Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-01642/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-01642-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

27

28

- 1 - 02cv1642 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD J. PHILLIPS and GEORGANNE PHILLIPS,

Plaintiffs,

and

LEROY HAEGER, KORI D. HALEY,

et al.,

Intervening Plaintiffs,

CIV. NO. 02-1642B (NLS)

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION

TO INTERVENE; (2) SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON

MOTION TO MODIFY

PROTECTIVE ORDER; AND (3)

REFERRING REQUEST FOR

CONTEMPT TO MAGISTRATE

JUDGE FOR FINDINGS

[Docket Nos. 26, 27, & 35]

vs.

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.,

Defendant.

This Court referred the Intervening Parties’ motion to intervene and modify the

Protective Order to the Honorable Nita L. Stormes for a Report and Recommendation

(R&R). 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant the

motion to intervene. The parties were permitted to file objections to the R&R, but none have

been filed. The Court adopts the R&R and grants the motion to intervene. Once the motion

to modify the Protective Order is fully briefed, the Court asks the Magistrate Judge to

prepare an R&R on that matter, as well as the request for contempt.

Background

In 2002, Plaintiffs Harold and Georg-Anne Phillips filed this tort action against

Defendant Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. They alleged personal injuries from an

accident in their motor home when a tire’s tread separated and they lost control of the

Case 3:02-cv-01642-B-NLS Document 39 Filed 10/31/07 Page 1 of 4
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

27

28

1

Later, the Court permitted Plaintiffs’ insurance carrier to intervene. 

2

The moving parties include Leroy Haeger (D. Arizona), Kori Haley (Arizona state

court), Margaret Bogaert (Arizona state court), Billy Woods (Alabama state court), Joseph

Anton (S.D. Texas), and John Schalmo (Florida state court). 

- 2 - 02cv1642 

vehicle. The Phillips alleged the tires were defective and that Goodyear knew this model tire

was not safe for motor homes. Goodyear answered the complaint and the parties proceeded

to discovery.1

In June 2003, Plaintiffs deposed a Goodyear employee, Kim Cox in Ohio. The parties

did not complete the deposition because they decided to proceed to mediation to try to settle

the case. The court reporter had her stenographer’s notes of the incomplete deposition, but

never made a transcript. 

A few days later, the parties stipulated to a Protective Order. [# 22] Allegedly,

Goodyear designated that Cox’s deposition be treated as “confidential.” By the terms of the

Protective Order, the attorney for the Phillips’, Guy Ricciardulli, was prohibited from

communicating in any manner the information contained in designated documents because

the information was solely for use in this case. Protective Order ¶ 2 (“Said documents shall

not be given, shown, made available, discussed or otherwise communicated in any way to

anyone other than” those specified in this case). Deposition testimony was included. Id. ¶ 3. 

The mediation was successful and the case was dismissed in September 2003. 

The parties’ attorneys contacted the court reporter in Ohio and asked her to send her

“original and all copies of [her] notes and transcription” of the Cox deposition to Goodyear’s

attorney (John McCormick) for destruction. McCormick Decl. Ex. B. The court reporter

complied and sent the notes and exhibits of the deposition to McCormick. She confirmed

that it had not been transcribed. Id. McCormick destroyed the reporter’s notes.

The Intervening Parties’ Litigation against Goodyear

Several families have similar lawsuits against Goodyear in other courts.2 These

plaintiffs have joined together to either obtain any notes from Cox’s deposition or to depose

the attendees at the Cox deposition without an objection based upon the Protective Order. 

The Intervening Parties filed this motion to intervene into the closed Phillips case so

Case 3:02-cv-01642-B-NLS Document 39 Filed 10/31/07 Page 2 of 4
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

27

28

3

In their respective actions, the Intervening Parties moved to depose Cox, Ricciardulli,

McCormick, the court reporter, and another Goodyear lawyer. For example, in the Haeger

action pending in the District of Arizona, Goodyear moved to quash McCormick’s notice of

deposition, but Judge Silver denied the motion. Judge Silver instructed Plaintiffs that if they

wanted to ask questions about what was said in the Cox deposition, then they must seek relief

from this Court’s Protective Order. (July 2, 2007 Order, 05-cv-2046). 

4

The Protective Order can be modified in the interest of justice. [#22 ¶ 15] The Court

retained jurisdiction to enforce the Protective Order. [# 22 ¶ 13] 

- 3 - 02cv1642 

that they can then take the second step of moving to modify the Protective Order to permit

inquiry into the Cox deposition.3

 The Intervening Parties’ motion triggered Goodyear to file

its own motion to issue an order to show cause (“OSC”) why Ricciardulli should not be held

in contempt for violating the Protective Order.

Discussion

I. Motion to Intervene

The Court has read the pleadings and has considered the applicable case law. Britt v.

Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983) (“The district court must

decide for itself whether the magistrate's report is correct.”). The Ninth Circuit permits a

third party to use Rule 24 as a mechanism to intervene in order to seek the modification of a

protective order or otherwise seek access to judicial records in civil cases. Fed. R. Civ. P.

24; San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir. 1999); Beckman

Inds., Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 472-73 (9th Cir. 1992). Rule 24(b)

permits permissive intervention for this purpose when there is a common question of law or

fact and the intervention will not prejudice or delay the action. As Magistrate Judge Stormes

correctly noted, the Phillips case is closed so delay is not an issue. Moreover, the Magistrate

Judge correctly found common facts because the same tire model is alleged to be defective

when used on motor homes. The Court adopts the R&R in full.

II. Motion to Modify Protective Order

The Intervening Parties move to modify the Protective Order.4 Goodyear has not filed

a responsive brief to this second step. 

The Court confirms its prior order to refer this part of the motion to the Magistrate

Judge for an R&R. 

Case 3:02-cv-01642-B-NLS Document 39 Filed 10/31/07 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

- 4 - 02cv1642 

III. Goodyear’s Request for OSC for Contempt

Goodyear filed a motion requesting a civil contempt finding against Ricciardulli for

revealing the substance of the Cox deposition testimony to the Intervening Parties. Jones v.

J.C. Penney’s Dept. Stores, Inc., 228 F.R.D. 190, 198 (W.D.N.Y. 2005); Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(b)(2)(D); Civil Local R. 83.1(a). Goodyear also seeks to enjoin any further violations.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(e), the Magistrate Judge can certify the facts which may

constitute contempt, and, if appropriate, issue an order that Ricciardulli appear before the

district judge to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt. In re Kitterman,

696 F.Supp. 1366 (D. Nev. 1988). Accordingly, the Court refers the Defendant’s request for

an OSC to Magistrate Judge Stormes for an R&R as to whether Ricciardulli violated the

Protective Order. The Recommendation may include other appropriate sanctions such as

those available under Rules 11 and 37. Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951

F.2d 236 (9th Cir 1991) (citing Maisonville v. F2 Am., Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 748 (9th Cir.

1990)).

CONCLUSION

Having reviewed the record and applicable law, the Court adopts the Report and

Recommendation regarding the Motion to Intervene. The Court grants the motion by Leroy

Haeger, Kori D. Haley, Margaret Rose Bogaert, Billy Wayne Woods, Joseph Anton, and

John H. Schalmo to intervene as plaintiffs. [# 27-1] Pursuant to the Court’s July 3, 2007

Order, the Court confirms the referral of the Intervening Parties’ Motion to Modify the

Protective Order to Magistrate Judge Stormes. [# 27-2] Goodyear shall file its opposition

brief on that issue on or before November 16, 2007. Plaintiffs may file a reply brief on or

before November 28, 2007. The Court also refers Defendant’s Motion for an Order to Show

Cause to Magistrate Judge Stormes for a Report and Recommendation. [# 26]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 31, 2007

Hon. Rudi M. Brewster

United States Senior District Judge

cc: All Parties (including Intervening Plaintiffs) 

 Magistrate Judge Stormes

Case 3:02-cv-01642-B-NLS Document 39 Filed 10/31/07 Page 4 of 4