Free Response - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK

Document 180-2

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 1 of 22

EXHIBIT LIST OF CASE CAPTION
EX NO.

All Plaintiffs U.S. Aviation etc. et al.
DESCRIPTION

CASE NUMBER v.

01-cv-02056-JLK Page No. 1

Pilatus Business Aircraft etc. et al.
Def. Objections

List of Plaintiff's Exhibits by Number (1, 2, 3, etc.) And Defendant's Exhibits by Letter (A, B, C, etc.) Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections

1

Paul Leadabrand summary of damages

Relevance, lack of foundation, hearsay, not real party in interest, economic loss rule Stipulated Stipulated Stipulated

This exhibit has been withdrawn pending the Court's acceptance and approval of the parties' stipulation regarding Mr. Leadabrand's damages.

2 3 4

Photo, N660NR Stipulated Facts Map, eastern Russia, Japan, Pacific Ocean Map, eastern Russia, Japan, Pacific Ocean (5) Map, eastern Russia, Japan, Pacific Ocean (6)

5 and 6

Hearsay, lack of foundation for inaccurate data plotted, FRE 403, 702

These maps depict the approximate route of flight between Hakodate and Magadan, and plot the approximate locations of the ditching and the location where the life raft was discovered. These exhibits are: (A) offered as evidence of a material fact (i.e., the location where certain events occurred); (B) more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence; and (C) the general purposes of the Rules of Evidence and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of these exhibits into evidence. (Fed.R.Evid. 807.) Foundation will be provided by pilot, Mike Smith and others. The accuracy of the data plotted on the maps goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence.

-1-

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK
EX NO. DESCRIPTION

Document 180-2
Def. Objections

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 2 of 22

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections

7

Memorandum of Understanding, 2/23/01 (Leadabrand Depo. Exh. 7) Model, gas generator and propeller (demonstrative aid)

Stipulated

8

Lack of foundation, relevance

Foundation for this exhibit will be provided by plaintiffs' expert witnesses Jeff Edwards and David Rupert. This exhibit demonstrates a relevant mechanical principle, i.e., the "free turbine" design of the PT6A engine where the power section is not linked to the gas generator section of the engine. As hot air is forced over the fan used in this demonstrative exhibit (representing the PT disk), the fan (PT disk) moves. This mechanical principle is relevant to the pilot's undisputed claim that the power section did not respond (propeller did not move) even though the gas generator was producing heat during the restart attempt. Foundation for this exhibit will be provided by expert witness Jeff Edwards and pilot Mike Smith.

9

Model, control levers (demonstrative aid)

Lack of foundation

10

Answers from Mike Smith (E-mail) (Leadabrand Depo. Exh. 10) Reserved Aircraft Inspection Status (Leadabrand Depo. Exh. 12) SIMCOM Pilot Proficiency Certificate (ACS000000314)

Stipulated

11 12

Stipulated

13

Stipulated

-2-

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK
EX NO. DESCRIPTION

Document 180-2
Def. Objections

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 3 of 22

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections

14 15 16 - 25 26

Map of the World, April 2001 Trip itinerary (ACS000000310) Withdrawn Email, Yamagata to Smith, 3/9/02 (ACS000072)

Stipulated Stipulated (redacted)

Relevance, lack of foundation, hearsay, FRE 403, 701

This is an email authored by Mr. Ari Yamagata (one of the Japanese passengers) and sent to Mike Smith. Foundation will be provided by Mike Smith. The defendants will be reading Mr. Yamagata's deposition testimony to the jury. The defendants plan to attack Mr. Smith's credibility by suggesting that he has given different descriptions of the events. This exhibit independently confirms the accuracy of Mike Smith's description of the events that occurred prior to the ditching. This is an email authored by Mr. Ari Yamagata (one of the Japanese passengers) and sent to Mike Smith. Foundation will be provided by Mike Smith. The defendants will be reading Mr. Yamagata's deposition testimony to the jury. The defendants plan to attack Mr. Smith's conduct by suggesting that he panicked during the events leading up to the ditching. This exhibit corroborates Mr. Yamagata's claim that Mike Smith did not panic during the event.

27

Email, Yamagata to Smith, 4/16/02 (ACS000001166)

Relevance, lack of foundation, hearsay, FRE 403, 701

-3-

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK
EX NO. DESCRIPTION

Document 180-2
Def. Objections

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 4 of 22

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections

28

Pilatus memorandum, 6/18/01 (PA002758)

Relevance, FRE 403

This exhibit provides independent corroboration for Mike Smith's claim that prior to the ditching, he stopped at the Pilatus factory in Switzerland, and Pilatus personnel inspected the subject airplane. Mr. Smith will testify that during the visit, he asked the Pilatus factory for a supply of Prist fuel additive, and the defendants claim that the ditching was caused by the failure to use Prist. Mr. Smith is also expected to testify that during this visit, he told Pilatus that he was flying the airplane around the world. and asked the Pilatus factory to make sure the airplane was in good operating condition.

29 30

Withdrawn Memorandum, Pilatus, 8/30/01 (ACS000001128-1129) Reserved High Altitude Chart Model, PC12 aircraft (demonstrative aid) Pilatus Accident Report Form (PA002124)

Stipulated

31 - 32 33 34

Stipulated Stipulated

35

Stipulated

-4-

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK
EX NO. DESCRIPTION

Document 180-2
Def. Objections

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 5 of 22

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections

36

PWC "The Powerplant of Choice" (PA002263-2264) FAA Advisory Circular AC 60-22

Stipulated

37

Relevance

The pilot's decision-making process is a material factual issue in this trial. This exhibit describes the FAA's analysis of pilot's decision-making, and will be discussed by plaintiffs' expert witness, Dr. Lawrence Scanlan. This exhibit is relevant, because during discovery, the Pilatus defendants stated that the pilot (Mike Smith) "should have" engaged in the aeronautical decisionmaking process described in this exhibit (Advisory Circular AC 60-22. (See, Pl. Exh. 82.) Accordingly, the Pilatus defendants have made this exhibit material and relevant, because (according to the Pilatus defendants) this exhibit describes the proper decision-making process that "should have" been followed by the pilot.

38

Pilatus Memorandum, 9/26/01 (Hoyt Depo. Exh. 38) Chart, July 8, 2001 (data summary)

Stipulated

39

Lack of foundation

This exhibit is a compilation and summary of data from other exhibits and information. (FED.R.EVID. 1006)

40 41

Transcript, ATC communications PC-12 Short Checklist (Smith Depo. Exh. 41)

Stipulated Stipulated

-5-

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK
EX NO. DESCRIPTION

Document 180-2
Def. Objections

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 6 of 22

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections

42

PC-12 Annunciator Panel Lights Chart (Smith Depo. Exh. 42) PC-12 Normal Procedures (Smith Depo. Exh. 43) PC-12 Emergency Procedures (Smith Depo. Exh. 44) PC-12 Reference Manual, Chap. 2, Powerplant (ACS000000421-487) PC-12 Reference Manual, Chap. 10, Ice Protection (ACS000000490-509) Chronology (Smith Depo. Exh. 47) Statement (Smith Depo. Exh. 48) PT6A-67B cross-section (ACS000000308) Withdrawn Pilatus Memorandum, 5/17/02 (PA002209-2210)

Stipulated

43

Stipulated

44

Stipulated

45

Stipulated

46

Stipulated

47 48 49

Stipulated Stipulated Stipulated

50 - 51 52

Stipulated

-6-

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK
EX NO. DESCRIPTION

Document 180-2
Def. Objections

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 7 of 22

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections

53

FAR 135 Check Ride Form (Smith Depo. Exh. 53) Reserved Corr from TrautmannK, 4/24/02

Stipulated

54 55

Incomplete without Russian report, This exhibit reflects the Pilatus' defendants' response hearsay, relevance to criticisms of the PC-12 airplane by the Russian aviation authorities. The author (Karl Trautmann) is a Pilatus employee in Switzerland. The exhibit is selfcontained, and the Russian report is not needed to understand this exhibit. This exhibit is not being offered to prove the truth of the matters stated in the document, and as such, the exhibit is not inadmissible hearsay. (FED.R.EVID. 801(c).) Rather, this exhibit is being offered to prove that the Pilatus defendants believe that the PC-12 aircraft is safe to fly beyond gliding distance from land. This exhibit tends to contradict the defendants' claim that they could not have foreseen the events that occurred in this case, and tends to defeat the defendants' claims that the pilot's conduct was unreasonable.

-7-

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK
EX NO. DESCRIPTION

Document 180-2
Def. Objections

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 8 of 22

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections

56, 57, 58 and 59

14 C.F.R. § 23.1 (56) 14 C.F.R. § 23.903(e)(3) (57) 14 C.F.R. § 23.1581(a) (58) 14 C.F.R. § 23.1583(h) (59)

Relevance, lack of foundation, FRE 403, Part 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations does not apply to Pratt & Whitney Canada

It is undisputed that the Pilatus defendants were required to design the PC-12 airplane in compliance with Part 23. These Part 23 regulations are relevant, because: (1) whether the PC-12 complied with Part 23 regulations is a disputed factual issue in this trial; (2) the jury cannot decide if the regulations were complied with unless the jury is provided with the text of the subject regulations; and (3) they tend to prove that the PC-12 airplane did not comply with Part 23, and therefore, the airplane is presumed defective under Colorado law. (C.R.S. § 1321-403(2)) Foundation for these regulations will be provided by plaintiffs' expert, Jeff Edwards. To the extent these regulations do not apply to defendant PWC, PWC should propose an appropriate limiting instruction.

60

Pilatus PC-12 POH, cover page and table of contents Pilatus PC-12 POH, General, cover page and pp. 1-1 > 1-20 Pilatus PC-12 POH, Limitations, cover page and pp. 2-1, 2-4 >2-5, 29 > 2-10, 2-12 > 2-14, 2-19 Pilatus PC-12 POH, Limitations, cover page and p. 2-31

Stipulated

61

Stipulated

62

Stipulated

63

Stipulated

-8-

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK
EX NO. DESCRIPTION

Document 180-2
Def. Objections

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 9 of 22

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections

64

Pilatus PC-12 POH, Emergency Procedures, cover page and p. 3-1 Pilatus PC-12 POH, Emergency Procedures, cover page and pp. 3-4 > 3-5 Pilatus PC-12 POH, Emergency Procedures, cover page and pp. 3-6 > 3-7 Pilatus PC-12 POH, Emergency Procedures, cover page and pp. 317 > 3-20 Pilatus PC-12 POH, Normal Procedures, cover page and pp. 425 > 4-26 Pilatus PC-12 POH, Performance, cover page and pp. 5-13 > 5-16, 5-38 > 5-59, 5-60 > 5-66, 5-78 > 5-80 Pilatus PC-12 POH, Weight and Balance, cover page and pp. 6-20 > 6-27, 6-31

Stipulated

65

Stipulated

66

Stipulated

67

Stipulated

68

Stipulated

69

Stipulated

70

Stipulated

-9-

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK
EX NO. DESCRIPTION

Document 180-2
Def. Objections

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 10 of 22

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections

71

Pilatus PC-12 POH, Description, cover page and pp. 7-28 > 7-38, 757, 7-106 > 7-107 Pilatus PC-12 POH, Supplements, cover page and pp. 9-01-1 > 9-01-4 POH Temp. Revision No. 42 (2004) (6 pages)

Stipulated

72

Stipulated

73

Relevance

This exhibit reflects changes that the Pilatus defendants made to the PC-12 Pilot Operating Handbook (POH) in 2004. Among other things, these changes included different instructions on the use of the MOR lever. This exhibit is relevant because: (1) it tends to prove that the pilot acted reasonably by following the POH instructions regarding the use of the MOR lever; (2) it tends to prove that the POH that was followed by the pilot was defective because it contained wrong (incorrect) information regarding the use of the MOR lever; (3) it tends to prove that defects in the POH were a cause of the ditching of the airplane; and (4) it tends to prove that the POH was unreasonably dangerous when it left the defendants' possession because it contained inaccurate (wrong) instructions regarding the use of the MOR lever.

- 10 -

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK
EX NO. DESCRIPTION

Document 180-2
Def. Objections

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 11 of 22

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections

74, 75 and 76

Chart, POH comparison, Manual Override Lever (74) Chart, POH comparison, Engine Failure (75) Chart, POH comparison, Temp. Rev. No. 42 (76)

Relevance, lack of foundation, incomplete

These charts summarize and compare data in the POH used by the pilot (Pl. Exh. 64-67) and in the changes to the POH that were made by Pilatus in 2004 (Pl. Exh. 73.) (FED.R.EVID. 1006) To the extent the defendants believe these charts are "incomplete," that objection goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of these exhibits. These exhibits are relevant because: (1) they tend to prove that the pilot acted reasonably by following the POH instructions regarding the use of the MOR lever; (2) they tend to prove that the POH that was followed by the pilot was defective because it contained wrong (incorrect) information regarding the use of the MOR lever; (3) they tend to prove that defects in the POH were a cause of the ditching of the airplane; and (4) they tend to prove that the POH was unreasonably dangerous when it left the defendants' possession because it contained inaccurate (wrong) instructions regarding the use of the MOR lever.

- 11 -

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK
EX NO. DESCRIPTION

Document 180-2
Def. Objections

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 12 of 22

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections

77 and 78

PT6A-67B Issues, 9/29/99 (PA002551-59) (77) PT6A-67B IFSD table (PWC015641566) (78)

Relevance, lack of foundation, FRE 403, dissimilar occurrences

These charts summarize data regarding reliability problems with the model PT6A-67B engine that is at issue in this trial. (Fed.R.Evid. 1006) In Doc. 158, this Court denied the defendants' motion to exclude these exhibits from the jury. These exhibits are relevant because: (1) they tend to prove that the PT6A-67B engine is defective and unreasonably dangerous because it fails to perform in a manner expected by an ordinary consumer (pilot); (2) they tend to prove that the defendants had notice that the PT6A-67B engine was unreliable yet failed to warn the pilot of that unreliability; and (3) they tend to prove that the pilot's act of shutting down the engine in flight (an "IFSD") was foreseeable to the defendants. Any dissimilarities in the occurrences described in these exhibits go to the weight, not the admissibility, of the exhibits. For the purposes of this trial, the reasons for the IFSDs are largely immaterial, and the relevant fact (proved by these exhibits is that the PT6A-67B engine was experiencing a rate of IFSDs that was far greater than the rate anticipated by the pilot.

79 80 81

Reserved Withdrawn PT6A-67B cross-section (Ortuso Depo. Exh. 81)

Stipulated

- 12 -

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK
EX NO. DESCRIPTION

Document 180-2
Def. Objections

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 13 of 22

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections

82

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Responses to RFP03

Relevance

This exhibit is relevant because it constitutes an admission by Pilatus that the pilot (Mike Smith) should have engaged in the decision-making process described in AC 60-22 (Pl. Exh. 37) The evidence at trial will be that the pilot did engage in such a process, and therefore, this evidence tends to prove that the pilot's conduct was reasonable.

83 84

Withdrawn Email, McCreary to Kofman, 7/18/01 (Ortuso Depo. Exh. 84) Email, NTSB to PWC, 7/13/01 (Ortuso Depo. Exh. 85)

Stipulated

85

Stipulated

- 13 -

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK
EX NO. DESCRIPTION

Document 180-2
Def. Objections

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 14 of 22

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections

86 and 87

PT6A-67B BUR table (Ortuso Depo. Exh. 86) PT6A-67B Basic and Unplanned table (Ortuso Depo. Exh. 87)

Relevance, lack of foundation, FRE 403, dissimilar occurrences

These charts summarize data regarding reliability problems with the model PT6A-67B engine that is at issue in this trial. (Fed.R.Evid. 1006) In Doc. 158, this Court denied the defendants' motion to exclude these exhibits from the jury. These exhibits are relevant because: (1) they tend to prove that the PT6A-67B engine is defective and unreasonably dangerous because it fails to perform in a manner expected by an ordinary consumer (pilot); (2) they tend to prove that the defendants had notice that the PT6A-67B engine was unreliable yet failed to warn the pilot of that unreliability; and (3) they tend to prove that the pilot's act of shutting down the engine in flight (an "IFSD") was foreseeable to the defendants. Any dissimilarities in the occurrences described in these exhibits go to the weight, not the admissibility, of the exhibits. For the purposes of this trial, the reasons for the IFSDs are largely immaterial, and the relevant fact (proved by these exhibits) is that the PT6A-67B engine was experiencing a rate of IFSDs that was far greater than the rate anticipated by the pilot.

88

PT6A-67B cross-section (Ortuso Depo. Exh. 88) Withdrawn Statement Comparison, SmithM Reserved

Stipulated

89 90 91 - 95

Stipulated

- 14 -

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK
EX NO. DESCRIPTION

Document 180-2
Def. Objections

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 15 of 22

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections

96

Email, Jackson to McCreary, 7/12/01 (Bretscher Depo. Exh. 96) Correspondence, Pilatus to Smith, 7/13/01 (Bretscher Depo. Exh. 97) PT6A-67B IFSD table (PWC00459-62) (98) Senior Mngmnt. Meeting table (PA003076) (99)

Stipulated

97

Stipulated

98 and 99

Relevance, lack of foundation, FRE 403, dissimilar occurrences

These charts summarize data regarding reliability problems with the model PT6A-67B engine that is at issue in this trial. (Fed.R.Evid. 1006) In Doc. 158, this Court denied the defendants' motion to exclude these exhibits from the jury. These exhibits are relevant because: (1) they tend to prove that the PT6A-67B engine is defective and unreasonably dangerous because it fails to perform in a manner expected by an ordinary consumer (pilot); (2) they tend to prove that the defendants had notice that the PT6A-67B engine was unreliable yet failed to warn the pilot of that unreliability; and (3) they tend to prove that the pilot's act of shutting down the engine in flight (an "IFSD") was foreseeable to the defendants. Any dissimilarities in the occurrences described in these exhibits go to the weight, not the admissibility, of the exhibits. For the purposes of this trial, the reasons for the IFSDs are largely immaterial, and the relevant fact (proved by these exhibits) is that the PT6A-67B engine was experiencing a rate of IFSDs that was far greater than the rate anticipated by the pilot. This exhibit involves the particular ditching that is at issue in his trial. There are no "dissimilar occurrences."

100

Correspondence, Pilatus to Kodani, 9/12/01 (Bretscher Depo. Exh. 100)

Lack of foundation, FRE 402, 403, dissimilar occurrences

- 15 -

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK
EX NO. DESCRIPTION

Document 180-2
Def. Objections

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 16 of 22

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections

101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109 and 113

Coordination Memorandum, 6/16/98 (Bretscher Depo. Exh. 101) Pilatus Memorandum, 9/15/98 (Bretscher Depo. Exh. 102) Email, Masefield to Trautmann, 9/18/98 (Bretscher Depo. Exh. 103) PWC Memorandum, 9/22/98 (Bretscher Depo. Exh. 104) Pilatus Memorandum, 9/14/98 (Bretscher Depo. Exh. 105) Correspondence, Pilatus to PWC, 7/27/01 (Bretscher Depo. Exh. 106) Correspondence, PWC to Pilatus, 8/13/01 (Bretscher Depo. Exh. 107) Senior Mngmnt. Meeting Chart, 10/1/01 (Bretscher Depo. Exh. 108) Coordination Memorandum, 12/13/01 (Bretscher Depo. Exh. 109) Coordination Memorandum, 6/16/98 (Bretscher Depo. Exh. 113)

Relevance, lack of foundation, FRE 403, dissimilar occurrences

Foundation will be provided by witness Dietmar Bretscher. These exhibits are an admission by Pilatus that before this ditching occurred, Pilatus knew that the PT6A-67B engine was unreliable and prone to an unacceptably high number of In Flight Shut Downs (IFSDs). Despite this knowledge, Pilatus did nothing to warn the pilot of the unreliability of the PT6A-67B engine, or to accurately instruct the pilot on how to respond to potential IFSD situations. In Doc. 158, this Court denied the defendants' motion to exclude these exhibits from the jury. These exhibits are relevant because: (1) they tend to prove that the PT6A-67B engine is defective and unreasonably dangerous because it fails to perform in a manner expected by an ordinary consumer (pilot); (2) they tend to prove that the defendants had notice that the PT6A-67B engine was unreliable yet failed to warn the pilot of that unreliability; and (3) they tend to prove that the pilot's act of shutting down the engine in flight (an "IFSD") was foreseeable to the defendants. Any dissimilarities in the occurrences described in these exhibits go to the weight, not the admissibility, of the exhibits. For the purposes of this trial, the reasons for the IFSDs are largely immaterial, and the relevant fact (proved by these exhibits) is that the PT6A-67B engine was experiencing a rate of IFSDs that was far greater than the rate anticipated by the pilot.

110 - 112

Reserved

- 16 -

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK
EX NO. DESCRIPTION

Document 180-2
Def. Objections

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 17 of 22

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections

114

Photo, exemplar PC-12, cabin looking forward Photo, exemplar PC-12, cabin looking aft Photo, exemplar PC-12, cockpit entrance Photo, exemplar PC-12, flight controls, rear view Photo, exemplar PC-12, flight controls, left seat Photo, exemplar PC-12, instruments, left seat Photo, exemplar PC-12, flight controls, left seat Photo, exemplar PC-12, flight controls, rear view Photo, exemplar PC-12, flight controls, top view

Stipulated

115

Stipulated

116

Stipulated

117

Stipulated

118

Stipulated

119

Stipulated

120

Stipulated

121

Stipulated

122

Stipulated

- 17 -

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK
EX NO. DESCRIPTION

Document 180-2
Def. Objections

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 18 of 22

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections

123

Photo, exemplar PC-12, flight controls, top view, close-up Photo, exemplar PC-12, flight controls, side view Photo, exemplar PC-12, flight controls, side view Photo, exemplar PC-12, MOR measurement, in detent Photo, exemplar PC-12, MOR measurement, out of detent Photo, exemplar PC-12, MOR full aft Photo, exemplar PC-12, MOR full forward Photo, exemplar PC-12, MOR measurement, ground view

Stipulated

124

Stipulated

125

Stipulated

126

Stipulated

127

Stipulated

128

Stipulated

129

Stipulated

130

Stipulated

- 18 -

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK
EX NO. DESCRIPTION

Document 180-2
Def. Objections

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 19 of 22

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections

131, 132, 133, 134 and 135

Chart, Scanlan, Opinions (131) Chart, Scanlan, Engine Shutdown Decision (132) Chart, Scanlan, Flight Planning Decisions (133) Chart, Scanlan, Landing Site Selection (134) Chart, Scanlan, Materials Reviewed (135)

Relevance, lack of expertise, FRE 403, 702, 703

These exhibits are relevant because they summarize the opinion testimony of plaintiffs' expert witness, Dr. Lawrence Scanlan. In Doc. 149, this Court overruled the defendants' objections to Dr. Scanlan's opinion testimony. The defendants' objections merely restate the same objections that were overruled in Doc. 149.

136 - 141 142 143 144

Reserved Withdrawn Reserved PT6A-67B cross-section (Bretscher Depo. Exh. 144)

Stipulated

- 19 -

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK
EX NO. DESCRIPTION

Document 180-2
Def. Objections

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 20 of 22

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections

145

Coordination Memo, 12/13/01 (Bretscher Depo. Exh. 145)

Relevance, lack of foundation, FRE 403, dissimilar occurrences

Foundation will be provided by witness Dietmar Bretscher. This exhibit is an admission by Pilatus that before this ditching occurred, Pilatus knew that the PT6A-67B engine was unreliable and prone to an unacceptably high number of In Flight Shut Downs (IFSDs). Despite this knowledge, Pilatus did nothing to warn the pilot of the unreliability of the PT6A-67B engine, or to accurately instruct the pilot on how to respond to potential IFSD situations. In Doc. 158, this Court denied the defendants' motion to exclude this exhibit from the jury. This exhibit is relevant because: (1) it tends to prove that the PT6A-67B engine is defective and unreasonably dangerous because it fails to perform in a manner expected by an ordinary consumer (pilot); (2) it tends to prove that the defendants had notice that the PT6A-67B engine was unreliable yet failed to warn the pilot of that unreliability; and (3) it tends to prove that the pilot's act of shutting down the engine in flight (an "IFSD") was foreseeable to the defendants. Any dissimilarities in the occurrences described in this exhibit go to the weight, not the admissibility, of the exhibit. For the purposes of this trial, the reasons for the IFSDs are largely immaterial, and the relevant fact (proved by these exhibit) is that the PT6A-67B engine was experiencing a rate of IFSDs that was far greater than the rate anticipated by the pilot.

175

Withdrawn

- 20 -

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK
EX NO. DESCRIPTION

Document 180-2
Def. Objections

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 21 of 22

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections

176

PWC SB No. 14369 (Bretscher Depo. Exh. 143; Ortuso Exh. 176)

FRE 402, 403, dissimilar occurrences

This exhibit is relevant because it is an admission by PWC that the same PT blades that were used in the PT6A-67B engine that is the subject of this trial are prone to in-flight fractures. Plaintiffs' expert witness, David Rupert, will tell the jury that the engine failure was caused by the fracture of the same PT blades that are described in this exhibit. Accordingly, this exhibit is relevant because it tends to prove that the engine was defective and a cause of the ditching. Any dissimilarities in the occurrences described in this exhibit go to the weight, not the admissibility, of the exhibit.

200

Resume, Lawrence Scanlan (Scanlan Depo. Exh. 200) Resume, David Rupert (Rupert Depo. Exh. 212)

Stipulated

212

Stipulated (redact list of testimony)

- 21 -

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK
EX NO. DESCRIPTION

Document 180-2
Def. Objections

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 22 of 22

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections

220 and 221

Summary (F.R.E. 1006), Blade Failure SDRs (Rupert Depo. Exh. 220) Summary (F.R.E. 1006), Blade Failure SDRs (Rupert Depo. Exh. 221)

Relevance, hearsay, lack of foundation, FRE 403, dissimilar occurrences

These exhibits are relevant because they summarize the data considered by plaintiffs' expert witness, David Rupert. In Doc. 149, this Court overruled the defendants' objections to Mr. Rupert's opinion testimony. The defendants' objections merely restate the same objections that were overruled in Doc. 149. These exhibits are public records and reports which fall outside the scope of the hearsay rule. (Fed.R.Evid. 803(8).) Any dissimilarities in the occurrences described in this exhibit go to the weight, not the admissibility, of the exhibit.

239 240 241

Withdrawn Resume, Jeff Edwards Chart, Summary of Assignments and Opinions (Edwards Depo. Exh. 241)

Stipulated (redact list of testimony) Hearsay These exhibits summarize the opinions to be expressed by plaintiffs' expert witness, Jeff Edwards. In Doc. 149, this Court overruled the defendants' objections to Mr. Edwards' opinion testimony. The defendants' objections merely restate the same objections that were overruled in Doc. 149.

271 274

Withdrawn Withdrawn

- 22 -