Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_07-cv-00175/USCOURTS-almd-3_07-cv-00175-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

MEREDITH CHADWICK RAY and )

PHILLIP RAY, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) 

)

v. )CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-175-WHA

)

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION and ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Objection, Motion

for Protective Order, and Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Notices of Taking Depositions

(Doc. #53, entered January 29, 2007). Defendant’s Motion seeks to quash Plaintiff’s

Notices of Videotaped Depositions of Melinda Earlywine and Terry Earlywine until a

joint vehicle inspection and disassembly of the applicable brake shift interlock

components is complete. Pursuant to this Court’s Order (Doc. # 54), Plaintiff submitted

argument in opposition to the Defendant’s Motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Meredith Chadwick Ray and Phillip Ray (“Plaintiffs”) are residents of

the Middle District of Alabama. Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) has its

principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan, and has sufficient contacts in the State of

Alabama to support jurisdiction in this case. See Doc. #1, at 2. Plaintiffs filed this

product liability lawsuit against Ford in February, 2007, alleging therein a defect in the

Case 3:07-cv-00175-WHA-TFM Document 56 Filed 02/01/08 Page 1 of 4
1

This Court directed the parties to carry out the disassembly of the brake shift

interlock system no later than March 17, 2008, as the results will be relevant to the

2

brake shift interlock system of their 2002 Mercury Mountaineer vehicle manufactured by

Ford. Defendant Pontiac Coil was added to this case in October, 2007, in its role as an

outside component manufacturer which may have liability and knowledge regarding the

brake shift interlock system installed in the Mountaineer. See Doc. # #27, 28. 

Plaintiffs’ deposition of Mark Taylor, a Ford representative, revealed to Plaintiffs

the existence of a California lawsuit alleging a defect in the brake shift interlock system

of a 2002 Ford Explorer, the “sister” vehicle to the Plaintiff’s Mountaineer. Plaintiffs

noticed a deposition of the California Plaintiffs in their attempt to discover more about

that case, and any relevance it may have to their claims in this Court. The deposition is

scheduled for Tuesday, February 5, 2008, in Burlingame, California. Plaintiffs indicated

that Ford may participate via telephone to lessen travel expenses. See Doc. #55-2. Ford

filed the instant Objection, Motion for Protective Order, and Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s

Notices of Taking Depositions to delay depositions until after the parties conduct a

disassembly and inspection of the steering column of the Mountaineer.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs informed Ford of their intent to depose the California Plaintiffs on

January 3, 2008. See Doc. #53-2. The next day, Ford suggested a previously discussed

inspection and disassembly of the Mountaineer’s steering column be done prior to the

depositions. Doc. #53-3.1

 On January 23, 2008, Plaintiffs gave notice of the February 5,

Case 3:07-cv-00175-WHA-TFM Document 56 Filed 02/01/08 Page 2 of 4
continued participation of Pontiac Coil as a defendant. See Doc. #52. 

3

2008 depositions. Doc. #53-4. Ford’s Objection, Motion for Protective Order, and

Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Notices of Taking Depositions asserts “the disassembly will

provide clear evidence whether the wiring in the [Alabama] vehicle is improperly routed

like the [California] vehicle (a manufacturing issue), or whether it was properly routed

(does not involve a manufacturing issue).” Doc. #53, at 4. Ford’s Motion makes clear it

does not seek to prevent Plaintiffs from deposing the California Plaintiffs, but rather,

points out the inspection process is certain to provide information regarding the

similarities, or dissimilarities, between the two product liability cases. Doc. #53, at 5-6. 

Plaintiffs’ response to the Motion cites the potential relevance of the information it

seeks to discover and absence of prejudice to Ford, which it has invited to participate by

telephone. Doc. #55, at 1-2. Plaintiffs view Ford’s Motion as an attempt to “preclude”

the depositions, when Ford has plainly stated such is not its aim. See Doc. #55, at 2; Doc.

#53, at 5. Plaintiffs respond at length to Ford’s perceived distinctions between the

Alabama and California cases, and understandably emphasize the similarities between the

two as support for its efforts to proceed with the depositions. However, the common

factors between these cases are not a matter for decision at this time, and granting the

relief sought by Ford will not prejudice Plaintiffs. 

Case 3:07-cv-00175-WHA-TFM Document 56 Filed 02/01/08 Page 3 of 4
4

CONCLUSION

The Court finds the disassembly and inspection can only illuminate the relevance

of the California case, and the information gathered from the inspection may indeed help

Plaintiffs prepare for the eventual depositions in California. Further, the depositions are

not the subject of a pending order with a completion date set by this Court. Accordingly,

Ford’s Objection, Motion for Protective Order, and Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Notices

of Taking Depositions is due to be GRANTED.

Done this 1st day of February, 2008.

 /s/ Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00175-WHA-TFM Document 56 Filed 02/01/08 Page 4 of 4