Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05423/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05423-3/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-REC-SMS

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

(Doc. 55)

This matter came on regularly for hearing on January 27, 2006

at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 7 on the Sixth Floor before the

Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge. W.

Randolph Barnhart, Esq., of Barnhart, Ekker & McNally, LLP,

appeared Pro Hac Vice on behalf of plaintiffs. Robert G. Williams,

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

Melissa A. Immel, Esq., of Iverson, Yoakum, Papiano & Hatch

appeared on behalf of defendant, Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Scott

G. Edwards, Esq., of Harline, Dacus, Barger, Dreyer & Kern, LLP,

Case 1:04-cv-05423-OWW -SMS Document 71 Filed 03/17/06 Page 1 of 8
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

appeared Pro Hac Vice and telephonically and on behalf of

defendant, Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Robert J. Gibson, Esq., of

Snell & Wilmer, LLP, appeared telephonically on behalf of

defendant, Ford Motor Company. 

The Court was on the record with counsel for two and one-half

hours (21⁄2), and, as such, this order will not reitereate all

pleadings and exhibits referred to nor summarize argument. 

Inasmuch as this Court made it quite clear, on the record, its

position regarding the best mode and method of addressing the

disputed document production resolution, any further clarification

and/or explanation can be reviewed by obtaining a copy of the

transcript of the hearing. 

The focus of this hearing regarded plaintiff’s request for

permission of Firestone and Ford to use the documents produced in

the Multi-District Litigation (MDL). Defendant Ford, according to

the Joint Statement Re: Discovery Disagreements (doc. 58) filed in

conjunction with this motion, agreed to such use; Bridgestone/

Firestone has refused. At the risk of oversimplifying defendant’s

argument, (1) there is a Confidentiality Order prohibiting the

production and use of documents already produced by Bridgestone/

Firestone, Inc., in the MDL litigation in other civil actions; and, 

(2) by allowing plaintiff in this action to access the ninety-one

(91) CDs that contain the MDL discovery, all of which plaintiff’s

counsel not only already has but has seen, this Court would, in

effect, be allowing plaintiff to expand on her scope of discovery

after the discovery cut-off date has come and gone. 

This Court reviewed Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields’ Entry On

Motion To Amend Confidentiality Order, filed on November 9, 2005,

Case 1:04-cv-05423-OWW -SMS Document 71 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 8
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

in the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana,

Indianapolis Division, which order is based on this plaintiff’s

motion in that court, Motion To Amend Confidentiality Order Dated

March 2001, or, in the Alternative, to Permit Intervenor [plaintiff

in this action] and Her Attorney to Use Documents Produced by

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., in the Multidistrict Litigation

Pursuant to Said Order in Another Civil Action. In pertinent part,

Judge Shields left the determination of the use of documents

already produced in the MDL up to this court:

Nothing in the Confidentiality Order in this

MDL prohibits Firestone from producing the

documents that Ms. Contreas [sic] seeks;

rather, Firestone apparently has refused to

produce the documents on relevance grounds. 

That dispute is not for this court to resolve. 

If the parties are unable to resolve it among

themselves, the appropriate course of action is

for Ms. Contreras to file a motion to compel in

the Contreras action; any documents that the

court in that case finds to be relevant and

discoverable may be produced to Ms. Contreras

by Firestone without the need for any action on

the part of this court.

Pivotal in assisting this Court in reaching her decision is

Firestone’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Objection To Rule 13 MDL Motion To

Transfer and Motion To Remand, attached to the Rule 251 Stipulation

as plaintiff’s exhibit 8. The entire document appears to make this

plaintiff’s argument for her in this motion; but, specifically:

- “As Firestone has previously demonstrated to the Court,

cases already coordinated under Rule 11 and Rule 13 involve many

different types of tire failure, and many cases also involve

undescribed types of tire failure. The common thread is a tire

failure leading to loss of control of the vehicle and injury.” 

//

Case 1:04-cv-05423-OWW -SMS Document 71 Filed 03/17/06 Page 3 of 8
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

- “The Brunner case is but one of many examples in which

plaintiffs in this coordinated litigation attempt to utilize core

discovery or recall evidence even when their case might not

actually involve a tire that was a part of the August 2000 recall

or a Ford Explorer. Issues involving the ‘root cause’ of the

failures found in the recalled tires, the NHTSA report concerning

the recalled tires, the alleged defects in the recalled tires, the

use of accidents involving recalled tires as alleged ‘other

incident’ evidence, and other issues surrounding the recalled tires

all take center stage in the preparation of coordinated cases for

trial (because of plaintiffs’ attempts to utilize this type of

evidence) — whether or not the tires involved were subject to the

August 2000 recall.”

- “Indeed, the Duran Case Should Be Coordinated Because

It Has Common Questions of Fact with the Other Cases Previously

Coordinated. The Duran case has, and is also likely to have, many

common questions of fact with the other cases previously

coordinated pursuant to Rules 11 and 13 in Texas. For example, all

of these allegations are common to those found in the vast majority

of the coordinated cases:

1. Plaintiffs typically allege products liability

claims against Firestone.

2. Plaintiffs typically allege negligence claims

against Firestone.

3. The cases typically involve allegations relating to

tires and stability of vehicles.

4. The cases typically involve allegations of tire

failure of some kind.

Case 1:04-cv-05423-OWW -SMS Document 71 Filed 03/17/06 Page 4 of 8
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

5. The cases typically involve allegations of tread/

belt separations in Firestone tires.

6. The cases typically involve allegations of loss of

control of the vehicle, resulting in rollover accidents in the vast

majority of cases.

7. Plaintiffs typically allege that the tires were not

properly designed.

8. Plaintiffs typically allege that the tires were not

properly manufactured.

9. Plaintiffs typically allege that the tires were not

properly marketed.

10. Plaintiffs typically allege that Firestone failed to

adequately warn about the tire.

11. Plaintiffs typically claim that Firestone tires are

designed with inadequate component gauges, including but not

limited to innerliner gauge, interbelt gauge, belt wedge gauge, and

W7 gauge.

12. Plaintiffs typically claim that Firestone tires are

manufactured with inadequate component gauges, including but not

limited to innerliner gauge, interbelt gauge, belt wedge gauge, and

W7 gauge.

13. Plaintiffs typically claim or attempt to show that

Firestone tires were manufactured with defective rubber compounds,

particularly in the belt package.

14. Plaintiffs typically want to depose the same

defendants’ witnesses from Firestone.

15. Plaintiffs typically seek and list as trial exhibits

the same defendants’ documents from Firestone.

Case 1:04-cv-05423-OWW -SMS Document 71 Filed 03/17/06 Page 5 of 8
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

16. Plaintiffs always want to introduce evidence

regarding the August 2000 tire recall, other voluntary product

replacement programs, and the Engineering Analysis Report and

Initial Decision issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration.

17. Plaintiffs always seek to demonstrate that the tire

recall issues apply to their particular tire regardless of whether

the tire was recalled.

18. The experts typically designated by Plaintiffs and

Defendants overlap among the cases.

19. Plaintiffs argue all Firestone tires should have

been recalled.”

In fact, many of the allegations highlighted by defendant

above are the same or similar to those in the instant case. So,

whether the issue is recall, or what is “common green”, or which

tires have the same “skim stock”, or whether tire size, plant of

manufacture, or date of manufacture play a role in liability is

certainly not for this Court to decide at this stage of the

litigation. In fact, as Firestone so eloquently sets forth in its

Reply To Plaintiff’s Objection, above, this case is likely to have

many of the same or similar issues as cases that have gone before

this one. Mr. Barnhart, arguing for plaintiff in this action,

assured the Court that if allowed to review and make use of the 91

MDL CDs already in his possession, many if not most of plaintiff’s

document requests will be resolved. “Nearly all of Plaintiff’s

requests have been produced by Firestone in the MDL case.” See 251

Stipulation, page -31-, lines 5-6.

// 

Case 1:04-cv-05423-OWW -SMS Document 71 Filed 03/17/06 Page 6 of 8
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

Defendant’s arguments that plaintiff is asking for too much

too late, that using the universe of the MDL documents puts

defendant at a distinct disadvantage because they will have no way

of knowing what to defend against, that this is “trial by ambush,”

is a bit histrionic. As veterans of this particular topic and area

of litigation, it is highly unlikely that there will be any

surprises for counsel. And, we are, after all, still talking about

discovery: “[r]elevant information need not be admissible at the

trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence.” FRCP 26(b)(1). While it is

unfortunate that this issue of the use of MDL document production

did not come up earlier in the discovery phase, that plaintiff

crafted various and assorted other interrogatories and requests for

production that defendants, indeed, appear to have attempted to

respond to with appropriate evaluation, thought and candor,

nonetheless the MDL discovery will be helpful to all parties as

well as the court, and perhaps eventually the trier of fact, in

resolving this litigation. 

Therefore, IT IS THE ORDER OF THIS COURT, that plaintiff’s

motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

A. The request to address each separate item specifically,

listed as a. through m., set forth in the Stipulation, pages 3-4,

is DENIED; 

B. Plaintiff may review and use, as relevant, all documents

produced in the Multi-District Litigation; 

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

Case 1:04-cv-05423-OWW -SMS Document 71 Filed 03/17/06 Page 7 of 8
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

8

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 after which either a joint telephonic or in-person discovery

dispute conference shall be held with this Court to work through

the concerns/disputes;

E. Any requests to re-depose any witnesses due to this

Order, which request(s) meet with objection(s), shall be reviewed

by the Court either by way of a joint telephonic conference or an

in-chambers discovery dispute conference BUT ONLY after a meet and

confer by all counsel;

F. Plaintiff’s request that defendants bear all costs

associated with any depositions needing to be re-noticed is DENIED;

and,

G. Award of attorney fees and costs regarding the filing and

hearing of this motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05423-OWW -SMS Document 71 Filed 03/17/06 Page 8 of 8