Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01145/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01145-6/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

 This motion was originally heard on January 27, 2010. At that hearing, the parties

were instructed to further meet and confer and to file a revised joint statement regarding the

matters they were unable to resolve. See Dckt. Nos. 59, 72.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD HAYES ALBEE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1145 LKK EFB

vs.

CONTINENTAL TIRE NORTH AMERICA,

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, INC.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On March 17, 2010, the court heard (1) plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant

Continental Tire North America, Inc. (“CTNA”) to respond to certain interrogatories and certain

requests for production of documents, Dckt. Nos. 41 and 631

; (2) plaintiff’s motion to compel

Ford Motor Company, Inc. (“Ford”) to respond to certain requests for production of documents,

Dckt. No. 66; (3) plaintiff’s motion to compel CTNA regarding plaintiff’s Fed. R. Civ. P.

30(b)(6) deposition notice to CTNA, Dckt. No. 67; and (4) CTNA’s motion for a protective

order regarding plaintiff’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition notice to CTNA, Dckt. No. 69. 

////

Case 2:09-cv-01145-MCE-EFB Document 91 Filed 03/18/10 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

2

Attorneys W. Randolph Barnhart and Robert Williams appeared at the hearing on behalf of

plaintiff; attorney Anthony Latiolait appeared on behalf of defendant CTNA; and attorney Daniel

Rodman appeared on behalf of Ford. As stated on the record, and for the reasons stated on the

record, each of the motions is granted in part and denied in part. All discovery responses

required by that ruling shall be produced on or before April 1, 2010. 

Additionally, plaintiff’s request to seal his Exhibits 6 and 6g to the original joint

statement regarding plaintiff’s motion to compel CTNA to respond to interrogatories and to

produce documents, Dckt. Nos. 50 and 55; CTNA’s request to seal its Exhibit E to the joint

statement regarding CTNA’s motion for a protective order, Dckt. Nos. 78 and 79; and plaintiff’s

request to seal his Exhibit J to the joint statement regarding plaintiff’s motion to compel CTNA

as to the Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition notice, Dckt. Nos. 75 and 80, are granted. The

Clerk’s Office shall file those documents under seal.

Finally, CTNA’s request to strike its Exhibit 6 to the joint statement regarding CTNA’s

motion for a protective order, Dckt. Nos. 81 and 87, is granted. The Clerk’s Office shall strike

that exhibit from the record, and CTNA shall redact the confidential portions and re-file the

exhibit not later than March 22, 2010.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 18, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01145-MCE-EFB Document 91 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 2