 and 53. Because copies

of these reports were not provided with the motions, the Court cannot rule on their

admissibility. The Court therefore denied the motion without prejudice. The Court does

have concerns about the authentication described by Plaintiff in its response, about the

similarity of these events to the accident in question, and about whether the Australian

documents are really untested expert opinions. These matters will be addressed, however,

after the Court reviews the reports in the context of the trial. Because the Court has not ruled

on the admissibility of these documents, they should not be mentioned by the parties prior

to the Court’s ruling. 

17. The Court considered Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 7 (Dkt. #86). The

Court concluded that it must hear from Plaintiff’s experts before deciding whether their

hydraulic exemplar test should be admitted in evidence. This matter will be addressed at the

hearing to be held on July 1-2, 2008. This motion will be taken under advisement until that

time. 

18. The Court considered Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 8 (Dkt. #87). The

Court will address these Daubert and Rule 702 issues with respect to expert witness Coffman

Case 3:06-cv-01218-DGC Document 126 Filed 05/06/08 Page 7 of 10
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 -

at the hearing to be held on July 1-2, 2008. The motion will be taken under advisement

until that time.

19. The Court considered Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 9 (Dkt. #88). The

Court ruled on Exhibit 155 in connection with Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2. The Court

denied the motion with respect to Exhibit 89, concluding that it is not covered by Rule 407

because it is not a post-accident modification; it is not precluded by A.R.S. § 12-686 because

it is relevant to Defendants’ knowledge under Readenour; and it is not hearsay because it is

a party admission. The Court granted the motion with respect to Exhibit 6, concluding that

it is a post-accident modification barred by Rule 407. The Court granted the motion with

respect to Exhibit 154, an Australian government document. Because the document is not

mandatory and appears to have been created in collaboration with Defendants, the Court

concluded that admitting the document would be contrary to the policies of Rule 407. (See

discussion in paragraph 6 above and Weinstein’s Federal Evidence §407.05[3].)

20. The Court considered Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 10 (Dkt. #89). The

motion concerns a technical information letter marked as Exhibit 7. The Court denied the

motion with respect to the following two statements from the letter: (1) “Any helicopter

equipped with an assisted or servo-controlled flight control system must include a

replacement system which is immediately available in the event of a single failure of the

power part, to enable flight to be continued safety until landing”; (2) “the most frequent

causes of hydraulic failure are associated with the hydraulic pump drive.” These are

admissions by Defendants and are not subsequent remedial measures. The Court granted

the motion with respect to other portions of Exhibit 7, concluding that they were covered by

Rule 407 as subsequent remedial measures. As with the other 407 rulings, Plaintiff may

assert to the Court during trial that the document is admissible as impeachment. (See

discussion of impeachment in paragraph 11 above.) 

21. The Court considered Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 11 (Dkt. #90). The

Court will address this Daubert and Rule 702 motion with respect to Plaintiff’s expert

witness Moffat at the hearing on July 1-2, 2008.

Case 3:06-cv-01218-DGC Document 126 Filed 05/06/08 Page 8 of 10
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 -

22. The Court considered Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 12 (Dkt. #91).

Plaintiff’s counsel agreed that Exhibits 24, 25, and 100 were created by Air Data, a company

that obtained information from the FAA. Because the documents created by Air Data are

hearsay, and no exception to or exclusion from the hearsay rule has been identified, the Court

granted the motion. The Court declined Plaintiff’s suggestion that Plaintiff be permitted to

substitute certified FAA documents for the Air Data documents. Certified FAA documents

are not identified as exhibits in the Final Pretrial Order, Plaintiff has had ample time to obtain

them, and precluding Plaintiff from introducing them now will, therefore, not constitute

manifest injustice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e).

23. The Court considered Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 13 (Dkt. #92). This

motion sought to preclude Plaintiff’s experts from rendering opinions about helicopter

piloting. This is a matter that must be addressed during the expert’s testimony at trial. The

motion was therefore denied.

24. The Court considered Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 14 (Dkt. #93). This

motion concerned Exhibits 3 and 4, documents created 24 and 23 years before the crash,

respectively. The Court concluded that it could not determine the relevancy of these

documents to Defendants’ knowledge of hydraulic system properties until it understood the

evidence at trial. The Court therefore denied the motion. The parties should not mention

these documents, however, until after the Court has ruled on their admissibility.

25. The Court considered Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 15 (Dkt. #94). This

motion concerned the aircraft design certification opinions of Plaintiff’s expert Livick. The

Court concluded that it could not rule on these issues until Mr. Livick testifies at trial, and

therefore denied the motion. 

26. The Court ordered the parties to engage in a good faith settlement conference

on or before July 30, 2008. The settlement conference shall be held before Magistrate Judge

Anderson. The parties should immediately contact Judge Anderson’s chambers to schedule

the settlement conference and determine the preparation needed for the conference. The

Case 3:06-cv-01218-DGC Document 126 Filed 05/06/08 Page 9 of 10
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 -

Court ordered the parties to have client representatives present for the settlement conference,

but stated that representatives of Defendants’ french entity may be available by telephone.

27. The parties shall provide a revised witness list on the day of trial to be read to

the jury during voir dire. The witness list shall include only witnesses identified in the Final

Pretrial Order.

DATED this 6th day of May, 2008.

Case 3:06-cv-01218-DGC Document 126 Filed 05/06/08 Page 10 of 10