Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00555/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00555-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARBARA JERPE, et al.,

NO. CIV. S-03-555 LKK/DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

AEROSPATIALE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiffs have brought various causes of action arising out

of a helicopter crash that occurred five years ago at Honey Lake.

Pending before the court are two motions. First, plaintiffs

request that the court modify the scheduling order to permit

additional limited discovery. Second, plaintiffs move for a

Daubert hearing regarding the testimony of one of their experts.

For the reasons set forth below, the court denies the first motion,

and continues the second motion for when defendant’s motion for

summary judgment is also heard.

I. Background

This case involves the crash of a helicopter into Honey Lake.

Case 2:03-cv-00555-LKK -DAD Document 239 Filed 03/13/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

Plaintiffs allege that one of the three main rotor blades suffered

a structural failure due to defects in the blade’s composite

material. This defect allegedly caused it to separate in flight,

resulting in a loss of control.

Previously, on March 9, 2005, the court granted a motion to

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Eurocopter.

Plaintiffs appealed that dismissal, and the appeal is currently

under submission. On April 26, 2006, the court issued a scheduling

order, which set a discovery deadline of October 24, 2006. Because

one of plaintiff’s experts became ill and ultimately died, the

court extended the discovery deadline until January 30, 2007.

Defendant AEC filed its motion for summary judgment on February 1,

2007, and the court has stayed that motion pending resolution of

the present motions before the court.

II. Standard

A district court’s pretrial scheduling order shall not be

modified absent a showing of “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ P. 16(b).

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.

1992). “Unlike Rule 15(a)'s liberal amendment policy which focuses

on the bad faith of the party seeking to interpose an amendment and

the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)'s ‘good cause’

standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the

amendment.” Id., 975 F.2d at 609. If the party seeking to modify

the scheduling order was not diligent, the inquiry should end.

Id.; Zivkovic v. S. California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th

Cir.).

Case 2:03-cv-00555-LKK -DAD Document 239 Filed 03/13/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

III. Analysis

A. Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order

First, plaintiffs request that the court modify the scheduling

order to extend the deadline for discovery, which expired on

January 31, 2007. Plaintiffs maintain that they cannot ascertain

the precise nature of the alleged defects in the blade without

destroying it in the process (e.g., by sawing the blade into

pieces), and that they have deliberately delayed doing so because

the disposition of the pending appeal may re-introduce parties to

the present litigation. In short, plaintiffs allege that they

delayed based on concerns of spoliation.

Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause to modify the

scheduling order. Assuming, arguendo, that plaintiffs’ fears of

spoliation were genuine, they could have raised this issue with the

court before the April 28, 2006 scheduling order. Given that the

court granted the motion to dismiss in March 2005, plaintiffs could

have foreseen the potential spoliation concern and raised it with

the court prior to or during the scheduling conference in April

2006. Furthermore, plaintiffs could have raised the issue with the

court during the most recent scheduling conference held in October

2006, when the court extended various dates in response to the

death of one of plaintiffs’ experts.

Instead, plaintiffs delayed until after even the close of

discovery to bring their motion to modify the scheduling order. 

This is, as defendants point out, the antithesis of diligence.

Indeed, Local Rule 6-144(d) cautions that “[r]equests for CourtCase 2:03-cv-00555-LKK -DAD Document 239 Filed 03/13/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

approved extensions brought on the required filing date for the

pleading or other document are looked upon with disfavor.” Because

the court finds that plaintiffs were not diligent, “the inquiry

should end.” Johnson, 302 F.3d at 609; see also Zivkovic, 302 F.3d

at 1087. Accordingly, the court denies plaintiffs’ motion to

modify the scheduling order.

B. Motion for Daubert Hearing

The court continues the motion for a Rule 702 hearing for when

defendant’s motion for summary judgment is also heard.

IV. Conclusion

The motion for an extension of discovery deadline (filed on

February 8, 2007) is hereby DENIED.

A hearing on defendant’s motion for a Rule 702 hearing (also

filed on February 8, 2007) is further SET for May 7, 2007 at 10:00

a.m.

A hearing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment (filed

on January 31, 2007) is hereby SET for May 7, 2007 at 10:00 a.m.

Opposition is due by April 12, 2007 and any reply is due by April

22, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 12, 2007.

Case 2:03-cv-00555-LKK -DAD Document 239 Filed 03/13/07 Page 4 of 4