Noriega-Sanchez v. Ford Motor Company et al, No. 3:2005cv01967 - Document 173 (D.P.R. 2009)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART 111 Firestone's Motion to Exclude Opinion Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Jeffrey Ketchman. A decision on Firestone's motion for summary judgment is deferred until such time as the court has had an opportunity to confer with the parties at a Settlement Conference to be held on September 24, 2009, at 1:30 P.M. Counsel must appear authorized to settle the case. Settlement Conference set for 9/24/2009 01:30 PM in Courtroom 7 before Chief Judge Jose A Fuste. Signed by Chief Judge Jose A Fuste on 9/2/09.(mrj)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO MONSERRATE NORIEGA-SANCHEZ, 4 Plaintiff, 5 v. Civil No. 05-1967 (RLA/JAF) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 FORD MOTOR COMPANY; BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE NORTH AMERICAN TIRE, LLC.; BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC., X, Y, and Z INSURANCE COMPANIES; CLARK DOE, MARK DOE, JOE DOE, ROBERT DOE, AND JOHN DOE, 13 Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER 14 15 This is a near four-year-old civil litigation case that is 16 being addressed as part of our obligation to dispose of three-year- 17 old-and-older cases under the Directives of the Judicial Conference 18 of the United States. See Misc. 09-59 (JAF)(Docket No. 168). 19 I. 20 Introduction 21 This case is a products-liability action brought by Plaintiff 22 Monserrate Noriega-Sánchez ( plaintiff ) against Ford Motor Company 23 ( FMC ), 24 ( Firestone ), 25 persons and corporations. Plaintiff alleges that the Firestone tire 26 on her vehicle failed and during the ensuing accident, the air bag Bridgestone/Firestone North Bridgestone/Firestone, American Inc., and Tire other LLC. unknown Civil No. 05-1967 (RLA/JAF) -2- 1 in her vehicle did not function properly, causing the injuries for 2 which 3 defendants are 4 theories, alleging 5 construction of the tire and air bag. 6 she seeks damages. brought Plaintiff s under defects causes strict in of liability the design, action and against negligence manufacture, or Firestone moves to exclude from trial the opinion testimony of 7 plaintiff s expert, 8 referred 9 Firestone further moves for summary judgment pursuant to FED . R. 10 CIV. P. 56(c) on grounds that upon the exclusion of Ketchman s 11 testimony, plaintiff will be unable to establish the prima-facie 12 elements of her causes of action. Ford joins Firestone s motion. 13 (Docket No. 112 n.3.) Plaintiff opposes Firestone s motion. (See 14 Docket Nos. 121 and 125.) After careful review and consideration of 15 the 16 motion to exclude and defer judgment on Firestone s motion for 17 summary judgment. to as arguments Jeffrey Ketchman Firestone s and pertinent ( Ketchman ), motion. 1 law, we (See grant Docket in 18 No. 111.) Firestone s II. 19 part hereinafter Factual and Procedural Background 20 21 The following relevant facts are deemed uncontested by the court 1 because they were included in Firestone s motion or FMC moves on different grounds to exclude the opinion testimony of Ketchman and for summary disposition. (See Docket No. 112.) FMC s motion for summary disposition will be disposed of separately. Civil No. 05-1967 (RLA/JAF) -3- 1 plaintiff s opposition, properly supported by evidence, and either 2 admitted or not genuinely opposed. On September 12, 2004, plaintiff 3 was driving her 1995 Ford Explorer (the Explorer ) northbound on 4 Highway 52 in the municipality of Juana DÃaz, Puerto Rico, when the 5 original equipment Firestone FR 480 passenger tire (the tire ), 6 mounted on the rear left side of the vehicle, allegedly failed, 7 after which plaintiff lost control of her Explorer. Plaintiff s 8 wrist was broken in the ensuing accident. Plaintiff alleges that 9 the 10 injury to her wrist and other, less-defined injuries, are affecting her ability to carry out her duties as a neurologist. 11 On September 12, 2005, plaintiff filed a complaint against FMC 12 and Firestone, among others, alleging that the tire blew out due 13 to a defect of design or construction, due to tread separation and 14 other defects (Docket No. 1, ¶ 9), and that the air bag did not 15 promptly open or work (Docket No. 1, ¶ 10). Plaintiff s claims are 16 brought under strict liability and negligence theories. (See Docket 17 No. 18 liability 19 construction of the tire and the causal connection of such defects 20 to the accident (see Docket Nos. 24 at 29 and 32 at 2).2 2 1, ¶¶ 26-31.) expert to Plaintiff discuss designated alleged Ketchman defects in as the her sole design or Ketchman It does not appear that plaintiff offers the opinion testimony of Mr. Ketchman for the purpose of establishing defects in the design, manufacture or construction of the air bag and the issue is not addressed in Firestone s motion. As such, we do not evaluate Ketchman s qualifications to testify as an expert in that regard. Civil No. 05-1967 (RLA/JAF) -4- 1 acquired experience working with tires and tire technology through 2 his work as a mechanical engineer3 for the Tire Equipment Division 3 of AMF, Inc. ( AMF ) between 1976 and 1985, as well as his work for 4 InterCity Testing and Consulting Corporation4 ( InterCity ) between 5 1987 and present. 6 In his July 2007 deposition, Ketchman opined that the tire had 7 two design defects: (i) a belt wedge gauge5 designed too thin for 8 the tire; and (ii)a belt wedge compound that is not as resistant to 9 tread belt separation as other available compounds. (See Docket 10 No. 11 January 20, 2007, Ketchman opines that the above two design defects 12 caused a tread separation in the tire: 13 14 15 16 111-3 at 90-91.) In his supplemental expert report, dated [T]he subject tire was defectively designed and possibly defectively manufactured. It is known that belt-to-belt separation, such as occurred here, can be caused by the spread of 3 Ketchman earned a master s degree in mechanical engineering from Ohio State University in 1967 and a doctorate of engineering science from Columbia University in 1972. (See Docket No. 111-6.) 4 Inter-City provides Forensic Engineering, Consulting and Expert Testimony to law offices, insurance companies and government agencies. See http://www.intercitytesting.com (visited July 31, 2009). Inter-City has offices in New York, California, and Florida. (See Docket No. 111-2 at 36.) In 2005, Ketchman acquired a one-third ownership interest in Inter-City New York. According to Ketchman, approximately eighty-five to ninety-five percent of Inter-City s work is litigation related, with the remaining work being product development or product-testing related. (See Docket No. 111-2 at 79.) 5 The belt wedge is a strip of rubber located near the edges of the steel belts that serves to cushion the stresses caused by the operation of a steel belted radial tire. (Docket No. 111 n.3.) The gauge is the thickness of the belt wedge, as opposed to its length or width. (Docket No. 111 n.4.) Civil No. 05-1967 (RLA/JAF) -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 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 cracks that initiate at the outer edge circumferences of the belts, under the action of tire flexing during operation . . . To help resist crack formation at the belt edges, manufacturers have employed belt edge inserts (BEI) and additionally belt wedges , which are thin tapered circumferential strips of rubber inserted between the first and second belts . . . The submitted specifications indicate that the FR480 has belt edge inserts (BEI) and belt wedges. The BEI compound was changed, between the 1998 and 1994 Specifications, from DMS17 to V1697 . . . The belt wedge thickness of .020 inches did not change, nor has the rubber compound, J2917. It is to be noted, . . . that one of the changes that was made to help solve the belt separation problems of the Firestone Wilderness AT and ATX tires was to increase the inner belt gauge/thickess from .021 to .025 inches or close to 20 percent. Also the wedge material was changed to be the same as that of the skim coating rubber used on the Stabilizer plies of the FR 480, compound J257. The stabilizer plies lie under both steel belts and also have to resist heat and strain in a similar manner. Even though the Wilderness tires and the FR480 are different tires, the basic design of the tires is substantially alike (radial plies/ belt edge inserts/ belt wedges/materials, etc) such that the design practices developed for preventing belt-to-belt separation is common across sizes and models. Thus it appears that the FR480 design was defective because the belt wedge was too thin and the material was not selected for adequate crack-formation resistance, even though it was available and used elsewhere in the tire. (Docket No. 121-5). In his expert reports, dated June 13, 2006, and 42 January 43 manufacturing defect in the tire (see Docket Nos. 121-4 at 9 and 20, 2007, Ketchman refers to the possibility of a Civil No. 05-1967 (RLA/JAF) -6- 1 121-5 at 1), but later concedes in deposition that he found no 2 defects in the manufacture of the tire and offers no opinions to 3 that effect (see Docket No. 111-3 at 97). 4 III. 5 6 Firestone s Motion to Exclude the Opinion Testimony of Jeffrey Ketchman 7 Firestone that opinion 10 Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Kumho Tire v. 11 Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). (Docket No. 111 at 1.) Firestone 12 specifically contends that Mr. Ketchman (1) is not qualified to 13 offer expert opinions in on matters of tire design and (2) offers 14 testimony 15 admissibility 16 Firestone s 17 sufficiently qualified to offer certain opinion testimony in this 18 case. 19 1. standards second meet for the expert argument requisite testimony. because we do reliability We not do not find and, and reach Ketchman Ketchman s Qualifications Pursuant to Rule 702 Standard Relying expert 6 not unsupported of therefore, must be excluded pursuant to the mandates of Daubert v. does scientifically testimony 9 that and proposed Ketchman 21 unqualified the 8 20 is contends primarily reports, on Firestone Ketchman s contends deposition that testimony6 and Ketchman has no Firestone relies on Ketchman s July 2007 deposition testimony in this case and Ketchman s June 2006 deposition testimony in Easterling v. Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, et al., which venued in the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Alachua County, State of Florida. (Docket No. 1112.) Civil No. 05-1967 (RLA/JAF) -7- 1 qualifications to render the tire design and tire failure analysis 2 opinions he seeks to offer here. (Docket No. 111 at 2.) We agree, 3 in part. 4 A district court must determine if a witness offering expert 5 opinion testimony is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, 6 training, or education. United States v. Vargas, 471 F.3d 255, 262 7 (1st Cir. 2006) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 702); Santos v. Posadas De 8 Puerto Rico Associates, Inc., 452 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2006) (citing 9 Fed. R. Evid. 702); Prado v. Alvarez v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 10 405 F.3d 36, 40 (1st Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 702). 11 judges have considerable discretion to decide the qualifications of 12 an opinion witness. The test is whether, under a totality of the 13 circumstances, the witness can be said to be qualified as expert in 14 a particular field, through any one or more of the five bases 15 enumerated in Rule 702-knowledge, skill, experience, training, or 16 education. Santos v. Posadas De Puerto Rico Associates, Inc., 452 17 F.3d 59, 63-64 (1st Cir. 2006). Trial 18 Plaintiff offers Ketchman as an expert on tire design and tire 19 failure analysis, among other expertise.7 In consideration of the 20 defects alleged by Ketchman, we look for Ketchman s qualifications 7 Plaintiff also offers Ketchman as an expert in automotive accident reconstruction or accident sequence. (Docket No. 121-4 at 9.) Firestone s motion does not challenge Ketchman s qualifications to offer testimony as an expert on automotive accident reconstruction and, therefore, we do not address Ketchman s qualifications in that regard. Civil No. 05-1967 (RLA/JAF) -8- 1 to testify as an expert on belt wedge design and its connection to 2 belt-to-belt tread separation in a Firestone FR480 steel-belted 3 radial passenger tire. After a thorough review of the pleadings, we 4 conclude that Ketchman is qualified to testify as an expert on tire 5 failure analysis in this case, but only with respect to whether or 6 not 7 Ketchman qualified to testify as an expert on tire design or more 8 specifically, belt wedge design and its causal connection, if any, 9 to tread separation in the tire. a 10 tread separation occurred in the tire. We do not find As a preliminary matter, we address Firestone s effort to 11 characterize 12 (Docket 13 retained for his expertise on a variety of products in conjunction 14 with his work for InterCity.8 While interesting, Ketchman s work in 15 other cases dealing with other products is not dispositive on the 8 No. Ketchman 111.) as Indeed, a generalist Ketchman would expert-type appear to witness. have been Firestone notes Ketchman s experience providing technical consultation and testimony on wheelchairs, lawnmowers, glass bottles, lanterns, wood chippers, pallet jacks, motorcycles, saws, oil drilling rigs, bakery machinery, elevators, washing machines, ladders, pulse monitors, bread making equipment, escalators, airline storage bins, shears, road wideners, needle containers, tanker trucks, garbage trucks, grinders, bus doors, ski bindings, meat slicers, hunting bows, hard hats, newspaper dispenser box, front end loaders, seat belts, tractors, hydraulic tools, food racks, salt spreaders, paint ball guns, forklifts, windows, trampolines, snow plows, printing presses, filament winding machines, amusement and recreation park rides, apparel stitching equipment, generators, relays, time remoters, fire and explosion products, glass and ceramic products, lighting fixtures, dimmers, electronic converters, coatings, directional drilling, pipelines pegs, woodworking, metal, sonar, exercise bicycles, racquets, tobacco and cigarette making equipment, boats, mopeds, golf carts, etc. (See Docket No. 111-2 at 65-75.) Civil No. 05-1967 (RLA/JAF) -9- 1 issue of whether Ketchman is qualified to testify as an expert on 2 the 3 opinion is not influenced by such information. technical 4 More on matters point, at issue Firestone in this argues case. that Accordingly, our Ketchman not is 5 qualified to testify as an expert on tire design and tire failure 6 analysis in this case because he (1) has no formal training and no 7 educational course work in passenger tire failure analysis (see 8 Docket No. 111-3 at 149); (2) has no training in rubber or polymer 9 chemistry (see id. at 138); (3) has never prepared the rubber 10 specifications for any rubber compound or held a position as a 11 rubber compounder (see Docket No. 111-3 at 138); (4) has never 12 designed a passenger tire or prepared the design specifications for 13 any passenger tire (see id. at 136); (5) has never designed a belt 14 wedge tire component (see Docket No. 111-3 at 137); (6) has never 15 designed any component for a new, passenger tire (see id. at 137); 16 (7) has never been retained by any tire company to consult in the 17 formulation of a rubber compound to be used in a belt wedge (see 18 Docket 19 operation for any tire plant (see id. at 134); (9) has been in a 20 tire plant on only one or two occasions as an observer, over twenty 21 years ago (see Docket No. 111-3 at 135-36); (10) has never worked 22 for a tire company that designs or manufactures tires (see id. at 23 142); (10) has never been asked to testify by any tire designer No. 111-3 at 423); (8) has never designed methods of Civil No. 05-1967 (RLA/JAF) -10- 1 about tire failure analysis, tire design, or rubber formulation for 2 use in a tire, including its belt wedge (see Docket No. 111-3 at 3 423-24); (11) has never performed any testing on any tire product, 4 including 5 overloading, 6 testing, rubber cohesion, tire aging, or chemical composition in 7 tires9 (see Docket Nos. 111-2 at 117-20 8 (12) has never prepared, produced or published any paper, treatise 9 or other literature in the field of tire design or manufacture (see 10 Docket No. 111-3 at 134-35); (13) has never been qualified in any 11 federal court to render opinions as a tire design expert (see id. 12 at 145-46); (14) has examined fewer than twenty tires with tread 13 belt 14 Equipment Division and InterCity (see Docket No. 111-3 at 154); and 15 (15) has never been a member of any organization that focuses its 16 activities on tires or tire technology (see id. at 140-41). testing regarding internal separation during high temperatures, the time he speed, stresses, under-inflation, dynamic or drum and 111-3 at 159-81); worked for the AMF Tire 17 Ketchman s deposition testimony does not comport with two of 18 Firestone s stated facts. First, Ketchman does not concede that he 19 has never been affiliated with any organization that focuses on 20 tires and tire technology. Ketchman stated in deposition that he 9 Although not noted in Firestone s Motion, Ketchman also concedes in deposition that he has never performed tests designed to produce tread belt separation (see Docket No. 111-2 at 120) or to compare the performance of tires with different wedge gauges or wedge compounds (see Docket No. 111-3 at 164). Civil No. 05-1967 (RLA/JAF) a member 1 was 2 association 3 Ketchman does not concede that he has never been qualified by a 4 court to offer an opinion on tire manufacture or design. As noted 5 in plaintiff s opposition, Ketchman stated in deposition that a 6 court 7 however, that opinion, provided more than ten years ago, did not 8 concern a tire belt wedge. (See Docket No. 111-3 at 146-47.) in at New of the AMF.10 Jersey Tire -11- (See and Rim Docket qualified him Association No. to 111-3 offer at through 140.) such an his Second, opinion; 9 In response to Firestone s contention that Ketchman has no 10 experience in the design of rubber compounds, plaintiff references 11 Ketchman s experience [at AMF] in the use of rubber and composite 12 constructions in the design of products such as tires, industrial 13 hoses, 14 (Docket No. 121-6.) Plaintiff s response is not compelling for two 15 reasons. 10 couplings, First, vibration plaintiff isolators fails to and sports state equipment. whether such In Ketchman s statement, submitted in support of plaintiff s opposition, Ketchman lists the organizations in which he currently holds membership to include: Accreditation Commission for Traffic Accident Reconstruction (ACTAR) (peer review Committee), American Society of Mechanical Engineers, American Society of Safety Engineers, System Safety Society, American Society of Testing and Materials, Society of Automotive Engineers, American College of Forensic Examiners, Institute of Diagnostic Engineers (UK), New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for Advancement of Science, Association of Research Directors, National Association of Professional Accident and Reconstruction Specialists. (Docket No. 121 at 9.) Plaintiff does not offer information as to which, if any, of the above-listed organizations, or subgroups thereof, are focused on tires or tire technology and the extent of Ketchman s participation in such organizations or subgroups. Civil No. 05-1967 (RLA/JAF) -12- 1 constructions included belt wedges. Second, the use of rubber 2 and composite constructions is not equivalent to their design. 3 In opposition to Firestone s motion, Plaintiff takes the 4 position that Ketchman is qualified by his on-the-job training 5 and 6 analysis 11 while at AMF between 1976 and 1985, as well as his work 7 in tire failure analysis for InterCity between 1987 and present 8 (See Docket Nos. 121 at 6 and 121-3 at 02-03). We, therefore, focus 9 on Ketchman s relevant work experience at AMF and Inter-City. research 10 At AMF, and development Ketchman of consulted techniques on for various tire types failure of AMF 11 products,12 including a tire retreading process (see Docket No 111- 12 2 at 52, 62). In his June 2006 deposition, Ketchman represented 13 that he carried out one-hundred percent of his tire-related work at 14 AMF for the tire equipment division and that such work was related 15 to, in various ways to the retreading processing, either for the 16 design 17 techniques 18 No. 111-2 at 63.) Ketchman describes the project he worked on at 19 AMF as or development a to assist project of in equipment the devoted to tire for that retreading helping the or for analytical process. tire (Docket division find, 11 Such techniques included x-ray techniques, ultrasound techniques, acoustic emission techniques. (See Docket No. 111-3 at 149.) 12 Such equipment, housings, equipment, products included without limitation bakery machinery, bakery apparel equipment, tire, rubber processing equipment, filter lawnmowers, motorcycles, golf carts, bicycles, sporting electro-mechanical relays. (See Docket No. 111-2 at 60.) Civil No. 05-1967 (RLA/JAF) -13- 1 hopefully find a quick sure method of assessing whether a used tire 2 was suitable for retreading (Docket No. 111-2 at 62). Notably, the 3 retreading process at AMF with which Ketchman worked primarily 4 involved truck tires. (Docket Nos. 111-2 at 64 and 111-3 at 137.) 5 Ketchman s responsibilities at AMF included the development of tire 6 buffing blades and analysis of the buffing process, tire carcass 7 and tire body. (See Docket Nos. 121-6 and 111-2 at 62.) In his July 8 2007 deposition, Ketchman described his duties at AMF with more 9 ambiguity, as including responsibility for research in tire-defect 10 analysis and research in methods of determining defects in tires 11 as a corporate project. (Docket No. 111-3 at 150.) Ketchman s 12 tire-related work for the AMF tire equipment division constitutes 13 roughly ten to fifteen percent of his nine years with AMF (see 14 Docket 15 commercialized 16 Docket Nos. 121-3 at 02 and 111-3 at 136-37). During his time with 17 AMF, 18 separation. (Docket No. 111-3 at 153-54.) No. 111-2 Ketchman 19 at 61-62) process for examined and ultimately retreading fewer than used ten led to tire tires a patented, carcasses with tread (see belt Since 1987, Ketchman has been involved in tire failure 20 analysis for 21 (Docket 22 directly 23 separations that have lead to accidents. (Docket No. 111-3 at No. and InterCity, 121 as most At of which at 2.) Intercity, a side-investigator . is litigation Ketchman . . related. investigated, some tire tread Civil No. 05-1967 (RLA/JAF) -14- 1 405.) During his time with InterCity, Ketchman evaluated fewer than 2 ten tires with tread separation (see Docket Nos. 111-3 at 148 and 3 152) and served as an expert on tread-belt separation on maybe 4 half a dozen occasions (see Docket No. 111-3 at 407). 5 Ketchman spoke to his own qualifications in deposition. 6 When asked whether he has any formal training in tire failure 7 analysis, Ketchman responded I do not have formal training in the 8 sense of a course. My training comes from experience from working 9 with people at AMF who were involved in the industry, from 10 attending presentations as we have discussed, and from reading and 11 from participating in tire failure analyses while I have been here 12 at Intercity. (Docket 111-2 at 96). When asked why he is qualified 13 to testify as an expert on tread-belt separation in this case, 14 Ketchman responded that he is qualified because he has experience 15 in examining and reading them , he knows tire construction , 16 and he has worked on putting tread on retreaded tires as part of 17 his 18 knowledge he had of belt wedge design, Ketchman responded well, 19 the 20 deflection; 21 acting next to each other in bending, generating shearing forces; 22 and the effect that a - that a wedge or putting material between 23 those work at AMF. knowledge layers (Docket comes the can from action have; No. the of and 111-3 nature laminated from at 408.) of tire layers, specific When asked design like reading and steel such what tire belts, as the Civil No. 05-1967 (RLA/JAF) -15- 1 studies that have been done on . . . the Wilderness studies and the 2 NHTSA studies. (Docket No. 111-3 at 406.) 3 Noticeably absent from plaintiff s opposition and Ketchman s 4 own deposition testimony is any indication that Ketchman s work for 5 AMF or InterCity involved belt wedge design or, more importantly, 6 belt 7 separation. 8 knowledge of belt wedge design and its possible effect on tread 9 separation in other tire models, such as the Firestone Wilderness 10 AT tire, has been acquired through the study of one or two studies 11 conducted by others, including those conducted by the defendants. 12 (See Docket No. 121-3 at 4 ( [K]nowledge of the defect in the 13 subject tire manufacture became known from materials produced by 14 the 15 Defendant s investigation of failures of other steel belted radial 16 tires, such as the Wilderness tires. ))(See, e.g., Docket No. 111-3 17 at 18 circumstances, we do not find Ketchman qualified by his knowledge, 19 skill, 20 testimony on tire design or more specifically, belt wedge design 21 and its causal connection to tread separation in the FR 480 steel 22 belted 1 wedge design We Defendant 73-87 as glean a from during radial in the passenger in NHTSA1 the training, causing record discovery (discussing experience, factor and tire. In or that this preventing Ketchman s case and report)). education light of to limited from Under offer tread the these opinion Ketchman s work NHTSA is the acronym for the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. Civil No. 05-1967 (RLA/JAF) -16- 1 evaluating tread separation at AMF and InterCity, we do find him 2 qualified to offer opinion testimony as an expert on the issue of 3 whether a tread separation occurred in the tire. 4 IV. 5 Conclusion 6 For the reasons stated above, Firestone s Motion to exclude 7 the opinion testimony of Plaintiff s expert Ketchman is GRANTED IN 8 PART AND DENIED IN PART. A decision on Firestone s motion for 9 summary judgment is deferred until such time as the court has had opportunity to confer with the parties at a Settlement 10 an 11 Conference to be held on September 24, 2009, at 1:30 P.M. Counsel 12 must appear authorized to settle the case. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 2nd day of September, 2009. 15 16 17 S/José Antonio Fusté JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE Chief U. S. District Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
