Kato et al v. Hawker Beechcraft Corporation et al, No. 5:2009cv00616 - Document 91 (N.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 83 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 12/15/2010. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2010)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Kato et al v. Hawker Beechcraft Corporation et al Doc. 91 1 ** E-filed December 15, 2010 ** 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 For the Northern District of California NOT FOR CITATION 8 United States District Court 7 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 YOSHIO KATO and SACHIKO KATO, individually and as surviving heirs of decedent, YOSHIYUKI KATO, No. C09-00616 JF (HRL) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL Plaintiffs, 13 v. [Re: Docket No. 83] 14 HAWKER BEECHCRAFT CORP., et al, 15 16 Defendants. ____________________________________/ 17 18 BACKGROUND On December 18, 2006, Yoshiyuki Kato (“Kato”) was killed when a 1964 Beech D95A 19 aircraft in which he was a passenger crashed near Gilroy, California. The accident occurred while 20 Kato was taking flight lessons from instructor Shoki Haraguchi, an employee of California in Nice, 21 Inc. d/b/a/ Nice Air (“Nice Air”), while operating the Nice Air-owned aircraft. Plaintiffs Yoshio 22 Kato and Sachiko Kato (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), the parents of Kato, allege causes of action for 23 negligence and wrongful death against Nice Air. Docket No. 40 (“Amended Complaint”). 24 Plaintiffs now seek an order compelling Nice Air to provide further responses to their 25 Interrogatory No. 10 and Request for Production of Documents (“RFP”) No. 28. Docket No. 83 26 (“Motion”). Nice Air opposes Plaintiffs motion. Docket No. 84 (“Opp’n”). Oral argument was 27 heard on December 14, 2010. 28 Dockets.Justia.com LEGAL STANDARD 1 Subject to the limitations imposed by subsection (b)(2)(C), under Rule 26, “[p]arties may 2 3 obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . 4 . . .” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the 5 discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. However, “[o]n motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of 6 sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is 9 more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample 10 For the Northern District of California discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that: (i) the discovery 8 United States District Court 7 opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the burden or expense of the 11 proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in 12 controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the 13 importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(C). DISCUSSION 14 At issue are Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 10 and RFP No. 28. These requests essentially 15 16 seek discovery about any previous accidents involving Nice Air, its aircraft, and/or its instructors.1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Interrogatory No. 10 and RFP No. 28, and Nice Air’s responses thereto, are set forth in full below: INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify the date, aircraft name and model number, number of passengers, and type of injuries, if any, to the passengers, from any accidents prior to December 18, 2006 involving any of YOUR aircraft(s). RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Nice Air objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case and is therefore overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. The issue in this case concerns the cause of a particular accident that occurred on December 18, 2006. The interrogatory is objectionable in that it is not limited in any reasonable fashion so as to seek information relevant to the cause of the subject accident as opposed to a general "fishing expedition" aimed at unearthing inadmissible evidence having nothing to do with the issues raised in the instant case. Docket No. 83-1 (“Malloy Decl.”), Exhibit A at 6. 2 1 Nice Air objects to Interrogatory No. 10 and RFP No. 28 because they seek information and 2 documents that it believes are not related to the accident at issue in this case: “Discovery about other 3 flights, on other occasions, involving other instructors (or no flight instructor at all), under 4 conditions altogether unlike those that prevailed on the day in question, is tantamount to a ‘fishing 5 expedition.’” Opp’n at 2. 6 Plaintiffs disagree for several reasons. First, Plaintiffs argue that the discovery is relevant 7 because, for example, “[e]vidence of prior accidents would shed light on whether Nice Air was on 8 notice of supervision and directional control problems relating to its instructors, Nice Air’s training 9 relating to supervision and directional control, and/or causation of this Accident.” Motion at 6. For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 Indeed, such evidence, if it exists, clearly would be relevant to Plaintiffs’ negligence claim. Second, Plaintiffs cite good authority that makes clear that in accident cases, evidence of 12 other accidents to show a defective or dangerous condition, knowledge, or notice, or to establish the 13 cause of the accident is admissible if the circumstances of the other accidents are similar and not too 14 remote. Elsworth v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 37 Cal.3d 540, 555 (1984) (“Evidence of prior accidents 15 is admissible to prove a defective condition, knowledge, or the cause of an accident, provided that 16 the circumstances of the other accidents are similar and not too remote.”); see also White v. Ford 17 Motor Co., 312 F.3 998, 1009 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A ‘showing of substantial similarity is required 18 when a plaintiff attempts to introduce evidence of other accidents as direct proof of negligence, a 19 20 REQUEST NO. 28: Any and all documents regarding any accidents prior to December 18, 2006 involving any of YOUR aircraft(s). 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 28: Nice Air objects to the request on the ground that it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive in that it seeks documents which are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Nice Air further objects to this request to the extent it seeks to require production of documents which are protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. Nice Air further objects to this request on the ground that the defined term "YOUR" is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive and would impermissibly require Nice Air to produce documents regarding any accidents involving any airplanes that happened to be or have been owned by individual employees and agents of Nice Air at any time prior to the specified date. 28 Malloy Decl., Exhibit B at 3. 3 1 design defect, or notice of the defect.’” ) (quoting Cooper v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 945 F.2d 2 1103, 1105 (9th Cir.1991)). And since evidence of other similar accidents is admissible as 3 evidence, “[a]s a precursor, then, Plaintiffs must be able to use the discovery process to evaluate 4 whether prior accidents are sufficiently similar.” Motion at 7. In other words, if it could be 5 admissible, it certainly is discoverable. Nice Air responds simply that evidence of “[a]ccidents involving other planes, other pilots, 6 7 [or] other circumstances do not inform the question of Nice Air’s satisfaction of the applicable 8 standard of care with respect to the accident flight at issue in this case.” Opp’n at 4. This, however, 9 is an admissibility argument that goes to whether another accident is similar to the one at issue in For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 this case and is more properly made at another time. Nice Air fails to address the question of 11 whether relevant evidence of other accidents is discoverable, and it fails to cite any authority in this 12 regard. 13 Nice Air also argues that Interrogatory No. 10 and RFP No. 28 are overbroad and unduly 14 burdensome since they seek information about any accident of any kind that occurred under any 15 circumstance and are not limited in duration. As for the breadth of the requests and the burden in 16 responding to them, the Court is not persuaded by Nice Air’s showing in this regard. As for the 17 duration, Plaintiffs have offered to limit the duration to 10 years before the date of the December 18, 18 2006 accident involving Kato. At oral argument, Plaintiffs also offered to limit the definition of 19 “YOUR” in its requests to “Nice Air, including its employees and agents while controlling Nice 20 Air’s aircraft, including Shoki Haraguchi.” 21 The Court believes that Plaintiffs have a right to the discovery sought by their Interrogatory 22 No. 10 and RFP No. 28. The relevant information sought appears to be reasonably calculated to 23 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Nice Air shall provide amended responses to 24 Plaintiffs. However, the Court believes that both of Plaintiffs’ proposals for narrowing the requests 25 are reasonable and appropriate, and the Court adopts them. 26 CONCLUSION 27 Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. Nice Air shall 28 provide amended responses to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 10 and RFP No. 28 within 30 days from 4 1 the date of this order. Nice Air need only respond with respect to information or documents 2 involving accidents occurring from December 18, 1996 to December 18, 2006. It also need only 3 respond with respect to Plaintiffs’ narrowed definition of “YOUR” as described above. 4 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 15, 2010 HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 1 C09-00616 JF (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to: 2 Brian J. Malloy Gregory Charles Read 3 4 Michael Gordon Jones Randolph S. Hicks Rebekka R. Martorano 5 6 7 8 9 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Richard Grotch Stephen Edward Paffrath Terence D. Edwards Thomas J. Brandi Timothy John Ryan bjm@brandilaw.com gregory.read@sdma.com, amanda.henderson@sdma.com, laura.flood@sdma.com, mgjones@martinpringle.com mgjones@martinpringle.com, clsmith@martinpringle.com rhicks@chdlawyers.com, csinclaire@chdlawyers.com rmartorano@ryanlg.com, amolander@ryanlg.com, amoriguchi@ryanlg.com, chubert@ryanlg.com, spaffrath@ryanlg.com, tryan@ryanlg.com rgrotch@chdlawyers.com spaffrath@ryanlg.com, spaffrath@ryanlg.com tde@brandilaw.com tjb@brandilaw.com tryan@ryanlg.com, amolander@ryanlg.com, amoriguchi@ryanlg.com, chubert@ryanlg.com, rmartorano@ryanlg.com, spaffrath@ryanlg.com Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
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.
