Aguirre et al v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. et al

Filing 13

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Discovery due by 3/20/2012. Dispositive Motions due by 6/29/2012. Joint Mediation Report due by 5/1/2012. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 5/26/11. (dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
LIZBETH AGUIRRE and JORGE
AGUIRRE,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

MITSUBISHI MOTORS NORTH
AMERICA, INC. and MITSUBISHI
MOTORS CORPORATION

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:11-0225
-----------No. 3:01-0225
JURY DEMAND
Judge Trauger

Defendants.
---------------PROPOSED INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
I.

Jurisdiction and Venue
Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. 1332, diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy,

and is not disputed.
Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and, based on the averments of
Plaintiffs’ complaint, is not disputed.
II.

Parties’ Theories of the Case
1.

Plaintiffs’ Theory of the Case

Plaintiffs contend that in 2003 the Defendants manufactured and distributed the Mitsubishi
Eclipse. Plaintiffs contend that on March 29, 2010 the subject 2003 Mitsubishi Eclipse was in
substantially the same condition as it was at the time it was placed in to the stream of commerce.
The 2003 Mitsubishi Eclipse was being used as intended and in a manner reasonably foreseeable to
Defendants. At the time of the Plaintiffs’ accident, the 2003 Mitsubishi Eclipse failed to protect
Plaintiff Lizbeth Aguirre from receiving serious and permanent bodily injuries.

Plaintiffs contend that the 2003 Mitsubishi Eclipse was manufactured and distributed in a
defective condition and that it was unreasonably dangerous and that the manufacturers failed to
design the vehicle to be safe in the type of impact experienced by Plaintiff. The manufactures failed
to design the 2003 Mitsubishi Eclipse so that the occupants of the vehicle would be safe under
normal circumstances and failed to design it to be safe in foreseeable accidents. The manufacturers
failed to design the 2003 Mitsubishi Eclipse to protect the Plaintiff from injury during side impact
collisions. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants are strictly liable for the damages to the
Plaintiff as a result of the manufacture and distribution of this vehicle purchased by the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiffs contend that the body crush resistance and/or door strength of the 2003 Mitsubishi
Eclipse failed to meet the consumer expectation test and that it is defective and unsafe for its
intended purpose and the manufacturer failed to give warnings and/or instructions as to the use of
said product to prevent it from being unreasonably dangerous and unsafe. They failed to provide
reasonable safety devices to protect occupants during use of said product. They failed to recall,
retrofit or did not properly retrofit the 2003 Mitsubishi Eclipse and an adequate occupant restraint
system, including side-curtain airbags.
Plaintiffs claim Strict Liability in Tort, Negligence, Punitive Damages, Loss of Consortium,
and Compensatory damages from all defendants.
2.

Defendants Theory of the Case

Defendants’ investigation into the allegations raised in the Complaint is not complete, and it
would be premature at this time to attempt to describe in detail Defendants’ defenses to the factual
assertions made by Plaintiffs. Defendants will supplement their theories in the pretrial order and as
required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules.
Defendants deny that the 2003 Mitsubishi Eclipse was in a defective or unreasonably
dangerous condition when it left their control. Defendants rely on all applicable defenses afforded

them under the Tennessee Products Liability Act of 1978, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-101, et seq.
Defendants assert that the 2003 Mitsubishi Eclipse described in the Complaint was designed,
manufactured and assembled in accordance with all applicable federal and state governmental
regulations and standards including the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 49 C.F.R. §
571.101, et seq. Defendants rely on the rebuttable presumption non-defectiveness affored by virtue
of the Eclipse’s compliance with all applicable government standards, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28104.
Defendants aver that when the 2003 Mitsubishi Eclipse was designed, manufactured and
sold, it conformed with the state of scientific and technological knowledge available to its
manufacturer. Defendants rely upon the customary designs, methods, standards and techniques of
manufacturing, testing, warning and inspecting used by other manufacturers of similar products.
Defendants assert that the 2003 Mitsubishi Eclipse referred to in the Complaint was reasonably safe
and therefore not defective, and Defendants rely on the defenses afforded by Tenn. Code Ann. § 2928-105.
Defendants rely upon the defense of comparative fault, including but not limited to the
failure of Robert Keals to obey a traffic control signal in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-109.
Defendants rely on the defenses of misuse, alteration, change, improper maintenance,
abnormal use and/or failure to follow proper instructions and warnings, if proven applicable by
investigation and discovery.
Defendants rely on all applicable statutes of limitation, including, without limitation, Tenn.
Code Ann. §§ 28-3-104 and 29-28-103, if proven applicable by investigation and discovery.
Defendants assert all defenses afforded by Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-9-604, as amended, if
proven applicable by investigation and discovery.
III.

Issues Resolved

Jurisdiction, venue
IV.

Issues Still in Dispute

Liability, damages
V.
A.

Schedule of Pretrial Proceedings

Mandatory Initial Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures.

The parties shall make their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A) through (E) disclosures
within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Initial Case Management Conference
Discovery: Discovery is not stayed during dispositive motions, unless ordered by the Court.
Local Rule 33.01 (b) is followed to allow 25 interrogatories, including sub-parts. No motions
concerning discovery are to be filed until after the parties have conferred in good faith and, unable to
resolve their differences, have scheduled and participated in a conference telephone call with Judge
Trauger. The response time for all written discovery and requests for admissions is thirty (30) days.
All factual discovery shall be completed by the close of business on March 20, 2012. All written
discovery shall be submitted in sufficient time so that the responses shall be in hand by November
20, 2012. The parties have not reached agreement on how to conduct electronic discovery in this
case. Therefore, the default standard contained in Administrative Order No. 174 shall apply to this
case until such time as the parties reach agreement on other standards.
Joint Mediation Report: The parties shall file a joint mediation report no later than May 1,
2012.
Dispositive Motions: Briefs shall not exceed 20 pages for dispositive motions filed. No
motion for partial partial summary judgment shall be filed except upon leave of court. Any party
wishing to file such a motion shall first file a separate motion that gives justification for filing a
partial summary judgment motion in terms of the overall economy of time and expense for the

parties, counsel and the court. All dispositive and Daubert motions1 shall be filed by the close of
business on June 29, 2012, and any response thereto shall be filed by the close of business on July
20, 2012. Any reply shall be filed by the close of business on August 3, 2012.2
Any motion to amend the pleadings or join parties shall be filed in sufficient time to permit
any discovery necessary because of the proposed amendment to be obtained within the time for
discovery. No amendments will be allowed if to do so will result in a delay in the disposition of the
action by requiring an extension of the discovery deadline.
There shall be no stay of discovery pending disposition of any motions.
By the close of business on March 20, 2012, the plaintiffs shall declare to the defendants
(not to file with the court) the identity of their expert witnesses and provide all the information
specified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B)
By the close of business on April 28, 2012 the defendants shall declare to the plaintiffs
(not to file with the court) the identity of their expert witnesses and provide all the information
specified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B).
Any supplements to expert reports shall be filed by the close of business on April 28,
2012. There shall not be any rebuttal expert witnesses.
All expert witness depositions shall be completed by May 31, 2012.
Local Rule 39.01(c)(6) (effective June 1, 2006) relating to expert witnesses shall apply in this
action, and strict compliance is required.
26th
May
It is so ORDERED this the ____ day of ________________, 2011.
____________________________________
Judge Trauger
United States District Judge

1
2

No memorandum in support of or in opposition to any motion shall exceed twenty (20) pages.
Strict compliance is required to Local Rule of Court 56.01 relating to motions for summary judgment.

APPROVED FOR ENTRY:
/s/ Blair P. Durham
Blair P. Durham
Attorney for Plaintiffs
/s/Ryan N. Clark
Ryan Clark
Attorney for Defendants