A discovery dispute arose in the above-captioned case just before the close 1

of discovery on March 31, 2010. After a telephone conference held on April 7, 2010,

the court conditionally extended the discovery deadline to permit Martin to request

more materials from Goodyear, for the limited purpose of supplementing

Goodyear’s allegedly incomplete prior production. By letter dated April 12, 2010,

Martin requested documentation concerning the following topics:

1. claims or complaints related to the G159 275/70R/22.5 tire (hereinafter

“G159 tire”), from 1996 to present

2. claims or complaints related to the G670 275/70R/22.5 tire (hereinafter

“G670 tire”), from 1996 to present

3. communications between Goodyear and any RV manufacturer, from

1996 to present, related to performance or durability of G159 tires

4. communications between Goodyear and any RV manufacturer, from

1996 to present, related to use of G159 tires on Class A motor homes

5. testing of G159 and G670 tires which was performed or contemplated

by Goodyear

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RICHARD MARTIN, in his own right : CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:09-CV-0810

and as personal representative of the :

estate of Mary Jane Martin (Deceased), : (Judge Conner)

:

Plaintiff :

:

v. :

:

THE GOODYEAR TIRE & :

RUBBER COMPANY, :

:

Defendant :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 3rd day of June, 2010, following a telephone conference with

counsel of record in the above-captioned case on May 26, 2010, and it appearing

that plaintiff Richard Martin (“Martin”) seeks discovery from defendant Goodyear

Tire & Rubber Company (“Goodyear”), and that Goodyear contends that certain

1

Case 4:09-cv-00810-CCC Document 20 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 3
6. communications between Goodyear and NASCAR regarding

performance, endurance, or testing of G159 and G670 tires

7. the design history of G159 and G670 tires

8. communications regarding contemplated and/or implemented design

changes of G159 and G670 tires, from 1996 to present

9. Goodyear’s analysis of G159 and G670 tires following alleged tread

separation

10. communications between Goodyear and “A Weigh We Go”

Goodyear raises various objections to these requests, as discussed infra, note 2.

 According to Goodyear, Martin’s requests exceed the scope of his original 2

and supplemental requests, which is improper insofar as the court permitted

Martin to supplement his prior requests, not to initiate discovery of new matters. In

addition, Goodyear contends that some of Martin’s requests are overly broad and

unduly burdensome. Goodyear also objects to Martin’s requests concerning the

G670 tire, not only on the basis that they are beyond the scope of his earlier

requests, but also because it contends that these requests are not “reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Goodyear maintains

that the G670 tire is not similar to the G159 tire, which is the tire at issue in the

instant litigation, and therefore, documentation concerning the G670 tire would be

irrelevant.

2

materials requested by Martin are not discoverable, and the court concluding that 2

Martin is entitled to request additional materials within the scope of his earlier

discovery requests, but not beyond that scope, and the court further concluding

that Martin’s requests must be “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence[,]” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1), it is hereby ORDERED that

Goodyear’s objections to Martin’s discovery requests are sustained in part and

overruled in part as follows:

1. Goodyear shall respond to the following requests, insofar as they do

not exceed the scope of Martin’s earlier discovery requests, provided

that, where relevant, the time period of “1996 to present” shall be

narrowed to 1998 to 2001:

Case 4:09-cv-00810-CCC Document 20 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 3
 Goodyear’s objections to Martin’s requests for documentation concerning 3

G670 tires shall be sustained.

a. Request 1, concerning claims or complaints related to G159

tires, from 1998 to 2001,

b. Request 3, concerning communications between Goodyear and

any RV manufacturer, from 1998 to 2001, related to performance

or durability of G159 tires,

c. Request 4, concerning communications between Goodyear and

any RV manufacturer, from 1998 to 2001, related to use of G159

tires on Class A motor homes,

d. Request 5, insofar as it concerns testing of G159 tires,3

e. Request 7, insofar as it concerns design history of G159 tires,

f. Request 8, insofar as it concerns communications regarding

G159 tires, from 1998 to 2001,

g. Request 9, insofar as it concerns Goodyear’s analysis of G159

tires, and

h. Request 10, concerning communications between Goodyear and

“A Weigh We Go.”

2. Goodyear’s objections are sustained in all other respects. Goodyear is

not required to respond to Request 2, or any other requests for

documentation concerning G670 tires; nor is Goodyear required to

respond to Request 6, concerning Goodyear’s communications with

representatives of NASCAR.

 S/ Christopher C. Conner 

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-00810-CCC Document 20 Filed 06/03/10 Page 3 of 3