Estate of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.
291 F.R.D. 297
N.D. Iowa2013Background
- Diversity action under Iowa products liability law; trial set for March 18, 2013; design defect claim and loss of consortium against Kawasaki.
- Incident: March 21, 2009 motorcycle crash on K-22; Scott Thompson suffered severe spinal injury and died in 2011.
- Plaintiffs Randy and Vicky Thompson sue Kawasaki Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A. over alleged deficient damping design.
- Post-deadline pretrial motions included Kawasaki’s Rule 30(b)(6) Okabe deposition challenge, Thompsons’ litigation testing motion, and Macklin deposition challenge; ruling on these motions followed.
- Court allows use of Kawasaki’s Rule 30(b)(6) Okabe deposition in the Thompsons’ case-in-chief; Macklin deposition and testing evidence rulings are premature or denied as specified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition in case-in-chief | Thompsons may use deposition 'for any purpose' per Rule 32(a)(3) and binding admissions. | Use would be cumulated; prefer live testimony; objections under 611/403 and hearsay concerns. | Okabe deposition may be used in case-in-chief under Rule 32(a)(3). |
| Use of Macklin deposition given Ohlins dismissed | Macklin deposition qualifies as unavailable under Rule 32(a)(4) and may be used in chief. | Ohlins dismissed; deposition not available as Rule 32(a)(3) designee. | Premature to decide; denial of Macklin motion as premature. |
| Exclusion of litigation testing evidence | Late-disclosed demonstratives necessary for expert opinions; should be excluded to prevent prejudice. | Demonstratives disclose expertise; no prejudice; testing material limited in scope. | Motion to exclude testing evidence denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brazos River Auth. v. GE Ionics, Inc., 469 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2006) (Rule 32(a)(3) binding effect for Rule 30(b)(6) testimony; deposition used for any purpose)
- Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Richards, 541 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2008) (Rule 32(a)(4) proximity/availability considerations; hearsay exception status)
- U.S. v. Heppner, 519 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2008) (Rule 801(d)(2) admissions; party-opponent statements within Rule 32 framework)
- U.S. v. McPike, 512 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir. 2008) (Rule 801(d)(2) admissions; applicability to Rule 30(b)(6) designations)
- Zimmerman v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 410 F.2d 1041 (D.C.Cir.1969) (Rule 32(a) as independent hearsay exception when deposition offered)
- Carey v. Bahama Cruise Lines, 864 F.2d 201 (1st Cir. 1988) (Rule 32(a) as independent exception to hearsay; deposition testimony admissible for certain uses)
- United States v. Vespe, 868 F.2d 1328 (3d Cir. 1989) (Rule 32(a)(3) allows deposition testimony for any purpose; availability not controlling)