Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03953/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03953-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re DEEP VEIN THROMBOSIS

LITIGATION

This Document Relates To:

Halterman v Delta Airlines, Inc,

Qantas Airways, Limited and

Skywest, Inc, No 04-3953

 /

MDL Docket No 04-1606 VRW

ORDER

Plaintiff Greg Halterman requests clarification of the

court’s July 10, 2007 order granting Qantas’s motion for summary

judgment. Doc #629. Specifically, Halterman seeks clarification

of the court’s denial of Halterman’s FRCP 56(f) request for further

discovery. Id. Halterman takes issue with language in the order

suggesting that he failed to pursue discovery in a diligent manner. 

Halterman states that he was “never given any meaningful

opportunity to conduct discovery” because “[d]iscovery was stayed

completely until late 2006” and thereafter, discovery was “severely

limited in scope by this Court.” Id at 2-3. Halterman points to

the following dialogue from the January 16, 2007 case management

conference:

Case 3:04-cv-03953-VRW Document 47 Filed 07/19/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Ms Posada: Can we also have an opportunity to, I have the

flight crew on board the Qantas aircraft identified for

depositions, we would need to have their depositions to have

them testify about what exactly happened during that flight. 

Whether or not the passengers were allowed to get up and move

about.

The Court: Well, I think, it’s – I don’t think there’s

probably any difficulty in providing the identity of those

flight crew members, whether we need the deposition of those

individuals prior to the filing and the hearing of the summary

judgment is more doubtful here.

If you can make a showing based upon what you learn from the

flight history, from the testimony of Mr Halterman the

plaintiff, and what other evidence he develops and the

identity of those flight crew members, then obviously if you

can make that showing then an extension to take further

discovery would be appropriate.

But, I think, I need a little bit more to substantiate further

discovery in the Halterman case.

Id at 2.

In his request for clarification, Halterman states:

Plaintiff cannot determine whether he will be appealing the

court’s [summary judgment] order without clarification. Most

significantly, is it the court’s order that plaintiff’s FRCP

56(f) application for further discovery is denied, thereby

preventing plaintiff an opportunity to establish sufficient

facts to raise a disputed issue of material fact because: 

1) Plaintiff failed to pursue discovery for said information

previously in a diligent manner, and therefore is now

precluded from doing so?

OR

2) the application is denied solely because the evidence

plaintiff seeks only pertains to the accident element of

Article 17 liability and not the causation element of said

liability and for that reason [sic] irrelevant and moot.

The clarification is necessary because if the court ordered

denial of the application due to a lack of discovery conducted

on plaintiff’s part, said result would be patently unfair to

plaintiff * * * If the latter is the sole reason for the

denial, plaintiff must forego an appeal on said ground.

Id at 4-5.

The court first notes that it is still not clear that

Halterman was diligent even in pursuing the “severely limited”

Case 3:04-cv-03953-VRW Document 47 Filed 07/19/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

discovery permitted by the court. See Summary Judgment Order (Doc

#628) at 23 (noting that Halterman never served an interrogatory

requesting that Qantas identify the flight crew of QF94).

Halterman’s FRCP 56(f) request was denied, however,

because Halterman failed to comply with FRCP 56(f). Specifically,

as stated in the July 10 order, Halterman’s FRCP 56(f) declaration

failed to identify specific facts Halterman hoped to elicit from

further discovery, failed to show that those facts exist and failed

to show that those facts were essential to resist summary judgment. 

See Order (Doc #628) at 22.

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03953-VRW Document 47 Filed 07/19/07 Page 3 of 3