Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01145/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01145-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD HAYES ALBEE,

NO. CIV. S-09-1145 LKK/EFB

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

CONTINENTAL TIRE NORTH

AMERICA, INC., An Ohio

Corporation, and FORD1

MOTOR COMPANY, INC., a

Delaware Corporation,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff alleges that he was driving a 2002 Ford Explorer

when the left rear tire catastrophically malfunctioned as a result

of a tread and/or belt separation. The Explorer lost control and

rolled over, resulting in severe injuries to Plaintiff. The

vehicle was designed and manufactured by defendant Ford Motor Co.,

Inc., and the tire was designed manufactured by defendant

Continental Tire North America, Inc. (“Ford” and “Continental,”

respectively). Plaintiff brings claims against both for strict

liability and negligence in the design and manufacture of these

Case 2:09-cv-01145-MCE-EFB Document 105 Filed 04/27/10 Page 1 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Plaintiff has also sued Ford; they are not parties in the 1

instant dispute.

2

products.1

The case is presently before the court on a motion for

reconsideration of a discovery order entered by the magistrate

judge assigned to this case. Continental seeks reconsideration of

the March 18, 2010 order (Dkt. No. 91) insofar as it granted in

part plaintiff’s motions to compel (Dkt. Nos. 41, 63, 66, 67) and

concomitantly denied in part Continental’s motion for a protective

order (Dkt. No. 69). The court heard argument on the matter on

April 26, 2010. For the reasons stated below, Continental’s

request for reconsideration is denied.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The complaint alleges that Ford designed and manufactured the

2002 Ford Explorer that plaintiff was operating at the time of the

accident and that Continental designed and manufactured the General

Ameritrac SUV 235/70R16 tire that suffered a tread and/or belt

separation that was a cause of the subject accident. 

Plaintiff alleges that the tire suffered a number of specific

design and manufacturing defects which caused the accident. Compl.

¶¶ 10-11. The design defects include “inadequately sized or

improperly engineered belt wedges,” “the utilization of tread

compounds with a useful life greater than the ability of other tire

structures to adhere,” “the failure to incorporate into the design

of the tire a nylon overbelt or cap or strip to inhibit belt/belt

Case 2:09-cv-01145-MCE-EFB Document 105 Filed 04/27/10 Page 2 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

separations,” and “the failure to use adequate amounts of antiozonants and anti-oxidants in the belt skin compound.” Compl. ¶

10.

Much of the present discovery dispute concerns the degree of

similarity between the tire used on plaintiff’s vehicle and other

tires manufactured by Continental. One dimension of similarity or

difference is tire size. The tire used on plaintiff’s vehicle was

a General Ameritrac SUV, sized P235/70R16 radial passenger tire.

According to Continental, “The ‘P’ stands for passenger; ‘235’

represents the width of the tire in millimeters; ‘70’ is the ratio

of height to width; ‘R’ means radial; ‘16’ is the nominal rim

diameter in inches.” The sticker adhered to plaintiff’s vehicle

apparently indicated that “Standard Load” tires of this size were

the only ones Ford approved for use on that vehicle model.

Continental states that Ford approved two other tire sizes for

other “trims” of 2002 Ford Explorers: sizes P245/70R16 and

P255/70R16. Plaintiff contends that certain other Ford Explorers

(apparently those produced in other model years) use tires with a

15” nominal rim diameter, as opposed to the 16” diameter used on

plaintiff’s vehicle.

Unsurprisingly, tires vary in many ways other than size.

According to Continental, tires of a “common green” are those using

the same cured tire standard and plant build specification, sharing

the identical combination and placement of components and built in

////

////

Case 2:09-cv-01145-MCE-EFB Document 105 Filed 04/27/10 Page 3 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Even tires of a common green may not be identical, however, 2

as Continental states that “[r]evisions are made to the cured tire

standards and plant build specification over time which would apply

to the subject model tire as well as all of the common greens.” 

4

the same way prior to being vulcanized in a press. Continental 2

represents that it manufactured approximately 269,000 tires “from

the same specification” as the tire at issue here. Although

sharing a common green, these tires included ten different models,

bearing “a different name or design on the sidewall which occurs

during the curing process.” More broadly, Continental represents

that it made tires P235/70R16 sized tires in “twenty-three separate

tire specifications,” amounting to “several millions of tires,” in

the last ten years. Joint Statement of March 3, 2010, at 2.

B. The Disputed Discovery

On August 24, 2009, the magistrate judge entered a protective

order governing discovery to be produced by Continental in this

case. (Dkt. No. 39). Under this order, when Continental labels

information as “confidential,” then Plaintiff’s counsel, experts,

and staff cannot use the information for any purpose except their

work on this case. “Confidential,” as used by the order, is meant

to refer to “information that is, contains, or reveals a trade

secret or other designated confidential research, development, and

other commercial information of [Continental].” Id. at 2.

The disputed discovery includes both written discovery

(interrogatories and requests for production) and depositions under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). The written discovery was allegedly

first served on August 11, 2009. Joint Statement at 2 (Dkt. No.

Case 2:09-cv-01145-MCE-EFB Document 105 Filed 04/27/10 Page 4 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

50). Continental responded by objecting to many of these requests.

After several meet and confer sessions, two joint statements, and

a prior hearing before the magistrate judge, the magistrate judge

heard the motions to compel and for a protective order regarding

the written discovery on March 18, 2010. 

Continental objected to the written discovery primarily on two

grounds. More generally, Continental argued that plaintiff sought

information regarding other tire models without any showing that

this information was relevant. As to a subset of the requests,

Continental argued that they sought protected trade secrets without

showing that this information was necessary to plaintiff’s case.

The magistrate judge’s resolution of both objections is discussed

in greater detail below. In general, as to the relevance

objection, the magistrate judge held that plaintiff was entitled

to discovery relating to tires with 15” and 16” nominal diameters

and widths from 185 to 265 millimeters and manufactured from 2000

through 2009 (the “general scope” approved by the magistrate

judge). As to the trade secrets objection, the magistrate judge

limited the requests in a way that he held would not reveal trade

secrets.

Limited to the general scope of tire sizes provided above, the

magistrate judge ordered Continental to respond to interrogatories

3-5 and 8, and requests for production 18, 20, 21, 27-32, 34-41,

44-45, 54. Some of these requests concern the identification of

tires constructed from similar materials or designs, but the

majority concern identification of possible failures in other

Case 2:09-cv-01145-MCE-EFB Document 105 Filed 04/27/10 Page 5 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

tires. The court quotes these requests here:

3: Please identify the brand names of all tires produced by

CTNA which utilized the same skim stock as the subject

tire.

4: Please identify the brand names of all

[tires] which utilized the same wedge

(gumstrip) or belt edge material as the

subject tire.

5: Please identify the brand names of all

[tire] which utilized the same inner

liner material as the subject tire.

8: Please state whether CTNA, or any of its

affiliated, successor, and/or predecessor

corporations, have ever received a

complaint of injury or death that

allegedly occurred as a result of tread

separation involving a [tire]. If the

answer to the foregoing is “yes”, as to

each such complaint, please state:

a. Name and address of attorney

representing such individuals;

b. Description of tire involved.

18 & 20: Any internal memos, meeting notes,

reports, or studies relating to blistered

liners, air pockets, or air bubbles in [tires]

produced by CTNA at the Mount Vernon, Illinois

plant [#18] [or] companywide [#20]

21: Any and all documents, including

electronic documents (e-mails), relating

to any actual or potential recall and/or

replacement program for any [tires]

27: Copies of adjustment records for all

[tires] with nylon overlays, cap plies,

or nylon belt edge strips . . . .

28: Copies of any and all adjustment records,

accumulation of adjustment data, or

analysis of adjustment data for tires

designated as CTNA General Ameritrac SUV

radial tires or any CTNA steel belted

radial passenger or light truck tire with

the same or similar skim stock . . . .

Case 2:09-cv-01145-MCE-EFB Document 105 Filed 04/27/10 Page 6 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7

29: Copies of any and all adjustment records,

accumulation of adjustment data, or

analysis of adjustment records for steel

belted radial passenger and light truck

tires produced by CTNA from 1998 through

the present.

30 & 31: Any and all documents, including but not

limited to, periodic reports, i.e., monthly,

quarterly, semi-annual, etc., which reflect

injuries, accidents, failures in service,

malfunctions, or tread separations of [tires]

produced by CTNA [#30] [or] produced by CTNA

at its Mount Vernon, Illinois plant [#31].

32: Any and all documents which reflect

injuries, accidents, failures in service,

or malfunctions of [tires] in which a

tire suffered tread or tread belt

separation and subsequent loss of control

of the vehicle, including, but not

limited to, complaints and accident

reports.

33: Adjustment records and adjustment records

analysis for CTNA General Ameritrac SUV

tires manufactured inside the United

States.

35: Provide any periodic reports, including

but not limited to, monthly, quarterly,

semi-annually, etc., of adjustment

records or adjustment analysis provided

to plant employees, plant chemists,

management, or corporate headquarters

from 1998 through the present.

36 & 37: Copies of all incident reports, claims

reports, and/or or product liability reports,

by whatever name, reflecting complaints of

tread belt separation for CTNA General

Ameritrac SUV steel-belted radial tires [#36]

[or] General Ameritrac SUV steel-belted radial

tires with the same or similar skim stocks

[#37] . . . .

38: Copies of all incident reports, claims

reports, and/or or product liability

reports, by whatever name, for all tires

produced by CTNA with nylon overlays, cap

Case 2:09-cv-01145-MCE-EFB Document 105 Filed 04/27/10 Page 7 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

8

plies, or nylon belt edge strips . . . .

39: Any and all documents which reflect legal

action brought against CTNA for alleged

tread and/or belt separation failures of

steel belted radial passenger or light

truck tires from 1998 through the

present. Please include the Complaint and

all other documents reflecting the date

the claim was made, the name of the

plaintiffs or complaining party, the

nature of the defect alleged, the place

and date of manufacture of the tire, and,

if a verdict or settlement was reached,

the amount of the verdict or settlement.

40: Copies of any and all complaints brought

against CTNA for alleged tread separation

and/or belt separation of radial steel

belted passenger or light truck tires

which resulted in personal injury or

property damages from 1998 through the

present.

41: Copies of any and all complaints brought

against CTNA for alleged tread separation

and/or belt separation of passenger or

light truck tires designated as CTNA

General Ameritrac SUV radial tires or any

CTNA steel belted radial passenger or

light truck tire of similar “green tire”

construction from 1998 through the

present, which resulted in personal

injury or property damages.

44: Copies of air permeability testing data,

specifications and standards for CTNA

General Ameritrac SUV and tires with the

same inner liner, or of inner liners or

inner liner material prior to the date of

manufacture of the subject tire.

45: All video film and photographic

depictions of vehicle stability testing

performed on any light truck vehicle with

CTNA General Ameritrac SUV tires and

written documentation in reference

thereto including, but not limited to,

test protocols, test results and test

evaluations.

Case 2:09-cv-01145-MCE-EFB Document 105 Filed 04/27/10 Page 8 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Above, the court merely quoted plaintiff’s requests in full. 3

For the following, the court paraphrases, quoting language as

appropriate and where indicated.

9

54: The results of road test belt edge and/or

tread belt durability testing and analysis of

the CTNA General Ameritrac SUV or similar

tires.

In addition to these requests, the magistrate judge granted

several other requests, but with a narrower scope:3

6: This interrogatory requested “the brand names

of all tires produced by CTNA which utilized

the same antioxidant package as the subject

tire.” The magistrate judge granted this

request, but further reduced the general

scope, directing Continental to identify only

16” nominal diameter tires (whereas the

general scope included both 15” and 16”

tires). Transcript at 50-59.

12: Interrogatory 12 asked “Was there any change

in the level of antioxidants in CTNA General

Ameritrac SUV tires produced in Mount Vernon,

Illinois plant from 1998 through the present.

And if so, explain all changes in detail.”

The magistrate judge ordered Continental to

answer yes or no for all 16” tires otherwise

within the general scope. Rather than

explaining changes in detail, Continental was

permitted to provide a simple summary of the

reason for the change. Transcript at 59-62.

23: This document request asked, in essence,

whether Continental used ground coal in tire

manufacture. Plaintiff was directed to reword and then re-serve this request.

Transcript at 62-67.

47: “Copies of any and all depositions, including

exhibits, of tire expert witnesses on behalf

of CTNA from prior tread belt separation

litigation involving the General Ameritrac SUV

or similar tires since 2000.” This request

for production was also subject to the limited

scope, including only 16” tires meeting the

other general scope criteria.

Case 2:09-cv-01145-MCE-EFB Document 105 Filed 04/27/10 Page 9 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

10

Separate from the above written discovery, the motions to

compel and for a protective order concerned numerous proposed

depositions of corporate representatives under Fed. R. Civ. P.

30(b)(6). These depositions were noticed much later than the

written discovery, in January of 2010. See Joint Statements

Concerning Depositions (Dkt. Nos. 78, 81). The magistrate judge

ordered Continental to respond to the following items subject to

the Scope Limitations, but only after plaintiff had limited the

scope of the information sought in additional ways (besides the

Scope Limitations) specified by Continental: areas of inquiry

numbers 4-6 and 10, areas of testimony numbers 1, 9-10 and 14, and

request numbers 8-9 and 11. Transcript at 82-88, 92-93, 95,

105-106 and 108-110. He also ordered Continental to respond to

areas of testimony number 12, 21-26, and 29, subject to the general

or reduced scope limitations, but without prejudice to

Continental’s ability to renew its request for a Protective Order

on privilege grounds, so long as Continental first supplied a

privilege log. Transcript at 93-94, 96-101, 122-124. These

requests were largely similar to the written discovery discussed

above, and as such need not be repeated in full here.

II. Standard for Review of Magistrate Judge’s Discovery Orders

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides that nondispositive pretrial matters may be decided by a magistrate judge,

subject to reconsideration by the district judge. See also Local

Rule 72-303(f). The district judge shall, upon reconsideration,

modify or set aside any part of the magistrate judge’s order which

Case 2:09-cv-01145-MCE-EFB Document 105 Filed 04/27/10 Page 10 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

11

is “found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id.; see

also 28 USC § 636 (b)(1)(A). 

Discovery motions are non-dispositive pretrial motions within

the scope of Rule 72(a) and 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(A), and thus subject

to the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review.

Rockwell Intern., Inc. v. Pos-A-Traction Industries, Inc., 712 F.2d

1324, 1325 (9th Cir. 1983)(per curium). “A finding is ‘clearly

erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the

reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite

and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United

States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); AntiMonopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc., 684 F.2d 1316,

1318 (9th Cir. 1982).

III. Analysis

Continental raises three issues. First, Continental generally

argues that the ordered discovery exceeds the scope of Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(b) by allowing discovery of products other than the tire

specifically at issue without a showing that those products are

substantially similar. Second, Continental argues that a subset

of the ordered discovery contains trade secrets, that such

discovery is only proper on plaintiff’s showing that this

information is necessary, but that no such showing has been made.

Finally, Continental objects to the order to produce deposition

transcripts from other, separate cases, for a variety of reasons.

A. Scope of Discovery 

Continental argues that information regarding tires other than

Case 2:09-cv-01145-MCE-EFB Document 105 Filed 04/27/10 Page 11 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Plaintiff’s opposition characterizes Continental as arguing 4

that discovery should be limited to 16” tires. Continental argues

for much more (or less) than this: it wants discovery limited to

the “common greens” for the tire used on plaintiff’s car; failing

that, discovery limited to size of tire that would actually fit on

plaintiff’s car, and failing that, discovery limited to tires that

fit 2002 explorers. Contrary to plaintiff’s implication,

Continental has not conceded that discovery regarding all 16” tires

is proper.

12

the model at issue is not discoverable until plaintiff demonstrates

that the other tires are “substantially similar.” 

4

1. “Substantial Similarity”

This proceeding is governed by the federal rules of evidence

and civil procedure, notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff’s

claims arise under California law. The only binding authority

identified by the parties concerning substantial similarity in

products liability actions concerns the admissibility of evidence.

The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that “[a] ‘showing of

substantial similarity is required when a plaintiff attempts to

introduce evidence of other accidents as direct proof of

negligence, a design defect, or notice of the defect.’ Minor or

immaterial dissimilarity does not prevent admissibility.” White

v. Ford Motor Co., 312 F.3d 998, 1009 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting

Cooper v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 945 F.2d 1103, 1105 (9th

Cir. 1991) and citing Western Recreational Vehicles, Inc. v. Swift

Adhesives, Inc., 23 F.3d 1547, 1555 (9th Cir. 1994)).

In this case, the magistrate judge concluded that tire size

was not the sole determinant of similarity. Plaintiff alleges that

the tire’s defects included:

Case 2:09-cv-01145-MCE-EFB Document 105 Filed 04/27/10 Page 12 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

13

nylon edge strips that weren’t properly

fitted, insufficient adhesion between the

rubber skim interfaces of the steel belts,

issues about porosity, trapped air that’s

present, whether or not there were impressions

on the belt skim wedge areas that indicate

aged components have been utilized, whether or

not open or cracked inner liner splices

allowed for oxygen to get in. [¶] [and] . . .

what antioxidants were used.

Transcript at 4. The magistrate judge held that at this stage,

plaintiff was entitled to investigate whether tires were similar

with respect to these traits despite being a different size than

the allegedly defective tire. Id. (“So saying that a tire is of

a particular size doesn’t really speak to those, . . . given that

the issue here is whether the inner liner, the steel belt skim

stock, the wedges in these cap plies are somehow making a

difference in terms of the steel oxidizing, or rusting, and

ultimately the tire failing due to separat[ion] of the belts.”).

If products share the specific design features alleged to be

defective, it may be that other differences between the products,

such as tire size, are “immaterial.” White, 312 F.3d at 1009 .

This case differs from White, Cooper, and Western Recreational

Vehicles in at least two salient regards. One is that the Ninth

Circuit cases concerned evidence defects in other products, which

were held to be relevant only if the products were similar. Here,

plaintiff seeks in part to discover whether the products are

dissimilar, which may reveal that the other tires presented a

superior, safer design that should have been used for the subject

tire. Transcript at 7. The jury will need to determine whether

Case 2:09-cv-01145-MCE-EFB Document 105 Filed 04/27/10 Page 13 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

14

the disputed tire “is performing as good as other sets of tires,

or much worse than other sets of tires, or even better than other

sets of tires.” Id. Of course, the safety of another tire will

be relevant only if the other tire is similar enough to the one at

issue that the two could have shared a common design. Nonetheless,

the alternative theory of relevance recognized by the magistrate

judge implicates a broader sense of similarity.

The second, and perhaps more important, distinction is that

the above cases concerned admissibility, whereas evidence need not

be admissible to be discoverable. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(b)(1) provides in pertinent part that:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any

party’s claim or defense . . . . For good

cause, the court may order discovery of any

matter relevant to the subject matter involved

in the action. Relevant information need not

be admissible at the trial if the discovery

appears reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence.

A court may limit discovery if:

(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably

cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable

from some other source that is more

convenient, less burdensome, or less

expensive;

(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample

opportunity by discovery in the action to

obtain the information sought; or

(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed

discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking

into account the needs of the case, the amount

in controversy, the parties’ resources, the

importance of the issues at stake in the

litigation, and the importance of the proposed

discovery in resolving the issues.

Case 2:09-cv-01145-MCE-EFB Document 105 Filed 04/27/10 Page 14 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 The court notes that Barcenas’s author, magistrate judge 5

Edward A. Infante, explicitly designated his opinion in that case

as “not for publication.”

15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Whether to limit discovery under these

provisions is a further exercise of the court’s discretion.

The distinction between admissibility at trial and

discoverability is especially significant where, as here, a

threshold question is factually intensive. Information necessary

to determine whether products are similar will ordinarily be within

the control of the manufacturer and/or designer. The rules cannot

be read as imposing a “Catch-22” that would require proof of

similarity before a party may discover evidence of similarity.

2. Other Cases Cited by Continental

Notwithstanding the above, Continental cites several cases

that limited discovery on the ground that products were not

substantially similar, relying in particular on Hofer v. Mack

Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 381 (8th Cir. 1992), Barcenas v. Ford

Motor Co., No. C 03-04644, 2004 WL 2827249, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

25279 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2004), and Piacenti v. General Motors 5

Corp., 173 F.R.D. 221, 225 (N.D. Ill. 1997). After reviewing these

three, the court concludes that the magistrate judge did not abuse

his discretion by declining to follow these cases on the facts

here.

Hofer concerned a rollover of a Mack truck. 981 F.3d at 380.

Plaintiff requested for discovery regarding prior truck designs,

which plaintiff contended were safer and that defendant had

Case 2:09-cv-01145-MCE-EFB Document 105 Filed 04/27/10 Page 15 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

16

wrongfully departed from. Id. Thus, the factors distinguishing

the instant case from White--discovery as opposed to admissibility

and pertinence of dissimilarity as well as similarity--do not

distinguish the instant case from Hofer. The district court denied

the Hofer plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. Id. The Eighth

Circuit noted that although there was “no black letter rule of

law,” “discovery of similar, if not identical, models is generally

permitted.” Id. at 380-81. After surveying various examples,

Hofer held that courts should “undertake[] a fact specific

determination of the extent of the similarities or dissimilarities,

and . . . inquire[] about the basis for the discovery request.”

Id. at 381. Like White, Hofer recognized that the question was

whether the other models are similar in regards pertinent to the

issue or component being litigated. Id. In the case before it,

the court was “satisfied that the truck models F and W are

sufficiently dissimilar in design from the model MH that a

burdensome production of documents regarding the design minutiae

of those earlier models would not have yielded information which

would have supported Hofer’s claim that the model MH truck cab was

defective.” Id.

Thus, in Hofer, an extensive factual record was available at

the time of the discover dispute. Hofer therefore was not

confronted with the “cath-22” identified above, because the

plaintiff was not asked to prove similarity before seeking the

evidence he would need to do so. As summarized by the Eighth

Circuit, the defendant in Hofer affirmatively demonstrated

Case 2:09-cv-01145-MCE-EFB Document 105 Filed 04/27/10 Page 16 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

17

dissimilarity, rather than merely seeking to rest on the allocation

of burdens. In this case, Continental has not shown dissimilarity,

nor has Continental shown that discovery had advanced to the point

at which plaintiff could be expected to make a showing of

similarity.

One possible solution to the problem of how to prove

similarity would have been to allow discovery to proceed in phases,

such that plaintiff could seek evidence to be used in making the

similarity showing before seeking other information. “Rule 26

vests the trial judge with broad discretion to tailor discovery

narrowly and to dictate the sequence of discovery.” Charles Alan

Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Richard L. Marcus, 8 Fed. Prac. & Proc.

Civ. § 2008.1 (3d ed.) (quoting Crawford–El v. Britton, 523 U.S.

574, 598 (1998)). Of course, to recognize that the magistrate

judge could have adopted this approach is not to hold that the

approach was required. Moreover, while phased discovery has an

appeal in the abstract, it is not clear how it would be implemented

here. For example, plaintiff seeks information about tire

construction and also about tire failures. The former indicates

whether tires are similar in various regards. The latter, however,

may indicate which regards are actually pertinent, by identifying

those components that do and do not fail. 

Accordingly, the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion

by declining to follow Hofer on the facts of this case. Barcenas

and Piacenti involved facts similar to Hofer, and the court finds

them distinguishable for the same reasons. In each, discovery had

Case 2:09-cv-01145-MCE-EFB Document 105 Filed 04/27/10 Page 17 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

18

progressed to the point where the defendant made a showing of

dissimilarity, rather than merely arguing that the moving plaintiff

had failed to meet his burden. Barcenas, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

25279, *22; Piacenti, 173 F.R.D. at 225. In this case, facts

bearing on similarity have not yet been offered, and the

magistrate’s determination that the requested discovery would

itself bear on similarity was not clearly erroneous or contrary to

law.

In summary, the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion

by ordering discovery regarding tires other than the specific tire

at issue without a more extensive showing of substantial

similarity.

B. Trade Secrets

Continental separately argues that even if the ordered

discovery is within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1), some of the

discovery seeks trade secrets. Trade secrets are be protected from

discovery unless the party seeking disclosure establishes that “the

trade secret sought is relevant and necessary to the prosecution

or defense of the case.” Hartley Pen Co. v. United States Dist.

Court, 287 F.2d 324, 331 (9th Cir. 1961).

In this case, the magistrate judge explicitly found that

plaintiff had not made a showing of necessity as to any of the

requested discovery. The magistrate judge held that plaintiff’s

requests could be narrowed, however, so as to avoid implicating any

trade secrets. For example, the magistrate judge concluded that

the antioxidant formulas used by Continental were protected trade

Case 2:09-cv-01145-MCE-EFB Document 105 Filed 04/27/10 Page 18 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

19

secrets, but the dates of any changes in these formulas were not.

Transcript at 12-13.

On Continental’s motion for reconsideration, Continental bears

the burden of establishing that the magistrate judge committed an

abuse of discretion. Continental has argued that it closely guards

its formulas, and cites numerous cases holding that formulas

themselves are trade secrets. Continental has not meaningfully

addressed, however, the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the

limited information encompassed by the order to compel does not

rise to the level of a trade secret. Moreover, Continental bore

the burden of demonstrating that this information constituted a

trade secret before the magistrate judge. Accordingly,

Continental’s request for reconsideration is denied in this regard.

C. Prior Depositions

The magistrate judge ordered Continental to produce

transcripts of all depositions since 2000 of experts hired by

Continental in any litigation concerning the belt tread separation

for tires within the limited scope, i.e., 16” tires with widths

from 185 to 265 millimeters. Transcript 67-76. Aside from

Continental’s general relevance argument discussed above,

Continental argues that compulsion of these items was improper

because these transcripts will be inadmissible at trial. 

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, Continental’s request for

reconsideration (Dkt. No. 98) of the magistrate judge’s order of

March 18, 2010 (Dkt. No. 91) is DENIED. Continental SHALL produce

Case 2:09-cv-01145-MCE-EFB Document 105 Filed 04/27/10 Page 19 of 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

20

the ordered discovery within twenty-one (21) days of the date of

this order. Plaintiff SHALL file a proposed modification of the

scheduling order within seven (7) days thereafter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 27, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01145-MCE-EFB Document 105 Filed 04/27/10 Page 20 of 20