in Re Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.

FILED IN st 1 COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TX 12/07/2015 CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE, NO. CLERK IN THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS at HOUSTON, TEXAS ______________________________________________ In re ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., Relator ______________________________________________ Original Proceeding From The 11th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas Cause No. 2014-34635 ______________________________________________ RELATOR’S RECORD (Part 1 of 4) R0001-R0319 ______________________________________________ COATS & EVANS, P.C. George Andrew Coats State Bar No. 00783846 E-mail: coats@texasaviationlaw.com Gary Linn Evans State Bar No. 00795338 E-mail: evans@texasaviationlaw.com Carrie M. McKerley State Bar No. 24056625 Email: mckerley@texasaviationlaw.com P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, Texas 77393-0246 Telephone: (281) 367-7732 Facsimile: (281) 367-8003 EMERGENCY RELIEF REQUESTED ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED  RECORD RECORD NO. DATE DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. 1. 12/04/2015 Affidavit of Carrie M. McKerley certifying true N/A and correct copies of record documents 2. 06/16/2014 Plaintiffs’ Original Petition. R0001- R0019 3. 06/16/2014 Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests to R0020- Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. R0036 4. 08/11/2014 Helicopter Services, Inc.’s Original Answer and R0037- Request for Disclosure. R0039 5. 08/11/2014 Original Answer of the Estate of Christopher R0040- Yeager, Deceased, and Request for Disclosure. R0042 6. 08/18/2014 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Original R0043- Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition. R0049 7. 09/30/2014 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s R0050- Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ First R0085 Discovery Requests. 8. 12/11/2014 Docket Control Order. R0086- R0088 9. 03/19/2015 Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Continuance R0089- and for Entry of Docket Control Order. R0095 10. 03/20/2015 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Robinson R0096- Helicopter Company’s Responses to First R0137 Discovery Requests, and Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections. 11. 03/20/2015 Plaintiffs’ Designation of Expert Witnesses and R0138- Expert Reports. R0271 12. 03/23/2015 Order Granting Continuance. R0272 13. 04/28/2015 Agreed Amended Docket Control Order. R0273- R0274 14. 05/07/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s R0275- Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel R0290 Responses to First Discovery Requests, and Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections. 15. 05/20/2015 Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition. R0291- R0319 16. 06/01/2015 Amended Agreed Protective Order. R0320- R0328 17. 06/15/2015 Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production to R0329- Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. R0340 18. 07/10/2015 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and for Sanctions. R0341- R0349 19. 07/15/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s R0350- Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Second R0375 Discovery Requests. 20. 07/22/2015 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Robinson R0376- Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Responses to R0422 Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production and Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections. 21. 07/24/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s First R0423- Amended Responses and Objections to R0456 Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests. 22. 08/07/2015 Plaintiffs’ Amended Designation of Expert R0457- Witnesses and Expert Reports. R0555 23. 08/11/2015 Plaintiffs’ Third Requests for Production to R0556- Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. R0561 24. 08/12/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Response R0562- to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Robinson R0664 Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production and Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections. 25. 08/12/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Response R0665- to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and for R0682 Sanctions. 26. 08/21/2015 Motion to Quash Subpoena and Notice of R0683- Deposition by Written Questions. R0696 27. 08/24/2015 Deposition Subpoena to Testify or Produce R0697- Documents. R0702 28. 08/27/2015 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Deposition R0703- Transcript. R0719 29. 08/28/2015 Supreme Court of Texas Grant of Motion for R0720- Limited Emergency Stay. R0721 30. 09/04/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Response R0722- to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Deposition R0740 Transcripts. 31. 09/08/2015 Plaintiffs’ Reply to the Response of Robinson R0741- Helicopter Company, Inc.to Plaintiffs’ Motion R0752 to Compel Deposition Transcripts. 32. 09/10/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s R0753- Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Third R0765 Discovery Requests. 33. 09/14/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s R0766- Designation of Expert Witnesses and Expert R0821 Reports. 34. 09/14/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s First R0822- Amended Responses and Objections to R0845 Plaintiffs’ Second Discovery Requests. 35. 09/22/2015 Order Denying Motion to Quash Subpoena. R0846 36. 09/23/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Motion R0847- to Reconsider or in the Alternate, Motion to R0854 Clarify. 37. 09/30/2015 Reporter’s Record of September 30, 2015 R0855- hearing. R1016 38. 11/05/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Motion R1017- for Leave to Designate Responsible Third R1022 Parties. 39. 11/10/2015 Plaintiffs’ Response to Robinson Helicopter R1023- Company, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to Designate R1026 Responsible Third Parties. 40. 11/17/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Motion R1027- for Continuance. R1045 41. 11/17/2015 Trial Preparation Order. R1046- R1048 42. 11/18/2015 Plaintiffs’ Objection to the Motion for R1049- Continuance of Robinson Helicopter Company, R1053 Inc. 43. 11/19/2015 Order Granting Motion to Take Judicial Notice, R1054- Granting Objection to Production Requests in R1060 Part; Granting Discovery in Part. 44. 11/20/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company Inc's R1061- Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition of Dr. R1065 Joseph Burton. 45. 11/20/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc's R1066- Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition of R1070 William D. Carden M.S. P. E. 46. 11/20/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company Inc's R1071- Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition of R1075 William S. Lawrence. 47. 11/20/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company Inc's R1076- Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition of Colin R1080 A Sommer, P.E. 48. 11/25/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, R1081- Inc.'s Motion for Reconsideration of Order R1274 Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Contingent Motion to Stay Pending Mandamus. 49. 11/27/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company Inc.’s R1275- Motion to Bifurcate Trial on Exemplary R1282 Damages. 50. 11/27/2015 Notice of Deposition of Dr. Stephen K. Wilson. R1283- R1284 51. 11/30/2015 Order Denying Trial Continuance. R1285- R1287 52. 11/30/2015 Order Denying Leave To Designate R1288 Responsible 3rd Party. 53. 11/30/2015 Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash Notice of Oral and R1289- Videotaped Deposition of Dr. Stephen K. R1296 Wilson. 54. 12/2/2015 Exhibit List from Court Reporter (pursuant to R1297 September 30, 2015 hearing). 55. Reporter’s Record of August 17, 2015 hearing. R1298- R1314 56. Reporter’s Record from November 30, 2015 R1315- hearing. R1326  NO. IN RE ROBINSON § IN THE FOURTEENTH HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC. § § Original Proceeding From the § COURT OF APPEALS th 11 Judicial Court of § Harris County, Texas § Cause No. 2014-34635 § HOUSTON, TEXAS AFFIDAVIT OF CARRIE M. MCKERLEY THE STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF WALLER § “My name is Carrie M. McKerley. I am over eighteen years of age, have never been convicted of a felony, and am fully competent to make this affidavit. I have personal knowledge of the statements contained herein, which are all true and correct. I am an attorney with the law firm of Coats & Evans, P.C. and represent Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. (“Robinson”) in this action. The attached materials, numbered R0001 – R1326, are true and correct copies of the following materials from the record: RECORD NO. DATE DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. 1. 12/04/2015 Affidavit of Carrie M. McKerley certifying true N/A and correct copies of record documents 2. 06/16/2014 Plaintiffs’ Original Petition. R0001- R0019 3. 06/16/2014 Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests to R0020- Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. R0036 4. 08/11/2014 Helicopter Services, Inc.’s Original Answer and R0037- Request for Disclosure. R0039 5. 08/11/2014 Original Answer of the Estate of Christopher R0040- Yeager, Deceased, and Request for Disclosure. R0042 6. 08/18/2014 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Original R0043- Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition. R0049 7. 09/30/2014 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s R0050- Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ First R0085 Discovery Requests. 8. 12/11/2014 Docket Control Order. R0086- R0088 9. 03/19/2015 Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Continuance R0089- and for Entry of Docket Control Order. R0095 10. 03/20/2015 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Robinson R0096- Helicopter Company’s Responses to First R0137 Discovery Requests, and Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections. 11. 03/20/2015 Plaintiffs’ Designation of Expert Witnesses and R0138- Expert Reports. R0271 12. 03/23/2015 Order Granting Continuance. R0272 13. 04/28/2015 Agreed Amended Docket Control Order. R0273- R0274 14. 05/07/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s R0275- Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel R0290 Responses to First Discovery Requests, and Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections. 15. 05/20/2015 Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition. R0291- R0319 2 16. 06/01/2015 Amended Agreed Protective Order. R0320- R0328 17. 06/15/2015 Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production to R0329- Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. R0340 18. 07/10/2015 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and for Sanctions. R0341- R0349 19. 07/15/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s R0350- Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Second R0375 Discovery Requests. 20. 07/22/2015 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Robinson R0376- Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Responses to R0422 Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production and Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections. 21. 07/24/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s First R0423- Amended Responses and Objections to R0456 Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests. 22. 08/07/2015 Plaintiffs’ Amended Designation of Expert R0457- Witnesses and Expert Reports. R0555 23. 08/11/2015 Plaintiffs’ Third Requests for Production to R0556- Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. R0561 24. 08/12/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Response R0562- to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Robinson R0664 Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production and Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections. 25. 08/12/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Response R0665- to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and for R0682 Sanctions. 3 26. 08/21/2015 Motion to Quash Subpoena and Notice of R0683- Deposition by Written Questions. R0696 27. 08/24/2015 Deposition Subpoena to Testify or Produce R0697- Documents. R0702 28. 08/27/2015 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Deposition R0703- Transcript. R0719 29. 08/28/2015 Supreme Court of Texas Grant of Motion for R0720- Limited Emergency Stay. R0721 30. 09/04/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Response R0722- to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Deposition R0740 Transcripts. 31. 09/08/2015 Plaintiffs’ Reply to the Response of Robinson R0741- Helicopter Company, Inc.to Plaintiffs’ Motion R0752 to Compel Deposition Transcripts. 32. 09/10/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s R0753- Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Third R0765 Discovery Requests. 33. 09/14/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s R0766- Designation of Expert Witnesses and Expert R0821 Reports. 34. 09/14/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s First R0822- Amended Responses and Objections to R0845 Plaintiffs’ Second Discovery Requests. 35. 09/22/2015 Order Denying Motion to Quash Subpoena. R0846 36. 09/23/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Motion R0847- to Reconsider or in the Alternate, Motion to R0854 Clarify. 4 37. 09/30/2015 Reporter’s Record of September 30, 2015 R0855- hearing. R1016 38. 11/05/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Motion R1017- for Leave to Designate Responsible Third R1022 Parties. 39. 11/10/2015 Plaintiffs’ Response to Robinson Helicopter R1023- Company, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to Designate R1026 Responsible Third Parties. 40. 11/17/2015 Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Motion R1027- for Continuance. R1045 41. 11/17/2015 Trial Preparation Order. R1046- R1048 42. 11/18/2015 Plaintiffs’ Objection to the Motion for R1049- Continuance of Robinson Helicopter Company, R1053 Inc. 43. 11/19/2015 Order Granting Motion to Take Judicial Notice, R1054- Granting Objection to Production Requests in R1060 Part; Granting Discovery in Part. 44. 11/20/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company Inc.’s R1061- Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition of Dr. R1065 Joseph Burton. 45. 11/20/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, R1066- Inc.’s Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition of R1070 William D. Carden M.S. P. E. 46. 11/20/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company Inc.’s R1071- Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition of R1075 William S. Lawrence. 5 47. 11/20/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company Inc.’s R1076- Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition of Colin R1080 A Sommer, P.E. 48. 11/25/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, R1081- Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order R1274 Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Contingent Motion to Stay Pending Mandamus. 49. 11/27/2015 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company Inc.’s R1275- Motion to Bifurcate Trial on Exemplary R1282 Damages. 50. 11/27/2015 Notice of Deposition of Dr. Stephen K. Wilson. R1283- R1284 51. 11/30/2015 Order Denying Trial Continuance. R1285- R1287 52. 11/30/2015 Order Denying Leave To Designate R1288 Responsible 3rd Party. 53. 11/30/2015 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash Notice of Oral and R1289- Videotaped Deposition of Dr. Stephen K. R1296 Wilson. 54. 12/2/2015 Exhibit List from Court Reporter (pursuant to R1297 September 30, 2015 hearing). 55. Reporter’s Record of August 17, 2015 hearing. 56. Reporter’s Record from November 30, 2015 hearing. 6  Further Affiant sayeth not. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this 4th day of December, 2015, to certify which witness my hand and official seal of office. ,sotVi14', ,,, ALICE C MARTINEZ •*.TAI Notary Public. State of Texas Notary Public in and for the St "aigaf Texas My Commission Expires September 28, 2019 6  6/16/2014 4:53:49 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No: 1554748 2014-34635 / Court: 011 By: CUERO, NELSON CAUSE NO. ________________ NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and as Personal Representative of the § Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates and Nathan M. Ates § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF V. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § ______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT INC. , HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. and the Estate of § CHRISTOPHER YEAGER PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased, Sonia Ates and Nathan M. Ates, hereinafter referred to as Plaintiffs complaining of ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC., and Paula Yeager, Representative of the ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER YEAGER, showing the Court as follows, to-wit: I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.4, Plaintiffs intend for discovery to be conducted under a level three (3) discovery control plan. Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court prepare a docket control order pursuant to Plaintiffs request for a level three (3) discovery control plan. -1- R0001  II. PARTIES Plaintiff, Nathan S. Ates, is a resident of Louisiana. Plaintiff, Sonia Ates, is a resident of Harris County, Texas. Plaintiff, Nathan M Ates, is a resident of Oklahoma. Defendant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. (Hereinafter referred to as “Robinson”), is a California corporation. Robinson engages in business in the State of Texas, but does not maintain a regular place of business nor a designated agent upon whom service may be had upon causes of action arising out of such business being performed in this State. This suit arises out of business done on a regular basis by Robinson in this state. No service is requested at this time. Defendant, Helicopter Services, Inc., is a Texas corporation doing business in the State of Texas with its principal place of business in Harris County, Texas. No service is requested at this time. Defendant, Paula Yeager, Representative of the Estate of Christopher Yeager, Deceased, is a resident of Texas and is represented by legal counsel, Robert E. Ammons and Bennett A. Midlo, Ammons & Associates, 3700 Montrose Boulevard, Houston, Harris County, Texas 77006. No service is requested at this time. III. Venue is proper and maintainable in Harris County, Texas since all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim herein occurred in said county, where -2- R0002 defendant, Helicopter Services, Inc., has its principal place of business. Moreover, because venue is proper in Harris County, Texas as to Defendants, Helicopter Services, Inc. and Paula Yeager, Representative of the Estate of Christopher Yeager, Deceased, venue is also proper to defendant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., pursuant to Section 15.005 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, which provides that when venue is proper as to one defendant, it is proper as to all defendants and all claims. This court has jurisdiction by reason of the above and as Plaintiffs’ damages exceed the minimum jurisdictional requirements of this court. IV. It has become necessary to file this civil suit to collect a legal debt and damages due and owing Plaintiffs as a result of the death of their wife and mother, Joyce A. Ates, on or about September 10, 2012, at which time Joyce A. Ates was a passenger in a Robinson R22 Beta helicopter being piloted by Christopher Yeager. Mr. Yeager, a pilot working in the course and scope of his employment for Helicopter Services, Inc., was providing Joyce A. Ates with services in the form of helicopter transportation for aerial observation over sites in Harris County, Texas. Decedent Yeager was piloting a 2007 Robinson R22 Beta II helicopter bearing serial number 4250 and registration no. N281RG (the subject helicopter) during a flight originating from the Baytown Airport, Baytown, Texas at approximately 3:00 p.m., according to air safety investigators, on September 10, 2012. Joyce A. Ates was a passenger in the helicopter. -3- R0003  According to information developed by the National Transportation Safety Board, witnesses observed the helicopter spinning slowly around the main rotor shaft and descending straight down. Witnesses stated that the main rotor blades were turning slowly and were not deflected upward and the tail rotor did not appear to be turning. The helicopter then impacted the ground at approximately 3:30 p.m., causing a large dust cloud. According to the investigation, within a minute, the helicopter ignited in a fireball, preventing rescue attempts by witnesses on the scene and consuming both Yeager and Ates. The subject helicopter came to rest upright on a heading of 195 degrees magnetic on a dirt road located in a steel pipe storage yard in Harris County, Texas. The entirety of the aircraft was reportedly accounted for at the site, with the fuselage consumed by the fire. The skids were spread and level with the belly of the fuselage. The body of the subject helicopter was listed to the right. Joyce Ates suffered injuries which resulted in her death. At all times material hereto, Christopher Yeager, Deceased, was the pilot of the helicopter involved herein, and an employee of Helicopter Services, Inc. At all times material hereto, Defendant, HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC., owned, maintained and managed the subject helicopter and was the employer of Christopher Yeager. HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. is a factory authorized ROBINSON service center employing technicians trained and certified by Robinson, directly, to perform all scheduled maintenance, inspections, repair and overhaul of all versions of the R-22, R-44, and R-66 helicopter models. -4- R0004  HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. is an agent and contractor for ROBINSON and as such, its acts, conduct and omissions were under the actual, implied or apparent authority of Defendant, ROBINSON. ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC. designed manufactured and sold the Robinson R-22 Beta Helicopter involved in this suit. ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC. is a “prime partner” of HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. V. Plaintiffs are proper parties under Texas law to bring this suit arising out of the injuries and subsequent death of Joyce A. Ates, pursuant to the Texas Wrongful Death Act and the Texas Survival Statute. Plaintiffs seek and are entitled to recover actual and exemplary damages from Defendants under Texas law. Plaintiffs seek and are entitled to recover all legally allowable damages from Defendants. VI. Plaintiffs would show that the crash was caused by the negligence and/or gross negligence and/or malice of the Defendant, ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., and such negligence includes, but is not limited to the following: Defendant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. , was negligent in its design, manufacture, assembly and inspection of the R22 Beta helicopter. Defendant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., failed to adequately test the subject helicopter. -5- R0005  Defendant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., negligently and without performing proper tests and inspections, introduced the subject helicopter into the stream of commerce in a defective condition that rendered it inferior, unsuitable and unsafe when used for its intended purposes. Defendant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., was negligent through acts and omissions by and through its agents, servants and/or employees, acting in the course and scope of their respective employments, individually and/or collectively. As a direct and proximate result of Robinson Helicopter Company’s negligence/gross negligence/malice Joyce Ates suffered injuries resulting in her death on September 10, 2012. VII. Plaintiffs would show that the crash was caused by the negligence and/or gross negligence and/or malice of the Defendant, HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC., and such negligence includes, but is not limited to the following: Defendant, Helicopter Services, Inc., failed to adequately train its pilot, Christopher Yeager, for proficiency in operating the subject helicopter. Defendant, Helicopter Services, Inc., negligently and without performing proper upkeep, maintenance, service, retrofitting, tests and inspections, allowed persons such as Joyce Ates to utilize the subject helicopter in a defective condition that rendered it inferior, unsuitable and unsafe; Defendant, Helicopter Services, Inc., was negligent through acts and omissions by and through its agents, servants and/or employees, acting in the course and scope of their respective employments, individually and/or collectively. -6- R0006  As a direct and proximate result of Helicopter Services, Inc.’s negligence/gross negligence/malice, Joyce Ates suffered injuries resulting in her death on September 10, 2012. VIII. Plaintiffs would show that the crash was caused by the negligence and/or gross negligence and/or malice of the pilot, Christopher Yeager, and such negligence includes, but is not limited to the following: Christopher Yeager failed to follow mandated testing and protocols regarding operation of the Robinson R22 Beta helicopter he was piloting at the time of the incident subject of this suit. Plaintiffs would further show that Yeager failed to employ appropriate helicopter piloting techniques to avoid a high velocity crash landing, failed to control the helicopter and as such, his operation of the helicopter in which Joyce Ates was a passenger, negligently caused and/or contributed to the incident subject of this suit. Christopher Yeager failed to maintain controlled flight under power and as a result, the helicopter crashed and burned. Yeager failed to appropriately employ emergency maneuvers so as to control the craft, and avoid injuries and death to Mrs. Ates. Further, Yeager failed to safely bring the craft to rest after an apparent loss of power and avoid a high velocity impact which caused the craft to explode and burn. As a direct and proximate result of Christopher Yeager’s negligence/gross negligence/malice, Joyce Ates suffered injuries resulting in her death on September 10, 2012. -7- R0007  IX. The subject helicopter, which was designed, manufactured, assembled and sold by Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., was at all times material hereto, defective and unsafe for its intended purpose. At the time of the incident in question, the subject helicopter proved not to be airworthy because of both design and mechanical defects and problems that lead to a loss of tail rotor control, drive or effectiveness, and which made control of the aircraft difficult to regain, once lost. Additionally, the subject helicopter’s rotors lost inertia and the helicopter’s aluminum fuel tanks’ failed to resist post accident fuel leaks and the resulting fire. Robinson, from prior crash analyses, was fully aware that unlined fuel tanks posed an unreasonable risk of harm to occupants in the aircraft, and had issued a safety bulletin for a portion of its fleet for this very circumstance. The helicopter in question had not been retrofitted with an alternative fuel bladder to avoid post impact fires. At the time of the crash, the helicopter was in the same or substantially similar condition it was in when leaving the possession of Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., and it was being used for its intended purpose. Plaintiff contends that the defective helicopter was a producing cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages. As a direct and proximate result of the defective conditions of the subject helicopter, Joyce Ates suffered injuries resulting in her death on September 10, 2012. X. Defendant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., intentionally ignored the necessity for incorporation of alternative designs, mechanical components and/or safety/redundancy features -8- R0008 that would prevent or mitigate rotor failures and /or ineffectiveness. Defendant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., intentionally ignored the necessity for incorporation of alternative designs, mechanical components and/or safety/redundancy features that would prevent or mitigate fuel tank failures causing post crash ignition and fires, such as the one subject of this suit. Defendant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., intentionally ignored the necessity for proper testing and inspection of the subject helicopter, including advice and warning to potential users; Defendant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., intentionally ignored limitation of the purposes for use of the subject helicopter while knowing of its shortcomings and poor safety record. As a direct and proximate result of the above-stated willful, wanton and malicious activities of Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive damages over and above the actual damages prayed for in this action. XI. Defendant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. was grossly negligent in the following respects, and such conduct was a proximate cause of the incident, Joyce Ates’ injuries and death and Plaintiffs’ resulting damages: a. Failing to perform proper safety analyses regarding the subject helicopter model, including failing to incorporate alternative designs, components and/or features preventing rotor failures and ineffectiveness; b. Failing to perform proper safety analyses regarding the subject helicopter model, -9- R0009  including failing to incorporate alternative designs, components and/or features preventing fuel tank failures and ineffectiveness; and c. Failing to properly test and inspect the subject helicopter and advise, correct and warn of the specific hazards involved in operation of the subject helicopter model. Defendant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., was grossly negligent and acted with malice in failing to properly analyze safety data, perform safety analyses, incorporate alternative designs, components and features preventing rotor and fuel tank failures and ineffectiveness and/or to properly test and inspect the helicopter including correction and warnings of specific hazards involved with its operation. XII. Defendant, Helicopter Services, Inc., was aware of the particular hazards and risks involved in operation of the Robinson R22 Beta helicopter and of its safety reputation, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, welfare and safety of others, including Joyce Ates, in offering the helicopter and its pilot for hire. Defendant, Helicopter Services, Inc.’s conduct constitutes gross negligence and malice as those terms are defined and understood in Texas law because it reflects such an entire want of care as to establish that the acts and/or omissions complained of resulted from actual conscious indifference to the rights, welfare and/or safety of the persons affected by said conduct. The conduct of Helicopter Services, Inc., created an extreme risk of harm to Joyce Ates about which Defendant had an actual subjective awareness. Such grossly negligent conduct was a proximate cause of the death of Joyce Ates and the damages and losses suffered by Plaintiffs. -10- R0010  Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek punitive damages from Defendant, Helicopter Services, Inc. XIII. Defendant, Helicopter Services, Inc., was negligent and grossly negligent in the following respects, and such conduct was a proximate cause of the incident, Joyce Ates’ injuries and death and Plaintiffs’ resulting damages: a. Failing to perform proper safety analyses regarding the subject helicopter model; b. Failing to insure that proper safety programs and training were in place; c. Failing to properly advise, correct and warn of the specific hazards involved in operation of the subject helicopter model; and, d. Failing to properly inspect and/or maintain the subject helicopter. Defendant, Helicopter Services, Inc., was grossly negligent and acted with malice in failing to properly analyze safety data, train operators, inspect and maintain the subject helicopter in order to provide a safe, hazard-free aircraft. XIV. Defendant, Christopher Yeager, Deceased, was grossly negligent and acted with malice in failing to properly provide an appropriate and safe aircraft for use by Joyce Ates, as well as failing to undergo specialized and specific ongoing training necessary for the helicopter’s safe operation. Defendant, Christopher Yeager, Deceased, was aware of the particular hazards and risks involved in operation of the Robinson R22 Beta helicopter and of its poor safety reputation, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, welfare and safety of others, including Joyce Ates, in offering and piloting the helicopter for hire. -11- R0011  Defendant, Christopher Yeager, Deceased’s conduct constitutes gross negligence and malice as those terms are defined and understood in Texas law because it reflects such an entire want of care as to establish that the acts and/or omissions complained of resulted from actual conscious indifference to the rights, welfare and/or safety of the persons affected by said conduct. The conduct of Christopher Yeager created an extreme risk of harm to Joyce Ates about which Defendant had an actual subjective awareness. Such grossly negligent conduct was a proximate cause of the death of Joyce Ates and the damages and losses suffered by Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek punitive damages from the Estate of Christopher Yeager, Deceased. XV. Defendant, Christopher Yeager, Deceased, was grossly negligent in the following respects, and such conduct was a proximate cause of the incident, Joyce Ates’ injuries and death and Plaintiffs’ resulting damages: a. Failing to properly provide and maintain an appropriate and safe aircraft for use by Joyce Ates; b. Failing to undergo specialized and specific ongoing training necessary for the helicopter’s safe operation. Defendant, Christopher Yeager, Deceased, was aware of the particular hazards and risks involved in operation of the Robinson R22 Beta helicopter and of its poor safety reputation, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, welfare and safety of others, including Joyce Ates, in offering and piloting the helicopter for hire. -12- R0012  XVI. Plaintiffs would show that by engaging in the aforementioned conduct, and where applicable under Texas Law, all Defendants’ are jointly and severally liable to all Plaintiffs for their damages and injuries. XVII. Plaintiffs allege the theory of respondeat superior and vicarious liability against HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC., as those terms apply pursuant to Texas Law, as YEAGER was operating the helicopter subject hereof during the course and scope of his employment. XVIII. As it relates to each and every cause of action set forth herein, Plaintiffs assert the legal theories of agency, vicarious liability, and respondeat superior as those terms apply and are defined by Texas Law. Defendants’ employees, agents, or sub-contractors were responsible for some, or all of the conduct of Defendants. One or more of the Defendants’ negligent and grossly negligent acts and/or omissions were caused by owners, vice principals, supervisors or managers of the Defendants. Defendants’ employees, agents, or sub-contractors that were servicing, maintaining and operating the helicopter subject of this lawsuit, were doing so during the course and scope of their employment for Defendants. Defendants’ employees, agents, or sub-contractor conduct, acts, negligence, or omissions occurred during the course and scope of their employment for Defendants. Any and all acts or omissions of Defendants’ employees, agents, or sub-contractors that caused harm to Plaintiffs are the acts of Defendants pursuant to the theory of agency, vicarious liability and respondeat superior, as those terms are defined pursuant to Texas Law. -13- R0013  ROBINSON was the manufacturer of the helicopter involved in this incident. HELICOPTER SERVICES is a factory authorized ROBINSON service center employing technicians trained and certified by Robinson, directly, to perform all scheduled maintenance, inspections, repair and overhaul of all versions of the R-22, R-44, and R-66 helicopter models. HELICOPTER SERVICES is an agent and/or contractor for ROBINSON and as such, its acts, conduct and omissions were done with the actual, implied or apparent authority of Defendant, ROBINSON. ROBINSON is a “prime partner” of HELICOPTER SERVICES. Additionally, and pleading in the alternative, HELICOPTER SERVICES hired Pilot Yeager to operate their helicopter and to ferry passengers on its behalf, in a Robinson R-22 Beta helicopter. Thus, Yeager was acting on behalf of Defendant, HELICOPTER SERVICES, and through the course and scope of his employment when this helicopter crash occurred. YEAGER’s operation of the helicopter as an employee, agent and /or servant of Defendant HELICOPTER, the agent and/or contractor for ROBINSON, its “prime partner” deems Robinson further responsible for the acts, omissions and negligence of HELICOPTER due to the master servant relationship which existed between ROBINSON and HELICOPTER, and pursuant to the doctrine of Respondeat Superior and Vicarious Liability. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ seek to recover against all Defendants under the theories of agency, vicarious liability, and/or respondeat superior for any cause of action alleged herein or for any intentional, knowing, reckless or negligent acts or omissions caused by Defendants’ agents, contractors, servants, or employees. XIX. -14- R0014  In addition to Defendants’ ordinary negligence as alleged hereinabove, Defendants’ conduct was also characterized by “malice” and/or gross negligence as that term is understood under the laws of the State of Texas. This conduct was also a proximate cause of Intervenors’ damages and entitles them to recover exemplary damages from Defendants. XX. This action is brought pursuant to § 71.001 - 71.011 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedy Code. Plaintiffs NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of JOYCE ATES, Deceased, as surviving spouse, and Nathan M. Ates AND SONIA ATES, as surviving children, are statutory beneficiaries and may bring action for the wrongful death of JOYCE ATES. Plaintiffs, NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and As Representative of the Estate of JOYCE ATES, Deceased, and as surviving spouse of JOYCE ATES under the Texas Wrongful Death Act is entitled to recover damages for: a. Pecuniary loss resulting from the Death of JOYCE ATES, including, but not limited to the care, maintenance, support, services, advice, counsel, and reasonable contributions of a pecuniary value that the spouse would, in reasonable probability have received from the other spouse had she lived; b. Termination of the Husband-Wife Relationship: The love, affection, solace, comfort, companionship, society, assistance and sexual relationship that Plaintiff, NATHAN S. ATES, surviving spouse, has suffered since the death of his spouse and which the surviving spouse would in reasonable probability have received from the other spouse had she lived. This element includes loss of consortium; c. Mental anguish suffered by the Plaintiff, NATHAN S. ATES, surviving spouse as a result of the death of JOYCE ATES, including but not limited to the emotional pain, torment, and suffering that Plaintiff, NATHAN S. ATES, would in reasonable probability, experience from the death of his wife; -15- R0015  d. Loss of Inheritance: The earnings, if any, of JOYCE ATES, deceased, in excess of the amount she would have used for the support of herself and her family, and in which reasonable probability would have been added to her estate and left to Plaintiff NATHAN S. ATES, at her natural death had she lived. Plaintiff, SONIA ATES, as surviving child of JOYCE ATES, Deceased, under the Texas Wrongful Death Act is entitled to recover damages for: a. Pecuniary Loss resulting from the Death of JOYCE ATES, including, but not limited to the care, maintenance, support, services, education advice, counsel, and reasonable contributions of a pecuniary value, excluding loss of inheritance, that the surviving child would have received from JOYCE ATES had she lived; b. Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship: The positive benefits flowing from the love, support, companionship, and society that this Plaintiff would in reasonable probability, have received from JOYCE ATES, had she lived; c. Mental Anguish suffered by the surviving child as a result of the death of JOYCE ATES, including but not limited to the emotional pain, torment, and suffering that the Plaintiff SONIA ATES, would in reasonable probability, experience from the death of JOYCE ATES; d. Loss of Inheritance: The earnings, if any, of the decedent in excess of the amount she would have used for the support of herself and her family, and in which reasonable probability would have been added to her estate and left to the Plaintiff at her natural death had she lived. Plaintiff, Nathan M. Ates, as surviving child of JOYCE ATES, Deceased, under the Texas Wrongful Death Act is entitled to recover damages for: a. Pecuniary Loss resulting from the Death of JOYCE ATES, including, but not limited to the care, maintenance, support, services, education advice, counsel, and reasonable contributions of a pecuniary value, excluding loss of inheritance, that the surviving child would have received from JOYCE ATES had she lived; b. Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship: The positive benefits flowing from the love, support, companionship, and society that this Plaintiff would in reasonable probability, have received from JOYCE ATES, had she lived; -16- R0016  c. Mental Anguish suffered by the surviving child as a result of the death of JOYCE ATES, including but not limited to the emotional pain, torment, and suffering that the Plaintiff SONIA ATES, would in reasonable probability, experience from the death of JOYCE ATES; and d. Loss of Inheritance: The earnings, if any, of the decedent in excess of the amount she would have used for the support of herself and her family, and in which reasonable probability would have been added to her estate and left to the Plaintiff at her natural death had she lived. XXI. Additionally, Plaintiff NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of JOYCE ATES, Deceased, brings action pursuant to § 71.021 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Plaintiff, NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and Representative of the Estate of JOYCE ATES, may bring action on behalf of JOYCE ATES's estate to recover for damages sustained by JOYCE ATES prior to her death. The Estate of JOYCE ATES is entitled to recover for: a. Physical pain and suffering of JOYCE ATES, deceased; b. Mental anguish of JOYCE ATES, deceased; C. Loss of future wages of JOYCE ATES, deceased; and D. Funeral and burial expenses of JOYCE ATES, deceased. XXII. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs would show that they have been damaged in a sum far in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Honorable Court, for which amount they come now and sue. Plaintiffs seek recovery of each and every element of damages permitted by Texas law. Plaintiffs are entitled to have their claims considered by the trier of fact, and a verdict rendered accordingly. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for actual compensatory losses in an amount over -17- R0017 $1,000,000.00, excluding punitive damages. XXIII. The allegations made herein against Defendants are made acknowledging that this suit is in its infancy and investigation and discovery are continuing. XXIV. Plaintiffs would show that as further investigation and discovery are developed, additional facts may be uncovered that will necessitate further, additional and/or different allegations including the potential for adding and/or dismissing parties to the case and the right to do so, under Texas law, is expressly reserved. XXV. Pursuant to Rule 194, Defendants are requested to disclose within the time period set forth in Rule 194.3, the information or material described in Rule 194.2(a)-(l). Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories and Requests for Production are attached hereto and served upon defendants with this Petition. XXVI. Plaintiffs are entitled by law to recover pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the prevailing rate for which they here and now sue for recovery, as allowed by the laws of the State of Texas. XXVII. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury in this matter. -18- R0018  WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs pray that Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein and that upon final trial hereof, Plaintiffs have judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, that they recover their damages in accordance with the evidence, including punitive damages in an amount to be set by the trier of fact, that they recover costs of Court herein expended, interest, both pre and post judgment, to which they are entitled under the law, and for such other and further relief, both general and special, legal and equitable, to which they may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, STEVENSON & MURRAY /s/ Mark T. Murray /s/ MARK T. MURRAY State Bar No. 14724810 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, Texas 77046 (713) 622-3223 (713) 622-3224 (FAX) Email: mmurray@johnstevensonlaw.com COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS -19- R0019  6/16/2014 4:53:49 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No: 1554748 2014-34635 / Court: 011 By: CUERO, NELSON CAUSE NO. ________________ NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and as Personal Representative of the § Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates and Nathan M. Ates § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF V. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § ______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT INC. , HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. and the Estate of § CHRISTOPHER YEAGER PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC. TO: Defendant, ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC. C/O Kurt L. Robinson 2901 Airport Drive Torrance, California 90505 Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs serve this First Request for Production, Interrogatories and Admissions upon Defendant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. Plaintiffs request that Defendant produce for inspection, copying, and reproduction the documents and tangible things hereinafter designated. Plaintiffs request that the documents be produced in the offices of Stevenson & Murray, 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750, Houston, Texas, 77046, in accordance with the time periods and in the manner dictated by Rule 196. You are further requested to supplement your response to this Request for Production as required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. If Defendant contends any documents are privileged, or not subject to discovery, a privilege log is requested. Plaintiffs request that Defendant respond to the interrogatories propounded herein, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 197. Defendant is required to serve responses to same in writing within 50 days R0020 of service of this document upon defendant. These interrogatories are deemed continuing and defendant is required to supplement its responses as new information becomes available or is discovered. Plaintiffs request that the Requests for Admissions of Fact be responded to by defendant pursuant to Rule 198 and that the responses be provided, in writing, within 50 days after service of this document upon Defendant. Respectfully submitted, STEVENSON & MURRAY /s/ Mark T. Murray /s/ By: MARK T. MURRAY State Bar No. 14724810 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, Texas 77046 (713) 622-3223 (713) 622-3224 (FAX) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 2 R0021  TABLE OF DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS Plaintiffs set forth the following definitions or abbreviations of various words and phrases which are contained in the following requests for production. Plaintiffs provide the following definitions and abbreviations for the purpose of clarifying the meaning of various words and phrases contained herein in order to expedite discovery, i.e., to help the Defendant fully and accurately understand the objectives of the Plaintiffs’ discovery efforts to locate and furnish the relevant information and documents. A. "You" or "your" or "yours" refers to this Defendant, and its attorney; B. "DEFENDANT" shall be deemed to refer to Defendant, ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC. and any department, division, office, agency or corporate affiliate, including those in the United States of America and in any other country. The term also includes any director, officer, agent, employee, person, firm, or corporation acting on behalf of "DEFENDANT" now or at any time relating to "your" response to attached requests for production; C. "Defendant" means this defendant and also all representatives acting or purporting to act on behalf of Defendant with respect to any matter inquired about in these requests for production, including, but not limited to, all such employees, attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnifier, insurers, or agents. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 1. Original and subsequent design drawings and/or blueprints relating to the engine and rotor systems of the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: 2. Documents from 2005 to the present referring to or reflecting any operational malfunction, testing malfunction or operational failure or defect of any type with the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: 3. Documents referring to or reflecting any changes, alterations, or modifications in the design instructions or service bulletins for the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: 3 R0022 4. Advertising brochures, safety alerts, safety notices, service bulletins, service letters, service/technical advisories, promotional literature and the like relating to the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: 5. Articles, evaluations, reports, case studies, and the like appearing in aviation or general mechanical engineering periodicals, industry or aviation trade journals, or governmental or aviation groups relative to or concerning any alleged operational or testing malfunction or failure in connection with the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: 6. Contracts and/or policies of insurance which might afford coverage to Defendant in the event of a verdict for Plaintiff in the above-styled cause, whether primary, secondary or excess coverage. RESPONSE: 7. Correspondence between Defendant and Helicopter Services, Inc. regarding the use, experience, anticipated use, flight use, operational concerns, or otherwise specifically pertaining to or governing the maintenance, inspection or operation of the helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter and any components of such aircraft manufactured or assembled by Defendant. RESPONSE: 8. For the time period form 2005 to the present, petitions for damages or complaints filed in any court or comparable administrative tribunal in connection with any lawsuits against Defendant in which it is alleged or acclaimed that the helicopter model at issue crashed as a result of design or mechanical failures. RESPONSE: 4 R0023 9. Maintenance manuals, parts catalogs, price lists and estimated operating costs publications prepared by Defendant and sent to distributors, dealers or repair facilities with respect to appropriate maintenance, inspection and testing of, and parts for, the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: 10. Service difficulty reports generated by Defendant and submitted to any filed operatives, dealers, maintenance facilities and distributors with respect to the helicopter model at issue and/or any of its components. RESPONSE: 11. Notices of malfunction or defect reports reported to the FAA or NTSB which in any way relate to tail rotor effectiveness in the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: 12. Internal memoranda including, but not limited to, letters, bulletins, reports, test results, investigative evaluations and the like generated within and by employees of Defendant or at the behest of Defendant relating to any alleged or perceived malfunction, materials problem, operational or maintenance failure or alleged failure with any component of the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: 13. Accident investigation reports or memoranda prepared by or at the behest of Defendant, including reports of all in-house investigations, diagrams, photographs, witness statements, engineering or test reports and memoranda, litigation testing and the like, regarding any crash of the helicopter model at issue (including the subject helicopter in the crash made the basis of this lawsuit). RESPONSE: 14. Documents, materials, reports or memoranda contained within FAA or NTSB files concerning operation or testing deficiencies or failures, either actual or alleged, relating to the helicopter model at 5 R0024 issue. RESPONSE: 15. Evaluations, whether conducted internally or externally, at the behest of Defendant, upon the subject helicopter, both before and after the crash. RESPONSE: 16. Documents referring to or reflecting any testing, whether operation or filed testing or component, experimental or laboratory testing, concerning evaluation of the helicopter model at issue’s engine and rotor systems. RESPONSE: 17. Correspondence between Defendant and Helicopter Services, Inc. referring or relating to the proper inspection, maintenance and operation of the helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter. RESPONSE: 18. Correspondence referring to or reflecting proper maintenance, operation, and flight use of the helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter. RESPONSE: 19. Each and every exhibit that Defendant will offer at trial for any purpose, including all demonstrative exhibits, all substantive exhibits and all tangible, photographic or documentary evidence which Defendant will attempt to show to the jury or otherwise use at the trial of this case. RESPONSE: 20. Any videotapes, photographs, or other similar evidence in your possession depicting and/or relating in any way to Plaintiff. RESPONSE: 6 R0025 21. Each and every exhibit, including all demonstrative exhibits, all substantive exhibits and all tangible, photographic or documentary evidence that have been reviewed by or created by your testifying experts or that in any way support or illustrate your testifying experts’ opinions that are relevant to this case. RESPONSE: 22. Your current balance sheet, financial statement or other document(s) sufficient to show your current net worth. For purposes of this request, “net worth” means the difference between total assets and liabilities determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). RESPONSE: 23. Photographs, videos or maps of the scene of the crash. RESPONSE: 24. All documents supporting your claim that another person or entity is a Responsible Third Party that has bet been named by Plaintiff as a defendant in this lawsuit. RESPONSE: 25. Plot operating manuals, helicopter operational manuals, or the like, prepared by Defendant for the helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter. RESPONSE: 7 R0026  INTERROGATORIES 1. State the full name, current complete address, telephone number, and position, capacity or job title of each person who assisted in answering these interrogatories on behalf of Defendant. ANSWER: 2. With respect to the subject helicopter, did you provide any component parts including, but not limited to, the engine and/or engine assembly and/or rotor systems of the helicopter? If your answer is “yes,” provide the following information: a. A complete description including part numbers, model numbers, assembly unit, and trade name of any and all components that were incorporated into and part of the subject helicopter on the date of its crash; and b. Identify all suppliers of component parts from whom you have purchased, in whole or in part, parts to be incorporated into units or any parts thereof which you supplied. ANSWER: 3. In connection with any business you have conducted with Helicopter Services, Inc., state: a. The first and last date of any business transactions between you and Helicopter Service, Inc.; b. The nature of the business relationship (e.g., vendor/purchaser, lessor/lessee, etc.); c. The identity of those individuals in your company with knowledge of the business 8 R0027  relationship between you and Helicopter Services, Inc.; and d. The models and model years of all helicopters sold by you to Helicopter Services, Inc. ANSWER: 4. With respect to the subject helicopter, provide the original dates of design and manufacture. ANSWER: 5. Identify the current custodian and whereabouts of all studies or tests with respect to the helicopter model at issue’s engine and rotor systems, including but not limited to safety analysis and consideration of various alternative designs. ANSWER: 6. For the period 2005 to the present, provide a description, including identification of equipment, date, crash site, and fatality/injury information, of all malfunctions, incidents, accidents, or complaints (regardless of whether injury or death ensued) associated with use of the helicopter model at issue. ANSWER: 7. State all of the ways in which you attempt to ascertain the existence of any malfunctions or complaints associated with your helicopters other than the receipt of legal action, and describe any and all documents reflecting the above, indicating their present location. ANSWER: 8. Identify any and all documents in your possession, custody or control describing any changes to or the reasons for such changes in the design or materials used in the helicopter model at issue, including any component parts therein, subsequent to its original manufacture and design. ANSWER: 9. For the period 2005 to the present, identify any and all documents in your possession, custody or control relating to any notices directed to you, claims made against you, or lawsuits filed against you 9 R0028 wherein it was claimed or alleged that a helicopter model at issue failed because of any malfunction, maintenance problem, manufacturing defect, engine or rotor failure, metallurgical problem, blade detachment, coning, lack of tail rotor effectiveness, recoverability issues or autorotation issues, and: a. Identify the custodian of any and all such documents in your possession referring to of reflecting any such notices, claims, or lawsuits; and b. Set forth and identify any and all such notices, claims, and lawsuits by date, aircraft description, engine part number, location of malfunction, and aircraft owner. ANSWER: 10. Describe any and all bulletins, manuals, written instructions, warnings, procedures, letters, alerts, or the like that were: a. Provided with the promotion or sale of the helicopter model at issue; b. Subsequently supplied to any owner, operator, or lessor of any of the helicopter model at issue. ANSWER: 11. For the period 2005 to the present, identify every lawsuit that has been filed against you (regardless of whether injury or death ensued) wherein it was claimed or alleged that any helicopter or helicopter component supplied by you malfunctioned, failed, lost power, or contributed to a reportable aviation mishap, specifically identifying: a. The name, court, docket number of each lawsuit as well as identifying in which lawsuits Defendant gave interrogatories, oral depositions; and b. The identity including name, address and telephone number of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in each such matter, as well as whether the case was or has been resolved or settled. 10 R0029 ANSWER: 12. For any liability insurance coverage which Defendant held and which will cover the occurrence out of which this loss arises, state: a. The name and address of each such carrier; b. The policy numbers of each such policy; c. Whether any reservation of the insurer’s rights has been declared with respect to a potential dispute in coverage for this loss; and d. Whether Defendant must approve of any settlement entered into by its insurance carrier. ANSWER: 13. Identify any and all engineering change orders made with respect to the rotor systems utilized by the helicopter model at issue and substantially similar rotor systems. In connection therewith, set forth the effective date and serial number of any such engineering change order. ANSWER: 14. Set forth the certification history of the helicopter model at issue, including but not limited to the dates and test results of all developmental grounds tests, developmental flight tests, and in connection therewith: a. Identify the current location of all applications for type certification, ground and flight tests, and all documents related thereto; and b. Identify the custodian of all such files. ANSWER: 15. Identify all flight and ground test documentation including, but not limited to, test protocol, field test results, and any videotaped or photographs with respect to the helicopter model at issue. ANSWER: 11 R0030 16. Identify all correspondence, communications, or safety notices or bulletins generated by you and forwarded to the National Transportation Safety Board and any such responses, directives, notices, or requests imparted by NTSB to you involving the helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter. ANSWER: 17. Has Defendant caused to be issued any mechanical reliability reports to the FAA with respect to the helicopter model at issue? If the answer is “yes,” state the following: a. The current condition and whereabouts of any such reports; and b. The dates and subject matter of any such reports. ANSWER: 18. Has the FAA or NTSB ever directed you to issue an airworthiness directive with respect to any aspect of the design, manufacture, operation, maintenance, or use of the helicopter model at issue? If your answer is “yes,” set forth the following: a. The current custodian and whereabouts of any such airworthiness directives; and b. The dates of any such directives and the general subject matter of each. ANSWER: 19. Has the FAA or NTSB ever conducted an inquiry into the manufacture, design, operation, maintenance, or use of the helicopter model at issue? If your answer is “yes,” set forth the following: a. The current custodian and whereabouts of any such inquiries; and b. The dates of any such inquiries including the general subject matter of each. ANSWER: 20. Identify the following persons with responsibility for the design, testing, and certification of the helicopter model at issue and the subject helicopter: a. Head of engineering; 12 R0031  b. Project engineer; c. Chief of flight operations and testing; d. Governmental liaison between defendant and FAA/NTSB; and e. Investigation officer for malfunction notices. ANSWER: 21. Identify all of the individuals who have or have had any responsibilities - whether administrative, investigative, or engineering - arising out of the crash giving rise to the action. In connection therewith, state the name of each and every such individual and set forth their current positions with the company, date hired, and current employment. ANSWER: 22. If you were present during any inspection or “tear down” of components from the subject helicopter: a. Identify all of your employees who were present, along with their job titles, positions, and reason for their presence; and b. Identify all non-employees who were present, along with their employer or governmental affiliation and reason for their presence. ANSWER: 23. Describe any redundancy built into the design of the helicopter model at issue that would provide a measure of safety in the event of an in-flight failure of the engine or rotor system. ANSWER: 24. State (a) your current net worth and (b) a description of the facts and methodology used to calculate what you allege to be your current net worth. For purposes of answering this interrogatory, “net worth,” means the difference between total assets and liabilities determined in accordance with 13 R0032 generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). ANSWER: 25. Identify each person or entity you contend is a potential Responsible Third Party in this lawsuit, state with as much specificity as possible the factual basis for such contention, and identify the persons that may possess relevant knowledge regarding the contention. ANSWER: 14 R0033  REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS 1. Admit you designed, in whole or in part, the subject helicopter. RESPONSE: 2. Admit that you manufactured, in whole or in part, the subject helicopter. RESPONSE: 3. Admit that you assembled, in whole or in part, the subject helicopter. RESPONSE: 4. Admit that the subject helicopter was not airworthy on the date of the crash. RESPONSE: 5. Admit that the subject helicopter was airworthy on the date of the crash. RESPONSE: 6. Admit that the subject helicopter was not properly inspected as of the date of the crash. 15 R0034 RESPONSE: 7. Admit that the subject helicopter was properly inspected as of the date of the crash. RESPONSE: 8. Admit that the helicopter model at issue is more prone to loss of tail rotor effectiveness than some other helicopters. RESPONSE: 9. Admit that the helicopter model at issue is not more prone to loss of tail rotor effectiveness than some other helicopters. RESPONSE: 10. Admit that the helicopter model at issue’s rotors are low inertia. RESPONSE: 11. Admit that the helicopter model at issue’s rotors are not low inertia. RESPONSE: 16 R0035 12. Admit that the fuel tanks used in the helicopter model at issue were subject of a safety bulletin. RESPONSE: 13. Admit that the fuel tanks used in the helicopter model at issue were not the subject of a safety bulletin. RESPONSE: 14. Admit that Decedents were fatally injured in the crash. RESPONSE: 15. Admit that you contend there is a Responsible Third Party that has not been named by Plaintiff as a defendant in this lawsuit. RESPONSE: 16. Admit that you do not contend there is a Responsible Third Party that has not been named by Plaintiff as a defendant in this lawsuit. RESPONSE: 17 R0036  8/11/2014 10:00:26 AM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 2108684 By: JONATHAN PATTON CAUSE NO. 2014-34635 NATHAN S. ATES, Individually § IN THE DISTRICT COURT and as Personal Representative of the Estate § of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates § and Nathan M. Ates § § vs. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § INC., HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. § and the Estate of CHRISTOPHER § YEAGER § 11TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Defendant Helicopter Services, Inc. (hereinafter “HSI”) files this Original Answer and Request for Disclosure and respectfully shows the Court as follows: I. General Denial 1. Pursuant to Rule 92, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, HSI generally denies each and every allegation contained in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and demands strict proof thereof as required by Texas law. II. Affirmative Defenses 2. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Denial, HSI asserts, pursuant to Rule 94 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the following affirmative defenses which, singly or in combination, bar Plaintiffs’ right to recover, in whole or in part, the damages alleged in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition. 3. HSI affirmatively pleads that Plaintiffs’ claims for exemplary damages are controlled and limited by the provisions of Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §41.008. HSI additionally affirmatively pleads that Plaintiffs’ claims for exemplary damages are controlled HSI’S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE Page 1     R0037 and limited by the provisions of the due process clause of the Texas and United States Constitutions, which prevent the award of grossly excessive punitive damages. HSI further pleads that any award of exemplary damages against HSI should be mitigated by evidence offered by HSI. 4. HSI affirmatively pleads that pre-judgment interest, if any, as requested in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, is limited in accordance with §304.104, et seq., of the Texas Finance Code. III. Request for Disclosure 5. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, HSI serves this Request for Disclosure upon Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are requested to disclose, within thirty (30) days of service, the information and materials identified in Rule 194.2. IV. Request for Relief WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, HSI requests that the Court, upon final trial, render judgment that Plaintiffs take nothing by this suit, that HSI recover all costs, and that HSI be awarded such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, general or special, to which it may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Don Swaim DON SWAIM State Bar No. 19545200 ROSE  WALKER, L.L.P. 3500 Maple Avenue, Suite 900 Dallas, Texas 75219 Phone: 214.752.8600 Facsimile: 214.752.8700 dswaim@rosewalker.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. HSI’S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE Page 2     R0038  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been forwarded to all counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this 11th day of August, 2014. /s/ Don Swaim Don Swaim HSI’S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE Page 3     R0039  8/11/2014 10:00:26 AM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 2108684 By: JONATHAN PATTON CAUSE NO. 2014-34635 NATHAN S. ATES, Individually § IN THE DISTRICT COURT and as Personal Representative of the Estate § of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates § and Nathan M. Ates § § vs. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § INC., HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. § and the Estate of CHRISTOPHER § YEAGER § 11TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ORIGINAL ANSWER OF THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER YEAGER, DECEASED, AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Paula Yeager, Representative of the Estate of Christopher Yeager, Deceased, (hereinafter “Defendant”) files this Original Answer and Request for Disclosure and respectfully shows the Court as follows: I. General Denial 1. Pursuant to Rule 92, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant generally denies each and every allegation contained in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and demands strict proof thereof as required by Texas law. II. Affirmative Defenses 2. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Denial, Defendant asserts, pursuant to Rule 94 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the following affirmative defenses which, singly or in combination, bar Plaintiffs’ right to recover, in whole or in part, the damages alleged in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition. ORIGINAL ANSWER OF THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER YEAGER, DECEASED, AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE Page 1     R0040  3. Defendant affirmatively pleads that Plaintiffs’ claims for exemplary damages are controlled and limited by the provisions of Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §41.008. Defendant additionally affirmatively pleads that Plaintiffs’ claims for exemplary damages are controlled and limited by the provisions of the due process clause of the Texas and United States Constitutions, which prevent the award of grossly excessive punitive damages. Defendant further pleads that any award of exemplary damages against Defendant should be mitigated by evidence offered by Defendant. 4. Defendant affirmatively pleads that pre-judgment interest, if any, as requested in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, is limited in accordance with §304.104, et seq., of the Texas Finance Code. III. Request for Disclosure 5. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Defendant serves this Request for Disclosure upon Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are requested to disclose, within thirty (30) days of service, the information and materials identified in Rule 194.2. IV. Request for Relief WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant requests that the Court, upon final trial, render judgment that Plaintiffs take nothing by this suit, that Defendant recover all costs, and that Defendant be awarded such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, general or special, to which it may be justly entitled. ORIGINAL ANSWER OF THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER YEAGER, DECEASED, AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE Page 2     R0041  Respectfully submitted, /s/ Don Swaim DON SWAIM State Bar No. 19545200 ROSE  WALKER, L.L.P. 3500 Maple Avenue, Suite 900 Dallas, Texas 75219 Phone: 214.752.8600 Facsimile: 214.752.8700 dswaim@rosewalker.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been forwarded to all counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this 11th day of August, 2014. /s/ Don Swaim Don Swaim ORIGINAL ANSWER OF THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER YEAGER, DECEASED, AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE Page 3     R0042  NO. 2014-34635 NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Personal Representative of the Estate of § Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates and § Nathan M. Ates, § § Plaintiff, § § 11TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. § § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § INC., HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC., and § the Estate of CHRISTOPHER YEAGER § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Defendants. DEFENDANT ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. (hereinafter “Robinson”), one of the defendants in the above-titled and numbered cause, and on behalf of itself and itself alone, files this its Original Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Jury Demand, and in support thereof, would respectfully show this Court the following: I. GENERAL DENIAL Robinson appears and generally denies each and every, all and singularly, the material allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Original Petition, and any amendments or supplements thereto, in accordance with Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, demands strict proof thereof and says that this is a matter for jury trial. R0043  II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Causation) 1. Robinson is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that any injury, damage, loss, or detriment suffered by Plaintiff was directly and proximately caused by persons separate and apart from Robinson whether named or unnamed in this action. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Negligence of Others) 2. Robinson is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that any injury, damage, loss, or detriment suffered by Plaintiffs was directly and proximately caused, in whole or in part, by the negligence of persons separate and apart from Robinson whether named or unnamed in this action. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Comparative Responsibility) 3. Robinson is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that in the event that a finding is made that Robinson was negligent and that said negligence proximately contributed to Plaintiffs’ damages, which is expressly and specifically denied, and/or that Robinson is otherwise legally responsible for Plaintiffs’ damages, Plaintiffs’ amount of recovery from Robinson should be reduced on the basis of the negligence of third parties which contributed to the damages for which Plaintiffs are R0044 seeking recovery in accordance with the doctrine of comparative responsibility and the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Assumption of Risk) 4. Robinson is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that at and before the time and place of the accident herein alleged, Plaintiffs’ decedent fully knew of and appreciated any risk of danger of injury, loss, damage or detriment regarding the events and matters alleged in the Complaint, and having full knowledge and appreciation of such risk and dangers, voluntarily exposed himself to and assumed all risk and dangers of injury, loss, damage or detriment from the events and matters alleged in the Complaint. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Superseding and Intervening Cause) 5. Robinson is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that the full responsibility for control of the situation, threatened harm, injuries, loss and damages alleged passed to the pilot-in-command of the aircraft involved in the accident and/or a third person or persons whose acts or omissions constitute a superseding and intervening cause of the Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Regular Inspection) 6. Robinson is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that Plaintiffs cannot state a claim against Robinson as a matter of law in that the alleged R0045 subject helicopter was not to be used unless regularly inspected by the owner and operator of the product. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Preemption) 7. Robinson is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by federal law contained within the Federal Aviation Act and the Federal Aviation Regulations. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Compliance with Law) 8. All services and products supplied by Robinson fully complied with all applicable Governmental laws and regulations at the time when the alleged subject helicopter and component parts left the hands of Robinson. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Design Defects) 9. All services and products supplied by Robinson fully complied with the state-of-the-art and state-of-the-industry at the time when the alleged subject helicopter and component parts left the hands of Robinson. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Manufacturing Defects) 10. At the time of the alleged subject helicopter left Robinson’s control, it did not deviate from the design specifications, formula, or performance standards of the manufacturer or from otherwise identical units manufactured to the same manufacturing specifications and had no manufacturing defects. R0046  ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Comply with Warnings) 11. Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred to the extent Plaintiffs’ damages resulted in whole or in part from the disregard of, and failure to comply with, any and all warnings, alerts, bulletins, instructions, rules and regulations provided. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Merchantability, Safe and Fit for Intended Use) 12. At the time the alleged subject Robinson R22 helicopter, Serial No. 4250, Registration No. N281RG, left Robinson’s control it was not defective or dangerous, but rather the helicopter was of merchantable quality and fit and safe for its intended use when properly maintained and operated. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Limited Warranty) 13. At the time of the alleged sale of the aircraft, all of Robinson’s products carried with them a certain written limited express warranty which constituted the sole, entire and exclusive warranty of the products, superseding all implied warranties and placing limitations on damages permissible thereunder. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Set Forth Facts for Punitive Damages) 14. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to set forth facts sufficient to support an award of punitive or exemplary damages and thus, any claim for punitive damages should be dismissed. R0047  FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unconstitutionality of Punitive Damages) 15. Robinson asserts that any award of punitive damages as sought by Plaintiff would violate the due process and excessive fine clauses of the Fifth, Eight and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as the Constitution of the State of Texas. OTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (Right to Amend) 16. Robinson intends to rely upon such other defenses as may become legally available hereafter or become apparent during discovery proceedings in this case and hereby reserves its right to amend its answer to assert any such defenses. III. JURY DEMAND Robinson specifically asks for a jury trial as allowed by law. IV. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Robinson respectfully prays: 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by way of this cause of action and that this cause of action be dismissed; 2. That Robinson be awarded all costs and expenses incurred herein; and 3. That Robinson be granted such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which Robinson may show itself justly entitled. R0048  Respectfully submitted, COATS & EVANS, P.C. /S/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew Coats Texas Bar No. 00783846 Gary Linn Evans Texas Bar No. 00795338 P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, TX 77393-0246 Telephone: 281-367-7732 Facsimile: 281-367-8003 Attorneys for Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned attorney, as attorney of record for the Defendant, certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served on all parties of record on this the 20th day of August 2014. MARK T. MURRAY STEVENSON & MURRAY 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, Texas 77046 713-622-3223 713-622-3224 Fax mmurray@johnstevensonlaw.com DON SWAIM ROSE WALKER LLP 3500 Maple Ave., Suite 900 Dallas, Texas 75219 214-752-8600 214-752-8700 Fax dswaim@rosewalker.com /S/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew Coats R0049  NO. 2014-34635 NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Personal Representative of the Estate of § Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; SONIA ATES § and NATHAN M. ATES, § § Plaintiff, § § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. § § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § INC.; HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC.; and § the Estate of CHRISTOPHER YEAGER, § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Defendants. DEFENDANT ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC. ("Robinson") hereby responds to Plaintiffs NATHAN S. ATES’, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; SONIA ATES and NATHAN M. ATES (“Plaintiffs’”) First Discovery Requests for the purpose of this action only without admitting in any way or to any extent the relevance to this cause of action or the admissibility as evidence of any statement or document provided herein, and without prejudice to subsequently discovered facts or information relevant to these requests. Robinson’s discovery is not completed at this time, and, as such defendant reserves the right to supplement any and all responses herein by reason of subsequently discovered information. GENERAL OBJECTIONS Robinson submits the following general objections to Plaintiffs’ Instructions, Definitions and Discovery Requests which apply to each and every request contained in Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to Robinson. For convenience, these general objections R0050 are set forth below and are not necessarily repeated after each request. The assertion of the same, similar or additional objections to a specific request does not waive any of Robinson’s general objections as set forth below: 1. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they seek to expand the scope of, or impose upon Robinson obligations greater than those required by the applicable rules of the Rules of Civil Procedure and/or applicable orders of this Court. 2. Robinson reserves the right to challenge the competency, relevancy and admissibility, at trial or any subsequent proceeding, in this or any other action, of any information produced in response to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests. 3. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they are directed to or made on behalf of entities or persons who are not parties to this case or over whom Robinson has no control. 4. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests on the grounds that they are ambiguous, vague, overly broad, oppressive and unduly burdensome, and seek information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. 5. Robinson bases its responses on information currently available to it, after reasonable inquiry, and Robinson reserves the right to amend and/or supplement its objections and responses to conform to information and documents which may be obtained through ongoing discovery and investigation, in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure governing discovery. R0051  6. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they attempt to elicit protected documents or information subject to the attorney client privilege; the work product doctrine; a joint or common defense privilege; the confidentiality of documents containing the impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories of Robinson or its attorneys; or seeks materials prepared in anticipation of litigation or information that is proprietary in nature. Robinson asserts each and every one of the foregoing privileges and protections applicable to the information sought to the fullest extent provided by law, applicable rules, current and future case management orders. 7. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek documents or information not within Robinson’s possession, custody or control. 8. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek information or documents constituting trade secrets, or other confidential, research, development, commercial, financial and/or proprietary information. 9. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they seek information which is within Plaintiffs’ knowledge, possession, custody or control, or otherwise accessible to Plaintiffs from other sources with substantially the same or greater facility than Robinson. 10. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they are unlimited in time, or otherwise not limited to a time frame relevant to this litigation, and to Robinson’s products at issue in this case, on the grounds that such R0052 requests seek documents neither relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 11. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they include contention interrogatories that solicit premature responses before the close of discovery. OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS Robinson makes the following specific objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions, which objections are incorporated into all of Robinson’s responses to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests where applicable. Any omission to refer specifically to such objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions and instructions shall not be deemed a waiver of such objections. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “you,” “your” and “Defendant” on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and to the extent that Robinson may not be able to ascertain all entities and/or individuals falling within these definitions. Further, Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “you,” “your” and “Defendant” to the extent that they seek to expand the scope of, or impose obligations greater than, those imposed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. R0053  REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Original and subsequent design drawings and/or blueprints relating to the engine and rotor systems of the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this request inasmuch as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented. Robinson further objects inasmuch as this request seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. With waiving these objections, Robinson responds that it did not manufacture the engine installed in the subject helicopter. Robinson further responds that if Plaintiff can narrow this request, Robinson will attempt to provide a response. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Documents from 2005 to the present referring to or reflecting any operational malfunction, testing malfunction or operational failure or defect of any type with the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this request inasmuch as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, and contains terms and phrases which are ambiguous and undefined and unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented. Robinson further objects inasmuch as this request seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. Without waiving these objections, if Plaintiff can narrow this request, Robinson will attempt to provide a response. R0054 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Documents referring to or reflecting any changes, alterations, or modifications in the design instructions or service bulletins for the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Robinson further responds that it is not familiar with the term “design instructions” and as such cannot reasonably provide a response. Without waiving these objections, Robinson refers to the R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Service Bulletins and R22 Service Letters. These documents are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Advertising brochures, safety alerts, safety notices, service bulletins, service letters, service/technical advisories, promotional literature and the like relating to the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Without waiving these objections, Robinson refers to the R22 brochure, R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters and Robinson Safety Notices. The current R22 brochure, R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters, Robinson Safety Notices and Robinson Safety Alerts are R0055 publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Articles, evaluations, reports, case studies, and the like appearing in aviation or general mechanical engineering periodicals, industry or aviation trade journals, or governmental or aviation groups relative to or concerning any alleged operational or testing malfunction or failure in connection with the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Robinson further objects to this Request inasmuch as it seeks documents which are equally available to the propounding party and it would be as cost-effective for plaintiffs to acquire information in the hands of third parties as for Robinson to do so. Without waiving these objections, Robinson responds that it does not maintain any file or database of these documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Contracts and/or policies of insurance which might afford coverage to Defendant in the event of a verdict for Plaintiff in the above-styled cause, whether primary, secondary or excess coverage. RESPONSE: Robinson responds that there is no insurance policy that insures Robinson for claims contained in the subject lawsuit. Robinson has no knowledge of any insurance policies covering third parties for claims contained in the subject lawsuit. R0056 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Correspondence between Defendant and Helicopter Services, Inc. regarding the use, experience, anticipated use, flight use, operational concerns, or otherwise specifically pertaining to or governing the maintenance, inspection or operation of the helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter and any components of such aircraft manufactured or assembled by Defendant. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Without waiving this objection, Robinson refers Plaintiff to the R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook, R22 Illustrated Parts Catalog, and R22 Maintenance Manual. These documents are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: For the time period from 2005 to the present, petitions for damages or complaints filed in any court or comparable administrative tribunal in connection with any lawsuits against Defendant in which it is alleged or acclaimed that the helicopter model at issue crashed as a result of design or mechanical failures. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome. Robinson further objects to this request in that it seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with R0057 the facts of this case, and as such this information is outside the scope of proper discovery and is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Robinson further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information which is protected by the attorney work product and/or attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Robinson responds that it does not maintain any database or compilation of responsive documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Maintenance manuals, parts catalogs, price lists and estimated operating costs publications prepared by Defendant and sent to distributors, dealers or repair facilities with respect to appropriate maintenance, inspection and testing of, and parts for, the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Without waiving this objection, Robinson refers to the R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook, R22 Illustrated Parts Catalog and R22 Maintenance Manual. These documents are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Service difficulty reports generated by Defendant and submitted to any field operatives, dealers, maintenance facilities and distributors with respect to the helicopter model at issue and/or any of its components. \\\ R0058 RESPONSE: Robinson responds that Service Difficulty Reports are not generated by Robinson, and such documents are received and maintained by the FAA and are not within Robinson’s custody or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Notices of malfunction or defect reports reported to the FAA or NTSB which in any way relate to tail rotor effectiveness in the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: Robinson responds that this Request seeks documents maintained by the FAA, and not in Robinson’s custody or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Internal memoranda including, but not limited to, letters, bulletins, reports, test results, investigative evaluations and the like generated within and by employees of Defendant or at the behest of Defendant relating to any alleged or perceived malfunction, materials problem, operational or maintenance failure or alleged failure with any component of the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Without waiving this objection, Robinson responds it does not believe it is in possession of responsive documents at this time. \\\ \\\ R0059 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Accident investigation reports or memoranda prepared by or at the behest of Defendant, including reports of all in-house investigations, diagrams, photographs, witness statements, engineering or test reports and memoranda, litigation testing and the like, regarding any crash of the helicopter model at issue (including the subject helicopter in the crash made the basis of this lawsuit). RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Robinson further objects to this Request as it seeks documents relating to other helicopters not related to the accident in question without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson also objects to this Request inasmuch as it seeks information protected by the attorney work product and attorney/client privilege. Without waiving this objection, Robinson will produce the Robinson Accident Report prepared by Thom Webster on R22 Serial Number 4250, Registration Number N281RG. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Documents, materials, reports or memoranda contained within FAA or NTSB files concerning operation or testing deficiencies or failures, either actual or alleged, relating to the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope, and seeks documents which are proprietary and trade secret in nature. Without waiving this R0060 objection, Robinson responds that this Request seeks documents maintained by the FAA and/or the NTSB, and not in Robinson’s custody or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Evaluations, whether conducted internally or externally, at the behest of Defendant, upon the subject helicopter, both before and after the crash. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and burdensome as framed. Without waiving this objection, Robinson will produce the Robinson Accident Report prepared by Thom Webster on R22 Serial Number 4250, Registration Number N281RG. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Documents referring to or reflecting any testing, whether operation or field testing or component, experimental or laboratory testing, concerning evaluation of the helicopter model at issue's engine and rotor systems. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Robinson further objects inasmuch as this request seeks documents which are proprietary and contain trade secrets. Without waiving these objections, if Plaintiff can narrow this request, Robinson will attempt to provide a response. \\\ \\\ R0061 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Correspondence between Defendant and Helicopter Services, Inc. referring or relating to the proper inspection, maintenance and operation of the helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request in that it is duplicative in nature. Robinson refers to its response to Request for Production No. 7, which is incorporated herein by reference. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Correspondence referring to or reflecting proper maintenance, operation, and flight use of the helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. This Request seeks ‘correspondence’ without indicating between what parties it is referring to. If Plaintiff can clarify this Request, Robinson can attempt to provide a reasonable response. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Each and every exhibit that Defendant will offer at trial for any purpose, including all demonstrative exhibits, all substantive exhibits and all tangible, photographic or documentary evidence which Defendant will attempt to show to the jury or otherwise use at the trial of this case. \\\ R0062 RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request on the grounds that it is premature at this stage of discovery, and disclosure of such documents and things will be conducted at the appropriate time under the relevant rules of Court. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Any videotapes, photographs, or other similar evidence in your possession depicting and/or relating in any way to Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Robinson will produce the Robinson Accident Report prepared by Thom Webster on R22 Serial Number 4250, Registration Number N281RG. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Each and every exhibit, including all demonstrative exhibits, all substantive exhibits and all tangible, photographic or documentary evidence that have been reviewed by or created by your testifying experts or that in any way support or illustrate your testifying experts' opinions that are relevant to this case. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request on the grounds that it is premature at this stage of discovery, and disclosure of such documents and things will be conducted at the appropriate time under the relevant rules of Court. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Your current balance sheet, financial statement or other document(s) sufficient to show your current net worth. For purposes of this request, "net worth" means the R0063 difference between total assets and liabilities determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"). RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to the Request as it seeks privileged financial records which are highly sensitive, and their confidentiality is necessary to Robinson’s competitive advantage and continued viability. Robinson also objects to this Request as the information requested is not relevant to any of the current issues of liability and causation. Further, there is no public policy reason for this information to be released as it only concerns the financial status of one defendant, and implicates no public safety or other relevant issue. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Photographs, videos or maps of the scene of the crash. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome, seeks information which is equally available to the propounding party and it would be as cost-effective for Plaintiffs to acquire information in the hands of third parties as for Robinson to do so. Without waiving these objections, Robinson will produce the Robinson Accident Report prepared by Thom Webster on R22 Serial Number 4250, Registration Number N281RG. \\\ \\\ \\\ R0064 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: All documents supporting your claim that another person or entity is a Responsible Third Party that has not been named by Plaintiff as a defendant in this lawsuit. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request on the grounds that it is premature, discovery is in progress and the investigation and preparation have not been completed. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Pilot operating manuals, helicopter operational manuals, or the like, prepared by Defendant for the helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter. RESPONSE: Robinson refers to the R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook, R22 Flight Training Guide, R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters, and Robinson Safety Notices. Robinson will produce a full set of R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters and Robinson Safety Notices. The R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook and R22 Flight Training Guide are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. \\\ R0065  INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY N0.1: State the full name, current complete address, telephone number, and position, capacity or job title of each person who assisted in answering these interrogatories on behalf of Defendant. ANSWER: Pete Riedl Vice-President, Engineering Robinson Helicopter Company 2901 Airport Drive Torrance, CA 90505 310-539-0508 and counsel of record. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: With respect to the subject helicopter, did you provide any component parts including, but not limited to, the engine and/or engine assembly and/or rotor systems of that helicopter? If your answer is "yes," provide the following information: a. A complete description including part numbers, model numbers, assembly unit, and trade name of any and all components that were incorporated into and part of the subject helicopter on the date of its crash; and b. Identify all suppliers of component parts from whom you have purchased, in whole or in part, parts to be incorporated into units or any parts thereof which you supplied. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome as framed. Without waiving this R0066 objection and utilizing its own definition, Robinson responds that it was the original manufacturer of the subject helicopter, but was not the original manufacturer of the subject helicopter’s engine. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: In connection with any business you have conducted with Helicopter Services, Inc., state: a. The first and last date of any business transactions between you and Helicopter Service, Inc.; b. The nature of the business relationship (e.g., vendor/purchaser, lessor/lessee, etc.); c. The identity of those individuals in your company with knowledge of the business relationship between you and Helicopter Services, Inc.; and d. The models and model years of all helicopters sold by you to Helicopter Services, Inc. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, and seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving this objection and utilizing its own definition, Robinson responds that Helicopter Services, Inc. has been a Robinson Dealership and Service Center since 1989. \\\ \\\ R0067 INTERROGATORY NO. 4: With respect to the subject helicopter, provide the original dates of design and manufacture. ANSWER: Robinson responds that the R22 helicopter was certified in March 1979 and R22 serial number 4250 was issued a standard airworthiness certificate on December 10, 2007. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify the current custodian and whereabouts of all studies or tests with respect to the helicopter model at issue's engine and rotor systems, including but not limited to safety analysis and consideration of various alternative designs. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, and seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving this objection and utilizing its own definition, Robinson responds that documents related to the design and certification of the R22 model helicopter are located at Robinson’s facility, 2901 Airport Drive, Torrance, California 90505. Robinson further responds that it did not manufacture the engine installed in the subject helicopter. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: For the period 2005 to the present, provide a description, including identification of equipment, date, crash site, and fatality/injury information, of all malfunctions, R0068 incidents, accidents, or complaints (regardless of whether injury or death ensued) associated with use of the helicopter model at issue. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome, seeks information which is equally available to the propounding party and it would be as cost-effective for Plaintiffs to acquire information in the hands of third parties as for Robinson to do so. Robinson further objects to this request in that it seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case, and as such this information is outside the scope of proper discovery and is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Robinson responds that it does not maintain a database or formal compilation of this information. For purposes of any research or analysis, Robinson responds that the records maintained by the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) are reviewed as the NTSB’s records contain significantly more incidents and accidents, contain probable cause determinations, and are accessible as they are maintained in a database. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: State all of the ways in which you attempt to ascertain the existence of any malfunctions or complaints associated with your helicopters other than the receipt of legal action, and describe any and all documents reflecting the above, indicating their present location. \\\ R0069 ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome to answer as framed. Without waiving these objections, Robinson responds that if Plaintiff can narrow this Interrogatory, Robinson will attempt to provide a response. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify any and all documents in your possession, custody or control describing any changes to or the reasons for such changes in the design or materials used in the helicopter model at issue, including any component parts therein, subsequent to its original manufacture and design. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope as frame. Robinson further objects to this demand on the grounds that it seeks to invade proprietary, trade secret, and confidential information. Without waiving these objections, Robinson responds that if Plaintiff can narrow this Interrogatory, Robinson will attempt to provide a response. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: For the period 2005 to the present, identify any and all documents in your possession, custody or control relating to any notices directed to you, claims made against you, or lawsuits filed against you wherein it was claimed or alleged that a helicopter model at issue failed because of any malfunction, maintenance problem, R0070 manufacturing defect, engine or rotor failure, metallurgical problem, blade detachment, coning, lack of tail rotor effectiveness, recoverability issues or autorotation issues, and: a. Identify the custodian of any and all such documents in your possession referring to or reflecting any such notices, claims, or lawsuits; and b. Set forth and identify any and all such notices, claims, and lawsuits by date, aircraft description, engine part number, location of malfunction, and aircraft owner. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome. Robinson further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information which is protected by the attorney work product and/or attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Robinson does not maintain a list or database for this information, or for information relating to historical litigation or lawsuits filed. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Describe any and all bulletins, manuals, written instructions, warnings, procedures, letters, alerts, or the like that were: a. Provided with the promotion or sale of the helicopter model at issue; b. Subsequently supplied to any owner, operator, or lessor of any of the helicopter model at issue. \\\ \\\\ \\\ R0071 ANSWER: Robinson refers to the R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Illustrated Parts Catalog, R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook, R22 Flight Training Guide, R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters, and Robinson Safety Notices. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: For the period 2005 to the present, identify every lawsuit that has been filed against you (regardless of whether injury or death ensued) wherein it was claimed or alleged that any helicopter or helicopter component supplied by you malfunctioned, failed, lost power, or contributed to a reportable aviation mishap, specifically identifying: a. The name, court, docket number of each lawsuit as well as identifying in which lawsuits Defendant gave interrogatories, oral depositions; and b. The identity including name, address and telephone number of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in each such matter, as well as whether the case was or has been resolved or settled. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome. Robinson further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information which is protected by the attorney work product and/or attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Robinson does not maintain a list or database for this information, or for information relating to historical litigation or lawsuits filed. \\\ \\\ R0072 INTERROGATORY NO. 12: For any liability insurance coverage which Defendant held and which will cover the occurrence out of which this loss arises, state: a. The name and address of each such carrier; b. The policy numbers of each such policy; c. Whether any reservation of the insurer's rights has been declared with respect to a potential dispute in coverage for this loss; and d. Whether Defendant must approve of any settlement entered into by its insurance carrier. ANSWER: Robinson responds that there is no insurance policy that insures Robinson for claims contained in the subject lawsuit. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify any and all engineering change orders made with respect to the rotor systems utilized by the helicopter model at issue and substantially similar rotor systems. In connection therewith, set forth the effective date and serial number of any such engineering change order. ANSWER: Robinson responds that it does not have any documents referred to as “engineering change orders.” \\\ \\\ \\\ R0073 INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Set forth the certification history of the helicopter model at issue, including but not limited to the dates and test results of all developmental ground tests, developmental flight tests, and in connection therewith: a. Identify the current location of all applications for type certification, ground and flight tests, and all documents related thereto; and b. Identify the custodian of all such files. ANSWER: Robinson responds that the R22 helicopter was certified by the FAA in 1979. Robinson is located at 2901 Airport Drive, Torrance, California 90505 and maintains its records at that location. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify all flight and ground test documentation including, but not limited to, test protocol, field test results, and any videotapes or photographs with respect to the helicopter model at issue. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, unlimited in time and scope as framed, and seeks proprietary and trade secret information. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Identify all correspondence, communications, or safety notices or bulletins generated by you and forwarded to the National Transportation Safety Board and any R0074 such responses, directives, notices, or requests imparted by NTSB to you involving the helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope, and seeks information which is equally available to the propounding party and it would be as cost-effective for Plaintiffs to acquire information in the hands of third parties as for Robinson to do so. Without waiving these objections, Robinson responds that all information relating to R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters and Robinson Safety Notices are included in the R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters and Robinson Safety Notices themselves. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Has Defendant caused to be issued any mechanical reliability reports to the FAA with respect to the helicopter model at issue? If the answer is "yes," state the following: a. The current condition and whereabouts of any such reports; and b. The dates and subject matter of any such reports. ANSWER: Robinson is unfamiliar with the term “mechanical reliability reports,” and as such, is unable to respond to this Interrogatory as framed. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Has the FAA or NTSB ever directed you to issue an airworthiness directive with respect to any aspect of the design, manufacture, operation, maintenance, or use of the helicopter model at issue? If your answer is "yes," set forth the following: R0075  a. The current custodian and whereabouts of any such airworthiness directives; and b. The dates of any such directives and the general subject matter of each. ANSWER: No, airworthiness directives are issued and maintained by the Federal Aviation Administration. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Has the FAA or NTSB ever conducted an inquiry into the manufacture, design, operation, maintenance, or use of the helicopter model at issue? If your answer is "yes," set forth the following: a. The current custodian and whereabouts of any such inquiries; and b. The dates of any such inquiries including the general subject matter of each. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome inasmuch as the term “inquiry” is not defined, and is unlimited in time and scope, and seeks information which is equally available to the propounding party and it would be as cost-effective for Plaintiffs to acquire information in the hands of third parties as for Robinson to do so. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Identify the following persons with responsibility for the design, testing, and certification of the helicopter model at issue and the subject helicopter: a. Head of engineering; R0076  b. Project engineer; c. Chief of flight operations and testing; d. Governmental liaison between defendant and FAA/NTSB; and e. Investigating officer for malfunction notices ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome. Without waiving this objection, Robinson responds that the person most knowledgeable at Robinson with respect to the subject matters listed is Pete Riedl, Vice-President of Engineering. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Identify all of the individuals who have or have had any responsibilities – whether administrative, investigative, or engineering – arising out of the crash giving rise to this action. In connection therewith, state the name of each and every such individual and set forth their current positions with the company, date hired, and current employment. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and burdensome. Without waiving this objection, Robinson responds that Thom Webster was the Robinson technical investigator who documented the circumstances of the accident, and authored the Robinson Accident Report on R22 S/N 4250. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: If you were present during any inspection or "tear down" of components from the subject helicopter: R0077  a. Identify all of your employees who were present, along with their job titles, positions, and reason for their presence; and b. Identify all non-employees who were present, along with their employer or governmental affiliation and reason for their presence. ANSWER: a. Thom Webster was present as the Robinson Technical Investigator assigned to the investigation of this accident. b. No other persons were present on behalf of Robinson INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Describe any redundancy built into the design of the helicopter model at issue that would provide a measure of safety in the event of an in-flight failure of the engine or rotor system. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Without waiving these objections, Robinson responds that if Plaintiff can narrow this Interrogatory, Robinson will attempt to provide a response. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: State (a) your current net worth and (b) a description of the facts and methodology used to calculate what you allege to be your current net worth. For purposes of answering this Interrogatory, "net worth," means the difference between total assets and liabilities determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"). R0078 ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to the Interrogatory as it seeks privileged financial records which are highly sensitive, and their confidentiality is necessary to Robinson’s competitive advantage and continued viability. Robinson also objects to this Interrogatory as the information requested is not relevant to any of the current issues of liability and causation. Further, there is no public policy reason for this information to be released as it only concerns the financial status of one defendant, and implicates no public safety or other relevant issue. Plaintiffs’ petition includes factually unsupported claims of intentional and grossly negligent conduct by Robinson. Without more, the discovery of Robinson’s sensitive and confidential financial information should not be permitted. The existing case law setting the standards for discovery of a defendant’s net worth is antiquated and does not reflect the recently-enacted limitations on exemplary damage claims as passed by the Texas Legislature. Thus, Robinson should not be required to disclose its net worth based absent factually support for Plaintiff’s allegations. In order to remain consistent with the intent and purpose of Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, Robinson should not be required to produce its net worth unless or until a jury, based on clear and convincing evidence, returns a unanimous verdict that Robinson is liable to Plaintiffs for exemplary damages based on the facts and evidence presented in this case. INTERROGATORYNO. 25: Identity each person or entity you contend is a potential Responsible Third Party in this lawsuit, state with as much specificity as possible the factual basis for such R0079 contention, and identify the persons that may possess relevant knowledge regarding the contention. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory as it is premature at this state in the investigation and discovery process. Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response at a later date. R0080  REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit you designed, in whole or in part, the subject helicopter. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that you manufactured, in whole or in part, the subject helicopter. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that you assembled, in whole or in part, the subject helicopter. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that the subject helicopter was not airworthy on the date of the crash. RESPONSE: Robinson responds that discovery is ongoing, and it lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny this request at this time. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.5: Admit that the subject helicopter was airworthy on the date of the crash. RESPONSE: Robinson responds that discovery is ongoing, and it lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny this request at this time. R0081 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that the subject helicopter was not properly inspected as of the date of the crash. RESPONSE: Robinson responds that discovery is ongoing, and it lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny this request at this time. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that the subject helicopter was properly inspected as of the date of the crash. RESPONSE: Robinson responds that discovery is ongoing, and it lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny this request at this time. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that the helicopter model at issue is more prone to loss of tail rotor effectiveness than some other helicopters. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit that the helicopter model at issue is not more prone to loss of tail rotor effectiveness than some other helicopters. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that the helicopter model at issue's rotors are low inertia. R0082 RESPONSE: As the phrase “low inertia” is not adequately defined, Robinson lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny this request at this time. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that the helicopter model at issue's rotors are not low inertia. RESPONSE: As the phrase “low inertia” is not adequately defined, Robinson lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny this request at this time. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit that the fuel tanks used in the helicopter model at issue were subject of a safety bulletin. RESPONSE: Robinson cannot admit or deny this Request as it is not familiar with the term “Safety Bulletin.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that the fuel tanks used in the helicopter model at issue were not the subject of a safety bulletin. RESPONSE: Robinson cannot admit or deny this Request as it is not familiar with the term “Safety Bulletin.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that Decedents were fatally injured in the crash. \\\ R0083 RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that you contend there is a Responsible Third Party that has not been named by Plaintiff as a defendant in this lawsuit. RESPONSE: Robinson responds that discovery is ongoing, and it lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny this request at this time. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit that you do not contend there is a Responsible Third Party that has not been named by Plaintiff as a defendant in this lawsuit. RESPONSE: Robinson responds that discovery is ongoing, and it lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny this request at this time. Respectfully submitted, COATS & EVANS, P.C. /S/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew Coats Texas Bar No. 00783846 Gary Linn Evans Texas Bar No. 00795338 P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, TX 77393-0246 Telephone: 281-367-7732 Facsimile: 281-367-8003 Attorneys for Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. R0084  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned attorney, as attorney of record for the Defendant, certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served on all parties of record on this the 30th day of September 2014. MARK T. MURRAY STEVENSON & MURRAY 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, Texas 77046 Email: MMurray@johnstevensonlaw.com Mr. Don Swaim Rose Walker, LLP 3500 Maple Avenue, Suite 900 Dallas, Texas 75219 Telephone: 214-752-8600 Facsimile: 214-752-8700 Email: dswaim@rosewalker.com /S/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew Coats R0085  Case No. 201434635 DCORX ATES, NATHAN S (INDIVIDUALLY A IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF vs. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY IN 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DOCKET CONTROL ORDER The following docket control order shall apply to this case unless modified by the court. If no date is given below, the item is governed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 1. JOINDER. All parties must be added and served, whether by amendment party practice, by this date. THE PARTY CAUSING THE JOINDER SHALL P E A COPY OF THIS DOCKET CONTROL ORDER AT THE TIME OF S --Y 2. EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATION. Expert witness designations required and must be served by the following dates. The designation must inr e information listed in Rule 194.2(f). Failure to timely respond will be governe 9* -Rule 193.6. ( a) Experts for parties seeking affirmative relief. 1:0 2_. 3 ( b) All other experts. •:, ,,---d) 3. STATUS CONFERENCE. Parties shall be prepared to all aspects of the case, including ADR, with the court on this date. TIME: Failure to appear will be grounds for dismissal for waratorosecution. 4. DISCOVERY LIMITATIONS. The discovery limitati f Rule 190.2, if applicable, or otherwise of Rule 190.3 apply unless change ( a) Total hours per side for oral depositions. ( b) Number of interrogatories that may be served W,e ch party on any other party. 5. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTIO N,. (a) 05/19/15 By this date the parties must either (1) Te agreement for ADR stating the form of ADR requested and the name of an areecf mediator, if applicable; or (2) set an objection to ADR. If no agreement or objectio n filed, the court may sign an ADR order. (b) 07/06/15 ADR conducted pursuant to the agr nt of the parties must be completed by this date. 6. DISCOVERY PERIOD ENDS. ^discovery must be conducted before the end of the discovery period. Parties e*ng discovery must serve requests sufficiently far in advance of the end of the d*•ry period that the deadline for responding will be within the discovery perio nsel may conduct discovery beyond this deadline by agreement. Incomplete every will not delay the trial. 7. DISPOSITIVE MOTI "SAND PLEAS. Must be heard by oral hearing or submission. ( a) If subject to an inter! appeal, dispositive motions or pleas must be heard by this date. ( b) Summary judgmwatt • ns not subject to an interlocutory appeal must be heard by this date. (c) Rule 166a(i) mote may not be heard before this date. 8. CHALLENGE EXPERT TESTIMONY. All motions to exclude expert testimony and evident° challenges to expert testimony must be filed by this date, unless extendee leave of court. 9. PLEAS S. All amendments and supplements must be filed by this date. This orde s not preclude prompt filing of pleadings directly responsive to any timely fileEleadings. 10. Parties shall be prepared to discuss all aspects of trial with the court on this date. TIME: Failure to appear will be grounds for dismissal for want of prosecution. 11. 07/20/15 TRIAL. If not assigned by the second Friday following this date, the case will be reset. DEC 1 1 2014 0 MICHAEL D. MILLER GEORGE ANDREW COATS P 0 BOX 130246 Judge, 11TH DISTRICT COURT WOODLANDS, TX 773930246 783846 Date Generated 12/10/2014 JCV002 RECORDERS MEMORANDUM rev.11202006 This instrument is of poor quality at the time of imaging R0086  Case No. 201434635 DCORX ATES, NATHAN S (INDIVIDUALLY A IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF vs. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY IN 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DOCKET CONTROL ORDER The following docket control order shall apply to this case unless modified by the court. If no date is given below, the item is governed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. JOINDER. All parties must be added and served, whether by amendment laird party practice, by this date. THE PARTY CAUSING THE JOINDER SHALL P . A COPY OF THIS DOCKET CONTROL ORDER AT THE TIME OF SEO , CE. EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATION. Expert witness designations a t required and must be served by the following dates. The designation must inbi a 'the information listed in Rule 194.2(f). Failure to timely respond will be gover Rule 193.6. Experts for parties seeking affirmative relief. All other experts. (2,V STATUS CONFERENCE. Parties shall be prepared to cjs s all aspects of the case, including ADR, with the court on this date. TIME: Failure to appear will be grounds for dismissal for wan rosecution. 4. DISCOVERY LIMITATIONS. The discovery limitati N of Rule 190.2, if applicable, or otherwise of Rule 190.3 apply unless change () (a Total hours per side for oral depositions. b) Number of interrogatories that may be served each party on any other party. 5. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTIO (a) 05/19/15 By this date the parties must either (1) pie agreement for ADR stating the form of ADR requested and the name of an a mediator, if applicable; or (2) set an objection to ADR. If no agreement or objectio filed, the court may sign an ADR order. (b) 07/06/15 ADR conducted pursuant to the agr ent of the parties must be completed by this date. 6. DISCOVERY PERIOD ENDS discovery must be conducted before the end of the discovery period. Pattie advance of the end of the within the discovery peri agreement. Incomplete • r ing discovery must serve requests sufficiently far in ery period that the deadline for responding will be , *•unsel may conduct discovery beyond this deadline by .very will not delay the trial. 7. DISPOSITIVE MOTI • ND PLEAS. Must be heard by oral hearing or submission. If subject to an inter cry appeal, dispositive motions or pleas must be heard by this date. (b) Summary judgm9n t ons not subject to an interlocutory appeal must be heard by this date. (c) Rule 166a(i) mot9n may not be heard before this date. 8. CHALLENQE: ••• EXPERT TESTIMONY. All motions to exclude expert testimony and evidene.;%, challenges to expert testimony must be filed by this date, unless extender -ave of court. 9. PLEA,' S. All amendments and supplements must be filed by this date. This orde .F-s not preclude prompt filing of pleadings directly responsive to any timely -adings. 10. Parties shall be prepared to discuss all aspects of trial with the court on this date. TIME: Failure to appear will be grounds for dismissal for want of prosecution. 11. 07/20/15 TRIAL. If not assigned by the second Friday following this date, the case will be reset. SIGNED MICHAEL D. MILLER MARK T. MURRAY 24 GRNWAY PLAZA750 Judge, 11TH DISTRICT COURT HOUSTON, TX 770460000 14724810 Date Generated 12/10/2014 JCV002 rev.11202006 R0087  Case No. 201434635 DCORX ATES, NATHAN S (INDIVIDUALLY A IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF vs. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY IN 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DOCKET CONTROL ORDER The following docket control order shall apply to this case unless modified by the court. If no date is given below, the item is governed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 1. JOINDER. All parties must be added and served, whether by amendment oftbrd party practice, by this date. THE PARTY CAUSING THE JOINDER SHALL P . o'v,IDE A COPY OF THIS DOCKET CONTROL ORDER AT THE TIME OF SE :% 2. EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATION. Expert witness designations we, required and must be served by the following dates. The designation must includ_sMe information listed in Rule 194.2(f). Failure to timely respond will be governe l*Rule 193.6. (a) Experts for parties seeking affirmative relief. (b) All other experts. 3. STATUS CONFERENCE. Parties shall be prepared to all aspects of the case, including ADR, with the court on this date. TIME: Failure to appear will be grounds for dismissal for warrt4prosecution. 4. DISCOVERY LIMITATIONS. The discovery limitati of Rule 190.2, if applicable, or otherwise of Rule 190.3 apply unless change (a) Total hours per side for oral depositions. (b) Number of interrogatories that may be servecilw,each party on any other party. 5. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTIO 4 (a) 05/19/15 By this date the parties must either (1) file `agreement for ADR stating the form of ADR requested and the name of an a mediator, if applicable; or (2) set an objection to ADR. If no agreement or objectio fi ed, the court may sign an ADR order. (b) 07/06/15 ADR conducted pursuant to the agr nt of the parties must be completed by this date. 6. DISCOVERY PERIOD ENDS. 'discovery must be conducted before the end of the discovery period. Parties eking discovery must serve requests sufficiently far in advance of the end of the d' ry period that the deadline for responding will be within the discovery perio nsel may conduct discovery beyond this deadline by agreement. Incomplete very will not delay the trial. 7. DISPOSITIVE MOTI• AND PLEAS. Must be heard by oral hearing or submission. If subject to an inter • •... kbry appeal, dispositive motions or pleas must be heard by this date. ( (b) Summary judgme,rk 4: •t ons not subject to an interlocutory appeal must be heard by this date. (c) (c) Rule 166a(i) motikl,i may not be heard before this date. 8. CHALLENRWV EXPERT TESTIMONY. All motions to exclude expert testimony and evidenffary'challenges to expert testimony must be filed by this date, unless extend-• weave of court. 9. PLEA J S. All amendments and supplements must be filed by this date. This orde •-s not preclude prompt filing of pleadings directly responsive to any timely fit. , adings. 10. Parties shall be prepared to discuss all aspects of trial with the court on this date. TIME: Failure to appear will be grounds for dismissal for want of prosecution. 1 1. 07/20/15 TRIAL. If not assigned by the second Friday following this date, the case will be reset. SIGNED MICHAEL D. MILLER G. DON SWAIM Judge, 11TH DISTRICT COURT 3500 MAPLE AVENUE, SUITE 900 DALLAS, TX 75219 19545200 Date Generated 12/10/2014 JCV002 rev.11202006 R0088  3/19/2015 6:02:21 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 4572547 By: GABRIELA COX Filed: 3/19/2015 6:02:21 PM CAUSE NO.2014-34635 NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates and Nathan M. Ates v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. eNT , And the Estate of CHRISTOPHER YEAGER 11TH JUDIC !STRICT 147ND PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CON ANC, FOR ENTRY OF DOCKET CONTROL ORDE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COME NOW the Plaintiffs, NATHAN S. ATE vidually and As Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates athan M. Ates, by and through undersigned counsel and file Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion Cntinuance and for Entry of Docket Control Order, in support of same respectfully showing th ?owing: I. It has become necessary to this civil suit as a result of the death of Joyce A. Ates, on or about O September 10, 2012. At that oyce A. Ates was a passenger in a Robinson R22 Beta helicopter being piloted by Defen•eager. Yeager, a pilot working in the course and scope of his employment for Helicopter SewInc., was providing Joyce A. Ates with services in the form of helicopter 0 transportation al observation over sites in Harris County, Texas. Defendant Yeager was piloting a 2007 Robinson R22 Beta II helicopter bearing serial number 4250 and registration no. N281RG (the subject helicopter) during a flight originating from the Baytown Airport, Baytown, Texas at approximately 3:00 p.m., according to air safety investigators, on September 10, 2012. R0089  According to information developed by the National Transportation Safety Board, witnesses observed the helicopter spinning slowly around the main rotor shaft and descending straight down. Witnesses stated that the main rotor blades were turning slowly and were not deflected upward and the tail rotor did not appear to be turning. The helicopter impacted the ground at approximately 3:30 p.m., causing a large dust cloud. According to the investigation, approximately a minuter, the helicopter ignited in a fireball, preventing rescue attempts by witnesses on the scene an uming both Yeager and Ates. Joyce Ates suffered injuries which resulted in her death. <, II. 0;2> The parties scheduled an inspection of the componen maining after the helicopter's crash and burn for December 1, 2014. This inspection was cance expectedly due to Defendant Robinson's inability to maintain its commitment for this sc g. The inspection was reconvened to occur on March 17, 2014, with consent of all parties. Certain components of the he Ater were inspected on March 17, 2015, in Pensacola, Florida. As the Court has not set a discov iadline in its current docket control order, the parties must therefore adhere to the Texas Rules ,\f(,,C- k i 1 Procedure. It has become apparent that there is inadequate time for 0 d., Plaintiff's engineerin lity and accident reconstruction experts to review the extensive information, receive feedback the inspecting experts holding the March 17, 2015 inspection, and prepare an opinion report p or to the deadlines for exchange of Plaintiffs' expert reports in this matter. IV. Trial is currently scheduled for July 20, 2015. R0090  Plaintiffs pray the Court order the parties to confer on a new docket control order in light of the delay in development of discovery between the Parties, including investigation and inspection of the crash components, expert report and deposition, as well as amended and supplemental pleadings practice which may become necessary after receipt of the expert reports and prior to the trial setting. The parties' efforts to perfect the necessary, extensive discovery in this matter as well as amendments to otle pleadings on file CAD herein, are curtailed by the trial setting in place at this time. IV. Plaintiff prays the Court set aside current discovery and expert I lines so that the parties may confer to enter a new docket control order which shall include tlisq cheduling this matter for trial in January 2015 and additional deadlines for Alternative Disp esolution, discovery deadlines, and expert witness designations by both Plaintiffs and Defe Q , to be developed by the parties hereto and submitted to the Court for entry. CERTIFk OF CONFERENCE The undersigned counsel certi at he has contacted counsel representing Defendants on March 18 and 19, 2015, to advise of his i.ion to file Plaintiff's Motion for Continuance and for Entry of new P Docket Control Order. C 4141 for Helicopter Services, Inc. and Christopher Yeager, Deceased has responded that he is osed to this motion. Counsel for Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. has responded that heieopposed to this motion. WHE • ". RE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs request the Court grant Plaintiffs' Motion for Continuance and Entry of new Docket Control Order for the reasons therein stated, and for such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled. R0091  Respectfully submitted, STEVENSON & MURRAY By: /S/Mark T. Murray /S/ MARK T. MURRAY State Bar No. 1472 :31) 24 Greenway Play„ ite 750 Houston, Texas (713) 622-322', (713) 622-3 (FAX) ATT01+ FOR PLAINTIFFS » e ; o c R0092  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been delivered to all counsel on this the 19th day of March 2015, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, via email, facsimile, U.S. Mail and/or e-filing, to-wit: Mr. Don Swaim Cunningham Swaim, LLP 7557 Rambler Road, Ste. 440 Dallas, Texas 75231 Counsel for Helicopter Services, Inc. And Christopher Yeager, Deceased George Andrew Coats Gary Linn Evans COATS & EVANS, P.C. DOo P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, Texas 77393-0246 Counsel for Robinson Helicopter Services, Inc. O 0 DO /S/ MARK T. MURRAY/S/ MARK T. MURRAY Cr R0093  3/19/2015 6:02:21 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No: 4572547 By: DE LA ROSA, GABRIELA CAUSE NO. 2014-34635 Filed: 3/19/2015 6:02:21 PM NATHAN S. RTES, Individually IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates. Deceased: Sonia Ates and Nathan M. Ates VS. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, 4 INC., HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. and the Estate of CHRISTOPHER YEAGER ICIAL DISTRICT AFFIDAVIT THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF HARRIS § O BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on y personally appeared MARK T. MURRAY, known and/or proved to me through a descri n on an identity card containing a photograph or signature, to be the person whose name is scribed to the foregoing Motion for Continuance, and O acknowledged to me that he has perso owledge of the information contained therein and it is true, correct and not sought for de lay, b tice. SUBSCRIBED D SWORN TO BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this the JCPI'L day o CA\CAW3 ,2015. - a Pi EN D STANFIELD Notary Public in'an&fjor the My -..emission Expires State of Texas Lc...;;er 11.2018 mission R0094  3/19/2015 6:02:21 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No: 4572547 By: DE LA ROSA, GABRIELA Filed: 3/19/2015 6:02:21 PM CAUSE NO.2014-34635 NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates and Nathan M. Ates v . HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. V_)) And the Estate of CHRISTOPHER YEAGER 11" JUDICIiSTRICT 0, 0 ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' o&- UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE "FOR ENTRY OF DOCKET CONTROL ORD oQ BE IT REMEMBERED that upon the day and date hereinbelow came on for consideration, the Unopposed Motion for Continuance and for Entr'N ocket Control Order filed by Plaintiffs herein; the Court, having considered the pleading find to be with merit; it is therefore ORDERED that the trial currently sc2led for July 20, 2015 be and it is hereby continued from this setting; it is further ORDERED that the parties pfer and submit a new docket control order rescheduling this matter O for trial in January 2015 aerntaining additional deadlines for Alternative Dispute Resolution, discovery deadlines, and Np - rt witness designations by both Plaintiffs and Defendants. - Cy SIGNED on ',Athe day of , 2015. JUDGE PRESIDING R0095  3/20/2015 4:51:22 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 4588027 By: GABRIELA COX Filed: 3/20/2015 4:51:22 PM CAUSE NO. 2014-34635 NATHAN S. ATES, Individually § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and as Personal Representative of the Estate § of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates § and Nathan M. Ates § § vs. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § INC., HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. § and the Estate of CHRISTOPHER § YEAGER § 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY’S RESPONSES TO FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS, AND REQUEST FOR RULING ON DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE MIKE D. MILLER: Plaintiffs file this Motion to Compel requesting the Court to enter an order compelling ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY to fully respond to Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests. Specifically, Plaintiff requests the Court to compel ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY’s responses to the Requests for Production. I. FACTS & BACKGROUND Joyce Ates suffered serious injuries on September 10, 2012. These injuries eventually resulted in her death. Joyce Ates was a passenger in a 2007 Robinson manufactured R22 Beta II helicopter (serial number 4250 and registration number N281RG). Defendant Yeager—a pilot working in the course and scope of his employment for Helicopter Services, Inc.—was piloting the subject helicopter. The helicopter took off from Baytown Airport in Baytown, Texas at approximately 3:00 p.m. While flying in Harris County, Texas, the helicopter experienced a power loss and crashed. Within a minute of impacting the ground, the helicopter ignited into a fireball. Page 1 of 5 R0096  II. REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY TO DEFENDANT ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY On June 16, 2014, Plaintiffs served their First Requests for Discovery to Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company. Robinson Helicopter Company has had enough time to produce and respond to the discovery requests propounded by Plaintiffs. However, Robinson Helicopter Company has not produced any responsive documents whatsoever. Therefore, this Motion to Compel is necessary due to Robinson Helicopter Company’s unwillingness to adequately respond to discovery; specifically, to the requests for production. See Exhibit A. Robinson Helicopter Company has either provided nonresponsive answers to the discovery requests, or has objected to them. See id. Defendant has not demonstrated any cooperation. Robinson Helicopter Company claimed that at the time it “responded” to Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests it had not yet completed its own discovery and thus would “supplement any and all responses . . . by reason of subsequently discovered information.” Robinson Helicopter Company has not supplemented any information and Plaintiffs seriously doubt Defendant has not discovered information worthy of being supplemented. Robinson Helicopter Company generally objects to Plaintiffs requests for discovery without any merit. Robinson Helicopter Company generally argues Plaintiffs requests were ambiguous, vague, overbroad, unlimited in time, and sought privileged information. However, the requests made by Plaintiffs are clear, timely, and to the point. Additionally, Defendant refuses to properly answer to Plaintiffs requests because certain definitions are “broad” and “seek to expand the scope of, or impose obligations greater than, those imposed by the Rules of Civil Procedure.” If certain definitions did indeed lack clarity, Plaintiffs argue and assert the requests made were not seeking to expand or impose greater obligations than those imposed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs requested discovery in such a way as to only target Page 2 of 5 R0097 Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company about anything relevant to the crash subject to this law suit. At this moment, Plaintiffs have not received any documents or information from Robinson Helicopter Company. It is necessary for Plaintiffs to obtain the discovery requested to better analyze and understand the circumstances of the crash subject to this law suit. At the very least, Robinson Helicopter Company should rend over the documents and information that it has produced in the Yeager case 1, as such documents and information must be relevant, and easily and readily available for production. Plaintiffs, therefore, request for this Court to compel the discovery requested and overrule the Robinson Helicopter Company’s objections. III. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to enter an Order compelling the discovery requested by Plaintiffs, overrule Robinson Helicopter Company’s objections to Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests, compel Robinson Helicopter Company to fully respond to the same, and award Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs involved in the filing of this Motion. Plaintiffs also pray for such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which they may show themselves justly entitled. 1 The Yeager case is the companion case to this one. The Yeager case arises, literally, from the same facts and circumstances of this case. Please recall that Mr. Yeager was the pilot of the subject helicopter the day of the accident. Plaintiffs, in this case, have reasonable grounds to believe Robinson Helicopter Company has produced information and documents to Yeager; Plaintiffs deserve the same. Page 3 of 5 R0098  Respectfully submitted, STEVENSON & MURRAY /s/ Mark T. Murray /s/ By: _________________________ MARK T. MURRAY Texas Bar No. 14724810 Weslayan Tower, Suite 750 24 Greenway Plaza Houston, Texas 77046-2416 (713) 622-3223 (713) 622-3224 (fax) Email: mmurray@johnstevensonlaw.com COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE Plaintiff’s counsel has attempted to confer with defense counsel for Robinson Helicopter concerning this motion via email. Counsel for Defendant has not responded to these overtures and therefore the undersigned must presume defense counsel is opposed to Plaintiff’s motion. /s/ Mark T. Murray /s/ _____________________ MARK T. MURRAY Page 4 of 5 R0099  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Robinson Helicopter Company’s Responses to First Discovery Requests, and Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections was forwarded to all known counsel of record by electronic case filing on this 20th day of March, 2015. DON SWAIM Cunningham Swaim, LLP 7557 Rambler Road, Suite 440 Dallas, Texas 75231 George Andrew Coats Gary Linn Evans COATS & EVANS, P.C. P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, Texas 77393-0246 /s/ Mark T. Murray/s/ ________________________ MARK T. MURRAY R0100  NO. 2014-34635 NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Personal Representative of the Estate of § Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; SONIA ATES § and NATHAN M. ATES, § § Plaintiff, § § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. § § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § INC.; HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC.; and § the Estate of CHRISTOPHER YEAGER, § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Defendants. DEFENDANT ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC. ("Robinson") hereby responds to Plaintiffs NATHAN S. ATES’, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; SONIA ATES and NATHAN M. ATES (“Plaintiffs’”) First Discovery Requests for the purpose of this action only without admitting in any way or to any extent the relevance to this cause of action or the admissibility as evidence of any statement or document provided herein, and without prejudice to subsequently discovered facts or information relevant to these requests. Robinson’s discovery is not completed at this time, and, as such defendant reserves the right to supplement any and all responses herein by reason of subsequently discovered information. GENERAL OBJECTIONS Robinson submits the following general objections to Plaintiffs’ Instructions, Definitions and Discovery Requests which apply to each and every request contained in Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to Robinson. For convenience, these general objections R0101 are set forth below and are not necessarily repeated after each request. The assertion of the same, similar or additional objections to a specific request does not waive any of Robinson’s general objections as set forth below: 1. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they seek to expand the scope of, or impose upon Robinson obligations greater than those required by the applicable rules of the Rules of Civil Procedure and/or applicable orders of this Court. 2. Robinson reserves the right to challenge the competency, relevancy and admissibility, at trial or any subsequent proceeding, in this or any other action, of any information produced in response to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests. 3. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they are directed to or made on behalf of entities or persons who are not parties to this case or over whom Robinson has no control. 4. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests on the grounds that they are ambiguous, vague, overly broad, oppressive and unduly burdensome, and seek information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. 5. Robinson bases its responses on information currently available to it, after reasonable inquiry, and Robinson reserves the right to amend and/or supplement its objections and responses to conform to information and documents which may be obtained through ongoing discovery and investigation, in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure governing discovery. R0102  6. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they attempt to elicit protected documents or information subject to the attorney client privilege; the work product doctrine; a joint or common defense privilege; the confidentiality of documents containing the impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories of Robinson or its attorneys; or seeks materials prepared in anticipation of litigation or information that is proprietary in nature. Robinson asserts each and every one of the foregoing privileges and protections applicable to the information sought to the fullest extent provided by law, applicable rules, current and future case management orders. 7. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek documents or information not within Robinson’s possession, custody or control. 8. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek information or documents constituting trade secrets, or other confidential, research, development, commercial, financial and/or proprietary information. 9. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests insofar as they seek information which is within Plaintiffs’ knowledge, possession, custody or control, or otherwise accessible to Plaintiffs from other sources with substantially the same or greater facility than Robinson. 10. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they are unlimited in time, or otherwise not limited to a time frame relevant to this litigation, and to Robinson’s products at issue in this case, on the grounds that such R0103 requests seek documents neither relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 11. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests to the extent that they include contention interrogatories that solicit premature responses before the close of discovery. OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS Robinson makes the following specific objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions, which objections are incorporated into all of Robinson’s responses to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests where applicable. Any omission to refer specifically to such objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions and instructions shall not be deemed a waiver of such objections. Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “you,” “your” and “Defendant” on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and to the extent that Robinson may not be able to ascertain all entities and/or individuals falling within these definitions. Further, Robinson respectfully objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “you,” “your” and “Defendant” to the extent that they seek to expand the scope of, or impose obligations greater than, those imposed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. R0104  REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Original and subsequent design drawings and/or blueprints relating to the engine and rotor systems of the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this request inasmuch as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented. Robinson further objects inasmuch as this request seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. With waiving these objections, Robinson responds that it did not manufacture the engine installed in the subject helicopter. Robinson further responds that if Plaintiff can narrow this request, Robinson will attempt to provide a response. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Documents from 2005 to the present referring to or reflecting any operational malfunction, testing malfunction or operational failure or defect of any type with the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this request inasmuch as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, and contains terms and phrases which are ambiguous and undefined and unduly burdensome and expensive to answer as presented. Robinson further objects inasmuch as this request seeks information which is proprietary and contains trade secrets. Without waiving these objections, if Plaintiff can narrow this request, Robinson will attempt to provide a response. R0105 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Documents referring to or reflecting any changes, alterations, or modifications in the design instructions or service bulletins for the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Robinson further responds that it is not familiar with the term “design instructions” and as such cannot reasonably provide a response. Without waiving these objections, Robinson refers to the R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Service Bulletins and R22 Service Letters. These documents are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Advertising brochures, safety alerts, safety notices, service bulletins, service letters, service/technical advisories, promotional literature and the like relating to the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Without waiving these objections, Robinson refers to the R22 brochure, R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters and Robinson Safety Notices. The current R22 brochure, R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters, Robinson Safety Notices and Robinson Safety Alerts are R0106 publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Articles, evaluations, reports, case studies, and the like appearing in aviation or general mechanical engineering periodicals, industry or aviation trade journals, or governmental or aviation groups relative to or concerning any alleged operational or testing malfunction or failure in connection with the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Robinson further objects to this Request inasmuch as it seeks documents which are equally available to the propounding party and it would be as cost-effective for plaintiffs to acquire information in the hands of third parties as for Robinson to do so. Without waiving these objections, Robinson responds that it does not maintain any file or database of these documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Contracts and/or policies of insurance which might afford coverage to Defendant in the event of a verdict for Plaintiff in the above-styled cause, whether primary, secondary or excess coverage. RESPONSE: Robinson responds that there is no insurance policy that insures Robinson for claims contained in the subject lawsuit. Robinson has no knowledge of any insurance policies covering third parties for claims contained in the subject lawsuit. R0107 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Correspondence between Defendant and Helicopter Services, Inc. regarding the use, experience, anticipated use, flight use, operational concerns, or otherwise specifically pertaining to or governing the maintenance, inspection or operation of the helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter and any components of such aircraft manufactured or assembled by Defendant. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Without waiving this objection, Robinson refers Plaintiff to the R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook, R22 Illustrated Parts Catalog, and R22 Maintenance Manual. These documents are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: For the time period from 2005 to the present, petitions for damages or complaints filed in any court or comparable administrative tribunal in connection with any lawsuits against Defendant in which it is alleged or acclaimed that the helicopter model at issue crashed as a result of design or mechanical failures. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome. Robinson further objects to this request in that it seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with R0108 the facts of this case, and as such this information is outside the scope of proper discovery and is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Robinson further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information which is protected by the attorney work product and/or attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Robinson responds that it does not maintain any database or compilation of responsive documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Maintenance manuals, parts catalogs, price lists and estimated operating costs publications prepared by Defendant and sent to distributors, dealers or repair facilities with respect to appropriate maintenance, inspection and testing of, and parts for, the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Without waiving this objection, Robinson refers to the R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook, R22 Illustrated Parts Catalog and R22 Maintenance Manual. These documents are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Service difficulty reports generated by Defendant and submitted to any field operatives, dealers, maintenance facilities and distributors with respect to the helicopter model at issue and/or any of its components. \\\ R0109 RESPONSE: Robinson responds that Service Difficulty Reports are not generated by Robinson, and such documents are received and maintained by the FAA and are not within Robinson’s custody or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Notices of malfunction or defect reports reported to the FAA or NTSB which in any way relate to tail rotor effectiveness in the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: Robinson responds that this Request seeks documents maintained by the FAA, and not in Robinson’s custody or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Internal memoranda including, but not limited to, letters, bulletins, reports, test results, investigative evaluations and the like generated within and by employees of Defendant or at the behest of Defendant relating to any alleged or perceived malfunction, materials problem, operational or maintenance failure or alleged failure with any component of the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Without waiving this objection, Robinson responds it does not believe it is in possession of responsive documents at this time. \\\ \\\ R0110 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Accident investigation reports or memoranda prepared by or at the behest of Defendant, including reports of all in-house investigations, diagrams, photographs, witness statements, engineering or test reports and memoranda, litigation testing and the like, regarding any crash of the helicopter model at issue (including the subject helicopter in the crash made the basis of this lawsuit). RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Robinson further objects to this Request as it seeks documents relating to other helicopters not related to the accident in question without any showing of substantial similarity of design or occurrence. Robinson also objects to this Request inasmuch as it seeks information protected by the attorney work product and attorney/client privilege. Without waiving this objection, Robinson will produce the Robinson Accident Report prepared by Thom Webster on R22 Serial Number 4250, Registration Number N281RG. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Documents, materials, reports or memoranda contained within FAA or NTSB files concerning operation or testing deficiencies or failures, either actual or alleged, relating to the helicopter model at issue. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope, and seeks documents which are proprietary and trade secret in nature. Without waiving this R0111 objection, Robinson responds that this Request seeks documents maintained by the FAA and/or the NTSB, and not in Robinson’s custody or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Evaluations, whether conducted internally or externally, at the behest of Defendant, upon the subject helicopter, both before and after the crash. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and burdensome as framed. Without waiving this objection, Robinson will produce the Robinson Accident Report prepared by Thom Webster on R22 Serial Number 4250, Registration Number N281RG. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Documents referring to or reflecting any testing, whether operation or field testing or component, experimental or laboratory testing, concerning evaluation of the helicopter model at issue's engine and rotor systems. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Robinson further objects inasmuch as this request seeks documents which are proprietary and contain trade secrets. Without waiving these objections, if Plaintiff can narrow this request, Robinson will attempt to provide a response. \\\ \\\ R0112 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Correspondence between Defendant and Helicopter Services, Inc. referring or relating to the proper inspection, maintenance and operation of the helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request in that it is duplicative in nature. Robinson refers to its response to Request for Production No. 7, which is incorporated herein by reference. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Correspondence referring to or reflecting proper maintenance, operation, and flight use of the helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. This Request seeks ‘correspondence’ without indicating between what parties it is referring to. If Plaintiff can clarify this Request, Robinson can attempt to provide a reasonable response. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Each and every exhibit that Defendant will offer at trial for any purpose, including all demonstrative exhibits, all substantive exhibits and all tangible, photographic or documentary evidence which Defendant will attempt to show to the jury or otherwise use at the trial of this case. \\\ R0113 RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request on the grounds that it is premature at this stage of discovery, and disclosure of such documents and things will be conducted at the appropriate time under the relevant rules of Court. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Any videotapes, photographs, or other similar evidence in your possession depicting and/or relating in any way to Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Robinson will produce the Robinson Accident Report prepared by Thom Webster on R22 Serial Number 4250, Registration Number N281RG. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Each and every exhibit, including all demonstrative exhibits, all substantive exhibits and all tangible, photographic or documentary evidence that have been reviewed by or created by your testifying experts or that in any way support or illustrate your testifying experts' opinions that are relevant to this case. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request on the grounds that it is premature at this stage of discovery, and disclosure of such documents and things will be conducted at the appropriate time under the relevant rules of Court. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Your current balance sheet, financial statement or other document(s) sufficient to show your current net worth. For purposes of this request, "net worth" means the R0114 difference between total assets and liabilities determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"). RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to the Request as it seeks privileged financial records which are highly sensitive, and their confidentiality is necessary to Robinson’s competitive advantage and continued viability. Robinson also objects to this Request as the information requested is not relevant to any of the current issues of liability and causation. Further, there is no public policy reason for this information to be released as it only concerns the financial status of one defendant, and implicates no public safety or other relevant issue. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Photographs, videos or maps of the scene of the crash. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome, seeks information which is equally available to the propounding party and it would be as cost-effective for Plaintiffs to acquire information in the hands of third parties as for Robinson to do so. Without waiving these objections, Robinson will produce the Robinson Accident Report prepared by Thom Webster on R22 Serial Number 4250, Registration Number N281RG. \\\ \\\ \\\ R0115 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: All documents supporting your claim that another person or entity is a Responsible Third Party that has not been named by Plaintiff as a defendant in this lawsuit. RESPONSE: Robinson respectfully objects to this Request on the grounds that it is premature, discovery is in progress and the investigation and preparation have not been completed. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Pilot operating manuals, helicopter operational manuals, or the like, prepared by Defendant for the helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter. RESPONSE: Robinson refers to the R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook, R22 Flight Training Guide, R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters, and Robinson Safety Notices. Robinson will produce a full set of R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters and Robinson Safety Notices. The R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook and R22 Flight Training Guide are publicly available for purchase or free download from Robinson’s website at www.robinsonheli.com. \\\ R0116  INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY N0.1: State the full name, current complete address, telephone number, and position, capacity or job title of each person who assisted in answering these interrogatories on behalf of Defendant. ANSWER: Pete Riedl Vice-President, Engineering Robinson Helicopter Company 2901 Airport Drive Torrance, CA 90505 310-539-0508 and counsel of record. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: With respect to the subject helicopter, did you provide any component parts including, but not limited to, the engine and/or engine assembly and/or rotor systems of that helicopter? If your answer is "yes," provide the following information: a. A complete description including part numbers, model numbers, assembly unit, and trade name of any and all components that were incorporated into and part of the subject helicopter on the date of its crash; and b. Identify all suppliers of component parts from whom you have purchased, in whole or in part, parts to be incorporated into units or any parts thereof which you supplied. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome as framed. Without waiving this R0117 objection and utilizing its own definition, Robinson responds that it was the original manufacturer of the subject helicopter, but was not the original manufacturer of the subject helicopter’s engine. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: In connection with any business you have conducted with Helicopter Services, Inc., state: a. The first and last date of any business transactions between you and Helicopter Service, Inc.; b. The nature of the business relationship (e.g., vendor/purchaser, lessor/lessee, etc.); c. The identity of those individuals in your company with knowledge of the business relationship between you and Helicopter Services, Inc.; and d. The models and model years of all helicopters sold by you to Helicopter Services, Inc. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, and seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving this objection and utilizing its own definition, Robinson responds that Helicopter Services, Inc. has been a Robinson Dealership and Service Center since 1989. \\\ \\\ R0118 INTERROGATORY NO. 4: With respect to the subject helicopter, provide the original dates of design and manufacture. ANSWER: Robinson responds that the R22 helicopter was certified in March 1979 and R22 serial number 4250 was issued a standard airworthiness certificate on December 10, 2007. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify the current custodian and whereabouts of all studies or tests with respect to the helicopter model at issue's engine and rotor systems, including but not limited to safety analysis and consideration of various alternative designs. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, and seeks information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving this objection and utilizing its own definition, Robinson responds that documents related to the design and certification of the R22 model helicopter are located at Robinson’s facility, 2901 Airport Drive, Torrance, California 90505. Robinson further responds that it did not manufacture the engine installed in the subject helicopter. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: For the period 2005 to the present, provide a description, including identification of equipment, date, crash site, and fatality/injury information, of all malfunctions, R0119 incidents, accidents, or complaints (regardless of whether injury or death ensued) associated with use of the helicopter model at issue. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome, seeks information which is equally available to the propounding party and it would be as cost-effective for Plaintiffs to acquire information in the hands of third parties as for Robinson to do so. Robinson further objects to this request in that it seeks information pertaining to any helicopter other than the one involved in this litigation without reasonable limitation such as substantial similarity with the facts of this case, and as such this information is outside the scope of proper discovery and is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Robinson responds that it does not maintain a database or formal compilation of this information. For purposes of any research or analysis, Robinson responds that the records maintained by the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) are reviewed as the NTSB’s records contain significantly more incidents and accidents, contain probable cause determinations, and are accessible as they are maintained in a database. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: State all of the ways in which you attempt to ascertain the existence of any malfunctions or complaints associated with your helicopters other than the receipt of legal action, and describe any and all documents reflecting the above, indicating their present location. \\\ R0120 ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome to answer as framed. Without waiving these objections, Robinson responds that if Plaintiff can narrow this Interrogatory, Robinson will attempt to provide a response. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify any and all documents in your possession, custody or control describing any changes to or the reasons for such changes in the design or materials used in the helicopter model at issue, including any component parts therein, subsequent to its original manufacture and design. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope as frame. Robinson further objects to this demand on the grounds that it seeks to invade proprietary, trade secret, and confidential information. Without waiving these objections, Robinson responds that if Plaintiff can narrow this Interrogatory, Robinson will attempt to provide a response. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: For the period 2005 to the present, identify any and all documents in your possession, custody or control relating to any notices directed to you, claims made against you, or lawsuits filed against you wherein it was claimed or alleged that a helicopter model at issue failed because of any malfunction, maintenance problem, R0121 manufacturing defect, engine or rotor failure, metallurgical problem, blade detachment, coning, lack of tail rotor effectiveness, recoverability issues or autorotation issues, and: a. Identify the custodian of any and all such documents in your possession referring to or reflecting any such notices, claims, or lawsuits; and b. Set forth and identify any and all such notices, claims, and lawsuits by date, aircraft description, engine part number, location of malfunction, and aircraft owner. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome. Robinson further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information which is protected by the attorney work product and/or attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Robinson does not maintain a list or database for this information, or for information relating to historical litigation or lawsuits filed. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Describe any and all bulletins, manuals, written instructions, warnings, procedures, letters, alerts, or the like that were: a. Provided with the promotion or sale of the helicopter model at issue; b. Subsequently supplied to any owner, operator, or lessor of any of the helicopter model at issue. \\\ \\\\ \\\ R0122 ANSWER: Robinson refers to the R22 Maintenance Manual, R22 Illustrated Parts Catalog, R22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook, R22 Flight Training Guide, R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters, and Robinson Safety Notices. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: For the period 2005 to the present, identify every lawsuit that has been filed against you (regardless of whether injury or death ensued) wherein it was claimed or alleged that any helicopter or helicopter component supplied by you malfunctioned, failed, lost power, or contributed to a reportable aviation mishap, specifically identifying: a. The name, court, docket number of each lawsuit as well as identifying in which lawsuits Defendant gave interrogatories, oral depositions; and b. The identity including name, address and telephone number of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in each such matter, as well as whether the case was or has been resolved or settled. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome. Robinson further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information which is protected by the attorney work product and/or attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Robinson does not maintain a list or database for this information, or for information relating to historical litigation or lawsuits filed. \\\ \\\ R0123 INTERROGATORY NO. 12: For any liability insurance coverage which Defendant held and which will cover the occurrence out of which this loss arises, state: a. The name and address of each such carrier; b. The policy numbers of each such policy; c. Whether any reservation of the insurer's rights has been declared with respect to a potential dispute in coverage for this loss; and d. Whether Defendant must approve of any settlement entered into by its insurance carrier. ANSWER: Robinson responds that there is no insurance policy that insures Robinson for claims contained in the subject lawsuit. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify any and all engineering change orders made with respect to the rotor systems utilized by the helicopter model at issue and substantially similar rotor systems. In connection therewith, set forth the effective date and serial number of any such engineering change order. ANSWER: Robinson responds that it does not have any documents referred to as “engineering change orders.” \\\ \\\ \\\ R0124 INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Set forth the certification history of the helicopter model at issue, including but not limited to the dates and test results of all developmental ground tests, developmental flight tests, and in connection therewith: a. Identify the current location of all applications for type certification, ground and flight tests, and all documents related thereto; and b. Identify the custodian of all such files. ANSWER: Robinson responds that the R22 helicopter was certified by the FAA in 1979. Robinson is located at 2901 Airport Drive, Torrance, California 90505 and maintains its records at that location. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify all flight and ground test documentation including, but not limited to, test protocol, field test results, and any videotapes or photographs with respect to the helicopter model at issue. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, unlimited in time and scope as framed, and seeks proprietary and trade secret information. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Identify all correspondence, communications, or safety notices or bulletins generated by you and forwarded to the National Transportation Safety Board and any R0125 such responses, directives, notices, or requests imparted by NTSB to you involving the helicopter model at issue and/or the subject helicopter. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope, and seeks information which is equally available to the propounding party and it would be as cost-effective for Plaintiffs to acquire information in the hands of third parties as for Robinson to do so. Without waiving these objections, Robinson responds that all information relating to R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters and Robinson Safety Notices are included in the R22 Service Bulletins, R22 Service Letters and Robinson Safety Notices themselves. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Has Defendant caused to be issued any mechanical reliability reports to the FAA with respect to the helicopter model at issue? If the answer is "yes," state the following: a. The current condition and whereabouts of any such reports; and b. The dates and subject matter of any such reports. ANSWER: Robinson is unfamiliar with the term “mechanical reliability reports,” and as such, is unable to respond to this Interrogatory as framed. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Has the FAA or NTSB ever directed you to issue an airworthiness directive with respect to any aspect of the design, manufacture, operation, maintenance, or use of the helicopter model at issue? If your answer is "yes," set forth the following: R0126  a. The current custodian and whereabouts of any such airworthiness directives; and b. The dates of any such directives and the general subject matter of each. ANSWER: No, airworthiness directives are issued and maintained by the Federal Aviation Administration. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Has the FAA or NTSB ever conducted an inquiry into the manufacture, design, operation, maintenance, or use of the helicopter model at issue? If your answer is "yes," set forth the following: a. The current custodian and whereabouts of any such inquiries; and b. The dates of any such inquiries including the general subject matter of each. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome inasmuch as the term “inquiry” is not defined, and is unlimited in time and scope, and seeks information which is equally available to the propounding party and it would be as cost-effective for Plaintiffs to acquire information in the hands of third parties as for Robinson to do so. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Identify the following persons with responsibility for the design, testing, and certification of the helicopter model at issue and the subject helicopter: a. Head of engineering; R0127  b. Project engineer; c. Chief of flight operations and testing; d. Governmental liaison between defendant and FAA/NTSB; and e. Investigating officer for malfunction notices ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and burdensome. Without waiving this objection, Robinson responds that the person most knowledgeable at Robinson with respect to the subject matters listed is Pete Riedl, Vice-President of Engineering. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Identify all of the individuals who have or have had any responsibilities – whether administrative, investigative, or engineering – arising out of the crash giving rise to this action. In connection therewith, state the name of each and every such individual and set forth their current positions with the company, date hired, and current employment. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory as it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and burdensome. Without waiving this objection, Robinson responds that Thom Webster was the Robinson technical investigator who documented the circumstances of the accident, and authored the Robinson Accident Report on R22 S/N 4250. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: If you were present during any inspection or "tear down" of components from the subject helicopter: R0128  a. Identify all of your employees who were present, along with their job titles, positions, and reason for their presence; and b. Identify all non-employees who were present, along with their employer or governmental affiliation and reason for their presence. ANSWER: a. Thom Webster was present as the Robinson Technical Investigator assigned to the investigation of this accident. b. No other persons were present on behalf of Robinson INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Describe any redundancy built into the design of the helicopter model at issue that would provide a measure of safety in the event of an in-flight failure of the engine or rotor system. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, burdensome, and unlimited with respect to timeframe and scope. Without waiving these objections, Robinson responds that if Plaintiff can narrow this Interrogatory, Robinson will attempt to provide a response. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: State (a) your current net worth and (b) a description of the facts and methodology used to calculate what you allege to be your current net worth. For purposes of answering this Interrogatory, "net worth," means the difference between total assets and liabilities determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"). R0129 ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to the Interrogatory as it seeks privileged financial records which are highly sensitive, and their confidentiality is necessary to Robinson’s competitive advantage and continued viability. Robinson also objects to this Interrogatory as the information requested is not relevant to any of the current issues of liability and causation. Further, there is no public policy reason for this information to be released as it only concerns the financial status of one defendant, and implicates no public safety or other relevant issue. Plaintiffs’ petition includes factually unsupported claims of intentional and grossly negligent conduct by Robinson. Without more, the discovery of Robinson’s sensitive and confidential financial information should not be permitted. The existing case law setting the standards for discovery of a defendant’s net worth is antiquated and does not reflect the recently-enacted limitations on exemplary damage claims as passed by the Texas Legislature. Thus, Robinson should not be required to disclose its net worth based absent factually support for Plaintiff’s allegations. In order to remain consistent with the intent and purpose of Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, Robinson should not be required to produce its net worth unless or until a jury, based on clear and convincing evidence, returns a unanimous verdict that Robinson is liable to Plaintiffs for exemplary damages based on the facts and evidence presented in this case. INTERROGATORYNO. 25: Identity each person or entity you contend is a potential Responsible Third Party in this lawsuit, state with as much specificity as possible the factual basis for such R0130 contention, and identify the persons that may possess relevant knowledge regarding the contention. ANSWER: Robinson respectfully objects to this Interrogatory as it is premature at this state in the investigation and discovery process. Robinson reserves the right to supplement this response at a later date. R0131  REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit you designed, in whole or in part, the subject helicopter. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that you manufactured, in whole or in part, the subject helicopter. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that you assembled, in whole or in part, the subject helicopter. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that the subject helicopter was not airworthy on the date of the crash. RESPONSE: Robinson responds that discovery is ongoing, and it lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny this request at this time. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.5: Admit that the subject helicopter was airworthy on the date of the crash. RESPONSE: Robinson responds that discovery is ongoing, and it lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny this request at this time. R0132 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that the subject helicopter was not properly inspected as of the date of the crash. RESPONSE: Robinson responds that discovery is ongoing, and it lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny this request at this time. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that the subject helicopter was properly inspected as of the date of the crash. RESPONSE: Robinson responds that discovery is ongoing, and it lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny this request at this time. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that the helicopter model at issue is more prone to loss of tail rotor effectiveness than some other helicopters. RESPONSE: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit that the helicopter model at issue is not more prone to loss of tail rotor effectiveness than some other helicopters. RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that the helicopter model at issue's rotors are low inertia. R0133 RESPONSE: As the phrase “low inertia” is not adequately defined, Robinson lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny this request at this time. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that the helicopter model at issue's rotors are not low inertia. RESPONSE: As the phrase “low inertia” is not adequately defined, Robinson lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny this request at this time. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit that the fuel tanks used in the helicopter model at issue were subject of a safety bulletin. RESPONSE: Robinson cannot admit or deny this Request as it is not familiar with the term “Safety Bulletin.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that the fuel tanks used in the helicopter model at issue were not the subject of a safety bulletin. RESPONSE: Robinson cannot admit or deny this Request as it is not familiar with the term “Safety Bulletin.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that Decedents were fatally injured in the crash. \\\ R0134 RESPONSE: Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that you contend there is a Responsible Third Party that has not been named by Plaintiff as a defendant in this lawsuit. RESPONSE: Robinson responds that discovery is ongoing, and it lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny this request at this time. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit that you do not contend there is a Responsible Third Party that has not been named by Plaintiff as a defendant in this lawsuit. RESPONSE: Robinson responds that discovery is ongoing, and it lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny this request at this time. Respectfully submitted, COATS & EVANS, P.C. /S/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew Coats Texas Bar No. 00783846 Gary Linn Evans Texas Bar No. 00795338 P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, TX 77393-0246 Telephone: 281-367-7732 Facsimile: 281-367-8003 Attorneys for Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. R0135  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned attorney, as attorney of record for the Defendant, certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served on all parties of record on this the 30th day of September 2014. MARK T. MURRAY STEVENSON & MURRAY 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, Texas 77046 Email: MMurray@johnstevensonlaw.com Mr. Don Swaim Rose Walker, LLP 3500 Maple Avenue, Suite 900 Dallas, Texas 75219 Telephone: 214-752-8600 Facsimile: 214-752-8700 Email: dswaim@rosewalker.com /S/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew Coats R0136  3/20/20154:51:22PM ChrisDaniel-DistrictClerk HarrisCounty EnvelopeNo:4588027 By:DELAROSA,GABRIELA Filed:3/20/20154:51:22PM CAUSE NO. 2014-34635 NATHAN S. ATES, Individually § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF and as Personal Representative of the Estate § of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates § and Nathan M. Ates § § vs. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § INC., HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. § and the Estate of CHRISTOPHER § YEAGER § 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICT ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC.’S RESPONSES TO FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS, AND REQUEST FOR RULING ON DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS BE IT REMEMBERED that upon the day and date shown hereinbelow came on for consideration the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendants, ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC. to fully respond to Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests and rule upon Defendant’s objections; the Court, having considered the pleadings, exhibits and arguments of counsel, if any, finds Plaintiffs’ motion to be with merit; it is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion be and it is hereby GRANTED. It is further ORDERED Defendant shall provide responses to the discovery requests subject of Plaintiff’s motion within _____ days of signature upon this Order; it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ counsel be awarded attorney fees and expenses due to Defendant’s steadfast refusal to cooperate on discovery issues and the unnecessary delay of proceedings, in the amount of $___________________. SIGNED on this the ______ day of _______________________, 2015. _________________________ JUDGE PRESIDING R0137  3/20/2015 4:00:40 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 4586292 By: GABRIELA COX Filed: 3/20/2015 4:00:40 PM CAUSE NO. 2014-34635 NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF as Personal Representative of the Estate § of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates § and Nathan M. Ates § § v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § INC., HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. § And the Estate of CHRISTOPHER YEAGER § 11TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COME NOW, NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates and Nathan M. Ates, Plaintiffs herein and files this Designation of Expert Witnesses as shown on the attached Exhibit A, subject to the following: I. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this designation with additional designations of experts within the time limits imposed by the Court or any alterations of same by subsequent Court Order or agreement of the parties, or pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Texas Rules of Civil Evidence. II. Plaintiffs reserve the right to elicit, by way of cross-examination, opinion testimony from experts designated and called by other parties to the suit. Plaintiffs express their intention to possibly call, as witnesses associated with adverse parties, any of Defendants’ experts. 1 R0138  III. Plaintiffs reserve the right to call un-designated rebuttal expert witnesses whose testimony cannot reasonably be foreseen until the presentation of the evidence against Plaintiffs. IV. Plaintiffs reserve the right to withdraw the designation of any expert and to aver positively that any such previously designated expert will not be called as a witness at trial, and to re-designate same as a consulting expert, who cannot be called by opposing counsel. V. Plaintiffs reserve the right to elicit any expert opinion or lay opinion testimony at the time of trial which would be truthful, which would be of benefit to the jury to determine material issues of fact, and which would not be violative of any existing Court Order or the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. VI. Plaintiffs hereby designate, as adverse parties, potentially adverse parties, and/or as witnesses associated with adverse parties, all parties to this suit and all experts designated by any party to this suit, even if the designating party is not a party to the suit at the time of trial. In the event a present or future party designates an expert but then is dismissed for any reason from the suit or fails to call any designated expert, Plaintiffs reserve the right to designate and/or call any such party or any such experts previously designated by any party. 2 R0139  VII. Plaintiffs reserve whatever additional rights they might have with regard to experts, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the Texas Rules of Civil Evidence, the case law construing same, and the rulings of the trial court. Respectfully submitted, STEVENSON & MURRAY /s/ Mark T. Murray By: MARK T. MURRAY State Bar No. 14724810 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, Texas 77046 (713) 622-3223 (713) 622-3224 (FAX) 3 R0140  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been delivered to all counsel by U.S. Mail, facsimile and/or other means, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this the 20th day of March 2015: George Andrew Coats Gary Linn Evans COATS & EVANS, P.C. P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, Texas 77393-0246 Counsel for Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. Don Swaim Cunningham Swaim, LLP 7557 Rambler Road, Suite 440 Dallas, Texas 75231 Counsel for Helicopter Services, Inc. And Christopher Yeager, Deceased /s/ Mark T. Murray /s/ ______________________________ Mark T. Murray 4 R0141 R0142 R0143 R0144 R0145 R0146 R0147 R0148 R0149 R0150 R0151 R0152 R0153 R0154 R0155 R0156 R0157 R0158 R0159 R0160 R0161 EXHIBIT B - EXPERT CV'S AND LISTS OF TESTIMONY R0162  McSWAIN ENGINEERING, INC. 3320 MCLEMORE DRIVE P.O. Box 10888 PENSACOLA,FLORIDA 32524-0888 (850) 484-0506 FAX (850) 484-0508 WILLIAM D. CARDEN, M.S., P.E. Curriculum Vitae EDUCATION: 1994: University of Alabama-Birmingham - Bachelor of Science in Materials Engineering 1997: The Ohio State University- Master of Science in Materials Engineering ENGINEERING REGISTRATION: Registered Professional Metallurgical Engineer in the State of Alabama - 2003. P .E. #26030 Registered Professional Metallurgical Engineer in the State of Georgia- 2005. P.E. #30778 Registered Professional Metallurgical Engineer in the State of Florida - 2006. P.E. #65271 EXPERIENCE: 2006 to Present Consulting Materials Engineer/Director of Materials Engineering McSwain Engineering, Inc. Pensacola, Florida Failure analysis and engineering investigation. Evaluation of properties, processing and manufacturing of aerospace, automotive and consumer products and materials. Oversight of laboratory operations, metallurgical and materials testing, and technical staff. 2001to2006 Senior Engineer Vista Engineering Birmingham, Alabama Failure analysis, including metallurgical evaluations, numerical/engineering analysis, fractography. Analysis of materials and manufacturing processes. Microstructural modeling of grain refinement in the processing of super alloys. Software code development, validation and numerical analysis. - 1- R0163  Defonnation modeling using finite element analysis (DEFORM). 1997 to 2001 Materials Engineer Private Contractor/Self-Employed Microstructure modeling using Monte Carlo Simulation Techniques to simulate solidification in nickel alloy systems. Development of solidification modeling computer code and comparison to actual microstructures. FORTRAN coding and software development. 1995 to 1997 Graduate Research Assistant The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio Research and testing related to the processing and utilization ofnew weight saving materials in the automotive industry. Specializing in sheet metal fonning and mechanical metallurgy. 1993 to 1995 Research Assistant/Laboratory Technician University of Alabama-Binningham Binningham, Alabama Conducted research on various projects. Taught undergraduate Jabs. Perfonned testing related to various engineering consulting and failure analysis projects. Performed metallography and other testing related to crystal growth and semiconductor compatibility research. MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES: American Society of Mechanical Engineering (ASME) American Society for Materials (ASM International) Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME) Association for Fanning & Fabricating Technologies ofSME (AFFT/SME) Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Alabama Society of Professional Engineers (ASPE) National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) FUNDED RESEARCH: DoD-AF, SBIR Phase I, Efficient Superalloy Ingot Breakdown CTeC, Microstructure Modeling oflngot Grain Refinement for Turbine Disks -2- R0164 PRESENTATIONS AND CONFERENCE PARTICIPATION: "Microstructure Simulation and Verification of Alloy 718 Hot Compression Tests," G. Janowski, R. Thompson, M. Papa, W. Carden: Presentation at ASM 13th Advanced Aerospace Materials & Processes Conference & Exposition (AeroMat), Presented by David Lambert, Scientific Fanning Technologies Corporation, Orlando, Florida, June 2002. "Microstructure Analysis and Modeling oflngot to Billet Conversion in Alloy 718," R. Thompson, G. Janowski, W. Carden, J. Papa, H. Ning: THERMEC 2003, Madrid, Spain, 2003. "Spot Weld Failure in Galvanized Steel Sheets: A Case Study," R . Thompson, W. Carden, Failure Analysis and Prevention, ASM Materials Solutions Conference, Pittsburgh, 2003. "Fatigue Failure in a Threaded Eyebolt: A Case Study," W. Carden and R. Thompson, Failure Analysis and Prevention, ASM Materials Solutions Conference, Pittsburgh, 2003. "Modeling Microstructure Evolution in 718 Ingot to Billet Conversion," W. Carden, R. Thompson, G. Janowski, J. Papo, H. Ning, The New Face of Forging II, ASM Materials Solutions Conference, Pittsburgh, 2003. "Modeling Microstructure Evolution in 718 Ingot to Billet Conversion," W. Carden, R. Thompson, D. Barker, R. Goetz, F. Meisenkothen, F. Scheltens, G. Janowski, 6lh International Symposium on Superalloys 718. 625. 706 and Derivatives, TMS Conference, Pittsburgh, 2005. "Causation and Consequences of Spring Failure in RCF 67 Buckles," American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, February 2007. "Preparation of Three-Dimensional Exhibits and Replicas for Courtroom Presentation," E. Van lderstine, W. Carden, 41 "1 Annual Air Law Symposium, Dallas, Texas, February 2007. "Application of Reverse Engineering Created Models to Failure Analysis Investigations (Invited)," R.H. Mcswain, M. B. Hood, E. L. Van lderstine, W. D. Carden, C. C. Coburn, Mcswain Engineering, Inc., Materials Science & Technology Conference and Exhibition, Detroit, MI, September 2007. "Contact and Non-Contact Dimensional Analysis in Forensic Investigations {Invited)," E. L. Van Iderstine, R.H. Mcswain, W. D. Carden, C. C. Coburn, Mcswain Engineering, Inc., Materials Science & Technology Conference and Exhibition, Detroit, Ml, September 2007. "Causation and Consequences of Spring Failure in RCF 67 Buckles," R.H. McSwain, M. B. Hood, W. D. Carden, E. L. Van Iderstine, McSwain Engineering, Inc., Materials Science & Technology Conference and Exhibition, Detroit, Ml, September 2007. "Ford Probe Seat Collapse," R.H. McSwain, M. B. Hood, W. D. Carden, E. L. Van Iderstine, McSwain Engineering, Inc., Materials Science & Technology Conference and Exhibition, Columbus, OH, October 2011. "Trailer Hitch Receiver Failure on a Class A Motorhome," W. D. Carden, E. L. Van Iderstine, McSwain Engineering, Inc., Materials Science & Technology Conference and Exhibition, Columbus, OH, October 2011. ~ 3 - R0165  Session Chair: Failure Analysis and Prevention: Consumer Products, Materials Science & Technology Conference and Exhibition, Pittsburgh, PA, October 2014. Session Chair: Failure Analysis and Prevention: Environmentally Assisted Failures, Materials Science & Technology Conference and Exhibition, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, October 2013. "Failure of a Pickup Truck Track Bar," William Carden, Mcswain Engineering, Inc., Materials Science & Technology Conference and Exhibition, Pittsburgh, PA, October 2014. "Knife Blade Delamination Failure," William Carden, Eric Van Iderstine, McSwain Engineering, Inc., Materials Science & Technology Conference and Exhibition, Pittsburgh, PA, October 2014. PUBLICATIONS: Wang, J.F., Wagoner, R.H., Carden, W.D., Matlock, D.K., Barlat, F., "Creep and Anelasticity in the Springback of Aluminum," International Journal of Plasticity, V20, Nl2, December 2004, p 2209-2232. R. Thompson, G. Janowski, W. Carden, J. Papo, H. Ning, "Microstructure Analysis and Modeling oflngot to Billet Conversion in Alloy 718," Materials Science Forum, V426-432, Nl, 2003, p 809-814. Carden, W.D., Geng, L.M., Matlock, D.K., Wagoner, R.H., "Measurement of Springback," International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, V44, Nl, January 2002, p 79-101. R.H. Wagoner, W. D. Carden, W. P. Carden, D. K. Matlock, "Springback after Drawing and Bending of Metal Sheets," Proc. IPMM '97 - Intelligent Processing and Manufacturing of Materials, eds. T. Chandra, S.R. Leclair, J.A. Meech, B. Verma, M. Smith and B. Balachandran, University of Wollongong, 1997, VI (Intelligent Systems Applications), p 1-10 [KEYNOTE]. SERVICE AND HONORS: MTAIS Failure Analysis Committee - Voting Member - American Society for Materials (ASM International) ASME Birmingham, Chairman 2005-2006, Chapter Treasurer 2003-05 Society of Manufacturing Engineers Birmingham, Chairman 2005-06, Chapter Treasurer 2003-05 Birmingham Business Journal's Top 40 Under 40, 2004 Engineering Council of Birmingham's Young Engineer of the Year, 2003 The Ohio State University Alumni Association, 2002 University of Alabama - Birmingham Alumni Association, 2001 -4 - R0166  ASM/TMS Joint Student Chapter President-DAB, 1994 AFS Student Chapter Vice-President-DAB, 1994 Alpha Sigma Mu, Materials Engineering Honor Society, 1994 Tau Beta Pi, Engineering Honor Society, 1994 CONTINUING ENGINEERING EDUCATION: Course Title Source Date Motor Vehicle Accident Reconstruction SAE International 2004 Air Brake Systems Training Bendix 2004 Practical Fracture Analysis ASM International 2007 The Tire as a Vehicle Component SAE International 2007 Tire and Wheel Safety Issues SAE International 2007 PC-DMIS Training for ROMER CimCore Portable ROMER CimCore 2007 CMM CAMIOBasic Metris 2008 The Basics of Internal Combustion Engines SAE International, Course I.D.# 2008 PD130404 Impulse Operators Course Instron 2009 Advanced Factory Training Course Teledyne Continental Motors 2009 An Introduction to Welded Joints ICE Technology, Dr. Jess Comer 2010 Threaded Fasteners and the Bolted Joint ICE Technology, Dr. Jess Comer 2010 Medical Device Design Validation and Failure Analysis ASM International 2012 Radiation Safety and Operation of Thermo Scientific Portable 2013 Portable XRF Analyzers Analytical Instruments Inc. NTSB Helicopter Accident Investigation National Transportation Safety 2014 Board - 5- R0167  WILLIAM DAVID CARDEN, M.S., P.E. TESTIMONY CHRONOLOGY Case Style PAMELA MARGARET LEWIS, et al. D 2014 Plaintiffs, v. LYCOMING, et al. Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Civil Action No. 11-6475-HB JEFF LYON and LISA LYON, D 2014 Plaintiffs, vs. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., GENIE INDUSTRIES, INC., METROLIFT, INC., and METROLIFT SALES AND SERVICE, LLC, Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION No. 09 Ll0983 LARRY DALE CROUCH; RHONDA MAE D 2013 CROUCH; TEDDY LEE HUDSON; AND CAROLYN SUE HUDSON, Plaintiffs, vs. TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC., Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION NO. 1:10-cv-00072-KD-N D - Deposition H-Hearing T - Trial A - Arbitration R0168 PARIS PICKETI, D 2013 Plaintiff, vs. MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS OF NEVADA, INC.; LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE, INC.; JOHN DOES 1 through 100; and DOE CORPORATIONS 1through100, Defendants. DISTRICT COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA No. A-11-653208-C Dept.XIII BLANCA M. GONZALEZ, INDIVIDUALLY D 2013 AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERTO GONZALEZ, DECEASED, ET AL. Plaintiffs, VERSUS LONE STAR TEMP SERVICES, INC., ET AL. Defendants. IN 1HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 164TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE NO: 2010-62821 -2- D - Deposition H-Hearing T - Trial A Arbitration R0169 KRISTI MITIS, lNDI V IDUALLY AND D 2013 AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE DESEASED AND ON BEHALF OF ALL WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES, Plaintiffs, VERSUS SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION; SIKORSKY SUPPORT SERVICES, INC. d/b/a SIKORSKY AEROSPACE MAINTENANCE; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION; PARKER-BERTEA AEROSPACE GROUP f/k/a BERTEA CORPORATION; CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION; and, CURTISS-WRIGHT CONTROLS, INC., Defendants. IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 1HE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IBXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO: 4:10-cv-05164 CONSOLIDATED WITH CIVIL ACTION NO: 4:1 l-cv-00551 CHAD EVERETI, et al., Plaintiffs, T 2012 And KENTUCKY FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. Intervening Plaintiff vs. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, Defendant COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY lST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FULTON CIRCUIT COURT CASE No.: 10-CI 00151 -3- D - Deposition H-Hearing T - Trial A - Arbitration R0170 CHAD EVERETT, et al., Plaintiffs, D 2012 And KENTUCKY FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. Intervening Plaintiff vs. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, Defendant COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY I ST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FULTON CIRCUIT COURT CASE No.: 10-CI 00151 LURA HESS BECHTEL, individually and as Co- T 2012 Administratrix of the Estates of Donald R. and Veronica Hess, JOHANNA V. HESS, individually and as Co-Administratrix of the Estates of Donald R. and Veronica Hess, Plaintiffs, vs. SANDEL AVIONICS, INC., DELA WARE SANDEL AVIONICS, LLC, CENTURY FLIGHT SYSTEMS, INC. dba CENTURY FLIGHT SYSTEMS; MID CONTINENT INSTRUMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED, dba MID CONTINENT INSTRUMENTS, ELECTRIC GYRO CORPORTATION, and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STA TE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CASE NO. 37-2010-00104069-CU-PO-CTL -4- D - Deposition H-Hearing T-Trial A - Arbitration R0171 LURA HESS BECHTEL, individually and as Co- D 2012 Administratrix of the Estates of Donald R. and Veronica Hess, JOHANNA V. HESS, individually and as Co-Administratrix of the Estates of Donald R. and Veronica Hess, Plaintiffs, vs. SANDEL AVIONICS, INC., DELAWARE SANDEL AVIONICS, LLC, CENTURY FLIGHT SYSTEMS, INC. dba CENTURY FLIGHT SYSTEMS; MID CONTINENT INSTRUMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED, dba MID CONTINENT INSTRUMENTS, ELECTRIC GYRO CORPORTATION, and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CASE NO. 37-2010-00104069-CU-PO-CTL SEAN DAVI, an individual; SHAWNA DAVI, D 2012 an individual; JAMES SANTOS, an individual; SHANNON SANTOS, an individual, Plaintiffs, vs. H&E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC., a corporation; BEE WELDING, INC. d.b.a. BEE ACCESS PRODUCTS, and DOES I through 100, Inclusive, Defendants. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT CASE NO. BC425711 LARRY DALE CROUCH; RHONDA MAE T 2011 CROUCH; TEDDY LEE HUDSON; AND CAROLYN SUE HUDSON, Plaintiffs, vs. TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC., Defendant. IN THE UNIIBD STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DIS1RICT OF ALABAMA SOUTIIERN DIVISION NO. 1:10-cv-00072-KD-N -5 - D - Deposition H-Hearing T - Trial A - Arbitration R0172 IDANIS MAZZANET-FIGUEROA, as T 2011 Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF MIGUEL A CRUZ-SANTIAGO, and !DANIS MAZZANET-FIGUEROA, individually, Plaintiff v. SCORPION SPORTS, INC., a/k/a SCORPION SPORTS USA, a CaJifomia corporation; and J.P. CYCLES, INC., d/b/a SEMINOLE POWERSPORTS, a Florida corporation, Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINlH illDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 2008-ca-20186 DIVISION: 33 LARRY DALE CROUCH; RHONDA MAE D 2011 CROUCH; TEDDY LEE HUDSON; AND CAROLYN SUE HUDSON, Plaintiffs, vs. TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC., Defendant. IN THE UNITED STA TES DIS1RICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DNISION NO. 1:10-cv-00072-KD-N -6- D - Deposition H-Hearing T - Trial A - Arbitration R0173 JOANIS MAZZANET-FIGUEROA, as 0 2010 Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF MIGUEL A CRUZ-SANTIAGO, and JOANIS MAZZANET-FIGUEROA, individually, Plaintiff v. SCORPION SPORTS, INC., a/k/a SCORPION SPORTS USA, a California corporation; and J.P. CYCLES, INC., d/b/a SEMINOLE POWERSPORTS, a Florida corporation, Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTII JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 2008-ca-20186 DIVISION: 33 !DANIS MAZZANET-FIGUEROA, as D 2009 Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF MIGUEL A CRUZ-SANTIAGO, and !DANIS MAZZANET-FIGUEROA, individually, Plaintiff v. SCORPION SPORTS, INC., a/k/a SCORPION SPORTS USA, a California corporation; and J.P. CYCLES, INC., d/b/a SEMINOLE POWERSPORTS, a Florida corporation, Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TiiE NlNTII JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 2008-ca-20186 DMSION:33 - 7- D - Deposition H-Hearing T - Trial A - Arbitration R0174 DALIA AMAYA, AS PARENT AND D 2009 NATURAL GUARDIAN OF NATALIA AMAYA, A MINOR, Plaintiffs, vs. BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION; PV HOLDING CORPORATION, A FOREIGN CORPORATION; AND JUAN CARLOS BASURTO, A FLORIDA RESIDENT, Defendants IN TIIE CIRCUIT COURT OF TIIE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 50 2008CA009513XXXXMBAI JOEY MALLARD, D 2009 Plaintiff, v. SAFARI MOTOR HOMES, INC.,et al., Defendants. IN TIIE CIRCUIT COURT OF CULLMAN COUNTY, ALABAMA CASE NO: CV-08·181 KRISTINE FERNANDEZ, Individually T 2008 and as natural mother and next friend of MEAGAN K. CARPINTERO, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant. THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO.: 02-22006 CA 09 -8 - D - Deposition H-Hearing T - Trial A - Arbitration R0175 The ESTATE OF POLLY ANN GONZALEZ, D 2008 by ALLAN J. MOTA, Administrator and SABRINA MARIE MOTA and GABRIELLA MONIQUE MOTA, Minors, by their Guardian ad Litem, ALLAN J. MOTA, Plaintiffs, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY a Delaware corporation, SILVER STA TE FORD d/b/a GAUDIN FORD, a Nevada corporation and Black and White Corporation I through X, Defendants DISTRICT COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA CASE NO. A538297 DEPT.NO.XI CYNDI H. BLANCHARD, lND!VIDUALLY D 2008 AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF COLBY TAYLOR BLANCHARD, DECEASED, AND MARK BANKS AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF DAYNA BANKS, DECEASED PLAINTIFFS, v. ROBERT J. LANDRY, JR., AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT JOSEPH LANDRY, SR. AND THERESA BOYD AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF COY MAC BOYD, SR. DEFENDANTS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, ARKANSAS, WESIBRN DIVISION - CIVIL DIVISION- A T JONESBORO CASE NO. CV2007-0607 (JF} DAVID WEBSTER, Plaintiff D 2007 v. MATTHEWS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and MATTHEWS CREMATION DIVISION, Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION CASE NO. 6:06-cv-1688-0rl-31K.RS -9- D - Deposition H - Hearing T - Trial A - Arbitration R0176 MICHAEL W. RAMSEY AND ANN R. T 2007 RAMSEY, as Personal Representatives of the Estate of CARRIE GRACE RAMSEY, deceased, Plaintiffs v. CLARENCE N. BEHN AND DUDE BEHN TRUCKING, Defendants IN TIIE CIRCUIT COURT OF 1HE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PUTNAM COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 05-28640-CA MICHAEL W. RAMSEY AND ANN R. D 2007 RAMSEY, as Personal Representatives of the Estate of CARRIE GRACE RAMSEY, deceased, Plaintiffs v. CLARENCE N . BEHN AND DUDE BEHN TRUCKING, Defendants IN TIIE CIRCUIT COURT OF TIIE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PUTNAM COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 05-28640-CA WILLIAM B. NICKELL, M.D., Plaintiff D 2007 v. MIDMARK CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, AL CASE NO.: CV-05-1823 KRISTINE FERNANDEZ, individually and as natural D 2006 mother and next of kin of MEAGAN K. CARPINTERO Plaintiff, v. LUAR ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida corporation, DAMARIS RIOS, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendants. CIRCUIT COURT OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF MIA.MI-DADE CASE NO.: 02-22006 CA 09 - 10- D - Deposition H- Hearing T Trial A - Arbitration R0177  CURRICULUM VITAE COLIN A. SOMMER, P.E. CURRENT POSITION Vice President and Aircraft Mishap and t•ailure Investigator with Aeroscope, Inc. Aeroscope, Inc. performs engineering services related to aviation accident analysis, forensic engineering, computer modeling, failure analysis and testing of airframes, engines, and aircraft systems. Aeroscope has investigated in excess of 1000 aircraft accidents and incidents including the well known crashes of TWA 800, United 232, United 585, Continental 1713, USAir 427, Alaska Airlines 261, Silk MI 185, Flash Air 604, SAS SK686, Air Algerie Flight 6289, Helios 522 and the crashes that killed the former governor of Missouri and golfer Payne Stewart. Aeroscope was also hired by the State of Florida to aid the criminal prosecution resulting from the crash of Value Jet 592. EDUCATION +Bachelor of Science Engineering -Civil and Environmental Engineer -Emphasis in Structural Design -University of Michigan, Ann Arbor -Dean's Honor List two semesters +NTSB Academy, Washington DC, Aircraft Accident Investigator Training Program. Training included: Accident Investigation, Failure Analysis of Airframes and Engines, Mid-air Collisions, In-flight Breakups, Fault Tree Analysis, Piston and Turbine Engine Failures, Pre and Post impact Fire Analysis, Metallurgy, Pathology, Biomedics, Crash Survivability, Aircraft Performance, Impact Kinematics, Propeller Analysis, Aviation Weather, Aircraft Maintenance, and many others. (May I 0, 2004) +Southern California Safety Institute, Aircraft Accident Investigation Training Program. Training included: Investigation Methodology, Causation Theory, Wreckage Pattern Analysis, Aviation Operations, Weather, Aircraft Performance, Aircraft Maintenance, Human Factors, Crash Survivability, Structural Analysis, Fire Damage, Reciprocating and Turbine Engine Failure, Propeller Analysis, Metallurgy and Material Science, Aircraft Structure and System Design, Impact Dynamics and Kinematics, Aerodynamic Loading, Aeromedics, and many others. (October 10-21, 2005) +Teledyne Continental Motors Aviation Technician Advanced Training Program. Training included: 40 hours of advanced factory training, with focus on General Engine Theory of Operation, Crankcase Threading, Crankshaft Component R & R, Cylinder R & R, 100-Hour/Annual Inspection Fuel Injection System Fuel Pump Adjustment, Cylinder Borescope Inspections, TCM Ignition Systems and Service Bulletin Exercises. (June 20-25, 2010) R0178 CURRICULUM VITAE COLIN A. SOMMER, P.E. Page Two +FAA Ratings Private Pilot Certificate - Single Engine Land (September 1, 2006) Multi Engine Land (October 14, 2011) Instrument Airplane (March 17, 2009) +Routine training in numerous aspects of aircraft accident reconstruction and failure analysis +Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) I Engineer in Training (EIT) Completed. (July 5, 2007) +Principles & Practice of Engineering Exam (PE) Completed (June 9, 2008) +Licensed Professional Engineer-State of Colorado No. PE-43554 (September 22, 2009) ENGINEERING EXPERIENCE +I have personally investigated over 350 different aircraft accidents including: -Alaska Airlines Flight 261 McDonnell Douglas MD 83 -Silk Air MI 185 Boeing 737-300 -Oklahoma State Basketball Team King Air 200 -Governor Mel Carnahan Cessna 335 -Payne Stewart Learjet 35 -Flash Air 603 Boeing 737-300 -Air Algerie Flight 6289 -Comair Flight 191 -Helios Flight 522 -Many other single and multi-engine aircraft both piston and turbine as well as helicopter +I have personally investigated accidents involving the following equipment types: -Aero Commander -Beech General Aviation -Aerospatiale/Eurocopter -Beech King Air 90, 200 -Airbus 310, 320 -Beech 1900 -Air Tractor -Bellanca -Allison/Rolls Royce Engines -Bell Helicopters -American Champion -Boeing 737, 767, 777, Vertol -Astra -Bombardier Challenger, CRJ -Augusta Helicopters 109, 119 -Caterpillar Fork Lift R0179 CURRICULUM VITAE COLIN A. SOMMER, P.E. Page Three -Cessna General Aviation -Mitsubishi MU-2B -Cessna Citation -Mooney -Commander Aircraft -Piper General Aviation -Cirrus Aircraft -Pilatus PC-12 -De Havilland -Pratt & Whitney Engines -Diamond Aircraft -Precision Airmotive -Ercoupe -Rans -Express -Raytheon -Revolution Mini 500 -Fairchild/Swearingen -Rockwell OV-10 -Garrett Engines -Robinson Helicopter -Grumman American -Rotax Engines -Gulfstream -Schweizer Helicopter -Hawker -Sikorsky S-58, S-61, S-76 -Hughes Helicopters -Taylorcraft -Kaman Helicopters -Teledyne Continental Motors -Lancair -Textron Lycoming Engines -Lake Aircraft -Turbo Mecca Engines -Learjet -Ultralight -MBB Helicopters -Vans -McDonnell Douglas MD-80, DC-10 -Westwind -McDonnell Douglas Helicopters -Zivco -Mitchell Wing PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS +International Society of Air Safety Investigators (ISASI) +Vice President Colorado/Wyoming ISASI Chapter +Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA) +National Council of Examiners for Engineering & Surveying (NCEES) (June 26, 2009) AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION +Fixed Wing Accident Reconstruction Analysis and Testing +Helicopter Accident Reconstruction Analysis and Testing +Flight Path Analysis +Mechanical, Pneumatic and Hydraulic Systems +Aircraft Performance +Aircraft Auto Pilot Systems +Aircraft Navigation Systems +Aircraft Design and Operation +Aircraft Control Systems +Aircraft Fuel Systems +Aircraft Crashworthiness +Helicopter and Fixed Wing Structural Design and Failure Analysis R0180 CURRICULUM VITAE COLIN A. SOMMER,P.E. Page Four +FAA Regulations +FAA Airworthiness Directives +Vehicular Kinematic Impact Analysis and Mathematical Modeling of Crashes +Pressurization Systems +Aircraft Vacuum Systems +Carburetor Design and Operation + Rotorcraft Aerodynamics +In-Flight Break Up +Video Animation +Aircraft Systems Analysis +Fluid Mechanics +Internal combustion engine failures +Fuel Injection Systems +Turbine engine failures +Mid Air Collisions +Post Impact Fire Investigation +Aircraft Crash Survival Design +Aircraft Avionics +Aircraft Engine Vibration +Wire Strike Protection +Aircraft Stall Protection PUBLICATIONS +Robb, Gary C. (20 I 0). Helicopter Crash Litigation. Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company Inc. - Technical Advisor and Contributor R0181  LISTING OF DEPOSITIONS AND TRIAL APPEARANCES Of COLIN A. SOMMER Aeroscope, Inc. 11901 Allison Street Broomfield, Colorado 80020 (303) 465-4414 This listing was updated as of December 2014 and dates back to July of 2006. The entries are recorded chronologically by date. Listing ofDepositionsfrrials for Colin A. Sommer · I • R0182  PLAINTIFFS V. DEFENDANTS TYPE DATE ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Berrios vs Mitsubishi Deposition July 28, 2006 Lathram v Hendrick Deposition February 15, 2007 Kelley vs Helicopter Services Deposition May 5, 2007 Baldwin/Linner/Wells Deposition June 27, 2007 Casey vs. Beech Aircraft Deposition March 5, 2008 Saler vs. Honeywell International Deposition August 6, 2008 Little vs Piper Deposition January 21, 2009 Bunch vs. Folawn Deposition May8,2009 Vincent vs Omniflight Helicopters Deposition November 4, 2009 Olauson vs TR Builder Deposition January 4, 2010 Ovesen v Mitsubishi Deposition May26, 2010 Robinson vs Diamond Deposition June 16, 2010 Pease vs Kelly Aerospace Deposition December 1, 2010 Jensen vs Modem Aero Deposition February 16, 2011 Ketcheson/Wyndham Trial February 22, 2011 Grab v Syracuse Deposition December 13, 2011 Bouret vs Caribbean Aviation Trial February 10, 2012 Higley vs Cessna Deposition April 12, 2012 Freeman vs Teledyne Deposition June 20, 2012 Bringuier Deposition June 29, 2012 Bringuier Deposition August 14, 2012 Pease vs Lycoming Engines Trial September 6, 2012 J Jones vs Teledyne Deposition September 18, 2012 Freeman vs TCM Trial September 25, 2012 Menne vs Cessna Aircraft Deposition October 8, 2012 Belz Deposition May9,2013 Higley vs Cessna Trial July 15, 2013 Barber vs Avco Deposition August 9, 2013 Toppins vs Couch Deposition October 29, 2013 Mitts Deposition November 13, 2013 Roberts Deposition March 5, 2014 Krinitt v Idaho Department offish and Game Deposition March 11, 2014 Feldkamp Deposition August 26, 2014 Littlejohn Deposition November6, 2014 Judson Deposition November 20, 2014 Listing ofDepositionsffrials for Colin A. Sommer -2- R0183  Colonel William S. Lawrence, U. S. Marine Corps, (Retired) 6825 Nob Hill Drive, North Richland Hills, TX 76182 817-560-1840 Home 817-291-9684 Mobile Multi-war experienced combat and experimental test pilot Extensive education and experience in aviation Experienced aviation and pilot expert Extensive Aviation Experience • Associate Fellow, Society of Experimental Test Pilots • Graduate, U. S. Naval Test Pilot School • 45+ years of flight experience: 4000+ hours in 120 types and models • Ten years active flight test in helicopter and fixed wing, with extensive experience in: • Light, Medium & Heavy utility, transport & attack helicopters • Light and Medium single & twin-engine piston and turboprop aircraft • Design and conceptual development of advanced cockpit integrated systems design • Flight simulator development and evaluation • Broad exposure to design, development, and evaluation of existing and emerging propulsion systems, flight controls, navigation and ordnance systems, simulator and anti-submarine warfare systems • Highly trained and experienced in aerodynamics, mechanics, associated structure and systems design considerations, industry and government program management, specification compliance, and training • Former Adjunct Professor, Embry Riddle Aeronautical University • DPR!fest Pilot for CirroTek LLC -- the Wind Rose Project Broad-Based, In-depth Qualifications in Fixed, Rotarv Wing. Experimental Aviation • Tasked with command and control of all Marine, Navy, & Coast Guard rotorcraft testing • Senior fixed wing and helicopter test pilot in U. S. Marine Corps • Program manager for XV -15 and MV-22A Tilt Rotor flight test programs, including first flights • Project flights involving over 150 projects in 60 types of helicopters and fixed wing aircraft • Extensive knowledge of government acquisition process • Fixed and rotary wing combat experience in both Vietnam and Desert Storm • Published in numerous technical and safety magazines, newspapers, & government reports Education • Bachelor of Arts - Mathematics • Master of Science- Information and Computer Science • Graduate, U.S. Naval Test Pilot School • Graduate, Defense Systems Management College • Graduate, Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Aviation Safety Management Program Pilot and Aviation Expert (160 cases in 20+ vears)- Qualified in Federal Court • Government acquisition/specification/contract procedures • Military/ civilian accident investigation techniques and procedures • Military/ civil aircraft operations and procedures • Cockpit resource management/human factors/pilot techniques and emergency procedures • Documentation search and evaluation of military/civil aircraft • Video/still frame accident documentation/accident reconstruction R0184 TESTIMONY FROM 2010-2014 (AT DEPOSITION AND AT TRIAL) Esposito v. Silver State Helicopters, LLC et.al. Deposition 11117/10 District Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado. Retained by Roberts, Levin, Rosenberg, Attorneys at Law, Denver, CO, (Ross Buchanan) Lee v. Robinson Helicopter Co., Deposition 4/26/11 Superior Court of Washington for King County - retained by Baum, Hedlund, Aristei,and Goldman, Los Angeles, CA (Ilyas Aknari and Ronald Goldman) Echevarria v. Robinson Helicopter Co. Civil No . 09-2034 (GAG), Deposition 5/2/11 United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico - retained by Rosello & Morales, CSP, San Juan, PR (Carlos Morales) Ferguson v. Army Fleet Support, LLC, Bell Helicopter Deposition 6/15/ 11 Middle District of Alabama, In the Southern Division, Civil Action No. 1:09-ev- 00635- CSC - retained by Slack and Davis, Austin, TX (Mark Pierce) O'Connor v. Southern California Edison Deposition 10/19/ 11 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case #BC434539 Retained by Baradad & Paboojian, Fresno, CA (Warren Paboojian) Long/Holtmeier v. Robinson Helicopter Rule 26 Report 12/29/2011 United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, Southern Division, noted as Case Nos. 6:09-CV-03283-0DS, 6:09-CV-05066-0DS, and 6:09-CV- 03311-0DS. -Retained by Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, and Goldman, PC, Los Angeles, CA, in July, 2011 (Ilyas Akbari and Ron Goldman), and have also been retained by GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM PC, St. Louis, MO and JAMES LEGAL SERVICES, Lee's Summit, MO Younan/Hessenflow v. Rolls Royce Corporation and MD Helicopters, Inc. Declaration In Support of Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Defendant MD Hi's MSJ 2/3/2012 United States District Court, Southern District of California, Civil Action No. 09 CV 2136-WQH (BGS); retained by Katzman, Lampert, and McCune (Bruce Lampert) in September, 2011 Younan/Hessenflow v. Rolls Royce Corporation and MD Helicopters, Inc. Rule 26 Report 1/27/12 .. . same cite as above. Younan/Hessenflow v. Rolls Royce Corporation and MD Helicopters, Inc. Rebuttal Report 2/14/2012 --- same cite as above Younan/Hessenflow v. Rolls Royce Corporation and MD Helicopers, Inc. Deposition, 3/6/12 ... same cite as above R0185 Takacs v. American Eurocopter, LLC et al. Deposition 3/22/2012 United States District Court, 327th Judicial District, El Paso County, Texas; retained by Slack & Davis, Austin, TX (Mark Pierce) in March, 2009 Sheahan v. Sierra Pacific Power Deposition 8/17/12 District Court, Clark County, Nevada; retained by Macaluso and Associates, Carlsbad, CA (Todd Macaluso) in May, 2012 Hanak et al v. Dyncorp International Deposition 10/31/12 Trial 1112114 District Court, Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division; retained by Katzman, Lampert, & McCune, Troy, MI (David Katzman) and by Napoli, Bern, Ripka, and Shkolnik, New York City, NY (Hunter Shkolnik) in March, 2012 Downey et al. v Cirrus et al. Deposition 10/9/13 Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Law Division; retained by Clifford Law Offices, Chicago, IL (Kevin Durkin), in late 2010 Mitts et al. v. Sikorsky et al. Deposition 11126/13 District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division; retained by Law Offices of Dewayne Layfield, Beaumont, TX (Dewayne Layfield) in April, 2012 (plus 5 affidavits) Roberts et al. v. USA Deposition 3/11/14 District Court, Middle Division of Florida, Orlando Division; retained by Florida Aviation Counsel, Orlando, FL (Brian Hill) in March, 2013 Carter-McNair v. Goodrich Pump & Engine Controls Systems Deposition 4/8/ 14 District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, retained by Slack & Davis, Austin, TX (Ladd Sanger) in November, 2009 Bhanot-Chapman v. Sundance Helicopters Deposition 5/13/14 District Court, Clark County, Nevada; retained by Robb & Robb, Kansas City, MO (Gary Robb) in October, 2013 Dunaway v. Perry Deposition 7/2/14 Superior Court, Maricopa County, Arizona; retained by Gallagher & Kennedy, Phoenix, AZ (Patrick Magroder) in November, 2012 R0186  2014 SRI KUMAR, Ph.D. (Srirangam Kumaresan) Tel: 706 - 654 - 4830 RESEARCH EXPERTISE • Biomechanics of human injury. • Biomedical/Biomechanical engineering. • Injury analysis of protective mechanical systems in crashes. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE Dr. Kumar's expertise in the field of biomechanics is based on his education, training, knowledge and over 20 years of experience. He received a Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering from Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI. Dr. Kumar served as a faculty member at the Department of Neurosurgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, which is a leading research center in the biomechanical analysis of human injuries funded by federal government agencies. While at the Medical College of Wisconsin, he worked with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop injury criteria for adult and child dummies. Dr. Kumar's research work includes biomechanical analysis of the head-neck system, thoracic-abdominal complex and extremities. His area of expertise also encompasses the biomechanical evaluation of vehicle restraint systems to assess injuries to the pediatric and adult population during frontal, rear, roll-over, under-ride and side impact crashes. In addition to motor vehicle related injuries, Dr. Kumar analyzed and evaluated the mechanism of injuries in off-highway, recreation, sports, aviation, treadmill, playground, industrial and utility equipment accidents. He has published 230 research articles and holds three US patents in the area of Biomedical/Biomechanical Engineering. Dr. Kumar is associated with many nationally recognized societies and experts in the field of biomechanics, occupant kinematics, accident reconstruction and other automotive disciplines. He taught a course on injury biomechanics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, CA. Dr. Kumar has been elected a Fellow of the American Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE). He has consulted on more than 2000 real world accidents to determine the mechanism of injuries to the human body and the corresponding biomechanical engineering causation of injuries. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2007- Principal Safety Research Institute Atlanta (Hoschton), GA 2005-2007 Vice President Biomechanics Institute Santa Barbara, CA 2000- 2005 Director Biomechanics Institute Santa Barbara/Milwaukee 2003- 2007 Visiting Faculty Department of Mechanical Engineering University of California, Santa Barbara 2000-2003 Adjunct Professor Department of Computer Science University of California, Santa Barbara 1999-2000 Adjunct Professor Department of Biomedical Engineering Marquette University, Milwaukee 1998-2000 Assistant Professor Department of Neurosurgery, Medical College of Wisconsin VA Medical Center Neuroscience Research, Milwaukee 1994 - 1998 Research Engineer Department of Neurosurgery, Medical College of Wisconsin VA Medical Center Neuroscience Research, Milwaukee 1988- 1993 Research Associate Department of Biomedical Engineering/Ocean Engg. Center Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, India 1 R0187 BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING SOCIETY HONOR Fellow, American Institute of Biological and Medical Engineering (AIBME) EDUCATION MBA General Administration University of California at Los Angeles, CA 2005 PhD Biomedical Engineering Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 1997 MSBE Biomedical Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, India 1993 BSME Mechanical Engineering Kamaraj University, India 1988 PATENTS • Modular Patient Support System (US Patent# 7,028,351) • Rapid Medical Evacuation System for Trauma Patients (US Patent # 7,188,880) • Patient Support System for Medical Transport Vehicles (US Patent # 7,328,926) PROFESSIONAL HONORS AND AWARDS SAE Member Service Award SAE Excellence in Oral Presentation Award Bioengineering Symposium, Oral Presentation Award, US Air Force Academy Who's Who in Medicine and Healthcare Who's Who in Science and Engineering Sigma Xi, National Honor Society for Science and Engineering Bioengineering Symposium, Poster Presentation Award, Virginia Tech University Consortium SDRC Finite Element Model Calendar Contest Award, Milford Best Paper Award at All India NISA User's Conference, India Meritorious Student Paper Writing Competition Award, India PROFESSIONAL COMMITIEES American Association of Automotive Medicine (AAAM), Scientific Program Committee Society of Automotive Engineers, Transaction Selection Committee Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium, Awards Committee & Board Member American Society for Testing and Materials, Spine Committee Society of Automotive Engineers, Advanced Concepts Committee International Conference on Scientific Computing, Scientific Conunittee American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Solid Mechanics Technical Committee RESEARCH GRANT • Co-Investigator in Department of Veteran Affairs Medical Center Merit Review Grant, "Biomechanics of Cervical Spondylotic Degeneration", 10/1998 - 09/2001, $265,800. • Co-Investigator, Injury Research Center at Medical College of Wisconsin - Center Grant Center for Disease Control, "Clinical Biomechanics of Penetrating Traumatic Brain Injuries", 09/2001- 08/2002, $ 100,000. RESEARCH GRANT REVIEWER/CONSULT Center for Disease Control National Science Foundation University of Alabama Injury Research Center Medical College of Wisconsin Injury Research Center Colorado Bio-seed Research Grant 2 R0188 Action Research Foundation of England Health Research Council of New Zealand INVITED GUEST EDITOR Journal of Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation, Vol 45 (48), 2009 Journal of Mathematical Modeling and Scientific Computing in Biomechanics, Vol. 13 (1-2), 2001 JOURNAL/CONFERENCE REVIEWER/CONSULT Annals of Biomedical Engineering Accident Analysis & Prevention Journal Society of Automotive Engineers Proceedings Forensic Science International Journal Medical Engineering Physics Journal ASME Bioengineering Conference Spine Joumal ASME Biomechanical Engineering Journal Medical Biological Engineering & Computing Journal Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium Stapp Car Crash Conference Journal of Biomechanics Journal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology Journal of Medical Systems PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Society of Mechanical Engineers Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine American Society for Testing and Materials Biomedical Engineering Society Biomedical Engineering Society of India New York Academy of Sciences Society of Automotive Engineers Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium TEACHING Injury Biomechanics at.University of California, Santa Barbara, CA (2003 - 2007) Principles of Mechanics, RVS College of Engineering, India (1988) CONFERENCE CHAIR Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Conference, Milwaukee, 2009 SCIENTIFIC SESSION MODERATOR/ORGANIZER 1997 Biomechanics of Human Head and Neck. International Conference on Computing, Washington, DC. 1998 Impact Biomechanics. ASME Winter Meeting, Anaheim, CA. 1999 Spine. ASME Summer Meeting, Big Sky, MN. 1999 Head-Spine Biomechanics and Neuroscience. International Conference on Computing, Chicago, IL. 1999 Whiplash Biomechanics. ASME Winter Meeting. 2000 Impact Biomechanics. ASME Winter Meeting, Orlando, FL. 3 R0189 2001 Medical Imaging. Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium, Copper Mountain, CO 2001 Vehicular and Pediatric Biomechanics. ASME Winter Meeting, New York, NY 2001 Pediatric Biomechanics. ASME Summer Meeting, Snowbird, UT 2001 Vehicular Biomechanics. ASME Sununer Meeting, Snowbird, UT 2002 Injury Biomechanics. SAE Off-Highway International Congress, Las Vegas. 2002 Trauma and Injury. Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium, Copper Mountain, CO. 2002 Vehicular Biomechanics. ASME Winter Meeting, New York 2002 Spine Biomechanics. ASME Winter Meeting, New York 2003 Impact Biomechanics. Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium, Biloxi, MS 2003 Occupant Restraint System. Southern Biomedical Engineering Symposium, Charlotte, NC 2003 Vehicle crashworthiness-I. ASME Winter Meeting, Washington, DC 2003 Vehicle crashworthiness-II. ASME Winter Meeting, Washington, DC 2004 Vehicular Biomechanics and Occupant protection. ASME Winter Meeting, Anaheim, CA 2005 Trauma and Vehicular Biomechanics. ASME Sununer Meeting, Vail, CO 2005 Injury Biomechanics. ASME Summer Meeting, Vail, CO 2007 Accident and Trauma Biomechanics. ASME Summer Meeting, Keystone, CO 2009 Spine Biomechanics. Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium, Milwaukee, WI 2009 Biomedical systems. Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium, Milwaukee, WI 2009 Post Crash, Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, Baltimore, MD 2010 Biomedical systems and Road Safety. Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium, Laramie, WY. 2010 Injury Epidemiology. World Congress of Biomechanics, Singapore. 2011 Bioimaging. Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium, Denver, CO 2012 Biomechanics. Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA STUDENT ADVISOR/RESEARCH COMMITTEE MEMBER Peter Khouphongsy, Senior Student, Biomedical Engineering, Milwaukee School of Engineering, "Fabrication of artificial cervical spine vertebrae using Rapid Prototyping", 1997 -1998. Brian Stemper, Senior Student, Biomedical Engineering, Milwaukee School of Engineering, "Development of computer image model of cervical spine vertebrae based on CT images", 1998. Joy Krekelberg, Senior Student, Biomedical Engineering, Marquette University, "Biomechanical analysis of degenerated lumbar spinal columns" , 1998. Amy Yang, Junior Student, Biomedical Engineering, Marquette University, "Biomechanical analysis of normal lumbar spinal columns", 1998. Joseph Khouphongsy, Senior Student, Biology, Carroll College, "Histological study of intervertebral disc during aging process", 1998-1999. Brian Stemper, Graduate Student (Ph.D.), Biomedical Engineering, Marquette University, Doctoral Dissertation, "Finite element modeling of head-neck for whiplash injury study", 1999 - 2004. Amy Yang, Senior Student, Biomedical Engineering, Marquette University, "Brain penetration finite element model to study the gun-shot wound mechanics", Undergraduate independent study, 1999. Rebecca Zick, Senior Student, Biomedical Engineering, Milwaukee School of Engineering, "Development of artificial cervical spine heterogeneous vertebrae model", 1999. John De Rosia, Graduate Student (Ph.D.), Biomedical Engineering, Marquette University, Biomechanical studies of rear impact, 2006 - 2009. Lertsmitivanta D, Cadavona D, Burgos T, Heng H, Sakatani T, Senior Student, Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Santa Barbara, "Automotive restraint system", 2007. 4 R0190 Neb Sebastijanovk, Graduate Student (Ph.D.), Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Santa Barbara, Doctoral Dissertation, Monitoring and Restabilizing Structures under External Excitations through Detection and Prediction of Changes in Structural Properties", 2001 - 2008. Christopher Powe, Graduate Student (Ph.D.}, Department of Clinical Health Sciences, University of Mississippi Medical Center, "Morbidity and Mortality Outcomes Among Obese Versus Non-Obese Blunt Trauma Patients in Mississippi", 2009 - 2013. PRESENTATIONS/INVITED LECTURES 1993 Three-dimensional finite element analysis of human head with and without protective system subjected to impact. 2nd NISA User's Conference, Bangalore, India. 1994 Free vibration analysis of the human head. International Conference on Recent Advances in Biomedical Engineering, Osmania University, India. 1996 Finite element biomechanics of cervical spine. 6th Injury Prevention through Biomechanics Symposium, Center for Disease Control, Detriot, MI. 1996 Finite element modeling of spine biomechanics. Department of Biomedical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, India (Invited Lecture). 1997 Importance of material properties on spinal components load sharing. International Conference on Mathematical, Computer Modeling & Scientific Computing, Washington DC. 1997 Finite element idealization of the joints of luschka in the cervical spine. International Conference on Mathematical, Computer Modeling & Scientific Computing, Washington DC. 1997 Biomechanics of the human cervical spine using the finite element approach. Biomedical Engineering Conference, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI. 1997 Biomechanics of cervical spine under whiplash loading. ASME Summer Meeting, Sun River, OR. 1997 Nonlinear Finite element analysis of human cervical spine facet joint capsule. ASME Summer Meeting, Sun River, OR. 1997 Human cervical spine uncovertebral joint anatomy. ASME Summer Meeting, Sun River, OR. 1997 Adult and pediatric human spine finite element analyses. ASME Summer Meeting, Sun River, OR. 1997 Finite element biomechanics of cervical spine interbody fusion. International Conference on IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Chicago, IL. 1997 Age-specific pediatric cervical spine biomechanical responses. Stapp Car Crash Conference, Orlando. 1997 Sensitivity of cervical spine finite element model to material property variations. ASME Winter Meeting, Dallas, TX. 1997 Finite element study of human lower cervical spine. ASME Winter Meeting, Dallas, TX. 1997 Effect of anterior cervical interbody fusion on adjacent segments. Annual Cervical Spine Research Society Meeting, Palm Springs, CA. 1998 Pediatric cervical spine biomechanics. Department of Biomedical Engineering Department, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI (Invited Lecture). 1998 Adjacent spinal component responses due to cervical anterior interbody fusion. Annual Orthopaedic Research Society Meeting, New Orleans, LA. 1998 Finite element study of geriatric cervical spine. Injury Prevention through Biomechanics Symposium, Center for Disease Control, Detriot, MI. 1998 Cervical spine biomechanics. Department of Biomedical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, India (Invited Lecture). 1998 Biomechanics of the cervical spine. Department of Orthopedics, Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, Madras, India (Invited Lecture). 1998 Geriatric cervical spine biomechanics. ASME Winter Meeting, Anaheim, CA. 1998 Biomechanically analogous cervical spine model. ASME Winter Meeting, Anaheim, CA. 5 R0191 1998 Regional load sharing of cervical intervertebral discs. ASME Winter Meeting, Anaheim, CA. 1999 Development of mathematical model of WORLDSID-2 dummy. ISO Task Group of Design of WORLDSID-2 dummy, Ottawa, Canada. 1999 Tension-extension biomechanics of the cervical spine. ASME Summer Meeting, Big Sky, MO. 1999 Biomechanical responses of pediatric cervical spine using nonlinear finite element approach. ASME Sununer Meeting, Big Sky, MO. 1999 Finite element modeling of spinal ligaments. ASME Summer Meeting, Big Sky, MO. 1999 Summary of pediatric biomechanical responses. ASME Summer Meeting, Big Sky, MO. 1999 Microstructural characterization of intervertebral disc for mathematical modeling studies. Conference on Mathematical, Computer Modelling & Scientific Computing, Chicago, IL. 1999 Biomechanics of human cervical spinal column under physiologic loads. Advances in Bioengineering, ASME Winter Meeting, Nashville, TN 1999 Intervertebral disc morphology in biomechanics. ASME Winter Meeting, Nashville, TN 1999 Biomechanics of cervical spine ligaments. ASME Winter Meeting, Nashville, TN 1999 Human Head-Neck Kinetics under whiplash loading. ASME Winter Meeting, Nashville, TN 2000 Morphology of young and old cervical spine intervertebral disc tissues. Annual Rocky Bioengineering Symposium, US Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO 2000 Finite element methods in cervical spine Biomechanics, Department of Neurosurgery Grand Rounds, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee 2000 Computational Injury Biomechanics, Department of Computer Science, Colloquium, University of California, Santa Barbara (Invited Lecture) 2000 Finite element modeling of penetrating traumatic brain injuries. ASME Winter Meeting, Orlando, FL 2000 Biomechanics of lumbar spondylotic degeneration. ASME Winter Meeting, Orlando, FL 2001 Pediatric neck injury scaling and tolerance. Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium, Copper Mountain, CO 2001 Biomechanical modeling of penetrating traumatic head injury: A finite element approach. Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium, Copper Mountain, CO 2001 Comparison of biomechanical head-neck responses of hybrid III dummy and whole body cadaver. Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium, Copper Mountain, CO 2001 Head and Neck Injury Biomechanics. Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (Invited Lecture) 2001 Pediatric Head and Neck Injury Biomechanics. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, India (Invited Lecture) 2002 Biomechanical injury evaluation of laminated glass during rollover. SAE Off-highway International Congress meeting, Las Vegas. 2002 Injury Biomechanics. Karpagam College of Engineering, India (Invited Lecture). 2003 Injury biomechanics. Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, India (Invited Lecture). 2003 Trauma biomechanics. Anna University, India (Invited Lecture). 2003 Biomechanics of injury and occupant kinematics in recreational rides. Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference, Charlotte, NC. 2003 Biomechanics of occupant ejection during rollover accidents. Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference, Charlotte, NC. 2003 Biomechanical analysis of seat belt restraint deformation. Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference, Charlotte, NC. 2004 Trauma Biomechanics and Vehicular Biomechanics. Department of Mechanical Engineering. University of California, Santa Barbara (Invited Lecture). 6 R0192 2005 Injury Biomechanics. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, India (Invited Lecture). 2006 Investigation of injury potential through matched pair drop testing. Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Terre Haute, IN. 2006 Biomechanics of side Impact. Engineering Medicine Biology Society Conference. New York City. 2006 Biomechanical trauma analysis of spinal cord neurological injury due to fracture-dislocation of posterior elements, Academy of Surgical Research. Tucson, AZ 2007 Effect of roof strength in injury mitigation during pole impact. Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium, Denver, CO. 2007 Biomechanics of under ride motor vehicle crashes. Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium, Denver, co. 2007 Biomechanical evaluation of occupant anthropometry during frontal collisions. Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium, Denver, CO. 2007 Inverted drop testing as a mechanism to evaluate rollover occupant injury potential. Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium, Denver, CO. 2007 Biomechanical analysis of late airbag deployment in motor vehicle crashes using computer simulation, ASME Bioengineering conference, Keystone, CO 2007 Biomechanical quantification of flexion movement of the human head-neck and rollover accidents, ASME Bioengineering conference, Keystone, CO 2009 Biomechanical analysis of protective countermeasures in under ride motor vehicle accidents. Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium, Milwaukee School of Engineering, Milwaukee, WI 2009 Biomechanical analysis of child restraint system. Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium, Milwaukee School of Engineering, Milwaukee, WI 2010 Biomechanical analysis and injury prevention in off-highway vehicular crashes. Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 2012 Biomechanical analysis of pediatric injuries and child restraint system. Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium, Virginia Tech -Wake Forest University School of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences, Blacksburg, VA 2012 Experimental biomechanical study of head injuries in lateral falls with skateboard helmet. Virginia Tech - Wake Forest University School of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences, Blacksburg, VA FULL LENGTH PAPER PUBLICATIONS 1. Kumaresan S, Radhakrishnan S, Ganesan N: Mixed models in finite element analysis. TComputers & Structures 51(1):117-123, 1994. 2. Kumaresan S, Radhakrishnan S, Ganesan N: Generation of geometry and discretization of closed human head for finite element analysis. T Medical & Biological Eng,ineering & Computing 33(3):349-353, 1995. 3. Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S, Voo L, Pintar FA: Finite element modeling of the C4-C6 cervical spine unit. I Medical Engineering & Pm1sics 18(7):569-574, 1996. 4. Kumaresan S, Radhakrishnan S: The importance of partitioning membranes of the brain and influence of neck in head injury modelling. TMedical & Biological Engineering & Computing 34(1):27-32, 1996. 5. Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S, Voo L, Pintar FA: Finite element applications in human cervical spine modeling. TSpine 21(15):1824-1834, 1996. 7 R0193 6. Voo L, Kumaresan S, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N: Finite element models of the human head. l Medical & Biological Engineering and Computing 34(5):375-381, 1996. 7. Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Kwnaresan S, Haffner M, Sances A Jr: Response of lower human thorax to impact. 40th Annual Meeting of Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. 33-43, 1996. 8. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Voo LM, Cusick JF, Larson SJ: Finite element modeling of cervical laminectomy with graded facetectomy. l Spinal Disorders 10(1):40-46, 1997. 9. Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S, Voo L, Pintar FA: Finite element model of the human lower cervical spine. ASME l Biomechanical Engineering 119(1):87-92, 1997. 10. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Methodology to quantify the anatomy of uncovertebral joints in human cervical spine. l Musculoskeletal Research 1(2):131-139, 1997. 11. Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Kumaresan S, Maiman DJ, Hargarten SW: Dynamic analysis of penetrating trauma. l Trauma 42(2):266-272, 1997. 12. Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Kumaresan S, Haffner M, Kuppa S: Impact biomechanics of the human thorax- abdomen complex. International T Crashworthiness 2(2):219-228, 1997 13. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Finite element analysis of anterior cervical interbody fusion. l Bio- Medical Materials and Engineering 7(4):221-230, 1997. 14. Voo L, Kwnaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Cusick JF: Finite element analysis of cervical facetectomy. _] Spine 22(9):964-969, 1997. 15. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Pediatric neck modeling using finite element analysis. International l Crashworthiness 2(4):367-376, 1997. 16. Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Kumaresan S, Boynton M: Axial impact biomechanics of the human foot - ankle complex. ASME T Biomechanical Engineering 119(4):433-438, 1997. 17. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Age-specific pediatric cervical spine biomechanical responses. SAE Trans (41•1 Stapp Car Crash Conference) 106:3581-3611, 1997. 18. Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Kumaresan S, Elhagediab, A: Biomechanical assessment of human cervical spine ligaments. SAE Trans (42•d Stapp Car Crash Conference) 107:2852-2861, 1998. 19. Kleinberger M, Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S: Biomechanical considerations for child occupants. 42nd Association for the Advancement q,fAutomotive Medicine 115-136, 1998. 20. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Finite element modeling of human cervical spine facet joint capsule. L Biomechanics 31:371-376, 1998. 21. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Posterior complex contribution on the axial compressive and distraction behavior of the cervical spine. TMusculoskeletal Research 2(3):257-265, 1998. 8 R0194 22. Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S, Pintar FA: Pediatric cervical spine biomechanics study using finite element models. International Conference on the Biomechanics of impacts (IRCOBI) 349-363, 1998. 23. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Finite element analysis of cervical spine: material property sensitivity study. TClinical Biomechanics 14(1):41-53, 1999. 24. Maiman DJ, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Biomechanical effect of anterior cervical interbody fusion on adjacent segments. l Bio-Medical Materials & Engineering 9(1):27-38, 1999. 25. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Maiman DJ: Finite element modeling of the lower cervical spine: Role of intervertebral disc under axial and eccentric loads. TMedical Eng,ineering & Physics 21(10), 689-700, 1999. 26. Wheeldon J, Khouphongsy P, Kumaresan S, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N: Finite element model of human cervical spinal column. Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation 36: 337-342, 2000. 27. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Maiman, DJ and Kuppa, S: Biomechanical study of pediatric human cervical spine: A finite element approach. ASME l Biomechanical Engineering 122: 60-71, 2000. 28. Kumaresan S, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N, Cusick JF: Morphology of young and old cervical spine intervertebral disc tissues. Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation 36: 141-146, 2000. 29. Kleinberger M, Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S: Biomechanics of child occupant protection. l Crash Prevention and Iniury Control 2(1), 63-73, 2000. 30. Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S, Pintar FA: Geometrical and mechanical properties of human cervical spine ligament. ASME l Biomechanical Engineering 122(6):623-629, 2000. 31. Stemper, B, Kumaresan S, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N: Head-neck finite element model for motor vehicle inertial impact: material sensitivity analysis. Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation 36: 331-335, 2000. 32. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Biomechanics of pediatric cervical spine: Compression, Hexion and extension responses. l Crash Prevention and Injury Control 2(2), 87-101, 2000. 33. Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Kumaresan S, Gennarelli, Sun, E, Kuppa, S, Maltese, M, Eppinger, R: Pediatric and small female neck injury scale factors and tolerance based on human spine biomechanical characteristics. International Conference on the Biomechanics ofimpacts (IRCOBD 345-359, 2000. 34. Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S, Pintar F: Importance of material properties on spinal components load sharing. J Mathematical Modelling and Scientific Computing 13(1-2): 90-93, 2001. 35. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Maiman DJ, Goel VJ: Contribution of disc degeneration to osteophytes formation in the cervical spine: A biomechanical investigation. TOrthopedic Research 19(5), 977-984, 2001. 36. Pintar F, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Yang A, Stemper B, Gennarelli T: Biomechanical modeling of penetrating traumatic head injury: A finite element approach. Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation 37, 429-434, 2001. 9 R0195 37. Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S, Pintar, F: Biomechanics of the cervical spine Part 2: cervical spine soft tissue responses and biomechanical modeling. TClinical Biomechanics 16(1), 1-27, 2001. 38. Sances, A, Kumaresan S: Comparison of biomechanical head-neck responses of hybrid ill dummy and whole body cadaver during inverted drops. Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation 37, 423-427, 2001. 39. Kumaresan S, Pintar F, Yoganandan N: Finite element modeling of pre-tension in spinal ligaments. I Mathematical Modelling and Scientific Computing 13(1-2): 115-119, 2001. 40. Thacker B, Nicolella D, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar F: Probabilistic finite element analysis of cervical spine. lli413(1-2): 12-21, 2001. 41. Pintar FA, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N: Geometrical idealization of the uncovertebral joints of the cervical spine. l1zi4 3(1-2): 133-135, 2001. 42. Hutchinson J, Rogers C, Bish J, Friedman K, Sances A, Kumaresan S: Finite element analysis of a bicycle helmet. Ibid 13(1-2): 128-132, 2001. 43. Zick R, Kumaresan S, Milkowski L. Computer surface modeling of cervical spine vertebra for rapid prototyping application. Ibid 13(1-2): 40-46, 2001. 44. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar F: Pediatric neck injury scaling and tolerance. Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation, 37, 435-440, 2001. 45. Thacker B, Nicolella P, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar P: "Probabilistic Finite Element Analysis of the Lower Cervical Spine under Eccentric Loading," 8th International Conference on Structural Safetu and Reliability 13 (1-2): 12-21, 2001. 46. Kumaresan S, Sances A, Carlin F: Biomechanical evaluation of padding in child seats and padding. Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation 38, 453-458, 2002. 47. Sances A, Carlin F, Kumaresan S: Biomechanical analysis of head-neck force in hybrid - III dummy during inverted vertical drop studies. Ibid 38, 459-464, 2002. 48. Meyer S, Herbst B, Forrest S, Syson S, Sances A, Kumaresan S: Restraints and occupant kinematics in vehicular rollovers. Ibid 38, 465-469, 2002. 49. Sances A, Carlin F, Kumaresan S: Biomechanical injury evaluation of laminated glass during rollover. SAE Off highway International Congress meeting SAE 2002-01-1446, 2002. 50. Kurnaresan S, Sances A, Hutchinson J, Friedman K: Finite element analysis of pediatric head injury. Computers in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering 1-6, 2002. 51. Sances A, Carlin F, Kumaresan S: Biomechanical analysis of head-neck force in hybrid - III dummy during inverted vertical drop studies. Computers in Biomechanics and Biomedical En~ineering 7-11, 2002. 10 R0196 52. Sances A, Carlin F, Kumaresan S, Enz, B: Biomechanical analysis of glass impacts. Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering 30(4-6), 345-377. 2002. 53. Sances A, Kumaresan S, Clarke R, Renfroe D, Herbst B, Pozzi M: Biomechanical analysis of motor vehicle seat belt buckles. Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation 39, 229-240, 2003. 54. Sances A, Kumaresan S, Carlin F: Biomechanical injury evaluation of laminated glass of side windows and sunroofs during rollover accidents. Ibid 39, 241-244, 2003. 55. Forrest S, Herbst B, Myers S, Sances A, Kumaresan S: Inverted vehicle drop test and neck injury potential. Ibid 39, 251-258, 2003. 56. Myers S, Forrest S, Herbst B, Sances A, Kumaresan S: Motor vehicle seat belt analysis during rollover. l1tifl. 39, 229-240, 2003. 57. Saczalski K, Sances A, Kumaresan S, Burton J, Lewis P: Experimental injury study of children seated behind collapsing front seats in rear impacts. Ibid 39, 259-265. 2003. 58. Sances A, Kumaresan S, Herbst B, Meyer S, Hock D: Biomechanics of seat belt restraint system. Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation 40, 377-380, 2004. 59. Saczalski K, Sances A, Kumaresan S, Burton J, Lewis P: Multivariate head injury threshold measures for various sized children seated behind vehicle seats in rear impacts. Ibid 40, 381-386, 2004. 60. Meyer S, Forrest S, Herbst B, Hayden J, Orton T, Sances A, Kumaresan S: Testing and injury potential analysis of rollovers with narrow object impacts. Ibid 40, 395-400, 2004. 61. Saczalski K, Saul J, Sances A, Kumaresan S, Burton J, Lewis P: Computer simulation of rear impact biomechanical occupant response for front and rear seated passengers. FISITA. F20044U065, 2004. 62. Sances A, Kumaresan S, Clarke R, Herbst B, Meyer S: Biomechanical analysis of occupant kinematics in rollover motor vehicle accidents: Dynamic spit test. Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation 41, 104-109, 2005. 63. Herbst B, Forrest S, Orton T, Meyer S, Sances A, Kumaresan: The effect of roof strength on reducing occupant injury in rollovers. Ibid 41, 97-103, 2005. 64. Forrest S, Orton T, Peddar D, Meyer S, Herbst B, Sances A, Kumaresan: Investigation of injury potential through matched pair drop testing. Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation 42, 488-494, 2006. 65. Mihora D, Hutchinson J, Friedman K, Valente J, Flanagan T, Sances A, Kumaresan S: Biomechanical evaluation of helmet retention systems. iCrash 2006-09, 2006. 66. Frieder R, Kumar S, Sances A: Biomechanical evaluation of occupant anthropometry during frontal collisions. Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation 43, 75-80, 2007. 67. Kumar S, Sances A, Enz B, Frieder R: Biomechanics of under ride motor vehicle crashes. Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation 43, 30-33, 2007. 11 R0197 68. Frieder R, Kumaresan S, Sances A: Modular medical evacuation fixture for use in military and disaster response vehicles. SAE 2007-01-1767, 2007. 69. Friedman K, Hutchinson J, Mihora D, Kumar S, Frieder R., Sances A: Effect of roof strength in injury mitigation during pole impact. Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation 43, 69-74, 2007. 70. Frieder R, Kumaresan S: Computer analysis of injuries to rear seat child occupants restrained using a shared lap/shoulder belt. SAE 2007-01 -2513, 2007. 71. Kumar S, Friedman K, Hutchinson J, Mihora D, Harcourt, J: Biomechanical analysis of child restraint system. Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation 45, 436-441, 2009. 72. Kumar S, Enz B, Ponder P, Anderson B: Biomechanical analysis of protective countermeasures in under ride motor vehicle accidents. Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation 45, 89-94, 2009. 73. Burton J, Kumar S, Lewis P, D'Aulerio L, Kleinberger M, Strickland D: Biomechanical analysis and injury prevention in off-highway vehicular crashes. Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation 46, 426-432, 2010. 74. Friedman K, Hutchinson J, Mihara D, Kumar S, Strickland D: Sleeper cab occupant protection in heavy truck rollovers. SAE 2011-01-2295, 2011. 75. Kumar S, Harcourt J, Herbst B, Strickland D: Biomechanical analysis of pediatric injuries and child restraint system. Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation 48, 232-238, 2012. 76. Kumar S, Herbst B, Strickland D: Experimental biomechanical study of head injuries in lateral falls with skateboard helmet. Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation 48, 239-245, 2012. BOOK/BOOK CHAPTERS 77. Kumaresan S: Three-dimensional finite element analysis of human head with and without protective system subjected to impact. MS Thesis. Indian Institute of Tech., India, 1993, p 152. 78. Kumaresan S, Radhakrishnan Sand Ganesan N: Free vibration analysis of the human head. In Recent Advances in Biomedical Engineering, Reddy DC, Tata-McGraw Hill, India, 1994, pp 98-101. 79. Kumaresan S, Voo L, Yoganandan N and Pintar FA: Finite element analysis of the cervical spine. In Current Trends in Biomedical Engineering, Radhakrishnan, Reddy (eds), Allied Publishers, 1996, pp 53-56. 80. Kumaresan S: Clinical studies of the human cervical spine using finite element modeling. Ph.D. Dissertation, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, 1997, p 194 81. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA and Cusick J: Biomechanical analysis of cervical laminectomy and facetectomy using finite element method. In Frontiers in Head and Neck Trauma: Clinical and Biomechanical. Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Larson SJ, Sances A Jr. (eds). IOS Press, 1998, pp 621-627. 12 R0198 82. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N Pintar FA, Maiman UJ and Cusick J: Biomechanics of cervical discectomy and fusion: A finite element approach. In Frontiers in Head and Neck Trauma: Clinical and Biomechanical. Yoganandan Net al, IOS Press, 1998, pp 587-594. 83. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N Pintar FA: Human cervical spine uncovertebral joint anatomy. In Frontiers in Head and Neck Trauma; Clinical and Biomechanical. Yoganandan Net al, IOS Press1998, pp 34-41. 84. Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S, Pintar FA: Lower cervical spine finite element analysis. In Frontiers in Head and Neck Trauma: Clinical and Biomechanical. Yoganandan Net al, IOS Press, 1998, pp 492-508. 85. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA and Mueller W: One, three and six year old cervical spine finite element models. In Frontiers in Head and Neck Trauma: Clinical and Biomechanical. Yoganandan Net al,. IOS Press, 998, pp 509-523. 86. Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S. Pintar FA, Gennarelli, TA: Biomechanical tolerance criteria for pediatric populations. In Child Occupant Protection in Motor Vehicle Crashes, Professional Pub!, 1999, pp 97 -112. 87. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Facet joint modeling in whiplash. In Frontiers in Whiplash Trauma: Clinical and Biomechanical. Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, (eds). IOS Press, 510-516, 2000. 88. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Age-dependent neck scale factors based on geometrical and spine component data under tension, extension, compression, and flexion. Appendix F - Development of advanced injury criteria for the assessment of advanced automotive restraint systems. US Department of Transportation. NHTSA Report, 1999. 89. Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S, Pintar FA, Gennarelli TA: Pediatric biomechanics. In Acddental Injunj: Biomechanics and Prevention. Second Edition. AM Nahum, JW Melvin (eds), Springer-Verlag, NY, 2001. 90. Kumaresan S, Sances A: Human injury tolerance related to automotive safety. In Mark's Handbook for Mechanical EniPneers 11th Edition, 20-104, 2007. SHORT PAPERS 91. Kumaresan S: Solar air heat pump. Institution of Engineers (India), Annamalai University Students Chapter, Chidambaram, India, 1988. 92. Kumaresan S, Radhakrishnan S, Ganesan N: Three-dimensional finite element analysis of human head with and without protective system subjected to impact. 2nd NISA User's Conference,_India, pp 1-4, 1993. 93. Kumaresan S, Radhakrishnan S, Ganesan N: Three-dimensional finite element analysis of human head subjected to impact. 2nd World Congress o(Biomechanics._Netherlands, p 23, 1994. 94. Yoganandan N, Voo L, Pintar FA, Kumaresan S, Cusick J, Sances A Jr: Finite element analysis of the cervical spine. 5th Symposium on Injury Prevention Through Biomechanics, Centers for Disease Control, Detroit, pp 149-155, 1995. 95. Voo L, Denman JA, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Cusick JF: Development of a 3-D finite element model of the cervical spine. ASME Adv in Bioeng BED-31:13-14, 1995. 13 R0199 96. Kumaresan S, Voo L, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Finite element biomechanics of the cervical spine. 6th Sumposium on Iniuzy Prevention Through Biomechanics, Centers for Disease Control, Detroit, pp 77-84, 1996. 97. Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Kumaresan S, Hargarten SW: Biomechanics of penetrating trauma. 6th Symposium on Iniuzy Prevention Through Biomechanics, CDC, pp 31-35, 1996. 98. Sances A Jr., Kumaresan S: Pendulum impact test system to study whiplash injury biomechanics. 24th International Workshqp on Human Subjects.for Biomechanical Research, pp 163-169, 1996. 99. Kumaresan S, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N: Finite element analysis of cervical laminectomy with graded facetectomy. ASME Adv Bioeng BED-33:27-28, 1996. 100. Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Kumaresan S, Hargarten S, Sances A Jr: Dynamic biomechanics of penetrating trauma. ASME Adv Bioeng BED-33:41-42, 1996. 101. Sances A Jr, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Kumaresan S, Walsh PR, Bandak F, Eppinger R: hnpact biodynamks of human skull fracture. Advisont Group for Aeros.pace Research and Development. 2.1-2.5, 1996. 102. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Yoo L, Pintar F, Cusick J: Finite element analysis of cervical laminectomy. 11th Annual Meeting North American Spine Sodett1, pp 271-272, 1996. 103. Yoganandan N, Yoo L, Kumaresan S, Pintar FA, Cusick J: Biomechanics of cervical facetectomy with and without laminectomy. 4th Rachidian SocieQI Meeting, Kana, Hawaii, February 18-22, p 29-30, 1996. 104. Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S, Pintar FA, Cusick J, Larson SJ: Significance of the posterior elements on cervical spine load sharing. 5th Rachidian Society Meeting, Kana, Hawaii, February 9-13, pp 13, 1997. 105. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Cusick J, Larson SJ: Adult and pediatric cervical spine finite element analysis. 5th Rachidian Societ11 Meeting, Hawaii, February 9-13, pp 12, 1997. 106. Kumaresan S, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N: Finite element idealization of the joints of luschka in the cervical spine. 11th International Conference on Mathematical and Computer Modelling and Scientific Computing. Washington DC, March 31 -April 3, p 34, 1997. 107. Kumaresan S, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N, Cusick J: Uncovertebral joint anatomy. 5th Annual Meeting Rachidian ~ Kona, Hawaii, February 10-12, p 16, 1997. 108. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: hnportance of material properties on spinal components load sharing. 11th International Conference on Mathematical and Computer Modelling and Scientific Computing. Washington DC, March 31 - April 3, p 35, 1997. 109. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Biomechanical computer model of pediatric cervical spine. 11th Annual FOCUS '97 National Pediatric Conference, Milwaukee, p 11, 1997 14 R0200 110. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Mueller, W: Developmental biomechanics of pediatric cervical spine. American Association of Neurological Surgery Session on Pediatric Neurological Surger11. New Orleans, LA, December 2-5, Vol.49, pp 74, 1997. 111. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Nonlinear Finite element analysis of human cervical spine facet joint capsule. ASME Adv Bioeng BED-35:447-448, 1997. 112. Pintar FA, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N: Human cervical spine uncovertebral joint anatomy. ASME Adv Bioeng BED-35:579-580, 1997. 113. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Adult and pediatric human cervical spine finite element analyses. ASME Adv Bioeng BED-35:515-516, 1997. 114. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Finite element study of human cervical spine. ASME Adv Bioeng BED- 36:207-208, 1997. 115. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Sensitivity of cervical spine finite element model to material property variations. ASME Adv Bioeng BED-36:209-210, 1997. 116. Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Kumaresan S, Maiman DJ, Hargarten SW: Author's response to letters to editor on "Dynamic analysis of penetrating trauma". TTrauma 43(2):387-388, 1997. 117. Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Cusick J, Kumaresan S, Sances A Jr: Biomechanics of cervical spine under whiplash loading. ASME Adv Bioeng BED-35:443-444, 1997. 118. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Biomechanics of human cervical spine using FE approach. Biomedical Engineering Symvosium. Marquette University, Milwaukee, pp 52-53, 1997. 119. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Finite element biomechanics of cervical spine interbody fusion. 19th IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biolo.gy Society, pp 1853-1858, 1997. 120. Maiman DJ, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Effect of anterior cervical interbody fusion on adjacent segments. 25th Cervical S12ine Research Societu. pp 112-113, 1997. 121. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Maiman DJ, Cusick JF: Adjacent spinal component responses due to cervical interbody fusion. 44th Orthopaedic Research Society, p 1058, 1998. 122. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Maiman DJ: Clinical biomechanics of cervical spine degeneration using finite element analysis. 10th Intl Confon Mechanics in Medicine & Biology, 99-102, 1998. 123. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Maiman DJ: Finite element analysis of cervical spine degeneration. 6th Annual Meeting Rachidian Society, Kona, Hawaii, pp 17-18, 1998. 124. Kumaresan S, Mueller DJ, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Developmental biomechanics of pediatric human cervical spine. 6th Rachidian Society Meeting. Kona, Hawaii, p 8, 1998. 15 R0201 125. Kumaresan S, Maiman DJ, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Fixation materials in anterior cervical interbdoy fusion. 6th Rachidian Society Meeting. Kana, Hawaii, pp 6-7, 1998. 126. Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S, Pintar FA: Biomechanics of pediatric head and spine. 7th Annual Rachidian Society Meeting. Feb. 28 - March 4, Kana, Hawaii, p 6, 1998. 127. Mueller, W, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Skeletal versus neural elements responses in SCIWORA mechanism. Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Seattle, 1998. 128. Khouphongsy P, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S: Dummy neck design using finite element model. Biomedical Engineering Symposium, Marquette University, pp 41-42, 1998. 129. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Maiman, DJ: Finite element study of geriatric cervical spine. 8th Symposium on Injury Prevention Through Biomechanics. Centers for Disease Control, pp 23-27, 1998. 130. Kumaresan S, Khouphongsy P, Stemper B, Daruwala D, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N: Development of a biomechanically analogous cervical spine physical model. ASME Adv Bioeng BED-39:155-156, 1998. 131. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Maiman, DJ: Regional load sharing of cervical intervertebral discs. ASME Adv Bioeng BED-39:201-202, 1998. 132. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Maiman, DJ: Geriatric cervical spine biomechanics: Effects of degeneration severity on biomechanical responses. ASME Adv Bioeng BED-39:203-204, 1998. 133. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Maiman, DJ: Clinical biomechanics of cervical spine degeneration: A finite element analysis. 13th North American Spine Society. San Francisco, CA, 1998. 134. Wheeldon J, Khouphongsy P, Kumaresan S, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N: Finite element model of C2-T1. Biomedical Engineering Symposium, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, pp 20-21, 1999. 135. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Biomechanical responses of pediatric cervical spine using nonlinear finite element approach. ASME Adv Bioeng BED-Vol-42:143-144, 1999. 136. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Finite element modeling of spinal ligaments. ASME Adv Bioeng BED- Vol-42:281-282, 1999. 137. Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S, Pintar FA: Pediatric cervical spine responses: 3-D finite element analyses. 7th Annual Rachidian Sodef:.Jl Meeting. p 9, 1999. 138. Cusick JF, Kumaresan S, Bunch B, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N: Sensitivity of normal and degenerated lumbar spine to three-dimensional stability biomechanical evaluations. 7th Annual Rachidian Society Meeting. pp 13-14, 1999. 139. Kumaresan S, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N, Maiman DJ, Cheng J: Biomechanically analogous cervical spine physical model using CT images and rapid prototyping. 7th Annual Rachidian Socief:.Jl Meeting, p 20, 1999. 16 R0202 140. Stemper BD, fintar l'A, Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S: Development of a finite element cervical spine model. Biomedical Engineering Symposium, Marquette Univ., Milwaukee, WI, p 24, 1999, 141. Stemper B, Kumaresan S, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N, Kleinberger M: Parametric study of head-neck finite element model. 12th International Conference on Mathematical Modeling and Scientific Computing, Chicago, August 2-4, p 31, 1999. 142. Zick RJ, Kumaresan S, Milkowski LM: Methodology for computer surface modeling of cervical spine vertebrae. 12th International Conference on Mathematical Modeling, and Scientific Computing, p 33, 1999. 143. Wheeldon J, Khouphongsy P, Kumaresan S, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N: Development of finite element model of human cervical spine (C2-Tl). 12th International Conference on Mathematical Modeling and Scientific Computing, p 35, 1999. 144. Macias MY, Khouphongsy, PJ, Kumaresan S, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N, Cusick JF: Microstructural properties of the intervertebral disc for mathematical modeling studies. 12th International Conference on Mathematical Modeling and Scientific Computing, p 37, 1999. 145. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Reichert K: Dynamic analysis of pediatric cervical spine. 21st IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology SocieQj. Oct 13-16, p 507, 1999. 146. Milkowski LM, Gervasi VR, Kumaresan S, Crockett RS: Development of a mechanically similar composite bone replica. 21st IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Oct 13-16, p 495, 1999. 147. Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Summary of pediatric biomechanical responses. A SME Adv Bioeng BED-Vol-42:765-766, 1999. 148. Hollowell JP, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Biomechanics of human cervical spinal column under physiologic loads. ASME Adv Bioeng BED-Vol-43:289-290, 1999. 149. Kumaresan S, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N, Pkouphongsy, PJ, Cusick JF: Intervertebral disc morphology in cervical spine biomechanics. ASME Adv Bioeng BED-Vol-43:235-236, 1999. 150. Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S, Pintar FA: Biomechanics of cervical spine ligaments. ASME Adv Bioeng BED-Vol- 43:233-234, 1999. 151. Wheeldon J, Khouphongsy P, Kumaresan S, Pintar F, Yoganandan N: A human cervical spine finite element model. Biomedical Engineering, Symposium, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, pp 18-19, 2000. 152. Stemper B, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar F: Material property sensitivity analysis head-neck finite element model for inertial impact. Biomedical Engineering Symposium, Milwaukee, WI, pp 3-4, 2000. 153. Thacker B, Nicolella DN, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Probabilistic finite element analysis of the human lower cervical spine. ASME Adv Bioeng BED-Vol-43:237-238, 2000. 154. Milkowski L, Crockett, RS, Kumaresan, S: Development of biomechanical cervical spine physical models. ASME Adv Bioeng BED-Vol-43:241-242, 2000. 17 R0203 155. Pintar FA, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Gennarelli T: Finite element modeling of penetrating traumatic brain injuries. ASME Adv Bioeng BED-Vol-43:245-246, 2000. 156. Cusick JF, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Bunch B, Biomechanics of lumbar spondylotic degeneration. ASME Adv Bioeng BED-Vol-43:239-240, 2000. 157. Sances, A, Kumaresan S, Carlin F: Evaluation of infant seats and head injury. 101h International Conference on Biomedical Engineering, Singapore, Dec 4- 9, pp 421-422, 2000. 158. Hutchinson J, Bish J, Rogers C, Friedman K, Sances A, Kumaresan S: Finite element modeling of a bicycle helmet. I()lh International Conference on Biomedical Engineering, Singapore, Dec 4- 9, pp 522-523, 2000. 159. Maiman DJ, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Microstructural properties of the degenerating cervical/intervertebral disc for mathematical modeling. 2000 Annual meeting of The American Association of Neurological Surgeons, San Francisco, April 18-13, 2000. 160. Pintar F, Hollowell JP, Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S: Cervical spine biomechanics of the young and old. 8th Annual Rachidian Society Meeting,, pp 18, 2000. 161. Cusick JF, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Bunch B, Pintar F: Functional influences of lumbar spondylotic degeneration. 8th Annual Rachidian Society Meeting. pp 6, 2000. 162. Maiman DJ, Kumaresan S, Pintar F, Yoganandan N, Cusick JF, Macias MY: Differences in young and old cervical spine disc morphology. 8th Annual Rachidian Society Meeting. pp 16, 2000. 163. Sances, A, Kumaresan S, Carlin F: Biomechanical analysis of infant seat padding and head injury. Annals of Biomedical Engineering 28(Sl), T5.45, 2000. 164. Sances, A, Kumaresan S, Carlin F, Friedman K: Airbag protection in low and moderate impact. Annals of Biomedical Engineering 28(Sl), TS.50, 2000. 165. Sances, A, Kumaresan S, Carlin F, Daniels D, Cusick J: carotid and vertebral artery dissection during blunt vehicular trauma. Annals of Biomedical Engineering 28(Sl), T5.49, 2000. 166. Kumaresan S, Sances A: Pediatric biomechanics and injury tolerance. Annals of Biomedical Engineering 28(51), T5.46, 2000. 167. Friedman K, Bisch J, Rogers C, Hutchinson J, Sances, A, Kumaresan S, Carlin F: Finite element modeling of protective head gear. Annals o(Biomedical Engineering 28(51), TS.38, 2000. 168. Cusick JF, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Bunch B, Pintar F: Coexistence of facet and disc degeneration on lumbar spine stability. 251h Annual Meeting North American Spine Societi1. Oct 25-28, 2000, New Orleans, LA, pp 173-175, 2000. 169. Sances, A, Kumaresan S, Carlin F, Friedman K: Effectiveness of airbag protection in low and moderate impact. 101h International Conference on Biomedical Engineering. Singapore, pp 598, 2000. 18 R0204 170. Sances, A, Kumaresan S, Carlin F, Daniels D, Cusick J: Injuries of carotid and vertebral artery dissection during vehicular trauma. 101h International Conference on Biomedical Engineering. Singapore, pp 599, 2000. 171. Sances A, Carlin F, Kumaresan, S. Biomechanical analysis of head and neck injury during rollover glass impacts. ASME Adv Bioeng BED-Vol-50: 857-858, 2001. 172. Thacker B, Nicolella DN, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA: Probabilistic injury analysis of human cervical spine. ASME Adv Bioeng._BED-Vol-50:879-880, 2001. 173. Sances A, Harcourt J, Kumaresan, S. Side impact pediatric injury studies. ASME Adv Bioeng. BED-Vol - 23102, 2001. 174. Kumaresan S, Sances A, Hutchinson J, Friedman, K. Biomechanical analysis of pediatric impact head injury. ASME Adv Bioeng. BED - Vol - 23099, 2001. 175. Sances A, Kumaresan S, Daniels D. Biomechanics of airbag injuries. International Con,ference on Biomedical Engineering, India, Dec 21-24, pp 105-110, 2001. 176. Kumaresan S, Sances A. Preface to Special Issue in Computational Biomechanics, Tl. Mathematical Modelins and Scientific Computing, Vol. 13 (1-2), 2001. 177. Sances A, Kumaresan S, Carlin F. Bioengineering analysis of head and neck injury with glass impacts. Federation ofAmerican Societies.for Experimental Biology, 15(5), 606.8, 2001. 178. Sances A, Herbst B, Forrest S, Meyer 5, Kumaresan S, Carlin F. Biomechanical modeling of motor vehicle collisions and overview of belt restraint analysis. International Con(erence on Biomedical Engineering, India, pp 111- 116, 2001. 179. Maiman, D, Yoganandan N, Pintar F, Kumaresan S: Pre-injury cervical alignment affects spinal trauma. 91h Annual Meeting Rachidian SocietlJ. Hawaii, pp 21, 2001. 180. Cusick JF, Kumaresan S, Yoganandan N, Bunch B, Pintar F: Coexistence of facet and disc degeneration on lumbar spine stability. 91h Annual Meeting Rachidian Society. Hawaii, pp 27-28, 2001. 181. Yoganandan N, Pintar F, Gennarelli T, Kumaresan S: Pediatric neck tolerance based on human spine biomechanics. 91h Annual Meeting Rachidian Society. Hawaii, pp 19, 2001. 182. Sances A, Kumaresan S, Harcourt J. Bioengineering studies of injury in child restraints. Federation o,fAmerican Societies for Experimental Biology, 15(5), 606.13, 2001. 183. Sances A, Kumaresan S, Daniels D, Friedman K. Pediatric airbag injuries. ASME Adv Bioeng. IMECE 2002-32634, 2002. 184. Sances A, Kumaresan S. Biomechanical analysis of soft tissue neck injury during pedestrian falls. ASME Adv Bioeng. IMECE 2002-32638, 2002. 19 R0205 185. Herbst B, Meyer S, Forrest S, Syson !:i, !:iances A, Jr., Kurnaresan S. Analysis of structural deformation in vehicular drop studies. ASME Adv Bioeng, Ilv1ECE 2002-32644, 2002. 186. Sances A, Kumaresan S, Biomechanical analysis of traumatic asphyxia due to thoracic loading. Engineering Medicine Biological Sodetjt. Houston, pp 2487-2488, 2002. 187. Sances A, Kumaresan S, Finocchiavo, C: Occupant kinematics and biomechanical injury evaluation in recreational rides. 21•1 Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference. pp 63-64, 2002. 188. Sances A, Kumaresan S: Biomechanical analysis of neck injury during object fall on head. 21'1 Southern Biomedical Engineeri713 Conference. Washington DC, pp 57-58, 2002. 189. Sances A, Kumaresan S, Clarke R: Biomechanical analysis of seat buckles. Biomechanical analysis of seat buckles. 21•f Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference. Washington DC, pp 61-62, 2002. 190. Weiss K, Sances A, Kumaresan S: Mechanism of injury in frontal inflatable restraint systems. 21 51 Southern Biomedicql Engineering Conference, Washington DC, pp 131-132, 2002. 191. Sances A, Kumaresan S, Broadhead W, Weiss K: Biomechanical analysis of late airbag deployment in motor vehicle crashes. ASME Adv Bioeng, pp 139-140, 2003. 192. Sances A, Kumaresan S, Clarke, R: Biomechanical analysis of side release and top release set belt buckles. ASME Winter Meeting. Ilv1ECE2003-42711, 2003. 193. Saczalski K, Sances A, Kumaresan S, Meyer, S, Burton J Biomechanical study of rear child chest injury measures related to collapsing front seats in rear impacts. ASME Winter Meeting. IMECE2003-43601, 2003. 194. Sances A, Kumaresan S, Finocchiavo, C: Biomechanics of injury and occupant kinematics in recreational rides. 22"d Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference, Sept. 2003. 195. Sances A, Kumaresan S, Herbst, B: Biomechanical analysis of seat belt restraint deformation. 22••1 Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference, Sept. 2003. 196. Sances A, Kumaresan S, Friedman, K: Biomechanics of occupant ejection during rollover accidents. 22•d Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference. Sept. 2003. 197. Clarke, R, Syson S, Sances A, Kumaresan S: Analysis of side release motor vehicle seat belt buckles. 22nd Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference, Sept. 2003. 198. Sances A, Kumaresan S, Herbst, B: Biomechanical analysis of motor vehicle seat belt restraint spool out. 22"'1 Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference, 2003. 199. Meyer S, Herbst B, Forrest S, Sances A, Kumaresan S: Design and evaluation of a system for testing and analysis of rollover with narrow objects. ASME Winter Meeting, IMECE2003-43104, 2003. 200. Herbst B, Meyer, S, Forrest S, Sances A, Kumaresan S: Acceleration amplification in safety belt buckle systems. ASME Winter Meeting,, IMECE2003-43159, 2003. 20 R0206 201. Saczalski K, Sances S, Kumaresan S, Pozzi M, Saczalski, T: Comparison of head impact data for occupant computer predictions and sled-buck crash tests of front adult to rear child interaction in rear impact. ASME winter meeting. IMECE 2004-60763, 2004. 202. Sances S, Kumaresan S, Finocchiavo, C, McCort M: Biomechanics of occupant soft tissue neck injury in recreational rides. ASME winter meeting, IMECE 2004-60172, 2004. 203. Clarke R, Sances S, Kumaresan S: Analysis of side release motor vehicle seat belt buckles. ASME winter meeting. IMECE 2004-59293, 2004. 204. Herbst B, Hock D, Meyer, S, Forrest S, Sances A, Kumaresan S: Epoxy reinforcing for rollover safety. ASME winter meeting. IMECE2004-60203, 2004. 205. Hock D, Meyer, S, Herbst B, Forrest S, Renfroe D, Hutchinson B, Canalkhio T, Sances A, Kumaresan S: Evaluation of motor vehicle retractor locking devices. ASME winter meeting. IMECE2004-60201, 2004. 206. Saczalski I<, Kumaresan S, Sances S, Burton J, Lewis P: An experimental method for multi-variable analysis of vehicle safety systems and application to front seats and rear occupant interaction in rear impacts. ASME winter meeting. IMECE 2004-60785, 2004. 207. Herbst B, Forrest S, Meyer, S, Sances A, Kumaresan S: Roof crush mitigation techniques to enhance occupant protection. ISBME. 79-82, 2004. 208. Sances S, Kumaresan S, Friedman K, Daniels D: Biomechanics of thoracic spine injuries in motor vehicle rollover accidents. ~ 11- 14, 2004. 209. Friedman K, Mohara D, Hutchinson J, Sances A, Kumaresan S: Biomechanical effects of buckling induced increases in intrusion velocity behavior. ASME Summer Bioengineering Conference. b0312380, 2005. 210. Clarke R, Sances A, Kumaresan S, Syson S: Effect of inertial release levels on seat belt buckles at various angles. ASME Summer Bioengineering Conference, b0060456, 2005. 211. Forrest S, Orton T, Herbst B, Meyer S, Sances A, Kumaresan S: The effect of roof crush on glazing retention and occupant containment in rollovers. ASME Summer Bioengineering, b0062232, 2005. 212. Frieder R, Kurnaresan S, Sances A, Renfroe D, Myers W, Harvey W: Novel Device for Rapid Medical Evacuation of Victims. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 6068-6071, SaEPl0.5, 2006. 213. Kumaresan S, Sances A, Carlin F, Frieder R, Friedman I<, Renfroe D: Biomechanics of Side Impact Injuries: Evaluation of Seat Belt Restraint System, Occupant Kinematics and Injury Potential. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. 87-90, WeC06.3, 2006. 214. Kumaresan S, Sances A: Biomechanical trauma analysis of spinal cord neurological injury due to fracture- dislocation of posterior elements in the cervical region. 22•" Annual Academy of Surgical Research. Tucson, AZ, 2006. 21 R0207 215. Kumaresan S, Sances A, Paden B, Carlin F, Frieder R: Biomechanical analysis of spinal injuries to rear occupants in frontal impact. Annual Biomedical Engineering Societ!f Conference, #713, 2006. 216. Kumaresan S, Sances A, Paden B, Carlin F: Biomechanical evaluation of side airbags in injury mitigation. Annual Biomedical Engineering Societ!f Conference,# 146, 2006. 217. Friedman K, Mihora D, Hutchinson J, Sances A, Kumaresan S: Bicycle helmet roll-off prevention design and testing. XVI Canadian Multidiscjplinat:y Road Safety Conference, Winnipeg, Manitoba, pp 1-4, June 11-14, 2006. 218. Kumaresan S, Sances A, Paden B, Carlin F, Frieder R: Biomechanics of padding in injury mitigation. Annual Biomedical Engineering Societ!f Conference. # 712, 2006. 219. Burgos T, Cadavona D, Heang H, Lertsmitivanta D, Sakatani T, Laguette S, Freider R, Kumaresan S, Paden B, Sances A: Review of whiplash mitigating automotive head restraint systems. International Societ!f ofBiomechanics Conference, # 0764, 2007. 220. Freider R, Kumaresan S: Biomechanical analysis of late airbag deployment in motor vehicle crashes using computer simulation. ASME Summer Bioengineering Conference. SBC07-176654, 2007. 221. Kumaresan S, Paden B, Carlin F, Freider R: Biomechanical quantification of flexion movement (ducking) of the human head-neck and rollover accidents. ASME Summer Bioengineering Conference, SBC07-176642, 2007. 222. Cadavona D, Burgos T, Heng H, Lertsmitivanta D, Sakatani T, Freider, R, Paden B, Kumaresan S: Biomechanical analysis of a vehicular seat head restraint system in whiplash injury. Biomedical Engineering Societ!f Conference,# 1009, 2007. 223. LertsmitivantaD, Cadavona D, Burgos T, Heng H, Sakatani T, Freider, R, Paden B, Kumaresan S: Biomechanical analysis of occupant and vehicular factors in whiplash injuries using MADYMO. Annual Biomedical Engineering Societ!f Conference, # 1010, 2007. 224. Kumar S, Friedman K, Hutchinson J, Mihora D, Senesac S: Biomechanical considerations in automotive rollover accidents: Occupant kinematics and vehicular restraint system. Annual Biomedical Engineering Societ!f Conference, BMES 2009-001791, 2009. 225. Stemper B, Storvik S, Kumar S: Axial head rotation increases capsular ligament distractions during simulated automotive rear impact. Annual Biomedical Engineering Societu Conference, BMES 2009-001776, 2009. 226. Kumar S, Friedman K, Hutchinson J, Mihara D, DeRosia J: Spinal injuries in automotive frontal arashes. Annual Biomedical Engineering Societ!f Conference, BMES 2009-001887, 2009. 227. Underwood C, Kumar S, Pethel M, Rains G, Schlumpher P, Strickland D: Human engineering analysis of real world industrial accidents using plant-specific data to understand cultural aspects of accidents. Sixth World Congress of Biomechanics, Paper No. D3-A-S2.3-1-01, 1-4, 2010. 228. Strickland D, Kumar S, Friedman K, Hutchinson J, Mobrem D: Biomechanics of head-neck injuries in heavy truck motor vehicle accidents. Annual Biomedical Engineering Societ!f Conference. BMES2011-000154, 2011. 22 R0208 229. Strickland D, Kumar S, Underwood C, Burton J, Lewis P: Biomechanical human factors analysis in fire related aircraft crashes. Annual Biomedical Engineering Sodety Conference, BMES2011-000153, 2011. 230. Strickland D, Kumar S: Biomechanical injury analysis of treadmill accidents. Annual Biomedical Engineering Sodety Conference, BMES2012-2398, 2012. 23 R0209  CURRICULUM VITAE JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Date of Birth: February 10, 1945 Marital Status: Married, One Child Sean Lawson, Age 17 (Died 12/15/87) Wife: Judy Puckett Burton Home Address: 13010 New Providence Road Alpharetta, Georgia 30004 Office/Mailing Address: 13784 Highway 9 Alpharetta, Georgia 30004 Ph. 7701777-0437 Fax: 770/753-4389 Profession: Forensic Pathology - Doctor of Medicine. Title: Consultant in Forensic and Environmental Pathology and Medicine Chief Medical Examiner, Emeritus - Dekalb County and Senior Consulting Pathologist - Cobb, Gwinnett & Paulding County Medical Examiner's Offices-State of Georgia Appointments: Chief Medical Examiner: (a) Dekalb County 1978 to 2000. (b) Cobb County 1978 to 1999. (c) Paulding County 1983 to 1999. (d) Clayton County 1988 to 1997. (e) Gwinnett County 1988 to 1999. Director Forensic Pathology Training Program - Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, 1981to1984. R0210 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page2 Clinical Associate Professor - Forensic Pathology - Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, 1978. Regional Pathologist Federal Aviation Administration, 1979 to present. Pathologist for United States Federal Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, 1978 to 1992. Consultant - National Transportation Safety Board. Consultant - Georgia Arson Investigators, Atlanta, Georgia. Instructor - Department of Public Safety Training Programs - Dekalb, Cobb, Clayton, Paulding and Gwinnett Counties, 1978 to present. Certified Instructor, Forensic Medicine & Pathology. Police Officers Standards and Training, Georgia Police Academy. Instructor Criminal Justice Education Program, 1980 to present. Forensic Consultant to several Metro Atlanta hospitals. Consultant in Forensic Pathology to various State and Southeastern United States District Attorney's Offices and United States Federal District Attorney's Offices. Instructor in Forensic Pathology, University of Miami, Pathology, Training Program, 1974. Instructor, Insurance Adjustors School of America, 1973 - 1974. R0211 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 3 Instructor, Federal Narcotics Law Enforcement Training Program, Miami, Florida, 1974. Instructor, Public Safety Department, Cadet Training Program, Miami, Florida, 1973 - 1974. Instructor, Forensic Pathology, Grady Memorial Hospital Pathology Training Program, Atlanta, Georgia, 1975 - 1976. Georgia Statewide Child Abuse Prevention Panel Annual Report 1996 December 1, 1997 Lecturer: 1. Emory University School of Medicine. 2. Emory University School of Law. 3. Georgia Criminal Justice Council. 4. Georgia State University School of Law. 5. National Law Enforcement Training Institute of California. Special Appointments: Board of Directors, Regional Sudden Infant Death Foundation. Board of Directors, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Research Foundation, Atlanta. Who's Who In Georgia - 1988-89. Governor's Task Force on Unexplained Child Fatalities, Ga. (1989-1990) Governor's Task Force on Child Abuse. (1989-1990) Member, Medical Task Force-Coalition Against Sexual Abuse of Children, January 1990 to 2000. R0212 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page4 President, Institute for Infant and Child Survival, Inc. 1992 to 1998. National Network for Child Fatality Review, Los Angeles, California Consultant-Forensic Expert, 1992 to present. Appointed to Governor's Statewide Child Abuse Prevention Panel. Atlanta, Ga., July 1993 - July 1995. International Autopsy Protocol Committee, Children's Hospital, San Diego, California 1992 to 1995. Board of Directors, Institute for Injury Reduction, 1995. Georgia Trauma Advisory Council, Member (Evaluation Committee), 1994 to 1998. Training: House Physician & Surgeon - Pathology Emory University Hospital System, Atlanta, Georgia, 1971 -1972. Resident Pathology, Emory University Hospital System, Atlanta, Georgia, 1972 - 1973. Fellow of American Cancer Society. 1972 - 1973. Assistant Pathologist, Office of the Medical Examiner, Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia, November 1972 - June 1973. R0213 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 5 Resident Fellow in Forensic Pathology, Dade County Medical Examiner's Office, Miami, Florida 1973 - 1974. Degrees & Education: B.A. - Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, 1967. M.D. - Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, 1971. Board Eligible-Qualified Anatomic and Forensic Pathology by American Board of Pathology, 1976. Forensic Pathology Boards - 1977 (passed). Medical Licensure: Georgia State License to practice Medicine and Surgery by Examination, 1972. Number - 14892. Previous Employment: Acting Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, Dade County, Miami, Florida, January 1974 to June 1974. Associate Chief Medical Examiner, Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia, 1974 - 1978. Present Employment: Georgia State Appointment as Medical Examiner since July 1974. Medical Examiner, Metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, 1974 to 2000. Consultant Forensic Pathology - Forensic Medicine, 1975 to present. Forensic Consultant - Metro Atlanta Department of Family and Children Services. Crimes Against Children. Metro Law Enforcement Agencies - Child abuse (physical/sexual). R0214 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 6 Professional Associations: Fellow of American Academy of Forensic Sciences. Member National Association of Medical Examiners. CASAC - Coalition Against Sexual Abuse in Children, Cobb County, 1991 to present. Fellow of Royal Society of Medicine, London, England, 1992 Member Society of Automotive Engineers, 1995 to present. Member Service Award - 10 years. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, 1995. Member of American Academy of Family Practice. (past) Member of American Heart Association. (past) Member of Georgia Heart Association. (past) Member of Georgia Peace Officers Association. American Medical Association. American Humane Association - Children's Division, 1993 to present. International Wound Ballistics Association, 1999. Member American Society of Civil Engineers. Member American College of Sports Medicine. Other Employment: Chief of Staff, Kathy Crawford Nursing Horne (formerly Martin Luther King, Sr. Nursing Horne), Atlanta, Georgia, 1975 - 1978. Special Forensic Case Involvements: Atlanta Missing & Murdered Children - was the coordinating consultant to the FBI and GBI on the entire investigation's forensic aspects, 1980, 1981, and 1982. Theodore Bundy Case. Florida R0215 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 7 20/20 Television - Began an investigation into a "Murder" which happened 25 years ago in Arkansas - was the lead forensic expert chosen for the State of Arkansas, 1985. "Unsolved Mysteries" - State Prosecutor's Office, Little Rock, Arkansas. Forensic Expert- Investigation into death of two teenage boys, April 1988. National television coverage. Presentation on CBS Evening News "Automatic Seatbelts - Passive Belt Systems" June 13, 1991. Presentation on Marketplace - Canada Canadian Broadcasting News "Automatic Seatbelts - Passive Belt Systems" June 1991 Presentation on Connie Chung's Eye to Eye Program, "Passive Restraints" March 31, 1994. HBO Special - "Autopsy III-Voices From the Grave" Presentation of Crime Scene, Blood Spatter Reconstruction - Salt Lake City, Utah. HBO Feature Special 1996. HBO Special - "Autopsy IV - Crime Scene Reconstruction and Injury Pattern" Analysis of Alleged Perpetrator's Injuries - 1997. ABC Television-20/20 Show "Secrets And Lies" January 5, 1998 Court TV- "Prosecution Of A 26 Year Old Murder Case" April 7, 1998 Consultant to Kansas City Star Dale Earnhardt and other Seatbelt Related Issues May 10-11, 2001 R0216 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 8 Inside Edition - WSB "Danger of Automatic Passive Restraints/ Nikki Taylor Story" May 11, 2001 Consulting Expert - Dateline NBC "Airbag Related Death I ? Homicide" February 13, 2002 Consulting Expert - Dateline "Potential Dangers of Low Shield Child Booster Seats" September 5, 2002 Presented on NBC - November 23, 2003 Consultant- KMBC TV St. Louis, Missouri "Collapsing Seatbacks and Occupant Injuries" May 23, 2005 Documentary - Granite Productions. England "Atlanta's Missing & Murdered Children" Documentary August 31, 2005 Consultant - CNN Atlanta, Ga "Death of Mummified Baby Found in Florida" February 3, 2007 Special Areas of Expertise: Scene reconstruction and injury pattern interpretation. Exhumations. Occupant & pedestrian injuries, injury causation, biomechanics, and occupant kinematics. Drug abuse. Child abuse - physical/sexual. R0217 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 9 Deaths occurring during legal intervention and/or police custody. Gunshot injuries and wounding potential of various firearms. Publications and Presentations: "Automated Analysis of Serum Histidine" Clinical Chemistry, 1967. Research - 1) Pathologic Aspects of Snake Envenomation, Procedures and Techniques. 2) Forensic Aspects of Exhumations. Forensic Medicine in the Emergency Room Post Graduate Course for Emergency Department Nursing, Miami Beach, Florida, 1973. "Investigation of Intoxication - Pitfalls and Problems," American Industrial Health Conference, Miami, Florida, 1974. "Sex-Rape Murders & Multiple Murders" Death Investigation, Seminar Criminal Justice Division, Institute of Government, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, April 1978. "Asphyxial Deaths" "Drowning" "Exhumation" - Comprehensive Investigation of Death. American Society of Clinical Pathologists, Orlando, Florida, 1978. Advanced Death Investigation University of Georgia - Institute of Government. "Interpretation of Trauma - Vehicular, Industrial, Homicide, Fire" . Athens, Georgia, May 4, 1980. R0218 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 10 "Forensic Medicine - Terms and Procedures" Seminar, National Shorthand Reporters Association, Callaway Gardens, Pine Mountain, Georgia, October 15, 1983. National Shorthand Reporters Midyear Seminar. "Forensic Medicine - Terms and Procedures." Atlanta, Georgia, March 1984. "Creative Crime Scene Investigation Seminar", National Law Enforcement Institute, Inc. Atlanta, Georgia, October 1983. "The Medical Examiner as a Defense Witness and Forensic Death Investigation." Seminar in Criminal Defense Litigation - The Super Star - 1984. Atlanta Bar Association, Atlanta Hilton Hotel, Atlanta, Georgia, June 21, 1984. "Difficult Forensic Cases" - National Law Enforcement Training Seminar, 1985. Drug Abuse and its consequences - Program to local Schools and Civic Organizations. Leadership Cobb- Crime: "Who Really Pays," Marietta, Georgia, April 1985. Northside Hospital - Medical Explorers - "Forensic Pathology." Atlanta, Georgia, May 1985. National Defenders - Investigators Association Conference - "Forensic Pathology." June 1985. Atlanta Pathology Society - Speaker (Complex Forensic Cases), June 1985. Emory - Grady Medical School Resident Training Conference, Speaker, (Exhumations), Fulton County Medical Examiner's Office, December 1985. R0219 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 11 "Advance Evidence Technician Training Seminar", Essex Institute of Public Service, Gainesville, Georgia, January 27, 1986. Georgia Probation Association, Mid Winter Conference, Unicoi State Park, Helen, Georgia, March 13, 1986. "Forensic Pathology in the Community", Optimist Club, Marietta, Georgia, March 14, 1986. "Answers from the Dead?- Just Ask!" Speaker - Joint Meeting - Medical Association of Atlanta and Medical Staff - West Paces Ferry Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia, March 24, 1986. "Substance Abuse ...Terminal Consequences." B.A.C.C.H.U.S., Alcohol & Drug Awareness, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia. October 21, 1986. Emory University- Law Interns - Speaker. Marietta, Georgia, October 27, 1986. Sun Insurance Services - Speaker "Techniques & Procedures in the Medical Examiner's Office". Atlanta, Georgia, October 28, 1986. Emory University- Law Students - Speaker. Atlanta, Georgia, November 6, 1986. National Law Enforcement Institute Seminar - Speaker "Death Scene Analysis", Atlanta, Georgia, November 20, 1986. Criminal Justice Program for Leadership Dekalb. "Medical Examiner's Role in Criminal Justice System." Decatur, Georgia, November 20, 1986. East Cobb Rotary Club - Speaker "In Search of the Truth - Forensic Medicine." Marietta, Georgia, January 1987. Decatur Rotary Club - Speaker "The Medical Examiner - A Health Detective." Decatur, Georgia, January 1987. R0220 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 12 Georgia Legal Secretaries - Speaker. "The Medical Examiner - pro vs. con or Just the Truth." Marietta, Georgia, February 1987. North Marietta Kiwanis Club - Speaker "Forensic Medicine in your Community." Marietta, Georgia, February 1987. North Georgia Police Academy, Lecturer- "The Role of the Medical Examiner in Criminal Profiling." Marietta, Georgia, February 1987. Leadership Cobb - "Forensic Pathology - The Medical Examiner." Marietta, Georgia, March 11, 1987. Georgia Claims Association of Insurance Investigators- "F orensic Medicine and its Role in Death Investigation," Atlanta, Georgia, March 19, 1987. Kennestone Hospital Medical Staff, "Trauma Victims - Clinical Pathological Correlation," Marietta, Georgia, April 8, 1987. Georgia State University Biology Club "Forensic Pathology." Atlanta, Georgia, April 22,1987. Explorer Scouts - "Forensic Pathology." Northside Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia, May 4, 1987. Federal Criminal Investigators Association - "Wounding Potential of Various Handguns & Ammunition." Atlanta, Georgia, June 9, 1987. Douglas County "D.U.I." Offender Rehab Program. "Alcohol & Drug Awareness Lecture." Douglasville, Georgia, August 1987. Emory University - Law Intern - Speaker, Atlanta, Georgia, October 15, 1987. R0221 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 13 Georgia State College, "Chemical Abuse-Terminal Consequences," Atlanta, Georgia, October 20, 1987. National Law Enforcement Institute Homicide Seminar "Drug Related Deaths, i.e. Cocaine-Crack," "AIDS." Ann Arbor, Michigan, October 27, 1987 National Law Enforcement Institute Homicide Seminar "Drug Related Deaths, i.e. Cocaine-Crack," "AIDS" Dallas, Texas, November 5, 1987. Leadership Dekalb, "The Medical Examiner's Role in the Criminal Justice System." Decatur, Georgia, November 12, 1987. National Law Enforcement Institute" AIDS." Atlanta, Georgia, November 19, 1987. Dekalb County Librarians - Speaker "AIDS Awareness." Decatur, Georgia, February 8, 1988. Cobb County Rotary Club "Forensic Medicine - Impact on Your Community." Marietta, Georgia, February 22, 1988. Hickory Hills School "Drug Abuse." Marietta, Georgia, February 24, 1988 & March 4, 1988. Cobb County Grand Jury - Consultant. "Drug Abuse in the Community." Marietta, Georgia, April 4, 1988. National Law Enforcement Institute, "Deceptive Causes ofDeath -AIDS, Drug - Cocaine Related Deaths, Complicated Suicides. 11 Chicago, Illinois, April 21, 1988. Georgia Legal Secretaries Seminar "Forensic Medicine in the Community." Atlanta, Georgia, April 29, 1988. R0222 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 14 State Prosecutor's Office, Forensic Expert - Investigations into death of two teenage boys on railroad tracks. Little Rock, Arkansas, April 1988. Dekalb County Employees, "AIDS -Awareness, Facts about AIDS. 11 Decatur, Georgia, May 4, 1988. Northside Hospital Medical Explorers Post 401, "Forensic Pathology." Atlanta, Georgia, May 16, 1988. Jackson City Council, Forensic Expert - Investigation into Alleged Suicide Death. Jackson, Mississippi, May 1988. National Law Enforcement Institute, "Deceptive Causes of Death-AIDS, Drug - Cocaine Related Deaths, Complicated Suicides." Phoenix, Arizona, June 17, 1988. Georgia Prosecutors Council. "DUI, Accident Reconstruction and the Medical Examiner." Savannah, Georgia, July 7, 1988. National Law Enforcement Institute. "Deceptive Causes of Death-AIDS, Drug - Cocaine Related Deaths, Complicated Suicides." Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, July 15, 1988. National Law Enforcement Institute. "Deceptive Causes ofDeath -AIDS, Drug - Cocaine Related Deaths, Complicated Suicides. 11 Denver, Colorado, July 29, 1988. Dekalb County Youth Rally. "Youth Against Crime & Drugs." Decatur, Georgia, August 20, 1988. 24th Southeastern Arson Seminar. "Fire Deaths, Carbon Monoxide and Electrical Deaths", Athens, Georgia, September 1, 1988. R0223 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 15 "Drugless, Ya'll." Drug Prevention on Georgia Campuses. Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, September 9, 1988. Dekalb County Employees "AIDS -Awareness - Facts about AIDS" Decatur, Georgia, September 21, 1988. Atlanta Falcon Football Training Camp "Terminal Consequences of Substance Abuse Including Steroids. 11 Lawrenceville, Georgia, October 25, 1988. Snapfinger Woods Business Men's Association. "Medical Examiner's Office and Drugs. 11 Lithonia, Georgia, October 5, 1988. Marietta Civitan Club "Drug Abuse." Marietta, Georgia, October 18, 1988. Georgia State University Students for Drug Free Campuses "Substance Abuse." Atlanta, Georgia, October 18, 1988. National Law Enforcement Institute "Death Scene Analysis and Serial Murders." Kansas City, Missouri, October 20, 1988. Georgia State University College of Law Center for Continuing Legal Education. Troublesome Aspects of Georgia Criminal Law. "Testimony by Medical Examiners and Crime Scene Re-creation Experts." Atlanta, Georgia, November 9, 1988. Atlanta Bar Association, "Forensic Medicine - The Expert - The System." Atlanta, Georgia, January 1989. R0224 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 16 Georgia Insurance underwriters, "Forensic Medicine - The Answers to Many Investigative Questions." Atlanta, Georgia, February 1, 1989. Mercer University, School of Medicine. "Terminal Consequences of Substance Abuse." Macon, Georgia, February 8, 1989. Auburn University. "Terminal Consequences of Substance Abuse Including Steroids." Auburn, Alabama, February 22, 1989. Mercer University - Macon Campus "Substance Abuse." Macon, Georgia, June 15, 1989. South Dekalb Rotary Club. "Impact of Forensic Medicine on the Community." Lithonia, Georgia, June 22, 1989. Blue Ridge Circuit Juvenile Court Cherokee County. Juvenile Intensive Diversion Program. "Substance Abuse." Cumming, Georgia, August 2, 1989. N orthside Hospital Emergency Department Conference. "Role of the Medical Examiner in Emergency Medicine." Atlanta, Georgia, August 4, 1989. 25th Southeastern Arson Seminar "Fatal Fires" - Advanced, Civil, and Criminal. University of Georgia. Athens, Georgia, August 28, 1989. Dekalb County Crime and Drug Youth Rally. "Telling It Like It Is." Decatur, Georgia, October 14, 1989. R0225 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 17 District Attorneys & Law Enforcement Personnel - Gwinnett & Paulding Counties. "DNA" Lecture. October 2, 1989. Emory University Law Students "Forensic Expert & Litigation." Atlanta, Georgia, October 12, 1989. Dekalb County Youth Rally Sponsored by NAACP. "Youth Against Crime & Drugs." Decatur, Georgia, October 14, 1989. Georgia Trial Lawyers Association Seminar. "Forensic & Environmental Pathology, an Untapped Resource." Atlanta, Georgia, December 8, 1989. Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Seminar. "Impartiality & the Medical Examiner." Atlanta, Georgia, January 12, 1990. National Collegiate Drug Awareness Week - Conference. "Substance Abuse - Terminal Consequences." Atlanta, Georgia, January 30, 1990. Marietta Kiwanis Club "Forensic Pathology - Impact on Community Health." Marietta, Georgia, February 15, 1990. Leadership Cobb "Forensic Pathology - Impact on Community Health." February 15, 1990. Dallas Rotary Club. "How the Medical Examiner Works for You in Paulding County Georgia" February 20, 1990. Dekalb College - North Campus. "Substance Abuse-Terminal Consequences." Dunwoody, Georgia, February 23, 1990. R0226 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 18 National Collegiate Drug Awareness Week. "Substance Abuse - Terminal Consequences." The College at New Paltz, Albany, New York, March 6, 1990. Southeastern Home Office Underwriters Association Conference. "Forensic Medicine, It's Application to Life Insurance Industry." Mobile, Alabama, April 5, 1990. Cobb County Trial Lawyers Association "Forensic Medicine & Injury Pattern Interpretation." Marietta, Georgia, May 9, 1990. Georgia Association of Special Programs Personnel Conference. "What's Killing our Future?" Jekyll Island, Georgia, May 17, 1990. East Cobb Kiwanis Club "Forensic Medicine in your Community." Marietta, Georgia, May 30, 1990. Gwinnett County Family & Children's Services. "Children Born with Drug Addiction - Long Term Effects." Lawrenceville, Georgia, June 18, 1990. Georgia Southern University Upward Bound Project. "Substance Abuse -Terminal Consequences." Statesboro, Georgia, June 28th & 29th, 1990. Morris Brown College Upward Bound Project. "Substance Abuse -Terminal Consequences." Atlanta, Georgia, July 11, 1990. Georgia Community Action Association. "Focus on the Family- Substance Abuse." Atlanta, Georgia, July 23rd & 24th, 1990. Georgia Southern University "Substance Abuse - Terminal Consequences." Statesboro, Georgia, September 13, 1990. R0227 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 19 Abraham Baldwin College "Substance Abuse.11 Tifton, Georgia, September 25, 1990. Emory University Law Students Speaker Atlanta, Georgia, October 4, 1990. Gwinnett Hospital System Emergency Nurses - Course Instructors "Child Abuse." Lawrenceville, Georgia, October 16, 1990. Leadership Dekalb - "The Medical Examiner's Role in the Criminal Justice System." Atlanta, Georgia, October 19, 1990. Georgia Trial Lawyers Fall Workshop "Forensic & Environmental Pathology and Medicine - Answers from the Dead And the Almost Dead." Atlanta, Georgia, October 26, 1990. Georgia Police Academy "Child Deaths" Forsyth, Georgia, October 31, 1990. National Defender Investigator Association, 1990 National Conference, "Impartiality and the Medical Examiner." Atlanta, Georgia, November 8, 1990. Cobb County Law Enforcement Association. "Medical Examiner's Role in Law Enforcement." Marietta, Georgia, January 10, 1991. Southern Methodist University "Substance Abuse - Terminal Consequences." Dallas, Texas, February 11, 1991. Dekalb College, North Campus "Substance Abuse - Terminal Consequences." Dunwoody, Georgia, March 4, 1991. R0228 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 20 Mercer College - Macon Campus "Substance Abuse - Terminal Consequences." Macon, Georgia, March 7, 1991. Criminal Trial Lawyers "Impartiality and the Medical Examiner." Atlanta, Georgia, April 19, 1991. National Law Enforcement Institute "Death Scene Analysis." Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, April 22, 1991. Metro Marietta Kiwanis "The Criminal Justice System." Marietta, Georgia, April 29, 1991. Joint Meeting of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australia and National SIDS Council. "Discussion & Protocol for Infant Death Investigation including SIDS Deaths - Paper." April 1991. Perimeter Center Kiwanis Club "Substance Abuse." Atlanta, Georgia, May 6, 1991. Course Director Advanced Death Investigation - 40 hours. Sponsored by Cobb County Law Enforcement Training Division. Marietta, Georgia, May 20th-May 24th, 1991. Golden Key National Honor Society Convention. "Biophysiology of Drug Use - Drug Abuse." Ritz Carlton, Atlanta, Georgia, August 10, 1991. The Coalition Against the Sexual Abuse of Children. "Physical Injury, Bruising, Shaken Baby Syndrome, Broken Bones, Internal Injuries." Kennestone Hospital, Marietta, Georgia, August 15, 1991. R0229 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 21 Southeastern Arson Seminar. "Fatal Fires." University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, August 29, 1991. NAACP - Dekalb County Georgia Branch Anti-Crime and Drug Prevention Decatur, Georgia, September 21, 1991. Emory University Law Students Expert Witness - Litigation Atlanta, Georgia, October 10, 1991. University of North Carolina at Charlotte "Substance Abuse - Terminal Consequences." Charlotte, North Carolina, October 14, 1991. State Child Abuse Fatality Committee. "Forensic Pathologist Role in Child Abuse and Child Death Cases." Macon, Georgia, November 6, 1991. Baron Users Group - 12th Annual Convention. "Drugs in the Work Place." Atlanta, Georgia, November 8, 1991. Contributor - Legal Medicine 1991 Edited by Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D. Chapter - "Crime Scene Videos", Mark Curriden, Butterworth Legal Publishers, 1992 National Law Enforcement Institute Seminar. "Crime Scene Analysis - Masqueraded Deaths." Atlanta, Georgia, November 19, 1991. Georgia Claims Association "Drugs in the Work Place." Atlanta, Georgia, January 16, 1992. Brown Court Reporting and Medical Transcription School. "Introduction to Forensic Sciences." Atlanta, Georgia, January 28, 1992. R0230 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 22 The National Kidney Foundation Regional Forum "Controversies in Organ Donation." Presenter. Atlanta, Georgia, February 18, 1992. Dekalb College, Central Campus "Substance Abuse - Terminal Consequences." Decatur, Georgia, March 4, 1992. Kennestone Hospital Trauma Conference "Murder or Suicide-Stabbing in a 43 Year Old Female" Marietta, Georgia, April 8, 1992. Georgia Fire Academy Fire, Lightning, Electrical and Carbon Monoxide Deaths. Forsyth, Georgia, April 17, 1992. Shepherd Spinal Center "Drugs in the Work Place." Atlanta, Georgia, April 27, 1992. Course Director Advanced Death Investigation - 40 hours. Sponsored by Cobb County Law Enforcement Training Division. Marietta, Georgia, May 18th - May 22nd, 1992. Buckhead Exchange Club "Interesting & Complicated Forensic Cases." Atlanta, Georgia, May 26, 1992. Seminar Instructor, "Death Scene Investigation and Deaths Occurring During Legal Intervention and/or Police Custody." "Gunshot Injuries and Wounding Potential of Various Firearms." Little Rock, Arkansas, August 24, 1992. "Investigation SIDS and Other Infant Deaths." Published - Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, Page 433-436. September, 1992. R0231 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 23 Dekalb College Athletes "Substance Abuse -Terminal Consequences." Decatur, Georgia, October 14, 1992. American Association of Suicidology Conference. Panel Member - "Community Responses to Suicide." Atlanta, Georgia, October 18, 1992. North Georgia Police Academy Death Investigation Seminar - General Aspects of Forensic Medicine & Motor Vehicle Biomechanics and Occupant Kinematics. Marietta, Georgia, January 11, 1993. Hemlock Society of Georgia "Suicide" Atlanta, Georgia, January 16, 1993. American Association of Legal Nurse Consultants - Atlanta Chapter "The Forensic Expert in Civil Litigation." Atlanta, Georgia, January 19, 1993. North Fulton Hospital Trauma Advisory Committee "Presentation of Unusual Accidental Death of a Two Year Old." Roswell, Georgia, January 20, 1993. Kennestone Hospital Medical Staff "Child Abuse" Marietta, Georgia, January 27, 1993. Scottish Rite Children's Hospital Medical Staff "Pitfalls in the Recognition and Diagnosis of Physical and Sexual Abuse in Children." Atlanta, Georgia, March 18, 1993. Metro Swat Team "Prevention & Recognition of Suicides in Hostage Situations." Decatur, Georgia, April 14, 1993. R0232 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 24 Dekalb Addiction Clinic "Substance Abuse - Terminal Consequences." Atlanta, Georgia, May 11, 1993. Georgia Indigent Defense Counsel Seminar "Child Molestation - Physical Aspects." Mableton, Georgia, May 14, 1993. Course Director Advanced Police/Medical Death Investigation Course Speaker: 1. General Forensic Pathology and Medicine. 2. Problems and Solutions in "Under the Influence" Prosecution. 3. Child Abuse - Physical, Recognition and Diagnosis. 4. Child Abuse - Sexual, Recognition and Diagnosis. 5. Motor Vehicle Accidents - General Forensic Information. 6. Motor Vehicle Accidents - Biomechanics and Occupant Kinematics. Marietta, Georgia, May 17-21 , 1993. Georgia Trial Lawyers Annual Meeting and Seminar, "Use of Forensic Evidence & Witnesses in Civil Litigation - The Forensic Pathologists Role in Understanding of the Biomechanics & Kinematics of Occupant & Pedestrian Injuries in Motor Vehicle Accident Cases." Atlanta, Georgia, May 21, 1993. Emergency Nurses Association Scottish Rite Children's Medical Center "Patterns of Injury in Children." Atlanta, Georgia, May 24, 1993. R0233 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 25 Douglas County Advanced Death Investigation Course Course Director - Speaker "Child Abuse, Gunshot Wounds, Blunt & Sharp Injuries, and Occupant Kinematics/Biomechanics - Motor Vehicle Accidents." Douglasville, Georgia, September 14, 1993. Georgia Fire Academy "Fire, Carbon Monoxide & Electrical Death Investigations. 11 Forsyth, Georgia, September 24, 1993. Metropolitan Atlanta Homicide Commanders "Intersection of Medical Examiner and Law Enforcement & Other Agencies within the Criminal Justice system. 11 Lawrenceville, Georgia, October 13, 1993. Leadership Dekalb "The Medical Examiner - An Advocate for the People. 11 Decatur, Georgia, October 21, 1993. National Law Enforcement Institute Homicide Seminar "Death Scene Analysis & Deceptive Means & Causes of Death. 11 Atlanta, Georgia, November 4, 1993. Clayton County Police Services "Child Abuse" Jonesboro, Georgia, February 14, 1994. Dekalb College "Substance Abuse - Terminal Consequences." Dunwoody, Georgia, February 22, 1994. American Bar Association National Institute on Emerging Issues in Motor Vehicle Litigation. "Injury Enhancement in Victims of Automobile Accidents - Real Life Experience - A Forensic Pathologist's Viewpoint." Phoenix, Arizona, March 24, 1994. R0234 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 26 Gwinnett County - Trauma Rounds "Biomechanics and Kinetics of Injury Causation in Motor Vehicle Accidents." Lawrenceville, Georgia, April 6, 1994. Memorial Medical Center - Fatal Child Abuse Seminar "Patterns oflnjury in Children - Physical and Sexual Abuse." Savannah, Georgia, April 8, 1994. Automotive Safety Seminar "The Role of Forensic Pathology and Medicine in Motor Vehicle Accidents, Biomechanics and Occupant Kinematics." Cleveland, Ohio, May 12, 1994. St. Ives County Club "The Medical Examiner as a Public Health Physician." Alpharetta, Georgia, August 19, 1994. University of Georgia, Office of Insurance & Fire Commissioner - 30th Annual Southeastern Arson Seminar "Fatalities in Fires, and Carbon Monoxide, and Electrical Deaths." Athens, Georgia, August 25, 1994. Cobb County Police Department "Communicable Diseases - AIDS, Hepatitis, Tuberculosis, etc." Marietta, Georgia, August 26, 1994. National Law Enforcement Institute Homicide Investigation Seminar, "Deceptive Causes of Death (Homicide vs. Suicide vs. Accidental vs. Natural)", "Time of Death", "Most Frequent Errors Made by Homicide Investigators from Your Point of View", "Disease Exposure", "SIDS and Child Deaths", Atlanta Airport Marriott Hotel, College Park, Georgia, October 25, 1994. R0235 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 27 Ridgeview Institute, Coalition for Child Abuse Prevention, "Our Common Agenda: Our Children's Future." "Diagnosis of Physical and Sexual Abuse in Children-Pitfalls." Smyrna, Georgia, October 27, 1995. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine Course: The Biomechanics of Impact "Chest and Abdomen: Anatomy and Biomechanical Characteristics. 11 "The Medical Examiner's Contribution to Understanding Vehicular Injuries." a. Diagnosis of Cervical Injuries. b. Diagnosis of Belt Use based on Anatomical findings. c. MVA fires and occupant carbon monoxide levels d. General discussion of role of Medical Examiner in biomechanics and kinematics of injury causation. Chicago, Illinois, November 14, 1995 Kennestone Hospital System Trauma Rounds "Application ofBiomechanic and Kinematic information in the diagnosis of injuries sustained in motor vehicle accidents" Marietta, Georgia, March 13, 1996 Clayton County Abuse and Child Death Team Continuing Education Seminar "Pitfalls in the Diagnosis of Physical and Sexual Abuse in Children" Jonesboro, Georgia April 2, 1996 Georgia Court Reporters Association "Forensic Medicine in the Community" Stone Mountain, Georgia, October 5, 1996 Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine "Chest and Abdomen: Anatomy and Injuries in Motor Vehicle/Crashes," December 9, 1996 R0236 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 28 "The Medical Examiner's Contribution to Understanding Motor Vehicular Injuries," Chicago, Illinois, December 10, 1996 Southern Trial Lawyers Association "Pathology" - "Modre Wol Out" New Orleans, Louisiana, February 8, 1997 AIEG Spring Seminar "Head and Spine Injuries in Roof Crush and Rollover Accidents", Atlanta Airport Hilton, Atlanta, Georgia May 9, 1997 The Georgia Council on Child Abuse, 13th Annual Training Symposium "The Power of Prevention" "Pitfalls in the Diagnosis of Physical and Sexual Abuse in Infants and Children". Crowne Plaza Ravinia, Atlanta, Georgia, June 9-11, 1997. American Bar Association Emerging Issues in Motor Vehicle Product Liability Litigation, "Air Bag Injuries to Infants, Children and Small Adults". Phoenix, Arizona, April 2-3, 1998 Coalition for Child Abuse Prevention Annual Conference, - "The Assessment and Investigation of Physical Abuse Cases and Child Deaths". Atlanta, Georgia, April 24, 1998 Kennestone Hospital Emergency Room Staff - "Assessment of Patterned Injuries and Steroid Psychosis" Marietta, Georgia, April 27, 1998 R0237 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 29 Clinical Management of Crime Victims From Trauma To Trial. "Career Development In Forensic Health Science" Forensic Expert Panel Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia May 1, 1998 Motor Vehicle Products Liability Seminar "Biomechanics and Occupant Kinematics Issues-Forensic Investigation, Injury Reconstruction, Vehicle Inspections and Use of Visual Aids in Presenting Cases". Little Rock, Arkansas May 15, 1998 AIEG Auto Focus 1998 Seminar "Air Bag Injuries" San Francisco, California September 24, 1998 AIEG Auto Focus 1998 Seminar "Head & Neck Injuries in Roof Crush & Rollover Accidents" San Francisco, California September 25, 1998 International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators Region VI, 1 998 Regional Training Conference "The Medical Examiner's Role In Investigations Of Bombings And Of Explosive Type Events" Marietta, Georgia October 12-16, 1998 Cobb County Bar Association's Death & Accident Investigation Seminar "Biomechanics & Occupant Kinematics- Automotive Crash Injuries Including Air Bags" Marietta, Georgia, September 16, 1999 Seoul 2000 FISITA World Automotive Congress "Belt Integrated Vehicular Seat Rear Impact Studies" Seoul, Korea, June 12-15, 2000: Paper #F2000G279 Kenneth J. Saczalski, Ph.D., Joseph L. Burton, M.D., Paul R. Lewis, Jr., Todd K. Saczalski, Peter E. Baray. R0238 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 30 Atlanta Volunteer Law Foundation Annual Jury Trial Seminar Emory University Law School-Mock Trial Plaintiff's Expert Witness December 15, 2000 "Air Bag Injuries to Infants, Children and Small Adults". Paper G-96 - Presented at Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 53rd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington, February 23, 2001 Successful Handling of Wrongful Death Cases in Florida-Seminar "Proving Cause of Death-The Child Death Case" Miami, Florida, June 28, 2001 Georgia Defense Lawyers Association 34th Annual Convention "Forensic Medicine-Answers From the Dead-And Not So Dead - Real World Application of Forensic Scientific Principles" Sandestin, Florida, July 20, 2001 ASME International Congress and Exposition "Evaluation of Rear Impact Seat System Performance Using Combined Load Neck Injury Criteria and Hybrid III Surrogates" Kenneth J. Saczalski, Ph.D., Joseph L. Burton, M.D., Paul R. Lewis, Jr., Todd K. Saczalski, Peter E. Baray. New York, NY November 11-16, 2001 "Post Collision Vehicle Fires-Determination of Probability of Occupant Survival Post Impact" Paper #531 - Presented at Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 54th Annual Meeting Atlanta, Georgia, February 15, 2002 R0239 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 31 Successful Handling of Wrongful Death Cases in Florida-Seminar "Proving Cause of Death-Children's Unique Proof Circumstances". Lorman Education Services Miami, Florida, September 20, 2002 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition "Study of Seat System Performance Related to Injury of Rear Seated Children & Infants in Rear Impacts" New Orleans, Louisiana, November 17-22, 2002 Paper #IMECE2002-33517 Kenneth J. Saczalski, Ph.D., Joseph L. Burton, M.D., Paul R. Lewis, Jr., Keith Friedman, Todd K. Saczalski 40th International ISA Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation Symposium "Experimental Data for Injury to Children Seated Behind Collapsing Front Seats in Motor Vehicle Rear Impacts" Biloxi, Mississippi, April 11-13, 2003, Paper #2003-046 Kenneth J. Saczalski, Ph.D., Anthony Sances, Ph.D., Joseph L. Burton, M.D., Paul R. Lewis, Jr. American Bar Association Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section Self-Insurers' & Risk Manager's Committee presents Transportation Megaconference VI "Biomechanics-Kinematics-Conscious Pain & Suffering" New Orleans, Louisiana, April 17, 2003 SAE International Digital Human Modeling for Design and Engineering ASME International Mechanical Engineering Conference and Exhibition "Experimental Verification of Biomechanical Occupant Response Predictions for Front & Rear Seated Passengers Subjected to Rear Impacts" Montreal, Canada, June 16-19, 2003 Paper #2003-03-2205 Kenneth J. Saczalski, Ph.D., Jay Saul, CSE, Joseph L. Burton, M.D., Paul R. Lewis, Jr. R0240 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 32 Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine 47th Annual Scientific Conference Poster Presentation "Occupant Kinematics with Child Safety Seats Tested Under Real World Conditions" Gary R. Whitman & John Yannaccone, ARCCA Inc., Joseph L. Burton, M.D. & Paul Lewis, Jr., Burton and Associates, Dennis F. Shanahan, Injury Analysis Lisbon, Portugal, September 22-24, 2003 "Biomechanical Study of Rear Child Chest Injury Measures Related to Collapsing Front Seats in Rear Impacts". Kenneth J. Saczalski, Anthony Sances, Srirangam Kumaresan, Steve Meyer, Joseph L. Burton, M.D. and Paul R. Lewis, Jr.; Proceedings ofIMECE'03, 2003 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress, Washington, D.C. November 15-21, 2003, Paper No. IMECE2003-43061. American Bar Association 2004 Emerging Issues in Motor Vehicle Product Liability Litigation "Mock Trial"- Plaintiffs Biomechanics/Occupant Kinematics Expert in Rollover Case Phoenix, Arizona March 18-19, 2004 "An Experimental Method for Multi-Variable Analysis of Vehicle Safety Systems and Application to Front Seats & Rear Occupant Interaction in Rear Impacts". Kenneth J. Saczalski, Srirangam Kumaresan, Anthony Sances, Joseph L. Burton and Paul R. Lewis, Jr.; Proceedings of IMECE04, 2004 AS:ME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition Anaheim, California November 13-20, 2004, Paper No. I:MECE2004-60785. R0241 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 33 "Computer Simulation of Rear Impact Biomechanical Occupant Response Predictions for Front & Rear Seated Passengers". Kenneth J. Saczalski, Ph.D., Jay Saul, Anthony Sances, Srirangam Kumaresan, Ph.D., Joseph L. Burton, M.D., Paul R. Lewis, Jr. 2004 FISITA World Automotive Congress in Barcelona, Spain. Paper No. F2004U065. "Multivariate Head Injury Threshold Measures for Various Sized Children Seated behind Vehicle Seats in Rear Impacts". Kenneth J. Saczalski, Ph.D., Anthony Sances, Srirangam Kumaresan, Ph.D ., M. Pozzi, MS, Todd K. Saczalski, Joseph L. Burton, M .D ., Paul R. Lewis, Jr. ISA 2004, Volume 449, pages 381-386. Emergency World Summit on Roof Crush Washington, DC • Participant Debate: Diving vs Roof Intrusion as Cause of Injury in Rollovers • Participant Press Conference: Strong vs Weak Roofs • Speaker: Injury Causation in Rollover Crashes Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill July 18-20, 2007 Press Conference "America's Forgotten: Victims of 'Roof Crush' in Rollovers Speak Out.. .One Day before June 4th Senate Hearing on 'Roof Crush' " Speaker/Participant National Press Club- Washington, DC June 3, 2008 U.S. Senate Commerce Subcommittee Hearing "Roof Crush in Rollovers" Attendant Russell Building, Washington, DC June 4, 2008 R0242 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 34 "Comparison of High & Low Speed Rear-Impact Head and Neck Injury Risk Measures Related to Occupant Size & Vehicle Seat and Vehicle Seat Strength Characteristics". Kenneth J. Saczalski, Mark C. Pozzi & Joseph L. Burton; Proceedings ofIMECE: 2008 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and RD&DExpo. Boston, MA. October 31-November 6, 2008, Paper No. IMECE2008-68492. Metro Emergency Medical Services- Continuing Education "Preserving Life, the Crime Scene and Respect for the Dead" Marietta, Ga November 17, 2008 "Rear Seated Child Injury Risk Experimental Measures Related to Vehicle Front Seat Performance in Rear Impacts". Kenneth J. Saczalski, Mark C. Pozzi and Joseph L. Burton; Proceedings ofIMECE: 2009 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and RD&DExpo. Lake Buena Vista, FL. November 13-19, 2009. Paper No. IMECE2009-10390. "Biomechanical Analysis and Injury Prevention in Off- Highway Vehicular Crashes" Joe Burton, Sri Kumar, Paul Lewis, Jr., Lou D' Aulerio, Michael Kleinberger, Daniel Strickland. Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium & International ISA Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation Symposium. Laramie, Wyoming. April 9-11, 2010 "Multi-Variable Experimental Matched-Pair Comparison of Rear Impact Occupant Protection Performance of Strong Belt-Integrated Vehicle Seats Versus Weaker Non-Belt-Integrated Types". Kenneth J. Saczalski, Mark C. Pozzi, Joseph L. Burton and Todd Saczalski. 2010 FISITA World Automotive Congress in Budapest, Hungary. May 31 5\ 2010 Paper No. F2010-C-112. R0243 JOSEPH LAWSON BURTON Page 35 Atlanta's John Marshall Law School Lecture to Advanced Evidence Class, Final Year Students Atlanta, GA March 29, 2011. AIEG 2012 Spring Seminar "Role of the Medical Examiner" The Peninsula Hotel Chicago, IL April 18, 2012 R0244  169 CASES INVOLVING FUEL FED FIRES Case# Case Name Attorney Vehicle 01-020 Ortega Vs. Ford Roger Braugh 1992 Ford Explorer, 4-Door 01-047 Copeland Vs. Nissan Frank Guerra 1989 Nissan 240 SX, 2-Door 01-049 Dismang, Little & Vestal Steven Harrell 1983 Chevrolet Pickup, 3/4 Ton 01-050 Chardonae Rowland Ervin Gonzalez 1994 Isuzu Rodeo, 4-Door 01-058 Montero Vs. GM Peter Flowers 1978 Chevrolet C-65, Dump Truck 01-075 Flint Vs. Chrysler Mika! Watts 1983 Dodge Ram, Van 01-076 Permenter Vs. Chrysler Mika! Watts 1999 Dodge Ram, Pickup 01-088 Sanders/Wright Vs. Ford Joseph A. Fried 1996 Ford Mustang, Convertible 01-101 Belli Vs. Daimler-Chrysler George W. Fryhofer 1991 Jeep Cherokee, 4-Door 01-120 Hall Vs. Ford Lamar Brown 1969 Ford Mustang, 2-Door 01-131 Ayala Vs. GM John B. Scofield 1993 Jeep Grand Cherokee, 4-Door 01-146 Rodriguez Vs. First Transit Inc. W. D. Hammond 2000 Lincoln Navigator, 4-Door 01-155 Casteel Vs. G.M. Lynn A. Grisham 1986 GMC 1500, Pickup 01-163 Miller Vs. DaimlerChrysler James L. Gilbert 1990 Jeep Wrangler, 2-Door 01-170 Lemus Vs. DaimlerChrysler Halley B. Lewis 1984 Dodge Colt Vista, Station Wagon 01-182 King Vs. GM Kurt W. Maier 1984 GMC Sierra, Pickup 01-202 Sloss Vs. General Motors Roger Braugh 1994 Saturn SL2, 4-Door 01-205 Gallagher Vs. Hyundai Peter Daughtery 1990 Hyundai Excel, 4-Door 01-206 Williams Vs. Ford Kent Emison 1983 Ford Thunderbird, 2-Door 01-216 Hinderks Vs. GM Kent Emison 1987 Chevrolet Scotsdale, Pickup 02-012 Hyatt Vs. G.M. James E. Carter 2000 Pontiac Grand Prix, 4-Door 02-016 Juan Arguello Mark Sparks 1979 Chevrolet 1500, Pickup 02-023 Wall Vs.GM Julian P. Hardy 1989 Pontiac Grand Prix, 2-Door 02-039 Lozano vs. GM G. Joseph Barrientos 1993 Chevrolet 1500, Pickup 02-043 El Paso Pipeline Explosion Robert A. Krause 02-050 Long Vs. Freightliner Richard D. Morrison 1996 Freightliner Truck, Semi 02-060 Tholander Daniel T. Defeo 1992 Chevrolet 1500, Pickup 02-063 Wetzel Vs. G.M. Stephen M. Gorny 1989 Pontiac 6000, 4-Door 02-064 Buckley Vs. GM Patrick Ardis 1995 Chevrolet SlO, Pickup 02-082 Lindberg vs. J&R Trucking Robert E. Scott 1999 Honda Civic, 2-Door 02-088 Barfield vs. Nissan Douglas A. Allison 1989 Nissan 240 SX, 2-Door 02-089 Emmett vs. GM Larry Setchell 1973 Chevrolet P-30, Van 02-109 Arcure vs. GM Aaron S. Decker 1985 Chevrolet SlO, Blazer 02-123 Santana vs. Ford Guy Watts 1992 Ford Mustang, 2-Door 02-142 Jones vs. GM Lynn A. Grisham 2000 GMC Sierra, Pickup Thursday, March 12, 2015 Page 1 of5 FIRE CASES R0245 Case# Case Name Attorney Vehicle 02-178 Ybarra vs. GM Richard Nonnan 1988 Chevrolet Corsica, 4-Door 03-002 Hahs Vs. G.M. Brad D. Kuhlman 1974 Chevrolet Cheyenne, Pickup 03-014 Ocampo vs. Maple Chase Compan Paula Wyatt 03-015 Berkley/Beck Vs. DaimlerChrysler Greg J. Allen 1983 Jeep Wagoneer, 4-Door 03-025 Jenkins vs. Rayloc Cheryl F. Perkins 1993 Infinity G20, 4-Door 03-030 Jason Schechterle Patrick McGroder 1996 Ford Crown Victoria, 4-Door 03-039 Davis Vs. Motiva Matthew Casey 03-051 Deleon vs. GM Frank Guerra I 981 Chevrolet C-10, Pickup 03-071 Gonzalez vs. Ford Kevin W. Liles 1997 Ford Fl50, Pickup 03-085 Samudia Vs. GM William J. Maiberger 1983 Chevrolet Custom Deluxe, Pickup 03-140 Foster vs. GM Jeffrey Wigington I 981 Chevrolet 2500, Regular Cab 03-152 Turner vs. MHTC Kent Emison 1970 Chevrolet C-10, Pickup 03-153 Newton Vs. Ford Kent Emison 2003 Ford Crown Victoria, 4-Door 03-157 Winston vs. DaimlerChrysler Robert E. Ammons 1988 Dodge Colt, 2-Door 03-171 Jared Beach Phillip Duncan 1999 Dodge Ram 1500, Pickup 04-011 Ibarra Vs. Willie's Appliances Roger Braugh 04-030 St. Clair County Vs. Ford Allene D. Evans 1996 Ford Crown Victoria. 4-Door 04-039 William Gilbert, Jr. Kent Emison 1986 Chevrolet Custom Deluxe, Pickup 04-056 Hampton vs. DaimlerChrysler George W. Fryhofer 2004 Jeep Liberty, 4 Door 04-062 Thompson vs. Nissan Roger Braugh 1993 Nissan Pathfinder, 4-Door 04-112 Tapley Vs. Volvo Trucks Kendall Dunson 1995 Volvo Semi, Tractor-trailer 04-114 Aguilar Vs. Navistar Victor M. Carrera 1984 International Truck, Semi 04-126 Ramos v DaimlerChyrsler Bradford G. Leigh 1998 Dodge Ram, Pickup 04-140 Hood Vs. GM Dana Taunton 1984 Buick Regal, 2-Door 04-158 Erdman vs. GM Patrick Ardis 1995 Chevrolet Beretta, 2-Door 04-160 Jones v GM Patrick Ardis 2002 Saturn Vue, 4-Door 05-009 Emerson Dana Taunton 1994 Chevrolet Suburban, 4-Door 05-037 Kline vs. GM Kent Emison 2000 Chevrolet Blazer, 4-Door 05-056 Nichols Vs. GM LaBarron N. Boone 1992 Oldsmobile Delta 88, 4-Door 05-064 Sloan Vs. GM Robert Langdon 1993 Oldsmobile Silhouette, Van 05-534 Jackson vs. Ford Ralph Chapman 1998 Ford Mustang, 2-Door 06-003 Kelly/Morris v GM J. P. Sawyer 1974 Chevrolet C-10, Pickup 06-037 Hamilton Robert W. Lee 06-044 Aven vs. GM Ralph Chapman 1997 Chevrolet Blazer, 4-Door 06-048 Halpern v Honda Lance A. Cooper 1995 Honda Civic, 4-Door 06-049 Townsend vs. GM Robert Langdon 2000 GMC Sie1Ta, Extended Cab 06-068 Dwight Boeckman Kent Emison 1999 Ford Econoline, Van Thursday, March 12, 2015 Page 2 ofS FIRE CASES R0246 Case# Case Name Attorney Vehicle 06-535 Yancy vs. Ford Deborah McDonald 1988 Ford Bronco, SUV 06-537 Foreman v DaimlerChrysler Stephen C. Swain 1993 Dodge Caravan, Minivan 07-042 Davis/Thomas Vs. State ofNorth C Benjamin E. Baker 07-044 Hockennan Vs. DCC Kent Emison 1999 Dodge Caravan, Minivan 07-046 Baldemar Ozuna Michael Matthew Guerra 1994 Mack Truck Tractor, Semi 07-047 Quiroz vs. GM Robert Langdon 2001 Chevrolet Blazer, 4-Door 07-065 Vest vs. Freightliner Patrick Ardis 1998 Freightliner Truck, Semi 07-083 Roberts vs. GM Kent Emison 1997 GMC Jimmy, 4-Door 07-511 Bowman Joseph F. Welborn 2000 Lincoln Navigator, 4-Door 08-001 Price Vs. GM William Atlee 1993 Chevrolet I 500, Pickup 08-524 Gutierrez v De Reynosa Aizar J. Karam 1998 Chrysler Town & Country, Minivan 09-020 Komacki v. Ford Ted Leopold 2001 Ford Mustang, 2-Door 09-048 Crow/Miller v Ford Kent Emison 1999 Ford Explorer, 4-Door 09-067 Hampton v Crescent Cleaners Patrick Ardis 09-518 Finch vs. Honda Jeremy Knowles 2002 Honda Accord, 4-Door 09-519 Hurry Wyman 0. Gilmore 2007 WSTR Semi, Truck 11-025 Williams I Rutledge v. Werner Robert Langdon 2006 Freightliner Century, Truck tractor 12-024 Greene v. Toyota Aubrey Nick Pittman 2010 Toyota 4-Runner, 4-Door 12-038 Walden Leigh May 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee, 4-Door 13-031 William Atlas Ralph Chapman 2006 Dodge Ram 1500, Pickup 14-024 Williams v. GM Brandon Peak 1983 GMC 1500, Pickup 2K-022 Byrd Vs. GM Peter Daughtery 1985 Chevrolet K-10, Pickup 2K-038 Clark Vs. GM Page Axen 1981 Chevrolet C-10, Pickup 2K-059 Bermudez Vs. Ford Paula Wyatt 1988 Mercury Grand Marquis, 4-Door 2K-060 Martinez Vs. Ford Paula Wyatt 1987 Mercury Grand Marquis, 4-Door 2K-062 Jackson Vs.ford Mika! Watts 1988 Ford F150, Pickup 2K-083 Magana/Servantes Vs. GM Rex Easley 1985 GMC 1500, Pickup 2K-095 Altier Vs. GM Peter Daughtery 1985 GMC Sierra 2500, Pickup 2K-108 Mathes Kent Emison 1997 Ford Fl50, Pickup 2K-113 Vestal/Marcotrigiano Vs. GM Steve Knowlton 1981 Chevrolet Chevette, 4-Door 2K-118 Spencer Hutchinson Mikal Watts 1988 Plymouth Sundance, 4-Door 2K-119 Schlipp Vs. Raniere Christopher Rackers 1982 Chevrolet Pickup, Diesel 2K-128 Forte Vs. GMC Dana Taunton 1997 GMC Sierra, Pickup 2K-150 Maulano Vs. Holy Cross John B. Marion 1996 Jeep Grand Cherokee, 4-Door 2K-152 Vellines Vs. GM Thomas Harlan 1993 Chevrolet Suburban, 4-Door 2K-167 Cruz Vs. Ford Patrick McGroder 1996 Ford Crown Victoria, 4-Door 2K-168 Fink Vs. Ford Patrick McGroder 1999 Ford Crown Victoria, 4-Door Thursday, March 12, 2015 Page3 of5 FIRE CASES R0247 Case# Case Name Attorne~ Vehicle 2K-176 Castillo Brantley White 1981 GMC 1500, Pickup 2K-188 Hardee Vs. Bellamy Brothers KirkFarrar 1993 Volvo Semi, Tractor-trailer 93-088 Klarlund Vs. GM Kent Emison 1981 Chevrolet 2500, Regular Cab 93-113 Skebo Vs. Ford 94-003 Clark Vs. G.M. Rex Easley 1983 GMC 1500, Pickup 94-059 Baker Vs. GM Kent Emison 1979 Chevrolet Pickup, 2-Door 94-093 Buie Vs. G.M. Lynn R. Johnson 1990 Toyota Pickup, 4 X 4 94-101 Brown Vs. Hawkinson Ford Arthur Gold 1989 Ford Econoline, Van 94-148 Goods Vs. Navistar Raymond S. Butler 1982 International Truck, Semi 95-009 Moore Vs. Ford Kent Emison 1986 Lincoln Towncar, 4-Door 95-033 Ayala Vs. Chrysler Paula Wyatt 1982 Dodge Ram, Van 95-040 Fowble Vs. G.M. David Blair 1982 Chevrolet Pickup, 2-Door 95-124 Wasilik Vs. Ford Kent Emison 1987 Ford Fl50, Pickup 95-126 Roiz Vs. G.M. David Cherry 1986 Chevrolet Camara, 2-Door 95-142 Meadors Vs. G.M. David E. Warden 1982 Chevrolet Silverado, Pickup 95-149 France & Mitchell Vs. G.M. Jeffrey G. Rickard 1994 Pontiac Bonneville, 4-Door 95-152 McGann Vs. Mazda Newton Porter 1988 Mazda RX-7, 2-Door 95-171 BrysonNaughn Vs. Turner Patrick A. Hamilton 1986 GMC 1500, Pickup 96-007 Harrison Vs. Dupont Berrien Sutton 96-010 Anthony Dalton Vs. G.M. Peter Daughtery 1976 Chevrolet Pickup, 2-Door 96-066 Head Vs. G.M. Mark J. Evans 1966 Chevrolet Pickup, 2-Door 96-098 Degner Vs. G.M. Robert P. Skeith 1984 GMC 1500, Pickup 96-115 Moseley Vs. G.M. James Pratt 1995 GMC K-14, Pickup 96-120 Milligan Vs. G.M. Turner Branch 1995 Chevrolet C-10, Pickup 96-147 Powell Kenneth Ingram 1995 Chevrolet K-10, Pickup 97-028 Dailey Vs. Nissan Todd Vargo 1995 Nissan Pickup, 2-Door 97-089 Peterson Vs. GM Peter Daughtery 1980 Chevrolet 1500, Pickup 97-113 Alvarado Vs. GM John Kittel 1986 Dodge Ram, Van 97-131 McCleneghen Kevin Hawkins 1995 Nissan Maxima, 4-Door 97-148 Mason Vs. Ford R. Timothy Morrison 1992 Ford Explorer, 4-Door 97-149 Bird Vs. GM Michael E. Withey 1983 Oldsmobile Cutlass, 2-Door 98-019 Williams Vs. GM Kendall J. Few 98-044 Fox Vs. GM Gary Mccallister 1978 Chevrolet C-10, Pickup 98-060 Jones Vs. GM D. Bruce Petway 1991 Pontiac Sunbird, 4-Door 98-072 Baker Vs. GM Kent Emison 1985 Chevrolet Blazer, S l 0 98-077 Carpentier Vs. Chrysler Felipe Garcia 1994 Dodge Ram, Pickup 98-090 Scott Vs. GM James Dunnam 1978 Chevrolet Caprice, 4-Door Thursday, March 12, 2015 Page 4 of5 FIRE CASES R0248 Case# Case Name Attorney Vehicle 98-102 Morin Vs.GM Paula Wyatt 1995 Chevrolet C-10, Pickup 98-108 Bridges Vs. Ford Brad D. Kuhlman 1994 Ford F 150, Pickup 98-128 Taylor Vs. GM R. Douglas Gentile 1989ChevroletS10 Blazer, 2-Door 98-136 Christopher Lashley David D. Guiley 1994 Toyota Pickup, Pickup 98-140 Sheriff Vs. American Motors Corp. Craig Goldenfarb 1984 Chrysler Lebaron, 4-Door 98-162 Weiderhold!fhompson Robert Waltman 1993 Chevrolet Camaro, 2-Door 98-164 Allen Vs. GM Mika! Watts 1978 Chevrolet Big 10, Pickup 98-165 Brazil Vs. GM Mika! Watts 1990 Chevrolet 1/2 Ton, Pickup 99-014 Moore Vs. GM Rodney Moore 1995 Chevrolet SIO Blazer, 4-Door 99-049 Stowe Vs. Chrysler Michael P. Atkinson 1995 Dodge Ram, Pickup 99-053 Hare Vs. Chrysler Mika! Watts 1976 Dodge D·l 00, Pickup 99-057 Goodman Vs. Chrysler Mark Tanenbaum 1993 Chrysler New Yorker, 4-Door 99-076 Sebree Vs. Ford Stephen M. O'Brien 1995 Ford Taurus, 4-Door 99-090 Gibson Vs. Ford George W. Fryhofer 1985 Mercury Marquis, 4-Door 99-091 Butler Vs. Daimler/Chrysler George W. Fryhofer 1997 Dodge B-250, Van 99-109 Thornton Vs. Ford Kenneth W. Lewis 1989 Ford Aerostar, Minivan 99-118 Ramirez Vs. Titan Filemon B. Vela 1997 Chevrolet Silverado, Extended Cab 99-122 Boley Vs. GM Craig Sico 1996 Chevrolet Blazer, 4-Door 99-142 Faraci Vs. Ford Mika! Watts 1995 Ford Bronco, SUV 99-144 Iracheta Vs. GM Robert E. Lapin 1988 Oldsmobile Toranado, 2-Door 99-157 Nellon Robert E. Ammons 1985 Plymouth Horizon, 2-Door 99-162 Hunt Vs. GM Robert E. Ammons 1984 Chevrolet 1500, Pickup 99-176 Shober Vs. Werner Ent Paul Brandes 1992 Lincoln Towncar, 4-Door Thursday, March 12, 2015 Page 5 ofS FIRE CASES R0249  RESUME Dr. Thomas H. Mayor Professor Emeritus of Economics University of Houston, Main Campus Address: 5555 Del Monte, Suite 1306 Houston, Texas 77056-4184 713-552-1522 Education: B.A. in Economics, Rice University, 1961, Magna Cum Laude Ph.D. in Economics, University of Maryland, 1965 Doctoral Dissertation: "Sources of Decline in the U.S. Capital- Output Ratio, 1869-1958" Academic Positions: Research Fellow, Brookings Institution, 1964-65 Assistant Professor, University of Maryland, 1965-69 Associate Professor and Professor, University of Houston, 1969 - 2009 Director of Graduate Studies, Department of Economics, University of Houston, 1971-74 Chairman, Department of Economics, University of Houston, 1977-81 Director, Center for Public Policy, University of Houston, 1982-84 Dean, College of Social Sciences, University of Houston, 1983-86 Chairman, Department of Economics, University of Houston, 1990-96 Academic Honors: Phi Beta Kappa Woodrow Wilson Fellow National Defense Fellow Brookings Research Fellow R0250 Research Interests: Applied price theory and public policy, law and economics Publications: 'The Decline in the United States Capital-Output Ratio," Economic Development and Cultural Change, July, 1968. "Short Trading and the Price of Equities: Some Simulation and Regression Results," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, September 1968. "Some Theoretical Difficulties in the Estimation of the Elasticity of Substitution from Cross-Section Data," Western Economic Journal (Economic Inquiry), June 1969. "The Role of Money in Economic History," in Perspectives in Economics, edited by John W. Snow, 1969. "The Demand for Equipment by Input-Output Sectors," University of Maryland Interindustry Forecasting Project, Research Memorandum Number 7, June 12, 1968. "Equipment Expenditures by Input-Output Industries," Review of Economics and Statistics, February 1971. "Industry and Employment Projections to 1980: Discussion," 1970 Proceedings of the American statistical Association. "The Rate of Discount in Bond Refunding," Financial Management, Fall 1974 (with K. G. McCain). "An Analysis of Factors Used to Determine the Public Need for New Banks," Southern Economic Journal, July 1976 (with John Fraser). "Estimation of Market Area Population from Residential Electrical Utility Data," Journal of Marketing Research, August 1976 (with George Hepburn). "Bond Refunding: One or Two Faces?", Journal of Finance, March 1978 (with K.G. McCain). "An Analysis of Factors Used to Determine the Public Need for New Banks: Reply," Southern Economic Journal, October 1977 (with John Fraser). "The Treatment of Income Taxes in Determining Personal Injury Awards," JurimetricsJournal, Winter 1977 (with George Hepburn). R0251 "Estimating the Value of a Missing Market," Journal of Law and Economics, April 1980 (with G. Daly). "Reason and Rationality During Energy Crises," Journal of Political Economy, February 1983 (with G. Daly). "Life-Cycle Effects, Structural Change and Long-Run Movements in the Velocity of Money," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, May 1984 (with L. Pearl). "Equity, Efficiency and Environmental Quality," Public Choice, No. 2, 1986 (with G. Daly). "The WeJfare Gain from Efficient Pricing of Local Telephone Service," Journal of Law and Economics, October 1987 (with James Griffin). "Hunter-Gatherers: the Original Libertarians." The Independent Review, Spring 2012. R0252 1004 Lacy Wnom GN2C4104 Segouin v. Chitdrens· hospital uf A..istir.: 98th-: rav;s Cty .. "'."x 0:;012:51 Garza 11 General Mcto:~ Cc·p.: 22Sth 8uva! Ct'f., tl(. Maria 3oy<;e -. ;01 cvD011 Cola v. BASF Corporatlon: U. S. Beaumont n:. Joe Alexanoer 20(159368 Nettles v. En1erprise Leasing; H!9lh Harr:s Cry .• Tx A:.atc'l Bachynsky 03~'.'0CH Rosev The Da::as Group .lf Amer:ca: 212:h Galvestcn Cty. ""x. 28,7'.lS·A Ozuna v. tl.cAllen Medical Cemer; Probste No. 1. ~:oaJgo Cty., T:. L;;.rry Wrign; Vernor. •..ewis 303187 We:~on v. U.S.A.; u. S. 3alveston. -x. Miii;e 013nen Oi0o1!403CV Rincon v. Ford Motor Compery; 385th Maverick C.y. Tx. Russe:! Beggs 2oc2 ~ 7799 8ut1ar v. Schiridler E:evato• Co., J33'524S • :ntegrated ::;eclt1Ci!. Sarvices v. :Javis: ~ 3310 "iarns Ct1 . 7x Ptigc • of 16 R0253  Sean RoballS ~0Mo4354 • Schmid• ·1. Hit.::, 133ro' Hams Cty.. Tx. Russell Briggs DlCV0388 H.ennis v. Un:royal; 122nd Galveston Cty., Tir.. Jo~J'I Care 20906507 Orimrr1dtt £,Otis v. Dove Homes: 112th Crocfl:>ttt Cty.. .,. x Joseph Jarnaii EOt 70690 • Turoin v. l:SA Truck, Jefferson Cly .. rx David Marchanc 3<.d1Si3~ '03 S.mmons v Sotrnal": 34et!"t Tarrant C~t · · rx Mark Hovenkamp C2C03336256 • Simol"s v . Scneltii••: t57th Harris Cty ....:c. David Marchar<;k, Texas. .;.:..)059<1202 Jonnson v. Suzuki l\1otor Co .. 202nd Bowie C~ . Tx. GN-<;4 t8C • Gonzalez. v. Austin Radiological Assn: 250t:i Travis C:y .. "!"x. Sht-:ry Chanole: :i3!:9t J~01 Fie.ds \'. ~~arshal .. Proo::::t.o Coun \le:. i. harr.s Ci1 ., Tx Cyr.Chia Hooper 200326795 Marlar v. Carruth~rs: 155th Harr.s Cty .. ix. r ...m1or Cratt 10640 Odel! v. Ferd Motor Co., 258th San Jc::cintc Cty., Tx ~aria1: Rosen 2!lC!:-·11972 Moodyv Momentum Motor Car,;; 801h Har~is Cty.. Tx Johr. Stevenson 200:.1-3390!:.i i\f.oo:iy 11. Nol>Ie Corporation, i 52nd r' arria Cty .. Tx Rossi:>.• Cook 2:)0.313559 L.~ 11 T!1om1.s: ~3~th Harrls Ct7.. rx. Forest Johnson 22005 • Montgomery v. Mart;n, 2:tsth Walker Cty.. Tx. Dax Gana 200'.:.·31604 Gutierrez. v. Industrial Guni:e; 1571"1 liarns Cty .. :x. ~ ay Henderson C12-0401 Shelby v. Metabo~fe International; 3361ta!; Pro. # 1, Harrls Cty. 7x Page 3of16 R0255  ,._ ...l.. Sr.swr Bates CA70181 Y:l063404 • Logic v. Pi:tterson Capita. Mam:19e:ne11t. Af,1e1 Ar ,)itraiion Assf! Jeremy !llewell CC03455 • Salinas v. Weeks Marine. lr.c.; 381sc Starr Cty. Tx Mark Hovenkamp 20(12-63349 • Morrison v. Kelsey-Seybold: 125th HarrfsCty.. Tx Buffy Martines DH!S734 WMe v. Wyt:th; ~351h .;efferson Cty.. Tx. Bernard Ktimist 2003414342 Pofachei< v. formooa Plastcs: 267ih Cai'lcun Cry .• T:-. noy Ewan 20:1426712 Morris v. Jcnes: 121 sr dams Cty.. Tx. G.los Kibbe- 17255 0 • Davis v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.. 13o'lh Jerrersori Cty .. Tx. Ben Martin 0313227A T1.1mer v. Deems; Cty. Cu.irt 1'1. Oaitoii; Cty.. ~x . ...ohn Ste-renson C57i04D • Gomez v. Weeks Marine; 206tn Hidalgo Ctv., Tx. Joho Card 2001-49:$71 ~Orton v. lord: 28ist Hartis Ct~ .• 1·x. Jer.;;;ny ll: Tx Marl< MU'ray O-!exenoe· 2002-65140 • Birdsey v. Tawa; 281st Harris Cty .. Tx. Stacy 8outh1Heu.• 2003-49662 Coyle v. De1gadillfo; 190th Harris Cty.• Tic. Daniel Barton 28029~1 Spradlin v. Brazos M & E: 23rd 9ra:(cri:l C~y.. Tx. Davr() Ceary C127503F Munoz v. 'l'lcA.len Metil:::ai Centor: '.'.32'ld '11oalgo ':!y .. T:t John Ste112nscr 2CC40987<: • Sam Johr-sori v. Todco Mscuigemcnc 61 st !-i;;ir;is Cty .. :·x Jeremy Newe;· (JC0477 • Lara v. Wee\QJ Marine: 381 s! Starr Cty., ix. Arthur Feldman 332, 744-402 • Orciz v. Baylor Cot!ege of MGdicine. ;;>robate # •. Harris Cly., 'l x Eiizateth Hawkir.s 316318 v Oewber:y v. ~unt; Proba1ti #1. Harris Cly .. ·; x. Pinn::~ Zummo V0l09 • =?vans" Toyow Motcr Corp. u. S. Victc~ia . Tx. David Mestema.w 200'12~5~ Valencia~! al. v. Mikalaj-:z.alC ~1 al; fi/!ith ~-ims Cly .. h Sherie Becicman 2003522193 Busl'"· Sis:ers of St. Josap··,; 9Sth :..uQboco< C!y .• Tx. William dau 200:.21 il55 Sass v. Gralla~ et a.. ; 2BOth ttarris C 2003-32237 ' Ray v. Carruth<)ogget Irie.: 270!h l"lams Cty.. ·~x. _ason Webster E0170948 Salas v. Chlistus 8t Mary Hospital; t72 l'!arns Cty., r it ~;!ark Mur,ay C)4'\04!J Gori?ale? v. T. W. Laquay Dredging, 24th Calhou:. Cty.. Tx. Mark Murray 200•L 24554 Hurtado v. T W .aquay Drecg1ng: ?.ith Calhoun Cty . Tr Felicia Kyle 200•; -35573 Hines & Evorctt v. Exxon Mobil; 125th Harris Cry .. Ti.. Wa:rcn Taylor 200:!-48937 ' Dunn v. Woman's Hospital o! Tex;is: 2S1st Hams Cty.. T::. John Steven~on 200:-S-O•M23 • Fountain v. Noole Corooratio~: t51st Harris Ctt .. Tx. Hur.ter Gran !rO~-CV-46 Chisum v Ford Motor Co.: U. S. Te>~Ila:;. T:.:. Hunter Crert 2C.SCV13C ~T J'N} Carey ., Ma:z:d~ Motor&s Corp .. U .~ Marshell, ;·.r;. Goeffrey Binney ''004-t2034 • t3row'1 v. Gre~ory Erectrlc: 16'..'th !-'am~ C:y. "!"'x E~zab~lh H11wkin~ 338962-401 ~ones v_ Ace :ash Express, Inc.. Prooate # 1 1:ams Ct:;. Tx Nicole Kennedy :!OOS·0.95e1 Hare v. Chesterton· 11th Harris Cty.• Tx. ...anie Jordan 20J4.<)863~ Wag:ierv. Houston Avccedo Co.: 125:h Har·i~ Cty., ill !:!non Beclccom .:"JJS--<:0641 Nicc!v Teris LLC. e: .ii.: 333rd rlarn; Cty _Tx A ~e.,.Jls Ward 2\::}4·<5181 • Seelye v. Bro\'m: 296th Hams Cty . Ix P~~e 5 <;f i6 R0257  ' - • :r',..·..!.J :,i .!. - -·..... Edward Samosor. 0502712 M9yes v. 3rews!'3:: 95th Uvhas C:y .. Tl< Ei1.:abeth Hawkins 2004-588~7 • Li"co:n v C1;;rk Freignt ~ines: 190th rlams Cty .. f x ManFr~eman 400468624 l51 i685 • "fhompson v. A!za ~oiporation. ~13th Ha•ris Cty .. T:r. Lou dlack 20t)560439 Shepherd 11 Cheslll~ G1.lf Coast; 21 Sth Hari:s Cty .. '!'x. K'.erth Fl~lche• 'J 5CV140792 • Woilker v. Chan; 400m Fort Hen~ C!y., Tx. Mali< Guencro 0172.<:85 Scnroeder v The modc•r Crv .. p· 1 ~6th Jett~ri;on Cty., -x Joe B Slei:>hens 04CV1 :383i5 Sanfotd v. Union Pacitfc: 288th Fon Bc::od Cty., i.lt Drad G. Leigh 2004- t 5801 Duin v. Re:iant Resources. Inc; 334-th Harris Cty. Jeffrey embty 71253 • Ramirez v. Kare; 401h Ellis \;ly., Tx. Vuk V\.jasfnovlc 2005-c7 •09 :-:.,;.,,•yen v Core-Mark lnternaticnat; 55lll rfar:is C:y .. Tx. ~: ·.chael McCormick i:"5J33CCL • C~amon v. s:d Pelersor. 1-losp1tol, KMtia.t; C'.y. 7x B. /\dam TerroC 4507.il Briar. & Sanciers v. Dickson; 3561n Hardin Cty. rx. w, Doug:as Matt.he~ 2005-00.192 Saucier v. CSX Transportat:on; Circ;.i:t Ct .. Jacl<..:oo;. Miss Fage 6 cf Hi R0258  • !.: j ' - -~-- Man Mussali! Ce-C4232 Palmore v. Acti tia1dvr,m~: 162no. '.Jal!as. Cty .. "."x. Russel! Cooic 2004-21573 Morell v. Able Supply Co.;~ 1th Harris Cty. Tx. Greg Lee 2005-42906 Kincar'lon v. Cuellar: 12 ltn Haris o.y .. "."x. Janet R•1sl\ing H031276 Westboro Prope11ies v. Cred:1 Suisse; L.. S. Ho.. ;;ton. Tx 2007 Mark Murray 2004-45'563 Ho:1rnand~2: \'. 1'ruJ11!0: 370lh Hams :;fy .. ·,·.x Jirr.my Williamson 2C0:':-18653 Descours v. Descocrs; 234th Harris Cty., -:-x. Vok Vu/asir.ovic 40621 Castillo v. United Texas Petro.cum; 23rd Wharton Cty. Tx. MO!k Carri9al' 2COL.'6C21S Grddoni v Pacesetter Personr.e. Service: 1641h r-'arris Cty.. Tx 1r;icy Conwel 2t;u:J-30307 • Svare.? v. Ii & M Cons:ruction. ~57th riotri~ Ct)' .. T i:. Wayne Co.tns 200£ 3S821 aenav:de~ v Railscive: 234tn rla•ris Ciy .. rx. Orenl Coon 0.5CV0337-A Godeaux & Kinard v. SP; 212th Ga:veston ~ty. . Tic Je•erny Newel! C1694--05A • Chap;. v. Gfea1 Lakitt> Dredg~ & :loci<.. ~2r\C Hio~lgo Cly.. Tx. Tra-:,y Glenn 200€-04717 Morgan v. Davis: 280th Ha11:s Cty. Tx. Jeremy Nw.-111! DCOS-27! Fidel Tre>Jino v. Weeks Marina; 31l~s1 S!arr Cty .. ~ x. F.ti Sam;>$0n 3.J6··;;v·C'J2 Vans11; v. Cni'rtor Oak Fire .'tsura:'tce Co.: U. S. n,,,tes, -x. ' ~rry Wrignt Q<; 8399 Lange v. Sio Pe:erson Hm;piW1; 198th Kecr Ct)'., ~x. Kennelh Wall 9:05CV182 Coppeo9e v. K.S •. & SabaU:. ; .J. L u!ki~. Tx Mic'lael Caliahan 2005· 78n1 Middlelon v. Cemex: 269th narris Cty... rx ~tanley Bro.J$S:erd HO!:iOO!t77 • W1i9hl v. H;,i;:is Cty.. \;. S. l'lo;.istor;, Tx. Jeremy ~ewell ::is33·CSF Gonzale? v . K'lg f•sher t.~arine Service: 332r.o t uaalgo Ciy., 1;. MIC\ael Nace. 353 .969·401 Peterson v i.:'sparu: Probate CoJrt #2 Ha11 ;,; C(y . •'I. . 350.605·401 MaGee v. O~'W Restaurant, Inc.: Probat~ Ccurt #1 Har: is Cty .. ...x. Jennifer f>ratch~ 7 813.-D • Teel v Re1Lech Steel: 350th Tay[or Cty , :x. Jarr.a1 Alsaffar • .C:SCY-00474 Silorg v. IJ. S .: U. S. Fresnc;. Cei.1or"lia. Mark Car~igar. 3SC29 Lorance v . Sunland Constructicn; c 12'.'i Brc;zor'a Cly x Page 7 Jf 16 R0259  Mike l. Cargdl; 25:h Gon:ca:cs Cty.. h . Wayr:e Colins 200H ·002 Figueroa v, Ounr.: 16<11h H~rns Cty., Tx. Andrew Schirtme·s:er ~15!)5-0~CG • Flcres v. Vachon Industries; 370!tl Hidaigc Cty _Tx. Cnarles Soechlirt~ GN2026C4 Lock v Kahn; 200tn "'."ravis C:y .. '!'x Mari< SLawar. :2COS-OJ 180 Pena ,, Wa.ker; 249th Jorr '"!a~per v. l:lP' 212th Ga'.1tC!!;t:;1n Cty.. h. Rrad Beers 200H..39C9S ' "fumipsee:j v Cramer; 165th rlards Cty.. Tx. lind..i Turiey llb-C~05C7H ' Frio:gerald 11 . 1 ene1 Hea~!hsystems; 1601.h Oatlas Cty .. 7x. Joseph Ale~ncer 200~'·472n Jeffcoat v. Community Hea:th Systems; 5~th Har ~rbldge & Dex;"; 206~h ii.dalgu (;iy. ~ x ~Ot:CV4'?.5T JW Brian eeckcorn /~· 160·0·:>07107 Pere<. v. Conroe Pipe; Amerfcar. Arbitra'.!on Assr. ., r'O.J5tOI:, lx Jeremy Newell ~c-os-2n Martliez v VJeeks Marir.c: 381st ~terr Cty.. '7x. Erown v. Kansas C:ty Sou:nern Railway: Scott Cty.. fl.1lss Jue-.. Strolher 20Cts-13'.il1 8 Onnning v Mustans Dri:lil',a: t24tr Ci.re!jg Cty .. T~. Scort Lann~ oacv~o63 BroKmann 11. Gulf Coppers '.'Mg.; 212tli ~arns C~y., Ti: Gary OlMuzio CV-588713 Rccso v. Deleo; Common Ple12s Cc~rt, Cuyahoga Cty.. Oh.o ?age a or 16 R0260  -····::r. Paul Jacobs GN501 B9B Strickla'"1d 11 Jeffers: 2llCt.h Trav:s Cly .....x. Jaffn:iy Davis 20C5-7<134g • Je!iangir 'J Ortiz; 21Sth Harris Cty.. Tx. Toby l=uilmer 04056112-G • Ri.tledga v. Underwood; 134th Dallas C:y .. Tx. Anhut Go:ualez 20-08-4 ~749 Tenorio v. Farsat; 261st Harris Cty .. Tx. David 8righ 1 A06CA1 00455 ' Navarro v. Soaring He Imel Caro.: U S Austin . ·r x. R~cnare! Mithell JG-4137 s oOrh harrls ".::!)! ~x Michae. KerensiS·OfH!'15 • De Leon v ~eeR:.;st~r CV6SB88 Zelaya v Ul Roca RB>ldy Mb:; 75!r i ibeny Cty.. Tx. Joseph M. ~oumer &:07cv0::05S Shanks v Swill T1Jn$pOrlatior.; U. S .• ·1 redo, Tx. L&rry Wright Orr v. B:ac~; 1S2nd Danas Cty .. 7x Brooks Hatr.son 05-:v-0337 • Arenazas -et al v. BP; 212'11 Galveston Cf'/ , Tx. ui:itliel Horowitz 06cv0934 • Simp$0n v. Abernathy; 10th Galveston Cty •• "'."x. 091/ic Marm..mv OS6·2216&7·06 • 1.iar.inez. v. !-'l.lston; 96~h Tarrar.t c:y., Tx. Alt Gon~el 26534 Sunderlcorl v. Pric~ Construction: 52nd Val Verde Cty Tx. Totfy Fullmer 3::J7c11;)1 )!!ORLA Oiai; v. Puerto RCco C:lc;ctric Power; U.S. ;;>vortQ f~'co ?age 1C of 16 R0262  Hal hmgis 2008-56670 Hollie v. Belmat 6u:lders. 333rd rlarns C!y. T><. Capoieilo v. L' S.; U S. Galvesror;, Tx M.ckey Das 0702:J090(;V'N Pede~~ v Cycle Reir.ch. 213th Wilsor. Cty., :x. Daniel Dutko 20()6-72962 ":'sui v. 8ud9e1; 12Sth Harris Cty, Tx Mar'" Carrlga.~ 20:>7-35221 Luis v Trendmaker Homes: 334rh Harris C~. Tx E:owin McAninc": 07-J8-462:J5 81ockwoll v. Weeks: 79!h Jim Wa\fs Cty.. lx. 11Wliam Jones 27875 • Cornett v. Cce; 1st Jasper :::1y .• Tx. Gerardo Garci~ 24112 Garcia v. 3alcer Concrete Costtuction; 12th Walker Cty .• ::::: Brad LeiSh o:;.H-OOSS~C • Mead v. Ford Motor Co.: 23r~ Matagorda Cty ., Tx Fazlua:~ 4;07 ·cv·03036 Sequetr3 v. l<. Jack 'Aormar 2007-22933 Ramire:z v. Home Depot; 154th rlarris Cty, Tx Page 11of16 R0263  ,... _.:.:.. !'atriei< Rigby 2Q07-Q7818 1nompson v. Rosen~erg. 133~d Hc.rr:s Cty. Tx. Osca1 De Le Rosa 2tK'7-70B67 Torres 11. Wesl Houston Ma::!ical Ce11ter:127th I iams Ct1.• "'"i< Jasor. Webster 87010A PariSh v GO:d's Texas 1-iokfogs; Pronate No~. ·1 ravis Cly. rx. 8. Adam Terreh A-180 943 Hathaway 11. Weatherlorct lnterna:ional: 5tHt: Jdl1:1r.scn Ct~ .. Tx Shari Wright 2'.)C.tCVtj0009861).( Chavez v. S.cmari·Mo!': 4C5tl\ Weoo Cly .. ,..x. Hur.fer Craft cv-41 Q'.'S Jordy v. Ho~on; 159th Angei:na Cty. Tx. wimam Slankensr :J.> CC0702~845 Hemandez v. Mexim Crane Works: 2nd .'.)atlas Ct~ . il:'.. Vuk Vu;asbo11.c 20C8..!94JS Co1ir.s v. Greyhound U!les: 152nc ~irris Cty. TJ<. Mo11iea Vaugt:G~ -::r- No.P06CVi 7 Campos v . M:Jck Trucks: u S. Pecos, T>C vltV•c:l 9,Jl!ow 2C08 11970 Mende:? I/. Ace Traris.oonatior.: 1• tn Hams Cty •. ·~:c Sha.;mar Wal'.3Cct 8e294 Blount v. riathorn; ::irobete t~o i, Travis Cty., Ix. Brad Beers 20C8-3:lC32 ~cnegbu v. Bajwa; 129th Herrs Cty., Tx Brar:~ Stcgnar 2006-8t1'JO · A~i&s v. Do;iar Fuel Systems: 295th Harris Cty .. Tx- K:mmie 8snne11 2007-76443 Wimams v.9roughton: 165!h Harris Cty. Tx. Curtis S.c1aL t!n ::Hvisicn H~~npstr.:~u C:y .. Arie Gregory :.ea Z006-"i5475 Gardiner v. Southern St3r Concre~. 2.34?1': Harris Cl-1. Tx Cyndi Rusn:ik • :0-8 cv85-1MK Viratoe v . Mylan, ~nc. U.S. ~.ortnern Dis\rict, West Virginia Chelsie Garza DH!1 ,022 Castro v. United Ren:als, Inc.: 136tt: Jcffs~so:'I Cty. :-x. Mark Davis 08.00534·1 Rodriguez 11: Mal inckrodt .nc.; No. 1. Nueces l.:ty.. Ix ;:;.;£ene 8r'=ei; Sf, 1,', :.l-ca ..co· /·Ri. • Mt:Lecu v. tJ. S. A ; U S. San Anron10. Tx C<. Adam ~!'lilCO 13i 00176.21 Olvera v. Yum aranoc;: Amf':ricar Al l;i:nnor . A:.~ · ,;sr&my Newel! 45SOfi • Uamasv. .,. v. Piping; 239th Brazoria Cty .. Tx. Jon Ai·110rth oe.!J9-~4.851CV Sanchet v. ACJtozone; J81h Uva'oe Cly .• Tx 81m Mariir• 08-1424·015 Schrader v. Gray Televis:on: 15th Grayscn Cty.. Tx. ;oseph Alexena"" "J77 .SOS-'lD, Richar(l'son v. Tenet: Ptcl:lat~ No. 3. ~i 2r•1s Cty. T x Da! Richardson v. Eaton; 1 ~6th .)ehas C:y... x. t.1arc E. Stewart :>C-:8-08625 Ward v, K~\c~ersid; 19lst 0a·.1as Cty .. Tx =>age ~ 3of16 R0265  r - 2010 Roger Jair. 2005·36359 • Undhursl v. G:over; 127:n narris Ctv., ! x laura Brown 05·i 3672 Horton v. Baylor Health Care: ~16th Dallas Cty .. Tx. W~1k Murray 2~0lMC-5497D Deleon v. King Fisher Marine Services:~03r·cSl'.>35 Ga1ven v. Ranm•an & O'Brien; U.S. D~I Rio. Tx ,;;;~vn Wcbste~ Ol:·C·32b Cttlno1m v. Gclc's Gyin, Jef~erson C~ .• We'.l1 \tirg1nia ·;~r. Crow J5·0:'-2:>077 ' ZJbia v. J.?. Ratigan . vie.: 286:h Hockley C!y Tx llenjeimin Ha:· 2007-22019 Hargrove Etl al V. Boxer Property; 133rc Ha!""~ Cty .. Tx. RocerHfd.:iirc OS-ti-\ S"f9-2 llowe "· ?1aodrlc~; Zod NueC$S Cty .. Tx. Jeremy Ne~ll ~CCS00-5147:) • Tamez v King Fisher Marine SeNice: 103rd Carr:eror ::w .. ·;-)I Page 14of16 R0266  John ..oaen 200;-4688a Fern.'lndez v. ~urphy: 61St Harris CtY .. fx. Johnny '•J.. Gar-la A--79, 159 ?ere.z at el. v, United Scaffo:ding· 58th Jeffa•son Cfy .. Tx Daniel Cartwrigr.i ·)8-1 '.?·C032Scvf Ji:nenez v. Cooper Tire & R\Jbber; 21 Blh i=-rio Cfy :~. M!chel.e Cher.g 09-00-.536cv272 T:rado v . .;ones: 272110 Br:szos Cty .• Tx Oavio MestemaJCar 47<:1CI ~ Leach v. Harria;·23rd Brazoria Cty.. Tx. Sieve :'092 Verduzco v Kin9 Fisher t.1arhe; 2951h Calt:m..I' Cry Tx Jordan Glaze 20C8-4S059 Gomez v. OC""'G, LLP; 333rd narri:. Cty .. rx . Jason Mc:ltnvcn 2C-OG-41285 • Jimenez v Weeks Marine. Inc.; 215!h r!arris Cty .. : x Cn"1s Jol;ns 2COS--06 l 00 Ocanas"· King f11hi1r Ml!lnne Service; 27Ctt1 Harrls Cty .. fx Db.vid Wynr'le 2009-13292 GonziMi. \/ l ; 2!311.th \.lvttgor:.,.,'Y Cty .• -:-.<. Benny Agosto 2000·01164 McGar.a v. GolJen Constr JCt'on ltd.· 1·3th Hams Cry, Tx. Toby Futlm~r 2.0C5-23B38 Tow v. Pagano: 333rd Harrie Cty •. T '(. fornmy Yates ~ :DScv89~ Hyatt v. 3roussard: U.S. 9eaumom. Tx. J&rGrnyS~:'IX 2009·52636 Saun<:liofs "·Rawson L.P.;~2Sth Harris (;ly .. T;r: Page \5 ot 16 R0267  Rya~. Zen 2C•09·29612 ~afard" Ace Transpo:taticn: 129!h Harris Cty. ,.x 1 ::>&-cv-874 BlacKwcll v. Nissan. U. S. Beaumont -: exas Roy Ewart ~OC9-.J1.fr3B Harper v. Acaigbe; 13Bth Cameron :::ty .. "'.'x .ioseph Cor:eguera 2008-57592 ' Mendez v Andersen; 1S2od Hsrris Cty .. Tx . '2011 Janie Jotaan 2C-09-02l63 Koonce v. Brennan's bf Housron: 151s. r'arfis Ct~-. r~ 2:009··S56~CL2 Maiv&-.o\.x v Miustream f;.i&t Se:v1ce; Gregg Cty ix Stllvtrn lllcms 4;08cv032~i1 Diaz v Ameri::an A1;ge"S; L. S Ho.1ston. Tit. Robert Hi :am :~fO:'C 0~64CYJ M;r-a:ida v. Crisp Comracmrs: t31 stl2H!rr 1..aSa.ie C'.y .. : x Briar. 9ectcom 2009-06025 • Sweeney v. Soor.e towing Co.. 1 J3:c H<1rri~ C!y .. Tx. Braoleylager J9cv23~3 Raz:u v. ABHI E:nte·prises; 10tn G<1:vesrori Cty.. Tx t.eta"d irwi"I 2009-50173 Horton v. Red OakAnssthesia A$1:fOc.utov: 252nd Hw:~ Sty - >< Andte\v Seerd.,r. 200a-61897A R!vas v GALP CNA Um11ed; ~1th H1irrts Cty .. T~ Sherle Beckmar 20J9..£9114 Hardesl}' v. Cannichae!, 2'79tt:. harri::. Cty .. ":x Thomas Jones C-2008-12380 ?erez 11. Miskell; 433rd Comal Cty., Tx. Keith Fletcher 2C 10-35295 Wentz v, Wil~ ams; 55th. Harr:s Cty., ix. r: D~r..e· Ptake 20· :J-04249 Martinez v. D;,v s: T6Sth H.la.~ Cl, .. Tx. Jack Washb1m1 :ctsa v Citt of Sa:t 1\nton10: 2a&:r. 3ex<>r Cly _ Tx Mickey Was! .• ngton 1::icvOe69 Hampsri(e v. Bunget:I' Furi. l11c.: SStr; G;;;·;esron Cty. 'x. Page l6ot16 R0268 •••. ,;, • • tJ .;;; ~--: .):, ,......... ... ~ .. Cor.lan Madoux -JS0~2· l031!icv Doss"· Joe Tc;( Inc.; 82nd Rob&rtson Cty.. Tx. ~athan Beedle H-101!-51 Davis"· Harris Cty., District Attorney: L. S. Hou~on, Tx. To.by i=unmer 10.;32C(FAS) Alejandro v. Puerto Rico electric Power: U. S Puertc Rico. Anlhony Buzbee 2010·33Ct39 Maddox v. Rowan comparues; 189th Harris Cty.. Tx \ilonica Vaughan 2::09-3~88 • Obey v. Alanis; 16Ath Harris Cly., Tx. Randy Sorrels 2CD8-71:.67 • Maua v. Hoi..ston N01thwE'!S1 Fla1mers: 28Gtn Harris Cry .. Tx. Anthony Buzbee O&JtiiO.ttOOO-G ' t.acour 11. Delek Refining; 319th Nuect>s Cty .. Tx: Alexandre Mutchler 2010-10995 Mcrina v. lntegriry Packaging; 80th Harris Cly .. Tx. Micky Das 2010-3S•l44 Srir.ivaian v. Prasad; 269th Harris Cty., 1)(. Michael Meyer 20C9-00~ 31 Olmeda v. Lowe's Home Centers; 113th Harris Cty Tx. Hudy Gonzales OC·~:: ·0:)11;t5F Ramos v. Navajo Reffnlog Co., 116tn Dallas Cty .. Tx. Steven Morgan 61'756 Abshire v. BP Products No. Amenca; Lnd Ga:v1:1stor cty .. Tx \1ark Murray 200!>-8Q709 • Foret v. Slewart & Stevenson; 80th Hari:!! Cty.. fx. Shene Beckman ::>-"27,629 Ansley v. Arrow Trucking; 356th Ector Cty ., Tx. LOM 'Vo 201 J-ci-1 ()8$3 Saw!alle v. Hoefle; 150th Bexas Cty., Tx. Cha•lcs Soechlins c1344.·10A Marlcna/ar v. Sedgwick Claims Co.; 92nd Hioalgo Cfy .. rx.. Andrew I O~ccno 34:J65 Hernandez v. HiH Country Restaurants; No. 3 8e..car Cly .. Tx Michael Hellik 20~0-19731 Evans v. union Pacitic Rel!road;1641h Harris Cty., Tx. Brian Secitcom 20'0~0516 Garcia v. Kirby lnl188856 Bo{)ker v. Baker: 136th Jefferson Cty .. Tx. Son Martin CC10052&3D Evans v, E:Jenjamln; No. 4 Dallas Cry.. Tx. Marl'. M:may :i!JCi'-40772 Torres v. JV rnaustriar Companres: 334lh Harris Cty., Tx. Ryan Zeni 2~'10-70357 Ru:ihing v. G3rcia. 152nd Harris Cty.. Tx. Ra nay Sorials 20:0-20115 Campbatl v. Delcour: 127th Harr:S Ct;. , Tx. Wi'.liam Maines 20~0-5~028 Wrigh' v. Southwest Stainless: 133rd Hartis Cty.. Tx Hvnter Craft 402-404...;01 Turner v . Contin<1nta: Airline$: Probate #2 Harris Cty.. Tx. Brian Beckeom 2010-61?05 • Hetv. Torres; 164th Harris Cty. Tic. Steve Waldman 2010-76338 Tamayo v. Cemral Dispatch Inc.; 165th Harris Cty.. Tx. • Denotes trial testimony. Page 3 of 3 R0271 R0272  CAUSE NO. 2014-34635 NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates and Nathan M. Ates IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF V. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXA- ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § 11th JUDICIAL 1 j t1)\;. - INC. , HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. and the Estate of CHRISTOPHER YEAGER 2-. °V.D AGREED AMENDED DOCKET CONTR ER The following docket control order shall apply to this° unless modified by the Court. If no date is given below, the item is governed by the Tex es of Civil Procedure. 90 1. EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATION. ert witness designations are required and must be served by the followings. The designation must include the information listed in Rule 194.2( ell as each expert's report. Failure to timely respond will be governeq ule 193.6. Counsel may extend these deadlines by agreement. 8/7/15 Expert Designations for Pies Seeking Affirmative Relief, with Reports. C_ 9/14/15 All Other Expert Dr__ tions, with Reports. 2. DISCOVERY PIOD ENDS. 12/11/15 All disco -gust be conducted before the end of the discovery period. Parties seekin: --overy must serve requests sufficiently far in advance of the end of the discop ; .eriod that the deadline for responding will be within the discovery pep Pft ounsel may conduct discovery beyond this deadline by agreement. plete discovery will not delay the trial. 3. ATrVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 9/14/15 By this date the parties must either (1) file an agreement for ADR stating the form of ADR requested and the name of an agreed mediator, if applicable; or (2) set an objection to ADR. If no agreement or objection is filed, the Court may sign an ADR order. -iDanie-1( Chris•t G Gler trt RECORDER'S MEMORANDUM This Instrument is of poor quality tAarr at the time of imaging R0273 BY  10/23/15 ADR conducted pursuant to the agreement of the parties must be completed by this date. 4. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS AND PLEAS 10/30/15 Must be heard by oral hearing or submission. If subject to an interlocutory appeal, dispositive motions or pleas must be heard by this date. Summary judgment motions not subject to an interlocutory appeal must be hard by this . Rule , 166a(1) motions may not be heard before this date. N?' 5. CHALLENGES TO EXPERT TESTIMONY C) 11/20/15 All motions to exclude experts and evidentiary challen to expert testimony must be filed by this date, unless extended by leave of 6. PLEADINGS 0 o 12/11/15 All amendments and supplements must be fi y this date. This order does not preclude prompt filing of pleadings dire ponsive to any timely filed pleadings. "1-12_tlk 7. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE - Parties shall be prepared to d . all aspects of trial with the Court on this date. Failure to appear will be groom for dismissal for want of prosecution. 3 ■1 Se-r—ctin T-IP-A- 44ve-- ca_ se_ (As+ It. 1-e_ell-cilef Ok c94 1(0 ktko— k ocicei • • AP PRESIDING JUDGE -2- R0274  NO. 2014-34635 NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Personal Representative of the Estate of § Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; SONIA ATES § and NATHAN M. ATES, § § Plaintiff, § § 11TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. § § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § INC.; HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC.; and § the Estate of CHRISTOPHER YEAGER, § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Defendants. DEFENDANT ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS, AND REQUEST FOR RULING ON DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. (“Robinson”) and files this its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to First Discovery Requests, and Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections, and in support thereof, would respectfully show this Court the following: I. INTRODUCTION This case arises out of a helicopter accident which took place on September 10, 2012. Plaintiff Nathan Ates (“Ates”) is the representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, who died as a result of the accident. The helicopter was owned by Helicopter Services, Inc., and piloted by Christopher Yeager (“Yeager”). Robinson Helicopter Company (“Robinson”) is the manufacturer of the helicopter. Plaintiffs’ motion summarily states that Robinson has not responded adequately to its discovery requests, and seeks to compel production. However, Robinson’s 1 R0275 responses were complete and asserted reasonable objections where necessary. Robinson has produced the non-proprietary responsive documents which could be identified based on the requests it was served. Robinson’s responses further directed Plaintiffs to documents which were publicly available, and stated clearly what documents are not within its possession and/or control. In addition to these responses, due to the vastly overbroad nature of many of the requests, Robinson notified Plaintiffs where a response required a clarification so that Robinson could ascertain what documents were being requested. Plaintiffs did not respond to these requests. A copy of Plaintiffs’ Requests and Robinson’s Responses are attached hereto as Exhibit A. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel argues that Robinson should produce the information which was produced in the Yeager case, which is a now-resolved matter which arose out of the same helicopter accident. However, Plaintiffs were never a party to that case, the cases were filed at vastly different times, and were never deemed related or consolidated. Further, Ates has never served Robinson with any discovery requests seeking these documents to which Robinson could respond, choosing instead to file this Motion to Compel. In an attempt to meet and confer about these discovery issues, Robinson’s counsel agreed to review the Yeager discovery documents for production in the Ates matter, with the understanding that they would be produced subject to a Protective Order, in the same manner which they were produced in Yeager. In accordance with this, Robinson prepared a Protective Order as used in the Yeager case, and forwarded it to Plaintiffs for review. Without providing objections to the relevant terms, this 2 R0276 Protective Order was rejected by Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs proceeded with this Motion to Compel. A copy of the proposed Protective Order is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Robinson has both adequately responded to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, and in the spirit of cooperation in the discovery process, even without a formal discovery request for the Yeager documents, stands ready to produce these documents once the necessary Protective Order is agreed to and entered. As discussed more fully below, there are both public and private interests in maintaining the confidentiality of this information, and such an Order is necessary as the documents requested contain proprietary trade secret information which has not been disseminated to the public. These documents consist of engineering drawings, Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) certification materials, confidential pricing information, and information relating to the continuing airworthiness of helicopters manufactured by Robinson. II. ARGUMENT A. Legal Standard For Protective Order Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Section 192.6(b) provides that a Protective Order may be entered to “protect the movant from undue burden […] invasion of personal, constitutional, or property rights, the court may make any order in the interest of justice…” Such an Order may provide, but is not limited to, an order that “the discovery be undertaken only by such method or upon such terms and conditions […] as directed by the court; [and/or that] the results of discovery be sealed or otherwise protected, subject to the provisions of Rule 76.a.” Tex. R. Civ. Pro. 192.6(b)(4-5). B. Robinson Is Not Seeking To Limit or Preclude Discovery By seeking a Protective Order regarding proprietary trade secret materials, 3 R0277 Robinson is not asking the Court to preclude reasonable discovery, or to limit what responsive documents are produced to Plaintiffs. Rather, Robinson is simply asking for an Order which ensures that the materials produced in this matter will be used appropriately for the purposes of this case only, and not be retained or disseminated upon its conclusion. Robinson has successfully used this order as drafted in prior cases, including a now-resolved case in this same Court which arose out of this same accident. C. Production of the Documents Without Adequate Protection Could Both Endanger the Public, and Cause Harm to Robinson As discussed above, the limited categories of “confidential” documents detailed in the proposed order are narrowly tailored to relate to documents which both Robinson and the public have a strong interest in maintaining the confidential nature of. As such, the Court should consider the strong public policy issues implicated by their production. As well as Robinson’s interests in the confidentiality of its trade secrets, which allows it to compete in a very competitive international industry, the general public would be placed at risk if the requested information is released to outside parties, due to the increased likelihood of uncertified, counterfeit aircraft parts entering the general aviation market. These documents contain proprietary information which is the result of years of work product of Robinson’s engineering staff, consist of the design specifications of its products, and essentially would give a “roadmap” to building the component parts of Robinson’s helicopters. Amongst other concerns, the disclosure of the requested design information would create the risk of injury or death due to these counterfeit parts malfunctioning or failing while installed on aircraft, as the parts would be created without the manufacturer’s quality control standards or the FAA’s approval. As a result, the FAA 4 R0278 has issued warnings to manufacturers to limit this risk by protecting their design and production information.1 The problem of unapproved parts manufacture is of particular concern to Robinson, as consumers of its products have been killed as the result of counterfeit parts being installed on its aircraft. In 1997, a “bogus” parts manufacturer was convicted of two counts of manslaughter for fabricating and installing counterfeit tail rotor blades which failed while in flight and resulted in the deaths of the helicopter’s two occupants. This incident demonstrates the very real danger posed by the spread of information concerning the design and manufacture of aircraft parts to potentially unscrupulous third parties. (See Robinson Helicopter Company Press Release dated December 23, 1997, attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit C). Compelling Robinson to produce documentation relating to the technical details of its designs would therefore cause potential harm to the general public, as well as to Robinson’s proprietary interests. D. Robinson Should Not be Compelled to Produce Any Evidence Relating to its Net Worth, Particularly, in the Absence of a Protective Order Plaintiffs’ petition includes vague and factually unsupported claims of “intentional” conduct and “wilful, wonton and malicious activities” by Robinson. Without more, the discovery of Robinson’s sensitive and confidential financial information should not be permitted, and Plaintiffs’ motion to compel such information should be in all respects denied. The existing case law setting the standards for discovery of a defendant’s net worth is antiquated and does not reflect the recently-enacted limitations on exemplary damage claims as passed by the Texas Legislature. Thus, Robinson should not be 1 See FAA Advisory Circular No. 21-29B “DETECTING AND REPORTING SUSPECTED UNAPPROVED PARTS.” Updated 06-01-2001. The full text versions of FAA Advisory Circulars are available from the FAA website at www.faa.gov. 5 R0279 required to disclose its net worth based on a few bare, factually devoid assertions in Plaintiffs’ petition. In order to remain consistent with the intent and purpose of Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, including the implementation of a bifurcated trial, Robinson should not be required to produce its net worth unless or until a jury, based on clear and convincing evidence, as required by the Texas Pattern Jury Charges, returns a unanimous verdict that Robinson is liable to Plaintiffs for exemplary damages based on the facts and evidence presented in this case. Alternatively, Robinson should be permitted to submit its net worth under seal to the Court, only to be disclosed upon a finding of liability by the jury. Additionally, Robinson should be permitted to demonstrate that it can satisfy the maximum possible award of exemplary damages available under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.008, rather than its actual net worth. At a minimum, any disclosure of Robinson’s proprietary financial information should only be ordered subject to a protective order to protect against public dissemination. The Supreme Court of Texas, in Lunsford v. Morris, held that a defendant’s net worth is relevant in a suit involving exemplary damages. 746 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tex. 1988) (orig. proceeding), disapproved of on other grounds by Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 842 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). As a result, parties may discover and offer evidence of a defendant’s net worth in cases where punitive or exemplary damages may be awarded. Id. Moreover, the Lunsford Court held that a party seeking discovery of net worth information need not satisfy any evidentiary prerequisite, such as 6 R0280 making a prima facie showing of entitlement to punitive damages, before discovery of net worth is permitted. Id.; Jacobs, 300 S.W.3d at 40-41 (majority opinion). Following Lunsford, the Supreme Court recognized the extreme risk of prejudice involved with the disclosure of a defendant’s net worth and established a bifurcated procedure for conducting trials involving claims for punitive damages. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d at 30. Shortly thereafter, the bifurcated procedure was codified by the Texas Legislature. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.009. However, “the current Texas rule on net-worth discovery is now decades-old and, in light of the evolution of Texas law, needs to be revisited.” Jacobs, 300 S.W.3d at 47-48 (Sullivan, J., concurring). Indeed, the Supreme Court of Texas has yet to address when and on what basis a party is entitled to discover financial and net worth information. “These issues are significant and demand the Court’s attention.” In re Jerry’s Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 977 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex. 1998) (Gonzalez, J., dissenting). In fact, the Supreme Court of Texas has been willing to address these issues on a least two previous occasions. Id. The Supreme Court granted petitions for writ of mandamus in Aramark Uniform Services, Inc. v. Tyson, 40 Tex. Sup. J. 84 (November 15, 1996), and Perry Home Contractors, Inc. v. Patterson, 39 Tex. Sup. J. 237 (February 9, 1996), to determine whether a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to exemplary damages before discovering evidence of a defendant's net worth. However, the Supreme Court was unable to decide the issue because those cases were dismissed pursuant to settlement. Perry Home Contractors, Inc. v. Patterson, 40 Tex. Sup. J. 398 (March 6, 1997); Aramark Uniform Servs., Inc. v. Tyson, 40 Tex. Sup. J. 131 (December 13, 1996). 7 R0281  In 1987, the Texas Legislature began to scale back the availability of punitive damages by enacting Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. However, while the original version of Chapter 41 introduced basic limitations to the recovery of punitive damages, the protections it extended to defendants pale in comparison with those found in the version currently in effect. Lunsford was decided the following year but, apart from a brief mention in one of the dissenting opinions, ignores any discussion of the 1987 reforms or their effect on the Court's expansive exemplary- damage decisions from earlier that decade. See Lunsford, 746 S.W.2d at 476 (Gonzalez, J., dissenting). In 1995, the Legislature passed even more sweeping tort reform to the substantive and procedural law governing punitive damages. See Act of April 11, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 19, § 1, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 108, 108-13 (amended 2003) (current version at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 41.001-.013). Chapter 41 was significantly rewritten to provide defendants dramatic protection from punitive-damage awards. Such changes include:  Juries could no longer award exemplary damages intended solely to serve “as an example to others,” but were instead limited to assessing damages with the purpose of punishing the defendant.  The Legislature dramatically expanded Chapter 41’s coverage to apply to all but a very few types of tort actions.  A plaintiff's burden of proof for punitive damages was elevated to require proof of all elements by clear and convincing evidence.  With few limitations, a defendant could no longer be exposed to punitive damages because of another person's criminal act.  The Legislature lowered the existing cap on punitive damages. 8 R0282   Upon a defendant’s motion, the trial court had to bifurcate the jury's determination of the amount of punitive damages, and evidence of a defendant’s net worth could not be admitted during the liability phase of the trial. Id. These substantive and procedural amendments changed the legal landscape on two levels. First, they further limited the amount of punitive damages that could be assessed. See id. § 1 secs. 41.007, 41.008. Second, and more significantly, these revisions dramatically lessened the chances of any punitive-damage recovery by a claimant. See id. § 1 §§ 41.001(5), 41.002, 41.003(b), 41.005. In 2003, the Legislature further eroded a plaintiff’s ability to recover punitive damages as a part of comprehensive tort-reform legislation. Now, unlike the general rule permitting a civil verdict upon the vote of only ten jurors, an award of punitive damages requires a unanimous verdict as to liability for, and the amount of, such damages. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.003(d); Tex. R. Civ. P. 292; DeAtley v. Rodriguez, 246 S.W.3d 848, 850 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.). Undeniably, the Legislature has repeatedly acted to tightly restrict the ability of litigants to seek and recover exemplary damages in the years following Lunsford. It is time for the courts to “catch-up” to the Legislature by extending, modifying or reversing the existing procedures and standards for net-worth discovery in exemplary damages cases. Under the current structure, net-worth discovery serves little practical purpose in most cases.2 Consequently, trial courts performing a benefit-to-burden analysis should 2 Indeed, discovery into a defendant's net worth may consume a disproportionate amount of attention inasmuch as net worth is only one among several factors a jury should consider, and not even the most important factor in reviewing an amount of punitive damages. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 41.011(a); Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35, 45-46 (Tex. 1998) (“[T]he degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct is ‘[p]erhaps the most important indicium’ of the reasonableness of a punitive damage award.”) (quoting BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 575, 116 S. Ct. 1589, 134 L. Ed. 2d 809 (1996)). In fact, until Lunsford, a defendant’s net worth was not even listed as a factor for the jury to consider in awarding punitive damages. See Lunsford, 746 S.W.2d at 472- 73 (majority opinion); Alamo Nat’l Bank v. Kraus, 616 S.W.2d 908, 910 (Tex. 1981). Even so, a post- 9 R0283 consider appropriate management of the scope of such discovery corresponding to its utility in resolving these important issues. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.4(b). Jacobs, 300 S.W.3d at 50-51. Thus, it is important for the courts to limit the needless invasion of privacy into the confidential financial information of defendants, like Robinson. In light of the legislative changes limiting the availability of exemplary damages, limiting the availability of net worth discovery to cases where a finding of liability has actually been made, both plaintiffs and defendants can be protected and neither party is unfairly prejudiced by a requirement to disclose sensitive, yet completely irrelevant information. Discovery of Robinson’s net worth, as well as that of similarly situated defendants, should only be permitted in the unlikely event the fact finder determines it is liable for exemplary damages. At a minimum, any disclosure of Robinson’s proprietary financial information should only be ordered subject to a protective order to protect against public dissemination. Generally, net worth is simply a number. Procedurally, a defendant should only be required to disclose its net worth if a jury returns a liability finding which would entitle the plaintiff to exemplary damages. Alternatively, a defendant should be entitled to tender its net worth under seal to the Trial Court, only to be disclosed to the plaintiff if a jury returns a liability finding which would entitle the plaintiff to exemplary damages. Either option would preserve Plaintiffs’ right to obtain evidence of Robinson’s net worth to present to the jury, should the Plaintiffs be entitled to a second phase of trial to determine the amount of exemplary damages to be awarded, while still protecting Robinson’s right to privacy. Indeed, this procedure would not only protect Robinson Lunsford jury may still decide on the amount of punitive damages without considering evidence of the defendant's net worth. See Durban v. Guajardo, 79 S.W.3d 198, 210-11 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, no pet.); Jacobs, 300 S.W.3d at 51. 10 R0284 from the needless disclosure of sensitive and confidential financial information based upon nothing more than a mere claim of “intentional” conduct, but also complement the changes made to Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code since the Lunsford decision. Under the current system allowing the unlimited discovery of financial information, the potential for abuse is just one problem presented. If all that is required for discovery of sensitive, private, and confidential financial information in tort actions is the mere assertion of gross negligence in a pleading, needless abuse and harassment could result. Wal-Mart, 868 S.W.2d at 331-32. In the present case, the Plaintiffs contend that their simple inclusion of the word “intentional,” with no factual support, is sufficient basis to compel disclosure of highly sensitive and highly invasive proprietary information under the current standard. This is extremely prejudicial and inherently unfair to Robison. However, delaying discovery of net worth information until an actual finding of liability has been made based on the facts and evidence in the case, presents no prejudice to Plaintiffs. Alternatively, Robinson should be permitted to tender its net worth under seal to the Court, only to be disclosed upon a finding by the jury of liability for exemplary damages. At a minimum, any disclosure of Robinson’s proprietary financial information should only be ordered subject to a protective order. F. Where Confidential Documents are Filed With the Court, There is Good Cause to Preclude Them From Entry in the Public Record Robinson anticipates that Plaintiffs’ may argue that the proposed Protective Order should not be entered due to its requirement that when the documents which contain proprietary information are attached to a document filed with the Court, the protected document should be filed under seal. However, as discussed above, the type 11 R0285 of documents which Robinson seeks to protect are of the type for which their confidentiality outweighs the interests expressed in Texas Code of Civil Procedure Section 76a. There is a clear risk not only to Robinson’s trade secrets, but to the safety of the public. As the proposed Order only seeks to seal the documents themselves, not the entire pleadings, the Order should be granted. E. In the Alternative, the Court Should Enter the Proposed Order to Protect the Confidentiality of the Implicated Documents, Reserving the Issue of Sealing Those Submitted to the Court, if any, on an Individual Basis In the alternative, should the Court find that the burden is not met at this time to require that the documents designated as “confidential” in the Protective Order to be filed under seal, the Court should still order that the balance of the provisions in the proposed Order be granted, and allow the issue of the sealing of any individual document to be decided at such time as a party seeks to file it in conjunction with a pleading, or otherwise enter it into the public record. This would provide the necessary protection for these proprietary documents during the course of discovery, and allow the parties to continue to conduct discovery in a timely manner. III. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER As discussed above, the proposed Protective Order is necessary to ensure the safety of the public, as well as Robinson’s genuine interest in protecting its proprietary information from public dissemination. The proposed Order is a reasonable attempt to both enable productive discovery, and serve these important needs in this type of case. It does not limit or preclude document production, and has been used successfully in other cases, including one arising from the same helicopter accident in this same 12 R0286 jurisdiction. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied, and the proposed Protective Order should be granted. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. respectfully requests that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel be denied in all respects, that the proposed Protective Order be granted, and that Robinson be granted such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which it may show itself justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, COATS & EVANS, P.C. /s/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew Coats Texas Bar No. 00783846 Email: coats@texasaviationlaw.com Gary Linn Evans Texas Bar No. 00795338 Email: evans@texasaviationlaw.com P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, TX 77393-0246 Telephone: 281-367-7732 Facsimile: 281-367-8003 Attorneys for Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. 13 R0287  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned attorney, as attorney of record for the Defendant, certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served on all parties of record on this the 7th day of May, 2015. MARK T. MURRAY STEVENSON & MURRAY 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, Texas 77046 713-622-3223 713-622-3224 Fax mmurray@johnstevensonlaw.com DON SWAIM ROSE WALKER LLP 3500 Maple Ave., Suite 900 Dallas, Texas 75219 214-752-8600 214-752-8700 Fax dswaim@rosewalker.com /s/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew Coats 14 R0288  NO. 2014-34635 NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Personal Representative of the Estate of § Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; SONIA ATES § and NATHAN M. ATES, § § Plaintiff, § § 11TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. § § ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § INC.; HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC.; and § the Estate of CHRISTOPHER YEAGER, § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Defendants. ORDER On this day of , 2015, came on to be heard Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses to First Discovery Requests, and Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections. After notice to all parties, and upon considering the Motion, any response, the evidence, the pleadings and the arguments of counsel, if any, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiffs’ motion should be DENIED. It is therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to First Discovery Requests, and Request for Ruling on Defendant’s Objections be hereby DENIED in all respects. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that Defendant’s Request for a Protective Order be GRANTED and the proposed Protective Order attached hereto be APPROVED. SIGNED on , 2015. PRESIDING JUDGE 1 R0289 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE: COATS & EVANS, P.C By: /s/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew “Drew” Coats State Bar No. 00783846 Email: coats@texasaviationlaw.com Gary Linn Evans State Bar No. 00795338 Email: evans@texasaviationlaw.com P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, Texas 77393-0246 Telephone: (281) 367-7732 Facsimile: (281) 367-8003 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that pursuant to Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been delivered to all counsel of record on the 7th day of May, 2015. MARK T. MURRAY STEVENSON & MURRAY 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, Texas 77046 713-622-3223 713-622-3224 Fax mmurray@johnstevensonlaw.com DON SWAIM ROSE WALKER LLP 3500 Maple Ave., Suite 900 Dallas, Texas 75219 214-752-8600 214-752-8700 Fax dswaim@rosewalker.com /s/ George Andrew Coats George Andrew “Drew” Coats 2 R0290  5/20/2015 3:04:10 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 5362714 By: Tammy Tolman Filed: 5/20/2015 3:04:10 PM CAUSE NO. 2014-34635 NATHAN S. ATES, Individually and as Personal Representative of the § Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates and Nathan M. Ates § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF V. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, § 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICT INC. , HELICOPTER SERVICES, INC. and the Estate of § CHRISTOPHER YEAGER PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COME Now Nathan S. Ates, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates; and Nathan M. Ates, hereinafter referred to as Plaintiffs, complaining of Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. (hereinafter “Robinson”), Helicopter Services, Inc. (hereinafter “HSI”), and Paula Yeager, Representative of the Estate of Christopher Yeager, showing the Court as follows, to-wit: I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.4, Plaintiffs intend for discovery to be conducted under a level three (3) discovery control plan. The Court has entered a docket control order and set deadlines in this case. -1- R0291  II. PARTIES Plaintiff Nathan S. Ates is a resident of Louisiana, the surviving husband of Joyce Ates, and the duly appointed and authorized Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce Ates. Plaintiff Sonia Ates is a resident of Harris County, Texas, and a surviving child of Joyce Ates. Plaintiff Nathan M. Ates is a resident of Oklahoma and a surviving child of Joyce Ates. Defendant Robinson has been served and is before the Court. Defendant HSI has been served and is before the Court. Defendant, Paula Yeager, Representative of the Estate of Christopher Yeager, Deceased, has been served and is before the Court. Throughout this petition, whenever it is alleged that Robinson or HSI committed some act or omission, it is meant that the identified Defendant or Defendants, acting through their authorized agents, employees and vice-principals acting in the course and scope of their agency or employment, individually and/or collectively, committed the acts or omissions alleged. III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE Venue is proper and maintainable in Harris County, Texas because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim herein occurred in Harris County. Further, venue is proper in Harris County because HSI maintains its principal office in this state in Harris County. Moreover, because venue is proper in Harris County, Texas as to HSI and Paula Yeager, Representative of the Estate of Christopher Yeager, venue is also proper as to Robinson pursuant to -2- R0292 Section 15.005 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which provides that when venue is proper as to one defendant, it is proper as to all defendants and all claims. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction by reason of the above and because Plaintiffs’ damages exceed the minimum jurisdictional requirements of this court. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because each Defendant has entered a general appearance herein. Plaintiffs seek actual damages in excess of two million dollars. IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND It has become necessary to file this civil suit to collect a legal debt and damages due and owing Plaintiffs as a result of the death of their wife and mother, Joyce Ates (hereinafter “Ates”) on September 10, 2012. At the time of her death, Ates was a passenger in a Robinson R22 Beta II helicopter piloted by Christopher Yeager (hereinafter “Yeager”). At all relevant times, including at the time of the crash, Yeager was an employee of HSI and was acting in the course and scope of that employment by providing Ates with services in the form of helicopter transportation for aerial observation over sites in Harris County, Texas. Yeager was piloting a 2007 Robinson R22 Beta II helicopter bearing serial number 4250 and registration no. N281RG (hereinafter “the Helicopter”). Robinson designed, manufactured and sold the Helicopter. HSI owned, maintained and managed the Helicopter. At all times material hereto: 1. HSI was a factory authorized Robinson service center employing technicians trained and certified directly by Robinson to perform scheduled maintenance, inspections, repairs and overhaul of all versions of the R-22, R-44, and R-66 helicopter models; -3- R0293  2. HSI was an agent or servant of Robinson acting within the course and scope of its actual, implied or apparent authority for Robinson or, alternatively, an independent contractor employed by Robinson; and 3. Robinson was a “prime partner” of HSI. The flight that resulted in the crash giving rise to this case originated from the Baytown Airport in Baytown, Texas at approximately 3:00 p.m. on September 10, 2012. Ates was the only passenger in the Helicopter. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, witnesses observed the Helicopter spinning slowly around the main rotor shaft and descending straight down. Witnesses stated that the main rotor blades were turning slowly and the tail rotor did not appear to be turning. The Helicopter impacted the ground at approximately 3:30 p.m., causing a large dust cloud. According to the investigation, within a few minutes, the Helicopter ignited in a fireball, rendering rescue attempts by witnesses on the scene futile. The fire eventually consumed both Yeager and Ates. The Helicopter came to rest upright on a heading of 195 degrees magnetic on a dirt road located in a steel pipe storage yard in Harris County, Texas. The skids were spread and level with the belly of the fuselage. Ates suffered injuries in the crash that resulted in her death. Yeager also died as a result of the injuries he sustained in the crash. At the time of the crash, the Helicopter had a significant history proving that it was not airworthy because of both design and mechanical defects and problems that led to a loss of control, drive or effectiveness, and which made control of the Helicopter difficult, if not impossible, to regain, once lost. Additionally, the Helicopter’s rotors lost inertia and the Helicopter’s aluminum fuel tanks failed to resist post-accident fuel leaks, causing or contributing to the resulting fire. Robinson, from prior crash analyses, was aware that unlined fuel tanks posed an unreasonable risk -4- R0294 of harm to occupants in the aircraft, and had issued a safety bulletin for a portion of its fleet for this very circumstance. But the Helicopter had not been retrofitted with an alternative fuel bladder to avoid post-impact fires. V. CAUSES OF ACTION This action is brought pursuant to Chapter 71 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedy Code, commonly known as the Texas Wrongful Death Act (Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Sections 71.001-71.012 and the Texas Survival Statute (Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 71.021). Plaintiffs Nathan S. Ates, in his individual capacity as the surviving spouse of Joyce Ates, and Nathan M. Ates and Sonia Ates, as the surviving children of Joyce Ates, are statutory beneficiaries under the Texas Wrongful Death Act and bring this action to recover the damages they have sustained and, in reasonable probability will sustain in the future, as a result of the wrongful death of Joyce Ates. Plaintiff Nathan S. Ates, in his capacity as personal representative of the Estate of Joyce Ates, brings this action under the Texas Survival Statute to recover on behalf of the Estate of Joyce Ates the damages Joyce Ates sustained prior to her death. I. CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ROBINSON. A. Strict Products Liability. Robinson designed and manufactured the Helicopter. Robinson introduced the Helicopter into the stream of commerce. Robinson determined what warnings and instructions would accompany the Helicopter when it was introduced into the stream of commerce, and designed and drafted those warnings and instructions. -5- R0295  At the time Robinson designed, manufactured and sold the Helicopter, and at all times thereafter until the present, Robinson was regularly engaged in the business of placing helicopters such as the Helicopter into the stream-of-commerce for use by the consuming public. Such conduct was solely for commercial purposes. Robinson expected the Helicopter to reach its ultimate user or consumer without substantial change in its condition. The Helicopter’s condition had not substantially changed between the time Robinson introduced it into the stream of commerce and the time of the crash that resulted in the death of Joyce Ates. The Helicopter was being used properly for its intended and foreseeable purpose at the time of the crash. 1. Design Defect. The Helicopter was defectively designed so as to render it unreasonably dangerous. That is, it was unreasonably dangerous as designed, taking into consideration its utility and the risk involved in its use. The Helicopter was unreasonably dangerous because risk involved in its use outweighed its utility under all the facts and circumstances, including the availability of a safer alternative design. The Helicopter was defectively designed in two ways. First, the Helicopter’s drive system was designed so that the rotors were powered by belts. This resulted in low inertia, making the Helicopter unreasonably prone to loss of control, drive and effectiveness. The drive system did not incorporate mechanical components and/or safety/redundancy features that would prevent or mitigate rotor failures and /or ineffectiveness. -6- R0296 Because of this defective design, if the Helicopter lost power, it would drop precipitously, making it very difficult or impossible for the pilot to recover power and avoid a crash. At the time the Helicopter left Robinson’s control, there was an economically and technologically feasible alternative design for the Helicopter’s drive system that would have prevented or significantly reduced the risk of the Helicopter crashing on the occasion in question without substantially impairing the Helicopter’s utility. Second, the Helicopter’s aluminum fuel tanks were designed without a liner or fuel bladder, such that they were ineffective to prevent post-accident fuel leaks. The design of the fuel tanks failed to incorporate mechanical components and/or safety/redundancy features that would prevent or mitigate fuel tank failures causing post-crash ignition and fires. This created an unreasonable risk of fire in the event of a crash. At the time the Helicopter left Robinson’s control, there was an economically and technologically feasible alternative design for the Helicopter’s fuel tanks that would have prevented or significantly reduced the risk of the Helicopter catching fire on the occasion in question without substantially impairing the Helicopter’s utility. This alternative design was to line the interior of the fuel tanks with a liner or bladder constructed of rubber or plastic-like material. In fact, prior to the crash that claimed the life of Joyce Ates, Robinson had issued a safety bulletin for a portion of its fleet addressing the fire risk posed by unlined fuel tanks and recommending retrofitting of unlined fuel tanks. However, the Helicopter had not been retrofitted with a liner or bladder at the time of the crash. A member of the general public that would be a passenger in the Helicopter would not be aware of the risks posed by the design defects identified above. These defects were not obvious or -7- R0297 even visible to an ordinary passenger. Further, as explained below, Robinson did not provided suitable warnings and instructions to ameliorate the risks posed by these defective designs. And the ordinary consumer would never expect a helicopter to be designed in such a way that it would be likely to lose power and very difficult to regain control after a loss of power, or that a fuel leak would be likely upon a crash. 2. Marketing Defect. The risks of harm described above were inherent in the Helicopter due to its defective design, and would be expected to arise from its intended or reasonably anticipated use. Robinson actually knew about or reasonably could have foreseen these risks at the time it introduced the Helicopter into the stream of commerce. Yet Robinson failed to give adequate warnings of the Helicopter’s dangers and failed to give adequate instructions to avoid those dangers. This is because the warnings and instructions Robinson did give (i) did not warn of the dangers identified above, (ii) were not given in a form that could reasonably be expected to catch the attention of a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances of the Helicopter’s use, (iii) were not comprehensible to the average user, and (iv) did not convey to the mind of a reasonably prudent person a fair indication of the nature and extent of the danger and how to avoid it. This failure to provide adequate warnings and instructions rendered the Helicopter unreasonably dangerous to the Helicopter’s ultimate consumers or users, including Joyce Ates. That is, the Helicopter was dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to the Helicopter’s characteristics. -8- R0298  3. Producing cause. The design and marketing defects identified above were each a producing cause of the death of Joyce Ates. Each defect was a substantial factor that brought about the death of Joyce Ates, and Joyce Ates would not have died but for the design and marketing defects identified above. Had Robinson properly designed the Helicopter’s drive system and provided adequate warnings and instructions with the Helicopter, the Helicopter would not have crashed in the first place. And had Robinson properly designed the fuel tanks, the Helicopter would not have caught fire after the crash. Thus, had Robinson not introduced the Helicopter into the stream of commerce with the design and marketing defects, Ates would not have died. B. Negligence. 1. Robinson’s duty of ordinary care. As the designer, manufacturer and seller of the Helicopter, Robinson had a duty to exercise ordinary care to (i) design and manufacture a helicopter that did not involve an unreasonable risk of causing harm, (ii) discover the dangerous propensities of the Helicopter, and (iii) provide adequate warnings and instructions with the Helicopter, since it knew or should have known of the potential harm to a user because of the nature of the Helicopter. 2. Robinson’s breaches of its duty of ordinary care. Robinson breached the foregoing duties. These breaches included, but were no limited to, the following: i. Negligent design of the Helicopter. Robinson knew or should have known of the risks posed by the defective design of the Helicopter’s drive system and fuel tanks, which are described above. Yet Robinson failed to -9- R0299 exercise ordinary care to design and manufacture a helicopter that did not involve an unreasonable risk of causing harm, because a reasonably prudent designer and manufacturer would not have designed the Helicopter’s drive system and fuel tanks as Robinson did, but instead would have used safer alternative designs, including those described above. Indeed, other manufacturers of similar helicopters use safer alternative designs, and do not use the defective design used by Robinson on the Helicopter. Robinson’s negligence resulted in the Helicopter being unreasonably dangerous as designed, taking into consideration its utility and the risk involved in its use. The Helicopter was unreasonably dangerous because the risk involved in its use outweighed its utility under all the facts and circumstances, including the availability of a safer alternative design. Safer alternative designs for the Helicopter’s drive system and fuel tanks existed at the time Robinson designed, manufactured, and sold the Helicopter. These safer alternative designs are described above. ii. Negligent failure to ascertain the risks posed by the Helicopter. Robinson also failed to exercise ordinary care to discover and analyze the dangerous propensities of the Helicopter and take corrective measures so as to provide a reasonably safe helicopter for the public to use. A reasonable and prudent designer/manufacturer of helicopters exercises diligence to determine the root cause of crashes involving its helicopters by investigating, inspecting, collecting data, performing analysis, and considering component failure. A reasonable and prudent designer/manufacturer of any aviation product would gather, analyze and maintain safety and failure data so that component failures can be identified. Further, reasonable and prudent manufacturers of helicopters then analyze and utilize the information discovered in these investigations to take -10- R0300 corrective actions, including re-design, recalls, retrofitting and notices to its end users/customers. Robinson has previously investigated, reviewed and considered safety issues concerning both R22 and R44 helicopter crashes. But Robinson has failed to conduct reasonable and adequate investigations into crashes involving its helicopters and has not exercised ordinary care to determine the root causes of failures of its helicopters. Robinson has never performed an accident reconstruction of a crash involving one if its helicopters or attempted to determine the cause of any crash involving one of its helicopters. Robinson does not consider that it has a responsibility to determine why any of its helicopters fail in service. Robinson also has failed and continues to fail to maintain relevant safety data for R22 and R44 helicopter crashes, thereby jeopardizing the safety of the public in general, and Ates in particular. Robinson has failed and continues to fail to retain documentation and records related to helicopter crashes or maintain information from its service center feedback from customers and/or users. Robinson does not utilize a database to track malfunctions and/or failures of any component parts of its helicopters, as a reasonable and prudent designer/manufacturer would do. Robinson does not utilize a safety committee to evaluate the numerous crashes of R22 or R44 helicopters, component failures, design modifications, or safety-related issues for its customers and/or end users. As such, Robinson has acted with clear and conscious indifference and disregard for the pilots and passengers who board a Robinson helicopter. Robinson’s decisions to avoid gathering, analyzing, maintaining, and acting upon important safety data and performing reasonable engineering analysis concerning helicopter and component failures greatly endangered the life of Joyce Ates and similarly situated individuals. -11- R0301  Further, Robinson failed to exercise ordinary care to inspect and test its helicopters generally and the specific Helicopter involved in the crash that killed Joyce Ates in particular. Robinson negligently and without performing proper tests and inspections introduced the Helicopter into the stream of commerce in a defective condition that rendered it inferior, unsuitable and unsafe when used for its intended and foreseeable purposes. iii. Negligent marketing of the Helicopter. Robinson also failed to exercise ordinary care to provide adequate warnings and instructions with the Helicopter. At the time it introduced the Helicopter into the stream of commerce, Robinson knew or reasonably should have known of the risks posed by the defective design of the Helicopter’s drive system and fuel tanks, which are described above. Yet Robinson failed to give adequate warnings of the Helicopter’s dangers and failed to give adequate instructions to avoid those dangers. This is because the warnings and instructions Robinson did give (i) did not warn of the dangers identified above, (ii) were not given in a form that could reasonably be expected to catch the attention of a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances of the Helicopter’s use, (iii) were not comprehensible to the average user, and (iv) did not convey to the mind of a reasonably prudent person a fair indication of the nature and extent of the danger and how to avoid it. This failure to provide adequate warnings and instructions rendered the Helicopter unreasonably dangerous to the Helicopter’s ultimate consumers or users, including Joyce Ates. That is, the Helicopter was dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to the Helicopter’s characteristics. Given the known or reasonably foreseeable risks posed by the Helicopter’s design, a reasonably prudent helicopter manufacturer would have provided adequate warnings and instructions with the Helicopter that would have warned -12- R0302 users of known safety hazards and/or defects, and educated both pilots and passengers of the known hazards and how to mitigate them. Yet Robinson failed to exercise ordinary care to adequately warn and instruct pilots and passengers regarding known safety issues with its helicopters, including the Helicopter involved in the crash that killed Joyce Ates. 3. Proximate Cause. Each instance of negligence described above (as well as other negligent acts and omissions by Robinson) was a proximate cause of the death of Joyce Ates. i. Cause in fact. Each instance of negligence described above (as well as other negligent acts and omissions by Robinson) was a substantial factor in causing the death of Joyce Yates. Further, Joyce Ates would not have been killed in the crash if Robinson had not engaged in each instance of negligence described above (as well as other negligent acts and omissions by Robinson). Had Robinson exercised ordinary care in discovering the dangers posed by the Helicopter, designing the Helicopter’s drive system, and providing adequate warnings and instructions with the Helicopter, the Helicopter would not have crashed in the first place. And had Robinson exercised ordinary care in designing the fuel tanks, the Helicopter would not have caught fire after the crash. Thus, had Robinson exercised ordinary care, Ates would not have died. ii. Foreseeability. A helicopter manufacturer exercising ordinary care under the same or similar circumstances as those under which Robinson acted would have foreseen that a crash resulting in serious injuries or death (or some similar event) could occur as a result of (i) a manufacturer’s designing a helicopter’s drive system and fuel tanks in the manner in which Robinson designed the Helicopter’s -13- R0303 drive system and fuel tanks, (ii) a manufacturer’s failing to exercise ordinary care to ascertain the dangers posed by its helicopter, and (iii) a manufacturer’s failure to provide adequate warnings and instruction with a helicopter like the Helicopter. Accordingly, Ates’s death was a foreseeable consequence of Robinson’s negligence described above (as well as other negligent acts and omissions by Robinson). C. Gross negligence. The acts and omissions of Robinson described above were more than just simple negligence. They were so severe and egregious that they rose to the level of gross negligence. So exemplary damages should be assessed against Robinson. Robinson was grossly negligent in failing to: 1. investigate failures of its helicopters; 2. collect, properly analyze, and maintain product-failure and safety data; 3. perform safety analyses of its helicopters (including the R22 model) and product failures; 4. take corrective measures when product defects were discovered; 5. incorporate safer alternative designs, components and features to prevent rotor and fuel tank failures and ineffectiveness, including in the R22 model; 6. properly design, test and inspect the Helicopter; 7. correct and adequately warn against the specific hazards involved with the Helicopter’s operation (including those identified above); and 8. provide adequate instructions to enable pilots to mitigate the risks described above. -14- R0304  Robinson’s actions and inactions described above, when viewed objectively from Robinson’s standpoint at the time of their occurrence, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others, including Joyce Ates. That is, they posed a risk that was neither remote nor minimal. Robinson’s failure to properly investigate failures of its helicopters and their components, to gather, analyze and maintain records, documents and information relating to such investigations, to use the information gained in such investigations and analyses to make improvements to the design and marketing of its helicopters, to properly design, inspect and test R22 helicopters (including the Helicopter involved in the crash that resulted in the death of Joyce Yates), and to provide adequate warnings and instructions with the Helicopter, collectively and separately, presented a substantial risk that the Helicopter would crash and catch fire during ordinary and foreseeable use, and that the pilot and passengers would be seriously injured or killed. This was not a remote risk, but one that was far too likely to occur. Accordingly, Robinson’s acts and omissions presented an objectively extreme risk to those using the Helicopter. Further, Robinson had actual, subjective awareness of the risks involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others, including Joyce Ates. Although Robinson attempted to create a circumstance of willful ignorance by refusing to adequately investigate failures of its helicopters, failing to collect, analyze and maintain documents and other information regarding the failure of its helicopters, failing to use information learned about the cause of failures of its helicopters to make its products safer, and failure to utilize a safety committee to evaluate safety-related information to improve the safety of its helicopters, it could not avoid gaining knowledge of the dangerous defects in its helicopters. This is because litigation involving crashes of Robinson helicopters resulted in Robinson’s receiving such information, both -15- R0305 from the opposing litigants and Robinson’s own experts and consultants. The information Robinson received during these lawsuits provided it with actual subjective awareness of the defects in the drive-system and the fuel tanks in helicopters like the Helicopter involved in the crash that killed Joyce Ates, the need for and availability of safer alternative designs for the drive system and fuel tanks, and the objectively extreme degree of risk that these defects posed. What’s more, Robinson had actual knowledge that failing to properly investigate failures of its helicopters, gather, analyze and maintain information revealed by those investigations, and use that information to improve the safety of its products presented the objectively extreme risk described above. As explained above, Robinson’s gross negligence was a proximate cause of the death of Joyce Ates, because Robinson’s gross negligence was a substantial factor in causing the death of Joyce Ates, Joyce Ates would not have died in the absence of Robinson’s gross negligence, and a helicopter crash resulting in serious injuries or death was foreseeable to Robinson. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seeks exemplary damages from Robinson. II. CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST HSI. A. Negligence. 1. HSI’s duty to exercise ordinary care. As a commercial provider of helicopter transportation services to the public in general and Ates in particular, HSI owed Ates a duty to exercise reasonable care to provide those services in a reasonably safe manner. Thus, it owed Ates a duty to exercise ordinary care to: 1. train and instruct its pilots, including Yeager, on the operation of the Helicopter, including the risks posed by the design of its drive system and fuel tanks, and how to respond when confronted by a loss of power; -16- R0306  2. provide its helicopter transportation services in a reasonably safe manner and in a reasonably safe helicopter; and 3. perform proper upkeep, maintenance, service, retrofitting, tests and inspections on the Helicopter to ensure that it was in working order and did not pose an unreasonable risk to passengers being transported in it, including Joyce Ates. 2. HSI’s breach of its duty of ordinary care. HSI breached its duty of ordinary care. These breaches included, but were no limited to, the following: 1. failing to exercise ordinary care to train and instruct Yeager on the operation of the Helicopter, including the risks posed by the design of its drive system and fuel tanks, and how to respond when confronted by a loss of power; 2. failing to provide its helicopter transportation services in a reasonably safe manner (including but not limited to the negligence of Yeager set forth below) and in a reasonably safe helicopter; 3. failing to perform proper upkeep, maintenance, service, retrofitting, tests and inspections on the Helicopter to ensure that it was in working order and did not pose an unreasonable risk to passengers being transported in it, including Joyce Ates; 4. failing to perform proper safety analyses regarding the Robinson model R22 Beta II helicopter; 5. failing to insure that proper safety programs and training were in place; and 6. failing to properly correct and warn against the specific hazards involved in operation of the Robinson model R22 Beta II helicopter. -17- R0307  3. Proximate Cause. Each instance of negligence described above (as well as other negligent acts and omissions by HSI) was a proximate cause of the death of Joyce Ates. i. Cause in fact. Each instance of negligence described above (as well as other negligent acts and omissions by HSI) was a substantial factor in causing the death of Joyce Ates. Further, Joyce Ates would not have been killed in the crash if HSI had not engaged in each instance of negligence described above (as well as other negligent acts and omissions by HSI). Had HSI exercised ordinary care in instructing and training Yeager, providing a safe helicopter to transport Ates, operating the Helicopter safely while transporting Ates, performing a safety analysis of the Helicopter, maintaining, servicing, retrofitting, testing and inspecting the Helicopter, and warning Yeager of the dangers posed by the Helicopter, the Helicopter would not have crashed and Ates would not have died. ii. Foreseeability. A helicopter transportation company exercising ordinary care under the same or similar circumstances as those under which HSI acted would have foreseen that a crash resulting in serious injuries or death (or some similar event) could occur as a result of its failure to exercise ordinary care in instructing and training its pilots, providing safe helicopters to transport passengers, operating a helicopter safely while transporting passengers, and maintaining, servicing, retrofitting, testing and inspecting its helicopters. Accordingly, Ates’s death was a foreseeable consequence of HSI’s negligence described above. -18- R0308  B. Gross negligence. The acts and omissions of HSI described above were more than just simple negligence. They were so severe and egregious that they rose to the level of gross negligence. So exemplary damages should be assessed against HSI. HSI’s actions and inactions, when viewed objectively from the standpoint of HSI at the time of their occurrence, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others, including Joyce Ates. That is, they posed a risk that was neither remote nor minimal. HSI’s failure to properly instruct and train Yeager, provide a safe helicopters to transport Ates, operate the Helicopter safely while transporting Ates, and maintain, service, retrofit, test and inspect the Helicopter, collectively and separately, presented a substantial risk that the Helicopter would crashand that the pilot and passengers would be seriously injured or killed. This was not a remote risk, but one that was far too likely to occur. Accordingly, HSI’s acts and omissions presented an objectively extreme risk to those using the Helicopter. Further, HSI had actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others, including Joyce Ates. As a provider of helicopter transportation services, HSI was actually aware that the Robinson R22 Beta II model helicopter was unreasonably dangerous and that the design of the drive system and fuel tanks posed a substantial risk that the Helicopter would lose power, crash and catch fire, thereby causing serious injury or death to those aboard. It therefore had actual subjective awareness that its use of the Helicopter to transport passengers and its failure to maintain, service, retrofit, test and inspect the Helicopter and to adequately instruct Yeager in these dangers and in operating the -19- R0309 Helicopter (including how to respond when confronted by a loss of power) also posed a substantial risk of serious injury or death due to a crash. As explained above, HSI’s gross negligence was a proximate cause of the death of Joyce Ates, because HSI’s gross negligence was a substantial factor in causing the death of Joyce Ates, Joyce Ates would not have died in the absence of HSI’s gross negligence, and a helicopter crash resulting in serious injuries or death was foreseeable to HSI. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seeks exemplary damages from HSI. III. NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST YEAGER. A. Yeager’s duty to exercise ordinary care. As a commercial pilot of a helicopter providing transportation services to Ates, Yeager owed Ates a duty to exercise ordinary care to ensure that the Helicopter was in an airworthy condition before transporting Ates in it and in the operation of the Helicopter while transporting Ates. B. Yeager’s breach of his duty of ordinary care. Yeager breached his duty of ordinary care. These breaches included, but were no limited to, the following: 1. failing to perform testing and protocols regarding the condition and operation of the Helicopter he used to transport Ates; 2. failing to control the Helicopter, including failing to maintain controlled flight under power; and 3. failing to employ appropriate helicopter piloting techniques and emergency maneuvers so as to control the craft, bring the craft to rest after a loss of power, and avoid a high velocity crash landing. -20- R0310  C. Proximate cause. Each instance of negligence described above (as well as other negligent acts and omissions by Yeager) was a proximate cause of the death of Joyce Ates. 1. Cause in fact. Each instance of negligence described above (as well as other negligent acts and omissions by Yeager) was a substantial factor in causing the death of Joyce Ates. Further, Joyce Ates would not have been killed in the crash if Yeager had not engaged in each instance of negligence described above (as well as other negligent acts and omissions by Yeager). Had Yeager exercised ordinary care in performing testing and protocols on the Helicopter and operating the Helicopter while transporting Ates, the Helicopter would not have crashed and Ates would not have died. 2. Foreseeability. A professional helicopter pilot exercising ordinary care under the same or similar circumstances as those under which Yeager acted would have foreseen that a crash resulting in serious injuries or death (or some similar event) could occur as a result of his failure to exercise ordinary care in performing testing and protocols on the Helicopter and operating the Helicopter while transporting Ates. Accordingly, Ates’s death was a foreseeable consequence of Yeager’s negligence described above. IV. JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY. By engaging in the conduct described above, and where applicable under Texas Law, all Defendants are jointly and severally liable to all Plaintiffs for their damages and injuries. -21- R0311 V. AGENCY AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY. At all times material hereto, and with respect to each act of negligence asserted herein (as well as other acts of negligence that may be established at trial): Yeager was an employee, agent or servant of HSI. Yeager committed all the acts and omissions alleged herein in the course and scope of his employment for HSI. Accordingly, HSI is vicariously liable for all the negligent acts and omissions of Yeager under the doctrine of respondeat superior. HSI was the agent, employee, servant, or statutory employee of Robinson. HSI committed all the acts and omissions alleged herein in the course and scope of its employment or agency for Robinson. Accordingly, Yeager was also the employee, agent or servant of Robinson, and committed all the acts and omissions alleged herein in the course and scope of his employment for Robinson. Accordingly, Robinson is vicariously liable for all the negligent acts and omissions of HSI and Yeager under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Alternatively, HSI was an independent contractor engaged by Robinson and was acting in the course and scope of that engagement and with Robinson’s actual, apparent or implied authority. One or more of Robinson’s and HSI’s negligent and grossly negligent acts and/or omissions were committed by owners, vice-principals, supervisors or managers of Robinson and HSI. Therefore, Plaintiffs seek to recover against Robinson and HSI under the theories of agency, vicarious liability, and/or respondeat superior for any cause of action (including for gross negligence) alleged herein. -22- R0312  VI. DAMAGES As a result of the death of Joyce Ates resulting from the legally culpable conduct committed by the Defendants and described above (including the negligence and gross negligence of the Defendants and Robinson’s introducing a dangerously defective product into the stream of commerce), the Plaintiffs have sustained, are entitled to recover, and seek to recover in this case damages that greatly exceed of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Honorable Court. Plaintiffs seek recovery of each and every element of damages permitted by Texas law. Plaintiffs are entitled to have their claims considered by the trier of fact, and a verdict rendered accordingly. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for actual compensatory losses in an amount over $1,000,000.00, excluding punitive damages. The damages Plaintiffs seek to recover herein include, but are not limited to, the following: I. WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES. A. Nathan S. Ates. In connection with his cause of action under the Texas Wrongful Death Act, Nathan S. Ates, in his individual capacity as the surviving spouse of Joyce Ates, is entitled to recover and seeks to recover in this case damages for past and future: 1. pecuniary loss resulting from the death of Joyce Ates, including but not limited to the care, maintenance, support, services, advice, counsel, and reasonable contributions of a pecuniary value that Nathan S. Ates, in reasonable probability, would have received from Joyce Ates had she lived; -23- R0313  2. loss of consortium, companionship and society resulting from the destruction of the husband-wife relationship between Nathan S. Ates and Joyce Ates, including the loss of the positive benefits flowing from the love, affection, solace, comfort, companionship, society, assistance and sexual relationship that Nathan S. Ates, in reasonable probability, would have received from Joyce Ates had she lived; 3. mental anguish, including but not limited to the emotional pain, torment, and suffering experienced by Nathan S. Ates as a result of the death of Joyce Ates; 4. loss of inheritance, meaning the loss of the present value of the assets that Joyce Ates, in reasonable probability, would have added to the estate and left to Nathan S. Ates at her natural death had she lived, including the earnings, if any, of Joyce Ates, in excess of the amount she would have used for the support of herself and her family, and which in reasonable probability would have been added to her estate. B. Nathan M. Ates. In connection with his cause of action under the Texas Wrongful Death Act, Nathan M. Ates, a surviving child of Joyce Ates, is entitled to recover and seeks to recover in this case damages for past and future: 1. pecuniary loss resulting from the death of Joyce Ates, including, but not limited to, the care, maintenance, support, services, advice, counsel, and reasonable contributions of a pecuniary value that Nathan M. Ates, in reasonable probability, would have received from Joyce Ates had she lived; 2. loss of consortium, companionship and society resulting from the destruction of the parent-child relationship between Nathan M. Ates and Joyce Ates, including the loss -24- R0314  of the positive benefits flowing from the love, affection, solace, comfort, companionship, society, and assistance that Nathan M. Ates, in reasonable probability, would have received from Joyce Ates had she lived; 3. mental anguish, including but not limited to the emotional pain, torment, and suffering experienced by Nathan M. Ates as a result of the death of Joyce Ates; 4. loss of inheritance, meaning the loss of the present value of the assets that Joyce Ates, in reasonable probability, would have added to the estate and left to Nathan M. Ates at her natural death had she lived, including the earnings, if any, of Joyce Ates, in excess of the amount she would have used for the support of herself and her family, and which in reasonable probability would have been added to her estate. C. Sonia Ates. In connection with her cause of action under the Texas Wrongful Death Act, Sonia Ates, a surviving child of Joyce Ates, is entitled to recover and seeks to recover in this case damages for past and future: 1. pecuniary loss resulting from the death of Joyce Ates, including, but not limited to, the care, maintenance, support, services, advice, counsel, and reasonable contributions of a pecuniary value that Sonia Ates, in reasonable probability, would have received from Joyce Ates had she lived; 2. loss of consortium, companionship and society resulting from the destruction of the parent-child relationship between Sonia Ates and Joyce Ates, including the loss of the positive benefits flowing from the love, affection, solace, comfort, -25- R0315  companionship, society, and assistance that Sonia Ates, in reasonable probability, would have received from Joyce Ates had she lived; 3. mental anguish, including but not limited to the emotional pain, torment, and suffering experienced by Sonia Ates as a result of the death of Joyce Ates; 4. loss of inheritance, meaning the loss of the present value of the assets that Joyce Ates, in reasonable probability, would have added to the estate and left to Sonia Ates at her natural death had she lived, including the earnings, if any, of Joyce Ates, in excess of the amount she would have used for the support of herself and her family, and which in reasonable probability would have been added to her estate. D. The Estate of Joyce Ates. In connection with his cause of action under the Texas Survival Statute, Nathan S. Ates, in his capacity as personal representative of the Estate of Joyce Ates, is entitled to recover and seeks to recover in this case on behalf of the Estate of Joyce Ates all damages sustained by Joyce Ates prior to her death, including but not limited to: 1. physical pain and suffering experienced by Joyce Ates prior to her death; 2. mental anguish experienced by Joyce Ates prior to her death; 3. funeral and burial expenses of Joyce Ates. E. Exemplary Damages. Further, each Plaintiff seeks to recover exemplary damages from Robinson and HSI, because the harm to the Plaintiffs resulted from the gross negligence of Robinson and HSI, as detailed above. -26- R0316  VI. RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO AMEND The allegations made herein against Defendants are made acknowledging that this suit is in its infancy and investigation and discovery are continuing. As further investigation and discovery are developed, additional facts may be uncovered that will necessitate further, additional and/or different allegations, including the potential for adding and/or dismissing parties to the case and the right to do so, under Texas law, is expressly reserved. VII. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE This Plaintiffs’ First Amended Petition does not vacate or supersede the Request for Disclosure that was contained within Plaintiff’s Original Petition. That Request for Disclosure is still extant, and you continue to have an obligation to supplement and/or amend your responses to it pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. VIII. PRE- AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST Plaintiffs are entitled by law to recover pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the legal rate, for which they here and now sue for recovery, as allowed by the laws of the State of Texas. IX. JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs demand trial by jury in this matter. -27- R0317  X. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs pray that upon final trial hereof, Plaintiffs have judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, that they recover their damages in accordance with the evidence, including actual and exemplary damages in an amount to be set by the trier of fact, that they recover costs of court herein expended, interest, both pre- and post judgment, to which they are entitled under the law, and for such other and further relief, both general and special, legal and equitable, to which they may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, STEVENSON & MURRAY /s/ Mark T. Murray /s/ MARK T. MURRAY State Bar No. 14724810 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, Texas 77046 (713) 622-3223 (713) 622-3224 (FAX) Email: mmurray@johnstevensonlaw.com COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS -28- R0318  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been delivered to all counsel by U.S. Mail, facsimile, e-filing and/or other means, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this the 20th day of May 2015, to-wit: George Andrew Coats Gary Linn Evans COATS & EVANS, P.C. P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, Texas 77393-0246 Counsel for Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. Don Swaim Cunningham Swaim, LLP 7557 Rambler Road, Suite 440 Dallas, Texas 75231 Counsel for Helicopter Services, Inc. And Christopher Yeager, Deceased /s/ Mark T. Murray/s/ Mark T. Murray -29- R0319