O'Brien et al v. Cessna Aircraft Company et al

Filing 98

STIPULATED ORDER as to use of depostions from other cases (filed 1/23/07, MDL 1721) Ordered by Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse. (ADB, )

Download PDF
Case 2:05-md-01721-KHV Document 146 Filed 01/23/07 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS IN RE: CESSNA 208 SERIES AIRCRAFT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (This Document Relates to All Cases) STIPULATED ORDER AS TO USE OF DEPOSITIONS FROM OTHER CASES WHEREAS, counsel for plaintiffs in the actions in this MDL have previously deposed a number of witnesses who are employees of defendant Cessna Aircraft Company ("Cessna") in other cases; WHEREAS those cases include Cox v. Cessna Aircraft Company, et al., Case No. CV-04-525019 (Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio); O'Neill v. Cessna Aircraft Company, et al., Case No. CV-03-974 (Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama) and Fry, et al. v. Cessna Aircraft Company, et al., Case No. 67-199130-03 (District Court, Tarrant County, Texas) (collectively, the "Designated Cases"); and WHEREAS the plaintiffs and defendant Cessna desire to conserve resources and time by eliminating the need for repeating depositions already taken; UPON STIPULATION OF PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT CESSNA, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) plaintiffs may use the depositions taken of Cessna employees in the Designated Cases as if taken in this action; (2) plaintiffs will not be permitted to re-depose those Cessna employees already deposed in the Designated Cases, except on matters which have arisen since the dates of their depositions in the Designated Cases; MDL NO. 1721 Case No.: 05-md-1721-KHV 1 Case 2:05-md-01721-KHV Document 146 Filed 01/23/07 Page 2 of 5 (3) Cessna has not waived any objections to the questions asked at the depositions in the Designated Cases, whether as to form or otherwise, and Cessna may raise any objections to the admissibility of the testimony in the depositions at the trials of the actions in this MDL; and (4) this Stipulated Order does not limit Cessna's ability to call witnesses at trial, whether or not a witness was previously deposed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated in Kansas City, Kansas on this 23rd day of January, 2007. s/ David J. Waxse David J. Waxse United States Magistrate Judge 2 Case 2:05-md-01721-KHV Document 146 Filed 01/23/07 Page 3 of 5 Stipulated and agreed by: NOLAN LAW GROUP By /s Jerome L. Skinner Jerome L. Skinner 3074 Madison Road Cincinnati, OH 45209 Tel: (513) 721-1350 jls@nolan-law.com Orla M. Brady 20 North Clark Street 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 630-4000 omb@nolan-law.com LIAISON COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS, INGRAM, EMMONS, MORRIS, FLECK AND VILLANUEVA BODOIN & AGNEW By s/ Robert Bodoin Robert Bodoin Thomas A. Fuller 801 Cherry Street, Suite 3450 Ft. Worth, Texas 76102 Tel: (817) 377-1654 tommy@bodoinlaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR PLAINTIFF AMY SILVEY 3 Case 2:05-md-01721-KHV Document 146 Filed 01/23/07 Page 4 of 5 MILLER & ASSOCIATES By s/ Timothy E. Miller Timothy E. Miller Stuart W. Smith 5005 SW Meadows Road, Suite 405 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Tel: (503) 598-1966 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF MOUNTAIN BIRD INC. STINSON MORRISON HECKER LLP By s/ Heather S. Woodson John C. Nettels, Jr. Heather S. Woodson 12 Corporate Woods 10975 Benson, Suite 550 Overland Park, KS 66210-2008 Tel: (913) 451-8600 jnettels@stinsonmoheck.com hwoodson@stinsonmoheck.com LIAISON COUNSEL FOR CESSNA HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS & HAWLEY, LLP By s/ Craig L. Meadows Craig L. Meadows Jason D. Scott P.O. Box 1617 Boise, ID 83701 LIAISON COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT GOODRICH SMITH & MOORE By s/ Charles H. Smith 4 Case 2:05-md-01721-KHV Document 146 Filed 01/23/07 Page 5 of 5 Charles H. Smith Bryan S. David 3030 Lincoln Plaza 500 N. Akard, Suite 4242 Dallas, TX 75201 ATTORNEYS FOR FLIGHTSAFETY INTERNATIONAL, INC. KERN & WOOLEY By s/ Don Swaim Don Swaim 5215 N. O'Connor Blvd., Suite 1700 Irving, TX 75039 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT BROWN COUNTY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?