Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-md-02497/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-md-02497-66/pdf.json

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

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IN RE:

AIR CRASH AT SAN FRANCISCO,

CALIFORNIA, ON JULY 6, 2013 

MDL No.: 2497

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 4 RE: TRIAL 

DETAILS AND LOGISTICS; MOTIONS IN 

LIMINE; EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS; AND 

OUTSTANDING FILINGS. 

THIS ORDER RELATES TO: 

Kyung Rhan Rha v. Asiana Airlines et al. 

Case No. 14-CV-01486 

Having considered the filings to date and the arguments and other submissions at the 

Pretrial Conference, held on Tuesday, September 12, 2017, for good cause shown the Court enters 

the following orders: 

1. Trial Date and Schedule: The trial of this matter is confirmed to proceed in Courtroom 1. 

Jury Selection shall begin at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, September 22, 2017. All remaining trial 

days shall begin at 8:30 a.m. with the jury. Counsel shall arrive in court early enough to 

proceed each day promptly at 8:00 a.m. to address matters outside of the presence of the jury. 

Trial schedule will be Monday through Friday, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. with two fifteen 

minute breaks. Additional time may be scheduled for matters outside the presence of the jury 

as necessary and determined by the Court. Sidebars are not permitted. Counsel should be 

prepared to anticipate issues so that they may be addressed outside of normal trial hours. In 

this regard, Counsel should also be prepared to reconvene with the Court after its standing 

calendars which normally begin at 2:00 p.m. 

2. The Court sets the next pre-trial conference for Friday, September 22, 2017 at 8:00 a.m. 

Case 4:13-md-02497-YGR Document 1024 Filed 09/14/17 Page 1 of 9
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

3. Standard Motions in Limine: The Court hereby orders that: (a) witnesses shall be excluded 

until testimony is completed; (b) there shall be no reference to or evidence presented of 

settlement discussions, mediation, or insurance; and (c) there shall be no reference to or 

evidence presented of wealth or lack thereof of any party except in the punitive damage phase 

of a case, to the extent it exists. 

 The Court’s rulings on the motions in limine are provided below and are incorporated 

herein in their entirety. 

 A motion in limine refers “to any motion, whether made before or during trial, to exclude 

anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered.” Luce v. United 

States, 469 U.S. 38, 40, n. 2 (1984). Parties are ordered to admonish witnesses of the Court’s 

rulings. Failure to comply with a ruling by the Court may result in sanctions, including 

without limitation the striking of the witness’ entire testimony. 

The parties filed motions in limine between August 22 and 25, 2017. (Dkt. Nos. 860, 863-

865, 873, and 915-921.)1 The motions came before the Court for hearing on September 12, 

2017. After reviewing and considering all papers filed in support of, and in opposition to, the 

motions, as well as the arguments advanced by counsel at the hearing, the Court makes the 

following rulings on the parties’ motions: 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

 1

 Plaintiff Kyung Rhan Rha also filed a motion to seal certain information 

referenced in Exhibits A and B to plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 4, (Dkt. No. 918), namely 

plaintiffs’ social security number; employer identification number; birth date, address, and phone 

number; income figures; preparer tax identification numbers; Internal Revenue Service tracking 

numbers; taxpayer identification numbers; and payments made to the Internal Revenue Service. 

The Court finds the request sufficiently justified under the applicable “good cause” standard and, 

therefore, GRANTS the motions to seal the designated excerpts and documents in question solely 

for purposes of resolving the instant motion. See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 

1172, 1179–80 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Case 4:13-md-02497-YGR Document 1024 Filed 09/14/17 Page 2 of 9
3 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

Number Plaintiff's Motions in Limine

Plaintiff 

No. 1 

All testimony stating that it cannot be ruled out to a 

reasonable degree of medical certainty that plaintiff is 

exaggerating her symptoms, malingering about her 

symptoms, and/or engaging in any type of symptom 

magnification, including, but not limited to, the reports and 

testimony of defense witnesses Kristin W. Samuelson and 

Tom R. Norris. 

DENIED, however, witnesses shall not testify as to any suspected motive by plaintiff, such as for 

“financial gain.” 

Plaintiff 

No. 2 

Reference to refusal to undergo additional EMG procedure 

by defense neurologist Dr. Charles E. Skomer. 

DENIED. 

Plaintiff 

No. 3 

Testimony offering an opinion that plaintiff does not want to 

recover from her injuries, including, but not limited to the 

testimony of defense expert witness Tom Norris and 

plaintiff’s refusal to sit for X-rays. 

RESERVED. 

Defendant shall not affirmatively introduce testimony regarding plaintiff’s refusal to undergo Xrays unless plaintiff challenges the completeness of Dr. Skomer’s opinion on this ground. The 

parties agree this issue may be moot. 

Plaintiff 

No. 4 

All evidence, references to evidence, testimony, or argument 

relating to her tax returns not being filed, including, but not 

limited to, the testimony and report of defense witness 

Patrick F. Kennedy. 

DENIED. 

Plaintiff 

No. 5 

All evidence, references to evidence, testimony, or argument 

relating to plaintiff’s social security itemized statements of 

earnings. 

RESERVED. 

The parties agree this issue may be moot. 

Plaintiff 

No. 6 

Evidence of IMR final determination of “Body Buoy.” GRANTED as 

unopposed. 

Plaintiff 

No. 7 

All evidence, references to evidence, testimony, or argument 

relating to plaintiff’s perceived motivation for secondary 

gain, including, but not limited to, the report and testimony 

of defense neuropsychologist expert Kristin W. Samuelson 

and the study she cites in her report titled “Factors 

moderating neuropsychological outcomes following mild 

traumatic brain injury: A meta-analysis.” 

DENIED, however, witnesses shall not testify as to any suspected motive by plaintiff, such as for 

“financial gain.” Accordingly, the last clause of the last sentence of paragraph 17 of Kristin W. 

Samuelson’s expert report is STRICKEN. (See Dkt. No. 915-2 ¶ 17 (“and if she may be giving 

poor effort due to her litigation”).)

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 4:13-md-02497-YGR Document 1024 Filed 09/14/17 Page 3 of 9
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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Number Defendants’ Motions in Limine 

Defendant 

No. 1 

Reference to work performed and fees charged by Asiana’s 

experts in other cases arising from the crash of Asiana Flight 

214. 

Guidance provided, and the Court RESERVES. In summary, the amount of money paid to the 

experts used in this MDL is relevant to the witnesses’ credibility, whether by individual defense 

counsel or the collective group of plaintiff counsel. That said, for all experts, the context of the 

number of claims is also important. The parties are encouraged to meet and confer and 

determine the manner in which the jury can acquire this information. The Court will revisit this 

motion with the parties on September 22, 2017, to determine whether issues still exist. 

Defendant 

No. 2 

Opinion testimony of plaintiff's sixty-one treating physicians 

as to opinions formed during and after the course of 

Plaintiff’s treatment for failure to provide required expert 

disclosures. 

WITHDRAWN. 

Defendant 

No. 3 

Supplemental report and opinion expressed in supplemental 

report of plaintiff's expert Gregory J. O’Shanick, MD. 

RESERVED. The Court requires additional information to determine whether the opinions offered 

by Dr. O’Shanick in his supplemental report update existing claims or present a new claim. 

Plaintiff shall provide the Court with the relevant portions of (i) Dr. Kong’s deposition 

transcript, (ii) medical records, and (iii) photographs on which Dr. O’Shannick relied in forming 

his supplemental report by no later than 1:00 p.m. on Friday, September 15, 2017. To the 

extent not obvious from the transcript, medical records, and photographs, plaintiff shall advise 

the Court of the date on which the symptoms of Dr. Rha’s alleged neurogenic bladder condition 

first appeared, and indicate why such condition could not have been diagnosed earlier.

Defendant 

No. 4 

Videos of crash sequence and post-crash emergency 

Response. 

WITHDRAWN. 

Defendant 

No. 5 

Photos of the crash scene and aircraft wreckage. 

GRANTED as to Exhibits 6-1 and 6-4. 

DENIED as to Exhibit 6-3. 

DENIED as to Exhibit 6-2, except that plaintiff shall crop out depictions of the seat which appears 

to be torn from its bearings. 

 

4. Witnesses: The parties are limited to calling the witnesses submitted on the lists filed for the 

Pretrial Conference. (Dkt. Nos. 1005 and 1012.) Upon a showing of good cause, including for 

rebuttal or impeachment purposes, additional witnesses will only be allowed by Court order. 

5. Exhibits and Exhibit Lists: The parties are limited to using the exhibits submitted on the 

Updated Joint Exhibit List Annotated with Stipulations/Objections filed for the Pretrial 

Conference, (Dkt. No. 1017), unless otherwise discussed with the Court, such as the 

Case 4:13-md-02497-YGR Document 1024 Filed 09/14/17 Page 4 of 9
5 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

referenced summaries. No witness may be shown any document or other object until it has 

been marked for identification using an exhibit number. Other than the demonstratives noted 

on Dkt. No. 1017, the jury may not be shown any exhibits until admitted into evidence or 

stipulated by the parties as to admissibility without the express permission of the Court. 

Electronic evidence will be submitted to the jury with a court-approved laptop computer. 

Information on the same can be found at http://cand.uscourts.gov/jurypc. 

 With respect to the parties’ objections as to exhibits, the Court memorializes its rulings as 

follows: 

 i. Plaintiff’s exhibit 10 (series): Plaintiffs shall reduce the number of photographs to 

 approximately ten or fifteen. 

 ii. Plaintiff’s exhibits 18-19, 251, 311, 315, and 316: Reserved. 

 iii. Plaintiff’s exhibits 21, 278 and 280: Exhibits withdrawn. 

 iv. Plaintiff’s exhibits 137 and 141: Plaintiff shall redact sections pertaining to medical 

 treatment of plaintiff’s daughter. 

 v. Defendant’s exhibits 425, 426, and 461: Reserved. 

6. Equipment: Projectors, screens and similar equipment must be tested in the courtroom prior 

to the day when it will be used. Arrangements may be made with the Courtroom Deputy, 

Frances Stone, at (510) 637-3540, as to appropriate time for doing so. Parties are advised that 

the United States Marshal Service requires a court order to allow equipment and other trial 

related materials. Parties shall file request and proposed order. 

7. Jurors and Peremptory Challenges: The Court will seat a total of eight (8) jurors and no 

alternates. The Court sets the number of peremptory challenges at four (4). 28 U.S.C. section 

1870. Batson motions must be made in a timely fashion. Argument on the same shall be 

made outside the presence of the jury panel. 

8. Per the Court’s Standing Order, the Court will give Model Instructions 1.4, 1.6, 1.8–1.10, 

1.12–1.14, and 3.1–.3 from the Manual of Model Civil Jury Instructions for the Ninth Circuit 

(2007 Edition). 

9. Opening Statements: Parties must meet and confer to exchange any visuals, graphics or 

Case 4:13-md-02497-YGR Document 1024 Filed 09/14/17 Page 5 of 9
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

exhibits to be used in opening statements. Unless otherwise agreed, the exchange must occur 

no later than the close of business on the Wednesday before trial. Any objections not resolved 

must be filed in writing by the Thursday before trial and discussed with the Court on Friday. 

The parties are reminded that the purpose of an Opening Statement is not to argue the facts but 

to provide the jurors with an outline of what each side expects the evidence will show. 

10. Expert Disclosures/Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 Offers: To the extent not already done, counsel shall 

lodge with the Court on September 22, 2017, two copies of all expert disclosures, including 

any supplements, as well as all offers of judgment made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68. 

11. Depositions to be Used at Trial: Any party intending to use a deposition transcript at trial for 

any purpose shall lodge the signed original (or a certified/stipulated copy if, for any reason, the 

original is not available) for use by the Court and shall have extra copies available for use by 

him/herself and the witness. All other parties are expected to have their own copies available. 

The parties shall each prepare and provide an index of the lodged transcripts and shall review 

the same with the courtroom deputy upon lodging the transcripts. Before each trial day, 

counsel shall confer with the courtroom deputy and identify which of the transcripts may be 

used that day. 

12. Video Depositions at Trial: A video deposition may only be shown after the designations, 

counter-designation and objections are resolved. A transcript shall be provided of the portions 

played to the jury on the day played. The court reporter shall be relieved of her duties to 

transcribe that portion of the trial. In lieu of the court reporter’s transcription, the parties shall 

file in the docket a copy of that portion of the transcript used during the trial. The filing shall 

be designated: “Plaintiff’s /Defendant’s Trial Related Transcript(s) for Video Deposition(s).” 

13. Witnesses at Trial: The party presenting evidence shall give the other party 24 hours written 

notice of the witnesses in the order to be called unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties 

themselves. The parties are admonished that use of trial time is critical given the limited 

resources of the Court. All parties must have witnesses ready and available to testify. If the 

party presenting evidence does not have a witness ready to be called once a prior witness steps 

down, that party may be deemed to have rested its case. Witnesses may be taken out of order 

Case 4:13-md-02497-YGR Document 1024 Filed 09/14/17 Page 6 of 9
7 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

upon stipulation or with leave of Court provided that the circumstances giving rise to such an 

accommodation are promptly called to the attention of opposing counsel and the Court. 

14. Objections: There shall be no “speaking objections,” and no rebuttal unless requested by the 

Court, in which case it shall be brief – e.g., “hearsay,” and if a rebuttal requested, “not offered 

for the truth.” If either counsel needs to make a better record, he/she may do so when the jury 

is out at the next break. 

15. Jury Questions: The Court allows written jury questions which it will share with counsel at 

the break(s) and then place in the record. 

16. Settlement: Counsel shall promptly notify the Court by phone and email (for after hours, use: 

ygrchambers@cand.uscourts.gov) of any settlement. The notification shall indicate what 

further steps need to be taken to finalize the settlement. Unless the Court receives notice of 

settlement by 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 20, 2017, jury costs will be assessed where 

the parties do not proceed to trial as scheduled. Civ. L.R. 40-1. Parties are advised that the 

trial and all trial-related dates will not be vacated without an enforceable settlement. 

17. Trial Decorum and Procedure: Counsel, parties, and witnesses are expected to conduct 

themselves at all times – on or off the record and whether or not in the presence of a jury – in a 

professional and courteous manner during trial. Do NOT approach other parties’ witnesses 

without permission. You may approach your own non-hostile witnesses without permission. 

 During voir dire you will be allowed to use the bathrooms in the jury room so that you do 

not share the facilities with the jurors. You may not linger in the jury room or use any exit 

door other than the one leading to the courtroom. 

18. Failure to Comply: Failure to comply with the obligations set forth in this order will result 

in sanctions appropriate to the gravity of the failure, including, but not limited to monetary 

fines and/or terminating sanctions. 

19. Meet and Confer: In light of the discussion on the record during the pretrial conference held 

on September 12, 2017, the parties shall meet and confer with regard to the following issues: 

(i) exclusion of expert witnesses and plaintiff’s family members during trial; (ii) procedure for 

examining witnesses which appear on both parties’ witness lists; and (iii) qualification of 

Case 4:13-md-02497-YGR Document 1024 Filed 09/14/17 Page 7 of 9
8 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

expert witnesses. The Court will review the status of these issues with the parties on 

September 22, 2017. 

20. Outstanding Filings: In light of the discussion and representations made by the parties on 

September 12, 2017, the Court ORDERS as follows: 

i. Defendant shall provide the Court with a transcript of the deposition of Rodney 

Johnston by no later than September 19, 2017, and advise whether the Court need 

resolve the objections as to time allocation. To allow the Court to rule on the 

objections easily and efficiently, defendant shall provide the Court with a form of 

order that identifies each (and all) designation(s) in chart form and in chronological 

order. The chart shall identify an affirmative designation with a “D” and a counterdesignation with a “CD” and shall include a column for plaintiff and one for 

defendant so that the Court can efficiently identify the party for whom time is 

assessed. The chart shall also be pre-filled assessing time to the proponent of each 

affirmative designation. 

ii. Defendant may file a brief regarding the effect of Doe v. Etihad Airways, 2017 WL 

3723233 (6th Cir. 2017), on plaintiff’s ability to recover damages for mental 

injuries under the Montreal Convention by no later than September 19, 2017. 

iii. As referenced above, plaintiff shall provide the Court with the relevant portions of 

(i) Dr. Kong’s deposition transcript, (ii) medical records, and (iii) photographs on 

which Dr. O’Shannick relied in forming his supplemental report by no later than 

1:00 p.m. on Friday, September 15, 2017. To the extent not obvious from the 

transcript, medical records, and photographs, plaintiff shall advise the Court of the 

date on which the symptoms of Dr. Rha’s alleged neurogenic bladder condition 

first appeared, and indicate why such condition could not have been diagnosed 

earlier. 

// 

// 

// 

Case 4:13-md-02497-YGR Document 1024 Filed 09/14/17 Page 8 of 9
9 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

This Order terminates Dkt. Nos. 860, 863-865, 873, and 914-921. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

September 14, 2017

Case 4:13-md-02497-YGR Document 1024 Filed 09/14/17 Page 9 of 9