Linfoot et al v. MD Helicopters, Inc. et al

Filing 143

ORDER: Defendant McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Company (MDHC) filed with the Court a renewed motion for summary judgment on March 28, 2012, as to choice of law and the application of a 10-year statute of repose relevant to Plaintiffs' claims against MDHC. It appears to the Court that the status of the parties' Touhy request may be relevant in resolving MDHC's motion for summary judgment. Therefore, Plaintiffs and MDHC shall provide supplemental notice to the Court of the current status of discovery from the Army by November 1, 2013. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 10/3/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(la)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
GARY LINFOOT and wife
MARILYN LINFOOT, and GREGORY
COOPER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MD HELICOPTERS, INC.,
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS HELICOPTER
COMPANY,L-3 COMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION, and
KAMATICS CORPORATION,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:09-cv-639
Judge Sharp

ORDER
Defendant McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Company (MDHC) filed with the Court a
renewed motion for summary judgment on March 28, 2012, as to choice of law and the
application of a 10-year statute of repose relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims against MDHC. (Docket
Nos. 111 & 113). Plaintiffs responded on June 28, 2012, (Docket No. 123), and MDHC replied
on July 11, 2012, (Docket No. 127).
Plaintiffs’ claims arise from the crash of a military helicopter piloted by Plaintiff Gary
Linfoot. Plaintiffs allege that defects in the helicopter’s driveshaft caused the helicopter to crash,
and that modifications to Linfoot’s seat compromised the crashworthiness of the helicopter and
exacerbated Linfoot’s injuries.
With respect to MDHC’s motion, Plaintiffs argue it is premature because the parties’
joint Touhy request to the Army—which Plaintiffs maintain they need to evaluate MDHC’s role

in modifying the helicopter—is incomplete. (Docket No. 123 at 7). MDHC counters that the
Army has completed its discovery response. (Docket No. 113 at 8 n.4). The Court’s review of
the docket suggests that the Touhy request, initially submitted in October 2009, remained
incomplete as of January 2013. (See Docket No. 131-3 at 2).
It appears to the Court that the status of the parties’ Touhy request may be relevant in
resolving MDHC’s motion for summary judgment. Therefore, Plaintiffs and MDHC shall
provide supplemental notice to the Court of the current status of discovery from the Army by
November 1, 2013.
It is so ORDERED.
Entered October 3, 2013.

_________________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE