Filed: Mar. 11, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 11, 2016
Summary: ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION REGARDING AUTHENTICATION OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE UNITED STATES NAVY KAREN S. CRAWFORD , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiffs D.F. and T.L., minors, by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, TASHINA AMADOR; Defendants SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, SIKORSKY SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., and UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; Defendant E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; Defendant GE AVIATION SYSTEMS, LLC; and Defendant PKL SERVICES, INC. (collectively, the "Parties") have st
Summary: ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION REGARDING AUTHENTICATION OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE UNITED STATES NAVY KAREN S. CRAWFORD , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiffs D.F. and T.L., minors, by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, TASHINA AMADOR; Defendants SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, SIKORSKY SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., and UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; Defendant E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; Defendant GE AVIATION SYSTEMS, LLC; and Defendant PKL SERVICES, INC. (collectively, the "Parties") have sti..
More
ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION REGARDING AUTHENTICATION OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE UNITED STATES NAVY
KAREN S. CRAWFORD, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiffs D.F. and T.L., minors, by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, TASHINA AMADOR; Defendants SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, SIKORSKY SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., and UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; Defendant E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; Defendant GE AVIATION SYSTEMS, LLC; and Defendant PKL SERVICES, INC. (collectively, the "Parties") have stipulated and agreed to the Stipulation Regarding Authentication of Documents Produced by the United States Navy ("Stipulation re: Authentication of Navy Documents") as follows:
1. On December 12, 2014, the Court entered an order directing the United States Navy ("Navy") to produce certain documents "as `Blue Ribbon' certified copies, duly authenticated in accordance with the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 902(4)" (the "Order"). (Doc. 91 at 2-3.)
2. The Navy has produced numerous documents in response to the Order. The Navy has not, however, produced the vast majority of these documents as "Blue Ribbon" certified copies, duly authenticated in accordance with the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 902(4), as required by the Order.
3. Rather than be required to produce these documents again as "Blue Ribbon" certified copies, duly authenticated in accordance with the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 902(4), the Navy has requested that the Parties instead stipulate to the authenticity of the documents produced by the Navy in this litigation.
4. On December 30, 2015, Defendant Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation served a subpoena to the U.S. Secretary of the Navy demanding production of the documents identified in the Order (the "Subpoena").
5. The Parties anticipate that the Navy will produce additional documents in response to the Subpoena.
6. The Parties agree to treat all documents produced by the Navy, previously and in the future, in response to the Order and the Subpoena as if they were produced in the form required by the Order (i.e., as "Blue Ribbon" copies that meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 902(4)).
The Court hereby approves the Parties' Stipulation re: Authentication of Navy Documents.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
