Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01539/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01539-9/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

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONIQUE GUERRERO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-01539-LJO-SMS

ORDER ON DEFENDANT TAKATA

SEATBELTS INC.’S MOTION TO

COMPEL PLAINTIFF MONIQUE

GUERRERO TO PROVIDE FURTHER

ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT’S

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS OF

FACTS, SET ONE

(Doc. 41)

ORDER ON DEFENDANT TAKATA

SEATBELTS INC.’S MOTION TO

COMPEL PLAINTIFF MONIQUE

GUERRERO TO PROVIDE FURTHER

ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL

INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

(Doc. 43)

ORDER ON DEFENDANT TAKATA

SEATBELTS INC.’S MOTION TO

COMPEL PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH

GUERRERO TO PROVIDE FURTHER

ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL

INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

(Doc. 44)

On August 29, 2007, Defendant Takata Seatbelts, Inc., filed

the two motions to compel Plaintiff Monique Guerrero to provide

further answers to requests for admissions (Doc. 41), as well as

to provide further answers to interrogatories (Doc. 43). On

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 77 Filed 12/14/07 Page 1 of 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

2

September 18, 2007, Plaintiff and Defendant Takata filed joint

statements of disputed discovery issues pursuant to Local Rule

37-251 (Docs. 46-48). These two matters were originally set to

be heard on September 21, 2007. On September 5, 2007, Defendant

Takata filed a motion to compel Plaintiff Elizabeth Guerrero to

provide further answers to interrogatories (Doc. 44); the amended

joint statement was filed on September 18, 2007 (Doc. 58), with

the matter advanced from an October 5, 2007 hearing date to

September 21, 2007, the same hearing date as the two other

motions regarding Plaintiff Monique Guerrero (Doc. 45).

The Court took these motions under submission upon the

record and briefs on file pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h)

(Doc. 61).

I. Motions to Compel Further Answers by Plaintiff Monique

Guerrero to Requests for Admissions and Special Interrogatories

The Court will address these two motions together

inasmuch as Defendant Takata argues it accompanied its requests

for admissions with special interrogatories, seeking explanations

for every RFA not answered with an unqualified admission:

As to each of YOUR responses to Takata’s

Requests for Admissions, served concurrently

herewith, which is not an unqualified

admission, please state each fact upon which

YOU base YOUR response.

Moving party Defendant Takata argues in the herein

motions that Plaintiff’s responses were insufficient inasmuch as

they failed to repeat the explanations for the requests for

admissions responses set forth in the special interrogatories

again in the admissions responses themselves.

//

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 77 Filed 12/14/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Therefore, plaintiffs provided

explanations for any denials or partial

denials in their response to the Special

Interrogatories, Set One, rather than in the

body of their RFA responses. Plaintiffs

submit the court’s determination of the

sufficiency of their responses to RFAs should

include reference to the interrogatory

responses.

It is difficult for the Court to understand the

conundrum. It appears to be true that Plaintiff set forth

objections, then denied certain requests discussed below. 

However, it also appears that Plaintiff has complied with

Defendant’s own directions to Plaintiff that she state the facts

and arguments for not being able to admit the request in the

accompanying interrogatories. That Plaintiff has not repeated

the precise language in each of the discovery tools is not fatal

to Plaintiff’s responses. Read together, as requested by

Defendant, the responses appear to “specify so much of it as is

true and qualify or deny the remainder.” See FRCP Rule 36(a).

A. Request for Admission No. 1

Referring to paragraph 16. in Plaintiffs’ first

amended complaint (Doc. 28) that Defendants “knew that

plaintiff’s vehicle would be purchased and used without

inspection for defects by the purchaser or user,” Defendant takes

exception with Plaintiff’s lodging objections to the request,

outright denying it, then setting forth no details as required by

FRCP Rule 36(a). Yet, a review of Plaintiff’s answer to special

interrogatory number one (1) does just that, sets forth with

specificity so much of request for admission number one (1) as is

true and qualifies and/or denies the remainder. Plaintiffs have

done precisely as Defendant desired, have stated in the companion

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 77 Filed 12/14/07 Page 3 of 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

4

special interrogatory each fact upon which they based their

response to the request for admission. It makes no sense to

stand on form-over-substance and require that the answer be

repeated verbatim in the response to request for admission; the

evidentiary value of the response is the same and can be used in

trial as though set forth on the same piece of paper.

Defendant’s motion to compel further answer to

request for admission number one (1) is DENIED.

B. Request for Admission No. 9

For the same reasons as set forth above, the Court

DENIES Defendant’s request for a further answer to this request. 

The word “properly” is subject to several iterations each

dependent on such variables as philosophies of child rearing, the

number of persons riding in a vehicle, their ages, developmental

skills, what other cargo may be present in a vehicle, etc. In

short, the explanation given is deemed sufficient to support

Plaintiff’s denial.

C. Request for Admission No. 16

For the same reasons as set forth above, the Court

DENIES Defendant’s request for a further answer to this request. 

The Court accepts the response of Plaintiff and mother of minor

Plaintiff, Monique, that she is unable to admit or deny the

statement. Further, the Court accepts his word as an officer of

the court that Plaintiff’s counsel was, as of the due dates of

these responses, unable to admit or deny that photographs of

Defendant’s biomechanical engineer expert accurately depicted the

manner in which the subject seatbelt fit Monique at the time of

the accident. It may well be that with the production of expert

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 77 Filed 12/14/07 Page 4 of 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

5

reports, due December 7, 2007 (Doc. 73), the response to this

request for admission and corresponding special interrogatory

explanation would have been different. Yet, as of the date of

submission of Plaintiff’s original responses, the explanatory

answer appears to be candid and straightforward.

D. Request for Admission No. 18

The devil is in the details of a request for

admission such as this: First, we are back to the use of the

word “properly” previously discussed by Plaintiffs regarding

request number nine which responses were accepted by the Court,

denying further response due. Beyond that, there is no way to

know, for example, whether young Monique would have unfastened or

been in the process of unfastening her seatbelt, or was twisting

around to talk with or laugh with her siblings or some other

person behind her, or whether she was leaning way over and out of

any child seat that “properly” was being used in conjunction with

any other seatbelt other than the offending one. The answer to

this inquiry is for the trier of fact after compiling all of the

facts at trial.

Defendant’s request for further response to

request for admission number eighteen (18) is DENIED.

E. Request for Admission No. 24

Plaintiff is ordered to respond further to this

request for admission/supporting special interrogatory number one

(1). The Court disagrees with the plea that “the phrase ‘when

the SUBJECT VEHICLE came to rest after the SUBJECT ACCIDENT’ “ is

vague for purposes of the guardian ad litem and percipient

witness Plaintiff Elizabeth Guerrero being able to answer this

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 77 Filed 12/14/07 Page 5 of 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

6

inquiry on behalf of her daughter, Monique. Since Plaintiff

herself offered the explanatory language “[I]mmediately following

the collision Elizabeth Guerrero observed Monique in her seat

with the seatbelt, including shoulder harness, properly on her,”

it begs the question as posed, was Monique “in the second row

center seat with her upper body bent over the lap portion of the

SUBJECT SEATBELT and her head on or near the center console?” 

Since by Plaintiff’s own admission Elizabeth Guerrero saw her

daughter immediately after the accident, she either saw Monique

bent over the lap portion of the seatbelt with her head on or

near the center console or not.

Defendant’s motion to compel further answer to

request for admission number twenty-four (24) is GRANTED.

II. Motion to Compel Further Answers by Plaintiff Elizabeth

Guerrero to Special Interrogatories

A. Special Interrogatory No. 1

The information requested by Defendant does not

appear to be so proprietary, so inextricably entwined with a

privileged or private developing theory of liability that these

most basic details of what is depicted in a photograph

voluntarily shared with opposing party cannot be and should not

be divulged. If a phone call to the photographer is involved,

that does not appear to the Court to be “prematurely seeking the

opinions and work product of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses.”

Defendant’s request with regard to special

interrogatory No. 1 is GRANTED.

//

/

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 77 Filed 12/14/07 Page 6 of 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

7

B. Special Interrogatories Nos. 4, 5, and 6

The Court deems these inquiries to be well-taken. 

And, based on a series of mostly informal telephonic discovery

dispute conferences with counsel over many months, the Court is

well aware there was some actual witnessing of the seatbelt/

shoulder harness changing condition as well as separate

speculations/theories as to what has happened with and to the

seatbelt since the accident. The Court defers an order on these

three (3) special interrogatories until after experts’ reports

are exchanged and following depositions of all experts. 

Plaintiffs’ experts, for example, should and would have opined

about the seatbelt based on their sightings and theories. 

Defendants’ expert likewise. Should these interrogatories still

be at issue following experts’ reports AND depositions, the Court

will revisit these outstanding matters upon request of defense

counsel. 

The Court hereby STAYS any rulings on these

special interrogatories until conclusion of expert’s depositions. 

C. Special Interrogatory No. 12, 13, 14, and 15 

Similar to the Court’s order regarding special

interrogatories 4, 5, and 6, the exceptions taken regarding

Plaintiff’s responses to these interrogatories will not be ruled

upon, if at all, until after experts’ reports have been

exchanged, reviewed , and depositions have been taken of each

such expert. The information sought is well-taken. Plaintiffs’

experts by now should have addressed the substance of these

inquiries. Due to the time lapse between the original service of

these interrogatories, the filing of the motion, and the Court’s

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 77 Filed 12/14/07 Page 7 of 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

8

preparation of this order, it is believed much if not all of the

information sought by virtue of these inquires has been opined,

revealed, and otherwise divulged by experts. Should that not be

the case, the Court will entertain revisiting the dispute as to

these special interrogatories upon request of defense counsel. 

The Court hereby STAYS any ruling as to these

special interrogatories until conclusion of expert depositions.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that

1) Defendant Takata’s motion to compel Plaintiff Monique

Guerrero to provide further answers to Defendant’s requests for

admissions of fact, set one, numbers 1, 9, 16, and 18 is DENIED,

and said motion is GRANTED as to request number 24;

2) Defendant Takata’s motion to compel Plaintiff Monique

Guerrero to provide further answers to Defendant’s special

interrogatories, set one, relating to requests for admissions,

set one, numbers 9 and 16, is DENIED;

3) Defendant Takata’s motion to compel Plaintiff Elizabeth

Guerrero to provide further answers to Defendant’s special

interrogatories, set one, is GRANTED as to number 1 and STAYED as

to numbers 4,5,6, 12-15.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01539-LJO -SMS Document 77 Filed 12/14/07 Page 8 of 8