Opinion ID: 1630934
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ) Plaintiffs improperly criticized Cooper Tire's discovery objections.

Text: ¶ 33. The heart of this sub-issue is that the Tuckiers made reference to a quality assurance manual (manual), that had been entered into evidence with several pages that were blank. The Tuckiers allege nearly 90% of the pages were blank, meaning that the information on those pages had either been deleted or whited-out. Cooper asserts that these pages contained confidential product information and that pursuant to M.R.C.P. 26(d), it was allowed to protect this confidential information. Cooper further asserts that the Tuckiers should not have been allowed to make reference to the blank pages in this manual because they failed to object to the form of the manual or file a motion to compel this information during the discovery process. ¶ 34. However, this manual was offered into evidence by the Tuckiers without any objection from Cooper, during the Tuckiers' cross-examination of Cooper employee Larry Dowd (Dowd). Dowd identified the manual and stated on cross-examination that the manual had, lots of blank pages in here so it's different. I mean it's difficult to tell if this is the manual I use or not. Dowd further stated, from the pieces that are here, yes, it looks like pieces of mine. The Tuckiers had every right to question witnesses about this item of evidence. ¶ 35. The manual was admitted into evidence, and the Tuckiers should be allowed to question witnesses because the manual was relevant evidence. As the Tuckiers point out, the quality of the Cooper tire was at issue and one of the purposes for introducing the manual was to show the jury the quality requirements as set forth by Cooper, so that those requirements could be compared to the subject tire. The trial court did not err by allowing the Tuckiers to refer to the blank pages in this manual. ¶ 36. The manual was relevant evidence pursuant to M.R.E. 401, 402, & 403. M.R.E. 401 defines relevant evidence as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. The quality of Cooper's tire was of consequence to the determination of the action. The standard of review for denial of a motion for mistrial is whether the trial court abused its discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the Tuckiers to refer to the blank pages in this manual.