Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc. v. Global Aerospace, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 7, 20212:17-cv-01515California3,935 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

24 This court previously set forth the factual and procedural history of this matter in 25 its July 10, 2020 order on defendants’ prior motion for judgment on the pleadings; the court 26 incorporates that history by reference here. See Order at 2–3, ECF No. 271.

1 The court cites to the page numbers assigned by the court’s ECF system. Defendants move to exclude the opinions of Laura Montgomery on the issue of reasonableness of the Aerojet/Orbital settlement, contained in her report dated January 15, 2019, Smith Decl., Ex. E (“Montgomery Report”) at 69–79, ECF No. 226, and her supplemental report dated June 28, 2019, Smith Decl., Ex. F (“Suppl. Report”) at 124–25, ECF No. 226. Plaintiff opposes. Opp’n, ECF No. 225. Defendants replied. Reply, ECF No. 268. Additionally, defendants move to exclude the proposed expert opinions of Paul Pastorek on the issue of the reasonableness of the settlement Aerojet entered into with Orbital, contained in his report dated January 15, 2019, Smith Decl., Ex. A (“Litig. Risk Assessment”) at 5–27, ECF No. 228, and his supplemental report dated June 28, 2019, Smith Decl.,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.