Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05423/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05423-9/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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA GUADALUPE CONTRERAS, CASE NO. CV F 04-5423 LJO SMS

individually and as Guardian ad Litem for

YVONNE CONTRERAS and ALEXANDER ORDER ON MOTIONS TO PRECLUDE

CONTRERAS, minors and as Successors CERTAIN EVIDENCE RE TIRES AND 

in interest of ARTEMIO CONTRERAS, RECALLED TIRES (Doc. 136-138, 140)

Plaintiffs,

v. 

BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC..

et al., 

Defendants.

 / 

Pending before this Court are four in limine type motions to exclude evidence:

1. Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”)seek to preclude evidence of the Firestone tire

recall of Wilderness AT and ATX tires designed, manufactured and/or distributed by

Firestone, evidence of the Ford vehicles involved in the Firestone recall and the related

litigation.

2. Defendant Ford seeks to preclude evidence predicated upon a post-sale duty to warn of

tire aging.

3. Defendant Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire, LLC (“Firestone”) seeks to

preclude evidence regarding tires of types, sizes and designs (dissimilar tires) that differ

from the P225/70R15 Firestone Road King Sport S/R tire at issue in this case.

4. Defendant Bridgestone Firestone seeks to preclude evidence of any post-sale duty to

warn, retrofit and recall tires.

The motions came on regularly for hearing in Department 4 (LJO) on October 3, 2007. Plaintiffs

appeared by counsel Randy Barnhart. Defendant Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. appeared by counsel

Arnold Larson. Defendant Ford Motor Company appeared by telephone by counsel Alex Conti and

Robert Gibson. 

Case 1:04-cv-05423-OWW -SMS Document 154 Filed 10/04/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

The Court incorporates by reference the reasoning given in the transcript of the Court’s October

3, 2007 Order verbally issued at the hearing on the above motion. The ultimate rulings are as follows:

Motion 1 by Ford is GRANTED.

Motion 2 by Ford is GRANTED.

Motion 3 by Firestone is DENIED without prejudice.

Motion 4 by Firestone is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05423-OWW -SMS Document 154 Filed 10/04/07 Page 2 of 2