Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01574/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01574-14/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Naim I. Ayat
Plaintiff
Goodrich Corporation
Defendant
Societe Air France
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C-06-1574 ORDER Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAIM I. AYAT, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SOCIETE AIR FRANCE, ET AL.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 06-1574 JSW (JL)

ORDER

All discovery in this case has been referred by the district court (Hon. Jeffrey S.

White) as provided by 28 U.S.C. section 636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72. The close of fact

discovery is January 20, 2008. A jury trial is set for October 6, 2008.

Plaintiff, Naim I. Ayat, was a passenger aboard Air France Flight 358 from Paris,

France to Toronto, Canada on August 2, 2005. Air France is the air carrier that operated

Flight 358. Upon landing at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport, the aircraft overran the

runway and crashed into a ravine.

Ayat filed his complaint on February 28, 2006, seeking compensatory damages

arising from his injuries. The parties agree that this action arises and Ayat’s claims are

governed by the Montreal Convention. The Montreal Convention governs actions against

commercial air carriers for injuries sustained in the course of international air travel.

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 109 Filed 01/08/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C-06-1574 ORDER Page 2 of 2

On March 15, 2007, this Court issued an order denying Defendants’ motion for a

protective order that Ayat not take discovery on the issue of liability (Docket # 69), on the

grounds that Defendants asserted affirmative defenses to liability and that therefore such

discovery was relevant to those defenses. On March 29, 2007, Air France filed objections

to the March 15, 2007 order.(Docket #72). Simultaneously, on March 29, 2007, Air France

filed an answer to Ayat’s amended complaint for damages. (Docket # 71). Air France’s

amended answer asserts only three affirmative defenses, all of which pertain solely to

damages. In addition, Air France’s amended answer does not contest liability for the crash

in any regard. Air France relinquished fifteen of its eighteen previously asserted affirmative

defenses. On April 11, 2007, Judge White issued an order granting defendant Goodrich

Corporation’s motion to dismiss Ayat’s breach of warranty and punitive damages claims.

(Docket # 75). Ayat’s remaining claims against Goodrich are for strict liability and

negligence.

Pursuant to Rule 26(b)1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party is entitled to

discovery of any relevant non-privileged material. Relevance is defined as reasonable

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence of a claim or defense of a party.

Since Defendants no longer assert any affirmative defense to liability, discovery into this

subject is no longer relevant.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that this Court’s previous order denying

Defendants’ motion for protective order is rescinded, the motion for protective order is

granted, and Plaintiff is precluded from taking discovery into the issue of liability, since this

is not relevant to any claims or defenses of any party.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 8, 2008

__________________________________

 JAMES LARSON

 Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 109 Filed 01/08/08 Page 2 of 2