Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01539/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01539-14/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

Although only defendant GM filed this memorandum, Plaintiffs conclude that both defendants GM and Takata Seat

1

Belts, Incorporated (“Takata”) prefer the use of BAJI jury instructions, since Takata “has submitted 41 BAJI instructions.”

Plaintiffs’ Response, p.1. 

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 JURY INSTRUCTIONS

vs. DISPUTE

GENERAL MOTORS CORP.,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On March 14, 2008, Defendant General Motors Corporation (“GM”) filed a brief regarding jury

instructions. GM requested this Court “to reject the untested, underdeveloped, and...legally inaccurate”

Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (“CACI”). Brief re: Jury Instructions, 8:2-3. GM

proposed that this Court use the Book of Approved Jury Instructions (“BAJI”) and special jury

instructions as alternatives to the CACI jury instructions. 

On March 21, 2008, Plaintiffs opposed GM’s request to substitute the BAJI jury instructions for

CACI jury instructions. Plaintiffs argue that GM prefers the BAJI jury instructions because GM

“perceive[s] a tactical advantage in the BAJIlanguage. Defendants’ arguments do not justify departure 1

from the CACI instructions, which have been rigorously reviewed for legal accuracy and linguistic

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 130 Filed 03/24/08 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

clarity and have remained in use for nearly five years.” Plaintiffs’ Response, 1-2. Plaintiffs refute GM’s

argument that certain CACIjury instructions are contrary to California law. Plaintiffs argue further that

proposed BAJI instructions are outdated or confusing.

The CACI jury instructions are correct statements of law with clear language used to convey

complicated concepts. The CACI jury instructions are the result of a six-year effort by a task force

charged “to write instructions that are legally accurate and understandable to the average juror.” Judicial

Council of California, Civil Jury Instructions (Feb. 2008 ed.), p. v. Moreover, the Court is aware of the

procedure through which the newer, updated CACI jury instructions were formulated and finds that the

updated CACI jury instructions are not underdeveloped and legally inaccurate, as GM argues. Rather,

the revisions took into account the opinions expressed in the article attached to GM’s memorandum.

AsJustice Croskey noted in his Preface to CACI Updates: “The impetus for the [CACI] revisions came

from several sources including CACI users who detected changes in the law or who simply sought to

do a better job of explaining the law in plain English...and [is] the work product of the legal

community.” Id., p. vii. Therefore, the CACI jury instructions will be used when available. 

Accordingly, this Court ORDERS:

1. If the CACIjury instructions cover the subject legal issue, the CACI jury instructions are

to be used; and

2. Should CACI not have a jury instruction on a subject legal issue, the BAJI jury

instructions will be used.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 130 Filed 03/24/08 Page 2 of 2