Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01773/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01773-20/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-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRACY YU-SANTOS

Plaintiff,

v.

TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS INC. and 

ROBERT SANTOS,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:06-cv-01773-OWW-DLB

Judge Assigned: Hon. Oliver W. Wanger

AMENDED FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

Trial Date: June 16, 2010

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Venue: Courtroom 3

This action is proceeding to trial between Plaintiff Tracy Yu-Santos (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant 

TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc. (“Defendant”) on the following issues: 

(1) Manufacturing defects as to the right front seat belt, left rear seat belt, and right rear seat belt; 

(2) Negligent Products Liability; and 

(3) Failure to warn (whether Defendant failed to adequately warn of any known or 

knowable risk relating to the right front, left rear, and right rear seating positions).

The pretrial conference was held on February 26, 2010. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the 

original trial date of April 20, 2010 was vacated. The trial in this matter was reset for June 2, 2010, at 8:30 

a.m. The parties currently estimate that the trial shall take 15 days. 

I. Jurisdiction and Venue 

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 1 of 25
-2-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

because diversity jurisdiction exists in that there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties 

and the amount in controversy is alleged to exceed $75,000.00. 

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division is the 

appropriate venue for this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2), because a substantial part of the events 

or omissions on which Plaintiff's claims are based occurred in Fresno County within the Eastern District of 

California. 

There is no dispute concerning jurisdiction or venue. 

II. Jury Trial 

Plaintiff demanded a jury trial on all issues in her operative First Amended Complaint filed on 

December 19, 2006. Defendant does not contest Plaintiff's demand for a jury trial. 

III. Facts 

A. Undisputed Facts 

1. Defendant was not in any way responsible for the roof structure of the 1998 Ford Explorer identified 

in Plaintiff's operative First Amended Complaint (the "Ford Explorer"). 

2. Defendant was not in any way responsible for the window glazing of the Ford Explorer. 

3. Defendant was not in any way responsible for the doors or door latches of the Ford Explorer. 

4. The total distance the Ford Explorer traveled during the roll sequence was 310 feet in the dirt 

shoulder. 

5. Christopher Miranda was the driver of the Ford Explorer at the time of the accident. 

6. During the accident, both of the Ford Explorer's right passenger doors opened and were crushed 

outward. The rear cargo door of the Ford Explorer also opened during the accident. 

7. Plaintiff does not contend that the right front passenger seat belt assembly of the Ford Explorer 

presents a design defect that proximately caused damages to Plaintiff. 

8. Plaintiff does not contend that the right rear passenger seat belt assembly of the Ford Explorer 

presents a design defect that proximately caused damages to Plaintiff. 

9. Tia Santos and Keilan Santos were the natural born children of Plaintiff and Robert Santos. 

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 2 of 25
-3-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

B. Disputed Facts 

1. Aside from the following disputed factual issues set forth in 1(a)-(b) below, Plaintiff presents 

no other claim of defect against Defendant in this action: 

a. The parties dispute whether a manufacturing defect exists in the right rear seat belt buckle of

the Ford Explorer that proximately caused damages to Plaintiff. 

b. The parties dispute whether a manufacturing defect exists in the right front seat belt webbing 

of the Ford Explorer that proximately caused damages to Plaintiff. 

c. The parties dispute whether a manufacturing defect exists in the left rear seat belt webbing of 

the Ford Explorer that proximately caused damages to Plaintiff. 

2. The parties dispute the accident reconstruction of the rollover, including but not limited to the 

number of times the Ford Explorer rolled, the average distance of each roll revolution, the speed of travel of 

the Ford Explorer prior to the accident, the Ford Explorer's trip speed, and the average deceleration rates, 

average roll rates and peak roll rates during the rollover sequence. 

3. The parties dispute whether Keilan Santos was seated in the left rear or right rear seat.

4. The parties dispute the type of injuries Tia Santos would have sustained if the webbing in the right 

front seat belt assembly of the Ford Explorer did not separate. 

5. The parties dispute the type of injuries Keilan Santos would have sustained if the webbing in the left 

rear seat belt assembly of the Ford Explorer did not separate.

6. The parties dispute whether, if Keilan Santos was seated in the right rear seat, he was wearing his 

seat belt at the time of the accident. 

7. The parties dispute whether the seat belt buckle at the right rear seating position was functioning 

properly prior to the accident. 

8. The parties dispute the type of injuries Keilan Santos would have sustained assuming that he was 

wearing his seat belt during the accident. 

9. The parties dispute whether Christopher Miranda lost control of the Ford Explorer and is at fault for 

the rollover accident. 

10. The parties dispute whether Christopher Miranda was under the influence of marijuana at the time of 

the accident. 

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 3 of 25
-4-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

11. The parties dispute whether Defendant's conduct caused or contributed to the death of either Tia 

Santos or Keilan Santos. 

12. The parties dispute whether Defendant was in any way negligent with respect to Plaintiff's claims in 

this action. 

13. The parties dispute whether Defendant failed to adequately warn of any known or knowable risk 

relating to the right front, left rear, and the right rear seating positions of the Ford Explorer. 

14. The parties dispute whether Defendant was in any way responsible for the passenger compartments 

of the Ford Explorer. 

15. The parties dispute whether Defendant was in any way responsible for the Ford Explorer as an 

integrated product. 

16. The parties dispute whether the opening of the Ford Explorer's both right passenger side doors, which 

were also crushed outward during the accident, exposed the occupants to large ejection portals. 

17. The parties dispute whether both decedents from which Plaintiff's claims arise were ejected through 

the ejection portals created by the opened doors of the Ford Explorer. 

18. The parties dispute whether the Ford Explorer lost virtually all of its window glazing during the 

accident. 

19. The parties dispute whether occupant-induced friction loads on the right front passenger's seat belt 

were so high during the rollover that the occupant's clothing actually melted into the structure of the belt. 

20. The parties dispute whether Defendant manufactured the webbing used in the seat belt at the right 

front and left rear passenger seating position of the Ford Explorer. 

21. The parties dispute whether Defendant designed the webbing used in the seat belt at the right front 

and left rear passenger seating position of the Ford Explorer. 

22. The parties dispute whether Defendant distributed and sold to Ford Motor Company some of the seat 

belt restraint components installed in the subject Ford Explorer at the time of the subject incident, including 

the seat belt webbing, latch plates, buckles, webbing guides, and anchor attachments. 

IV. Disputed Evidentiary Issues 

The disputed evidentiary issues raised below represent those that the parties reasonably anticipate 

as disputes and the parties reserve the right to move in limine on other issues or matters that are in dispute 

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 4 of 25
-5-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

between and among them. The parties also reserve the right to abandon any of the disputed evidentiary 

issues raised above. 

A. Plaintiff Anticipates The Following Evidentiary Disputes Which Should Be Resolved 

By Motion In Limine. 

Plaintiff objects to the reference to, or introduction of evidence concerning, among other things: 

1. The application, response, and orders relating to the temporary restraining order issued against Robert 

Santos with regard to Plaintiff. 

2. That the driver Christopher Miranda was alleged to have been driving under the influence of marijuana, 

possessed marijuana, or that there was marijuana and drug-related paraphernalia in the subject vehicle. 

3. The criminal prosecution of Christopher Miranda. 

4. Evidence introduced for the first time in Defendant's Supplemental Disclosure of Expert Witness 

Information served on February 17, 2010. 

5. Evidence or reference to rollover test videos and reports not conducted by Defendant's experts and under 

circumstances that are dissimilar to the conditions of the subject incident. 

6. Evidence or reference to the quasi-static spit test observed by Defendant's experts. 

7. Evidence of or reference to prior claims made by Robert Santos that the seat belts in the subject 

Ford Explorer were in a defective condition prior to the subject incident. With respect to Plaintiff's 

expected motion in limine number (4) as described, above, Defendant offered Plaintiff the opportunity 

to depose Peter Luepke, at Plaintiff's own expense, again prior to the commencement of trial, which 

Plaintiff refused. 

B. Defendant Anticipates The Following Evidentiary Disputes Which Should Be Resolved 

By Motion In Limine.

Defendant objects to the reference to, or introduction of evidence concerning, among 

other things: 

1. Any mention of purported seat belt defects or failures other than those placed at issue by Plaintiff. 

2. Unrelated products, unrelated defects and dissimilar incidents. 

3. Defendant's post-manufacture conduct (for example, if at any time following the accident, Defendant 

supplied or supplies different parts for Ford Explorers other than those used in the subject Ford Explorer). 

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 5 of 25
-6-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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. Inflammatory photographic, video or oral evidence or other testimony designed to play on jury emotions 

of sympathy for the Plaintiff rather than genuine evidence of wrongdoing by Defendant. 

5. To the extent Plaintiff intends to rely on experimentation, any "artificial" unscientific experiments. 

6. Characterization of Plaintiff as a single mother or references to prior hardships in her life. 

7. Past or present claims or lawsuits pending against Defendant, other than this case. 

8. Criticism of Defendant or any of its employees for activities not related to the issues in this case. 

9. Testimony by any treating psychologist or psychiatrist of Plaintiff. 

Defendant also intends to move to bifurcate damages from liability and to move to preclude 

some or all of the testimony of Plaintiff's experts Wilson Toby Hayes (accident reconstruction, 

biomechanics and occupant kinematics) and William Broadhead (occupant restraints) in accord with 

footnote 3 of the Court's Order on TRW's Motion for Summary Judgment. 

V. Special Factual Information 

(A) Plaintiff's Statement: In 2004, Plaintiff Tracy Yu-Santos was a single mother raising a daughter, 

17 year old Tia Santos, and a son, 14 year Keilan Santos. On Christmas Day, Tia and Keilan Santos, 

together with their cousins, Daniel Torres Santos and Paloma Santos, and Christopher Miranda a friend of 

Tia's were driving in Plaintiff's 1998 Ford Explorer. Christopher Miranda was driving the Explorer south on 

Interstate 5, approximately 1.6 miles south of Oxford Avenue, at approximately 75-80 mph (the posted speed 

limit for this portion of Interstate 5 was 70 mph) when he lost control of the vehicle as he attempted to avoid 

suddenly slowing traffic. The vehicle left the roadway and overturned, fully ejecting all four passengers from 

the rolling vehicle. Both Plaintiff's son and daughter suffered catastrophic injuries as a result of being ejected 

from the Ford Explorer and were pronounced dead at the scene of the subject accident, as was Plaintiff's 

niece. Plaintiff's nephew was pronounced dead by paramedics while in transport to the hospital. Christopher 

Miranda, the only non-relative involved in this tragedy and, significantly, the only occupant retained inside 

the vehicle throughout the rollover, was the sole survivor of the crush, receiving only minor injuries. 

There is no dispute that the seat belt webbing in two of the seating positions, that of Plaintiff's 

daughter Tia Santos and the left rear seat belt, separated, not as the result of being cut, but rather, as a result 

of the loading of the belt by the occupants. Furthermore, there is a dispute that the seat belt restraint system 

in a third seating position, the right rear, was rendered inoperative in the crash when the buckle separated 

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 6 of 25
-7-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

from the buckle housing. 

There is no dispute that Defendant manufactured the seat belts installed in the subject Ford 

Explorer. The central issue in this case is whether the failure of the seat belt restraint systems was the result 

of a manufacturing defect in the seat belts. The webbing of these seat belts was designed to withstand up to 

6,100 pounds before breaking or separating when in a new condition, and to withstand up to a minimum of 

4,600 pounds in a used condition. Plaintiff's experts have testified that these belts could not have 

experienced these threshold levels of loading in this rollover. Therefore, Plaintiff contends that because 

these belts failed under loads lower than their design criteria and were, therefore, defective in manufacture. 

Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for the wrongful death of her children under theories of strict product 

liability (manufacturing defect), negligence, and failure to warn. 

Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Statement: Defendant objects to Plaintiff's characterization of 

herself and to her references to the condition of any of the seat belt assemblies not placed at issue by 

Plaintiff in this action. Defendant agrees that the Ford Explorer was traveling in excess of the posted speed 

limit at some point prior to the rollover and that its trip speed was at a similar highway speed. Defendant 

disputes that Miranda was attempting to avoid suddenly slowing traffic when he lost control of the Ford 

Explorer. Defendant disputes the significance that Plaintiff places on Miranda as the "sole survivor" and 

disputes that Miranda sustained "only minor injuries" because the occupant kinematics and exposure to 

ejection portals were different for him compared to the decedents. 

Defendant disputes that either of the seat belt assemblies at the seating positions placed at issue by 

the First Amended Complaint failed under loads lower than their design criteria. Instead, Defendants 

maintain that these seat belt assemblies were not defective in manufacture. Defendant similarly disputes 

Plaintiff's characterization of the design criteria, which misstates both the operative Ford Motor Company 

engineering specifications and the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ("FMVSS"). 

Moreover, Defendant neither designed nor manufactured the webbing for any of the seat belts in the Ford 

Explorer. Defendant thus disputes that it manufactured, in whole, the seat belt assemblies installed in the 

Ford Explorer. In addition, Defendant maintains that Keilan Santos was not even wearing his seat belt at the 

time of the accident, and that his seat belt was not functioning properly prior to the accident (despite having 

functioned properly when it left Defendant for shipment to Ford Motor Company). Plaintiff knew about the 

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 7 of 25
-8-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

improper working condition of the right rear seat belt for some time prior to the accident, but failed to correct 

or even address that condition before letting her children ride in the vehicle. 

Defendant does not dispute that "[t]he central issue in this case is whether the failure of the seat belt 

restraint systems was the result of a manufacturing defect in the seat belts." Defendant disputes that it is 

liable to Plaintiff for the wrongful death of her children under theories of strict product liability 

(manufacturing defect), negligence, and failure to warn. The accident was caused by Miranda and resulted in 

such a severely chaotic and violent accident-with some of the highest roll rates, number of rolls and roll 

distance ever documented-that the Ford Explorer experienced the opening and deformation of both right 

passenger side doors, exposing the decedents to ejection portals, vulnerability to repeated ground contact, 

and tremendous centrifugal forces that would not be exerted upon occupants retained fully inside the vehicle 

cabin by closed doors and intact window glazing. Such forces ultimately caused the right front passenger's 

seat belt webbing to separate despite its compliance with all applicable specifications and reasonable safety 

measures. The right rear occupant of the Ford Explorer was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the 

accident and his seat belt did not function properly prior to the accident. 

Plaintiff has never identified a seat belt manufacturing defect theory to a reasonable degree of 

engineering certainty for either the right front or right rear seating positions. No act or omission by 

Defendant proximately caused Plaintiff's alleged damages in this action. 

(B) Plaintiff's Statement: Plaintiff Tracy Yu-Santos is 47 years old and has suffered injury as a 

result of the wrongful death of her 17 year old daughter and 14 year old son. Upon establishing liability 

against Defendant, Plaintiff will be entitled to the following economic damages: 1) the value of the 

financial support, if any, that Tia and Keilan Santos would have contributed to the family during either the 

life expectancy of Plaintiff Tracy Yu-Santos; 2) the loss of gifts or benefits that Plaintiff Tracy Yu-Santos 

could have expected to receive from Tia and Keilan Santos; 3) funeral and burial expenses; and 4) the 

reasonable value of household services that Tia and Keilan Santos would have provided. Plaintiff will 

also be entitled to non-economic damages for the loss of Tia and Keilan Santos' love, companionship, 

comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, and moral support. 

Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Statement: Plaintiff does not contend that Plaintiff personally 

sustained injuries as a result of the accident and therefore any of her prior injuries, conditions that may 

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 8 of 25
-9-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

have worsened, periods of hospitalization, medical expenses and estimated future medical expenses, the 

period of total and/or partial disability, annual, monthly, or weekly earnings before the incident, earnings 

loss to date and estimated diminution of future earnings power, and property damage, if any, are 

inapplicable to this action. Plaintiff's general damages are limited to the economic and non-economic 

damages described in Plaintiff's Statement above. Defendant disputes that Plaintiff is entitled to any 

damages. Plaintiff has no claim for punitive damages. 

(C) Plaintiff's Statement: Plaintiff Tracy Yu-Santos is 47 years old. On December 25, 2004, her 

17 year old daughter Tia Santos and her 14 year old son Keilan Santos were killed in the subject incident. 

Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Statement: Defendant contends that neither Tia Santos nor Keilan 

Santos provided annual, monthly, or weekly contributions to Plaintiff before their deaths and further Plaintiff 

was not a dependent of them. Defendant maintains that Plaintiff is unable to produce evidence concerning 

the physical condition, education, and training of decedents at the time of their deaths. 

VI. Relief Sought: 

If the jury decides in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, Plaintiff will be entitled to the 

following economic damages: 1) the value of the financial support, if any, that Tia and Keilan Santos would

have contributed to the family during their life expectancies prior to their deaths or the life expectancy of 

Plaintiff, whichever is shorter; 2) the loss of gifts or benefits that Plaintiff could have expected to receive 

from Tia and Keilan Santos; 3) funeral and burial expenses; and 4) the reasonable value of household 

services that Tia and Keilan Santos would have provided. Plaintiff will also be entitled to non-economic 

damages for the loss of Tia and Keilan Santos' love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, 

affection, society, and moral support. Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions ("CACI") 3922 

(2007). Plaintiff does not seek any other relief from Defendant. 

If the jury decides that Plaintiff's harm includes future economic damages, then the amount of those 

future damages must be reduced to their present cash value. CACI 3904 (2008). The jury may not award any 

compensation for Plaintiff's grief, sorrow, or mental anguish, Keilan Santos' pain and suffering or Tia Santos' 

pain and suffering. The present cash value of the probable costs of Tia and Keilan's support and education 

should be deducted from any award. CACI 3922. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 9 of 25
-10-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

VII. Points of Law 

Plaintiff contends that Defendant is liable under theories of strict product liability for manufacturing 

defect, negligent product liability, failure to warn, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. Under 

California law, for Defendant to be held strictly liable for a manufacturing defect, Plaintiff must establish the 

following: 

1. That Defendant manufactured, distributed, or sold the product; 

2. That the product contained a manufacturing defect when it left Defendant's possession; 

3. That the product was used in a way that was reasonably foreseeable to Defendant; 

4. That Plaintiff was harmed; and 

5. That the product's defect was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm. CACI 1201 (2007). 

In order to establish causation, Plaintiff must demonstrate that the defect was a "substantial factor" in 

causing the harm to Plaintiff's decedents. “A substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable 

person would consider to have contributed to the harm. It must be more than a remote or trivial factor. It does 

not have to be the only cause of the harm.” CACI 430 (2007). 

To hold Defendant liable for negligence, Plaintiff must establish that Defendant failed to use the 

amount of care in manufacturing and inspecting the product that a reasonably careful manufacturer or 

supplier would use in similar circumstances to avoid exposing others to a foreseeable risk of harm. CACI 

1221 (2007). 

To hold Defendant liable for strict liability failure to warn, Plaintiff must establish that: 

1. Defendant manufactured, distributed, or sold the product; 

2. That the product had potential risks that were known or knowable by the use of scientific knowledge 

available at the time of manufacture, distribution, or sale; 

3. That the potential risks presented a substantial danger to users of the product; 

4. That ordinary consumers would not have recognized the potential risks; 

5. That Defendant failed to adequately warn of the potential risks; 

6. That Plaintiff was harmed while using the product in a reasonably foreseeable way; and 

7. That the lack of sufficient warnings was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm. 

CACI 1205 (2009). 

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 10 of 25
-11-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

To hold Defendant liable for negligent failure to warn, Plaintiff must establish that: 

1. That Defendant manufactured, distributed, or sold the product; 

2. That Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the product was dangerous or was likely to 

be dangerous when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner; 

3. That Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that users would not realize the danger; 

4. That Defendant failed to adequately warn of the danger; 

5. That a reasonable manufacturer under the same or similar circumstances would have warned of the 

danger; 

6. That Plaintiff was harmed; and 

7. That Defendant's failure to warn was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm. CACI 1222 (2007).

Defendant maintains there is no manufacturing defect that proximately caused Plaintiff's damages in 

any product supplied by Defendant to Ford Motor Company, pursuant to the specifications set by Ford Motor 

Company and FMVSS, for installation into the Ford Explorer. In addition, the right rear seat belt in the Ford 

Explorer was not functioning properly prior to the accident and was not properly maintained or repaired 

despite having left Defendant in proper working condition. Moreover, the right rear occupant was not 

wearing his seat belt at the time of the accident. 

Defendant contends the severity and violence of the rollover was an intervening factor that 

superseded any purported seat belt defect as the cause of Plaintiff's damages. See, e.g., Endicott v. Nissan 

Motor Corp., 73 Cal.App.3d 917, 926 (1977) ("If the violence of a crash is the effective efficient cause of the 

plaintiff's injuries to the extent that it supersedes other factors such as defective design and makes them 

immaterial, plaintiff cannot recover."); Paverud v. Niagara Machine and Tool Works, 189 Cal.App.3d 858, 

863 (1987) (overruled on other grounds); Restatement Second of Torts (1965), § 440; Stewart v. Cox, 55 

Cal.2d 857, 864 (1961); Hardison v. Bushnell, 18 Cal.App.4th 22, 26 (1993). 

Defendant contends that if the jury were to find against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff, any 

judgment must be reduced and apportioned by deducting any liability of joint tortfeasors, whether they are 

parties to the lawsuit or third-parties. CACI 405; Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804, 810 (1975); Civil 

Code § 1431.2(a)(providing for the apportionment of liability for non-economic damages); see, e.g., Taylor 

v. Crane Inc., 113 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1068-71 (2003) (explaining that purpose of Civil Code section 1341.2 

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 11 of 25
-12-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

"is simply intended to limit the potential liability of an individual defendant for noneconomic damages to a 

proportion commensurate with that defendant's personal share of fault") (citing DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc., 2 

Cal.4th 593, 600 (1992)). 

Additionally, Defendant contends the component supplier doctrine, learned intermediary and 

sophisticated user doctrine and application of federal preemption with regard to the operative standards for 

the seat belt assemblies in question are among other affirmative defenses available to Defendant. 

VIII. Abandoned Issues 

Plaintiff has settled all claims against Defendant Ford Motor Company which has been dismissed 

from this action. Furthermore, pursuant to the Court's prior ruling on TRW's Motion for Summary 

Judgment, all claims against Defendants TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., TRW Automotive, Inc., and 

TRW Automotive U.S., LLC, have been dismissed, as was Plaintiff's first cause of action against Defendant 

for strict liability-right front webbing design defect claim and Plaintiff's fourth cause of action against 

Defendant for breach of warranty. 

Defendant abandons the following affirmative defenses it asserted in its Answer to Plaintiff's First 

Amended Complaint filed on February 22, 2007: First Affirmative Defense for Statute of Limitations; 

Second Affirmative Defense for Failure to State a Claim; Twenty-Fifth Affirmative Defense for Waiver, 

Estoppel, and Laches; Twenty-Ninth Affirmative Defense for Improper Venue; and Thirtieth Affirmative 

Defense for Improper Forum. Additionally, in light of the Court's ruling on TRW's Motion for Summary 

Judgment, Defendant abandons the following affirmative defenses because they are no longer applicable: 

Fifteenth Affirmative Defense for Failure to Give Timely Notice of Any Claimed Breach of Warranty; and 

Sixteenth Affirmative Defense for No Privity. 

IX. Witnesses 

The following is a list of witnesses that the parties expect to call at trial, including rebuttal and 

impeachment witnesses. NO WITNESS, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE 

CALLED AT TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS 

ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); 

Local Rule 281(b)(10). 

///

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 12 of 25
-13-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

Plaintiff's Witness List 

1. Appel, Michael 

2. Arenas, Tammy 

3. Batra, Priya 

4. Bowers, William 

5. Broadhead, William 

6. Cervantes, Loralee 

7. Chism, D. 

8. Collazo, R. 

9. Comstock, Steven 

10. Cruz, E. 

11. Custodian of Records-American Ambulance 

12. Custodian of Records-California Division of Forestry 

13. Custodian of Records-Sacramento County Mental Health Treatment Center 

14. Custodian of Records Riggs Ambulance-Custodian of Records 

15. Sierra Vista Hospital 

16. Emehiser, Dean Joseph 

17. Gopal, Venu, M.D. 

18. Hance, Amy 

19. Hayes, William C. 

20. Heredia, Darin 

21. Jenkins, Jeffrey 

22. Johnson, Doug 

23. Jurkowsky, Paul 

24. Lion, Alex 

25. Luepke, Peter 

26. Martorana, Christian M. 

27. Miller, Gregory A. 

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 13 of 25
-14-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

28. Miller, Jeff 

29. Miranda, Christopher 

30. Moffatt, Edward 

31. Nichols, Donnie 

32. Parton, Walter 

33. Pereira, R. 

34. Peterson, Roger 

35. Ramos, Olivia 

36. Santos, Robert 

37. Serrano, Juan Carlos 

38. Sprinkman, Marvin 

39. Tucker, Brandon 

40. Vandermeer, Nick 

41. Wright, G. 

42. Yu-Santos, Tracy 

43. Zaver, Mara 

Defendant's Witness List 

1. Appel, Michael 

2. Arenas, Tammy 

3. Beitia, Michael 

4. Bowers, William 

5. Cervantes, Loralee 

6. Chism, D. 

7. Collazo, R. 

8. Comstock, Steven 

9. Cruz, E. 

10. Custodian of Records -American Ambulance 

11. Custodian of Records - Big O Tires 

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 14 of 25
-15-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

12. Custodian of Records-California Division of Forestry 

13. Custodian of Records-Sacramento County Mental Health Treatment Center 

14. Custodian of Records-Riggs Ambulance 

15. Custodian of Records-Sierra Vista Hospital 

16. Davis, Flora 

17. Emehiser, Dean Joseph 

18. Ferrer, Leonora 

19. Fresno County District Attorney's Office (Representative) 

20. Gonzalez, Jessica 

21. Gopal, Venu, M.D. 

22. Hance, Amy 

23. Heredia, Darin 

24. Jenkins, Jeffrey 

25. Johnson, Doug 

26. Lion, Alex 

27. Luepke, Peter 

28. Martorana, Christian M. 

29. Miller, Gregory A. 

30. Miller, Jeff 

31. Miranda, Caroline 

32. Miranda, Christopher 

33. Miranda, Ralph 

34. Moffatt, Edward 

35. Negron, Ana 

36. Nichols, Donnie 

37. Parton, Walter 

38. Pereira, R. 

39. Peterson, Roger 

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 15 of 25
-16-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

40. Ramos, Olivia 

41. Santos, Robert 

42. Serrano, Juan Carlos 

43. Sprinkman, Marvin 

44. Tucker, Brandon 

45. Vandermeer, Nick 

46. Wright, G. 

47. Yu-Santos, Tracy 

48. Zaver, Mara 

X. Exhibits 

See Eastern District CM/ECF Court Docket Document No. 93, Parties' Joint Exhibit List, identified 

as Exhibit 3. The Joint Exhibit List contains 3321 exhibits. NO EXHIBIT, OTHER THAN THOSE 

LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A 

SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(11). 

XI. Discovery Documents To Be Used at Trial (Answers to Interrogatories and 

Responses to Requests for Admissions) 

Plaintiff intends to offer and Defendant may offer at trial the following deposition testimony: 

1. Jeff Jenkins The parties intend to offer at trial the following deposition testimony: 

2. Custodians of Records for various third party entities in order to lay foundation that certain 

documents are the business records of those third party entities. The parties are currently unaware of any 

other witnesses that are beyond the subpoena power of the Court. The parties reserve the right to amend this 

list should new information come to light regarding the unavailability of any other witnesses. 

Plaintiff may offer at trial the following responses of Defendant to special interrogatories: 8, 9, 10, 

11, 12, 13, and 20. 

Plaintiff may offer at trial the following responses of Defendant to requests for admission: 1, 2, 3, 4, 

5, 7, and 14. 

Defendant may offer at trial the following responses and supplemental responses of Plaintiff 

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 16 of 25
-17-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

to Defendant's Special Interrogatories: 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 27. 

Defendant may offer at trial the following responses and supplemental responses of Plaintiff 

to Defendant's Requests for Admission: 32, 33, 34 and 35. 

Defendant may offer at trial the following responses of Plaintiff to Ford Motor Company's Special 

Interrogatories: 2, 3, 5 and 6. 

Defendant may offer at trial the following responses of Plaintiff to Ford Motor Company's Requests 

for Admission: 1 and 3. 

Defendant may offer at trial Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Disputed and Undisputed Material 

Facts Nos.: 10, 11, 14 and 16. 

XII. Further Discovery or Motions 

Plaintiff does not anticipate the need for the filing of any further discovery or pretrial motions, except 

for motions in limine. 

Plaintiff has listed Christopher Miranda, the driver of the Ford Explorer at the time of the accident, 

on her trial Witness List. Based solely on Plaintiff's addition, Defendant has also added Miranda to its trial 

Witness List. Consistent with the March 11, 2008 Order on Stipulation to Modify Scheduling Order to 

Continue Deposition of Witness Christopher Miranda, Plaintiff currently represents that diligent efforts had 

been made to locate Miranda but that despite her diligent efforts, Miranda has still not been located and no 

current address has been confirmed. Plaintiff and Defendant mutually agree to inform the other if they locate 

Miranda prior to trial. If Miranda is located, Defendant requests the opportunity to depose Miranda a 

reasonable time before trial commences or, in the alternative, at least a reasonable time before he is called as 

a trial witness. 

Pursuant to the Court’s order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Pretrial Order, the Court has 

ordered that the parties may conduct the following additional discovery :

1. Plaintiff shall immediately make her experts available to Defendant for re-deposition on 

the sole issue of the left rear seat belt and seat.

2. Plaintiff shall immediately allow Defendant to inspect the seat belt assembly and seat in 

the left rear seating position.

3. Plaintiff shall be allowed to re-depose Defendant’s experts regarding their analyses and 

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 17 of 25
-18-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

opinions concerning the left rear seat belt assembly and left rear seating position before they testify at trial.

4. The Court will authorize the issuance, on Defendant’s request, for subpoenas or 

subpoenas duces tecum for any witnesses that it thinks exist on the issue of the position of Keilan Santos in 

the left rear seat. Further, on shortened notice, the Court will permit Defendant to re-open discovery to 

conduct any further fact investigation and analysis surrounding the accident.

5. The parties shall be permitted to designate experts in the field of toxicology for the 

purposes of conducting a foundational hearing pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 104, regarding

the admissibility of evidence of marijuana use by the driver of the subject vehicle, Christopher Miranda.

XIII. Stipulations 

The parties stipulate and agree that neither party will introduce evidence concerning or make 

reference to the following matters: (1) any mention of the size of Defendant's law firm; (2) any reference to 

Defendant other than as TRW, TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Inc., TRW VSSI, or Defendant, or to the size 

of the company or its net worth; and (3) any mention that Defendant and Plaintiff have engaged in settlement 

discussions. 

Plaintiff and Defendant further stipulate to rely on deposition testimony of the Custodians of Records 

for various third party entities in order to lay foundation that certain documents are the business records of 

those third party entities. 

XIV. Amendments/Dismissals 

Plaintiff does not request any amendments to the pleadings unless the Court intended to allow the 

Complaint to go to the jury, in which case Plaintiff would seek to amend the Complaint to remove 

references to dismissed parties and causes of action. 

Defendant does not request any amendments to the operative pleadings. 

XV. Settlement Negotiations 

The parties have indicated that they are amenable to a court settlement conference under Local Rule 

270. If the parties wish to have a formal settlement conference they are to contact the assigned Magistrate 

Judge. 

XVI. Agreed Statements 

While the parties expect they will be able to stipulate to certain facts, the parties do not believe that 

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 18 of 25
-19-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

presentation of all or part of the action upon an Agreed Statement of Facts is feasible or advisable. 

XVII. Separate Trial of Issues 

Plaintiff does not believe that separate trials of any of the issues are feasible or advisable. 

Defendant intends to move to bifurcate damages from liability. 

XVIII. Impartial Experts-Limitation of Experts 

The parties submit that no court-appointed experts are needed and that no limitation on the number of 

expert witnesses is advisable, except to say that the Court should not allow more than one expert for a party 

to testify regarding any single opinion or area of expertise. As noted above, Plaintiff and Defendant intend to 

limit the testimony of experts through motions in limine. 

XIX. Attorneys’ Fees

There are no statutory provisions for the award of attorney's fees in this action. 

XX. Trial Exhibits

The parties do not anticipate the need for any special handling of trial exhibits. Plaintiff intends to 

utilize Sanctions Trial Presentation Software for the publication of exhibits to the Court, defense counsel, 

and the witnesses, and upon admission of such exhibits into evidence, for publication to the jury. Plaintiff 

also intends to utilize Sanctions Trial Presentation Software for the publication of agreed upon exhibits 

during opening statement, and admitted evidence during closing argument. 

Defendant intends to utilize the Court's ELMO visual presenter for its documentary exhibits that are 

admitted into evidence. Defendant also intends to utilize power point presentations, easels employing a large 

pad of paper and blown-up exhibits and/or demonstratives. Defendant may need to make use of a table or 

some benches for some of its demonstratives. 

XXI. Further Trial Preparation 

A. Final Witness List 

The parties are ordered to file and serve their final list of witnesses by 12:00 p.m. (Noon) on May 

27, 2010. Additionally, at that time Plaintiff shall disclose the order of witnesses so that Defendant will be 

prepared for cross-examination. 

Except upon the showing set forth above in Section IX, a party may not add witnesses to the final 

list of witnesses, or to any other updated witness list, who are not disclosed in this Order in Section IX. 

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 19 of 25
-20-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

B. Trial Briefs 

The parties filed and served trial briefs by 4:00 p.m. on May 24, 2010 pursuant to Local Rule 285. 

A response to a trial brief may be filed by 4:00 p.m. on May 28, 2010. 

C. Duty of Counsel to Pre-Mark Exhibits 

The parties are ordered to confer for purposes of pre-marking and examining each other’s exhibits. 

All joint exhibits must be pre-marked with numbers preceded by the designation JT/-(e.g., JT/1, JT/2). All 

of Plaintiffs’ exhibits shall be pre-marked with numbers. All of Defendants’ exhibits shall be pre-marked 

with letters. 

1. Counsel shall create four (4) complete, legible sets of exhibits in binders as follows: 

(a) Two sets of binders to be delivered to Courtroom Clerk Harold Nazaroff on May 27, 

2010, one for use by the Courtroom Clerk and the other for the court; and 

(b) One set for each counsel’s own use. 

If the parties desire, they may have a fifth set of binders to be used for the purposes of 

questioning witnesses. 

2. Counsel are to confer and make the following determination with respect to each proposed exhibit 

to be introduced into evidence, and to prepare separate indexes - one listing joint exhibits, and one listing 

each party’s separate exhibits: 

(a) Duplicate exhibits, i.e., documents which both sides desire to introduce into evidence, 

shall be marked as a joint exhibit, and numbered as directed above. Joint exhibits shall be 

listed on a separate index, and shall be admitted into evidence on the motion of any party, 

without further foundation. 

(b) As to exhibits that are not jointly offered, and to which there is no objection to 

introduction, those exhibits will likewise be appropriately marked, e.g., Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1 

or Defendants’ Exhibit A, and shall be listed in the offering party’s index in a column entitled 

“Admitted In Evidence.” Such exhibits will be admitted upon introduction and motion of the 

party, without further foundation. 22 

(c) Those exhibits to which the only objection is a lack of foundation shall be marked 

appropriately, e.g., Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2 - For Identification, or Defendants’ Exhibit B For 

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 20 of 25
-21-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

Identification, and indexed in a column entitled “Objection Foundation.” 

(d) Remaining exhibits as to which there are objections to admissibility not solely based on a 

lack of foundation shall likewise be marked appropriately, e.g., Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3 For 

Identification or Defendants’ Exhibit C - For Identification, and indexed in a third column 

entitled “Other Objection” on the offering party’s index.

3. Each separate index shall consist of the exhibit number or letter, a brief description of the exhibit, 

and the three columns outlined above, as demonstrated in the example below: 

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

 ADMITTED OBJECTION OTHER

EXHIBIT # DESCRIPTION IN EVIDENCE FOUNDATION OBJECTION 

Two sets of the completed joint index and the separate indexes shall be delivered to the Courtroom 

Clerk with the two sets of binders on May 27, 2010 by 4:00 p.m. 

The court has no objection to counsel using copies. However, the copies must be legible. If any 

document is offered into evidence that is partially illegible, the court may sua sponte exclude it from 

evidence. 

D. Discovery Documents 

By 12:00 p.m. (Noon) on May 27, 2010, each party shall file a list of all discovery documents 

the party intends to use at trial. The list shall indicate whether each discovery document has previously 

been lodged with the Clerk. If the discovery document has not been previously lodged, the party shall 

so lodge the document with the Courtroom Clerk by . 

E. Motions In Limine Hearing and Briefing Schedule 

The hearing for motions in limine, including cross-motions in limine regarding the need for expert 

testimony, is set for May 18 and May 19, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2. Motions in limine are to be 

filed by 4:00 p.m. on March 29, 2010. Opposition briefs are to be filed by 4:00 p.m. on April 19, 2010. 

Reply briefs may be filed by 4:00 p.m. on May 3, 2010. 

F. Morning Conferences During Trial 

During the trial, it is the obligation of counsel to meet with the court each morning to advise the court 

and opposing counsel as to what documents are proposed to be put into evidence that have not previously 

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 21 of 25
-22-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

been admitted by stipulation, court order, or otherwise ruled upon. The court will rule on those documents, 

to the extent possible, prior to the commencement of trial each day out of the presence of the jury. If the 

ruling depends upon the receipt of testimony, the court will rule as requested upon the receipt of such 

testimony. 

The court shall consider any other legal matter at morning conferences as well. The court does not 

wish to recess the trial to hear legal argument outside of the presence of the jury, and proper preparation by 

counsel will eliminate the need for that result. 

G. Order Of Witnesses 

To make the trial operate efficiently and smoothly, each counsel has the continuing obligation to 

advise opposing counsel as to what witnesses he or she intends to call forty eight

(48) hours prior to calling that witness. 

H. Voir Dire

The parties shall file proposed voir dire questions, if any, by 12:00 p.m. (Noon) on May 27, 2010. 

Additionally, in order to aid the court in the proper voir dire examination of the prospective jurors, 

counsel are directed to lodge with the court on the first morning of trial a list of the prospective witnesses 

they expect to call, omitting any witness listed in this Pre-Trial Order whom the party no longer intend to 

call. This list shall contain the names of the each witness, and the business and/or home address of each 

witness. 

I. Proposed Jury Instructions 

The parties shall file proposed jury instructions by 12:00 p.m. (Noon) on May 27, 2010, and email a 

copy of the proposed instructions formatted for WordPerfect 10 to Courtroom Clerk Harold Nazaroff. 

All proposed jury instructions shall be in duplicate. One set shall indicate the party proposing the 

instruction, with each instruction numbered or lettered, shall cite supporting authority, and shall include the 

customary “Given, Given as Modified, or Refused,” showing the court’s action with regard to each 

instruction. The other set shall be an exact copy of the first set, but shall be a “clean” copy that does not 

contain the identification of the offering party, supporting authority, or reference to the court’s disposition of 

the proposed instruction. 

The parties are ordered to confer immediately after the trial confirmation hearing to determine which 

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 22 of 25
-23-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

instructions they agree should be given. As soon as possible thereafter, the parties shall submit a list of joint, 

unopposed instructions. As to those instructions to which the parties dispute, the court will conduct its jury 

instruction conference during trial at a convenient time. 

J. Proposed Verdict Form

Each party shall file a proposed verdict form by 12:00 p.m. (Noon) on May 27, 2010. 

K. Use Of Videotapes 

Any party wishing to use a videotape for any purpose during trial shall lodge a copy of the videotape 

with the Courtroom Clerk by May 27, 2010. If a written transcript of audible words on the tape is available, 

the court requests that the transcript be lodged with the court, solely for the aid of the court. 

L. Use of Laptops 

If counsel intends to use a laptop computer for presentation of evidence, they shall contact the 

courtroom deputy clerk at least one week prior to trial. The courtroom deputy clerk will then arrange a time 

for counsel to bring the laptop to the courtroom, and meet with a representative of the Information and 

Technology Department and receive a brief training session on how counsel’s equipment interacts with the 

court’s audio/visual equipment. If counsel intends to use PowerPoint, the resolution should be set no higher 

than 1024 x 768 when preparing the presentation. 

M. Agreed Summary Of The Case The parties shall lodge with the Courtroom Clerk a joint agreed 

summary of the case, briefly outlining the positions of the parties by 12:00 p.m. (Noon) on May 27, 2010. 

The summary will be read to the jury panel at the outset of the trial solely for the purposes of assisting in the 

jury selection process. The contents of the summary shall not be deemed to be evidence or an admission or 

stipulation by a party as to any contested fact or issue. 

N. Depositions 

The parties shall lodge with the Courtroom Clerk deposition transcripts on or by May 27, 2010. 

XXII. Objections to Pretrial Order 

Any party may, within ten (10) calendar days after the date of service of this order, file and serve 

written objections to any of the provisions of this order. Local Rule 283. Such objection shall specify the 

requested corrections, additions or deletions. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 23 of 25
-24-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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

XXIII. Rules of Conduct During Trial 

A. General Rules 

1. All participants in the trial shall conduct themselves in a civil manner. There shall be no 

hostile interchanges between any of the participants. 

2. All oral presentations shall be made from the podium, unless otherwise permitted by the 

court. 

3. Sidebar conferences are discouraged. Legal arguments or discussion of issues outside the 

presence of the jury should be done during recesses. 

4. Counsel shall advise their respective clients and witnesses not to discuss any aspect of the 

case in the common areas of the courthouse accessible to the jurors, such as the lobby, the elevators, the 

hallways and the cafeteria. 

B. Jury Selection 

1. The court will conduct voir dire to be supplemented by any written questions submitted by counsel 

prior to trial and after the court has concluded its questioning of the jury panel. In some circumstances, the 

court may allow brief direct questioning by counsel. Eight jurors shall try the case. Each side shall have

four(4) preemptory challenges.

C. Opening Statements

1. Counsel may use visual aids in presenting the opening statement. However, any proposed visual 

aids shall be shown to opposing counsel before opening statement. 

D. Case in Chief 

1. Counsel shall have his/her witnesses readily available to testify so that there are no delays in the 

presentation of evidence to the trier of fact. 

2. At the close of each trial day, counsel shall disclose his/her anticipated witnesses and order of 

presentation for the next day, so that any scheduling or evidentiary issues may be raised at that time. 

E. Witnesses 

1. Before approaching a witness, counsel shall secure leave of court to approach the witness. 

2. Before approaching a witness with a writing, counsel shall first show the writing to opposing 

counsel. 

F. Exhibits 

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 24 of 25
-25-

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

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. All exhibits shall be marked and identified in accordance with the instructions in the Pretrial 

Order. 

2. An exhibit shall not be published to the jury until it has been admitted into evidence and counsel 

has secured leave of court to publish the exhibit. 

3. The court usually will conduct an on the record review of the exhibits that have been admitted in 

evidence at the conclusion of each party’s case in chief and after each party has rested its entire case. 

G. Objections 

1. No speaking objections or arguments are permitted in the presence of the jury. Counsel shall state

the specific legal ground(s) for the objection, and the court will rule based upon the ground(s) stated. The 

court will permit counsel to argue the matter at the next recess. 

2. The court will not assume that any objection made also implies with it a motion to strike an 

answer that has been given. Therefore, counsel who has made an objection, and who also wishes to have an 

answer stricken, shall also specifically move to strike the answer.

H. Closing Argument 

1. Counsel may use visual aids in presenting the closing argument. However, any proposed 

visual aids shall be shown to opposing counsel before closing argument. 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDER MAY BE GROUNDS FOR THE 

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS, INCLUDING POSSIBLE DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION OR ENTRY 

OF DEFAULT, ON ANY AND ALL COUNSEL AS WELL AS ON ANY PARTY WHO CAUSES NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDER. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

emm0d64h

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 183 Filed 06/04/10 Page 25 of 25