Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00554/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00554-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 315
Nature of Suit: Airplane Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

 The discovery cut-off is set for July 1, 2005. Defendant Rotair’s motion was filed May 27, 1

2005, well within the discovery cut-off period. Although counsel stipulated to one extension of time

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARILYN GOETZKE, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-03-0554 GEB JFM

vs. (Consolidated with No. S-03-0603 GEB JFM)

SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORP., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

ADRIAN VILLARUZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORP., et al.,

 /

Pending before this court is defendant Rotair’s May 27, 2005 motion to determine

sufficiency of plaintiff’s answers and objections to requests for admissions. This motion came

on regularly for hearing July 14, 2005. Robert F. Hedrick and Mark J. Conlin appeared

1

Case 2:03-cv-00554-GEB -JFM Document 148 Filed 07/15/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

for the hearing on this motion, the court continued the matter beyond the discovery cut-off due to

congestion on the court’s calendar. No party objected to the hearing of this matter beyond the

discovery cut-off. However, due to the July 1, 2005 discovery cut-off, this court will require a short

time frame for responses ordered herein. No extensions of time to respond will be granted.

2

telephonically for plaintiff Goetzke. Robert Hopkins appeared telephonically for plaintiff

Villaruz. Mitchel Kallet appeared telephonically for defendant Rotair Industries, Inc. Upon

review of the motion and the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments

of counsel and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS

FOLLOWS:

Defendant Rotair’s May 17, 2005 motion is granted in part and denied in part, as

follows:

1. The answers to requests Nos. 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 35, 36, 37 - 41, 44 and 45-58

are sufficient; the motion to compel further answers as to these requests is denied;

2. The proposed amendment to response No. 15 is sufficient and shall be served

by close of business July 18, 2005; and

3. Plaintiff shall admit or deny requests Nos. 18, 19, 21, 24, 25 and 28 - 34; said

responses shall be served by close of business July 18, 2005. 

DATED: July 14, 2005. 

/001; goetzke.oah5

Case 2:03-cv-00554-GEB -JFM Document 148 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 2