Court Order Successes
|
March 30, 2005: Trudy Hudson Parker v. FM Logistics, Inc. This case arises out of a December 15, 2001 motor vehicle wreck on Interstate 20 in Newton County, Georgia. Plaintiff, Trudy Hudson Parker, filed her complaint on January 24, 2003. Defendant, FM Logistics, Inc. ("FM") failed to file a timely answer. As a result, this Court entered default on May 7, 2003, and discovery commenced. 3/30/05 Sanction Order October 28, 2003: Ayers v. Hughes Spalding, et al. The Ayers case involves the failure to diagnose and treat an eight-month old infant’s bacterial meningitis. The infant and his mother arrived at the defendant hospital twice in a twelve-hour period complaining of continued high fevers and other symptoms of an infection not responding to treatment. Both times, however, the mother’s complaints were not taken seriously and her son was discharged without adequate treatment. He died five days later of complications from bacterial meningitis.
Applying Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the Court excluded Ford’s statistical expert witness from offering any testimony at trial. Ford’s expert had generated statistics purporting to illustrate the safety of the overly aggressive Ford airbag that deployed and severely injured the plaintiff in a fender bender wreck.
Dize was a product liability action against DaimlerChrylser Corporation. A young girl was severely brain damaged when the seat back in her family’s minivan broke in a rear-impact fender bender wreck. In this
Despite prior Court orders compelling Chrysler to allow an unobstructed database search and to produce withheld documents, Chrysler engaged in pattern discovery abuse and refused to comply with the Court’s orders. As a result, in a December 3, 2001 order, the Court entered default in response to what it deemed Chrysler’s “repeated, deliberate, willful disobedience to this Court’s multiple orders, the magnitude of and nature of the evidence concealed, and the obvious prejudice to plaintiffs . . .”
In the Ontiveros wreck, four people were killed when the tread on one of their tires separated at highway speeds, causing their vehicle to roll over. In the resulting product liability suit against the tire manufacturer, the manufacturer engaged in pattern discovery abuse and refused to comply with its discovery obligations.
In the Butler wreck, the plaintiff was severely burned when the rear, bumper mounted fuel tank on her van exploded in a foreseeable rear impact. The plaintiff’s seat back also failed in the collision, throwing her back and toward the flames coming from the vehicle’s exploding rear bumper tank. In this order compelling the production of documents, the Court ordered Chrysler to produce all documents relating to the fuel system defect at issue, including fuel tank location, as well as all documents relating to the seat back defect at issue. In addition, the Court ordered Chrysler to produce all rear impact fuel system testing, all information relating to other incidents, a list of all settlement agreements including the amount of each settlement, and an index of Chrysler’s document production. The Court gave Chrysler two weeks to produce all responsive documents in its possession, custody or control dating back to 1970.
In a business tort suit that involved the entry of close to 100 orders and special master recommendations over the span of eighteen months and ultimately resulted in a $454,000,000 verdict for the plaintiffs, the Court found in this order that the defendants “willfully obstructed and failed to comply with” a Court order requiring the defendants to make certain employees available for deposition. The Court sanctioned the defendants by granting plaintiffs’ motion for issue preclusion regarding the source of the funds the defendants utilized to invest in the subject partnership, an important factual precursor to plaintiffs’ case.
The defendants in Six Flags engaged in a pattern of discovery abuse and violation of the Court’s orders. The Special Master recommended that the Court find defendants in contempt due to a “consistent pattern of flagrantly disobeying and failing to abide by the Orders of the Court.”
In this order, the Court adopted the Special Master’s order sanctioning defendants for discovery abuse. As a sanction, the Court extended the discovery period only for the plaintiffs and ordered the defendants to pay plaintiffs’ attorneys fees.
In the Bampoe-Parry wreck, the plaintiffs’ Chevrolet Chevette exploded when the vehicle was hit in a foreseeable rear impact collision. The driver of the Chevette suffered severe burns and died two weeks after the wreck solely from the burn and smoke inhalation injuries he sustained when the rear, bumper tank of the Chevette exploded upon impact.
The Court struck all of General Motors’ expert witnesses as a sanction for discovery abuse. General Motors had violated the Court’s prior order by refusing in bad faith to comply with the Court’s directives regarding disclosures and depositions of expert witnesses.
The Court excluded all of General Motor’s experts as a sanction for General Motors’ numerous acts of discovery abuse.
In the Conkle wreck, the plaintiff was seated in the passenger seat of a General Motors sedan. The passenger door was equipped with a “Type III” door latch. The door latch failed when the vehicle ran off the road and hit a culvert. The plaintiff died as a result of injuries he sustained when his door popped open and he was ejected from the vehicle.
The plaintiff in Bishop died from burn injuries he sustained when the side saddle fuel tank on his c/k pickup truck exploded upon impact. In the Bishop litigation, General Motors repeatedly violated the Court’s orders relating to the production of exhibits prior to trial.
In the Malautea wreck, the plaintiff was severely injured when his Suzuki Samurai rolled over and his seat belt failed. In the product liability action that ensued, Suzuki persistently interposed frivolous objections and willfully violated Court orders compelling the production of various documents. As a result, the Court struck Suzuki’s answer and entered default. At Butler, Wooten & Fryhofer, we have the resources and experience it takes to successfully pursue complex personal injury, wrongful death , product Liability litigation. Contact us today. We would be happy to discuss your case with you.
|
