Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02521/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02521-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

cal 

1 04cv2521

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE POLANSKI,

Plaintiff,

v.

K.L.M ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES,

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. and DOES

1 to 100,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.04cv2521 BEN (AJB)

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to

Compel, Denying Defendants’ Motion to

Compel, and Ordering to Parties to Proceed

with Scheduling of Defendants’ Deposition

of the Plaintiff

[Doc. Nos. 60 and 68]

The parties have filed cross motions to compel in this case. Plaintiff seeks to compel the

Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1-18, Requests for Admissions 14,

15 and 16, and Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 2, 3 and 5. Defendants’ motion seeks to

compel responses to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents Nos. 15-31 and Interrogatory

Nos. 22-25. The parties also raise the issue of whether or not the Defendants’ waived their right to

depose the Plaintiff. Based upon the moving papers and for the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s

Motion to Compel is GRANTED and Defendants’ Motion to Compel is DENIED, and the parties are

ORDERED to move forward with scheduling Defendants’ deposition of Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

Plaintiff seeks to compel the Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories Nos.

1-18, Requests for Admissions 14, 15 and 16, and Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 2, 3 and

Case 3:04-cv-02521-BEN-AJB Document 83 Filed 10/06/06 Page 1 of 6
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

 470 U.S. 392 (1985).

2 04cv2521

5. Plaintiff argues that the Court should compel responses from the Defendants because the objections

asserted in response to these requests were boilerplate objections and the information is relevant to some

of Defendants’ twenty-seven (27) affirmative defenses. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks information

regarding the specific incident and aircraft involved including such things as the gross taxi weight of the

aircraft prior to take-off; actual taxi weight; certified maximum take-off weight; actual take off weight;

limit take-off weight; actual weight of the aircraft at Waypoints; actual weight of aircraft thirty minutes

into flight; estimated landing weight thirty minutes in flight; maximum certified landing weight;

estimated landing fees, refueling fees; departure fees had the aircraft been diverted; estimated expenses

had the aircraft thirty minutes after take-off; effect of diversion on crew legalities and non-qualifications; crew-cost per flight hour; direct operating cost per flight hour and European Union penalties had

the aircraft been diverted.

Plaintiff contends that the requested information is needed to contest Defendants’ eighth,

fourteenth, seventeenth, twentieth and twenty-third affirmative defenses. Plaintiff argues that without

the requested information he will not be able to contest whether Defendants fulfilled all obligations,

duties and responsibilities owed to Plaintiff or whether those obligations, duties and responsibilities

were prevented, excused or discharged due to the impossibility of landing as a result of other factors

such as fuel loads, landing weights or static electricity.

Alternatively, Defendants’ contend that the requested information is not relevant because the

Warsaw Convention is controlling, and as such, only information regarding whether or not an accident

occurred under the Convention would be considered relevant and discoverable. The Court, however,

disagrees. In Air France v. Saks,1

 the Supreme Court and held that Article 17 liability arises only if a

passenger's injury is caused by an “unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the

passenger.” Id. at 405. The conditions precedent to Article 17 liability are as follows: 1) an unexpected

or unusual event; 2) external to the passenger; 3) that causes the plaintiff's injury. See Id.; see also

Rodriguez v. Ansett Australia Ltd.,, 383 F.3d 914, 917 (2004).

Nearly two decades after Saks was decided, the Supreme Court revisited the question of what

constitutes an Article 17 “accident” in Olympic Airways v. Husain. 540 U.S. 644 (2004). In Husain, the

Case 3:04-cv-02521-BEN-AJB Document 83 Filed 10/06/06 Page 2 of 6
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 04cv2521

Court adopted the district court's finding that the air crew's departure from relevant industry standard

was unusual or unexpected conduct satisfying part of the first condition precedent. Id. at 652-53. Next,

the Court considered whether inaction can constitute an “event” for purposes of Article 17 liability. The

Court rejected Olympic Airways' argument that only affirmative conduct can constitute an “event”

under Article 17. In dismissing that argument, the majority of the Court concluded that the air crew's

failure to assist, or inaction, can constitute an Article 17 “event.” Id. at 654-57.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff’s requests to be reasonably calculated to lead

to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants to respond to

Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1-18, Requests for Admissions 14, 15 and 16, and Requests

for Production of Documents Nos. 2, 3 and 5 is GRANTED. Responses will be served by Defendants no

later than October 20, 2006.

Defendants’ Documents Requests

Defendants’ motion seeks to compel responses to Defendants’ Request for Production of

Documents Nos. 15-31 and Interrogatory Nos. 22-25. Defendants argue that the information sought is

highly relevant to Plaintiff’s damages claim of nearly six (6) million dollars for loss of past and future

income. Furthermore, Defendants’ contend that the documents that have been produced by Plaintiff in

response to these requests are inadequate and non-responsive. Plaintiff’s have asserted three objections

to the disputed discovery requests, relevancy, tax privilege and privacy.

Defendants’ document requests seek Plaintiff’s tax returns and income records (W2's, 1099's and

payroll stubs) for the last five years, financial records regarding Plaintiff’s business or employment

(profit and loss statements, financial statements, balance sheets, banking records and business loans),

and documents related to the nature of Plaintiff’s employment or business (business contracts, fictitious

business names, partnership agreements, articles of incorporation, and business or trade licenses).

1. Tax Returns and Income Records

Tax returns are not absolutely privileged. Heathman v. District Court, 503 F.2d 1032, 1035 (9th

Cir.1974); Wright, Miller & Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2019 p. 306 (1993). However,

the Ninth Circuit recognizes “a public policy against unnecessary public disclosure [of tax returns]

arises from the need, if the tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and

Case 3:04-cv-02521-BEN-AJB Document 83 Filed 10/06/06 Page 3 of 6
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

 These requests seek profit and loss statements, financial statements, balance sheets, banking

records and business loans, and documents related to the nature of Plaintiff’s employment or business

contracts, fictitious business names, partnership agreements, articles of incorporation, and business or

trade licenses.

4 04cv2521

accurate returns.” Premium Serv. Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir.1975);

see also Heathman, 503 F.2d at 1035. Accordingly, the Court may only order the production of

plaintiff's tax returns if they are relevant and when there is a compelling need for them because the

information sought is not otherwise available.

Plaintiff argues that the Defendants’ have not met their burden of demonstrating how the

requested discovery that would presumably be inadmissable at trial would lead to other admissible

evidence. The Court agrees. While the Court finds that Plaintiff's tax returns are clearly relevant under

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) in order to properly assess lost earnings, maintenance, and cure, Defendant has

not met its burden of establishing a compelling need. On the one hand, Defendant has a legitimate need

for this information to assess Plaintiff’s damages claim of nearly six (6) million dollars for loss of past

and future income. Nonetheless, the Court denies Defendant's motion because there are less intrusive

means by which Defendant can obtain the needed information which have not been exhausted. For

example, Defendant can depose plaintiff (as discussed below) and get an identification ans explanation

of all sources of income during the relevant time period before and after the accident. To facilitate this

matter, plaintiff is ordered to produce all non-privileged records supporting al sources and losses of

income during the relevant time period before and after the accident, as appropriate. These will be

produced no later than October 20, 2006.

To be sure, if after employment of these alternative less intrusive means, Defendant has reason to

believe that the information provided by Plaintiff is untruthful or incomplete, the Court will considered a

renewed motion on shortened time to require disclosure of the some or all of the tax returns. However,

any such motion will have to be based on an objective showing of cause, not sheer speculation.

2. All Other Requested Financial Documentation

Defendants’ requests for financial records regarding Plaintiff’s business or employment2

 are

similarly overly broad and the Court denies Defendant's motion as to these requests because there are

less intrusive means by which Defendant can obtain the information needed to assess Plaintiff’s

Case 3:04-cv-02521-BEN-AJB Document 83 Filed 10/06/06 Page 4 of 6
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 04cv2521

damages claim for loss of past and future income, as such focused interrogatories, which have not been

exhausted.

Defendants’ Interrogatories

Defendants’ Interrogatory Nos. 22-25 seek information pertaining to the identity of the financial

institutions, accountants, bookkeepers and consultants associated with Plaintiff’s personal or business

affairs, as well as persons knowledgeable of Plaintiff’s personal or business income. Again, Defendants’

Interrogatories are similarly overly broad and the Court denies Defendant's motion as to these because

there are less intrusive means by which Defendant can obtain the information needed to assess Plaintiff’s damages claim for loss of past and future income, as such focused interrogatories, which have not

been exhausted.

Plaintiff’s Deposition

In May of 2006, Defendants requested dates for Plaintiff and a 30(b)(6) deposition on Plaintiff’s

loss of income claim. On June 22, 2006, Plaintiff proposed deposition dates for Plaintiff, however,

Defendants informed Plaintiff that written discovery was being served the next day, June 23, 2006, and

that Defendants’ would require full and complete responses to the discovery prior to the deposition.

Plaintiff requested an extension of time for providing responses to the written discovery and Defendants’ agreed to extend the deadline until August 9, 2006. Plaintiff’s then designated Plaintiff as the

30(b)(6) deponent for his lost income claim and proposed August 18, 2006 for Plaintiff’s depositions.

Defendants argue that the discovery responses received on August 9, 2006 were deficient and on

August 15, 2006, Defendants requested that Plaintiff’s supplement their responses. Plaintiff’s counsel

stated that he would not be able to respond to Defendants’ request for supplementation until August 18,

2006, at which point Defendants requested that Plaintiff’s depositions be adjourned until the responses

were supplemented. Plaintiff argues that the documents would have been produced at the deposition

and that the document production was taking sometime because Plaintiff was disabled and the

documents were coming from Poland. Plaintiff then took the position that Defendants’ had waived their

right to depose the Plaintiff.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds no indication that Defendants’ waived their right to

depose the Plaintiff. Defendants requested complete responses to the written discovery prior to

Case 3:04-cv-02521-BEN-AJB Document 83 Filed 10/06/06 Page 5 of 6
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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\CASES\2 Orders to be filed\Order.X-MTC.9.22.wpd 6 04cv2521

Plaintiff’s deposition and contacted Plaintiff’s counsel prior to the scheduled deposition date to request

supplementation and adjournment of the deposition until such time as the supplementation was

complete. As such, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to supplement the responses to Defendants’ written

discovery as set forth above and (no later than October 20, 2006) to provide Defendants with a new

deposition date for Plaintiff within the current discovery cutoff of November 30, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 6, 2006

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:04-cv-02521-BEN-AJB Document 83 Filed 10/06/06 Page 6 of 6