Free Statement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Augustine B. Jimenez III, 012208 Montoya Jimenez, P.A. 3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2550 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2490 602-263-7875 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Donald R. Wilson, 1239 Garvey M. Biggers, 9932 Thomas J. Cesta, 21453 Struckmeyer and Wilson 910 E. Osborn Road Phoenix, AZ 85014-5220 602-248-9222 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Palma Baca Urrutia, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Darrell Lee Ekdahl, et al., Defendants. ) ) No. CV 03 1990 PHX PGR ) ) AMENDED JOINT PRETRIAL ) STATEMENT ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Pursuant to the Order entered on June 20, 2006, the following is the parties' Joint Pretrial Statement. A. COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. Augustine B. Jimenez III Donald R. Wilson Montoya Jimenez, P.A. Garvey M. Biggers 3200 N. Central Avenue Thomas J. Cesta Suite 2550 Struckmeyer and Wilson Phoenix, Arizona 85012 910 E. Osborn Road Phone: 602-263-7875 Phoenix, AZ 85014 Fax: 602-256-6667 Phone: 602-248-9222 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Fax: 602-263-0464 Attorneys for Defendants B. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION. Plaintiff Patricia Urrutia-Baca is a citizen of Phoenix, Arizona. The remaining Plaintiffs are citizens of Chihuahua, Mexico. Defendants are all

-1-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 1 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

California citizens. Because of the diversity of citizenship, specifically that Defendants are all non-Arizona citizens, diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 grants this Court jurisdiction over the matter. C. PARTIES REMAINING IN ACTION. Plaintiffs Palma Baca Urrutia Patricia Urrutia-Baca Luis Javier Urrutia-Baca Elizabeth Urrutia-Baca Javier Arturo Urrutia-Arrieta Gloria Estela Sandate Defendants Darrell Lee Ekdahl and Jane Doe Ekdahl George Vanden Bossche Karolyn Vanden Bossche Vandy's Transportation, Inc. D. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. CLAIMS/CAUSES OF ACTIONS REMAINING. Negligence Negligent Entrustment Negligence per se Negligent hiring/supervising Vicarious liability Compensatory and punitive damages Contributory negligence Comparative fault Assumption of risk Joint and Several Liability Plaintiffs object to the late attempt by Defendants to add joint and several liability as a claim. This claim was not previously pled or disclosed and lacks factual and legal basis.

-2-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 2 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

E.

NATURE OF ACTION.

This is a wrongful death claim brought by the individual Statutory Beneficiaries of Jose Luis Urrutia-Arrieta and Javier Arturo Sandate-Urrutia. The wrongful death claims arise from a crash between a semitractor-tanker and a Ford flat-bed truck on May 22, 2003, on Interstate 10, Milepost 176. F. 1. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES. Plaintiffs' Contention. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant Darrell Lee Ekdahl (Ekdahl) caused the deaths of Jose Luis Urrutia-Arrieta and Javier Arturo SandateUrrutia by rear-ending their vehicle at a high rate of speed. Plaintiffs further contend that Ekdahl was driving his semi in violation of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) regarding the hours of service, and was fatigued or in microsleep just before the crash. That such conduct was negligent and in conscious disregard for the safety of the motoring public. Plaintiffs also contend that FMCSR §392.3 and §395.3 required Defendant Vandy's Transportation (Vandy's) to monitor and ensure Ekdahl's compliance with FMCSR §392.3 and §395.3 regarding fatigue and hours of service; that Vandy's breached its duty; and that their breach proximately caused the deaths of Jose Luis Urrutia-Arrieta and Javier Arturo Sandate-Urrutia. That Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages. To prevail in their claims, Plaintiffs must show as follows: a. Negligence of Ekdahl. · Plaintiffs must show that Ekdahl owed Plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances; · That Ekdahl breached the duty of reasonable care; · That Ekdahl's breach proximately caused the death of the deceased;

-3-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 3 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

· That Ekdahl acted in conscious disregard to the safety of the public or with an "evil mind"; and · Plaintiffs' damages, including punitive damages if any. Flowers v. K-Mart Corp, 126 Ariz. 495, 497, 616 P.2d 955 (App. 1980) (quoting Ivicevic v. City of Glendale, 26 Ariz. App. 460, 466, 549 P.2d 240, 241 (1976); A.R.S. §12-2506(R)(2); RAJI (Civ.) 4th (Fault 1 and 2); Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 150 Ariz. 326, 723 P.2d 675 (1986). b. Negligence per se. In order to prevail in this claim, Plaintiffs must show that Ekdahl violated either of the following laws or regulations: · A.R.S. §28-701A (speeding); · FMCSR, §392.3 (ill or fatigued driver); · FMCSR, §395.3 (hours of service regulations); · That A.R.S. §28-701 and the listed FMCSR were enacted for the protection and safety of the public, 49 U.S.C. §31100 and §31136; · That Ekdahl acted in conscious disregard for the safety of the public/evil mind; and · That such violation caused Plaintiffs' damages, including punitive damages if any. Part 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 U.S.C.A. 31100 (purpose), 49 U.S.C.A. §31136 (minimum safety standards); see also Michaels and Patten, Motor Carriers Liability for Trucking Accidents, 27 Ariz. Atty. 16 (July 1991); 49 C.F.R. §395; Torres v. North American Van Lines, Inc., 135 Ariz. 35, 658 P.2d 835 (App. 1992). See also, Good v. City of Glendale, 150 Ariz. 218, 221, 722 P.2d 386, 389 (Ct. App. 1986); Orlando v. Northcutt,

-4-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 4 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

103 Ariz. 298, 300, 441 P.2d 58, 60 (1968); Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 150 Ariz. 326, 723 P.2d 675 (1986). c. Negligent supervision of Ekdahl by Vandy's. · That Ekdahl was employed by Vandy's; · That Ekdahl was in the course and scope of his employment with Vandy's (admitted); · That Vandy's had a regulatory duty to supervise Ekdahl to ensure his compliance with the FMCSR regarding fatigue and hours of service requirements (FMCSR §392.3, §395.3); · That Vandy's breached its duty to ensure compliance with the FMCSR in regards to fatigue and the hours of service; and · That such breach was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs' damages, including punitive damages if any. 2. a. Defendants' Contention. No Duties Breached. It is the position of Vandy's and Mr. Ekdahl that all duties under the laws were fulfilled. No duties were breached. If by some chance a jury could find a breach of duty, then there is no causal relationship between such breach and the accident. In addition, even if a jury were to find breach and causation, to be awarded punitive damages there must be evidence of an "evil mind" and aggravated and outrageous conduct. Such evidence is not present in this case. b. A.R.S. §28-3163 Defendants contend that Jose Luis Urrutia-Arrieta was the owner of the Urrutia vehicle. On May 22, 2003, on Interstate 10, near mile marker 176.9, Mr. Urrutia knowingly permitted or authorized the driving of the Urrutia vehicle on I-10. Javier was in physical control of Jose Urrutia's To prevail in their claim, Plaintiffs must show:

-5-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 5 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

vehicle at the time of the collision. Javier is an unlicensed minor driver. The injuries that resulted to Jose and Javier were entirely or partially a result of Javier's negligence or willful misconduct. Therefore, according to Arizona Statutes, Jose Urrutia, Palma Urrutia, and Javier Sandate are jointly and severally liable for all of the acts leading up to the collision. c. Negligent Entrustment Defendants contend that Jose Luis Urrutia-Arrieta owned or controlled the Urrutia truck on May 22, 2003. Jose gave permission to Javier ArturoSandate-Urrutia to operate the Urrutia truck. Javier was incompetent to drive safely due to his lack of adequate sleep, inexperience driving a vehicle of this size and type, loaded to the extent that the Urrutia truck was. Jose knew or should have known that Javier was incompetent to drive safely due to Javier's physical and mental deficiencies. Javier's physical and mental deficiencies caused the injuries to Jose and Javier. Acuna v. Kroack, 212 Ariz. 104, 226, 128 P.3d 221, 226 (App. 2006); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390 (1965); Tissicino v. Peterson, 211 Ariz. 416, 421, 121 P.3d 1286, 1291 (App. 2005) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390 as salutary policy in Arizona requiring entrustor of chattel to examine whether entrustee poses unreasonable risk of harm); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 307 (1965) (using a thing or human being which poses unreasonable risk of harm due to incompetence, inappropriateness, or defectiveness known by actor or should have been known is negligence); Quinonez v. Andersen, 144 Ariz. 193, 197, 696 P.2d 1342, 1346 (App. 1984) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 307 as the law in Arizona); Lutfy v. Lockhart, 37 Ariz. 488, 493, 295 P. 975, 977 (1931) (quoting as the rule 1020 Berry, Law of Automobiles § 1144 an owner may be liable for thirdparty injuries caused by permitted driver if permitted driver is incompetent to safely operate vehicle due to recklessness, want of age or experience, or

-6-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 6 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

mental/physical condition). See also Powell v. Langford, 58 Ariz. 281, 287, 119 P.2d 230, 232 (1941) (holding an owner negligent when he entrusts his vehicle to an incompetent driver known to be incompetent by owner); Tellez v. Saban, 188 Ariz. 165, 170-71, 933 P.2d 1233, 1238-39 (App. 1996) (concluding owners had a duty to protect the public from unreasonable risk of harm by entrusting incompetent drivers with motor vehicles). d. Contributory negligence. Defendants contend that Jose Luis Urrutia-Arrieta and/or Javier Arturo Sandate-Urrutia are at fault for the collision involved in this case, and that such fault should reduce the full damages of Palma Baca Urrutia, et al. The Defendants assert the defense of contributory negligence. Under A.R.S. 12-2505(a), "the defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk is in all cases a question of fact and shall at all times be left to the jury. If the jury applies either defense, the claimant's action is not barred, but the full damages shall be reduced in proportion to the relative degree of the claimant's fault which is a proximate cause of the injury or death, if any." In addition, under A.R.S. 12-2505(b), "in this section, "claimant's fault" includes the fault imputed or attributed to a claimant by operation of law, if any. Defendant need not show that plaintiff breached a duty to himself causing harm, when showing that plaintiff's actions were contributory negligence. Arizona's Supreme Court reviewed the issue of whether contributory negligence involved the concept of duty. Relying on an earlier decision, the Court held that: As indicated in Markowitz, we do not believe the concept of duty should be confused "with specific details of conduct." ...[Rather, a plaintiff must] conduct oneself reasonably to minimize damages and avoid foreseeable harm to oneself.

-7-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 7 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Law v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County 157 Ariz. 147, 153, 755 P.2d 1135, 1141 (Ariz.,1988)(citations omitted). See also, Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. 23 Cal.4th 390, 421, 2 P.3d 1, 22, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 151, 174 (Cal.,2000): Because a plaintiff's comparative fault is invoked only to prevent the plaintiff from shifting all of the plaintiff's own loss onto another party, the plaintiff's conduct need not involve breach of any duty owed to another. It is sufficient that the plaintiff's conduct involved an unreasonable risk of selfinflicted injury and is at least partly responsible for the injury suffered. e. Comparative Fault Comparative Fault by Jose Luis Urrutia-Arrieta. · Given the fact that Javier Arturo Sandate-Urrutia was driving, Jose Urrutia must have given permission. Javier Sandate was an inexperienced, unlicensed minor. The vehicle was a 1979 1.5 ton Ford F350 manual transmission flatbed that was hauling paint and appliances. Javier had had limited sleep prior to leaving for the trip. Jose, the owner of the vehicle had three hours of sleep to drive from Phoenix to Juarez, Mexico. I-10 is a dangerous high speed interstate freeway. Causing or permitting Javier Sandate to drive was Negligent Entrustment for which Jose Urrutia is comparatively at fault for the injuries to himself and to Javier Sandate. · Jose Luis Urrutia-Arrieta loaded or helped to load the Urrutia vehicle, and exceeding the safe towing capacity of the Urrutia vehicle was contributory negligence for which Jose Urrutia is comparatively at fault for the injuries to himself and to Javier Sandate. Comparative Fault by Javier Arturo Sandate-Urrutia.
-8-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 8 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

· Javier Arturo Sandate-Urrutia was driving a 1979 1.5 ton Ford F350 manual transmission flatbed, a vehicle he was unaccustomed to driving. The vehicle was loaded with fivegallon buckets of paint, and with appliances. It was 3 a.m. on an unlit stretch of I-10, halfway between Phoenix and Casa Grande, Arizona. The speed limit in this area is 75 mph. Javier entered the freeway from the shoulder about a mile beyond the closest freeway on-ramp. When Javier entered the freeway, he did not have his lights on until he actually entered the lane, making him nearly invisible until he turned on his lights. In addition, although the other vehicles were traveling at or near the posted speed limit of 75 mph, Javier never attained a speed greater than 36 mph, a difference in speed of nearly 40 mph. For these reasons, he was contributorily negligent; and by reason of which Javier Sandate is comparatively at fault for the injuries to himself and to Jose Urrutia. · Javier Arturo Sandate-Urrutia loaded or helped to load the Urrutia vehicle, and exceeding the safe towing capacity of the Urrutia vehicle was contributory negligence for which Javier Sandate is comparatively at fault for the injuries to himself and to Jose Urrutia. f. Assumption of risk. Defendants claim that Jose Luis Urrutia-Arrieta and/or Javier Arturo Sandate-Urrutia were at fault by assuming the risk of injury. A person assumes the risk of injury when he has knowledge of a particular risk, appreciates its magnitude and voluntarily subjects himself to the risk under circumstances that show his willingness to accept that particular risk. RAJI (Civil) 4th. See also A.R.S. 12-2505, as cited above.

-9-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 9 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

G. 1.

STIPULATIONS AND UNCONTESTED MATERIAL FACTS.

That at all relevant times Defendant Darrell Ekdahl was

employed and in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant Vandy's Transportation at the time of the collision. 2. 3. 4. impact. 5. H. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. paint. That Defendant Ekdahl contacted a representative of Vandy's CONTESTED ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT. That Javier Arturo Sandate-Urrutia, an unlicensed driver, was That Jose Luis Urrutia-Arrieta was a passenger in the Urrutia That Jose Luis Urrutia-Arrieta permitted or caused Javier Whether the deceased's vehicle entered I-10 from the The speed at which the Ekdahl vehicle was traveling prior to The speed at which the Urrutia vehicle was traveling at impact. The time it would have taken the Urrutia vehicle to have Whether Defendant Ekdahl's semitractor-tanker skidded over Transportation by cellular telephone after the collision. That the Urrutia vehicle sustained crush damage. That Jose Luis Urrutia-Arrieta and Javier Arturo SandateThat the vehicle driven by the deceased had paint buckets in the

Urrutia died following the collision. rear of the flat-bed truck and that the paint was ejected as a result of the

driving the Urrutia vehicle at the time of the collision. vehicle at the time of the collision. Arturo Sandate-Urrutia to drive the Urrutia vehicle. emergency lane prior to being impacted by the Ekdahl vehicle. and at impact.

reached the speed it was traveling at impact.

-10-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 10 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

9. accident. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

That Jose Luis Urrutia-Arrieta and/or Javier Arturo Sandate-

Urrutia were not wearing lap or shoulder restraints at the time of the Whether Defendants are guilty of spoliation of evidence. Whether plaintiffs spoliated evidence. Whether Defendant Ekdahl was in a state of fatigue/sleepy or Whether Jose Luis Urrutia-Arrieta was fatigued or his attention Whether Javier Arturo Sandate-Urrutia was fatigued or his Whether Defendant Ekdahl was in violation of the Federal

his attention was otherwise diminished just prior to the impact. otherwise diminished. attention otherwise diminished. Motor Carrier Safety Regulations regarding the hours of service and prohibitions against driving while fatigued. 16. collision. 17. 18. 19. 20. That Javier Arturo Sandate-Urrutia was an inexperienced driver Whether Defendant Ekdahl could have avoided the collision by Whether there was a "sudden emergency." Whether the sudden emergency created when the Urrutia in a heavily loaded unfamiliar vehicle. simply changing lanes. Whether a violation of FMCSR, if found, was a cause of the

vehicle entered I-10 did not allow Defendant Ekdahl sufficient opportunity to evaluate the reasonableness of making a lane change. 21. 22. Whether the driver of the Urrutia vehicle had the last clear Whether Defendant Ekdahl lied to the investigating officer chance to avoid the collision. about how the collision occurred.

-11-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 11 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

23.

Whether Defendant Ekdahl's report to the investigating officer

about how the collision occurred was inaccurate, and if so whether the inaccuracy was intended to mislead the officer. 24. 25. 26. 27. Whether there was sufficient time to safely change lanes. Whether Defendant Ekdahl was correct about the presence of Whether Defendant Ekdahl lied about the presence of another Whether Defendant Ekdahl's failure to change lanes or identify

another vehicle in the lane to his left. vehicle in the lane to his left. the Urrutia vehicle in sufficient time to have avoided the collision was a result of fatigue, sleepiness or inattention, or instead was a result of the sudden emergency. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. turned on. 33. 34. 35. The direction the headlights faced when turned on. Whether Jose and/or Javier had so overloaded the Urrutia Whether the loaded condition of the Urrutia vehicle made it The damages suffered by each claimant. Whether there was sufficient time to perceive and react to the The point at which the Urrutia vehicle became visible. Whether the Urrutia vehicle ever had its lights off. The point at which the headlights of the Urrutia vehicle were

Urrutia vehicle for Defendant Ekdahl to avoid the collision.

vehicle that he could not accelerate quickly enough to avoid the collision. impossible for the vehicle to have accelerated to its pre-impact speed within the time the sequence occurred if it started from the emergency lane. 36. Whether the loaded condition of the Urrutia vehicle made it impossible for the vehicle to have accelerated to the pre-impact speed that

-12-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 12 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the Plaintiffs contend it was traveling, within the time the sequence that occurred. 37. Whether Javier saw the Ekdahl vehicle, recognized the danger, and assumed the risk that the Urrutia vehicle might not accelerate quickly enough, or Defendant Ekdahl could slow down enough, to avoid the collision, when Javier decided to enter the lane from the shoulder. 38. 39. 40. offset. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Whether Defendant Ekdahl's semitractor-tanker impacted Whether Palma Baca Urrutia is the wife of the deceased Jose Whether Patricia Urrutia-Baca is the daughter of the deceased Whether Luis Javier Urrutia-Baca is the son of the deceased Whether Elizabeth Urrutia-Baca is the daughter of the deceased Whether Javier Arturo Urrutia-Arrieta is the natural father of Whether Gloria Estela Sandate is the natural mother of the Whether Ekdahl acted in conscious disregard for the safety of squarely with the rear of the Urrutia vehicle. Luis Urrutia-Arrieta. Jose Luis Urrutia-Arrieta. Jose Luis Urrutia-Arrieta. Jose Luis Urrutia-Arrieta. the deceased minor Javier Arturo Sandate-Urrutia. deceased minor Javier Arturo Sandate-Urrutia. the public or otherwise acted with an "evil mind." Whether Defendant Ekdahl had been driving for over seven Whether the Urrutia vehicle burst into flames as it left the Whether the impact with the rear of the Urrutia vehicle was hours without stopping prior to the collision. roadway and whether both occupants burned to death.

-13-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 13 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I. 1.

CONTESTED ISSUES OF LAW. Negligence of Ekdahl. · Whether Ekdahl owed Plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances; · Whether Ekdahl breached the duty of reasonable care; · Whether Ekdahl's breach proximately caused the death of the deceased; and · Plaintiffs' damages, and whether Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages.

2. laws:

Negligence per se.

Whether Ekdahl violated any or all of the following state and federal · A.R.S. §28-701A (speeding); · FMCSR, §392.3 (ill or fatigued driver); · FMCSR, §395.3 (hours of service regulations); and · That such violation caused Plaintiffs' damages, and whether Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages. 3. Negligent supervision of Ekdahl by Vandy's. · Whether Vandy's had a duty to supervise Ekdahl to ensure his compliance with the FMCSR regarding fatigue and hours of service requirements (FMCSR §392.3, §395.3); · Whether Vandy's breached its duty to ensure compliance with the FMCSR in regards to fatigue and the hours of service; and · Whether such breach was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs' damages. 4. Contributory negligence by Jose Louis Urrutia-Arrieta. · Whether Jose Louis Urrutia-Arrieta's failure to wear seatbelts contributed to his injuries;

-14-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 14 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

· Given the fact that Javier Arturo Sandate-Urrutia was driving, Jose Urrutia must have given permission. Javier Sandate was an inexperienced, unlicensed minor. The vehicle was a 1979 1.5 ton Ford F350 manual transmission flatbed that was hauling paint and appliances. Javier had had limited sleep prior to leaving for the trip. Jose, the owner of the vehicle had three hours of sleep to drive from Phoenix to Juarez, Mexico. I-10 is a dangerous high speed interstate freeway. Causing or permitting Javier Sandate to drive was Negligent Entrustment for which Jose Urrutia is comparatively at fault for the injuries to himself and to Javier Sandate. · Jose Luis Urrutia-Arrieta loaded or helped to load the Urrutia vehicle, and exceeding the safe towing capacity of the Urrutia vehicle was contributory negligence for which Jose Urrutia is comparatively at fault for the injuries to himself and to Javier Sandate. 5. Contributory negligence by Javier Orturo Sandate-Urrutia. · Whether Javier Arturo Sandate-Urrutia's failure to wear seatbelts contributed to his injuries; · Javier Arturo Sandate-Urrutia was driving a 1979 1.5 ton Ford F350 manual transmission flatbed, a vehicle he was unaccustomed to driving. The vehicle was loaded with fivegallon buckets of paint, and with appliances. It was 3 a.m. on an unlit stretch of I-10, halfway between Phoenix and Casa Grande, Arizona. The speed limit in this area is 75 mph. Javier entered the freeway from the shoulder about a mile beyond the closest freeway on-ramp. When Javier entered the freeway, he did not have his lights on until he actually entered the lane,

-15-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 15 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

making him nearly invisible until he turned on his lights. In addition, although the other vehicles were traveling at or near the posted speed limit of 75 mph, Javier never attained a speed greater than 36 mph, a difference in speed of nearly 40 mph. For these reasons, he was contributorily negligent; and by reason of which Javier Sandate is comparatively at fault for the injuries to himself and to Jose Urrutia. · Javier Arturo Sandate-Urrutia loaded or helped to load the Urrutia vehicle, and exceeding the safe towing capacity of the Urrutia vehicle was contributory negligence for which Javier Sandate is comparatively at fault for the injuries to himself and to Jose Urrutia. 6. Assumption of risk by Javier Arturo Sandate-Urrutia. · Assuming Javier Arturo Sandate-Urrutia was driving, whether entering the roadway in front of fast moving traffic was an implied assumption of risk by Javier Arturo Sandate-Urrutia that an accident could occur with serious consequences. 7. Joint and Several Liability. · The acts, errors and negligence of Javier Sandate while authorized by permission granted to him by Jose Urruitia for the operation of the truck make Jose and Palma Urrutia jointly liable pursuant to A.R.S. §28-3163. J. WITNESSES. 1. Patricia Urrutia Baca c/o Montoya Jimenez, P.A. Patricia Urrutia Baca is expected to testify regarding her loss of consortium, as well as information relevant to the pain, suffering and anguish suffered by her mother, Palma Baca de Urrutia, resulting from the
-16-

Plaintiffs' Witnesses

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 16 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

loss of her husband. She will also testify regarding conversations she has had and information she has regarding the pain, suffering and anguish of Javier Arturo Urrutia and his wife, Gloria Estela Sandate. She will further testify regarding being informed of the demise of her father and her cousin. She will further testify regarding the general condition of her father's truck and his activities prior to departing to Mexico, as well as his driving habits. She will testify that she assisted in the identification of her father by advising DPS of the clothing her father was wearing and the fact that he had a large amount of cash with him in $100 bills. She will further testify that she and family members went to the scene and found personal items, including two chips from the Gila River Casino. Defendants object to the newly-described testimony by the above-listed witness pursuant to Rule 26, for non-disclosure, and pursuant to Rule 11. 2. Luis Javier Urrutia Baca c/o Montoya Jimenez, P.A. Luis Javier Urrutia Baca is expected to testify regarding his loss of consortium, as well as information relevant to the pain, suffering and anguish suffered by his mother, Palma Baca de Urrutia, resulting from the loss of her husband. He will also testify regarding conversations he has had and information he has regarding the pain, suffering and anguish of Javier Arturo Urrutia and his wife, Gloria Estela Sandate. He will further testify regarding being informed of the demise of his father and his cousin. He will further testify regarding the general condition of his father's truck and his activities prior to departing to Mexico, as well as his driving habits. 3. Elizabeth Urrutia-Baca c/o Montoya Jimenez, P.A.

Elizabeth Urrutia-Baca is expected to testify regarding her loss of consortium, as well as information relevant to the pain, suffering and anguish suffered by her mother, Palma Baca de Urrutia, resulting from the loss of her husband. She will also testify regarding conversations she has had and information she has regarding the pain, suffering and anguish of Javier Arturo Urrutia and his wife, Gloria Estela Sandate. She will further testify regarding being informed of the demise of her father and her cousin. She

-17-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 17 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

will further testify regarding the general condition of her father's truck and his activities prior to departing to Mexico, as well as his driving habits. 4. Palma Baca de Urrutia c/o Montoya Jimenez, P.A.

Ms. Baca is expected to testify regarding her loss of consortium and her pain, suffering and anguish, as well as that of her three adult children, Patricia and Luis Javier. She will also testify regarding her conversations with Javier Arturo Urrutia Arrieta and his wife regarding the loss of their minor son. She will further testify about the fact that her husband was carrying a wallet with large bills. That he had been to the casino during his stay in the Valley and that more than likely he stopped at the Gila River Casino to gamble on the evening preceding his death. That she too saw the two Gila River Casino chips at the scene of the accident. Defendants object to the newly-described testimony by the above-listed witness pursuant to Rule 26, for non-disclosure, and pursuant to Rule 11. 5. Javier Arturo Urrutia Arrieta c/o Montoya Jimenez, P.A.

Mr. Urrutia is expected to testify regarding his and his wife's loss of consortium claims, conversations with Palma, Luis and Patricia Urrutia. He will further testify that his son did not use a wallet. Defendants object to the newly-described testimony by the above-listed witness pursuant to Rule 26, for non-disclosure, and pursuant to Rule 11. 6. Gloria Estela Sandate c/o Montoya Jimenez, P.A.

Ms. Sandate is expected to testify regarding the loss of her husband and her loss of consortium, as well as the pain, suffering and anguish of her husband. She will further testify that her son did not use a wallet.

-18-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 18 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants object to the newly-described testimony by the above-listed witness pursuant to Rule 26, for non-disclosure, and pursuant to Rule 11. 7. Darrell Lee Ekdahl c/o Struckmeyer & Wilson

Mr. Ekdahl is expected to testify regarding his employment with Vandy's, his partial retirement, his normal schedule, his driving habits, his travel to Arizona and the crash. He will also testify about his actions before and after the crash. 8. George Vanden Bossche c/o Struckmeyer & Wilson

Mr. Vanden Bossche is expected to testify that he is a principal in Vandy's Transportation, Inc., that Ekdahl was an employee of Vandy's, that Vandy's is a motor carrier of bulk oil; and that he has to pay a use tax to each state Vandy's operates in or through. He will lay foundation for documents produced by Vandy's pursuant to Plaintiffs' Request for Production. 9. Dave Walker c/o Struckmeyer & Wilson

Mr. Walker is expected to testify that he is employed with Vandy's and lay foundation, if necessary, for documents produced by Vandy's. 10. Donna Bergman Concentra Medical Center 4800 South Park Avenue, Suite 5 Tucson, AZ 85714 520-889-9574

Ms. Bergman will testify regarding Concentra's testing procedures and lay foundation for admissible Concentra testing records. 11. Trooper B. Clark, #6083 Arizona DPS 2102 W. Encanto Blvd.
-19-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 19 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Phoenix, AZ 85009 602-223-2000 Trooper Clark is expected to testify regarding his role in the investigation of the subject crash and the preparation of any reports he may have authored. He is further expected to testify consistent with his deposition testimony that he is not an accident reconstructionist and that he simply reported what he saw and was told by Defendant Ekdahl. 12. Trooper M. Ortega, #3312 Arizona DPS 2102 W. Encanto Blvd. Phoenix, AZ 85009 602-223-2000

Trooper Ortega is expected to testify regarding his role in the investigation of the subject crash. 13. Trooper Heinrich, #5617 Arizona DPS 2102 W. Encanto Blvd. Phoenix, AZ 85009 602-223-2000

Trooper Heinrich is expected to testify regarding statements made to him by Defendant Ekdahl. 14. Officer Garcia, #42 Colorado River Indian Tribes Gila River Police Department Parker, AZ 85344 Officer Indorf, #K18 Colorado River Indian Tribes Gila River Police Department Parker, AZ 85344

15.

These officers are expected to testify consistent with their memory of their participation in the investigation of this accident and with any supplemental reports that they may have produced or any field notes they may have taken.
-20-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 20 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

16.

Alex Zhang, M.D. Maricopa County Medical Examiner's Office 120 S. Sixth Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85003

Dr. Zhang is expected to testify consistent with his autopsy report. 17. Vincent Como, Investigator Maricopa County Medical Examiner's Office 120 S. Sixth Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85003

Mr. Como is expected to testify regarding his investigation and involvement in this case. 18. Glenn Benner Address unknown 602-320-0508

Mr. Benner called 911 after witnessing the aftermath of the collision and is expected to testify consistent with his deposition testimony. 19. Ralph Bailey 10851 W. Harmony Lane Sun City, AZ 85373-8753 562-900-5199

Mr. Bailey called 911 after witnessing the apparent aftermath of the collision and is expected to testify consistent with his deposition testimony. 20. Kenneth R. Sutton Southwest Towing & Salvage P. O. Box 10593 Casa Grande, AZ 85230-0593 520-836-9269

Mr. Sutton will testify regarding the alteration of the semitractortanker and the washing of the tires.

-21-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 21 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21.

Lamont Skousen Lamont Skousen & Associates P. O. Box 2478 Gilbert, AZ 85229-2478 (480) 539-4626

Mr. Skousen will testify regarding his reconstruction of the crash, his qualifications and expert opinions previously disclosed in his reports. 22. William R. Uttal 3312 E. Coconino Street Phoenix, AZ 85044 480-893-8241

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dr. Uttal will testify regarding his qualifications and consistent with the report he authored, including opinions and his deposition testimony. 23. Gerald P. Krueger, Ph.D., CPE Krueger Ergonomics Consultants 4105 Komes Court Alexandria, VA 22306-1252 (703) 768-3421

Dr. Krueger, a human factors fatigue expert, will testify regarding his qualifications and consistent with the expert opinions contained in his report, the information he reviewed and consistent with his deposition testimony. 24. Cecil H. Lane, Jr. The SALT Institute 5251 N. 16th Street, Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85016-3236 (602) 841-2222

Mr. Lane will testify regarding his qualifications and opinions in this matter, the information he reviewed and consistent with his deposition testimony. 25. Alberto Sandate

-22-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 22 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Mr. Sandate is expected to testify regarding his knowledge of Javier Arturo Sandate Urrutia and Jose Luis Arrieta Urrutia's pre-trip activities. 26. Custodian of Records Pima County Medical Examiner

Expected to lay foundation for and authenticate preliminary death certificates. Defendants object to the above-listed witness pursuant to Rule 26, for non-disclosure. 27. Any other Custodians of Records necessary for foundation and/or authentication of documents/records. Defendants object to the above-listed witness pursuant to Rule 26, for non-disclosure. Defendants' Witnesses 1. Darrell Lee Ekdahl c/o Struckmeyer & Wilson

Mr. Darrell Lee Ekdahl is a defendant/fact witness. Mr. Ekdahl is subject to the court's subpoena power, and is likely to be called to testify. He is expected to testify consistent with his deposition testimony and as indicated in Defendants' Disclosure Statements. 2. George Vanden Bossche c/o Struckmeyer & Wilson

Mr. Vanden Bossche is a defendant/fact witness. Mr. Vanden Bossche is subject to the court's subpoena power, and is likely to be called to testify. He is expected to testify regarding the operations of Vandy's Transportation, the maintenance history of the tractor and trailer involved, the hiring of Darrell Ekdahl, and the dispatching of Darrell Ekdahl on the day of the accident. 3. Dave Walker c/o Struckmeyer & Wilson

-23-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 23 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Mr. Walker is a fact witness, subject to the court's subpoena power, and is likely to be called to testify. He is expected to testify regarding Vandy's Transportation's Risk and Safety Management Programs and the dispatching of Darrell Ekdahl on the day of the accident. 4. Trooper B. Clark, #6083 Arizona DPS 2102 W. Encanto Blvd. Phoenix, AZ 85009 602-223-2000

Trooper Clark is a fact witness, subject to the court's subpoena power, and is likely to be called to testify. He is expected to testify consistent with his report, DR #: 2003-039937, that Unit #1 driven by Jose Urrutia merged from the emergency lane into the slow lane of I-10 eastbound and into the path of Unit #2, driven by Darrell Ekdahl. That Darrell Ekdahl, input hard braking to avoid the collision, and started to merge into the fast lane but did not complete the merge prior to the impact. 5. Trooper M. Ortega, #3312 Arizona DPS 2102 W. Encanto Blvd. Phoenix, AZ 85009 602-223-2000

Trooper Ortega is a fact witness, subject to the court's subpoena power, and is likely to be called to testify. He is expected to testify consistent with his supplemental report, DR #: 2003-039937, regarding his commercial vehicle inspection of the tractor-trailer involved in this accident. That he noted no violations were discovered, including no discrepancies in Mr. Ekdahl's logbook and that no hazardous materials were being transported by Darrell Ekdahl for Vandy's Transportation. 6. Trooper Heinrich, #5617 Arizona DPS 2102 W. Encanto Blvd. Phoenix, AZ 85009 602-223-2000

25 26 27 28

-24-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 24 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Trooper Heinrich is a fact witness, subject to the court's subpoena power, and is likely to be called to testify. He is expected to testify consistent with their memory of their participation in the investigation of this accident and with any supplemental reports that they may have produced or any field notes they may have taken. 7. Officer Garcia, #42 Colorado River Indian Tribes Gila River Police Department Parker, AZ 85344

Officer Garcia is a fact witness, subject to the court's subpoena power, and is likely to be called to testify. He is expected to testify consistent with their memory of their participation in the investigation of this accident and with any supplemental reports that they may have produced or any field notes they may have taken. 8. Trooper R. Garcia, Jr., #5696 Arizona DPS 2102 W. Encanto Blvd. Phoenix, AZ 85009 602-223-2000

Trooper Garcia is a fact witness, subject to the court's subpoena power, and is likely to be called to testify. He is expected to testify regarding his role in the investigation of the subject collision. 9. Alex Zhang, M.D. Maricopa County Medical Examiner's Office 120 S. Sixth Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85003

Dr. Zhang is a fact witness, subject to the court's subpoena power, and is likely to be called to testify. He will render opinions consistent with the statements made in his June 23, 2006 Affidavit. Plaintiffs object to this witness's testimony based on Rule 26, Rule 37(c)(1), and as set forth in Plaintiffs' Response and Motion in Limine to Defendants' Supplemental Trial Brief: Notice of Newly Disclosed Evidence.
-25-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 25 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

10.

Glenn Benner Address unknown 602-320-0508

Glenn Benner is a fact witness. Because he has not been located, it is unknown whether he is subject to the court's subpoena power. Unless he is located, he will not be called to testify. Mr. Benner called 911 after witnessing the aftermath of the collision and is expected to testify consistent with his deposition testimony. 11. Ralph Bailey 10851 W. Harmony Lane Sun City, AZ 85373-8753 562-836-9269

Mr. Bailey is a fact witness, subject to the court's subpoena power, and is likely to be called to testify. He called 911 after witnessing the apparent aftermath of the collision and is expected to testify consistent with his deposition testimony. 12. Kenneth R. Sutton Southwest Towing & Salvage P.O. Box 10593 Casa Grande, AZ 85230-0593

Kenneth R. Sutton is a fact witness, subject to the court's subpoena power, and is unlikely to be called to testify. If Mr. Sutton testifies, he will testify regarding the condition of the tires. 13. William R. Uttal 3312 E. Coconino Street Phoenix, AZ 85044 480-893-8241

Dr. Uttal is defendants' expert witness, who is subject to the court's subpoena power. Defendants will call Dr. Uttal to testify consistent with the report he authored, including opinions and his deposition testimony.

-26-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 26 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

14.

Dennis Wylie, Forensic Human Factors Analysis\ c/o Struckmeyer & Wilson

Dennis Wylie is defendants' expert witness, who is subject to the court's subpoena power. Defendants will call Mr. Wylie to testify regarding his expert opinions, the information he reviewed and consistent with his deposition testimony. 15. Dr. Harry L. Sink, Transportation Expert c/o Struckmeyer & Wilson

Dr. Harry L. Sink is defendants' expert witness, who is subject to the court's subpoena power. Defendants will call Dr. Sink to testify regarding his expert opinions, the information he reviewed and consistent with his deposition testimony. 16. Stephen Werner, Accident Reconstructionist c/o Struckmeyer & Wilson

Stephen Werner is defendants' expert witness, who is subject to the court's subpoena power. Defendants will call Mr. Werner to testify regarding his expert opinions, the information he reviewed and consistent with his deposition testimony. 17. John E. Buehler, Ph.D. Economic Expert 2410 W. Ruthrauff, Suite 110V Tucson, Arizona 85705 (520) 888-8243

John E. Buehler is defendants' expert witness, who is subject to the court's subpoena power. Defendants will call Dr. Buehler to testify regarding his expert opinions, the information he reviewed and consistent with his deposition testimony. Objection: Relevance, Plaintiffs are not making lost wage claims. 18. Donna Bergman Concentra Medical Center 4800 South Park Avenue, Suite 5 Tucson, AZ 85714
-27-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 27 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

520-889-9574 Donna Bergman is a fact witness who is within the Court's subpoena trial. Ms. Bergman is likely to be called to testify if plaintiffs contend that defendant Ekdahl was not tested for drugs and alcohol following the accident, or that the results were not negative for the presence of drugs or alcohol. Bergman is a supervisor at Concentra Medical Center. Donna Bergman may provide testimony regarding the U.S. Department of Transportation Alcohol Testing form for the breath alcohol test that was conducted on Darrell Ekdahl on May 22, 2003. Donna Bergman will be able to provide testimony as to how to read the Federal drug testing and control form. 19. Alberto Sarate-Saveleta It is believed, however, that Mr. Sarate is a blood relation to the Plaintiffs and that the Plaintiffs know his phone number and address. Mr. Sarate is a fact witness. Mr. Sarate is unlikely to be called at trial unless he is found.

Mr. Sarate is expected to testify regarding his knowledge of Javier Arturo Sandate Urrutia and Jose Luis Arrieta Urrutia's pre-trip activities. 20. Thomas C. Knapp, Fire Marshal Gila River Fire Department Church and Pima Streets Sacaton, AZ 85247

Mr. Knapp is a fact witness, subject to the court's subpoena power, and is likely to be called to testify. As the Fire Marshal, Mr. Knapp will represent the Gila River Fire Department, and Gila River EMS and will testify regarding the activities of fire department and EMS personnel, including the reports prepared by these personnel in the ordinary course of business, in the performance of their duties. Plaintiffs object to the above-listed witness pursuant to Rule 26 nondisclosure. 21. Lt. Anthony Silver Gila River Fire Department Church and Pima Streets
-28-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 28 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Sacaton, AZ 85247 Lt. Silver is a fact witness, subject to the court's subpoena power, and is likely to be called to testify. Lt. Silver was present on the morning of the accident and and will testify regarding the activities of fire department and EMS personnel, including the reports prepared by these personnel in the ordinary course of business, in the performance of their duties. Plaintiffs object to the above-listed witness pursuant to Rule 26 nondisclosure. 22. Z. Chitwood, FF Gila River Fire Department Church & Pima Streets Sacaton, AZ 85247

The only reason this witness is being called is because plaintiff object to the calling of Thomas C. Knapp. This witness was disclosed in the Initial Disclosure Statement. 23. J. Boland, FF Gila River Fire Department Church & Pima Streets Sacaton, AZ 85247

The only reason this witness is being called is because plaintiff object to the calling of Thomas C. Knapp. This witness was disclosed in the Initial Disclosure Statement. 24. Ramsey, FF Gila River Fire Department Church & Pima Streets Sacaton, AZ 85247

The only reason this witness is being called is because plaintiff object to the calling of Thomas C. Knapp. This witness was disclosed in the Initial Disclosure Statement. 25. L. Burke, FF Gila River Fire Department
-29-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 29 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Church & Pima Streets Sacaton, AZ 85247 The only reason this witness is being called is because plaintiff object to the calling of Thomas C. Knapp. This witness was disclosed in the Initial Disclosure Statement. 26. M. Chischilly, FF Gila River Fire Department Church & Pima Streets Sacaton, AZ 85247

The only reason this witness is being called is because plaintiff object to the calling of Thomas C. Knapp. This witness was disclosed in the Initial Disclosure Statement. 27. M. Johnson, FF Gila River Fire Department Church & Pima Streets Sacaton, AZ 85247

The only reason this witness is being called is because plaintiff object to the calling of Thomas C. Knapp. This witness was disclosed in the Initial Disclosure Statement. 28. G. Mitchem, FF Gila River Fire Department Church & Pima Streets Sacaton, AZ 85247

The only reason this witness is being called is because plaintiff object to the calling of Thomas C. Knapp. This witness was disclosed in the Initial Disclosure Statement. 29. C. Lutton, CT Gila River Fire Department Church & Pima Streets Sacaton, AZ 85247

-30-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 30 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The only reason this witness is being called is because plaintiff object to the calling of Thomas C. Knapp. This witness was disclosed in the Initial Disclosure Statement. 30. G. Kyyitan, FF Gila River Fire Department Church & Pima Streets Sacaton, AZ 85247

The only reason this witness is being called is because plaintiff object to the calling of Thomas C. Knapp. This witness was disclosed in the Initial Disclosure Statement. J. Pierce, FF Gila River Fire Department Church & Pima Streets Sacaton, AZ 85247 The only reason this witness is being called is because plaintiff object to the calling of Thomas C. Knapp. This witness was disclosed in the Initial Disclosure Statement. 32. R. Sherwood, FF Gila River Fire Department Church & Pima Streets Sacaton, AZ 85247 31.

The only reason this witness is being called is because plaintiff object to the calling of Thomas C. Knapp. This witness was disclosed in the Initial Disclosure Statement. 33. J. Martin, LT Gila River Fire Department Church & Pima Streets Sacaton, AZ 85247

The only reason this witness is being called is because plaintiff object to the calling of Thomas C. Knapp. This witness was disclosed in the Initial Disclosure Statement. 34. Custodians of Record as needed for foundation
-31-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 31 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and/or authentication of documents/records. Plaintiffs object to the above-listed witness pursuant to Rule 26 nondisclosure. Each party understands that it is responsible for ensuring that the witnesses it wishes to call to testify are subpoenaed. Each party further understands that any witness a party wishes to call shall be listed on that party's list of witnesses above and that party cannot rely on that witness having been listed or subpoenaed by another party. 35. Vincent Como Investigator Maricopa County Medical Examiner's Office.

Will testify as to his involvement in the investigation, communication, findings, and conclusions he reached with DPS officers and Dr. Zhang. 36. Dr. Philip Keen Maricopa County Medical Examiner

Will testify to policies and procedures in the Maricopa County Medical Examiner's Office and foundation for admissibility of any and all DNA testing performed in this case. Plaintiffs object to defense witnesses listed above as 35 and 36. These witnesses have never been disclosed until July 17, 2006, and thus violate Rule 26 and the Court's Scheduling Order. Moreover, no DNA testing has been conducted. K. 1. LIST OF EXHIBITS. Admissible portions of Arizona DPS Departmental Report,

Plaintiffs' Exhibits inclusive of supplements and attachments, DR#2003-039937. (Objection: Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance) 2. Photographs of the accident scene and the vehicles involved taken by the Arizona DPS. (Objection: Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative,

-32-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 32 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Relevance, Stipulation by Plaintiffs' Counsel at time of Pretrial Conference not to show burned bodies; FRE 401-403) 3. 4. 5. Admissible portions of Gila River Fire Department Report. Gila River Dispatch Radio/Telephone Log. (Objection: Maricopa County Medical Examiner's Report #03-01653 (Objection: Hearsay, Foundation) Hearsay, Foundation) regarding Javier Arturo Sandate Urrutia. (Objection: Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance, Portions subject of expert testimony) 6. Maricopa County Medical Examiner's Report #03-01652 regarding Jose Luis Arrieta Urrutia. (Objection: Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance, Portions subject of expert testimony) 7. Hearsay) 8. Certificate of Death with Amendment of Javier Arturo Sandate Urrutia. (Objection to Amendments 447 & 441: Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance) 9. Certificate of Death with Amendment of Jose Luis Arrieta Urrutia. (Objection to Amendments 447 & 441: Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance) 10. 11. Greer-Wilson Funeral Home and Cremation Services invoice Maricopa County Medical Examiner's Report of Toxicological dated May 28, 2003, for total amount of $1,306.00. (No Objection) Examination regarding Javier Arturo Sandate Urrutia, report date July 16, 2003. (Objection: Foundation, Hearsay, Relevance) 12. Maricopa County Medical Examiner's Amendment to Medical Examiner's Report of Investigation regarding Jose Luis Arrieta Urrutia, date Documents produced by Southwest Towing and Salvage pursuant to Defendants' Subpoena Duces Tecum. (Objection: Foundation,

-33-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 33 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of amendment June 13, 2003. (Objection: Foundation, Hearsay, Relevance) 13. Receipt from Funeraria Santa Rosa for $2,000.00 for transporting Javier Arturo Urrutia Sandate and Jose L. Urrutia Arrieta's bodies to Mexico. (No Objection) 14. Greer-Wilson Funeral Home and Cremation Services dated May 22, 2003 with attached receipts numbers 785698 and 785699 each for $653.00 dated May 29, 2003. (No Objection) 15. Acta de Matrimonio of Luis Urrutia Arrieta and Palma Baca Vasquez. (Objection: Authenticity, Best Evidence, Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance, Vague, Ambiguous) 16. 17. Family photographs of the deceased with family members. Video entitled "The Alert Driver: A Trucker's Guide to Sleep, (Objection: Cumulative) Fatigue, and Rest in our 24-Hour Society." (Objection: Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Rule 26, Relevance) 18. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA Office of Motor Carriers, brochure entitled "Awake at the Wheel." (Objection: Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Rule 26, Relevance) 19. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-MC-99-140, "Effects of Operating Practices on Commercial Driver Alertness." (Objection: Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Rule 26, Relevance) 20. Gerald P. Krueger's Driver Alertness and Fatigue Course handout (2005) entitled "Recognizing Drowsy Driver Caution Warning Signals." (Objection: Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Rule 26, Relevance)

-34-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 34 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

21.

Gerald P. Krueger publication entitled "Mastering Alertness

and Managing Commercial Driver Fatigue." (Objection: Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Rule 26, Relevance) 22. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration publication entitled "Pilot Test of Fatigue Management Technologies," by Robert J. Carroll. (Objection: Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Rule 26, Relevance) 23. "Circadian Rhythm Desynchronosis, Jet Lag, Shit Lag, and Coping Strategies," by Carlos A. Comperatore, Ph.D. and Gerald P. Krueger, Ph.D. (Objection: Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Rule 26, Relevance) 24. American Transportation Research Institute instructor materials for "Understanding Fatigue and Alert Driving." (Objection: Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Rule 26, Relevance) 25. Demonstrative exhibit of the table contained at page 9 of Plaintiffs' trucking expert's report of June 29, 2005 (including pertinent pages from Defendant's exhibit). (Objection: Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance) 26. 27. 28. 29. C.v. of Lamont Skousen. (Objection: Foundation, Hearsay, C.v. of Cecil H. Lane, Jr. (Objection: Foundation, Hearsay, C.v. of Gerald P. Krueger. (Objection: Foundation, Hearsay, C.v. of Charles D. Roush, Jr. (Objection: Foundation, Cumulative, Relevance) Cumulative, Relevance) Cumulative, Relevance) Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance)

-35-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 35 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

30.

Defendants' supplemental responses to Plaintiffs' Request for

Production. (Objection: FRE 403, Vague, Ambiguous, Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance) 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Ekdahl's log sheets. (Objection: Vague, Ambiguous, Driver Road Test for Ekdahl. Fuel logs (February through May). Ekdahl's pay records. Deposition of Ekdahl. (Impeachment only.) (Objection: FRE Deposition of Stephen M. Werner. (Impeachment only.) Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance)

403, Vague, Ambiguous, Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance) (Objection: FRE 403, Vague, Ambiguous, Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance) 37. Letter from defense counsel to Stephen M. Werner regarding no vehicle next to Ekdahl's semitractor-tanker. (Objection: FRE 403, Vague, Ambiguous, Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance) 38. Deposition of Ralph Bailey. (If unavailable in person or to refresh recollection.) (Objection: FRE 403, Vague, Ambiguous, Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance) 39. Deposition of Glenn Dennis Benner. (If unavailable in person or to refresh recollection.) (Objection: FRE 403, Vague, Ambiguous, Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance) 40. Relevance) 41. Deposition of Trooper Clark. (Impeachment only or to refresh recollection.) (Objection: FRE 403, Vague, Ambiguous, Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance) Deposition of Harry Sink. (Impeachment only.) (Objection: FRE 403, Vague, Ambiguous, Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative,

-36-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 36 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

42. 43. 2003. 44.

Exhibits to deposition of Trooper Clark. (Objection: Vague, Bills of lading and associated documents for February-May Reconstruction drawings prepared by Lamont Skousen, as per

Ambiguous, Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance)

officer/Ekdahl. (Objection: FRE 403, Vague, Ambiguous, Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance) 45. Reconstruction drawing by Lamont Skousen as per evidence. (Objection: FRE 403, Vague, Ambiguous, Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance) 46. Relevance) 47. Report prepared by Harry Sink. (Impeachment only.) (Objection: FRE 403, Vague, Ambiguous, Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance) 48. Report prepared by Dennis Wylie. (Impeachment only.) (Objection: FRE 403, Vague, Ambiguous, Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance) 49. 50. C.v. of Harry Sink for impeachment only. (Objection: FRE Concentra Medical Center Noninjury Status Report. 403, Vague, Ambiguous, Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance) (Objection: FRE 403, Vague, Ambiguous, Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance) 51. Concentra Medical Center payment receipt-admission. (Objection: FRE 403, Vague, Ambiguous, Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance) 52. Shell OPUS truck manifest no. 2067. Reports prepared by Stephen Werner. (Impeachment only.) (Objection: Vague, Ambiguous, Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative,

-37-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 37 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

53. 54. 55. (Stipulated) 56. 57. (Stipulated) 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. (Stipulated) 65. 66. 67. (Stipulated) 68.

Shell OPUS truck manifest no. 2068. Bill of lading/delivery February 3, 2003, through May 22, 2003 Vandy's Transportation, Inc., bill dated May 22, 2003. PacTox report no. 0504234. (Objection: Vague, Ambiguous, Curt's Mobile Service documents nos. 00099, 00136 ­ 00144. Dispatch sheet no. 00082. (Stipulated) Photographs taken by Defendants, no. 00002, 00009, 00010, Breath alcohol testing form no. 263829. (Stipulated) Driver's daily logs/vehicle inspection reports, March 28, 2003, Individual vehicle mileage record log. (Stipulated) Safety Compliance report terminal record no. 00083 ­ 00085. Employee time sheet for Darrell Ekdahl no. 00081. Vehicle fuel unit cost summary no. 00079. (Stipulated) Fuel receipts nos. 00106 & 00107. (Stipulated) Vandy's Transportation payroll summary for May 2003. "Delta-V Analysis from Crash Test Data for Vehicles with

(110 pages). (Stipulated)

Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Relevance)

00020 ­ 00024. (Objection: Foundation, Cumulative, Relevance)

through May 22, 2003. (Stipulated)

(Impeachment only) (Stipulated)

Post-Impact Yaw Motion," by Micky C. Marine & Stephen M. Werner, Advances in Safety Technology (SP-1321), SAE Technical Paper Series,

-38-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 38 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

February 23-26, 1998. (Objection: FRE 403, Foundation, Cumulative, Relevance, Hearsay) 69. (Stipulated) 70. Arizona Traffic Accident Report, accident measurement supplement to report no. 2003-039937. (Objection: Foundation, Cumulative, Relevance, Hearsay) 71. 72. 73. 74. (Stipulated) 75. 76. 77. 78. Vandy's tanker worksheet dated May 15-May 22, 2003 (4 Photographs of decedent Javier Arturo Sandate-Urrutia and his Photographs of decedent Jose Luis Urrutia-Arrieta and his For demonstrative purposes, copy of FMCSR §392.3 and 395.3 pages). (Stipulated) family. (Objection: Duplicative, Cumulative, Relevance) Rule403 FRE family. (Objection: Duplicative, Cumulative, Relevance) Rule403 FRE and other parts of the FMCSR. (Objection: FRE 403, Relevance, Cumulative.) 79. Preliminary Death Report for Javier Urrutia, Pinal County Medial Examiner. (Objection: FRE 401-403, Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Subject of expert testimony) (Rule 26) Individual vehicle mileage records for February through May Dispatch Sheet (May 18 ­ May 28). (Stipulated) Fuel receipt dated May 21, 2003. (Stipulated) Vandy's driver's wages publication dated January 22, 2001. 2003. (Stipulated) Traffic Accident Witness Statement of Darrell Ekdahl to Arizona Department of Public Safety prepared by Officer B. Clark.

-39-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 39 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

80.

Preliminary Death Report for Jose Urrutia, Pinal County

Medical Examiner. (Objection: FRE 401-403, Foundation, Hearsay, Cumulative, Subject of expert testimony) (Rule 26) Plaintiffs object to Defendants' attempt to list documentary evidence while reserving the right to object. Plaintiffs believe this to be a waiver to any objection by Defendants to any evidence incorporated by reference. Defendants' Exhibits 1 Police Report and Supplements with Insurance Information Redacted, to include DPS Dispatch Log and 911 Logs, as well as DPS Communication Status Sheet. Objection, Hearsay, FRE 403, Foundation. 2 Safety Compliance Report/Terminal Record Update for Vandy's Transportation, 3 pages bate stamp 00083-85 (Redacted for Consortium). Objection, Hearsay, Foundation, Relevance. 3 4 5 7 8 9 Vandy's Individual Vehicle Mileage Record for February, March, April, May, 4 pages. Stipulate. Vandy's Employee Time Sheet for May 11 through May 24, 2003, 1 page bate stamp 00081. Stipulate. Vandy's Vehicle Fuel Unit Cost Summary, 1 page May 2003, bate stamp 00079. Stipulate. Vandy's Transportation Payroll Summary, May 2003, 1 page bate stamp 00078. Stipulate. Fuel Logs for February, March, April, May, 4 pages. Stipulate. Gila River Fire Department Report bate stamp 00304-00318, and Information Release Form signed by Fire Marshall Thomas Knapp. Stipulate. 10 Gila River Dispatch Radio/Telephone Log, 3 pages bate stamp

-40-

Case 2:03-cv-01990-PGR

Document 163

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 40 of 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

00319-321. Objection, Foundation. 11 12 Fuel receipts dating from February 2003 up to May 19, 2003. Stipulate. Photographs, 8x10, 37, depicting the Urrutia vehicle at various locations, some with measurements. Cumulative. 13 Photographs of Vandy's tractor, full page, 13 pages, and 57 photographs of Urrutia vehicle, full pages, some with measurements. Stipulate. 14 37 photographs, full page, depicting Vandy's tractor, followed by 12 photographs depicting tires purportedly taken from Vandy's tractor and placed on a different tractor at the salvage yard. 15 16 11 photographs of tires purportedly taken from Vandy's truck and placed onto a different truck at the salvage yard. Photographs of Urrutia vehicle taken at salvage yard, 37, depicting Urrutia vehicle from various angles, some with measurements, and also depicting items which presumably were recovered from the Urrutia vehicle, including numerous 5 gallon plastic paint cans. 17 Photographs, full page, depicting Vandy's tractor from various angles, some with measurements, 37 photographs. Hearsay, Cumulative, Foundation