Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05423/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05423-4/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, )

individually and as Guardian )

ad Litem for YVONNE CONTRERAS )

and ALEXANDER CONTRERAS, )

minors, and as Successors in )

Interest of ARTEMIO CONTRERAS,)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) 

)

BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC.; )

SEARS ROEBUCK and CO.; )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:04-cv-05423-OWW-SMS

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY,

OR ALTERNATIVELY RENEWED

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

(Doc. 76)

Plaintiffs’ motion to reopen discovery, or alternatively

renewed motion to compel discovery came on regularly for hearing on

October 6, 2006, in Courtroom No. 7 before the Honorable Sandra M.

Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge. W. Randolph Barnhart,

Esq., of Barnhart, Ekker & McNally, LLP, and Robert Gray Williams,

Esq., of Perez, Williams & Medina appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs.

Arnold D. Larson, Esq., and Melissa A. Immel, Esq., of Iverson,

Yoakum, Papiano & Hatch appeared on behalf of Defendant,

Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC. Vadim R. AldenCase 1:04-cv-05423-OWW -SMS Document 94 Filed 12/06/06 Page 1 of 7
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

Alaverdov, Esq., of Bowman and Brooke, LLP, appeared telephonically

on behalf of Defendant, Ford Motor Company. After argument, the

matter was submitted to the Court.

I. Background

Plaintiff filed her first motion to compel discovery from

Defendant, Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, on

August 24, 2005, which motion sought an order from the court

compelling substantially the same documents sought by the herein

motion. Set to be heard on October 7, 2005, the motion was

withdrawn by Plaintiff on October 3, 2005. Thereafter, a similar

motion to compel was filed by Plaintiff on November 16, 2005,

setting hearing for December 16, 2005. The Court continued the

hearing on the motion on December 15, 2005, due to an incomplete

and partially late joint statement re: discovery dispute, in

violation of Local Rule 37-251 as well as a failure to file

courtesy copies of certain documents in violation of Local Rule 5-

133(f). The new date for hearing was set for January 13, 2006. 

Once again, the hearing was continued to January 27, 2006, due to

the unavailability of the Court. The motion ultimately was heard

on January 27, 2006, taken under submission, and the Court issued

her ruling granting in part and denying in part on March 17, 2006.

The Court allowed Plaintiff to use the MDL document

database in an effort to satisfy most if not all of the document

production sought. To that end, the Court granted the motion as to

items k., l. and m. set forth in Plaintiff’s prayer for relief at

pages 16 and 17 of the Joint Statement Re: Discovery Dispute and

denied without prejudice all other requests with the following

admonition:

Case 1:04-cv-05423-OWW -SMS Document 94 Filed 12/06/06 Page 2 of 7
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

C. Should plaintiff determine that the MDL documents

are not responsive to some of their discovery requests herein, she

is to revise her motion to compel production after a renewed meet

and confer with defendants;

D. Should this order result in a perceived need to

reopen discovery and/or evoke a similar request from defendants to

reevaluate their use of MDL documents, all counsel are to meet and

confer afer which either a joint telephonic or in-person discovery

dispute conference shall be held with this court to work through

the concerns/disputes.

Thereafter, between June and early August, 2006, the

parties were involved in private mediation. On August 18, 2006,

plaintiffs filed the herein motion to compel, alleging, in essence,

that while the MDL document search was valuable and resulted in

discovery of documents that are highly relevant to the prosecution

of this case, it did not satisfy the search for “the raw adjustment

and claims data and internal documents analyzing them” as was key

to Plaintiff’s original motion to compel filed on August 24, 2005. 

II. Motion to Reopen Discovery, or Alternatively Renewed

Motion to Compel Discovery

Plaintiff states she “believes the best course is to ask

to reopen discovery to simply request records which Plaintiff knows

Bridgestone/Firestone prepares and has prepared comparing the tire

returns for adjustment and the claims for property damage and/or

personal injury for the ‘Common Green’ tires of the Road King Sport

SR.” Should the Court not agree with this request, Plaintiff seeks

an order that Defendant, Bridgestone/Firestone, produce the

documents relating to the information sought in paragraphs a.

Case 1:04-cv-05423-OWW -SMS Document 94 Filed 12/06/06 Page 3 of 7
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

through m. from the original Joint Statement Re: Discovery Dispute,

filed 12/13/05. 

Defendant, Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire,

LLC, opposes both reopening discovery as well as allowing the

renewal of the motion and prayers of the August, 2005, motion,

arguing that Plaintiff’s counsel assured the Court that nearly all

of the information sought by Plaintiff’s original motion to compel

existed in the MDL repository and that if allowed to review said

repository most if not all of Plaintiff’s document discovery

disputes would be resolved. Defendant opines that it was clear in

Defendant’s argument to the Court in January that it did not

believe what Plaintiff was looking for would be found in the MDL

documents. 

III. Analysis

The Court has reviewed the original motion argued on

January 27, 2006, including all pleadings, the Joint Statement, the

exhibits, and the transcript, and has carefully considered the

pleadings filed in conjunction with the herein motion, including

all exhibits and the transcript of said argument from October 6,

2006. 

A. Common Green

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that argument by

counsel in both motions detrimentally moved off course by focusing

on the term “Common Green” and what arguably it means or does not

mean when defining tires. Acknowledging that Plaintiff herself

used the term in the body of her original discovery requests,

nonetheless she repeatedly has attempted to clarify her position by

concentrating on the substance of the document content rather than

Case 1:04-cv-05423-OWW -SMS Document 94 Filed 12/06/06 Page 4 of 7
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

5

relying on a definitive definition of common green. Given

permission to argue the definition by virtue of the use of the term

in the requests themselves, Defendant has relied on the confusion

and the differing opinions of the experts to stand firm on what

they maintain has been and should be produced and what is beyond

the scope of discovery because of their definition.

While it is true that a definition of common green

may well need to be established for trial purposes, it is not so

crucial at this discovery stage. The Court finds no compelling

evidence that common green tires are “tires that are produced to

the same internal specifications but that have, or may have,

different external characteristics and may be sold under different

tire line names” and are manufactured at the same plant and are of

one size. See C.F.R. §579.4. Regardless, this Court will spend no

more time trying to determine the scope of discovery as turning on

a phrase, a term, a definition used in Plaintiff’s discovery

requests but instead has focused on the logic and argument of what

documents are or should be in existence and their discoverability

for purposes of preparing for trial in this lawsuit. 

B. Adjustment Data

Plaintiff makes the following argument in her Reply: 

“[A]s part of the MDL litigation Firestone prepared

charts comparing the recalled tires to a whole host

of different tire lines regardless of plant, size

or date of manufacture.... Firestone’s obvious

intent was to show that it monitored tires across

tire lines and had no notice of any defect in the

recalled tires because they compared favorably and

in fact better than other tire lines. One of the

tire lines which fared worse than the recalled

tires is the Firehawk SS10, a tire which Firestone

admits is the common green tire to the Road King

tire at issue here. For that reason, Firestone is

trying to hide and keep the data it already has

Case 1:04-cv-05423-OWW -SMS Document 94 Filed 12/06/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

from production in [that] case. In other words,

when it benefits Firestone in litigation, they say

all tires are unique and special. When they

actually look for trends and potential defects in

the regular course of business, they look across

tire lines regardless of tire size.”

See Plaintiff’s Reply In Support of Motion, page 6, lines 11-21.

Further, Plaintiff points out that “Firestone

itself, as part of its defense in the multi-district litigation,

analyzed other tire lines without reference to tire size, plant or

date of manufacture.” (Emphasis in original.) See Motion To

Reopen, page 7, lines 9-10. In fact, a review of Exhibits B-H

attached to Plaintiff’s Reply appear to support that argument. 

Too, Exhibits 9 and 10 attached to the Joint Statement Re:

Discovery Disagreements help sustain that contention.

Lastly, and most importantly, what is at issue in

this and all tire defect cases is not only the existence of a

defective tire but also the manufacturer’s knowledge. To use

Firestone’s own words from its Reply to Plaintiff’s Objection to

Rule 13 MDL Motion To Transfer and Motion to Remand filed in the

consolidation case of Guadalupe Ramirez Duran, et al. v. Ford motor

Company, Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire, LLC, et al.,

attached as Exhibit 8 to the Joint Statement, “The common thread is

a tire failure leading to loss of control of the vehicle and

injury.” To that end, and pursuant to F.R.C.P. 26(b)(1), it is the

Court’s obligation as gatekeeper to permit discovery “regarding any

matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of

any party...Relevant information need not be admissible at the

trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence.” 

Case 1:04-cv-05423-OWW -SMS Document 94 Filed 12/06/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

The Court believes that Plaintiff has done due

diligence in seeking “e. All adjustment data for Firestone tires

which are common green with the Road King Tire Sport SR regardless

of plant, size or date of manufacture, including the Firehawk SS10,

Daytona Radial S/R, Widetrack Radial S/R, Seiberling Falcon Sport

S/R, and Lemans S/R.” The Court believes this information is

relevant, discoverable and potentially admissible at trial.

C. Conclusion

The Court fails to see how the term “Green Family”

is utilized in Firestone’s own analysis of tires in Exhibit H

attached to and as argued in Plaintiff’s Reply hereto. Inasmuch,

however, as Plaintiff believes that by changing the term used, the

dispute as to what common green is or is not is defused, the Court

hereby ORDERS that Defendant, Bridgestone Firestone North American

Tire, LLC, produce documents as requested in Plaintiff’s Third

Request For Production To Bridgestone/Firestone North American

Tire, LLC without regard to plant of manufacture and/or size of

tire. The documents requested, including but not limited to those

seeking adjustment data, shall relate to the accident tire, the

Firehawk SS10, Daytona Radial S/R, Widetrack Radial S/R, Seiberling

Falcon Sport S/R, and Lemans S/R.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05423-OWW -SMS Document 94 Filed 12/06/06 Page 7 of 7