Opinion ID: 602383
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ford's Inter-office Memorandum

Text: 25 Johnson also challenges the district court's refusal to admit a Ford inter-office memorandum which discusses a proposed owner-notification program for a problem caused by an alternator splash shield which was installed on certain 1984 Escort and Lynx cars. This memorandum recommended deferring the owner-notification program on the grounds that, [w]hile there will be a potential for water and dirt to enter around the C.V. joint, it is not certain that this would adversely affect vehicle operation. 26 Johnson asserts that this memorandum is relevant to show that Ford knew its joint boots were being cut and that joints were being contaminated. However, Ford has not disputed these issues. 9 Johnson also argues that the memorandum constitutes direct evidence that, prior to Darlene's death, Ford did consider that contamination of the C.V. joint might pose a threat to the safety of its drivers. Nevertheless, as stated by Ford, [i]t is undisputed that the Johnson's Escort was not equipped with this splash shield. In fact, ... it was first introduced in the 1984 models. Thus, the documents had absolutely no relevance to any issue in this case. 10 Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence. 27