Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05423/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05423-5/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA GUADALUPE CONTRERAS, )

et al., )

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, LLC, )

et al., ) 

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:04cv5423 LJO SMS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO STRIKE FORD EXPERT

DONALD TANDY

(Documents 100 and 106)

Plaintiffs Maria Guadalupe Contreras, individually and as Guardian ad Litem for Yvonne

Contreras and Alexander Contreras, minors, and as Successors in Interest of Artemio Contreras

(collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant motion to strike Ford expert witness Donald Tandy on

February 15, 2007. Plaintiffs filed an amended notice of motion on February 21, 2007. The

motion was heard on March 23, 2007, before the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States

Magistrate Judge. Randolph Barnhart and Robert Williams appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. 

Amy Leinen appeared on behalf of Ford Motor Company (“Ford”). Bridgestone/Firestone, LLC

did not appear. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed the instant tire defect case in the Tulare County Superior Court on January

16, 2004. The case was removed to this Court on March 15, 2004.

Case 1:04-cv-05423-OWW -SMS Document 116 Filed 03/28/07 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 Category 1 requests Mr. Tandy’s professional resume. Plaintiffs added Categories 14-16 when they 1

discovered that Mr. Tandy was involved in additional testing.

2

Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on December 22, 2004, naming

Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, Ford, and Sears, Roebuck and Co. as

Defendants. Sears, Roebuck and Co. is no longer in this action. 

Plaintiffs seek recovery of monetary damages for the wrongful death of Artemio

Contreras and for their individual personal injuries sustained in a single motor vehicle accident

on June 30, 2003. The accident occurred when the after-market left rear tire on the family’s 1995

Ford Explorer experienced a tread separation. 

Plaintiffs originally filed the instant motion in September 2006, but the hearing was taken

off calendar due to the parties failure to follow Local Rule 37-251. Plaintiffs refiled the motion,

along with the parties’ Joint Statement, on February 15, 2007. Plaintiffs seek to strike the

testimony of Donald Tandy, Ford’s vehicle handling expert witness. 

DISCOVERY AT ISSUE

Donald Tandy is a former Ford engineer who routinely testifies for Ford. His deposition

was originally scheduled for November 11, 2005, but has since been rescheduled at least three

times. The Fifth Amended Notice included a Subpoena Duces Tecum requesting that Mr. Tandy

produce 16 categories of information at his deposition. 

The Fifth Amended Notice, served on August 24, 2006, noticed Mr. Tandy’s deposition

for September 15, 2006. On September 11, 2006, Ford served objections to categories 2-16.1

The objections were identical, contending that the requests were “vague, ambiguous, overly

broad, unduly burdensome and oppressive.” Exhibit 7, attached to Joint Statement. Mr. Tandy

was unable to attend the September 15, 2006, deposition because he was called to testify at

another trial and a new deposition date has not been set. 

On September 12, 2006, Plaintiffs’ counsel responded to the objections, calling them the

most “ridiculous pleading” seen in thirty years of practicing law. Exhibit 8, attached to Joint

Statement. This set off a barrage of e-mails and letters, some of which were somewhat

inflammatory. Plaintiffs requested that Ford specify which objections they were willing to

Case 1:04-cv-05423-OWW -SMS Document 116 Filed 03/28/07 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

 In response to Categories 5-10, Ford states as follows: 2

Ford will produce documents, videotapes, etc. that are in his possession, “with the understanding and caveat

that he also utilizes his education, training and prior experience which may include a particular document,

test or other item that is not currently in his file or possession.”

3

withdraw. In a letter dated November 6, 2006, rather than withdraw its objections, Ford

indicated what documents Mr. Tandy would produce in response to each request. In subsequent

letters, Ford explained that it would not waive its objections, but would produce all requested

documents in Mr. Tandy’s possession. Exhibits 26 and 29, attached to Joint Statement. 

DISCUSSION 

Based on the parties’ Joint Statement, then, it appears that Plaintiffs are relying on a very

literal interpretation of the objections despite Ford’s explanations that they do, in fact, intend to

produce responsive documents. Plaintiffs maintain that Ford should have withdrawn its “sham

pleading” and now seek to strike Mr. Tandy as an expert, arguing that Ford’s objections were

frivolous and filed in bad faith.

At the hearing, however, Plaintiffs painted a somewhat different picture. They alleged

that Mr. Tandy has a history of performing testing just prior to trial, leading to last minute

depositions and eventual admission of the evidence. Plaintiffs seek to prevent Mr. Tandy from

attempting the same behavior in this case, and indicated that they did not know how else to

accomplish this other than by bringing this motion. When asked how the Court could anticipate

such behavior, Plaintiffs requested that the Court strike the objections.

The Court certainly understands Plaintiffs’ frustration with Ford’s boilerplate objections. 

The Court also understands Plaintiffs’ concern that the “caveat” set forth in Ford’s explanation of

the documents it will produce may allow Mr. Tandy and/or Ford to engage in the exact behavior

they now seek to prevent. However, given Ford’s history of submitting similar objections yet 2

producing documents at the depositions of experts previously deposed in this case, without

objection from Plaintiffs, the Court questions why Plaintiffs now raise an issue as to Mr. Tandy. 

Case 1:04-cv-05423-OWW -SMS Document 116 Filed 03/28/07 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

In any event, there is simply not enough evidence before the Court to justify striking his

testimony. Plaintiffs’ arguments are based on speculation and the Court cannot grant such an

extreme remedy without concrete evidence. The parties should therefore proceed with Mr.

Tandy’s deposition and raise any discovery dispute after the events upon which the dispute is

based have occurred. 

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion to strike is DENIED. Both Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’

request for sanctions are likewise DENIED.

As explained to the parties at the hearing, the Court expects the following:

1. That the parties set a mutually agreeable date for the deposition of Mr. Tandy and

inform the Court of the selected date so that it can be available should a dispute

arise; 

2. That Ford produce the documents identified in its November 6, 2006, letter; and

3. Should Mr. Tandy indicate that he is not in possession of responsive documents,

he should be prepared to provide information as to the documents’ whereabouts. 

As the Court explained at the hearing, it is simply insufficient to state that he is

not in possession of the documents and is unaware of their location. The Court

also cautions Ford against having Mr. Tandy suddenly produce additional testing

on the eve of trial.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05423-OWW -SMS Document 116 Filed 03/28/07 Page 4 of 4