Nguyen v. United Airlines, Inc.

Background

Mai Nguyen was injured on a flight from Houston, Texas, to San Jose, California, on August 18, 2021. On December 2, 2024, she served United Airlines, Inc. and Mesa Airlines with a request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 to inspect the same Embraer 175 aircraft used on that flight. The defendants objected.

Nguyen argued that her expert needed accurate measurements of the specific aircraft’s configuration. She also said her attorney needed that information to prepare for cross-examination of the defendants’ liability expert and employees. Nguyen maintained that aircraft of the same make, model, and vintage could have different details and configurations.

The parties’ positions

The defendants argued that the request was too late because Nguyen sought the inspection several weeks after her expert served his report, which did not discuss the configuration issues for which she sought measurements. They also said their expert had not inspected the specific aircraft and instead relied on photographs of an Embraer 175 from publicly available sources.

The defendants further argued that the inspection would be unduly burdensome because the specific aircraft apparently remained in commercial use and would have to be taken out of service. They also contended that an inspection might not show the aircraft’s precise condition when Nguyen was injured, because equipment may have been replaced or its condition may have changed.

Court’s analysis

The court said an inspection of the aircraft could have produced relevant and proportional information if it had been requested in a timely manner. But the parties apparently did not discuss the need to inspect the specific aircraft or preserve configuration information during the 18 months the case had been pending. Nguyen also did not make a prompt Rule 34 request.

Because the request came after the exchange of expert reports and after substantial time had passed, the court found that the inspection was unlikely to produce useful information on which Nguyen’s expert could properly rely.

The court separately stated that Nguyen was entitled to know the facts or data considered by the defendants’ expert. Because the defendants represented that their expert relied only on photographs obtained from the internet and had not inspected a physical aircraft, the defendants needed to disclose the source of those photographs.

Ruling

Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi denied Nguyen’s motion to compel an inspection of the specific aircraft. The order required disclosure of the source of the photographs on which the defendants’ expert relied.