in Re Michelin North America, Inc. ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
14-15-00578-CV
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
7/22/2015 3:45:09 PM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE
CLERK
NUMBER 14-15-00578-CV
FILED IN
14th COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS
FOR THE FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT7/22/2015
HOUSTON 3:45:09 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk
In re MICHELIN N. AM., INC., Relator
Original Proceeding from the 152nd Judicial District Court of Harris County,
Texas, Honorable Robert Schaffer; Trial Court Cause No. 2014-57952
SUPPLEMENTAL MANDAMUS RECORD
Tim Riley Michael Bourland
State Bar No. 16931300 State Bar No. 24009912
RILEY LAW FIRM WITT, MCGREGOR & BOURLAND, PLLC
The Civil Justice Center 8004 Woodway Drive, Suite 400
112 East 4th Street Waco, Texas 76712
Houston, Texas 77007 Telephone: (254) 751-9133
Telephone: (713) 646-1000 Facsimile: (254) 751-9134
Facsimile: (800) 637-1955 mbourland@wmbwaco.com
tdr@txtrial.com
John Gsanger
State Bar No. 00786662
Scott Marshall
State Bar No. 24077207
THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM
802 N. Carancahua St., Suite 1400
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Telephone: (361) 698-7600
Facsimile: (361) 698-7614
jgsanger@edwardsfirm.com
smarshall@edwardsfirm.com
ORAL ARGUMENT WOULD NOT Attorneys for Robert Coleman, et al.,
LIKELY BENEFIT THE COURT Real Parties in Interest
INDEX TO SUPPLEMENTAL MANDAMUS RECORD
1. SuppR 001-035 Original Petition in Intervention of Robert Coleman
and Kimberly Coleman for Blayne Cook and Cameron
Cook, 12-19-14
2. SuppR 036-126 Intervenors’ Response to Michelin’s Motion to Inspect
the Failed Tire by Unknown Persons According to an
Undisclosed Protocol and Request that Michelin
Preserve and Document Evidence, 12-24-14
3. SuppR 127-181 Intervenors’ Opposition to Defendant Michelin’s
Motion for Continuance of Hearing on Motion to
Preserve Evidence, 1-23-15
4. SuppR 182-185 Bench Brief on Burden Shifting to Party Seeking
Discovery if Resisting Party Proves Trade Secrecy
(The Burden Never Shifted But Was Nevertheless
Met), 3-16-15
5. SuppR 186-242 Michelin North America, Inc.’s Responses and
Objections to Intervening Coleman’s First Requests
for Admission, Interrogatory, and Requests for
Production to Defendant, Michelin North America,
Inc., 1-16-15
1
Respectfully submitted,
THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM
BY: /s/ John Blaise Gsanger
John Blaise Gsanger
State Bar No. 00786662
Scott Marshall
State Bar No. 24077207
802 N. Carancahua St., Suite 1400
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Telephone: (361) 698-7600
Facsimile: (361) 698-7614
Tim Riley
State Bar No. 16931300
Riley Law Firm
The Civil Justice Center
112 East 4th Street
Houston, Texas 77007
Telephone: (713) 646-1000
Facsimile: (800) 637-1955
Michael Bourland
State Bar No. 24009912
Witt, McGregor & Bourland, PLLC
8004 Woodway Drive, Suite 400
Waco, Texas 76712
Telephone: (254) 751-9133
Facsimile: (254) 751-9134
ATTORNEYS FOR REAL PARTIES IN
INTEREST
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document
has been forwarded to all known counsel of record as set forth below via e-
service and/or facsimile or e-mail on this 22nd day of July 2015.
BY: /s/ John Blaise Gsanger
John Blaise Gsanger
State Bar No. 00786662
Via Facsimile: (512) 472-0721
Thomas M. Bullion III
Chris A. Blackerby
GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, LLP
301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
Email: tbullion@germer-austin.com; cblackerby@germer-austin.com
Via facsimile: (864) 232-2925
Giles M. Schanen, Jr.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
104 South Main Street, 9th Floor
Greenville, SC 29601
Email: giles.schanen@nelsonmullins.com
Via Facsimile: (512) 482-5028
Debora B. Alsup
THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1900
Austin, TX 78701-4238
Email: debora.alsup@tklaw.com
Via Facsimile: (713) 523-4159
Robert E. Ammons
Bennett A. Midlo
THE AMMONS LAW FIRM, LLP
3700 Montrose Boulevard
Houston, Texas 77006
Email: rob@ammonslaw.com; bennett@ammonslaw.com
3
12/19/2014 3:55:08 PM
Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 3553800
By: Wanda McCullough
Filed: 12/19/2014 3:55:08 PM
NO. 2014-57952
KOLLYE KILPATRICK, Individually as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Heir at Law and Representative of the §
Estate of BEVERLY ANN KILPATRICK, §
Deceased; ERIC KILPATRICK; and §
KAREN KILPATRICK §
Plaintiffs, §
§
AND §
§
ROBERT DWAYNE COLEMAN, §
Individually, and KIMBERLY COLEMAN §
as Next Friend of BLAYNE MICHAEL §
COOK and CAMERON BAILEY COOK, §
minors, §
Intervening Cross-Claimant and Plaintiffs, §
§
VS. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., BF §
GOODRICH in its assumed or common §
name, and ROBERT DWAYNE §
COLEMAN §
Defendants. § 152nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ORIGINAL PETITION IN INTERVENTION OF ROBERT COLEMAN AND
KIMBERLY COLEMAN FOR BLAYNE COOK AND CAMERON COOK
COME NOW Intervenors, Robert Coleman individually and Kim Coleman for Blayne
and Cameron Cook, minors, intervening in their capacity as claimants against Michelin North
America, Inc. and BF Goodrich in its assumed or common name, and file their Original Petition
in Intervention of Robert Coleman and Kimberly Coleman for Blayne Cook and Cameron Cook
in this case, and for cause of action would show the Court the following:
A. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN — LEVEL THREE
Discovery in this case is requested to be conducted under a Level 3 discovery control
plan pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 190.4.
SuppR 001
B. PARTIES — PLAINTIFFS AND CROSS-CLAIMANTS
Intervening Cross-Claimant Robert Coleman is an individual who is a resident of Spring,
Harris County, Texas.
Intervening Plaintiff Kim Coleman as Next Friend of Blayne Michael Cook and Cameron
Bailey Cook is an individual who is the wife of Robert Coleman and mother of Blayne Michael
Cook and Cameron Bailey Cook and is a resident of Spring, Harris County, Texas.
Intervening Plaintiff Blayne Cook is an individual who is the minor child of Robert and
Kim Coleman and who is represented by his parents as his next friends and who is a resident of
Spring, Harris County, Texas.
Intervening Plaintiff Cameron Cook is an individual who is the minor child of Robert and
Kim Coleman and who is represented by his parents as his next friends and who is a resident of
Spring, Harris County, Texas.
Robert Coleman, Kim Coleman, Blayne Cook, and Cameron Cook are referred to
collectively as “the Coleman family.”
Plaintiff Kollye Kilpatrick, Individually as Heir at Law and Representative of the Estate
of Beverly Ann Kilpatrick, Deceased, is an individual who is a resident of Texas.
Plaintiff Eric Kilpatrick is an individual who is a resident of Texas.
Plaintiff Karen Kilpatrick is an individual who is a resident of Texas.
C. PARTIES — DEFENDANTS
Defendant Michelin North America, Inc. (“Michelin”) is a foreign corporation existing
under the laws of New York with its principal place of business in South Carolina, and does
business throughout the United States, including the State of Texas, for profit. Michelin has
already been served and has filed an answer in this cause of action and has not contested
jurisdiction.
Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 2
SuppR 002
Defendant BF Goodrich in its assumed or common name is sued under Rule 28 of the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and includes suit against any and all partnerships, unincorporated
associations, private corporations, and individuals doing business under the assumed name “BF
Goodrich” which is hereby sued in its partnership, assumed or common name in connection with
researching, developing, designing, making, inspecting, selling, marketing, warranting, or any
combination of these activities in connection with tires with the lettering “BF Goodrich” on the
tire’s sidewall. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 28. Service on Michelin North America, Inc. constitutes
service on BF Goodrich in its assumed or common name.
BF Goodrich in its assumed or common name is referred to collectively with Michelin
North America, Inc. as “Michelin.”
Defendant Robert Coleman is an individual who is a resident of Spring, Harris County,
Texas, who has been sued by Plaintiffs Kollye Kilpatrick, Individually as Heir at Law and
Representative of the Estate of Beverly Ann Kilpatrick, Deceased, Eric Kilpatrick, and Karen
Kilpatrick. Intervenors assert no claim against Defendant Robert Coleman, who has answered
without contesting jurisdiction or venue.
D. THE ORIGINAL CIVIL ACTION (NO. 2014-57952)
On October 3, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a petition suing Defendant Michelin for negligence
and strict products liability and suing Defendant Robert Coleman for negligence. On November
14, 2014, Defendant Robert Coleman filed his answer. On December 8, 2014, Michelin filed its
answer.
E. VENUE AND JURISDICTION
The sale and warranting of the product at issue occurred in Harris County, Texas, and the
sale and warranting of the product at issue is a substantial part of the events giving rise to the
Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 3
SuppR 003
product liability and breach of warranty claims set forth below.
Venue is proper in Harris County, Texas, pursuant to section 15.002(a)(1) and (2) of the
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because (1) a substantial part of the events giving rise
to the claims occurred in Harris County and (2) Defendant Robert Coleman is a natural person
who resided in Harris County at the time the cause of action accrued.
Harris County is the proper venue chosen and most convenient for Kollye Kilpatrick, the
Estate of Beverly Ann Kilpatrick, Eric Kilpatrick, Karen Kilpatrick, Robert Coleman, Kim
Coleman, Blayne Cook, and Cameron Cook and maintaining venue in Harris County will cause
Michelin no hardship.
The venue facts alleged in Michelin’s motion to transfer venue contained within its
original answer are specifically denied as factually incorrect because the statement “MNA denies
that defendant Robert Dwayne Coleman is a resident of Harris County” cannot be based on the
best of Michelin’s or its counsel’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable
inquiry as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13.
This Court has jurisdiction over this civil action because the amount in controversy in this
civil action exceeds the minimum jurisdictional amount for this Court.
This Court has jurisdiction over the parties to this civil action because Defendant
Michelin has purposefully availed itself of the privileges and benefits of doing business in Texas
and because all parties have appeared without questioning jurisdiction.
The Coleman family has not pleaded any causes of action that raise a federal question.
Texas resident Defendant Robert Coleman is jurisdictionally non-diverse from Texas
resident Plaintiffs Kollye Kilpatrick, Eric Kilpatrick, Karen Kilpatrick, and the Estate of Beverly
Ann Kilpatrick, Deceased, who was driving the other vehicle involved in the crash at issue.
Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 4
SuppR 004
This civil action is not removable to federal court, and the improper removal of this case
should be remedied by sanctions and a remand with an award of all costs, expenses, and fees
including, but not limited to, attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
F. FACTS AND CLAIMS
On August 24, 2014, Robert Coleman was driving his 2001 Ford F-250 pickup eastbound
on Highway 36 (also known as Highway 190) near County Road 112.
Mr. Coleman was traveling within the speed limit and within his lane and was wearing
his seatbelt.
Blayne and Cameron Cook as well as Mathew Plum were passengers in the pickup and
they were also wearing their seatbelts.
The tread peeled off the left front tire mounted on Mr. Coleman’s pickup, which was an
LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tire (DOT BFW802110611).
The failed BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tire suffered rapid air loss resulting from
tread belt separation while Mr. Coleman was still traveling in his lane.
As a result of this tread separation of the BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tire, the
pickup went out of control and crossed into oncoming traffic in the westbound lane where it
collided with the 2013 Ford Explorer driven by Beverly Dykes Kilpatrick.
The failed tire is not slick and had ample unused tread depth remaining at the time of the
crash, and the Texas Peace Officer’s Crash Report identified the “defective or slick” tire as a
contributing cause of this crash:
Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 5
SuppR 005
See Ex. A (with code sheet).
Mr. Coleman, Blayne Cook, and Cameron Cook were all seriously injured as a result of
the tire-failure-induced crash.
In the time before, during, and after the crash, Mr. Coleman exercised due care and, and
he was properly and carefully using the pickup for the foreseen purpose and in the intended
manner for which it was designed and sold.
In the time before, during, and after the crash, Mr. Coleman exercised due care and was
properly and carefully using the failed BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tire (DOT
BFW802110611) for the foreseen purposes and in the intended manner for which it was designed
and marketed.
Prior to the crash, the failed tire was in substantially the same condition as it was when
manufactured and sold by Michelin except that the defects inherent in the tire had progressed in a
foreseeable manner during the foreseeable use of the tire.
All tires legally made and sold in the United States with the lettering “BF Goodrich
Rugged Terrain T/A” on the sidewall were placed into the stream of commerce by Michelin.
All tires legally sold in the United States with DOT number BFW802110611 were
placed into the stream of commerce by Michelin.
All tires legally sold in the United States with DOT number BFW802110611 were
researched, developed, designed, manufactured, inspected, marketed, sold, distributed, tested,
and warranted by Michelin.
All tires legally sold in the United States with DOT number BFW802110611 were
made at Michelin’s Fort Wayne, Indiana tire plant.
Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 6
SuppR 006
For all tires legally sold in the United States with DOT number BFW802110611, the
culmination of the manufacturing processes by curing the tire was completed in the first week of
February of 2011.
The designation “LT” in the size LT265/75R16 associated with the BF Goodrich Rugged
Terrain T/A LRE tire bearing DOT BFW802110611 indicates that the tire was foreseeably used
on a light truck such as Mr. Coleman used the tire.
The designation “Rugged Terrain” in the LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain
T/A LRE tire bearing DOT BFW802110611 indicates that the tire was foreseeably used on
rugged terrain such as Mr. Coleman used the tire.
The designation “T/A” in the LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tire
bearing DOT BFW802110611 indicates that the tire was foreseeably used for in situations where
a traction advantage was required such as Mr. Coleman used the tire.
The designation “LRE” in the LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tire
bearing DOT BFW802110611 indicates that the tire was foreseeably used for tasks requiring a
heavy load range rating of E such as Mr. Coleman used the tire.
The failed tire was researched, developed, designed, manufactured, tested, inspected,
marketed, sold, distributed, warranted, monitored, analyzed, and comparatively evaluated by
Michelin.
Michelin, as a part of its business, is engaged in the researching, developing, designing,
manufacturing, inspecting, marketing, selling, distributing, testing, warranting, and in-field
monitoring of tires for use on passenger cars and light trucks in a manner that included placing
such tires in the course of commerce by transactions that are essentially commercial in character.
Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 7
SuppR 007
When the failed tire at issue was researched and developed, when it was designed, when
it was manufactured, and when it was marketed and sold, part of Michelin’s business included
the researching, developing, designing, manufacturing, inspecting, marketing, selling,
distributing, testing, warranting, and in-field monitoring of LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged
Terrain T/A LRE tires in a manner that included placing such tires in the course of commerce by
transactions that are essentially commercial in character.
For valuable consideration, Michelin sold the subject tire which was on the Coleman
family’s vehicle at the time of the crash made the basis of this Petition.
Because of its defective nature, the failed tire was unfit and unreasonably dangerous as
used in a foreseeable manner, and Michelin knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should
have known, that the subject tire was unreasonably dangerous in this manner and unfit for its
warranted purposes.
In accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act, Michelin has been required to identify defects which relate to motor vehicle safety in
hundreds of thousands of BF Goodrich brand tires pursuant to numerous recalls, including
NHTSA Recall Number 12T-019. See Ex. B.
Based on such prior recalls of BF Goodrich tires, Michelin has objective and subjective
knowledge that drivers who “experience tread loss and/or rapid air loss resulting from tread belt
separation” experience foreseen driving conditions that “increase the risk of a vehicle crash”
because a defect that manifests in a tread separation is “a defect which relates to motor vehicle
safety.” See Ex. B.
Michelin’s objective and subjective knowledge of these extreme risks specifically
concerns 16 inch radial light truck load range E T/A BF Goodrich tires. See Ex. B.
Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 8
SuppR 008
The failed BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tire (DOT BFW802110611) which resulted
in the crash is a 16 inch radial light truck load range E T/A BF Goodrich tire.
Michelin’s design and manufacture of the failed tire reflects a disregard of its objective
and subjective knowledge of these extreme risks applicable to 16 inch radial light truck load
range E T/A BF Goodrich tires.
Michelin undertook to perform the post-sale monitoring and analyzing of early warning
data (including warranty returns, property damage claims, law suits and other early warning
data) in connection with all sizes of the BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tire line, and Michelin
knew that such monitoring and analysis were necessary for the driving public’s safety and the
driving public and the U.S. Government were relying on Michelin’s performance of that
monitoring and analysis.
Michelin undertook to perform the post-sale monitoring and analyzing and comparative
evaluation of early warning data (including warranty returns, property damage claims, lawsuits
and other early warning data) in connection with the various 265/75R16 size tire lines it makes,
and Michelin knew that such monitoring, analysis, and evaluation were necessary for the driving
public’s safety and the driving public and the U.S. Government were relying on Michelin’s
performance of that monitoring, analysis, and comparative evaluation.
The failed tire was in an unfit and defective and unreasonably dangerous condition in
that:
(a) The failed tire was not adequately designed to prevent tread separation despite the
fact that such safer designs were technologically feasible at the time the subject
tire was made, in use within the industry, and employed by other tire
manufacturers as well as Michelin.
(b) The failed tire was not reasonably durable for its intended and foreseen uses.
(c) The failed tire’s components were defectively and inadequately researched,
developed, designed, manufactured, and selected without regard to providing
adequate strength to prevent a tread separation in foreseeable conditions.
Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 9
SuppR 009
(d) The nylon reinforcement in the failed tire was not designed to adequately
reinforce the belt package even though such improved reinforcement technology
such as double wrapped nylon and nylon-aramid filament at zero degrees was
feasible, used in the industry, and employed by other tire makers and by Michelin.
(e) The failed tire and its component parts were defective due to Michelin’s failure to
test or adequately test the tire and its parts to ensure they were reasonably safe
and suitable for their intended purpose and use.
(f) The failed tire and its component parts were defective due to the susceptibility of
the internal rubber to oxidation at a level accelerated beyond reasonable
expectations for a tire less than four years old at the time of its failure.
(g) The failed tire was defective in its rubber bonding as indicated by voids built into
the tire during the assembly process and observable in the separated surfaces in
the tire’s failure zone.
(h) The failed tire was defective in its rubber bonding as indicated by processing
marks built into the tire during the assembly process and observable in the
separated surfaces in the tire’s failure zone.
(i) The failed tire was defective in its rubber bonding as indicated by bare wires
uncoated by rubber as observable in the separated surfaces in the tire’s failure
zone.
(j) The failed tire was defective in its assembly as shown by the careless placement
and splicing of its components.
At the time Michelin researched, developed, designed, manufactured, inspected or failed
to inspect, marketed, sold, distributed, tested or failed to test, warranted, and performed in-field
monitoring of the BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tire line, it had a duty to exercise reasonable
care in order to provide a safe product and to research, develop, design, manufacture, inspect,
market, sell, distribute, test, warrant, and monitor the product so as not to subject users of the
BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tires, including the Coleman family, to an unreasonable risk of
injury or harm. Michelin breached these duties.
Michelin negligently researched, developed, designed, manufactured, inspected or failed
to inspect, marketed, sold, distributed, tested or failed to test, warranted, and performed in-field
monitoring of the BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tire line. This negligent conduct of Michelin
was a proximate cause of the injuries and damages sustained by the Coleman family.
Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 10
SuppR 010
At the time it designed and manufactured the failed tire and its components, Michelin had
a duty to carefully staff the tire design, manufacturing, and quality control positions and had a
duty to carefully train its employees involved in the tire design and manufacturing processes,
including the quality control processes at the Fort Wayne plant where the tire was manufactured.
Michelin breached these duties.
The failed tire was cured during the first week of February in 2011 and assembled as
much as a week prior to that and the components were created up to a week or more prior to
assembly so the components and assembled pre-cured tire were exposed to the environment
within the Fort Wayne plant during the last week of January and the first week of February of
2011.
It snowed and rained in Fort Wayne, Indiana during the last week of January of 2011 and
during the first week of February of 2011.
In 2011, the tire building room at Michelin’s Fort Wayne, Indiana tire plant was covered
by a large flat roof that leaked when it rained and when the roof had melting snow on it.
Rainwater droplets (and droplets formed by condensation and melting snow droplets and
droplets of perspiration from tire builders) on the pre-cured tire components lead to trapped air or
steam pockets built into a tire and result in voids or processing marks visible in separated
surfaces of a failed tire.
Air or steam trapped in between rubber or rubber-coated tire components creates a void
and promotes separation of those components.
A prudent tire company’s internal standards would forbid trapped air and trapped
moisture built into tires and yet Michelin is aware of manufacturing practices applicable at its
Fort Wayne tire plant which have resulted in building tires with trapped air or moisture or both.
Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 11
SuppR 011
Michelin’s employees and ex-employees working in the tire building and tire inspection
rooms at Michelin’s Fort Wayne, Indiana plant in 2011 have knowledge of relevant facts in so
far as they eyewitnessed roof leaks, puddled water, and the use of plastic sheeting to divert leaks
on and near tire building operations as well as other negligent manufacturing practices.
When pre-cured rubber and rubber-coated tire components are not used promptly in the
tire building process, they lose some of their tack and it is more difficult to stitch down those
components without trapping air in between the tire components.
A prudent tire company’s internal standards restrict the use of rubber and rubber-coated
components that have lost some of their tack and the use of solvents to restore the tackiness of
pre-cured rubber and rubber-coated tire components that were not used promptly in the tire
building process and yet Michelin is aware of manufacturing practices applicable at its Fort
Wayne tire plant which have resulted in the use of solvents in an attempt to restore the
diminished tackiness of pre-cured rubber and rubber-coated tire components that were not used
promptly in the tire building process.
Michelin’s employees and ex-employees working in the tire building and tire component
preparation rooms at Michelin’s Fort Wayne, Indiana plant in 2011 have knowledge of relevant
facts in so far as they eyewitnessed the use of rubber and rubber-coated components that lost
some of their tack and the use of solvents in an attempt to restore that tack as well as other
negligent manufacturing practices.
The misplacement and improper splicing of the steel belts and the rubber and rubber-
coated components surrounding the steel belts in the assembly of a tire promote trapped air and
increases strain at the belt edges and these factors result in belt edge separation.
Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 12
SuppR 012
A prudent tire company must vigilantly enforce internal standards to avoid misplacement
and improper splicing of the steel belts and the rubber and rubber-coated components
surrounding the steel belts in the assembly of a tire and yet Michelin is aware of manufacturing
practices applicable at its Fort Wayne tire plant which have resulted in the lax enforcement of
standards to avoid misplacement and improper splicing of the steel belts and the rubber and
rubber-coated components surrounding the steel belts.
Michelin’s employees and ex-employees working in the tire building and tire component
preparation rooms at Michelin’s Fort Wayne, Indiana plant in 2011 have knowledge of relevant
facts in so far as they eyewitnessed the lax enforcement of standards to avoid misplacement and
improper splicing of the steel belts and the rubber and rubber-coated components surrounding
the steel belts.
The quality control inspection process in the final finish department is the tire company’s
principle opportunity to identify defects in cured tires and to scrap or repair those defective tires
before they reach the consumer in a defective condition such as the Coleman family’s tire.
A prudent tire company must vigilantly enforce internal standards within its final finish
room to ensure that all defects are identified so that defective tires do not reach the public yet
Michelin is aware of practices applicable at its Fort Wayne tire plant which have resulted in the
lax enforcement of standards and falsification of inspections and sexual misconduct at the
workplace affecting the final finish inspection process.
Michelin’s employees and ex-employees working in the final finish room at Michelin’s
Fort Wayne, Indiana plant in 2011 have knowledge of relevant facts in so far as they
eyewitnessed the lax enforcement of standards and falsification of inspections and on-the-job
sexual misconduct affecting the final finish inspection process.
Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 13
SuppR 013
In connection with Michelin’s tire manufacturing practices, the failed tire at issue
neglects to meet standards which Michelin has recognized as reflecting the standard of care:
(a) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, the internal standards
which Michelin has recognized as appropriate standards to assess tires and tire
building practices apply across different passenger tire and light truck tire lines
and across different passenger tire and light truck tire sizes and across different
tire plants and across time periods spanning the past decade or more.
(b) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has documented
a Bad Habits List of manufacturing issues which sets forth some of the standards
which Michelin has recognized.
(c) The manufacturing practices described on Michelin’s Bad Habits List are bad
practices regardless of the location of the tire plant where those practices occurred
and when those practices occurred.
(d) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has possession
of documents, testimony, and information which confirm that its practices have
included the stacking of rubber components on the unclean floor where those
components were subject to contamination.
(e) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has Decision
Tree documents which set forth some of the standards which Michelin has
recognized.
(f) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has Aspect
Classification documents which set forth some of the standards which Michelin
has recognized.
(g) Michelin’s Decision Tree and Aspect Classification documents have annexes,
glossaries, illustrations, photographs, and attachments with additional information
and caveats pertaining to the standards which Michelin has recognized in the past.
(h) The manufacturing practices addressed in Michelin’s Decision Tree and Aspect
Classification documents and their annexes set forth standards for the assessment
of conditions in cured tires and those standards – which have been recognized by
Michelin – are suitable to assess tires regardless of where and when they were
made.
(i) Michelin’s Decision Tree and Aspect Classification documents and their annexes
set forth numerous standards which tire inspectors must check when inspecting
cured tires, and Michelin negligently understaffed the Fort Wayne tire plant by
hiring an insufficient number of tire inspectors and classifiers for the number of
tires produced given the breadth of the conditions to be inspected according to the
Decision Tree and Aspect Classification documents.
(j) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has possession
of documents, testimony, and information which confirm that its practices have
included having a quality inspection process that failed to prevent air, moisture,
and other foreign objects from being cured into tires.
(k) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has possession
of documents, testimony, and information which confirm that its practices have
included paying tire building employees on a bonus incentive system based on
Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 14
SuppR 014
quantity in production that discouraged the scrapping of bad tires and out-of-
specification tire components and undermined the production of safe tires.
(l) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has a Product
Standards and Guidelines Manual for Required Tire Dimensional Tolerances
which sets forth standards which Michelin has recognized.
(m) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has work
procedures for tire builders which set forth standards which Michelin has
recognized.
(n) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has training
materials including videotapes and tests for tire builders which set forth standards
which Michelin has recognized.
(o) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has work
procedures for tire inspectors which set forth standards which Michelin has
recognized.
(p) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has training
materials including videotapes and tests for tire inspectors which set forth
standards which Michelin has recognized.
(q) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has reaction
limits which set forth some of the standards which Michelin has recognized.
(r) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has product
tolerance limits which set forth some of the standards which Michelin has
recognized.
(s) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has possession
of documents, testimony, and information which confirm that its practices have
included using awls and hot-knives to deflate blisters in tires caused by trapped
air and steam.
(t) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has possession
of documents, testimony, and information which confirm that its practices have
included the use of rejected materials to build tires despite the fact that those
components had been scrapped.
(u) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has possession
of documents, testimony, and information which confirm that Michelin hired and
trained the tire designers, tire component fabricators, the tire builders, the tire
inspectors, and the tire classifiers who participated in making the Coleman
family’s tire, and Michelin performed these tasks negligently and this negligence
was a proximate cause of the damages set forth in this petition.
(v) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has possession
of documents, testimony, and information which confirm that Michelin
inadequately staffed the quality control operations at its Fort Wayne, Indiana plant
and assigned too many quality assurance tasks for each of the limited number of
quality control personnel and permitted falsification of inspections as well as on-
the-job sexual misconduct to interfere with the inspection process.
Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 15
SuppR 015
In connection with Michelin’s tire design practices, tire design revision practices, and tire
failure analysis practices, the failed tire at issue reflects that its design and its as-sold condition
made it susceptible to the exact foreseeable failure mode that caused the catastrophic crash:
(a) Michelin has possession of documents, testimony, and information which confirm
that it has established a link between certain cured tire defects and their probable
causes.
(b) Michelin has possession of documents, testimony, and information which confirm
that is has established a link between nonconformance to standards and tread
separations.
(c) In connection with Michelin’s tire design practices, Michelin has work procedures
for tire and tire component designers which set forth standards which Michelin
has recognized as means to reduce the risk of tread separations.
(d) In connection with Michelin’s tire design practices, Michelin has training
materials including videotapes and tests for tire and tire component designers
which set forth standards which Michelin has recognized as means to reduce the
risk of tread separations.
(e) In connection with Michelin’s tire design processes, tire re-design and design
revision processes, and tire design performance evaluation processes, Michelin
performs Failure Modes and Effects Analysis which address tread separation and
other failure modes and assess the comparative risk of tread separations.
(f) In connection with Michelin’s tire design processes, tire re-design and design
revision processes, and tire design performance evaluation processes, Michelin
runs tire endurance tests and tread separation is not the typical failure mode for
such test tires regardless of load or inflation pressure.
(g) In connection with Michelin’s tire design processes, tire re-design and design
revision processes, and tire design performance evaluation processes,
Michelin runs tests with over deflected tires and tread separation is not the typical
failure mode for such test tires.
(h) In connection with Michelin’s design, manufacturing, and warranty practices,
Michelin has adjustment documents with tire condition descriptions, condition
lists, condition codes, and condition pictures and illustrations, and which set forth
warranty standards which Michelin has recognized and which the failed tire does
not meet.
(i) In connection with Michelin’s design, manufacturing, and warranty practices,
Michelin has work procedures for tire adjustment center personnel which set forth
standards which Michelin has recognized and which the failed tire does not meet.
(j) In connection with Michelin’s design, manufacturing, and warranty practices,
Michelin has training materials including videotapes and tests for tire adjustment
center personnel which set forth standards which Michelin has recognized and
which the failed tire does not meet.
(k) In connection with Michelin’s tire design processes, tire re-design and design
revision processes, and tire design performance evaluation processes, Michelin
Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 16
SuppR 016
maintains and analyzes warranty return adjustment data which Michelin or the
government or both use to assess the risk of catastrophic tread separations.
(l) In connection with Michelin’s tire design processes, tire re-design and design
revision processes, and tire design performance evaluation processes, Michelin
uses warranty return adjustment data and graphs to chart and compare tire models
against other tire models which Michelin or the government or both use to assess
the risk of catastrophic tread separations.
(m) In connection with Michelin’s tire design processes, tire re-design and design
revision processes, and tire design performance evaluation processes, Michelin
uses warranty return adjustment data and graphs to chart and compare tire plants
against other tire plants which Michelin or the government or both use to assess
the risk of catastrophic tread separations.
(n) In connection with Michelin’s knowledge of the link between its manufacturing
practices and designs and tire tread separations, Michelin has a tire adjustment
claims procedure and replacement policy administration guidelines which set
forth standards that the failed tire did not meet.
Michelin was negligent, malicious, and grossly negligent in designing and
manufacturing the subject tire in such a manner that it failed to meet Michelin’s own
recognized standards and was defective and was unfit for its ordinary uses and was outside of
warranted standards.
Michelin is and was aware prior to the design, prior to the manufacture, prior to
the sale, and prior to the failure of the subject tire of the magnitude of the risk posed by the tread
peeling off of its tires.
Michelin’s awareness of this risk and awareness of the magnitude and nature of this risk
is confirmed by Michelin’s knowledge of prior property damage claims and injury claims and
death claims from the tread separation of light truck tires made by Michelin.
The documents and testimony produced in prior litigation asserting fatalities and
catastrophic injuries associated with the tread separations of BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A
tires confirm Michelin’s liability and the nature of its tortious conduct.
There are no applicable mandatory safety standards regarding the risk of tread
separations, and the regulations regarding tires are inadequate to protect the public from
Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 17
SuppR 017
unreasonable risks of injury, and one reason for the inadequacy of these regulations is Michelin’s
lack of candor in connection with the government’s determination of the adequacy of tire
regulations.
Prior to filing this petition, the Coleman family met all conditions precedent. See, e.g.
Ex. C.
G. DAMAGES
As a direct and proximate result of Michelin’s wrongful misconduct, the Coleman
family has sustained damages in the past which will continue into the future, including (a)
physical pain; (b) mental anguish; (c) disfigurement; (d) the loss of the enjoyment of life; (e)
physical impairment; (e) lost earnings and earning capacity; (f) medical care costs; (g) the loss of
parental consortium; (h) the loss of household services; and (i) and the anguish suffered by one
family member who is a bystander witness to the catastrophic injury of another family member.
Accordingly, the Coleman family maintains this civil action against Michelin for each of the
foregoing elements of damages in a just and reasonable amount, and in addition, the Coleman
family ask for judgment against Michelin for exemplary damages, warranty damages, court
costs, and for pre-judgment and post judgment interest as authorized by law.
The Coleman family’s damages are significant and continue to grow and, given the jury’s
latitude in assessing both actual and exemplary damages, the evidence will support an actual and
exemplary damage award in excess of $1,000,000, and the Coleman family seeks the jury’s full
award within the jurisdiction of the Court regardless of whether if it exceeds $1,000,000.
JURY DEMAND
The Coleman family demands a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Coleman family prays that Michelin
answer the claims set forth above accordingly to law, that this cause be set for trial before a jury,
Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 18
SuppR 018
and that the Coleman family recover judgment from the Michelin for the actual, compensatory,
special, and exemplary damages in such a manner as the evidence may show and the jury may
determine to be proper, together with the costs of suit, prejudgment interest, post judgment
interest, and such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may, in law or in equity, show
themselves justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM
802 N. Carancahua, Suite 1400
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Telephone No. (361) 698-7600
Facsimile No. (361) 698-7614
RILEY LAW FIRM
Timothy D. Riley
The Civil Justice Center
112 East 4th Street
Houston, Texas 77007-2502
By: /s/ John Blaise Gsanger
John Blaise Gsanger
State Bar No. 00786662
jgsanger@edwardsfirm.com
Gary Scott Marshall
State Bar No. 24077207
smarshall@edwardsfirm.com
Timothy D. Riley
State Bar No. 24077207
tdr@txtrial.com
ATTORNEYS FOR THE COLEMAN FAMILY
Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 19
SuppR 019
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was
forwarded to the following counsel in the manner indicated on the 19th day of December, 2014.
Via electronic Service
And Via Facsimile: (512) 472-0721
Thomas M. Bullion III
Germer Beaman & Brown, L.L.P.
301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
Via Electronic Service
And Facsimile: (713) 523-4159
Robert E. Ammons
The Ammons Law Firm, LLP
3700 Montrose Boulevard
Houston, Texas 77006
Via Electronic Service
And Facsimile: (800) 637-1955
Timothy D. Riley
The Civil Justice Center
112 East 4th Street
Houston, Texas 77007-2502
Via Electronic Service
And Facsimile: (254) 751-9133
Michael Bourland
Witt, McGregor & Bourland, P.L.LC.
8004 Woodway Drive, Suite 400
Waco, Texas 76712-3648
/s/ John Blaise Gsanger
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 20
SuppR 020
Texas Department of Transportation
125 EAST 11^" STREET | AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701-24831 (512) 463-87001 WWW.TXDOT.GOV
Wed, 10Sep 2014
STATE OF TEXAS
This is to certify that I, Debra Vermillion, am employed by the Texas Department of
Transportation (Department); that I am the Custodian of Motor Vehicle Crash Records for such
Department: that the attached is a true and correct copy of the peace officer's report filed with
the Department referred to in the attached request with the crash date of Sun. 24 Aug 2014
, which occurred in Milam County; that the investigations of motor vehicle crashes by
peace officers are authorized by law; that this Texas Peace Officer's Crash Report is required
by law to be completed and filed with this Department; that this report sets forth matters
observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, or
factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law.
A
Debra Vermillion, Director
Crash Data and Analysis Section
P. O. Box 149349
Austin, Texas 78714
(512)486-5780
OUR GOALS
MAINTAIN A SAFE SYSTEM • ADDRESS CONGESTION • CONNECT TEXAS COMMUNITIES • BEST IN CLASS STATE AGENCY
An Equal Opportunity Employer
SuppR 021
Law Enforcement and TxDOT Use ONLY Total Total
0fatal |T]cmv •schoolbus •railroad •mab •supplement DsSoolzone Num.
Units 1 1
Num.
1 3 1 Prsns. 1
TxDOT 14005009.1
1 5 1 Crash ID /2014351453
Texas Peace Officer's Crash Report (Fcmi CR-31/1/2010)
Ma!) to; T^casDepaitmentcfTianspcrtation, Crash Records, P.O. Box 149349, Austin,TX 76714. Questions? Call (512) 486-5780
Refor to Attached Code Sheet for Numbered Fields PageL_±_Jofi_Lj
*Ciash Date . . ♦Crash Time Case Local
(MM/DD/YYYY) 1 0 18 1/ 2 , 4 , /, 2 , 0 , 1 , 4 , f24HRMM) , 1 11 1 1 15 , ID Use
County ★City 1—1 Outside
Name MiLftM Name
EJ City Limit
In your opinion, did thiscrash result In atleast [UYes Latitude Longitude
$1,000 damageto any one person's property? CIno (decimaldegrees) | 3 | 0 | , | 8 | 7 | 7 | 2 | 7 | (decimal dmrees) |0|9|7|,|1|3|9|9|5|
ROAD ON WHICH CRASH OCCURRED
★1 Rdwy. ★Hwy. 2 Rdwy. Block 3 Street ★Street 4 Street
Svs. tJS Num. 190 Part 1 Num. Prefix Name Suffix
1—1 Crash Occurred ona Private Drive or 1—1 Toil Road/ Speed Const0 Yes Workers ^Yes Street
'—' Road/Private Property/Fafking Lot ^ Toil Lane Limit 7Q Zone Qno Present Uno Dose. {7, of Buckholts
INTEI^ECTINQ ROAD. OR IF CRASH NOTAT INTERSECTION. NEAREST INTERSECTINQ ROAD OR REFERENCE MARKER
At DYes 1 Rdwy. Hwy. 2 Rdwy. Block 3 Street Street 4 Street
Int. [x]no Sys. CR Num. 112 Part Num. Prefix Name Suffix
Distance from Int • ft 3 Dir. from InL Refsrence Street RRX
or Ref. Marker 0.2 Bmi or Ref. Marker w Marker Desc. Num. I I ' I I I I
Unit 5 Unit 1—1 Parked iHltand LP LP
VIN, 1 I F I T iNiWi2
I w I .g lO
I u iP
I r |2
I |1 ||B
C|B |S
|0| a ||8
0|:|9
> |6
| 0 ||3
Num. 1 Desc. 1 l—'Vehicle '—'Run State TX Num.CTS7466
Pol., Fire, EMS on
Veh. 6 Veh. Veh. Veh. 7 Body I I Emergency (Explain in
Year 2 I 0 J_o_L Color btiK Make fobd Model F250 Style PK Narrative Itracked)
BDUID DL/ID DL/ID 9DL 10CDL 11 DL DOB
Type 1 state TX Num. 09243216 Class C End. 96 Rest 96 (MM/DD/YYYY) L 0,2,<1,8,/l,9,7 |7
Address (Street
Cat25Dnjegorgy
Restr. 18
Eject 17
Ethnicity
Posi
DrSpec.
DrResult
Seattio13n
c
Person
Helmet
Name:
First
Last
Mir>
1S.
AlSpec.
tddle
Airt>ag
Result
0
ug 23
ug 24
Num.
Q-Entfor
CO
e. 22
DrPrfirst
Unit
Perthis
line or
>—
Age
on
imvseonerarr y
Ale.
CO
20
15
19
1Rober
C2996
97
N
1Dwayne
A
w
3ole7
6man,t
Bailey
C239CaM
1B
wNot
ApplAland
ook,
m7c3eoholo-incable
rResul
Drug
only
eare
portsed
Mat423Pfor
AlDrPer97
91w
M
Cilum,vfehrr7s5/ewePonrdimary
Unit
each
426MiBlC97
9N
1w
Book,
achaell75ne
S Owner Owner/Lessee
• Lessee Name& Address Coleman, Robert Dtrayne, 19707 Centerlake LN Spring, TX 77379
ProofOf [x Yes n Expired 26 Fin. Rn. Resp. Fin. Resp.
Fin. Resp.(^ No •Exempt Resp. Type 2 Name st»te Fsumt Num. 1662817D2053D002
Fin. Resp. 27 Vehicle 27 Vehicle Vehicle Qves
Phone Num. (800) 782-8332 Damage Rating 1 j 1 I^ I l"i 6 I Damage Rating 2 5|"|R|B|0i"|3| Inventoried Q No
Towed Towed
By Damon's Wrecker Service 2104 W. 4th St., Camaron, IX 76520
Unit 5 Unit 1—(Parked r-| Hit and LP LP
VIN.
Num.2 Desc. 6 l-J Vehicle '—'Run State TX Num.206663H J I I I i I I L J I I I I I L
Veh. 6 Veh. Veh. Veh. 7 Body
^ Pol..Fire,EMS on
I I Emergency (Explain in
Year 2 I 0 I 1 I 0 I Color blk Make HtRlBMADB VBHICLB Model dhknokn Style Ti Narrativeifchecked)
8 DL/ID DL/ID DL/ID 9DL 10CDL 11 DL DOB
Uffie State Num. Class End. Rest. fMM/DD/YYYY) L J 1^ I J I I L
Address (Street
CItv. State. ZIPt
CatDreugorg 25y
ISeve^
Eject 17
d
fName:LastMiFirstddle
Posi
Seattio13n
njury 14
DrSpec.
24Dnj
Person
Helmet
Sex 16
Sol. 21
AlSpec.
Alrtaag
Result
Result
Num.
ug 23
e. 22
Ale.
20
19
g
nn Owner Owner/Lessee
• Lessee Name &Address Anzaldua, Aaron L, 4826 Landon LN Baytown, TX 77523
Proof of E Yes •Expired 26 Rn Rn. Resp. Rn. Resp.
Fin. Resp^ No •Exempt Resp. Type 2 Name state Farm Num. 1662817D2053D002
Fin. Resp. 27 Vehicle 27 Vehicle Vehicle QYes
Phone Num. <800)782-83 amaae Ratlno 1 DaJDSge Ratlngi2 Inventoried!^ No
J I
Towed
By Damon's WXecker Service 2104 W. 4th St., Cameron, TX 76520
SuppR 022
Law Enforcement and TxDOT Use ONLY.
FormCR-3 1/1/2010
Case ID TxDOT Crash ID 14005009.1/2014351453 PflBfli 2 ipfi 4 I
Unit Prsn. Tateo?DeaSP Time of Death
Taken To Taken By
Num. Num. (MM/DD/YYYY) (24HRMM)
Scott 6 White Hospital, Tenple, TX amerlcan Medical Response
Scott a White Hospital, Tenple, IX ftmerlcan Medical Response
Scott & White Hospital, Temple, TX ftmorican Medical Response
Scott & White Hospital. Temple, TX PHI Air Med
Unit Prsn.
Charge Citation/Reference Num.
Num. Num.
Damaged Property Other Than Vehides Owner's Name Owner's Address
Unit 28Veh. 29 Carrier Carrier
Num. 1 010.001^ LBS. CAPACITY Oper. 5 ID Type 96 ID Num.
Carrier's Carrier's
Corp. Name Robert PwaTyne Coleman Primary Addr. 19707 Centerlake UT Spring, IX 77379
30Rdwy. 31 Veh. lijRGVW HazMat ClYes 32 KazMat HazMat 32 HazMat HazMat
Access 3 Type 7 nGWVRi I 7 I 6 |0 |0 I Released |~]no Class Num^ | IDNum. I I I L J I I I Class Num^ | ID Num. I i_ J I L J I
33 Cargo Unit Srgvw 34Trtr. Unit RGVW 34Trlr.
Trailer 1 Trailer 2
Body Style Num. •gwvr l I ^ I » I " I Type Num. GWVR t I I J I I Type
Sequence Total Total
35Seq. 1 35Seq.2 35Seq. 3 35Seq.4
Of Events 13 Num. Axles Num. Tires
CO 36 CcnWbutIng Factors (Investigator's Opinion) 37 Vehicle Defects flnvestlgator's Opinion) Environmental and Roadway Conditions
Unit Num. Contributing May Have Contrib. Contributing May Have Contrib. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Weather Light Entering Roadway Roadway Surfece Traffic
12 Cond. Cond. Roads Type /Uignment Condition Control
1 1 97 1 5 1 12
Investigator's Narrative Opinion of What Happened Held Diagram - Not to Scale
(Attach Additional Sheets if Necessanr)
Onlt 1 was traveling BB on PS 190 towing Unit 2, an enpty 16
foot flatbed trailer. Unit 3 was traveling RB on US 190
^proachlng Unit 1. US 190 was under construction at the time
of tihe crash but the constinictlon ccnpany was not working on
that day. The driver of Unit 1 stated his left front tire blew
out and I t caused his vehicle to cross Into the VJB lane. He
continued to say since he did not have control of the vehicle as
It went Into the WB lane he did the only thing he could do which
was to s^ly the brsikes as hard as he could. The WB lane did
not have an inproved shoulder as the BB lane did but It was just
as wide. Judging from the area of Inpact the driver of Unit 3 Construction barre s
attenpted to avoid the collision. The collision occurred In the Unl 3 \
NB lane near the WB bar ditch behind the construction barrels
narking the nB lane. Unit 1 struck Unit 3's LP with Its PL.
Pnlt 3 spun around and came to rest In the WB bar ditch facing
after strllclng a tree with Its LP. Unit 1 came to rest
facing HW In the WB bar ditch with Unit 2 resting against Its
RBQ. Bvldence on scene Indicated Unit I ' s l e f t front t i r e
sustained a blowout while s t i l l In his lane. Mzirks l e f t behind
from the left front tire showed the tire was wdi^llng prior to
crossing Into the MB lane. Bvldence showed the rim of the left
front tire was digging Into the pavmnent In the WB lane prior to
Unit 1 striking Unit 3.
Time Notified How Time Arrived Report Date
(24HRMM) l1 1^ |2 |3 I Notified Dispatched (24HR:MM) \-Ll 1 'I 5
^ " I (MM/DD/YYYY) 0 I 8 |/, 2 I 5 |/, 2 I 0 I 1 , 4
Invest. Qyos Investigator ID
Comp.[x]No Name (Print( il Bosque, Brnes^ <4 mm Num. 9545
ORi
Num.1 I I I I I
opMnJrom Custddia
I I Hi ' DBPARTMBWT OP PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE OF TEXAS
ct/
|H|P|6|A|0|6
SuppR 023
Law Enforcement andTxDOT Use ONLY Ar^riv/c ITotal [Total TxDOT 14005009.1
0FATAL 0CMV nSCHOOLBUS nRAILROAD OmAB QSUPPLEMENT N^i I I3 | , _5j Crash ID /2014351453
Texas Peace Officer's Crash Report (Form CR-31/1/2010)
Mailto: TexasDepartmentofTranspoftation, Crash Records, P.O. Box 149349, Austin, TX78714. Questions? Call (512)486-5780
Refer b Attached Code Sheet for Numbered Fields
j"^Ttrnmawmen *=These fields are required on all additional sheets submitted for this crash (ex.: additional vehicles, occupants. Injured, etc.).
★Crash Date . . ★Crash Time
(MM/DD/YYYY) |0|8|/2|4|/|2|0|1|4| (24HRMM) , 1 i 1 i 1 i5 ,
★County ★City
§ Name mhjuii Name City Limit
^ In your opinion, did this crash result in at least [DYes Latitude Longitude
§ $1,000 damage toany one person's property? • No (dedmai degrees) t3|0|.|8|7|7|2|7i (decimal degrees) i0 i 1 I 3 I 9 I 9 I 5
:i ROAD ONWHICH CRASH OCCURRED
a ★! Rdwy. ★Hwy. 2 Rdwy. Block 3 Street ★Street 4Sb^t
9o Sys. OS Num. 190 Part 1 Num. Prefix Name Suffix
2^ I—I Crash Occurred on aPrivate Drive or 11—|
I I
Toll Road/ |Speed ConstS Yes Workers D Yes Street
g '—' Road/Private Property/Parking Lot Toll Lane Limit 70 Zone Qno Present [T|no Desc. w. of Buckholts
S INTERSECTING ROAD. OR IF CRASH NOT AT INTERSECTION. NEAREST INTERSECTING ROAD OR REFERENCE MARKER
ill ^ 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1
9 At DYss 1Rdwy. Hwy. 2 Rdwy. 3 Street 4 Street
Int. [xJno ISys. CR Num.112 Part Prefix SufRx
Distance from Int. Q FT 3 Dir. from int. Reference
or Ref. Marker 0.2 Ml F^sf' Marker vi Marker
Parked 1—[Hitand LP LP
Vehicle M Run Sts TX
State Num.BFN0694 F|M|5|K[7|D|8 , 6 | B | 2 ,6 |2 ,7 |5
Pol., Fire, EMS on
Veh. 7 Body I I Emergent (Explain I
Make FORD Style sv Nanative if checked]
DL/ID DUD 10CDL 11 DL
State TX Num. 07084677 End. 96 Rest. A
Address (Street,
Cltv.State.ZIP] 22004 Laneview RD Henpstead, TX 77445
oe E• 0-
i «g. CO81
1
Name: Last First Middle
Enter Driver or Primary Person for this Unit on first line mi 5
CO 'S
J
•5
<0
ii A !di
CV CO S 0^ CM CO (N K
.Ipatrlek, Beverly Dykes K 62 , B 2 1 1 5 97 N 96 97 97
15
Ethnicty Not Applicable - Alcohol and
Drug Results are only reported
17Eject. for Driver/Primary Person for
each Unit.
18Restr
Fin. RespQ No • Exempt Resp. Type 2
Fin. Resp. 27 Vehlde 27 Vehicle Vehicle HYes
Phone Num. (800)435-7764 DamageRating 1,1,0;", , I | p , • , 6 , DamageRating 2 P. I" I 1 I Invenbned Q No
Towred Towed
Bv CSW Wrecker Service To 1506 N. Travis, Cameron, TX 76520
IHit and LP> LP
'Run Sta
ate Num.
IVeh. Pol., Fire, EMS on
I I Emergency (^piain in
Model Narrative if cmecked)
10CDL
End.
Address (Street
CItv. State. ZIP]
TS
Name: Last First Middle 9 o> 0
Enter Driver or Primary Person fcH* this Unit on first line 0 1 uT & a
E a
JL
(0 t- CO
?! ^ I
Not Applicable - Alcohol and
Drug Results are only reported
for Driver/Primary Person for
each Unit.
HH Owner Owner/Lessee
I ILessee Name &Address
Proof of CHYes Q Expired 26 Fin. Fin. Resp. Fin. Resp.
Fin. RespQ No Q Exempt Resp. Type ' Name Num.
Fin. Resp. Vehicle QYes
Phone Num. — j "1 1 InventariedQNo
Towed Py 1
SuppR 024
Law Enforcement and TxDOT Use ONLY.
FonnCR-3 1/1/2010
Case ID TxDOT Crash ID 140OSOO9.1/20143514S3 Paaei 4 ipfi 4
Unit Prsn. Date of Death Time of Death
Taken To Taken By
Num. Num. (MM/DD/YYYY) (24HRMM)
Oreen-Patterson Funeral Hams Oreen-Patterson Funeral Home 0 I 8 2 I 4 2 I 0 I 1 I 4 1 I 2 I 3 I 5
&
is
Unit Prsn.
Charge Citation/Reference Num.
Num. Num.
Damaged Property Other Than Vehicles Owner's Name Owner's /Address
Unit 28Veh. 29 Carrier Carrier
Num.
• 10,001. IBS. • 8* CAPACITY Oper. ID Type ID Num.
Carrier's Carrier's
Corp. Name Primary Addr.
30 Rdwy. 31 Veh. •rgvw KazMat IZlYes 32HazMat HazMat 32 HazMat HazMat
Access Type riGVWRi I I I I I Released Qno Class Num^ | ID Num. I I 11 |_ J L Class Num^ | ID Num. I I 11 |_ J L
33 Cargo Unit •rgvw 34Trtr. Unit RGVW 34Trir.
Trailer 1 Trailer 2
Body Style Num. •gvwr I I I I I I Type Num. GVWR I L J I I Type
Sequence Total Total
35Seq.1 35Seq.2 35 Seq. 3 35Seq.4
Of Events Num. Axles Num. Tires
CO 36 ConWbutlng Factors (Investigator's Opinion) 37 Vehicle Defects finvestlflator's Opinion) Environmental and Roadway Conditions
Unit Num. Contributing May Have Contrib. Contributing May Have Contrib. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Weather Light Entering Roadway Roadway Surfoce Traffic
Cond. Cond. Roads Type Alignment Condition Control
Investigator's Narrative Opinion of What Happened Reid Diagram - Not to Scale
(Attach Additional Sheets if Necessary)
Time Notified How Time Arrived Report Date
(24HRMM1 lA 1 I 2 Notifled Dispatched (24HR:MM) 1-L 1 I 5 I 0 I (MMlDDlYYVy) , 0 I 8 |/, 2 I 5 |/, 2 I 0 I 1 I 4
Invest. nVes Investigator
Comp.0No Name (PnnteqjiiBd Boscjue, Ernes^p >-R = Local Road/Street (Street. Road. Ave., S = South LN = Lane
BU = Business US Blvd., PI., Tri., Beach, Alley, Boat Ramp, etc.) SW = Southwest FWY = Freeway
BS = Business State W= West HWY = Highway
BF = Business FM NW = Northwest
WAY = Way
SL - State Loop TRL = Trail
TL = Toil Road LOOP = Loop
S. Unit Description 7. Body Style
1 = Motor Vehicle BGE = Beige ONG = Orange P2 = Passenger Car, 2-Door PC = Police Car/Truck
2 = Train BLK: : Black PNK = Pink P4 = Passenger Car, 4-Door PM = Police Motorcycle 1 = Driver License
3 = Pedaicycllst BLU == Blue PLE = Purple PK = Pickup TL = Trailer. Semi-Trailer, or Pole Trailer 2 = Commercial Driver Lie.
4 = Pedestrian BRZ = Bronze RED = Red AM = Ambulance TR = Truck 3 = Occupational
5 - Motorized BRO = Brown SIL = Silver BU = Bus TT = Truck Tractor 4 = ID Card
Conveyance CAM = Camouflage TAN = Tan SB = Yellow School Bus VN = Van 5 = Unlicensed
6 = Towed/Trailer CPR = Copper TEA = Teal (green) FE = Farm Equipment 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative) 98 = Other
7 = Non-Contact OLD = Gold TRQ = Turquoise (blue) FT = Fire Truck 99 = Unknown 99 = Unknown
98 = Other (Explain in GRY = Gray WHi = White MC = Motorcycle
Narrative) GRN = Green YEL = Yellow SV = Sport UtilityVehicle
MAR B Maroon 98 B Other (Explain in
MUL = Multicolored Narrative)
99 = Unknown
10. Commercial Driver 11. Driver License Restrictions
License Endorsements A = With Corrective Lenses L = Vehicle w/o Air Brakes - Applies to T = Automatic Transmission
A - Class A H = Hazardous Materials B = LOFS Age 21 or Over Vehicles Requiring CDL U = Applicable Prosthetic Devices
AM = Class A and M N = Tank Vehicles C = Daytime Only M = CDL Intrastate Commerce Only V - Applicable Vehicle Devices
B = Class B P = Passengers D = Not to Exceed 45 MPH N = ignition Interlock Required W = Power Steering
E = No Expressway Driving 0 - Occ./Essent. Need DL-No CMV- X - Vehicle Not to Exceed Class C
BM = Class B and M S = School Bus
F = Must Hold Valid Learner Lie. to MM/DD/YY See Court Order Y = Valid TX Vision or Limb Waiver
C = Class C T = Double/Triple Trailer
CM s Class C and M X = Tank Vehicle with G = TRC 545.424 Applies until MM/DD/YY P = Stated on License Req'd.
M = Class M HazMat H = Vehicle Not to Exceed 26,000 lbs GVWR Q = LOFS 21 or Over Vehicle Above Z = Valid Fed. Vision or Limb Vt^iver
5 = Unlicensed 5 = Unlicensed I s Motorcycle Not to Exceed 250 CC Class B Req'd.
J = Licensed Motorcycle Operator Age 21 R = LOFS 21 or Over Vehicle Above 5 = Unlicensed
98 - Other/Out of State 98 = Nona
or Over in Sight Class C 96 - None
99 = Unknown 98 = Other/Out of State
K = Moped S - Outside Rear View Mirror or 98 = Other/Out of State
99 = Unknown
HearingAid 99 = Unknown
15. Etfinicltv 16-Sex 17. Ejgcted
1 = Driver 1 = Front Left 10 ssCargo Area A = incapacitating injury W = White 1 s: Male 1 =No
2 = Passenger/Occupant 2 = Front Center 11 = Outside Vehicle B = Non-Incapacitating B = Black 2 = Female 2 = Yes
3 = Pedaicycllst 3 = Front Right 13 = Other In Vehicle Injury H = Hispanic 99 = Unknown 3 = Yes, Partial
4 = Pedestrian 4 - Second Seat Left 14 s: Passenger in Bus C = Possible Injury A = Asian 97 = Not
5 = Driver of Motorcycle Type Vehicle 5 = Second Seat Center 16 = Pedestrian, Pedaicyclist, K = Killed I s: Amer. Indian/ Applicable
6 = Passenger/Occupant on Motorcycle Type 6 - Second Seat Right or Motorized Conveyance N = Not Injured Alaskan Native 99 = Unknown
Vehicle 7 = Third Seat Left 98 = Other (Explain in 99 = Unknown 98 s: Other
98 - Other (Explain In Narrative) 8 = Third Seat Center Narrative) 99 = Unknown
99 = Unknown 9 = Third Seat Right 99 = Unknown
19. Alrbaa
1 = Shoulderand LapBelt 7 = Child BoosterSeat 1 ss Not Deployed 27. Vehicle Damage Rating
2 s:Shoulder BeltOnly 96 = None 2 ss Deployed, Front in most cases, enter in the format
3 s= Lap BeitOnly 97 = NotApplicable 3 ssDeployed, Side XX-ABC-Y, where
4 s:Child SeaL Fadng Forward 98 = Other(Explain in 4 = Deployed, Rear XX is the Direction of Force (1-12).
5 = Child Seat Facing Rear Narrative) 5 ss Deployed, Multiple ABC is the Damage Description 2- or 3-
6 s: Child SeaL Unknown 99 ssUnknown 97 s: Not Applicable letter code),
99 ss Unknown and Y is the Damage Severity (0-7).
20. Helmut Use 22. Alcohol Specimen Tvoe
In special cases, use: LFQ 3 RFQ
1 ss Not Worn 1 ss Breath
VB-1 ss vehicle burned, NOT due to
2 = Worn, Damaged 2 ss Blood
collision
3 ssWorn, Not Damaged 3 ss Urine
VB-7 ss vehicle catches fire due to the LD
4 = Wom, Unk. Damage 4 ss Refused
collision
97 - Not Applicable 96 = None
TP-0 sstop damage only
99 = Unknown if Wom 98 ss Other (Explain in Narrative)
VX-0 ss undercarriage damage only
MC-1 ss motorcycle, moped, scooter. LP
23. Drug Specimen Type 25. DruaCateooiv
etc.
2 s: Blood 2 ssCNS Depressants NA ss Not Applicable (Farm Tractor,
3 ss Urine 3 ss CNS Stimulants
etc.)
4 ss Refused 4 ssHallucinogens L&T
96 ss None 6 ss Narcotic Analgesics
98 ssOther (Explain In Narrative) 7 ss Inhalants
8 ss Cannabis LBQ M 3 RBO
24. Drug Test Result 10 ss Disassociathre Anesthetics
1 ss Positive 11 ss Multiple Drugs (Explain in Narrative)
2 ss Negative 97 ss Not Applicable
97 ss Not Applicable 98 ss Other Drugs (Explain In Narrative)
99 s: Unknown 99 s: Unknown
26. Financial ResDonslbliltv Tvoe
1 ss Liability insurance Policy 5 ss Certificate of Depositwith Comptroller
2 ss Proofof Liability Insurance 9 ss Certificate of Depositwith County Judge
3 ss Insurance Binder 7 s= Certificate of Self-Insurance
4 =
SuppR 026
Texas Peace Officer's Crash Report - Code Sheet Page 2 of 2
Numbered Fields on the CR-3 Refer to the Numbered Lists on this Code Sheet Each list includes the codes that may be entered on Law Enforcement and TxDOT Use ONLY.
tfiefonTum^hedesaTgtioi^|feaclvcede^ FormCR-3CS 1/1/2010
28. Vehicle Onaration 30. Roadway Access 32. Hazardous Material Class Number
1 = Interstate Commerce 1 = US DOT 1 = Full Access Control 1 = Passenger Car 1 = Explosives
2 - Intrastate Commerce 2 = TxDOT 2 - Partial Access Control 2 = Light Truck 2 = Gases
3 = Not in Commerce 3 = ICC/MC 3 = No Access Control 3 = Bus (9-15) 3 = Flammable Liquids
4 = Government 86 = None 4 = Bus (>15) 4 = Flammable Solids
5 = Personal 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative) 5 ss Single Unit Truck 2 Axles 6 Tires 5 = Oxidizers and Organic Peroxides
6 = Single Unit Truck 3 or More Axles 6 s: Toxic Materials and Infectious Substances
7 = Truck Trailer 7 = Radioactive Materials
8 = Truck Tractor (Bobtail) 8 = Corrosive Materials
9 = Tractor/Semi Trailer 9 = Miscellaneous Dangerous Goods
10 = Tractor/Double Trailer
11 = Tractor/Triple Trailer
98 = Other (Explain in Narrative)
99 = Unknown Heavy Truck
33. Cargo Body Style
1 = Bus (9-15) 8 = Auto Transporter 15 = Vehicle Towing Another 1 = Full Trailer
2 = Bus (>15) 9 = Garbage Refuse Vehicle 2 = Semi-Trailer
3 = Van/Enclosed Box 10 = Grain Chips Gravel 97 = Not Applicable 3 = Pole Trailer
4 = Cargo Tank 11= Pole 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative)
5 = Flatbed 13 = Intermodal
6 = Dump 14 = Logging
7 = Concrete Mixer
35. Sequence of Events
1 = Non-Collision: Ran Off Road 9 = Non-Collision: Equipment Failure 17 = Collision Involving Animal
2 = Non-Collision: Jackknife 10 = Non-Collision; Other 18 = Collision Involving Fixed Object
3 = Non-Collision: Overturn Rollover 11= Non-Collision: Unknown 19 = Coliision With Work Zone Maintenance Equipment
4 = Non-Collision: Downhill Runaway 12 = Collision Involving Pedestrian 20 = Coilision With Other Movable Object
5 = Non-Collision: Cargo Loss Or Shift 13 = Collision Involving Motor Vehicle in Transport 21 = Collision With Unknown Movable Object
6 = Non-Collision; Explosion Or Fire 14 = Collision Involving Parked Motor Vehicle 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative)
7 = Non-Collision: Separation of Units 15 = Collision Involving Train
8 = Non-Collision: Cross Median/Centerline 16 = Coliision Involving Pedalcycle
36. Factors and Conditions
1 = Animal on Road - Domestic 33 = Failed to Yield ROW - Open Intersection 56 = Parked without Lights
2 = Animal on Road - Wild 34 = Failed to Yield ROW - Private Drive 57 = Passed in No Passing Lane
3 = Backed without Safety 35 = Failed to Yield ROW - Stop Sign 58 = Passed on Right Shoulder
4 = Changed Lane when Unsafe 36 = Failed to Yield ROW-To Pedestrian 59 = Pedestrian FTYROWto Vehicle
14 = Disabled in Traffic Lane 37 = Failed to Yield ROW - Tuming Left 60 = Unsafe Speed
15 = Disregard Stop and Go Signal 38 = Failed to Yield ROW- Tum on Red 61 = Speeding - (Over Limit)
16 = Disregard Stop Sign or Light 39 = Failed to Yield ROW- Yield Sign 62 = Taking Medication (Explain in Narrative)
17 = Disregard Turn Marks at Intersection 40 = Fatigued or Asleep 63 = Turned Improperly - Cut Comer on Left
18 = Disregard Waming Sign at Construction 41 = Faulty Evasive Action 64 = Turned Improperly - Wide Right
19 = Distraction in Vehicle 42 = Fire in Vehicle 65 = Tumed Improperly - Wrong Lane
20 = Driver Inattention 43 = Fleeing or Evading Police 66 = Tumed when Unsafe
21 = Drove Without Headlights 44 = Followed Too Closely 67 = Under Influence - Alcohol
22 = Failed to Control Speed 45 = Had Been Drinking 68 = Under Influence - Drug
23 = Failed to Drive in Single Lane 46 = Handicapped Driver (Explain in Narrative) 69 = Wrong Side - Approach or Intersection
24 = Failed to Give Half of Roadway 47 = III (Explain in Narrative) 70 = Wfong Side - Not Passing
25 = Failed to Heed Waming Sign 48 = Impaired Visibility (Explain in Narrative) 71 = Wrong Way - One Way Road
26 = Failed to Pass to Left Safely 49 = Improper Start from Parked Position 72 = Cell/Mobile Phone Use
27 = Failed to Pass to Right Safely 50 = Load Not Secured 73 = Road Rage
28 = Failed to Signal or Gave Wrong Signal 51 = Opened Door Into Traffic Lane 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative)
29 = Failed to Stop at Proper Place 52 = Oversized Vehicle or Load
30 = Failed to Stop for School Bus 53 = Overtake and Pass Insufficient Clearance
31 = Failed to Stop for Train 54 = Parked and Failed to Set Brakes
32 = Failed to Yield ROW - Emergency Vehicle 55 = Parked in Traffic Lane
38. Weather Condition 39. Lfnht Condition
5 = Defective or No Headlamps 1 = Clear 1 = Daylight 2 = Three Entering Roads - T
6 = Defective or No Stop Lamps 2 = Cloudy 2 = Dark. Not Lighted 3 = Three Entering Roads - Y
7 = Defective or No Tail Lamps 3 = Rain 3 = Dark, Lighted 4 = Four Entering Roads
8 = Defective or No Tum Signal Lamps 4 = Sleet/Hail 4 = Dark, Unknown Lighting 5 = Five Entering Roads
9 = Defective or No Trailer Brakes 5 = Snow 5 = Dawn 6 = Six Entering Roads
10 = Defective or No Vehicle Brakes 6 = Fog 6 = Dusk 7 = Traffic Circle
11 = Defective Steering Mechanism 7 = Blowing Sand/Snow 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative) 8 = Cloverleaf
12 = Defective or Slick Tires 8 = Severe Crosswinds 99 = Unknown 97 = Not Applicable
13 = Defective Trailer Hitch 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative) 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative)
98 = Other (Explain in Narrative) 99 = Unknown
41. Roadway Tvoe 42. Roadway Alignment 11 = Center Stripe/Divider
1 = Two-Way, Not Divided 1 = Straight, Level 1 = Dry 2 = Inoperative (Explain in Narrative) 12 = No Passing Zone
2 = Two-Way, Divided, Unprotected 2 = Straight, Grade 2 = Wet 3 = Officer 13 = RR Gate/Signal
Median 3 = Straight Hillcrest 3 = Standing Water 4 = Flagman 15 = Crosswalk
3 = Two-Way, Divided, Protected 4 = Curve, Level 4 = Snow 5 = Signal Light le = Bike Lane
Median 5 = Curve, Grade 5 = Slush 6 = Flashing Red Light 17 s Marked Lanes
4 = One-Way 6 = Cun/e, Hillcrest 6 = Ice 7 = FlashingYellow Light 18 = Signal Light With Red Light
98 = Other (Explain in Narrative) 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative) 7 = Sand, Mud, Dirt 8 = Stop Sign Running Camera
99 = Unknown 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative) 9 = Yield Sign 95 = None
99 = Unknown 10 = Wbming Sign 93 = Other(Explain in Narrative)
SuppR 027
NHTSA Recall Number 12T-019
Date: July 26, 2012
Subject: SAFETY RECALL NOTICE
Dear BFGoodrich Tire Owner,
This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
BFGoodrich®, a brand owned and operated by Michelin North America , Inc., has decided that
a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in certain BFGoodrich Commercial T/A ®
AlS brand replacement tires and they are included in a recall of approximately 800,000 tires
from the U.S. market. These tires are typical ly found on commercial light trucks and full size
heavy duty vans .
You are receiving this letter because our records indicate that you may have purchased one
or more of the recalled tires. It is possible that anyone of the tires being recalled may
experience tread loss and/or rapid air loss resulting from tread belt separation . This condition
may increase the risk of a vehicle crash.
The following list provides the product descriptions, DOT (Department of Transportation)
sequence identifiers and DOT production periods of the recalled tires. This DOT information
is molded into the sidewall of each tire. The four dashes at the end of the DOT sequence
correspond to the DOT date code that is a 2-digit week and 2-digit year of production, which
are given in the DOT production period information. For example , "4305" refers to the 43"
week of the year 2005.
DOT production
Tire description DOT sequence
periods (inclusive)
LT235/85 R16 120Q LRE
BFGoodrich Commercial TIA AIS
BFOR J D11 --- - 1310 t02912
LT245/75 R16 120Q LRE BE11 JD11 ---- 1310 to 0312
BFGoodrich Commercial TlA AIS BF11 JD11 ---- 1311 to 5211
Tires matching these descriptions and DOT sequence identifiers, but produced outside of the
identified DOT production time periods, are not part of this recall. To determine if you have
received tires that are included in this recall , please check the DOT information found on the
sidewall of the tire as explained on page 4 of this letter.
It is important that all recalled tires be removed from service as soon as possible. The
removed tires will be replaced with a similar product at no cost to you.
SuppR 028
To return and replace recalled tires without charge , please visit your BFGoodrich retailer who
will assist you . To locate a BFGoodrich retailer, please visit the online dealer locator at
www.bfgoodrichtires.com . There is also detailed information about this recall available at:
www.bfgoodrichtires.com/voluntarvsafetyrecall.
If you still have questions after visiting the website and your BFGoodrich retailer, please
contact BFGoodrich Consumer Care at 1-800-637-5527 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
Eastern Time, Monday-Friday, and between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on Saturday.
If your servicing BFGoodrich retailer fails or is unable to provide the service as described
above without charge , you may submit a complaint to the Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington , DC 20590 or call
the toll-free Auto Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY 1-800-424-9153) ; or go to
www.safercar.gov.
Commitment to safety , quality and respect for the customer are our highest priorities . Please
accept our sincerest apology for any inconvenience that replacing these tires may cause you.
Sin cerely ,
Mike Wischhusen
Technical Director
SuppR 029
Reimbursement to Consumers for Affected Tire Replacements Prior to Recall
If you have already paid to have your tires replaced due to the condition associated with this
recall, you may be eligible to receive reimbursement.
Requests for reimbursement may include parts, labor, fees and taxes . Reimbursement may be
limited to the amount the replacement would have cost if completed by an authorized
BFGoodrich retailer. The documentation described below must be presented to the BFGoodrich
Consumer Care department for review.
Original or clear copy of all receipts , invoices and/or repair orders that show:
• The name and address of the person who paid for the replacement
• The model name and size of the tire that was replaced along with the DOT codes
• What problem occurred , when the tire was replaced , and who replaced it
• The total cost of the replacement that is being claimed
• Proof of payment (copy of front and back of cancelled check, or copy of credit card
receipt)
This documentation should be mailed to the following address :
BFGoodrich Consumer Care Department
P.O. Box 19001
Greenville, SC 29602
If your claim is deemed to be valid , reimbursement will be made by check from Michelin North
America . Should your claim be denied, you will receive a letter from Michelin North America
within 60 days of receipt giving the reason(s) for denial.
SuppR 030
READING DOT TIRE SIDEWALL MARKINGS
DOT tire sidewall markings serve as the tire's fingerprint and signify compliance with U.S.
Department of Transportation Minimum Performance Standards. The DOT markings can be
found on the sidewall just above the wheel flange.
To find out if a tire is affected by the recall:
1. Determine if it is one of the following products:
DOT production
Tire description DOT sequence
periods (inclusive)
LT235/85 R16120Q LRE
BFGoodrich Commercial TIA AlS
BFOR JOll -- - - 1310 to 2912
LT245175 R16 120Q LRE BEll JOll ---- 1310 to 0312
BFGoodrich Commercial TlA AlS BFll JOll - - - - 1311 to 5211
If it is not one of these products the tire is not part of the recall.
If it is one of these products , check the DOT information to determine if the tire is
affected by the recall as follows.
2. The following illustrations show the DOT information on a sample of the affected tires.
If you have any questions concerning the tire's DOT information, please contact
BFGoodrich Consumer Care at 1-800-637-5527 .
BFGoodrich Commercial TIA AlS LT235185 R16 1200 LRE
DOT sequence begins with BFOR JD1
and ends with a date code (2-digit week and 2-digit year) between
1310 and 2912 inclusive.
SuppR 031
SuppR 032
SuppR 033
SuppR 034
SuppR 035
SuppR 036
SuppR 037
SuppR 038
SuppR 039
SuppR 040
SuppR 041
SuppR 042
SuppR 043
SuppR 044
SuppR 045
SuppR 046
SuppR 047
SuppR 048
SuppR 049
SuppR 050
SuppR 051
SuppR 052
SuppR 053
SuppR 054
SuppR 055
SuppR 056
SuppR 057
SuppR 058
SuppR 059
SuppR 060
SuppR 061
SuppR 062
SuppR 063
SuppR 064
SuppR 065
SuppR 066
SuppR 067
SuppR 068
SuppR 069
SuppR 070
SuppR 071
SuppR 072
SuppR 073
SuppR 074
SuppR 075
SuppR 076
SuppR 077
SuppR 078
SuppR 079
SuppR 080
SuppR 081
SuppR 082
SuppR 083
SuppR 084
SuppR 085
SuppR 086
SuppR 087
SuppR 088
SuppR 089
SuppR 090
SuppR 091
SuppR 092
SuppR 093
SuppR 094
SuppR 095
SuppR 096
SuppR 097
SuppR 098
SuppR 099
SuppR 100
SuppR 101
SuppR 102
SuppR 103
SuppR 104
SuppR 105
SuppR 106
SuppR 107
SuppR 108
SuppR 109
SuppR 110
SuppR 111
SuppR 112
SuppR 113
SuppR 114
SuppR 115
SuppR 116
SuppR 117
SuppR 118
SuppR 119
SuppR 120
SuppR 121
SuppR 122
SuppR 123
SuppR 124
SuppR 125
SuppR 126
1/23/2015 3:17:55 PM
Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 3882995
By: SALENE SMITH
Filed: 1/23/2015 3:17:55 PM
NO. 2014-57952
KOLLYE KILPATRICK, et al., § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiffs, §
§
AND §
§
ROBERT DWAYNE COLEMAN, et al., §
Intervening Cross-Claimant and Plaintiffs, §
§
VS. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
MICHELIN NORTH AM., INC., et al., §
Defendants. § 152nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
INTERVENORS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MICHELIN’S MOTION FOR
CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON MOTION TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COME NOW Intervenors, Robert Coleman and his sons Blayne Cook and Cameron
Cook, minors, by and through their mother and next friend Kim Coleman (collectively “the
Coleman family”) and file their opposition to the motion for continuance of hearing filed by
Michelin North America, Inc. (hereafter “Michelin”), and would show the Court as follows:
I. Summary
For months, Michelin has been aware of the Coleman family’s request to preserve the
evidence (the two specifically identified tire building machines used to build the failed tire at
issue) and to allow access to those two machines. See, e.g., Ex. 1 – 6.
In fact, on January 2, 2015, at the last hearing in this case, the Coleman family raised its
concern about Michelin’s unwillingness to preserve the evidence the family has asked Michelin
to preserve, and the Court asked us to come back at another time to address that issue.
1
SuppR 127
Now that the parties have re-set that matter for consideration on January 30, Michelin
wishes to postpone that hearing despite the fact that all parties will be appearing before the Court
on another matter (the hearing on Kilpatrick’s Motion to Compel is set for January 30). When
Michelin asked for additional time to respond to the Coleman family’s motion, the Coleman
family offered Michelin additional time to respond to the motion and also offered to postpone the
hearing on the motion to compel if Michelin would agree to preserve the evidence:
If you will agree to my request for preservation of evidence (i.e., if you will
videotape the machines and processes I have requested to observe for in camera
tender to the trial court), I can agree to postpone the hearing on the motion to
compel.
Alternatively, if you would rather just have an extra four days to respond to the
motion to compel (i.e., if you want to serve your affidavits three days before the
hearing instead of the seven days required by Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.4(a)), I can
agree to that if you will serve those affidavits by email so that they are received
by me at least 72 hours before the hearing.
For months, you have been aware of both my discovery request and also my
request for the preservation of evidence, and yet you have not even agreed to
preserve the evidence let alone provided any response to my request for a protocol
to observe the two tires building machines at issue. Under these circumstances,
we cannot agree to put off the hearing unless you will agree to preserve the
evidence as requested above.
Ex. 6. Michelin rejected these offers to provide Michelin with extra time to respond to the
discovery matter which Michelin has known about for several months, and Michelin will not
even agree to preserve the evidence which has been requested.
II. Chronology of Requests for Preservation of Evidence and Access to that Evidence
On September 15, 2014, the Coleman family first informed Michelin of their request to
observe the specific tire building machines used to build the failed subject tire at Michelin’s Fort
Wayne, Indiana plant:
… I agree that your client should have the same access to original evidence in my
clients’ possession (such as the tire) as my client has access to original evidence in
2
SuppR 128
your client’s possession (such as the tire building and tire inspecting rooms at the
Fort Wayne plant and the tire building machines at that plant used to build LT
265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A’s in February of 2011 at the Fort
Wayne plant).
See Ex. 1. Again, on December 10, 2014, the Coleman family requested to observe this original
evidence in Michelin’s possession, and invited Michelin to propose a protocol to govern this
process:
As I mentioned back in September, I wish to inspect (1) the tire inspection room
and the final finish tire inspection process at the Ford Wayne tire plant where the
tire was made as well as (2) the tire building machines which were used to
assemble the innerliner and the steel belts with their nylon reinforcement into the
failed Coleman tire bearing DOT No. BFW802110611. Please send me a
proposed protocol for the inspection of the final finish inspection room, the final
finish inspection process, and two tire building machines (the first stage machine
used to assemble the innerliner and the second stage machine used to assemble
the belt package).
See Ex. 2.
On December 19, 2014, the Coleman family formally requested to observe the specific
tire building machines at issue:
Robert Coleman proposes that the observation should include the machine or
machines used to place the innerliner on the tire building drum and to assemble
the belts and nylon reinforcement into the pre-cured tire (sometimes referred to as
first and second stage tire building machines) on which LT265/75R16 BF
Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires were built in the 6th week of 2011 at
Michelin’s Fort Wayne plant … and the scope of the observation should not
include any sampling or destructive testing and should include nothing more than
a visual observation – including recording by videotape – and be limited to one
hour of observation and videotaping the machines while they are in use.
See Ex. 3. On December 19, the Coleman family also served Michelin with Requests for
Admission regarding the tire building machines at issue; Michelin confirmed that it was in
possession of the specified machines:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 82: Admit Michelin currently has
possession of the first stage tire building machines used to build LT265/75R16 BF
3
SuppR 129
Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT BFW802110611 at the
Fort Wayne plant in the sixth week of 2011.
RESPONSE:
Admitted.
…
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 83: Admit Michelin currently has
possession of the second stage tire building machines used to build LT265/75R16
BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT BFW802110611 at the
Fort Wayne plant in the sixth week of 2011.
RESPONSE:
Admitted.
See Ex. 4.
On December 24, 2014, in response to Michelin’s motion to compel production of the
failed tire, the Coleman family once again notified Michelin of their request that Michelin
preserve the tire building machine evidence at issue so that it might be observed at a later date:
By this specific request, the Coleman family is not seeking production of
documentation about the current status of first and second stage tire building
machines used to assemble LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE
tires were built in the 6th week of 2011 at Michelin’s Fort Wayne plant; the
Coleman family is just seeking to have Michelin document and preserve that
evidence.
See Ex. 5. This issue regarding the specified tire building machines was briefly discussed at the
January 2, 2015 hearing on Michelin’s motion to compel.
Four months have passed since the Coleman family provided Michelin with notice of
their intent to observe specific tire building machines.1 In those four months, Michelin has
refused to discuss a protocol for preservation or observation of this critical evidence.
1Michelin’s motion for continuance mischaracterizes the discovery dispute at issue by stating that “intervenors are
actually seeking … an inspection of the Fort Wayne plant.” To the contrary, the Coleman family only seeks one
hour of limited observation of two machines at the plant, but Michelin’s attempt to mischaracterize the dispute is
immaterial to the motion for continuance so it will be more fully addressed as part of the discovery response.
4
SuppR 130
III. Michelin Rejected Compromises Proposed by the Coleman Family
The Coleman family offered to continue the hearing on their motion to compel access to
the tire building machines if Michelin would agree to videotape the specifically-identified
machines and processes at issue:
If you will agree to my request for preservation of evidence (i.e., if you will
videotape the machines and processes I have requested to observe for in camera
tender to the trial court), I can agree to postpone the hearing on the motion to
compel. Alternatively, if you would rather just have an extra four days to respond
to the motion to compel (i.e., if you want to serve your affidavits three days
before the hearing instead of the seven days required by Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.4(a)),
I can agree to that if you will serve those affidavits by email so that they are
received by me at least 72 hours before the hearing. For months, you have been
aware of both my discovery request and also my request for the preservation of
evidence, and yet you have not even agreed to preserve the evidence let alone
provided any response to my request for a protocol to observe the two tires
building machines at issue. Under these circumstances, we cannot agree to put off
the hearing unless you will agree to preserve the evidence as requested above.
See Ex. 6. Michelin did not agree to videographically preserve the evidence, and Michelin
rejected the Coleman family’s offer to extend Michelin’s deadline to serve a responsive affidavit.
The Coleman family again offered to postpone the hearing on their motion to compel if
Michelin would merely agree to the request for preservation of evidence:
I am willing to offer you two options to accommodate your request for additional
time to respond to the motion to compel:
1. If you want an extra four days to respond to the motion to compel (i.e.,
if you want to serve your affidavits three days before the hearing instead
of the seven days required by Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.4(a)), I can agree to that
if you will serve those affidavits by email so that they are received by me
at least 72 hours before the hearing.
2. If you will agree to my request for preservation of evidence (i.e., if you
will videotape the machines and processes I have requested to observe for
in camera tender to the trial court), I can agree to postpone the hearing on
the motion to compel.
This is far more consideration than you offered me when you scheduled your
motion to compel on January 2 after I specifically told that I was unavailable.
5
SuppR 131
See Ex. 7. Michelin again refused. Furthermore, Michelin again rejected the Coleman family’s
proposed extension of time during which Michelin is allowed to serve its affidavit in response to
the motion to compel. Because Michelin rejected the Coleman family’s efforts to compromise,
the Coleman family must oppose continuation of the hearing.
IV. Continuation Would Frustrate Judicial Economy and Waste Parties’ Resources
The Court has already set Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Michelin North
America, Inc. to Comply with Rule 194 for hearing on January 30, 2014 – the same day on
which the hearing on the Coleman family’s motion to preserve is also set. Continuation of the
hearing on the Coleman family’s motion to a separate date would unnecessarily burden the
Court, would frustrate judicial economy, and would waste the parties’ resources because separate
hearings would necessitate additional travel for the parties’ counsel.
V. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief
The Coleman family requests that this Court deny Michelin’s motion for continuance of
the hearing on the Coleman family’s motion to compel access to specifically-identified tire
building machine, or, in the alternative, motion for entry of an order preserving this evidence.
Respectfully submitted,
___/s/John Blaise Gsanger________
John Blaise Gsanger TX #00786662
THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM
802 N. Carancahua, Suite 1400
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Telephone: (361) 698-7600
Facsimile: (361) 698-7614
jgsanger@edwardsfirm.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
6
SuppR 132
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
The parties have conferred regarding continuation and have been unable to reach an
agreement.
___/s/John Blaise Gsanger________
JOHN BLAISE GSANGER
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was
forwarded to the following counsel in the manner indicated on the 23rd day of January, 2015.
Facsimile: (512) 472-0721
Thomas M. Bullion III
GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, L.L.P.
301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
Facsimile: (713) 523-4159
Robert E. Ammons
THE AMMONS LAW FIRM, LLP
3700 Montrose Boulevard
Houston, Texas 77006
Facsimile: (800) 637-1955
Timothy D. Riley
THE CIVIL JUSTICE CENTER
112 East 4th Street
Houston, Texas 77007-2502
Facsimile: (254) 751-9133
Michael Bourland
WITT, MCGREGOR & BOURLAND, P.L.LC.
8004 Woodway Drive, Suite 400
Waco, Texas 76712-3648
___/s/John Blaise Gsanger________
Counsel for Plaintiffs
7
SuppR 133
THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P, 0, BOX 480
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78403-0480
{361) 698-7600
.JOHN BLAISE. GSANGER FROST BANK PLAZA' .
BOARD CERTIFIED SUITE 1400 78470
CIVIL APPELLATE LAW
TEXAS BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION September 15, 2014 FAX: (361) 698-7614
Tom Bullion Via Facsimile: 512/472-0721
GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, LLP
301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700
Austin, TX 78701
Email: tbullion@germer~austin.com
Re: Date of Crash: August24, 2014
Yom Product: LT 265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A
DOT No: BFW802110611
Dear Tom:
I am writing to you in your capacity as cotmsel for Michelin North America, Inc.
I am investigating a potential claim on behalf of Robert Coleman and his wife, Kim. Mr.
Coleman was involved in an August 24, 2014 crash that resulted from the failure of a BF
Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tire made in February of 2011 by Michelin in Fort Wayne,
Indiana. Mr. Coleman was driving on Texas State Highway 36 when the tread separated from
his left front tire, precipitating the crash. I will forward the Texas Peace Officer's crash report
for yom reference when I receive it.
As prui of my investigation, I intend to examine the subject tire. To facilitate this
examination, I will dismount the failed tire from the wheel rim. I intend to videotape this
process. You and any other representatives from Michelin are welcome to attend. As you can
see from the attached photo, the front of the F~250 is displaced to the left. I will also fold back
or remove the bumper sufficiently to bring the vehicle into my evidence warehouse. Likewise,
this process will be videotaped regardless of whether or not your client or its representative are
present.
If you, Michelin, or any affiliated companies wish to have a representative present during
this dismounting or bumper displacement, please contact me by 12:00 noon on September 18,
2014. If I have not heard from you or another representative of your client by that time, I will
proceed to dismount the tire from the wheel and displace the bumper. Please feel free to contact
me either to arrange for viewing of the dismounting or bumper displacement or if you have any
questions.
This letter also provides notice of breach of warranty and DTP A claims as well as claims
for negligence in the tire manufacturing and design process, negligence in the post~sale duties
Michelin undertook, and strict products liability. This letter also intended gives notice of
anticipated litigation so that Michelin will preserve all evidence relevant to this matter, including
EXHIBIT
i l
SuppR 134
Tom Bullion
GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, LLP
September 15, 2014
Page -2-
-but certainly not limited to -the tire building machines used to build 16 inch light truck tires at
the Fort Wayne plant in 2011, contact information for the tire builders and tire inspectors
working at the Fort Wayne plant in February of 2011, the trial testimony and depositions and
other witness statements of those who have knowledge of the conditions at the Fort Wayne plant,
documentation ofroof leaks and repairs at the Fort Wayne plant during 2011, documentation of
insect and animal infestation at the Fort Wayne plant in 2011, the training and work procedure
materials and videotapes for tire builders and tire inspectors working at the Fort Wayne plant in
2011, the training and work procedure materials for Michelin personnel who reviewed tires made
in 2011 and returned under warranty, information about property damage claims and injury or
death claims involving 16 inch light ti:uclc tires, information Michelin repotied to any
government agency about 16 inch light truck tires, documentation of Michelin's destruction of
the Light Truck Task Force documents at a time when light truck claims against Michelin were
pending, marketing literatme for 16 inch light truck tires sold by Michelin, the complete reaction
limits and tolerances and complete tire building manual and aspect classifications and decision
trees applicable to BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tires made at the Fort Wayne plant, the
specifications for 265/75R16 tires made by Michelin in 2011 and the alternative design
specifications for other tires made by Michelin in 2011 with additional durability-enhancing or
tread-separation reducing design featmes which were omitted from the LT 265/75R16 BF
Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A's design.
Best regards,
THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM
P.S. I am happy to have you inspect the tire as often as you wish and for as long as you wish
provided that this original evidence remains in my custody while your client inspects it pursuant
to Rule 196.3(b) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. From past experience, I know you
would prefer to take custody of the tire to have it inspected at an unknown location by
unidentified persons according to an undisclosed protocoL I cannot agree to that, but I agree that
your client should have the same access to original evidence in my clients' possession (such as
the tire) as my client has access to original evidence in your client's possession (such as the tire
building and tire inspecting rooms at the Fort Wayne plant and the tire building machines at that
plant used to build LT 265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A's in February of2011 at the
Fort Wayne plant).
SuppR 135
Tom Bullion
GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, LLP
September 15, 2014
Page -2-
cc:
Giles M. Schanen Via Facsimile: 864/250-2375
NELSON MULLINS RJLEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
Poinsett Plaza
104 South Main Street, Greenville, SC 29601
Email: giles.schanen@,nelsonmullins.com
SuppR 136
SuppR 137
THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P, 0, BOX 4BO
Co:RPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78403-0480
(361) 69B-7600
.JOHN BLAISE GSANGER FROST BANK PLAZA
BOARD CERTIFIED SUITE 14-00 78470
CIVIL APPELLATE LAW
TEXAS SOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION FAX: (361) 698-7614
December 10, 2014
VIA FACSIMILE: (512) 472-0721
GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, LLP
301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700
Austin, TX 78701
Email: tbu ll iQ!l((i1germgr-au_stin.com
Re: Cause No. 2014-57952; Kollye Kilpatrick, Individually as Heir at Law and
Representative of the Estate of Beverly Ann Kilpatrick, deceased; Eric Kilpatrick,· and
Karen Kilpatrick v. Michelin North America, Inc. and Robert Dwayne Coleman; In the
152nd Judicial District, Harris County, Texas.
Dear Kathy:
Michael Bourland and Tim Riley forwarded a copy of your December 9 letter about inspecting
the failed Coleman tire to me.
As I mentioned in my prior correspondence with Tom Bullion (attached), I have been
investigating the August 24 crash resulting from the failure of the LT265/75RI6 BF Goodrich Rugged
Terrain T/Atire bearing DOT No. BFW802110611.
I understand that your client will want to inspect the original tire evidence rather than a mere
copy or photographs of the tire. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.3(b). I am happy to produce the original tire as it
is kept in the ordinary course of business for inspection either at my office or at my warehouse.
Moreover, I am happy for you, Mr. Bullion, your client, and your client's representatives to inspect the
tire as often as you want and for as many different inspections as you may want, but preservation of this
key piece of evidence in my clients' possession custody and control is of paramount importance.
Accordingly, please see the attached inspection protocol previously agreed in this matter. If this protocol
is acceptable, please ask Mr. Bullion to sign the agreement below Rob Ammons' signature.
As I mentioned back in September, I wish to inspect (1) the tire inspection room and the final
finish tire inspection process at the Ford Wayne tire plant where the tire was made as well as (2) the tire
building machines which were used to assemble the irmerliner and the steel belts with their nylon
reinforcement into the failed Coleman tire bearing DOT No. BFW802110611. Please send me a proposed
protocol for the inspection of the final finish inspection room, the final finish inspection process, and two
tire building machines (the first stage machine used to assemble the im1erliner and the second stage
machine used to assemble the belt package).
Best regards,
EXHIBIT
SuppR 138
Tom Bullion
GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, LLP
December 10, 2014
Page -2-
cc:
VIA FACSIMILE: (800) 637-1955
Tim Riley
Riley Law Firm
The Civil Justice Center
112 East 4 1h Street
Houston, Texas 77007
VIA FACSIMILE: (254) 751-9134
Michael Bourland
Witt, McGregor & Bourland, PLLC
8004 Woodway Drive, Suite 400
Waco, Texas 76712
VIA FACSIMILE: (713) 523-4159
Rob Ammons
Bennett Midlo
The Ammons Law Firm
3700 Montrose Blvd.
Houston, Texas 77006
SuppR 139
THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM
ATTORNEYS AT LAw
P. O, SOX 480
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78403·04$0
(3611 698-7600
JOHN BLAISE GSANGER FROST SANK PLAZA: .
BOARD CERTIFIED SUITE 1400 7B470
CIVIl APPELLATE LAW
TEXAS BQARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION September 15, 2014 FAX! (3€{1) 698~7614
Tom Bullion Via Facsimile: 5121472-0721
GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, LLP
301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700
Austin, TX 78701
Email: tbullion@ge.rmer-austin.com
Re: Date of Crash: August 24, 2014
Your Product: LT 265/75Rl6 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A
DOTNo: BFW802110611
Dear Tom:
I am writing to you in your capacity as co1msel for Michelin North America, Inc.
I am investigating a potential claim on behalf of Robert Coleman and his wife, Kim. Mr.
Coleman was involved in an August 24, 2014 crash that resulted from the failure of a BF
Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tire made in February of 2011 by Michelin in Fort Wayne,
Indiana. Mr. Coleman was dtiving on Texas State Highway 36 when the tread separated from
his left front tire, precipitating the crash. I will forward the Texas Peace Officer's crash report
for your reference when I receive it.
As pmt of my investigation, I intend to examine the subject tire. To facilitate this
examination, I will dismount the failed tire from the wheel riin. I intend to videotape this
process. You and any other representatives from Michelin are welcome to attend. As you can
see from the attached photo, the front of the F-250 is displaced to the left. I will also fold back
or remove the bumper sufficiently to bring the vehicle into my evidence warehouse. Likewise,
this process will be videotaped regardless of whether or not your client or its representative are
present.
If you, Michelin, or any affiliated companies wish to have a represet1tative present durin:g
this dismotmting or bumper displacement, please contact me by 12:00 noon on Septembet 18,
2014. If I have not heard from you or m1other representative of your client by that time, I will
proceed to dismount the tire from the wheel and displace the bumper. Please feel free to contact
me either to anange for viewing of the dismounting or bumper displacement or if you have any
questions.
This letter also provides notice of breach of warranty and DTP A claims as well as claims
for negligence in the tire manufacturing and design process, negligence in the post-sale duties
Michelin 1.mde1took, and strict products liability. This letter also intended gives notice of
anticipated litigation so that Michelin will preserve all evidence relevant to this matter, including
SuppR 140
Tom Bullion
GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, LLP
September 15,2014
Page -2-
-but certainly not limited to- the tire building machines used to build 16 i1ich.light truck tires at
the Fort Wayne plant in 2011, co11tact information for the tire builders and tire inspectors
worldng at the Fort Wayne plant in February of 2011, the trial testimony and depositions and
other witness statements of those who have knowledge of the conditions at the Fort Wayne plant,
documentation of roof leaks and repairs at the F01t Wayne plant during 2011, documentation of
insect and animal infestation at the Fmt Wayne plant in 2011, the training and work procedure
materials and videotapes for tire builders and tire inspectors working at the Fort Wayne plant in
2011, the training and work procedure materials for Michelin personnel who reviewed tires made
in 2011 and returned lmder warranty, information about property damage claims and injury or
death claims involving 16 inch light truck tires, information Michelin reported to any
government agency about 16 inch light truck tires, documentation of Michelin's destruction of
the Light Truck Task Force documents at a time when light truck claims against Michelin were
pending, marketing literature for 16 inch light truck tires sold by Michelin, the complete reaction
limits and tolerances and complete tire building manual and aspect classifications and decision
trees applicable to BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tires made at the Fott Wayne plant, the
specifications for 265/75R16 tires made by Michelin in 2011 and the alternative design
specifications fot other tires made by Michelin in 2011 with additional durability-enhancing or
tread-separation reducing design features which were omitted from the LT 265/75R16 BF
Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A's design.
Best regards,
THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM
P.S. I am happy to have you inspect the tire as often as you wish and for as long as you wish
provided that this original evidence remains in my custody while your client inspects it pursuant
to Rule 196.3(b) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. From past experience, I lmow you
would prefer to take custody of the tire to have it inspected at an unlmown location by
llnidentified persons according to an undisclosed protocol. I cannot agree to that, but I agree that
your client should have the same access to original evidence i11my clients' possession (such as
the tire) as my client has access to original evidence in your client's possession (such as the tire
building and tire inspecting rooms at the Fott Wayne plant and the tire building machines at that
plant used to build LT 265/75R16 BF GoodtichRugged Terrain T/A's in February of2011 at the
F01t Wayne plant).
SuppR 141
Tom Bullion
GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, LLP
September 15, 2014
Page -2-
cc:
Giles M. Schanen Via Facsimile: 864/250-2375
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
Poinsett Plaza
104 South Main Street, Greenville, SC 29601
Email: giles.schanen@nelsonmullins.com
SuppR 142
SuppR 143
SEP. 9. 2014 10: 50AM N0.0301 P. 1
T:a:E EDWARDS LAW FIRM
· .h?:TOBNI:oli'G AT 'W.W
P• Ot LlQX •·•HtQ
CoJU'\l'$ CHXXII7'~, TEX/1.$ ?'B403•0.(1.aO
(3Eill 301 P. 2
8. 1 on will !lOt use a tire spr~ader or other tools to spread or putt apart any part of the tiN (if you W~lJlt to
use a. tire spreader you must get my advance wd~ten approval of the spreadel' you lnteXld to use and any
such spt'eader may only be used in the presenc~: of the repres0ntative of Robert Coleman OJ' while being
videotaped with the vide(Jtapos disolosed to Robe•t Coleman's representative within 7 days).
9. You will not conduct sheaNgraphy on the tire (if you wm1t to $hearog1'aph the tire, you will ileed to
obtain my advance written approv11l of the fMillty and methods to be used atl.d such methods may only
be used h1 the presence of the representative of Robert Coleman or while behlg videotaped with the
videotape.s disclosed to Robert Coleman's representative ·within 7 days),
l 0. You will not Hay on the ti.re or tire pie~ces (if you W1lilr1m leave my possession by written agreement, you and your client
will be responsible for the tire illld tire pieces and >>'heel rim from the time they leave my possession
until they are received by my oft)ce upon its Mum from )'ou or your cli~r1t
Tbi$ protocol is intended to ·!lugmcnt ourpriot agt·eement about the evidc.ncl:l in t.Qiii ca.$el and it is not
lntend~d that thel'e should be any conflict bmveen this a~reement and that prior 11greement, Any such confliot (lf
011e eXJ.sts) should be resolved by deferring to the prior agteernent. Please retum a. signed copy of tb.is agt·eement
to my office.
Bast l'egardsl
SuppR 145
NO. 2014~57952
KOLLYE KILPATRICK, Individually as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Heir at Law and Representative of the §
Estate ofBEVERLY ANN KILPATRICK, §
Deceased; ERIC KILPATRICK; and §
KAREN KILPATRICK §
Plaintiffs, §
§
AND §
§
ROBERT DWAYNE COLEMAN, §
Individually, and KIMBERLY COLEMAN §
as Next Friend ofBLA YNE MICHAEL §
COOK and CAMERON BAILEY COOK, §
mmors, §
Intervening Plaintiffs and Cross-Claimant, §
§
vs. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., BF §
GOODRICH in its assumed or common §
name, and ROBERT DWAYNE §
COLEMAN §
Defendants. § 152nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
INTERVENING COLEMANS' REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE, FIRST REQUESTS
FOR ADMISSION, INTERROGATORY, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO
DEFENDANT, MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.
TO: Defendant, MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., by and through its attorney Thomas M
Bullion III, Germer Beaman & Brown, L.L.P. 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin,
Texas 78701
COME NOW Intervening Cross-Claimant and Plaintiffs, Robert Dwayne Coleman
Individually and Kim Coleman as Next Friend of Blayne Michael Cook and Cameron Bailey
Cook, minors, (hereinafter, "The Coleman Family") in the above-styled and numbered cause and
file the following Request for Disclosure, First Requests for Admissions, Intenogatory, and
Requests for Production to Defendant Michelin North America, Inc., under the provisions of
EXHIBIT
SuppR 146
Rules 194, 196, 197, and 198, TEx. R. CIV. P., and require that answers to the same be filed no
later than thirty (30) days after the date of service hereof.
Please Note:
Failing to fully respond, giving incomplete or false answers, or abusing the discovery
process in any manner may result in the imposition of discovery sanctions against you, including,
but not limited to, a default judgment, an order disallowing further discovery, taking facts as
established, precluding the introduction of evidence, treating such abuses as contempt of court,
and requiring the payment of the Hall family's expenses and attorney's fees. See TEx.R.Crv.P.
215.
The undersigned attorney, as one of the attorneys of record for the Plaintiffs, certifies that
true and correct copies of the attached document have been forwarded to the registered agent
listed above.
Respectfully submitted,
THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM
802 N. Carancahua, Suite 1400
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Telephone No. (361) 698~7600
Facsimile No. (361) 698-7614
By: Is/ John Blaise Gsanger
John Blaise Gsanger
State Bar No. 00786662
jgsanger@edwardsfim1.com
Gary Scott Marshall
State Bar No'. 24077207
smarshall@edwardsfirm.com
ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENING PLAINTIFFS
ColemanFirstRFD, RFA, Interrogatories, andRFP to Defendant, Michelin 2
SuppR 147
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and conect copy of the above and foregoing document was
forwarded to the following counsel in the manner indicated on the 19th day of December, 2014.
Facsimile: (512) 472-0721
Thomas M. Bullion III
Germer Beaman & Brown, L.L.P.
301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
Facsimile: (713) 523-4159
Robert E. Ammons
The Ammons Law Finn, LLP
3700 Montrose Boulevard
Houston, Texas 77006
Facsimile: (800) 637-1955
Timothy D. Riley
The Civil Justice Center
112 East 4th Street
Houston, Texas 77007-2502
Facsimile: (254) 751-9133
Michael Bourland
Witt, McGregor & Bourland, P .L.LC.
8004 Woodway Drive, Suite 400
Waco, Texas 76712-3648
/s/ John Blaise Gsanger
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Coleman First RFD, RFA, Interrogatories, and RFP to Defendant, Michelin 3
SuppR 148
responsibilities included tire building or tire inspecting, (f) the falsification of inspections on
inspection documentation, (g) allegations of insufficient time for employees to perform quality
tire building or quality tire inspecting, (h) the use of out of specification tire components in the
tire assembly processes, (i) the use of rubber or rubber-coated tire components which had lost
some of their tackiness before being implemented in the tire assembly process, G) the use of
solvent in an attempt to restore tackiness to rubber or rubber-coated tire components which had
lost some of their tackiness before being implemented in the tire assembly process, (k) trapped
air in tires during the tire assembly or curing or inspection processes, (1) trapped moisture in tires
during the tire assembly or curing or inspection processes, (m) voids in tires during the tire
assembly or curing or inspection processes, (n) blows in tires during the tire assembly or curing
or inspection processes, (o) separations between components in tires during the tire assembly or
curing or inspection processes, (p) contamination in tires during the tire assembly or curing or
inspection processes, (q) misplacement of tire components as noticed in the tire assembly or
curing or inspection processes, (r) improper splicing of tire components as noticed in the tire
assembly or curing or inspection processes, and (s) the failure of the cured tire inspection process
to detect defects before tires were sold to customers.
REQUEST FOR ENTRY UPON LAND: Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196.7,
Robert Coleman requests to enter upon property; specifically, entry upon Michelin's tire plant in
Woodbum, Indiana (located near Fort Wayne, Indiana; this plant is hereafter referr-ed to as the
"Fort Wayne plant"). In order to obtain substantive evidence of the manufacturing processes
most similar to the first and second stage tire manufacturing processes used to assemble the
failed LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tire at issue and to obtain
substantive evidence of the proposed safer altemative design, Robert Coleman requests to
visually inspect and video graphically document the tire building machines at the plant subject to
the following protocol and limitations:
Robert Coleman requests one hour of limited access to particular tire buildh1g machines
at Continental's Mt. Vernon, Illinois facility at a mutually agreed time and date within 60 days
from the date of this request. Robert Coleman requests that his only representatives allowed to
attend the observation should be his attomeys, his tire failure analysis experts, and a
videographer selected by Robert Coleman. Robeti Coleman proposes that all who attend the
observation should sign whatever confidentiality requirements that Michelin should request
provided that such confidentiality is consistent with Texas law and the infonnation obtained can
be had and videographically recorded for use in this case by Robert Coleman's counsel and his
tire failure analysis expetis. Robert Coleman proposes that each side should bear its own costs.
Robert Coleman proposes that the observation should include the machine or machines used to
place the innerliner on the tire building drum and to assemble the belts and nylon reinforcement
into the pre-cured tire (sometimes referred to as first and second stage tire building machines) on
which LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terr-ain T/A LRE tires were built in the 6th week of
2011 at Michelin's Fort Wayne plant (or, in the altemative, observation of the most similar tire
building machines to be identified by Michelin if the specific tire building machines on which
LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires were built in the 6th week of 2011
cannot be identified). Robert Coleman proposes that the observation should include visually
inspecting and videotaping the machines while they are in use building light truck car tires, and
the scope of the observation should not include any sampling or destructive testing and should
Coleman First RFD, RFA, Interrogatories, and RFP to Defendant, Michelin 20
SuppR 149
include nothing more than a visual observation - including recording by videotape - and be
limited to one hour of observation and videotaping the machines while they are in use. Robert
Coleman proposes that the observation should include:
(a) 15 minutes of observation of the first stage tire building process conducted in a
manner as near as is practical to the first stage tire building processes implemented in
building LT265/75Rl6 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires built in the 6th week
of2011 at Michelin's Fort Wayne plant,
(b) 15 minutes of observation of the second stage tire building process conducted in a
manner as near as is practical to the second stage tire building processes implemented in
LT265/75Rl6 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires built in the 6th week of2011
at Michelin's Fort Wayne plant,
(c) 15 minutes of observation of the second stage tire building process where ajointless
nylon strip spirally wound over the belts in at least two layers and covering a greater
portion of the belt package as compared to the portion of the belt package covered by
nylon in the LT265/75Rl6 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires built in the 6th
week of 2011 is being applied to a light truck car tire as similar as practical to
LT265/75Rl6 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires built in the 6th week of2011
at Michelin's Fort Wayne plant, and
(d) 15 minutes of observation of the second stage tire building process where Filament at
Zero is being applied to a light truck tire car tire as similar as practical to a LT265/75R16
BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires were built in the 6th week of2011.
Robert Coleman proposes that the videotaping should occur while these machines are in
normal use. Robert Coleman proposes that his counsel, his tire failure experts, and his
videographer who would attend the observation should be identified within seven days of when
the inspection protocol is agreed or ordered by the court and should present photographic
identification in the form of a driver's license or similar government issues identification before
entering the plant, and that all such attendees should wear visitor badges the entire time they are
in the plant (ifMichelin requests), should be accompanied and escmied by Michelin's personnel
at all times they are in the plant (if Michelin requests), should wear hardhats and safety glasses
and ear protection and steel toed boots during the observation (if Michelin requests), should not
interrupt or interfere with the equipment or the normal operations of the plant or plant
employees, and should not attempt to speak with any plant personnel except for their escorts.
Robert Coleman proposes that his representatives should not be allowed to videotape any other
area of the plant except the tire building machines being observed and should not bring recording
or photographing or videotaping devices other than the videographer's equipment to the
observation. Robert Coleman proposes that Michelin should be allowed to take whatever steps
it deems appropriate to limit access so that access includes only access to the particular machines
and processes to be videotaped as set out above. Robeti Coleman proposes that Michelin should
be allowed to conduct its own videotaping of the inspection. Robert Coleman proposes that
Michelin should be allowed to all videotapes should be copied and provided to the other side
within 10 days after the observation of the tire building machines. Robert Coleman proposes that
Coleman First RFD, RFA, Interrogatories, and RFP to Defendant, Michelin 21
SuppR 150
the videotapes as well as any documentation of the equipment and processes recorded during the
inspection should be governed by whatever confidentiality requirements that Michelin should
request provided that such confidentiality is consistent with Texas law and the information
obtained can be had and videographically recorded for use in this case by Robert Coleman's
counsel and his tire failure analysis expetis.
In the alternative, if Michelin would prefer, Robert Coleman would agree to protocols
based on the attached order. See Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
If Michelin refuses to allow the entry upon land as requested above, Robert Coleman
requests that Michelin preserve and document the evidence by videotaping the same machines
and the same processes without Robert Coleman or his representatives being present and fmiher
requests that Michelin file such videotapes under seal with the trial court as pennitted pursuant
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a.
Coleman First RFD, RFA, Interrogatories, and RFP to Defendant, Michelin 22
SuppR 151
IN THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SEDGWICK COUNTY, KANSAS
' • • ' ' '' ' ' t
FiLED
•
. ...
~· I I
~:
•'t
_, ___
CIVIL COURT DEPARTMENT 2012 ocr -LJ p 3• Sb
LORENA HERNANDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ) . '.: ·. :;, :'.' ..':';1: DIS rRIC T
·~ .. • • ··,,1 ,:•.':·L DISTRICT
AS NEXT FRIEND OF ERIKA DELGADILLO
HERNANDEZ, A MINOR
)
)
• ' I ', \ .• ... NTY. /'i,'INSAS
.... _,..._, __
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Case No. 11 CV 3904
COOPER TIRE AND RUBBER CO., MARY )
BELLE HERNANDEZ, AND HERIBERTO )
GOMEZ 0/B/A GOMEZ CUSTOM WHEELS )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION REQUESTING
INSPECTION OF THE TIRE BUILDING MACHINES
After considering Plaintiffs' Motion Regarding The Tire, ·The Tire Building
Machines, And The Identity Of The Tire Workers, and Defendant's Response, this Court
ORDERS that the request to inspect tire building machines is GRANTED as follows:
Plaintiffs shall be provided one hour of limited access to particular tire building
machines at Cooper's Texarkana, Arkansas facility at a mutually agreed time and date or
beginning at 9:00 a.m. 60 days from the date of this Order if a mutually agreed upon time
and date within the next 60 days cannot be agreed upon in writing by the Plaintiffs'
counsel and Cooper's counsel. Plaintiffs' representatives allowed to attend the inspection
are limited to Plaintiffs' attorneys (limited to Plaintiffs' counsel as of July 19, 2012),
Plaintiffs' experts (tire failure experts only), and a photographer-videographer selected by
Plaintiffs' counsel, and ali such Plaintiffs' representatives shall sign the protective order
in this case before the inspection begins. Each side will bear its own costs.
1
EXHIBIT
`` OCT 8 2012
SuppR 152
Inspection of the machines is limited to one hour. The inspection will include
videotape for 30 minutes ofthe operation of first and second stage tire building machines
on which 31 x 10.5Rl5 LT Cooper Discoverer tires were built in February of 2004 (or.
the most similar first and second stage tire building machine to be identified by Cooper if
the specific first and second stage tire building machines on which 31 x 10 .5R15 LT
Cooper Discoverer tires were built in February of 2004 cannot be identified). Cooper
shall that the discretion to select the tire which is being videotaped while being build and
shall exercise that discretion to minimize the differences in the tire building process of
the tire being videotaped and the tire building processes used to make 31 x 10.5R15 L T
Cooper Discoverer tires in February of2004. The inspection will include videotape for 15
minutes of the tire building machines assembling nylon belt reinforcement (or SNOW)
into 15 inch tires and videotape for 15 minutes of the tire building machines assembling
belt edge gum strips (or BEGS) into 15 inch tires (with the machines to be selected by
Cooper). The videotaping will occur while these machines are in normal use. Plaintiffs'
attorneys, Plaintiffs' experts, and the photographer~videographer shall identifY
themselves before entering the plant, shall wear visitor badges the entire time they are in
the plant (if Cooper requests), shall be accompanied and escorted by Cooper's personnel
at all times they are in the plant, shaH wear hardhats and safety glasses and ear protection
and steel toed boots during the inspection, shall not interrupt or interfere with the
equipment or the normal operations of the plant or plant employees, and shall not attempt
to speak with any plant personnel except for their escorts. Plaintiffs' attorneys, Plaintiffs'
2
SuppR 153
experts, arid the photographer-videographer shall not be allowed to videotape or
photograph any other area of the plant except the tire building machines being inspection
and shall not bring recording or photographing or videotaping devices other than the
videographer' s equipment to the inspection.
Cooper may take whatever steps it deems appropriate to limit access so that access
includes only access to the particular machines and processes to be videotaped as set out ·.:
.::
above. Cooper is also free to conduct its own videotaping and photographing of the
inspection. All videotapes and photographs will be copied and provided to the other side
within 10 days after the inspection of the tire building machines. The videotapes and
!·.;
photographs as well as any documentation of the equipment and processes recorded
during the inspection will be governed by the protective order in this case.
Signed this _ _ day of August 2012.
I'L{{i~/t
JUDGE PRESIDING
3
SuppR 154
``···~ ELECTRONICALLY PIL.ED
");\iJ,\' 1/21/2014 3;23 :PM
,. 03-CV-2011-900647.00
·•11·;,/
CIRCUIT C01JRT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
TIFFANY B. MCCORD, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT JN AND FOR
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
DEAN LILJEBERG and SHERRY §
LILJEBERG~ ' §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
. v. § 03-CV-2011-900647.00
§
CONTINENTAL TIRE TI:IE §
AMERICAS, LLC; et al.; §
§
Defendants: §
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION REQUESTJNG
INSPECTION o;.r.THE TIRE BU:~LDING MACHINE&
After considering Flaintiff.'3' Motion To Compel Access To Tire Building
Machines~ and Defendant's Response, this Court ORDERS that-the request to inspect tire
building machines is GRANTED as follows:
Plaintiffs shall be provided one hour of limited access to particular tire building
machines at Continenta.l1 s Mt. Vernon, :r11inois facility at a mutually agreed time and date
or beginning at.9:00 a.m. 60 days from the date of this Order if a mutually agreed upon
thne and date within the next 60 days cannot be agreed upon in writing by the Plaintiffs'
counsel and Continental's counsel. Plaintiffs' repres~ntatives allowed to attend the
inspection are limited to Plaintiffs' attorneys, Plaintiffs' tire failure experts, and a
photographer~videographer selected by Plaintiffs' counsel, and all such Plaintiffs'
representatives shall sign the protective order in this case before the mspection begins.
Each side will bear its own costs.
EXHIBIT
1
&l,
~
J!l-
R
...,.
SuppR 155
'I" •
Inspection of the machines is limited to one hour. The inspection will include the
machine or machines used to place the innerliner on the tire ~uilding drum and to
assemble the belts into the pre-cured tire (sometimes ref~'t.red to as first and second stage
tire building machines) on which P265170Rl7 ContiTrac SUV tires were built in the 17~
week of 2006 at Continental's Mount Vernon, Illinois tire plant (or, in the alternative,
inspection of the most similar tire building machines to be identified by Cofi:tinental if the
specific tire building machines on which P265/70R17 ContiTrac SUV tires were built in
the 17th week of 2006 cannot be identified). The inspection will include visually
inspecting and videotaping the machines while they are in use building passenger car
tires, and the scope of the inspection shall not include any sampling or destructive testing
and shall include nothing more than a visual inspection -. including recording by
videotape - and be limited to one hour of inspection and videotaping the machines while
they are in use. The inspection will include (a.) 15 minutes of observation of the first
stage tire building process conducted in a manner as ne.ar as is practical to the first stage
tire building processes implemented in building P265170R17 ContiTrac SUV tires were
built in the 17th week of2006 at Continental's Mount Vernon tire plru1t, (b) 15 minutes
of observation of the second stage tire building process conducted in a manner as near as
.is practical to the second stage tire buildi11g processes implemented in building
P265170R17 ContiT:tac SUV tires were built in the 17th week of 2006 at Coni:inental's
Mount Ve:rnQn tire plant, (c) 15 minutes of observation of the second stage tire building
process where a jointless nylon strip spirally wound over the belts is being applied to a
2
SuppR 156
r· '
passenger car tire as similar as practical to a P265/70R17 ContiTrac SUV tires, and (d) 15
minutes of observation of the second stage tire building process where a wider nylon c~p
(either :full~crown~width or in stdps wider than those ·used in P265/70R17 ContiTrac SUV
tires made in the 17th week of 2006 at Continental's Motint Vernon tire plant) is being ·
applied to a passenger car tire as similar as practical to a P265/70R17 CotltiTrac SUV
tires. The videotaping will occur while these machines are in nonnal use.
Plaintiflll attorneys, Plaintiffs' experts) and the photographer-videographer shall
identify themselves before entering the plant, shall wear visitor badges the enth·e time
they are in the plant (if Continental requests), shall be accompanied and escorted by
Continental's personnel at ,all times they are in the plant (if Continental requests), shall
wear hardhats and safety glasses and ear protection and steel toed boots duririg the
inspection (provided at Plaintiffs' expense}, shall not interrupt or· interfere with the'
equipment or the normal. operations of the phmt or plant employees, and shall not attempt
to speak ·with any plant persmmel except for their escorts. Plaintiffs' attorneys, Plaintiffs'
experts, and .the photographer.videographer shall not be allowed to videotape or
photograph any other area of the plant except the tire building machines being inspection
and shall not bring recording or phqtographlng ·or videotaping devices other than the
' .
v.ideographer' s equipment to the inspection.
Continental may take whatever steps it deems appropriate to limit access so that
access includ.es only access to the particular machines and processes to be videotaped as
set out above. Continental is also free to conduct its own videotaping and photographing
3
SuppR 157
of the inspection. All videotapes and photographs will be copied and provided to
the other side within 10 days after the inspection of the tire building machines.
The videotapes. and photographs as well as any docwnentation of the equipment
and processes recorded during the inspection will be governed by the protective ·
order in this case.
This Order will be stayed for 30 days to allow Continental to initiate any
appeal it may desire.
'2014.
SuppR 158
ALL-SEASON TIRE BENEFITS OF MICHELIN" LATITUDE" TOUR HP TIRES:
7 WEAR LIFE • Better Handling in Rain
arid Snow than Leading
~ FUELEFFICIENCY
Competitors. 1 2-D Active Sipes
.:IJ ) OFF·ROAD help deliver better handling in rain
Tread Block 2-D Active Sipes
and snow by locking together for
• • • • • • • • •(1@)0 .-BRAKING with Normal Sipes
greater rigidity.
·······~
2
COMFORT
• High-Speed Confidence.2 2
Experience a stable feel and crisp steering at
high speeds thanks to precisely placed polyester 2
and aramid/nylon filaments (FAZ Technology'") p;
under the tread. Aramid is the material that
makes .bulletproof vests bulletproof. FAZ Technology'"
i
• Fuel-Efficient to Reduce Harmful Emissions. Reduce fuel
consumption thanks to a combination of a fuel-efficient tire shape and tread 2
compounds that reduce unnecessary friction when the tire rolls.
2
Popular Replacement Market Fitments:
Porsche Cayenne • Volkswagen Touareg • Me.rcedes M-Ciass • Acura MDX
See pages 10-11 for details. 'lf;MZdl/#!/,'1
p;
1 Based on third-party snow traction and wet braking test results versus Bridgestone• Dueler" Hll Alenza'' tires, Pi
Continental' 4x4 Contact" tires and Pirelli' Scorpion STR" tires.
2 Exceeding the safe, legal speed limit Is neither recommended nor endorsed. 2
;i
2
25'
SuppR 159
SuppR 160
SuppR 161
SuppR 162
SuppR 163
SuppR 164
SuppR 165
SuppR 166
SuppR 167
SuppR 168
SuppR 169
SuppR 170
SuppR 171
SuppR 172
SuppR 173
SuppR 174
SuppR 175
SuppR 176
SuppR 177
SuppR 178
SuppR 179
SuppR 180
SuppR 181
NO. 2014-57952
KOLLYE KILPATRICK, et al., § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiffs, §
§
AND §
§
ROBERT COLEMAN, et al., §
Intervenors, §
§
VS. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
MICHELIN N. AM., INC., et al, §
Defendants. § 152nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
BENCH BRIEF ON BURDEN SHIFTING TO PARTY SEEKING
DISCOVERY IF RESISTING PARTY PROVES TRADE SECRECY
(THE BURDEN NEVER SHIFTED BUT WAS NEVERTHELESS MET)
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COME NOW Intervenors, Robert Coleman and his sons Blayne Cook
and Cameron Cook, minors, by and through their mother and next friend
Kim Coleman (collectively “the Coleman family”) in the above-captioned
cause and file Bench Brief on Burden Shifting to Party Seeking Discovery If
Resisting Party Proves Trade Secrecy (The Burden Never Shifted But Was
Nevertheless Met):
Michelin failed to prove that one hour of access to the tire building
machines would violate any trade secrecy privilege. If – but only if –
Michelin had met this burden, the Coleman family would need to show that
SuppR 182
the discovery requested was reasonably necessary for a fair adjudication of
this case:
“[W]hen trade secret privilege is asserted as the basis for
resisting production, the trial court must determine [(1)]
whether the requested production constitutes a trade
secret; [(2)] if so, the court must require the party seeking
production to show reasonable necessity for the requested
materials.” In re Bass, 113 S.W.3d 735, 738 (Tex. 2003). …
Once trade secret status has been established, the burden
shifts to [the party seeking the discovery] to establish that the
information is “necessary or essential to the fair adjudication of
the case, weighing the requesting party's need for the
information against the potential of harm to the resisting party
from disclosure.” Bridgestone/Firestone, 106 S.W.3d at 732.
We have not “state[d] conclusively what would or would not be
considered necessary for a fair adjudication, indicating instead
that the application of the test would depend on the
circumstances presented.” Id. “[T]he degree to which
information is necessary in a case depends on the nature of the
information and the context of the case.” Id.
In re Union Pac. R.R. Co., 294 S.W.3d 589, 591-92 (Tex. 2009) (orig.
proceeding).
The Texas Supreme Court has expressly rejected the idea that the
burden to show reasonable necessity for the requested materials means
showing “the requesting party cannot prevail without” that discovery. In re
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 106 S.W.3d 730, 732 (Tex. 2003). Instead, a
party the “reasonable necessity” burden is met where it is “possible for a
party to prevail without access to trade secret information and yet be unfair
2
SuppR 183
to put him to much weaker proof without the information.” Id. The
“requesting party must describe with particularity how the protected
information is required to reach conclusions in the case.” John Paul
Mitchell Sys. v. Randalls Food Markets, Inc., 17 S.W.3d 721, 739 (Tex.
App. - Austin 2000, pet. denied). The Coleman family met this burden with
the affidavits of Troy Cottles, Dennis Carlson, John Daws, and the
deposition testimony of Joe Grant. Based on this evidence, the “trial
court's role [is] to weigh the degree of the requesting party's need for the
information against the potential harm of disclosure to the resisting party.”
Id. at 738.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Coleman family
respectfully requests that the Court overrule Michelin’s objections and
claims of privilege and grant the motion to compel.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/John Blaise Gsanger
John Blaise Gsanger TX #00786662
THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM
802 N. Carancahua, Suite 1400
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Telephone: (361) 698-7600
Facsimile: (361) 698-7614
jgsanger@edwardsfirm.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
3
SuppR 184
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and
foregoing document was forwarded to the following counsel in attendance
by hand delivery on16th day of March, 2015.
Thomas M. Bullion III Timothy D. Riley
Chris A. Blackerby THE CIVIL JUSTICE CENTER
GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, LLP 112 East 4th Street
301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Houston, Texas 77007-2502
Austin, Texas 78701
Michael Bourland
Giles M. Schanen, Jr. WITT, MCGREGOR & BOURLAND,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & P.L.LC.
SCARBOROUGH, LLP 8004 Woodway Drive, Suite 400
104 South Main Street, 9th Floor Waco, Texas 76712-3648
Greenville, SC 29601
Robert E. Ammons
Bennett A. Midlo
THE AMMONS LAW FIRM, LLP
3700 Montrose Boulevard /s/John Blaise Gsanger
Houston, Texas 77006 Counsel for Intervenors
4
SuppR 185
CAUSE NO.
NO. 2014-57952
2014-57952
KOLLYE KILPATRICK,INDIVIDUALLY,
KOLLYE KILPATRICK, INDIVIDUALLY, ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
AS HEIR AT LAW AND REPRESENTATIVE
REPRESENTATIVE))
OF THE ESTATE OF BEVERLY ANN )
KILPATRICK, DECEASED; ERIC )
KILPATRICK; AND KAREN
KILPATRICK; AND KARENKILPATRICK,
KILPATRICK, )
)
PLAINTIFFS, )
)
AND )
)
ROBERT DWAYNE COLEMAN, )
INDIVIDUALLY, AND KIMBERLY )
COLEMAN AS NEXT FRIEND OF B M C ) HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
AND C B C, MINORS )
))
INTERVENING CROSS-CLAIMANT
CROSS-CLAIMANT )
AND PLAINTIFFS )
))
VS. ))
))
MICHELIN NORTHAMERICA,
MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA,INC.
INC. AND )
AND
ROBERT DWAYNE COLEMAN,
ROBERTDWAYNECOLEMAN, ))
))
DEFENDANTS. )) 152ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
))
MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA,
AMERICA, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
INTERVENING COLEMANS' FIRST
FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION,
INTERROGATORY, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO
DEFENDANT, MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.
TO: Intervening Colemans', by
Intervening Colemans', by and through their counsel
counsel of
of record,
record, John
John Blaise
Blaise Gsanger,
Gsanger,
Gary Scott Marshall,
Marshall, The Edwards
Edwards Law Firm, 802 N. Carancahua,
Carancahua, Suite
Suite 1400,
1400, Corpus
Corpus
Christi, Texas 78401.
COMES NOW Michelin
COMES NOW Michelin North America, Inc. ("MNA"), defendant in the above-styled
America, Inc. above-styled
and numbered cause,
cause, and submits these, its responses
responses and objections
objections to Intervening Colemans'
First Requests for Admission, Interrogatory, and Requests for Production to Defendant, Michelin
North America, Inc.
SuppR 186
Respectfully submitted,
GERMER BEAMAN & & BROWN, PLLC
301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 472-0288 Telephone
(512) 472-0721
472-0721 Facsimile
.
By:
Thomas M. Bullion III P
State Bar No.
No. 03331005
Chris A. Blackerby
State Bar No.
No. 00787091
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.
4517897 2
SuppR 187
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby
hereby certify
certify that
that aa true
true and
and correct
correct copy
copy of
ofthe
theforegoing
foregoing document
document has
has been
been
forwarded to all known counsel of of record as set forth below on this 16th day of
of January, 2015.
John Gsanger Via Certified Mail,
Mail, Return Receipt Requested
The Edwards Law Firm
802 N. Carancahua, Ste. 1400
Frost Bank Plaza
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Robert E. Ammons Via Regular Mail
Jacquelyn W. Blott
The Ammons Law Firm,
Finn, LLP
3700 Montrose Boulevard
Houston, Texas 77006
Houston, Texas
Michael E. Bourland Via Regular Mail
Witt, McGregor &
& Bourland, PLLC
8004 Woodway Drive, Suite 400
Waco, Texas 76712
Timothy D. "Tim" Riley Via Regular Mail
Riley Law Firm
Finn
The Civil Justice Center
112 East 4th Street
Houston, Texas 77007
e...
Wf
Thomas M. Bullion II/Chris A. Blackerby
4517897 3
SuppR 188
INTRODUCTION
The tire at issue in this case is a LT265/75R16 BFGoodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tire
bearing DOT number BFW802110611
BFW802110611 (the
(the "tire
"tire in
in question").
question"). The
The tire in
in question
question was designed
by MNA and manufactured by MNA
manufactured by MNA during the 6th week
during the week of
of 2011
2011 at
at its
its Fort
Fort Wayne,
Wayne, Indiana
Indiana
plant.
plant. MNA's
MNA'sresponses
responses are
are limited
limited to
to information
information concerning the tire in
concerning the in question
question and tires
manufactured to the
manufactured to the specification
specification in
in place
place for
for the
the tire
tire in question
question by MNA at its Fort
Fort Wayne,
Wayne,
Indiana plant during the six months
during the before and the six months after the date of
months before of manufacture of
the tire in question.
question. There
There are
are no
no tires
tires common
common green
green to the tire in question.
TRADE SECRETS OBJECTION
MNA objects
objects to many
many of
of the
the discovery
discovery requests
requests because
because they
they seek
seek information
information and/or
and/or
documents that are
documents that are of
of aa confidential,
confidential, proprietary
proprietary or
or commercially
commercially sensitive
sensitive nature
nature to MNA,
MNA,
exempt from discovery under notions of constitutional privacy and/or that may be covered by or
be the
the subject
subject of
ofexpress
express or
orimplied
impliedconfidentiality,
confidentiality, secrecy
secrecy or
or nonpublication
nonpublication agreements
agreements or
understandings.
understandings. To
To the
the extent
extent necessary,
necessary, MNA objects
objects to the discovery
discovery requests
requests in that they
seek the discovery
discovery of
of trade
trade secret
secret information
information and
and documents,
documents, including
including confidential
confidential research,
development and technical
technical information.
information. MNA
MNA states
states that
that information
information and documents responsive
to some of
of the discovery requests may have been withheld because these discovery requests seek
privileged information and
privileged information and privileged
privileged documents
documentsthat
that constitute
constitutethe
the trade
trade secrets
secrets of MNA.
MNA.
Disclosure of these
Disclosure of these trade
trade secrets
secrets would
would result
result in
in substantial
substantial prejudice and harm
prejudice and harm to MNA.
MNA.
Therefore, MNA contends
Therefore, MNA contends itit is
is essential to MNA's operations
essential to operations that its
its work
work and
and documents
documents
remain confidential.
Texas law protects
protects the
the disclosure
disclosure ofMNA's
of MNA's trade
trade secrets.
secrets. A trade secret
secret may consist of
any trade formula, pattern, device
formula, pattern, device or
or compilation of information
compilation of information that
that isis used
used in
in one's business
business
and gives one an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.
4517897 4
SuppR 189
Computer Assoc. Int'l, Inc.
Inc. v.
v. Altai,
Altai, Inc., 918
918 S.W.2d
S.W.2d 453, 453 (Tex. 1996)
453,453 1996) (citing Hyde Corp. v.
Huffines, 314 S.W.2d 763, 776 (1958)).
MNA's
MNA's confidential
confidential policies,
policies, research,
research, development
development and
and technical
technical information
information are
are
valuable and crucial
valuable and crucial trade
trade secrets
secrets of MNA
MNA that
that give
give it an
an advantage
advantage over its competitors
competitors in a
highly
highly competitive and secretive
competitive and secretive industry.
industry. Moreover,
Moreover, MNA
MNA makes
makes reasonable
reasonable efforts
efforts to
maintain the secrecy
maintain the secrecy of this information, the information
information, the is of substantial
information is value to MNA,
substantial value MNA, the
information would be very valuable to MNA's competitors,
competitors, and
and the information derives its value
by virtue of the effort of its creation and lack of dissemination.
dissemination. Accordingly
Accordingly MNA believes such
information constitutes a trade secret and should be protected from disclosure.
Unless
Unless otherwise stated in
otherwise stated in its
its responses,
responses, MNA
MNA is
is not
notwithholding
withholding any
any privileged
privileged
documents/information withinthe
documents/information within therelevant
relevantscope.
scope. However, to the extent
However, to extent intervenors
intervenors do not
agree
agree with
with the
the scope
scope of
of MNA's
MNA's discovery
discovery responses, MNA reserves
responses, MNA reserves the
the right
right to
to have
have its
objections to scope
objections to ruled upon
scope ruled upon prior
prior to expanding the scope
expanding the scope of its responses
responses and its search
search for
responsive and/or privileged documents/information.
Subject to the foregoing, MNA hereby answers the individual requests as follows:
follows:
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 1:1: Admit
Admit Michelin
Michelin has
has no
no knowledge,
knowledge, information,
information, or
belief formed
fonned after reasonable inquiry to dispute that on August 24, 2014, Robert Coleman was
reasonable inquiry
driving his 2001 Ford F-250 pickup eastbound on Highway 36 near County Road 112.
RESPONSE:
MNA
MNA admits
admits that the Texas
Texas Department
Department of Public
Public Safety
Safety Fatality
Fatality Report
Report states
states that
that
Robert Coleman was driving the Ford F-250 and was traveling eastbound on US-190 at the time
of
of the accident.
4517897 5
SuppR 190
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.2:2: Admit
Admit Michelin
Michelin has
has no
no knowledge,
knowledge, information,
information, or
belief formed
formed after reasonable inquiry to
reasonable inquiry to dispute
dispute that
that Robert
Robert Coleman is a resident of
Coleman is of Spring,
Spring,
Texas, in Harris County.
RESPONSE:
Despite a reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to
enable MNA to admit or deny this request.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.3:3: Admit
Admit Michelin
Michelin has
has no
no knowledge,
knowledge, information,
information, or
belief formed after reasonable inquiry
inquiry to
to dispute that Robert Coleman was
was a resident of Spring,
Texas, in Harris County on August 24, 2014.
RESPONSE:
Despite a reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to
enable MNA to admit or deny this request.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.4:4: Admit
Admit Michelin
Michelin has no
no knowledge,
knowledge, info! nation, or
information,
belief formed
formed after reasonable inquiry to
reasonable inquiry to dispute
dispute that Mr. Coleman
Coleman was traveling
traveling within the
speed limit and within his lane when the tread detached from his
detached from his left front
front tire on August
August 24,
2014.
RESPONSE:
Subject to and
Subject to and without
without waiving
waiving the following
following objections, MNA states
objections, MNA states that
that despite
despite a
reasonable inquiry,
inquiry, the information
information known
known or easily obtainable
obtainable is insufficient to enable MNA to
admit or deny
admit or deny this
this request.
request. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this
objects to this request on the
request on the grounds
grounds that
that it
impermissibly calls for
impermissibly calls for the
the premature disclosure of expert
premature disclosure opinions and
expert opinions and materials.
materials. Discovery
Discovery
regarding testifying experts
regarding testifying experts isis limited
limited to
to aa request
request for
for disclosure
disclosure and
and depositions.
depositions. Tex. R. Civ.
Civ.
Proc. 195.1.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.5:5: Admit
Admit Michelin
Michelin has
has no
no knowledge,
knowledge, information,
information, or
belief formed after reasonable inquiry to
reasonable inquiry to dispute
dispute that Mr.
Mr. Coleman was
was wearing
wearing his seatbelt at
the time of
of the crash he experienced on August 24, 2014.
RESPONSE:
Subject to and
Subject to and without
without waiving
waiving the following
following objections, MNA states
objections, MNA states that
that despite
despite a
reasonable inquiry,
inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable MNA to
4517897 6
SuppR 191
admit or deny
admit or deny this
this request.
request. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this
objects to this request
request on
on the
the grounds
grounds that
that it
impermissibly
impermissibly calls
calls for
for the premature disclosure of expert
premature disclosure expert opinions
opinions and materials.
materials. Discovery
Discovery
regarding testifying
regarding testifying experts
experts is
is limited
limited to
to a request
request for
for disclosure
disclosure and
and depositions. Civ.
depositions. Tex. R. Civ.
Proc. 195.1.
REQUEST FOR
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 6:6: Admit
Admit Michelin
Michelin has
has no
no knowledge,
knowledge, information,
information, or
belief formed after reasonable
reasonable inquiry to dispute that Blayne Cook,
Cook, a passenger in the pickup at
of the crash, was wearing his seatbelt
the time of seatbelt at the time of
of the crash
crash he experienced
experienced on August
24, 2014.
24,2014.
RESPONSE:
Subject to and
Subject to and without
without waiving
waiving the following
following objections, MNA states
objections, MNA states that
that despite
despite a
reasonable inquiry,
inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable MNA to
admit or deny
admit or deny this
this request.
request. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this
objects to this request
request on
on the
the grounds
grounds that
that it
impermissibly calls for
impermissibly calls for the
the premature
premature disclosure
disclosure of expert
expert opinions
opinions and materials.
materials. Discovery
Discovery
regarding testifying experts
regarding testifying experts isis limited
limited to
to a request
request for
for disclosure
disclosure and
and depositions.
depositions. Tex. R. Civ.
Civ.
Proc. 195.1.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 7:7: Admit
Admit Michelin
Michelin has
has no
no knowledge,
knowledge, information,
information, or
belief
belief formed after reasonable inquiry to dispute that Cameron Cook, a passenger in the pickup at
the time of
of the crash, was wearing his seatbelt at the time of
of the crash
crash he experienced
experienced on August
24, 2014.
RESPONSE:
Subject to and
Subject to and without
without waiving
waiving the following
foilowing objections, MNA states
objections, MNA states that
that despite
despite a
reasonable inquiry, the infotiiiation
information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable MNA to
admit or
admit deny this
or deny this request.
request. MNA
MNA further
further objects
objects to this request
to this request on
on the
the grounds
grounds that
that it
impermissibly calls
impermissibly calls for
for the premature disclosure
the premature disclosure of expert
expert opinions
opinions and materials.
materials. Discovery
Discovery
regarding testifying experts
regarding testifying experts isis limited
limited to
to a request
request for
for disclosure
disclosure and
and depositions.
depositions. Tex. R. Civ.
Civ.
Proc. 195.1.
4517897 7
SuppR 192
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 8:8: Admit
Admit Michelin
Michelin has
has no
no knowledge,
knowledge, information,
information, or
belief
belief formed after reasonable inquiry to dispute that Matthew Plum, a passenger in the pickup at
the time of
of the crash,
crash, was wearing his seatbelt
seatbelt at the time of
of the crash he experienced on August
24, 2014.
24,2014.
RESPONSE:
Subject to and
Subject to and without
without waiving
waiving the following
following objections, MNA states
objections, MNA states that
that despite
despite a
reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable MNA to
admit or deny
admit or deny this
this request.
request. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this
objects to this request on the grounds
request on grounds that
that it
impermissibly calls for
impermissibly calls for the
the premature
premature disclosure
disclosure of expert
expert opinions and materials.
opinions and materials. Discovery
Discovery
regarding testifying experts
regarding testifying experts isis limited
limited to
to aa request
request for
for disclosure
disclosure and
and depositions.
depositions. Tex. R. Civ.
Civ.
Proc. 195.1.
195 .1.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 9:
9: Admit
Admit that all
all tires sold
sold in the United
United States
States with DOT
number BFW802110611 were placed in the stream of commerce by Michelin.
RESPONSE:
Admitted.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 10:
10: Admit
Admit that
that all
all tires
tires sold
sold in the United States with DOT
number BFW802110611
BFW80211 0611 were designed by Michelin.
RESPONSE:
Admitted.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO.NO. 11:
11: Admit
Admit that
that all
all tires
tires sold
sold in
in the United States
States with DOT
number BFW802110611
BFW802110611 were made at Michelin's Fort Wayne tire plant.
RESPONSE:
Admitted.
4517897 8
SuppR 193
REQUEST
REQUEST FORFORADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO.12:12: Admit
NO. Admit that
that the
the designation "LT" in
designation "LT" in the
the size
size
LT265/75R16 associated with
LT265/75R16 associated with the
the BF
BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain
Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A
T/A LRE
LRE tire bearing
bearing DOT
DOT
BFW802110611 indicates that the tire was foreseeably used on a light truck.
RESPONSE:
MNA denies this request as written.
written. MNA
MNA admits
admits that
that if
if aa tire size
size begins with "LT" it is
a light-truck metric size.
size. MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request as
as being vague and
and ambiguous in its use of
the tem_
term "was foreseeably used".
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 13:
13: Admit
Admit that
that the
the designation
designation "Rugged Terrain"
Terrain" in the
LT265/75R16
LT265/7 5R16 BF BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain
Goodrich Rugged TIA LRE
Terrain T/A LRE tire
tire bearing
bearing DOT
DOTBFW802110611
BFW80211 0611
indicates that the tire was foreseeably used on rugged terrain.
RESPONSE:
Admitted.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 14:
14: Admit
Admit that the designation "T/A" in the LT265/75R16
LT265/75R16
BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tire bearing DOT BFW802110611
BFW802110611 indicates that the tire
was foreseeably used for in situations where a traction advantage was required.
RESPONSE:
Denied. MNA
MNAobjects
objects to
to this
this request
request as
as being
being vague
vague and
and ambiguous
ambiguous in its use of the term
"situations where a traction advantage was required".
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FORADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO.NO. 15:15: Admit that the
Admit that the designation "LRE" in
designation "LRE" in the
the
LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tire bearing
LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tire bearing DOT BFW802110611 DOT BFW802110611
indicates that the tire was foreseeably used for tasks requiring a heavy load range rating of
of E.
RESPONSE:
Denied. MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request as
as being
being vague
vague and
and ambiguous
ambiguous in its use of
of the term
"was foreseeably used".
4517897 9
SuppR 194
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 16:
16: Admit
Admit that
that in
in accordance
accordance with the requirements of
of the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Michelin has identified defects
defects which relate to
motor vehicle safety pursuant to NHTSA Recall Number 12T-019.
RESPONSE:
MNA objects
MNA objects to because it is overly
to this request because overly broad
broad and
and seeks
seeks documents
documents that are
are
relevant to
neither relevant
neither to the matter of this
subject matter
the subject this case
case nor
nor reasonably
reasonably calculated
calculated to
to lead
lead to the
to the
discovery of
discovery of admissible
admissibleevidence.
evidence. The
The tire question was
tire in question was not at
at issue
issue in
in NHTSA
NHTSA Recall
Recall
Number 12T-019.
REQUEST FOR
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 17: Admit that
17: Admit that drivers
drivers who
who experience
experience tread loss and/or
and/or
rapid air loss
loss resulting from tread belt separation" experience foreseen driving conditions that
resulting from tread belt separation" experience foreseen driving conditions
of a vehicle crash.
increase the risk of
RESPONSE:
Despite a reasonable inquiry, the information
infoimation known or easily obtainable is insufficient to
enable MNA to
to admit or deny
deny this
this request
request at
at this
this time.
time. The
The issue
issue regarding the increased risk of
a vehicle crash in this case is whether the alleged tread loss
alleged tread loss and/or
and/or rapid
rapid air
air loss
loss in
in the
the tire
tire in
question
question should have caused
should have caused a vehicle crash,
crash, which MNA denies,
denies, not whether
whether aa hypothetical
hypothetical
tread loss and/or rapid air loss increases the risk of a vehicle crash in the abstract.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 18:
18: Admit
Admit that
that aa defect
defect that manifests in a tread separation
is a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety.
RESPONSE:
Denied.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 19:
19: Admit
Admit Michelin
Michelin has
has no
no knowledge,
knowledge, information,
information, or
belief formed
formed after reasonable inquiry
after reasonable inquiry to
to dispute
dispute that
that the
the failed
failed tire
tire was
was cured during
during the first
week of
of February in 2011.
RESPONSE:
MNA admits
MNA admits only
only that
that the tire in question
the tire question was
was cured
cured during the 6th week
during the week of
of 2011.
2011.
Despite a reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable
MNA to further admit or deny this request at this time.
4517897 10
SuppR 195
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.20:
20: Admit
Admit Michelin
Michelin has
has no
no knowledge,
knowledge, infonjiation,
information, or
belief formed after reasonable inquiry to dispute that the failed tire was assembled as a green tire
as much as a week prior to the first week of
of February in 2011.
RESPONSE:
Despite a reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to
enable MNA to admit or deny this request at this time.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 21:
21: Admit
Admit Michelin
Michelin has
has no
no knowledge,
knowledge, information,
information, or
belief formed
formed after
after reasonable inquiry to
reasonable inquiry to dispute
dispute that
that the
the components
components ofof the
the failed
failed tire were
were
created up to a week or more prior to assembly.
RESPONSE:
Despite a reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to
enable MNA to admit or deny this request at this time.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 22:
22: Admit
Admit Michelin
Michelin has
has no
no knowledge,
knowledge, information,
information, or
belief formed reasonable inquiry
formed after reasonable inquiry to
to dispute
dispute that
that it snowed in Fort Wayne,
Wayne, Indiana
Indiana during
the period beginning the last week of January of 2011
beginning with the 2011 and running through
through the
the end of the
first week of
of February of 2011.
of2011.
RESPONSE:
MNA admits that it does not have or maintain information indicating that it did or did not
snow in Fort Wayne, Indiana during the last week of January of2011
of 2011 through the end of the first
week of
of February 2011.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 23:
23: Admit
Admit Michelin
Michelin hashas no
no knowledge,
knowledge, information,
information, or
belief formed after reasonable inquiry to dispute that it rained in Fort Wayne, Indiana during the
belieftormed
period beginning
beginning with the
the last week of January
January of 2011
2011 and running through thethe end of the first
week ofof February of 2011.
of2011.
RESPONSE:
MNA admits that it does not have or maintain information indicating that it did or did not
rain in Fort Wayne, Indiana during the last week of January of2011
of 2011 through the end of the first
ofthe
week of
of February 2011.
4517897 11
SuppR 196
REQUEST
REQUEST FORFOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.24:
24: Admit that the tire building room
room at Michelin's Fort
Wayne, Indiana tire plant is covered by a large flat roof.
RESPONSE:
Admitted.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 25:
25: Admit
Admit Michelin
Michelin has
has no
no knowledge,
knowledge, information,
information, or
belief formed
formed after reasonable inquiry
after reasonable inquiry to
to dispute
dispute that
that the
the roof on the Fort Wayne
Wayne plant
plant leaked
leaked
when it rained in 2011.
RESPONSE:
MNA admits that at some point during 2011
2011 the roof of the Fort Wayne plant leaked and
was repaired. MNA
MN Afurther
further admits
admits that
that itit does
does not
not have
have or
or maintain
maintain information to determine the
dates within the
the relevant
relevant scope
scope that
that itit rained
rained in
in Fort
Fort Wayne,
Wayne, Indiana.
Indiana. To the extent
extent this request
request
seeks information outside the
information outside the relevant
relevant scope,
scope, MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request because
because it is overly
overly
broad
broad and
and seeks
seeks information that isis neither
information that neither relevant
relevant to
to the
the subject matter of this
subject matter this case
case nor
nor
reasonably calculated to
to lead to the discovery
discovery of admissible
admissible evidence.
evidence. Intervenors have failed to
limit the scope of
of this request to the time period relevant to this action.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 26:
26: Admit
Admit Michelin
Michelin has
has no
no knowledge,
knowledge, information,
information, or
belief formed
formed after reasonable inquiry
after reasonable inquiry to
to dispute
dispute that
that the
the roof on the Fort Wayne
Wayne plant leaked
leaked
when it had melting snow on it in 2011.
RESPONSE:
MNA admits that at some point during 2011
2011 the roof of the Fort Wayne plant leaked and
was repaired. MNA
MNA further
further admits
admits that
that itit does
does not
not have
have or
or maintain information to determine the
dates within the relevant scope
scope that
that it snowed
snowed in
in Fort
Fort Wayne,
Wayne, Indiana.
Indiana. To the extent this request
seeks information outside the
information outside the relevant
relevant scope,
scope, MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request because
because it is overly
overly
broad
broad and
and seeks
seeks information that is
information that is neither relevant to
neither relevant to the
the subject matter of this
subject matter this case
case nor
nor
reasonably calculated to
to lead to
to the discovery
discovery of admissible
admissible evidence.
evidence. Intervenors have failed to
limit the scope of
of this request to the time period relevant to this action.
4517897 12
SuppR 197
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.27:
27: Admit
Admit that
that according
according to information
information in Michelin's
possession, Michelin's employees
possession, Michelin's employeesand and ex-employees
ex-employeesworking
workingininthe
the tire
tire building
building and
and tire
inspection rooms at Michelin's Fort
Fort Wayne plant in 2011 eye-witnessed roof leaks.
roofleaks.
RESPONSE:
Denied as stated.
stated. MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request as
as improper
improper because
because it asks
asks MNA to admit
or deny
deny intervenors'
intervenors' characterization of deposition
characterization of testimony contained
deposition testimony contained in
in a document
document that
that
speaks for itself.
speaks for itself. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request
objects to request because
because itit is overly
overly broad
broad and not
not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions
concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.28:
28: Admit
Admit that
that according
according to information
information in Michelin's
possession, Michelin's employees
possession, Michelin's employeesand and ex-employees
ex-employeesworking
workingininthe
the tire
tire building and tire
building and
inspection rooms at Michelin's Fort Wayne plant in 2011 eye-witnessed puddled water.
RESPONSE:
Denied as stated.
stated. MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request as
as improper
improper because
because it asks MNA to admit
or deny
deny intervenors'
intervenors' characterization of deposition
characterization of testimony contained
deposition testimony contained in
in a document
document that
speaks for itself.
speaks for itself. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this
objects to this request
request because
because itit is overly
overly broad
broad and not
not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions
concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.29:
29: Admit
Admit that
that according
according to information
information in Michelin's
possession, Michelin's employees
possession, Michelin's employeesandand ex-employees
ex-employeesworking
workingininthe
the tire
tire building
building and
and tire
tire
inspection rooms at
inspection rooms at Michelin's
Michelin's Fort
Fort Wayne plant in 2011
Wayne plant 2011 eye-witnessed
eye-witnessed thethe use
use of
of plastic
plastic
sheeting to divert leaks.
RESPONSE:
Denied as stated.
stated. MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request as
as improper
improper because it asks MNA to admit
or deny
deny intervenors'
intervenors' characterization of deposition
characterization of testimony contained
deposition testimony contained in
in a document
document that
speaks for itself.
speaks for itself. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request
objects to request because
because itit is overly
overly broad
broad and
and not
not
4517897 13
SuppR 198
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions
concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 30:
30: Admit that according to Michelin's employees
employees and ex-
employees working in the tire building and tire component preparation
preparation rooms
rooms at
at Michelin's Fort
Wayne plant in 2011
2011 eye-witnessed the use of of rubber and rubber-coated components that had lost
some of
of their tack prior to their use in the assembly of
of a green tire.
RESPONSE:
Denied as stated.
stated. MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request as
as improper
improper because it asks MNA to admit
or deny
deny intervenors'
intervenors' characterization of deposition
characterization of testimony contained
deposition testimony contained in
in a document
document that
that
speaks for itself.
speaks for itself. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this
objects to this request
request because
because itit is overly
overly broad
broad and
and not
not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions
concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 31:
31: Admit
Admit that according to Michelin's employees and ex-
employees working in the tire building and tire component preparation rooms
rooms at Michelin's Fort
Wayne plant in 2011 eye-witnessed the use of
of solvents in an attempt to restore the tack of
of rubber
and rubber-coated components.
RESPONSE:
Denied as stated.
stated. MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request as
as improper
improper because it asks MNA to admit
or deny
deny intervenors'
intervenors' characterization of deposition
characterization of testimony contained
deposition testimony contained in
in a document
document that
that
speaks for itself.
speaks for itself. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request
objects to request because
because itit is overly
overly broad
broad and not
not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions
concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.
4517897 14
SuppR 199
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 32:
32: Admit
Admit that according to Michelin's employees
employees and ex-
employees working
working in the tire building and
and tire component preparation
preparation rooms
rooms at
at Michelin's
Michelin's Fort
Wayne plant in 2011 eye-witnessed the lax enforcement of of standards to avoid misplacement and
improper splicing of
of the steel belts.
RESPONSE:
Denied as stated. MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request as
as improper
improper because
because it asks
asks MNA to admit
or deny
deny intervenors'
intervenors' characterization of deposition
characterization of testimony contained
deposition testimony contained in
in a document
document that
that
speaks for itself.
speaks for itself. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request
objects to request because
because itit is overly
overly broad
broad and not
not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions
concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 33:
33: Admit that according to Michelin's employees
employees and ex-
employees working in the tire
employees working tire building and tire component preparation
preparation rooms
rooms at
at Michelin's Fort
Wayne plant in 2011
2011 eye-witnessed the lax enforcement of standards to avoid misplacement and
improper splicing of
of rubber and rubber-coated components surround the steel belts.
RESPONSE:
Denied as stated.
stated. MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request as
as improper
improper because it asks MNA to admit
or deny
deny intervenors'
intervenors' characterization of deposition
characterization of testimony contained
deposition testimony contained in
in a document
document that
that
speaks for itself.
speaks for itself MNA
MNA further
further objects
objects to this
this request
request because
because it is
is overly
overly broad
broad and
and not
not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions
concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.34:34: Admit
Admit that
that the
the quality
quality control
control inspection
inspection process
process in
the final finish department is Michelin's principal opportunity to identify defects in cured tires in
order to scrap or repair those defective tires before they reach the consumer.
RESPONSE:
Denied.
4517897 15
SuppR 200
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 35:
35: Admit
Admit that according to Michelin's employees
employees and ex-
employees working in the final finish room at Michelin's Fort Wayne, Indiana plant in 2011
2011 eye-
witnessed the lax enforcement of
of standards.
RESPONSE:
Denied as stated.
stated. MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request as
as improper
improper because it asks MNA to admit
or deny
deny intervenors'
intervenors' characterization of deposition
characterization of testimony contained
deposition testimony contained in
in a document
document that
speaks for itself.
speaks for itself. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request
objects to request because
because itit is overly
overly broad
broad and
and not
not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions
concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 36:
36: Admit that according to Michelin's employees
employees and ex-
employees working in the final finish room at Michelin's Fort Wayne, Indiana plant in 2011
2011 eye-
witnessed falsification of
of inspections.
RESPONSE:
Denied as stated.
stated. MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request as
as improper
improper because it asks MNA to admit
or deny
deny intervenors'
intervenors' characterization of deposition
characterization of testimony contained
deposition testimony contained in
in a document
document that
that
speaks for itself.
speaks for itself. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request
objects to request because
because itit is overly
overly broad
broad and
and not
not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions
concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 37:
37: Admit
Admit that according to Michelin's employees and ex-
employees working in the final finish room at Michelin's Fort Wayne, Indiana plant in 2011 eye-
witnessed on-the-job sexual misconduct.
RESPONSE:
Denied as stated. MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request as
as improper
improper because it asks MNA to admit
or deny
deny intervenors'
intervenors' characterization
characterization of deposition testimony contained
deposition testimony contained in
in a document
document that
that
speaks for itself.
speaks for itself. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this
objects to this request
request because
because itit is overly
overly broad
broad and
and not
not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions
concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.
4517897 16
SuppR 201
REQUEST
REQUEST FORFOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.38:38: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin has
hasAspect
AspectClassification
Classification
documents which set forth some of
of the standards which Michelin has recognized.
RESPONSE:
Admitted.
Admitted. MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to the
the extent
extent this
this request
request seeks
seeks or
or attempts
attempts to seek
seek trade secret,
proprietary,
proprietary, or otherwise commercially confidential
otherwise commercially confidential business
businessinformation
informationof
ofMNA.
MNA. Pursuant to
Rule
Rule 507
507 of
of the
the Texas
Texas Rules
Rules of
ofEvidence,
Evidence, MNA
MNA asserts
asserts trade
trade secret
secret protection
protection for
for such
such
information.
information. MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request because
because itit seeks
seeks information
information that is neither relevant to
the subject matter of this case
case nor
nor reasonably
reasonably calculated
calculated to lead to the
the discovery
discovery of
of admissible
admissible
evidence.
evidence. MNA
MNA objects
objects to this
this request
request as
as being overly broad.
broad. Intervenors
Intervenors have
have failed
failed to limit
the scope of
of this request to the time period relevant to this action.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.39:39: Admit
Admit that
thatMichelin's
Michelin'sAspect
AspectClassification
Classification
documents
documents have annexes, glossaries, illustrations, photographs,
photographs, and attachments with additional
additional
information and caveats pertaining to the standards which Michelin has recognized in the past.
RESPONSE:
MNA
MNA objects to the extent
objects to extent this
this request
request seeks
seeks or
or attempts
attempts to
to seek
seek information
information that
that
constitutes commercially
commercially sensitive,
sensitive, confidential
confidential business
business information
information of
of MNA.
MNA. Pursuant to Rule
507 of
of the Texas
Texas Rules
Rules of
of Evidence,
Evidence, MNA
MNA asserts
asserts trade
trade secret
secret protection
protection for
for such
such information.
information.
MNA objects to this request
request as
as being
being overly
overly broad.
broad. Intervenors
Intervenors have failed to limit the scope of
this request to the time period relevant to this action.
REQUEST
REQUEST FORFOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.40:
40: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin has aa Product
Product Standards
Standards and
and
Guidelines Manual for
Guidelines Manual for Required
Required Tire Dimensional Tolerances which
Dimensional Tolerances which sets
sets forth the
the standards
standards
which Michelin has recognized.
RESPONSE:
Denied.
4517897 17
SuppR 202
REQUEST ADMISSIONS NO.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 41:
41: Admit
Admit that Michelin
Michelin has work procedures for the tire
builders which set forth standards which Michelin has recognized.
RESPONSE:
MNA
MNA admits
admits it has work procedures
procedures for
for tire
tire builders.
builders. MNA
MNA objects
objects to the extent
extent this
request
request seeks
seeks or
or attempts
attempts to
to seek
seektrade
tradesecret,
secret,proprietary,
proprietary, ororotherwise
otherwisecommercially
commercially
confidential businessinformation
confidential business informationofofMNA.
MNA. Pursuant
Pursuanttoto Rule
Rule 507
507 of
of the
the Texas
Texas Rules
Rules of
Evidence, MNA asserts
Evidence, MNA asserts trade
trade secret
secret protection
protectionfor
for such
such information.
infoiiiiation. MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to this
request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculatedtoto lead
reasonably calculated lead to
to the
the discovery of admissible
discovery of admissible evidence.
evidence. MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to
request as being
request as being overly
overly broad.
broad. Intervenors
Intervenors have failed
failed to limit the scope
scope of
of this request to the
time period relevant to this action.
REQUEST ADMISSIONS NO.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 42:
42: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin hashas training
training materials
materials including
videotapes and tests
videotapes and tests for
for the
the tire
tire builders
builders which
which set
set forth
forth standards
standards which
which Michelin
Michelin has
has
recognized.
RESPONSE:
MNA admits has training
admits it has materials for
training materials for tire
tire builders.
builders. MNA
MNA objects
objects to the extent
extent this
request
request seeks
seeks or
or attempts
attempts to
to seek
seektrade
tradesecret,
secret,proprietary,
proprietary, ororotherwise
otherwisecommercially
commercially
confidential businessinformation
confidential business informationofofMNA.
MNA. Pursuant
Pursuanttoto Rule
Rule 507
507 of
of the
the Texas
Texas Rules
Rules of
Evidence, MNA asserts
Evidence, MNA asserts trade
trade secret
secret protection
protectionfor
for such
such information.
information. MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to
request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculatedtoto lead
reasonably calculated lead to
to the
the discovery of admissible
discovery of admissible evidence.
evidence. MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to
request as being
request as being overly
overly broad.
broad. Intervenors
Intervenors have failed
failed to limit the scope
scope of
of this request to the
time period relevant to this action.
4517897 18
SuppR 203
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.43:
43: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin has
has work
work procedures
procedures for
for tire
inspectors which set forth standards which Michelin has recognized.
RESPONSE:
MNA admits procedures for
admits it has work procedures for tire
tire inspectors.
inspectors. MNA objects to the extent this
request
request seeks
seeks or
or attempts
attempts to
to seek
seektrade
tradesecret,
secret,proprietary,
proprietary, ororotherwise
otherwisecommercially
commercially
confidential businessinformation
confidential business informationofofMNA.
MNA. Pursuant
Pursuanttoto Rule
Rule 507
507 of
of the
the Texas
Texas Rules
Rules of
Evidence, MNA asserts
Evidence, MNA asserts trade
trade secret
secret protection
protectionfor
for such
such information.
information. MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to
request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculatedtoto lead
reasonably calculated lead to
to the
the discovery of admissible
discovery of admissible evidence.
evidence. MNA objects to this
objects to
request as being
request as being overly
overly broad.
broad. Intervenors
Intervenors have failed
failed to limit the scope of
of this request to the
time period relevant to this action.
REQUEST ADMISSIONS NO.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 44:
44: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin has
has training
training materials
materials including
videotapes and tests for tire inspectors which set forth standards which Michelin has recognized.
RESPONSE:
MNA admits training materials
admits it has training materials for
for tire
tire inspectors.
inspectors. MNA
MNA objects to the extent this
request
request seeks
seeks or
or attempts
attempts to
to seek
seektrade
tradesecret,
secret,proprietary,
proprietary, ororotherwise
otherwisecommercially
commercially
confidential businessinformation
confidential business informationofofMNA.
MNA. Pursuant
Pursuanttoto Rule
Rule 507
507 of
of the
the Texas
Texas Rules
Rules of
Evidence, MNA asserts
Evidence, MNA asserts trade
trade secret
secret protection
protectionfor
for such
such information.
information. MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to
request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of
of this case nor
reasonably calculatedtoto lead
reasonably calculated lead to
to the
the discovery of admissible
discovery of admissible evidence.
evidence. MNA objects
objects to this
request
request as being overly broad.
being overly broad. Intervenors
Intervenors have failed to limit the scope
scope of
of this request to the
time period relevant to this action.
aCtion.
4517897 19
SuppR 204
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.45:
45: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin has reaction
reaction limits which set
forth some of
of the standards which Michelin has recognized.
RESPONSE:
MNA admits
admits it has green tire reaction limits in place at the Fort
Fort Wayne,
Wayne, Indiana
Indiana plant.
MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to this request as being
request as being vague
vague and
and ambiguous.
ambiguous. MNA
MNA objects
objects to the extent
extent this
request
request seeks
seeks or
or attempts
attempts to
to seek
seektrade
tradesecret,
secret,proprietary,
proprietary, ororotherwise
otherwisecommercially
commercially
confidential businessinformation
confidential business informationofofMNA.
MNA. Pursuant
Pursuanttoto Rule
Rule 507
507 of
of the
the Texas
Texas Rules
Rules of
Evidence, MNA asserts
Evidence, MNA asserts trade
trade secret
secret protection
protectionfor
for such
such information.
information. MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to
request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculatedtoto lead
reasonably calculated lead to
to the
the discovery of admissible
discovery of admissible evidence.
evidence. MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to
request as being
request as overly broad.
being overly broad. Intervenors
Intervenors have failed
failed to limit the scope of this request to the
plant, time period, components, and processes relevant to this action.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.46:
46: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin has
has product
product tolerance
tolerance limits
limits
which set forth some of
of the standards which Michelin has recognized.
RESPONSE:
MNA admits it has tolerances
tolerances in
in place
place at
at the
the Fort
Fort Wayne,
Wayne, Indiana
Indiana plant.
plant. MNA objects to
this request
request as being
being vague and ambiguous.
vague and ambiguous. MNA
MNA objects
objects to the
the extent
extent this
this request
request seeks
seeks or
attempts
attempts to seek
seek trade
trade secret,
secret, proprietary,
proprietary, or
orotherwise
otherwisecommercially
commercially confidential
confidential business
business
information of MNA.
MNA. Pursuant
Pursuant to
to Rule
Rule 507
507 of
of the
the Texas
Texas Rules
Rules of
of Evidence,
Evidence, MNA
l\1NA asserts trade
secret protection for such information.
information. MNA
MNA objects
objects to this request
request because it seeks information
that is neither
neither relevant to the subject
subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to
to lead to the
discovery of admissible
discovery of evidence. MNA
admissible evidence. MNA objects to this
objects to this request
request as
as being
being overly
overly broad.
broad.
Intervenors have failed
Intervenors have failed to limit the scope of
of this request
request to the
the plant,
plant, time
time period,
period, components,
components,
and process relevant to this action.
4517897 20
SuppR 205
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 47:
47: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin has
has possession
possession of
of documents,
documents,
testimony, and infornration
information which assert that quality control personnel falsified inspections at the
Fort Wayne plant in 2011.
RESPONSE:
Denied as stated.
stated. MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request as
as improper
improper because it asks MNA to admit
or deny
deny intervenors'
intervenors' characterization of deposition
characterization of testimony contained
deposition testimony contained in
in a document
document that
speaks for itself.
speaks for itself. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request
objects to request because
because itit is overly
overly broad
broad and not
not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions
concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.48:
48: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin has
has possession
possession of
ofdocuments,
documents,
testimony, and information which confirm on-the-job sexual misconduct at the Fort Wayne plant
in 2011.
RESPONSE:
MNA objects to
MNA objects to this
this request as improper
request as becauseitit asks
improper because asks MNA
MNA to
to admit
admit or
or deny
deny
intervenors' characterization of
intervenors' characterization of deposition
deposition testimony
testimony contained
containedin
in aa document that speaks
document that speaks for
itself.
itself. MNA
MNA further
further objects
objects to this
this request
request because
because it is
is overly
overly broad
broad and
and not
notreasonably
reasonably
calculated to lead
calculated to lead to
to the
the discovery
discovery of
ofadmissible
admissible evidence
evidence because
because itit seeks
seeks admissions
admissions
concerning depositiontestimony
concerning deposition testimonyfrom
froma acase
case that
that involves
involves aa tire
tire outside
outside the
the relevant
relevant
scope.
scope. Furthermore,
Furthermore, MNA
MNA objects
objects to this
this request
request to the
the extent
extent itit seeks
seeks admission
admission of the
the
existence of
of information protected by the attorney-client
attomey-client and/or attorney work product privileges.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 49:
49: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin has
has possession
possession of
ofdocuments,
documents,
testimony, and information which confirm that it has established a link between certain cured tire
defects and their probable causes.
RESPONSE:
Denied as stated.
stated. MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request as
as improper
improper because it asks MNA to admit
or deny
deny intervenors'
intervenors' characterization of deposition
characterization of testimony contained
deposition testimony contained in
in a document
document that
that
speaks for itself.
speaks for itself. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this
objects to this request
request because
because itit is overly
overly broad
broad and
and not
not
4517897 21
SuppR 206
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions
concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.
MNA objects to this
objects to this request
request as
as being
being vague
vague and
and ambiguous.
ambiguous. MNA
MNA objects to the extent
this
this request
request seeks
seeks or
or attempts
attempts to
to seek
seektrade
tradesecret,
secret,proprietary,
proprietary, ororotherwise
otherwise commercially
commercially
confidential businessinformation
confidential business informationofofMNA.
MNA. Pursuant
Pursuanttoto Rule
Rule 507
507 of
of the
the Texas
Texas Rules
Rules of
Evidence, MNA asserts
Evidence, MNA asserts trade
trade secret
secret protection
protectionfor
for such
such information.
information. MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to
request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculatedtoto lead
reasonably calculated lead to
to the
the discovery
discovery of
of admissible
admissible evidence.
evidence. MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to
request as being
request as being overly
overly broad.
broad. Intervenors
Intervenors have failed
failed to limit the scope of this request to the
plant, time period, components, and process relevant to this action.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.50:
50: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin has
has possession
possession of
of documents,
documents,
testimony, and information which confirm that is has established a link between nonconformance
to standards and tread separations.
RESPONSE:
Denied as stated.
stated. MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request as
as improper
improper because it asks MNA to admit
or deny
deny intervenors'
intervenors' characterization of deposition
characterization of testimony contained
deposition testimony contained in
in a document
document that
speaks for itself.
speaks for itself. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request
objects to request because
because itit is overly
overly broad
broad and not
not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions
concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant
reievant scope.
objects to
MNA objects to this request
request as
as being
being vague
vague and
and ambiguous.
ambiguous. MNA
MNA objects
objects to the extent
this
this request
request seeks
seeks or
or attempts
attempts to
to seek
seektrade
tradesecret,
secret,proprietary,
proprietary, ororotherwise
otherwise commercially
commercially
confidential businessinformation
confidential business informationofofMNA.
MNA. Pursuant
Pursuanttoto Rule
Rule 507
507 of
of the
the Texas
Texas Rules
Rules of
Evidence, MNA asserts
Evidence, MNA asserts trade
trade secret
secret protection
protectionfor
forsuch
such information.
information. MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to
request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculatedtoto lead
reasonably calculated lead to
to the
the discovery of admissible
discovery of admissible evidence.
evidence. MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to
4517897 22
SuppR 207
request as being
request as being overly
overly broad.
broad. Intervenors
Intervenors have failed to limit the scope
scope of
of this request
request to the
plant, time period, components, and process relevant to this action.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 51:
51: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin has work procedures for tire and
tire component designers which set forth standards which Michelin has recognized.
RESPONSE:
MNA admits
admits it has work procedures
procedures for
for tire
tire designers.
designers. MNA
MNA objects
objects to the extent
extent this
request
request seeks
seeks or
or attempts
attempts to
to seek
seektrade
tradesecret,
secret,proprietary,
proprietary, ororotherwise
otherwisecommercially
commercially
confidential businessinformation
confidential business informationofofMNA.
MNA. Pursuant
Pursuanttoto Rule
Rule 507
507 of the
the Texas
Texas Rules
Rules of
Evidence, MNA asserts
Evidence, MNA asserts trade
trade secret
secret protection
protectionfor
for such
such information.
information. MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to
request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor
ofthis
reasonably calculatedtoto lead
reasonably calculated lead to
to the
the discovery of admissible
discovery of admissible evidence.
evidence. MNA objects to this
objects to
request as being
request as being overly
overly broad.
broad. Intervenors
Intervenors have failed
failed to limit the scope
scope of
of this request
request to the
time period relevant to this action.
REQUEST ADMISSIONS NO.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 52:
52: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin has
has training
training materials
materials including
including
videotapes for tire and tire component
videotapes for component designers
designers which set forth standards
standards which Michelin has
recognized.
RESPONSE:
MNA admits
admits it has training
training materials
materials for
for tire
tire designers.
designers. MNA objects
objects to the extent
extent this
request
request seeks
seeks or attempts
attempts to
to seek
seektrade
tradesecret,
secret,proprietary,
proprietary, ororotherwise
otherwisecommercially
commercially
confidential businessinformation
confidential business informationofofMNA.
MNA. Pursuant
Pursuanttoto Rule
Rule 507
507 of the
the Texas
Texas Rules
Rules of
Evidence, MNA asserts
Evidence, MNA asserts trade
trade secret
secret protection
protectionfor
for such
such information.
information. MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to
request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of
of this case nor
reasonably calculated
reasonably calculatedtoto lead
lead to
to the
the discovery of admissible
discovery of admissible evidence.
evidence. MNA objects to this
objects to
request as being
request as being overly
overly broad.
broad. Intervenors
Intervenors have failed
failed to limit the scope
scope of
of this request
request to the
time period relevant to this action.
4517897 23
SuppR 208
REQUEST ADMISSIONS NO.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 53:
53: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin hashas training
training materials
materials including
including
tests
tests for
for tire
tire and
and tire
tirecomponent
component designers
designers which
which set
set forth
forth standards
standards which
which Michelin
Michelin has
recognized.
RESPONSE:
MNA admits
admits it has training materials for
training materials for tire
tire designers.
designers. MNA
MNA objects to the extent this
request
request seeks
seeks or
or attempts
attempts to
to seek
seektrade
tradesecret,
secret,proprietary,
proprietary, ororotherwise
otherwisecommercially
commercially
confidential businessinformation
confidential business informationofofMNA.
MNA. Pursuant
Pursuanttoto Rule
Rule 507
507 of
of the
the Texas
Texas Rules
Rules of
Evidence, MNA asserts
Evidence, MNA asserts trade
trade secret
secret protection
protection for
for such
such info' nation. MNA
information. MNA objects
objects to this
this
request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculatedtoto lead
reasonably calculated lead to
to the
the discovery
discovery of
of admissible
admissible evidence.
evidence. MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to
request as being
request as being overly
overly broad.
broad. Intervenors
Intervenors have failed to limit the scope
scope of this request to the
time period relevant to this action.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 54:
54: Admit
Admit that Michelin perfoi ns Failure Modes Analysis
performs
which address tread separation.
RESPONSE:
MNA
MNA admits
admits that from
from time to time
time itit conducts
conducts Failure
Failure Modes
Modes and
and Effects
Effects Analysis.
Analysis.
MNA
MNA objects to the extent
objects to extent this request
request seeks
seeks or attempts
attempts to
to seek
seek trade
trade secret,
secret, proprietary,
proprietary, or
otherwise commercially
commercially confidential
confidential business
business information
information of
of MNA.
MNA. Pursuant to Rule 507 of
of the
Texas Rules of Evidence,
Texas Rules MNA asserts
Evidence, MNA asserts trade
trade secret
secret protection
protection for
for such
such information.
information. MNA
MNA
objects to this request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of
this
this case
case nor
nor reasonably calculated to
reasonably calculated to lead
lead to
to the discovery
discovery of admissible evidence. MNA
admissible evidence. MNA
objects to this request
objects to as being
request as being overly
overly broad.
broad. Intervenors
Intervenors have failed
failed to limit the scope of this
request to the time period relevant to this action.
4517897 24
SuppR 209
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 55:
55: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin perfoiiiis
performs Failure Effects Analysis
which address tread separation.
RESPONSE:
MNA
MNA admits
admits that from time to
to time
time ititconducts
conducts Failure
Failure Modes
Modes and
and Effects
Effects Analysis.
Analysis.
MNA
MNA objects to the extent
objects to extent this
this request
request seeks
seeks or
or attempts
attempts to
to seek
seek trade
trade secret,
secret, proprietary,
proprietary, or
commercially confidential
otherwise commercially confidential business
business information
information ofMNA.
of MNA. Pursuant to Rule 507 of
of the
Texas
Texas Rules
Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts
Evidence, MNA asserts trade
trade secret protection for
secret protection for such
such information.
information. MNA
MNA
objects to this request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of
this
this case
case nor
nor reasonably
reasonably calculated to lead
calculated to lead to
to the discovery
discovery of admissible evidence. MNA
admissible evidence. MNA
objects to this request
objects to as being
request as being overly
overly broad.
broad. Intervenors
Intervenors have failed to limit the scope
scope of this
request to the time period relevant to this action.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.56:56: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin runs
runs tire
tire endurance
endurance tests and
and
tread separation is not the typical failure mode for such test.
RESPONSE:
MNA
MNA admits
admits it conducts tests of tires,
conducts tests tires, including endurancetests.
including endurance tests. MNA
MNA objects
objects to the
extent this request seeks or attempts to seek
seek trade secret,
secret, proprietary, or otherwise
otherwise commercially
commercially
confidential businessinformation
confidential business informationofofMNA.
MNA. Pursuant
Pursuanttoto Rule
Rule 507
507 of
of the
the Texas
Texas Rules
Rules of
Evidence, MNA asserts
Evidence, MNA asserts trade
trade secret
secret protection
protection for
for such
such information.
information. MNA
MNA admits
admits itit conducts
conducts
testing of tires. MNA
MNAobjects
objects to
to this
this request
request because
because itit seeks
seeks infoiniation
information that
that is
is neither
neither relevant
to the subject matter of
of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
discovery of
of admissible
evidence.
evidence. MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request as
as being
being overly broad.
broad. Intervenors
Intervenors have
have failed
failed to limit
the scope of
of this request to the time period relevant to this action.
4517897 25
SuppR 210
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.57:
57: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin runs
runs tire
tire endurance
endurance tests and
and
tread separation is the typical failure mode for such test.
RESPONSE:
MNA
MNA admits
admits it conducts tests of tires,
conducts tests tires, including
including endurance
endurancetests.
tests. MNA objects
objects to this
request as being
request as being vague
vague and
and ambiguous.
ambiguous. MNA
MNA objects
objects to this
this request
request because
because it
it seeks
seeks
information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of
of this case nor reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible
admissible evidence.
evidence. MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this request as being overly broad.
Intervenors have failed to limit the scope of
of this request to the time period relevant to this action.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.58:
58: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin runs
runs tests
tests with
with over
over deflected
deflected
tires and tread separation is not the typical failure mode for such test tires.
RESPONSE:
MNA admits itit conducts
MNA admits testingof
conducts testing of tires,
tires, and
and from
from time
time to
to time
time tests
tests tires
tires in
in an
an
overdeflected condition. MNA
overdeflected condition. MNA objects
objects to the
the extent
extent this
this request
request seeks
seeks or attempts
attempts to seek
seek trade
secret,
secret, proprietary,
proprietary, or otherwise
otherwise commercially
commercially confidential
confidential business
business information
information of MNA.
MNA.
Pursuant to Rule 507 of
Pursuant to of the Texas
Texas Rules
Rules of
ofEvidence,
Evidence, MNA
MNA asserts
asserts trade secret
secret protection
protection for
such
such information.
information. MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request because
because itit seeks
seeks information
information that is
is neither
neither
relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably
relevant to reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
calculated to discovery of
admissible evidence.
evidence. MNA
MNA objects
objects to this request as being overly broad.
broad. Intervenors
Intervenors have failed
to limit the scope of
of this request to the time period relevant to this action.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 59:
59: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin runs
runs tests
tests with
with over
over deflected
deflected
tires and tread separation is the typical failure mode for such test tires.
RESPONSE:
MNA admits itit conducts
MNA admits testingof
conducts testing of tires,
tires, and
and from
from time
time to
to time
time tests
tests tires
tires in
in an
an
overdeflected condition. MNA
overdeflected condition. MNA objects to this
objects to this request as being
request as being vague
vague and
and ambiguous.
ambiguous. MNA
MNA
objects to this request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of
4517897 26
SuppR 211
this
this case
case nor
nor reasonably calculated to
reasonably calculated to lead
lead to
to the discovery
discovery of admissible evidence. MNA
admissible evidence. MNA
objects to this request
objects to as being
request as being overly
overly broad.
broad. Intervenors
Intervenors have failed
failed to limit the scope of this
request to the time period relevant to this action.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 60:
60: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin has
has adjustment
adjustment documents
documents with
tire
tire condition
condition descriptions, condition lists,
descriptions, condition lists, condition codes, and
condition codes, and condition
condition pictures
pictures and
and
illustrations.
RESPONSE:
MNA admits
admits that it that it has
has such
such documents
documents applicable
applicable to tires in the
the relevant
relevant scope.
scope.
MNA
MNA objects to the extent
objects to extent this request
request seeks
seeks or
or attempts
attempts to seek
seek trade
trade secret,
secret, proprietary,
proprietary, or
otherwise commercially
commercially confidential
confidential business
business information
information ofMNA.
of MNA. Pursuant to Rule 507 of
of the
Texas
Texas Rules
Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts
Evidence, MNA asserts trade
trade secret
secret protection
protection for
for such
such information.
information. MNA
MNA
objects to this request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of
this
this case
case nor
nor reasonably
reasonably calculated to lead
calculated to lead to
to the discovery
discovery of admissible evidence. MNA
admissible evidence. MNA
objects to this request
objects to as being
request as being overly
overly broad.
broad. Intervenors
Intervenors have failed to limit the scope
scope of this
request to the time period relevant to this action.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.61:61: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin has work
work procedures
procedures for tire
adjustment center personnel which set forth standards which Michelin has recognized.
RESPONSE:
MNA
MNA admits that it has work
admits that work procedures for tire adjustment
procedures for center personnel.
adjustment center personnel. MNA
MNA
objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek
seek trade secret,
secret, proprietary,
proprietary, or otherwise
otherwise
commercially confidentialbusiness
commercially confidential businessinformation
informationofofMNA.
MNA. Pursuant
Pursuant to
to Rule
Rule 507
507 of the Texas
Texas
Rules
Rules of Evidence, asserts trade
Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret
secret protection
protection for
for such
such information.
information. MNA
MNA objects to
this request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case
nor reasonably calculated to
reasonably calculated to lead
lead to
to the
the discovery
discovery of
of admissible
admissible evidence.
evidence. MNA objects to this
4517897 27
SuppR 212
request as being
request as being overly
overly broad.
broad. Intervenors
Intervenors have failed
failed to limit the scope of this request
request to the
time period relevant to this action.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 62:
62: Admit
Admit that
that on
on or
or before September 16, 2014, Michelin
16,2014,
became
became aware
aware of the potential
potential for litigation
litigation concerning
concerning an August
August 24,
24, 2014, crash reported to
involve
involve an
an LT265/75R16
LT265/75R16 BF BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain
Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A
T/A LRE
LRE tire
tire bearing
bearing DOT
DOT No.
No.
BFW802110611
BFW802110611 mounted on Robert Coleman's pickup.
RESPONSE:
MNA
MNA states that it received
states that received notice
notice of the
the accident
accident on
on or
or before
before September
September 16,
16, 2014
2014
and reasonably
reasonably anticipated
anticipated litigation
litigation on
on that date.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.63:
63: Admit
Admit that
that by
by September
September 16,
16, 2014,
2014, Michelin
Michelin could
could
reasonably foresee litigation
reasonably foresee litigation concerning an LT265/75R16
concerning an LT265/75R16 BF BF Goodrich
Goodrich Rugged
Rugged Terrain
Terrain T/A
LRE tire bearing DOT BFW802110611 mounted on Robert
BFW802110611 mounted Robert Coleman's pickup which crashed on
August 24, 2014.
24,2014.
RESPONSE:
MNA
MNA states that it received
states that received notice
notice of the
the accident
accident on
on or
or before
before September
September 16,
16, 2014
2014
and reasonably
reasonably anticipated
anticipated litigation
litigation on that date.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 64:
64: Admit
Admit that
that on
on or
or before September
September 16, 2014, Michelin
16,2014,
became
became aware
aware of Robert Coleman's
Coleman's notice
notice of
of anticipated
anticipated litigation
litigation and
and request
request that
that Michelin
Michelin
preserve the tire building machines used to build 16 inch light truck tires at the Fort Wayne plant
in 2011 for evidentiary purposes in that anticipated litigation.
RESPONSE:
MNA denies
denies this request
request as written.
written. MNA
MNA acknowledges
acknowledges that, on or
or around
around September
September
16,
16, 2014,
2014, itit received
received aa letter
letter from
from Coleman's
Coleman's counsel
counsel providing notice of aa potential
providing notice potential claim
claim
involving the tire
involving the tire in question.
question. However,
However, due
due to the
the refusal
refusal of
ofcounsel
counsel for
for plaintiffs
plaintiffs and/or
and/or
intervenors to provide
intervenors to provide the tire in
in question
question to
to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under reasonable
reasonable conditions,
conditions,
MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the
tire in question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to
to identifying
identifying the tire building machines used to
machines used to build
build the
the tire
tire in
4517897 28
SuppR 213
question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the
tire building machines.
MNA
MNA objects
objects to this
this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that produced
thethedefect
defect alleged
alleged to tobebepresent
presentinin the
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
an impermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
for information generally related to
generally related to every aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request because it is
overly broad and seeks information
information that
that is neither relevant
relevant to
to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 65:
65: Admit
Admit that Michelin
Michelin has made no efforts
efforts to preserve
preserve
the condition of tire building machines
machines used
used to
to build 16 inch light truck tires at the Fort Wayne
plant in 2011 in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014.
RESPONSE:
MNA denies this request
denies this request as
as written.
written. MNA
MNA acknowledges
acknowledges that, on
on or
or around
around September
September
16,
16, 2014,
2014, itit received
received aa letter
letter from
from Coleman's
Coleman's counsel
counsel providing notice of aa potential
providing notice potential claim
claim
involving the tire
involving the tire in question.
question. However,
However, due
due to the
the refusal
refusal of
ofcounsel
counsel for
for plaintiffs
plaintiffs and/or
and/or
intervenors to provide
intervenors to provide the tire in question
question to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under reasonable
reasonable conditions,
conditions,
MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the
tire in question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to identifying
identifying the tire building machines used
building machines used to
to build
build the
the tire
tire in
question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the
tire building machines.
MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that produced
thethedefect
defect alleged
alleged to tobebepresent
presentinin the
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this
this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
an impermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
for information generally related to
generally related to every aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
4517897 29
SuppR 214
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request because it is
overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant
relevant to
to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.66:
66: Admit
Admit that Michelin
Michelin has altered
altered the tire
tire building
building
machines used to build 16 inch light truck tires at the Fort Wayne plant in 2011
2011 in the time that
has passed since September 16, 2014.
RESPONSE:
MNA denies this request as written.
denies this written. MNA
MNA acknowledges
acknowledges that, on or
or around
around September
September
16, 2014,
2014, itit received
received aa letter
letter from
from Coleman's
Coleman's counsel
counsel providing notice of aa potential
providing notice potential claim
claim
involving the tire
involving the tire in question.
question. However,
However, due
due to
to the
the refusal
refusal of
ofcounsel
counsel for
for plaintiffs
plaintiffs and/or
and/or
intervenors to provide
intervenors to provide the tire in
in question
question to
to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under reasonable
reasonable conditions,
conditions,
MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the
tire in question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to
to identifying
identifying the tire building machines used to
machines used to build
build the
the tire
tire in
question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the
tire building machines.
MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that produced
thethedefect
defect alleged
alleged to tobebepresent
presentinin the
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this
this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
an impermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
for information generally related to every aspect
generally related aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request because
because it is
overly broad and seeks information
infounation that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence.
4517897 30
SuppR 215
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 67:
67: Admit
Admit that Michelin
Michelin has made no efforts to document
document
alterations to the tire building machines
machines used to
to build 16 inch light truck tires at the Fort Wayne
plant in 2011
2011 in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014.
RESPONSE:
MNA denies this request
denies this request as
as written.
written. MNA
MNA acknowledges
acknowledges that, on
on or
or around
around September
September
16, 2014,
2014, itit received
received aa letter
letter from
from Coleman's
Coleman's counsel
counsel providing notice of aa potential
providing notice potential claim
claim
involving the tire
involving the tire in question.
question. However,
However, due
due to the
the refusal
refusal of
ofcounsel
counsel for
for plaintiffs
plaintiffs and/or
and/or
intervenors to provide
intervenors to provide the tire in question
question to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under reasonable
reasonable conditions,
conditions,
MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the
tire in question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to identifying
identifying the tire building machines used
building machines used to
to build
build the
the tire in
question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the
tire building machines.
MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that produced
thethedefect
defect alleged
alleged to tobebepresent
presentininthe
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this
this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
an impermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
for information generally related to
generally related to every aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process,
process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request because
because it is
overly broad and seeks information
information that
that is
is neither relevant
relevant to
to the
the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 68:
68: Admit
Admit that Michelin
Michelin has made no efforts
efforts to preserve
preserve
the condition of
of tire building machines used to build LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain
T/A LRE tires bearing DOT BFW802110611
BFW802110611 at the Fort Wayne
Wayne plant in the sixth week of 2011
of2011
in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014.
RESPONSE:
MNA denies this request
request as written.
written. MNA
MNA acknowledges
acknowledges that, on
on or
or around
around September
September
16, 2014,
2014, itit received
received aa letter
letter from
from Coleman's
Coleman's counsel
counsel providing notice of aa potential
providing notice potential claim
claim
4517897 31
SuppR 216
involving the tire
involving the tire in question.
question. However,
However, due
due to
to the
the refusal
refusal of
ofcounsel
counsel for
for plaintiffs
plaintiffs and/or
and/or
intervenors to provide
intervenors to provide the tire in
in question
question to
to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under reasonable
reasonable conditions,
conditions,
MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the
tire in question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to
to identifying
identifying the tire building machines used
building machines used to
to build
build the
the tire in
question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the
tire building machines.
MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that produced
thethedefect
defect alleged
alleged to tobebepresent
presentinin the
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this
this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
an impermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
for information generally
generally related to every aspect
aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in this
intervenors' claims this case.
case. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request
request because it is
overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant
relevant to
to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.69:
69: Admit
Admit that Michelin
Michelin has altered
altered the tire
tire building
building
machines used to build LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT
BFW802110611
BFW802110611 at at the
the Fort
Fort Wayne
Wayne plant
plant in
in the
the sixth week
week of 2011
2011 in the time that has
has passed
passed
since September 16, 2014.
RESPONSE:
MNA denies
denies this request as written.
written. MNA
MNA acknowledges
acknowledges that, on
on or
or around
around September
September
16, 2014,
2014, itit received
received aa letter
letter from
from Coleman's
Coleman's counsel
counsel providing notice of aa potential
providing notice potential claim
claim
involving the tire
involving the tire in question.
question. However,
However, due
due to
to the
the refusal
refusal of
ofcounsel
counsel for
for plaintiffs
plaintiffs and/or
and/or
intervenors to provide
intervenors to provide the tire in
in question
question to
to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under reasonable
reasonable conditions,
conditions,
MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the
tire in question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to
to identifying
identifying the tire building machines used to
machines used to build
build the
the tire in
4517897 32
SuppR 217
question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the
tire building machines.
MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that produced
thethedefect
defectalleged
alleged
to tobebepresent
presentinin the
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this
this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
animpermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
for information generally related to every aspect
generally related aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further
further objects
objects to this request because it is
overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 70:
70: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin has made
made no efforts to document
alterations to the tire
alterations to tire building
building machines
machines used
used to
to build
buildLT265/75R16
LT265/75Rl6 BFBF Goodrich
Goodrich Rugged
Rugged
Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT BFW802110611
T/ALRE BFW802110611 at the Fort Wayne plant in the sixth week
of 2011 in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014.
of2011
RESPONSE:
MNA denies this request
request as written.
written. MNA
MNA acknowledges
acknowledges that,
that, on
on or
or around
around September
September
16,
16, 2014,
2014, itit received
received aa letter
letter from
from Coleman's
Coleman's counsel
counsel providing
providing notice
notice of aa potential
potential claim
claim
involving the tire
involving the tire in question.
question. However,
However, due to
to the
the refusal
refusal of
ofcounsel
counsel for
for plaintiffs
plaintiffs and/or
and/or
intervenors to provide
intervenors to provide the tire in question
question to
to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under reasonable
reasonable conditions,
conditions,
MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the
tire in question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to identifying
identifying the tire building
building machines used to
machines used to build
build the
the tire
tire in
question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the
tire building machines.
MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that produced
thethedefect
defectalleged
alleged
to tobebepresent
presentinin the
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this
this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
an impermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
4517897 33
SuppR 218
for information generally
generally related to every
every aspect
aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request because
because it is
overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence.
REQUEST ADMISSIONS NO.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 71:
71: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin has made no efforts
efforts to preserve
preserve
the condition of the first
ofthe first stage
stage tire
tire building
building machines
machines used to build
build LT265/75R16
LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich
Rugged Terrain T/A
Rugged Terrain T/A LRE
LRE tires bearing
bearing DOT
DOT BFW802110611
BFW802110611 at at the
the Fort
Fort Wayne plant in the
Wayne plant
sixth week of 2011 in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014.
of2011
RESPONSE:
MNA denies
denies this request as written.
written. MNA
MNA acknowledges
acknowledges that, on
on or
or around
around September
September
16,
16, 2014,
2014, itit received
received aa letter
letter from
from Coleman's
Coleman's counsel
counsel providing
providing notice
notice of aa potential
potential claim
claim
involving the tire
involving the tire in question.
question. However,
However, due
due to the
the refusal
refusal of
ofcounsel
counsel for
for plaintiffs
plaintiffs and/or
and/or
intervenors to provide
intervenors to provide the tire in
in question
question to
to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under reasonable
reasonable conditions,
conditions,
MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the
tire in question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to
to identifying
identifying the tire building machines used to
machines used to build
build the
the tire in
question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the
tire building machines.
MNA
MNA objects
objects to this
this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that producedthethedefect
defectalleged
alleged
to tobebepresent
presentinin the
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this
this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
an impermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
for information generally
generally related to every aspect
aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further
further objects
objects to this request because
because it is
overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence.
REQUEST
REQUEST FORFOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.72:
72: Admit
Admit that Michelin
Michelin has altered
altered the first stage tire
building machines used
building machines used to build
build LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich
LT265/75R16 BF Rugged Terrain
Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A
T/A LRE
LRE tires
4517897 34
SuppR 219
bearing DOT BFW802110611 2011 in the time that
BFW80211 0611 at the Fort Wayne plant in the sixth week of 2011
has passed since September 16, 2014.
RESPONSE:
MNA denies
denies this request as written.
written. MNA
MNA acknowledges
acknowledges that, on or
or around
around September
September
16, 2014,
2014, itit received
received aa letter
letter from
from Coleman's
Coleman's counsel
counsel providing notice of aa potential
providing notice potential claim
claim
involving the tire
involving the tire in question.
question. However,
However, due to
to the
the refusal
refusal of
ofcounsel
counsel for
for plaintiffs
plaintiffs and/or
and/or
intervenors to provide
intervenors to provide the tire in question
question to
to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under reasonable
reasonable conditions,
conditions,
MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the
tire in question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to
to identifying
identifying the tire building
building machines used to
machines used to build
build the
the tire
tire in
question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the
tire building machines.
MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that produced
thethedefect
defectalleged
alleged
to tobebepresent
presentininthe
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
an impermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
for information generally related to every aspect
generally related aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further
further objects
objects to this request because
because it is
overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 73:
73: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin has made no efforts to document
alterations to the first
alterations to first stage
stage tire
tire building
building machines
machines used
used to
to build
build LT265/75R16
LT265/75R16 BF BF Goodrich
Goodrich
Rugged Terrain T/A
Rugged Terrain T/A LRE
LRE tires
tires bearing
bearing DOT
DOT BFW802110611
BFW802110611 atat the the Fort
Fort Wayne
Wayne plant
plant in the
sixth week of 2011 in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014.
of2011
RESPONSE:
MNA denies
denies this
this request as written.
written. MNA
MNA acknowledges
acknowledges that, on or
or around
around September
September
16, 2014,
2014, itit received
received aa letter
letter from
from Coleman's
Coleman's counsel
counsel providing
providing notice
notice of aa potential
potential claim
claim
involving the tire
involving the tire in question.
question. However,
However, due to
to the
the refusal
refusal of
ofcounsel
counsel for
for plaintiffs
plaintiffs and/or
and/or
4517897 35
SuppR 220
intervenors to provide
intervenors to provide the tire in question
question to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under reasonable
reasonable conditions,
conditions,
MNA was until recently unable to deteiiiiine
determine which tire building machines were used to build the
tire in question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to
to identifying the tire building
identifying the machines used
building machines used to
to build
build the
the tire
tire in
question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the
tire building machines.
MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that produced
thethe defect
defect alleged
alleged to tobebepresent
presentininthe
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this
this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
an impermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
for information generally related to
generally related to every aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA further objects to this request because
because it is
overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant
relevant to
to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
REQUEST ADMISSIONS NO.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 74:
74: Admit
Admit that no
no representative
representative of
of Robert Coleman was
present when Michelin altered the first stage tire building machines used to build LT265/75R16
LT265/75R16
BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT BFW802110611
BFW802110611 at the Fort Wayne
plant in the sixth week of 2011 in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014.
of2011
RESPONSE:
MNA denies this request
denies this request as
as written.
written. MNA
MNA acknowledges
acknowledges that, on or
or around
around September
September
16,
16, 2014,
2014, itit received
received aa letter
letter from
from Coleman's
Coleman's counsel
counsel providing notice of aa potential
providing notice potential claim
claim
involving the tire
involving the tire in question.
question. However,
However, due
due to the
the refusal
refusal of
ofcounsel
counsel for
for plaintiffs
plaintiffs and/or
and/or
intervenors to provide
intervenors to provide the tire in question
question to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under reasonable
reasonable conditions,
conditions,
MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the
tire in question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to
to identifying
identifying the tire building machines used
building machines used to
to build
build the
the tire
tire in
question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the
tire building machines.
4517897 36
SuppR 221
MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that produced
thethedefect
defect alleged
alleged to tobebepresent
presentininthe
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this
this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
an impermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
for information generally related to
generally related to every aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request because it is
overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant
relevant to
to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 75:
75: Admit
Admit that, in the time from
from September
September 16 of 2014 to
of2014
the present,
present, the first
first stage
stage tire
tire building
building machines
machines used
used to to build
buildLT265/75R16
LT265/75R16 BF BF Goodrich
Goodrich
Rugged Terrain T/A
Rugged Terrain T/A LRE
LRE tires bearing
bearing DOT
DOT BFW802110611
BFW802110611 at at the
the Fort
Fort Wayne plant in the
Wayne plant
sixth
sixth week
week of 2011
2011 have
have been
been altered
altered by aa person
person oror persons
persons whose
whose identity
identity has
has not been
been
disclosed to Robert Coleman.
RESPONSE:
MNA denies request as written.
denies this request written. MNA
MNA acknowledges
acknowledges that, on
on or
or around
around September
September
16,
16, 2014,
2014, itit received
received aa letter
letter from
from Coleman's
Coleman's counsel
counsel providing notice of aa potential
providing notice potential claim
claim
involving the tire
involving the tire in question.
question. However,
However, due
due to the
the refusal
refusal of
ofcounsel
counsel for
for plaintiffs
plaintiffs and/or
and/or
intervenors to provide
intervenors to provide the tire in
in question
question to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under reasonable
reasonable conditions,
conditions,
MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the
-
tire in question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to
to identifying
identifying the tire building machines used to
machines used to build
build the
the tire
tire in
question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the
tire building machines.
MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that produced
thethedefect
defectalleged
alleged
to tobebepresent
presentinin the
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this
this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
an impermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
for information generally related to every aspect
generally related aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request because
because it is
4517897 37
SuppR 222
overly broad and seeks information that is neither
neither relevant
relevant to
to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 76:
76: Admit
Admit that Michelin
Michelin has made no efforts
efforts to preserve
preserve
the
the condition
condition of the
the second
second stage
stage tire
tire building
building machines
machines used
used to
to build
buildLT265/75R16
LT265/75R16 BF BF
Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT BFW802110611
BFW802110611 at the Fort Wayne plant
in the sixth week of 2011 in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014.
of2011
RESPONSE:
MNA denies request as written.
denies this request written. MNA
MNA acknowledges
acknowledges that, on
on or
or around
around September
September
16, 2014,
2014, itit received
received aa letter
letter from
from Coleman's
Coleman's counsel
counsel providing
providing notice
notice of aa potential
potential claim
claim
involving the tire
involving the tire in question.
question. However,
However, due
due to the
the refusal
refusal of
ofcounsel
counsel for
for plaintiffs
plaintiffs and/or
and/or
intervenors to provide
intervenors to provide the tire in question
question to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under reasonable
reasonable conditions,
conditions,
MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the
tire in question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to identifying the tire building
identifying the machines used
building machines used to
to build
build the
the tire
tire in
question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the
tire building machines.
MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that produced
thethe defect
defect alleged
alleged to tobebepresent
presentininthe
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this request is nothing
nothing more than an
an impeunissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
for information generally related to every aspect of
generally related of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further objects to this request because
because it is
overly broad and seeks information
information that
that is neither relevant to
to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
4517897 38
SuppR 223
REQUEST ADMISSIONSNO.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 77:
77: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin has altered
altered the second
second stage tire
building machines used
building machines used to
to build
build LT265/75R16
LT265/75R16 BFBF Goodrich Rugged Terrain
Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A
T/A LRE tires
bearing DOT BFW802110611
BFW802110611 at the Fort Wayne plant in the sixth week of 2011 in the time that
of2011
has passed since September 16, 2014.
RESPONSE:
MNA denies this request
denies this request as written.
written. MNA
MNA acknowledges
acknowledges that, on
on or
or around
around September
September
16,
16, 2014,
2014, itit received
received aa letter
letter from
from Coleman's
Coleman's counsel
counsel providing
providing notice
notice of aa potential
potential claim
claim
involving the tire
involving the tire in question.
question. However,
However, due
due to
to the
the refusal
refusal of
ofcounsel
counsel for
for plaintiffs
plaintiffs and/or
and/or
intervenors to provide the tire in question
intervenors to question to
to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under reasonable
reasonable conditions,
conditions,
MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the
tire in question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to
to identifying
identifying the tire building
building machines used to
machines used to build
build the
the tire
tire in
question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the
tire building machines.
MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that produced
thethedefect
defect alleged
alleged to tobebepresent
presentinin the
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this
this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
an impermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
for information generally related to every aspect
generally related aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request because
because it is
overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 78:
78: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin has made no efforts
efforts to document
alterations
alterations to the second
second stage
stage tire building
building machines
machines used to build
build LT265/75R16
LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich
Goodrich
Rugged Terrain T/A
Rugged Terrain T/A LRE
LRE tires
tires bearing
bearing DOT BFW802110611
BFW802110611 at at the
the Fort
Fort Wayne plant in the
Wayne plant
sixth week of 2011 in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014.
of2011
RESPONSE:
MNA denies
denies this
this request
request as written.
written. MNA
MNA acknowledges
acknowledges that, on
on or
or around
around September
September
16,
16, 2014,
2014, itit received
received aa letter
letter from
from Coleman's
Coleman's counsel
counsel providing
providing notice
notice of aa potential
potential claim
claim
4517897 39
SuppR 224
involving the tire
involving the tire in question.
question. However,
However, due
due to the
the refusal
refusal of
ofcounsel
counsel for
for plaintiffs
plaintiffs and/or
and/or
intervenors to provide
intervenors to provide the tire in question
question to
to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under reasonable
reasonable conditions,
conditions,
MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the
tire in question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to identifying
identifying the tire building machines used
building machines used to
to build
build the
the tire
tire in
question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the
tire building machines.
MNA
MNA objects
objects to this
this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that produced
thethedefect
defect alleged
alleged to tobebepresent
presentinin the
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this
this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
an impermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
for information generally related to every aspect
generally related aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
not related to
to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request because
because it is
overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence.
REQUEST ADMISSIONS NO.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 79:
79: Admit
Admit that
that no
no representative
representative of
of Robert
Robert Coleman
Coleman was
present when Michelin
present when altered the
Michelin altered the second
second stage
stage tire
tire building
building machines used to
machines used to build
build
LT265/75R16
LT265/75Rl6 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT BFW802110611
BFW802110611 at the
Fort Wayne plant in the sixth week of 2011 in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014.
of2011
RESPONSE:
MNA denies this request
denies this request as written.
written. MNA
MNA acknowledges
acknowledges that, on
on or
or around
around September
September
16,
16, 2014,
2014, itit received
received aa letter
letter from
from Coleman's
Coleman's counsel
counsel providing notice of aa potential
providing notice potential claim
claim
involving the tire
involving the tire in question.
question. However,
However, due to
to the
the refusal
refusal of
ofcounsel
counsel for
for plaintiffs
plaintiffs and/or
and/or
intervenors to provide
intervenors to provide the tire in question
question to
to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under reasonable
reasonable conditions,
conditions,
MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the
tire in question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to
to identifying
identifying the tire building machines used to
machines used to build
build the
the tire in
4517897 40
SuppR 225
question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the
tire building machines.
MNA
MNA objects
objects to this
this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that produced
thethedefect
defect alleged
alleged to tobebepresent
presentininthe
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this request
request is nothing more than
nothing more than an
an impermissible
impel' iissible "fishing expedition"
for information generally related to every aspect of
generally related of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further objects to this request because it is
overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant
relevant to
to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 80:
80: Admit
Admit that
that no
no representative
representative of
of Robert
Robert Coleman
Coleman was
invited
invited to attend when Michelin altered the second
altered the second stage
stage tire building machines used to build
machines used
LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT 13FW802110611 at the
Fort Wayne plant in the sixth week of 2011 in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014.
of2011
RESPONSE:
Admitted.
Admitted. MNA
MNA acknowledges that, on or around
acknowledges that, around September
September 16,
16, 2014,
2014, it received
received a
letter
letter from
from Coleman's counsel providing
Coleman's counsel providingnotice
noticeof
of aa potential claim involving
potential claim the tire
involving the tire in
question.
question. However,
However, due
due to
to the
the refusal
refusal of
ofcounsel
counsel for
for plaintiffs
plaintiffs and/or
and/or intervenors
intervenors to provide the
tire in question
question to
to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under reasonable
reasonable conditions,
conditions, MNA was until
until recently
recently
unable to determine
unable to whichtire
determine which tire building
buildingmachines
machineswere
wereused
usedtoto build
build the
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to
to identifying
identifying the tire building machines used to build the tire in question,
question,
MNA has taken appropriate
MNA has steps to
appropriate steps to document the condition
document the condition of,
of, and
and any
any changes to, the tire
changes to,
building machines.
MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that produced
thethedefect
defect alleged
alleged to tobebepresent
presentininthe
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this
this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
an impermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
4517897 41
SuppR 226
for information generally related to every
generally related every aspect
aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further
further objects
objects to this request because
because it is
overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 81:
81: Admit
Admit that,
that, in
in the time from
from September
September 16 of 2014 to
of2014
the present, the second
second stage
stage tire building
building machines
machines used to to build
build LT265/75R16
LT265/75R16 BFBF Goodrich
Goodrich
Rugged
Rugged Terrain
Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT 13FW802110611
13FW802110611 at at the
the Fort Wayne
Wayne plant
plant in the
sixth
sixth week
week of 2011
2011 have
have been
been altered
altered by aa person
person oror persons
persons whose
whose identity
identity has
has not
not been
been
disclosed to Robert Coleman
Coleman.
RESPONSE:
MNA denies this request
denies this request as written.
written. MNA
MNA acknowledges
acknowledges that, on
on or
or around
around September
September
16, 2014,
2014, itit received
received aa letter
letter from
from Coleman's
Coleman's counsel
counsel providing notice of aa potential
providing notice potential claim
claim
involving the tire
involving the tire in question.
question. However,
However, due to
to the
the refusal
refusal of
ofcounsel
counsel for
for plaintiffs
plaintiffs and/or
and/or
intervenors
intervenors to provide the tire in question
question to
to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under reasonable
reasonable conditions,
conditions,
MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the
tire in question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to identifying
identifying the tire building
building machines used to
machines used to build
build the
the tire
tire in
question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the
tire building machines.
MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that produced
thethedefect
defectalleged
alleged
to tobebepresent
presentinin the
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this
this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
animpermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
for information generally
generally related to every aspect
aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further
further objects
objects to this request because it is
overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence.
4517897 42
SuppR 227
REQUEST ADMISSIONSNO.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 82:
82: Admit
Admit Michelin
Michelin currently
currently has possession of the first
stage tire building machines used to build LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE
tires bearing DOT BFW802110611
BFW80211 0611 at the Fort Wayne plant in the sixth week of
of 2011.
RESPONSE:
Admitted.
Admitted. MNA
MNA objects
objects to this
this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
specific manufacturingprocess
specific manufacturing processthat
thatproduced
producedthe
thedefect
defectalleged
allegedtotobe
be present
present in
in the
the tire
tire in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this
this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
an impermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
for information generally related to every aspect of
generally related of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request because
because it is
overly broad and seeks information
information that
that is neither relevant to
to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 83:
83: Admit
Admit Michelin
Michelin currently
currently has possession of
of the second
stage tire building machines used to build LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE
tires bearing DOT BEWS02110611
BFWS0211 0611 at the Fort Wayne plant in the sixth week of
of 2011.
RESPONSE:
Admitted.
Admitted. MNA
MNA objects
objects to this
this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
specific manufacturingprocess
specific manufacturing processthat
thatproduced
producedthe
thedefect
defectalleged
allegedtotobe
be present
presentin
in the
the tire
tire in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
an impermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
for information generally related to
generally related to every aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process,
process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request because
because it is
overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to
to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
4517897 43
SuppR 228
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 84:
84: Admit
Admit that,
that, during
during time period from February 2011
2011 to
the present, persons who are not employees of
of Michelin North America,
America, Inc. have had access to
Michelin's Fort
Fort Wayne
Wayne plant which
which provided
provided those persons an opportunity to see the first stage
opportunity to
tire building machines used to build LT265/75R16
LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires
bearing DOT BFW802110611.
BFW80211 0611.
RESPONSE:
MNA denies
denies this
this request
request as written.
written. MNA
MNA acknowledges
acknowledges that, on
on or
or around
around September
September
16, 2014,
2014, itit received
received aa letter
letter from
from Coleman's
Coleman's counsel
counsel providing notice of aa potential
providing notice potential claim
claim
involving the tire
involving the tire in question.
question. However,
However, due to
to the
the refusal
refusal of
ofcounsel
counsel for
for plaintiffs
plaintiffs and/or
and/or
intervenors
intervenors to provide
provide the tire in
in question
question to
to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under reasonable
reasonable conditions,
conditions,
MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the
tire in question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to
to identifying
identifying the tire building machines used
building machines used to
to build
build the
the tire
tire in
question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the
tire building machines.
MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that produced
thethedefect
defect alleged
alleged to tobebepresent
presentinin the
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this
this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
an impermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
for information generally
generally related to every
every aspect
aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request because
because it is
overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant
relevant to
to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence.
4517897 44
SuppR 229
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO.NO. 85:
85: Admit
Admit that,
that, during
during time period from
from February 2011
2011 to
the present, persons who are not employees of
of Michelin North America, Inc. have had access to
Michelin's Fort Wayne
Wayne plant which provided those persons
provided those persons an opportunity to see the second
opportunity to second
stage tire building machines used to build LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE
tires bearing DOT BFW802110611.
BFW80211 0611.
RESPONSE:
MNA denies this request
denies this request as
as written.
written. MNA
MNA acknowledges
acknowledges that, on
on or
or around
around September
September
16,
16, 2014,
2014, itit received
received aa letter
letter from
from Coleman's
Coleman's counsel
counsel providing notice of aa potential
providing notice potential claim
claim
involving the tire
involving the tire in question.
question. However,
However, due
due to the
the refusal
refusal of
ofcounsel
counsel for
for plaintiffs
plaintiffs and/or
and/or
intervenors to provide
intervenors to provide the tire in question
question to
to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under reasonable
reasonable conditions,
conditions,
MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the
tire in question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to identifying
identifying the tire building machines used
building machines used to
to build
build the
the tire
tire in
question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the
tire building machines.
MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that produced
thethe defect
defect alleged
alleged to tobebepresent
presentininthe
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
an impermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
for
for info' nation generally
information related to
generally related to every aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further objects to this request because
because it is
overly broad and seeks information
information that
that is neither relevant
relevant to
to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence.
4517897 45
SuppR 230
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 86:
86: Admit
Admit that,
that, during
during time period from February 2011
2011 to
the present, persons who are not employees ofof Michelin North America, Inc. have had access to
America, Inc.
Michelin's
Michelin's Fort
Fort Wayne
Wayne plant which provided those persons an opportunity to to see the final finish
inspection process on
inspection process on the same inspection
inspection line as used
used toto inspect
inspect LT265/75R16
LT265/75R16 BFBF Goodrich
Goodrich
Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT BFW802110611.
RESPONSE:
MNA denies this request as written.
denies this written. MNA
MNA acknowledges
acknowledges that, on
on or
or around
around September
September
16, 2014,
2014, itit received
received aa letter
letter from
from Coleman's
Coleman's counsel
counsel providing notice of aa potential
providing notice potential claim
claim
involving the tire
involving the tire in question.
question. However,
However, due
due to the
the refusal
refusal of
ofcounsel
counsel for
for plaintiffs
plaintiffs and/or
and/or
intervenors to provide
intervenors to provide the tire in question
question to
to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under reasonable
reasonable conditions,
conditions,
MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the
tire in question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to
to identifying
identifying the tire building machines used
building machines used to
to build
build the
the tire
tire in
question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the
tire building machines.
MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that produced
thethedefect
defect alleged
alleged to tobebepresent
presentininthe
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this
this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
an impermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
for information generally related to every aspect
generally related aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further objects to this request because
because it is
overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant
relevant to
to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence.
4517897 46
SuppR 231
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONSNO. NO.87:
87: Admit
Admit that
that in
in September
September of
of 2014
2014 Robert
Robert Coleman
Coleman
proposed
proposed toto Michelin an agreement
Michelin an agreement by by which
which Michelin's
Michelin's access
access to
to the
the LT265/75R16
LT265/75R16 BF
BF
Goodrich Rugged Terrain
Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A
T/A LRE
LRE tire
tire bearing
bearing DOT
DOT BFW802110611
BFW802110611 mounted
mounted on Robert
Robert
Coleman's pickup at the time ofof the crash
crash should
should be comparable
comparable to Robert Coleman's access to
Michelin's tire building
building machines
machines used to build
build LT
LT 265/75R16
265/75R16 BF BF Goodrich
Goodrich Rugged
Rugged Terrain
Terrain
T/A tires in February of 2001
of2001 at Michelin's Fort Wayne plant.
RESPONSE:
MNA denies request as written.
denies this request written. MNA
MNA acknowledges
acknowledges that, on
on or
or around
around September
September
16,
16, 2014,
2014, itit received
received aa letter
letter from
from Coleman's
Coleman's counsel
counsel providing
providing notice
notice of aa potential
potential claim
claim
involving the tire
involving the tire in question.
question. However,
However, due
due to the
the refusal
refusal of
ofcounsel
counsel for
for plaintiffs
plaintiffs and/or
and/or
intervenors to provide
intervenors to provide the
the tire in question
question to
to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under reasonable
reasonable conditions,
conditions,
MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the
tire in question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to identifying
identifying the tire building
building machines used to
machines used to build
build the
the tire
tire in
question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the
tire building machines.
MNA
MNA objects to this
objects to this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that produced
thethedefect
defect alleged
alleged to tobebepresent
presentininthe
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this
this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
an impermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
for information generally related to
generally related to every aspect
aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request because
because it is
overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant
relevant to
to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence.
4517897 47
SuppR 232
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 88:
88: Admit
Admit that
that Michelin
Michelin refuses to allow Robert Coleman
to inspect
inspect the
the first
first and
and second
second stage
stage tire
tire building
building machines
machines used
used to
to build
build LT265/75R16
LT265/75R16 BF BF
Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tire bearing DOT BFW802110611BFW802110611 in the sixth week of 2001
of2001
at Michelin's
Michelin's Fort
Fort Wayne
Wayne plant
plant regardless
regardless of the confidentiality
ofthe confidentiality and regardless ofof the limitations
on access that Robert Coleman will agree to.
RESPONSE:
MNA objects to any inspection
objects to inspection of any portion of the Fort Wayne
Wayne plant by counsel
counsel for
intervenors, based upon
intervenors, based upon grounds
grounds set
set forth
forth in response
response to intervenors'
intervenors' Request
Request for Entry Upon
Land, below.
below. Furthermore,
Furthermore, MNA
MNA denies this request as written.
written. MNA
MNA acknowledges
acknowledges that, on or
around
around September 16, 2014,
September 16, 2014, it received
received a letter from
from Coleman's
Coleman's counsel providing notice
counsel providing notice of a
potential claim involving
potential claim involvingthe
thetire
tire in
in question.
question. However, due to
However, due to the refusal
refusal of
of counsel
counsel for
for
plaintiffs and/or intervenors
plaintiffs and/or intervenorstoto provide
provide the
the tire
tire in question
question to MNA
MNA for
for inspection
inspection under
under
reasonable conditions, MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines
were used to build the tire in question.
question. Subsequent
Subsequent to
to identifying
identifying the tire building machines used
to build the tire in question,
question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and
any changes to, the tire building machines.
MNA
MNA objects
objects to
to this
this request
request because
because intervenors
intervenors have
have not
not identified
identified the
the specific
specific
manufacturing process
manufacturing process thatproduced
that produced
thethedefect
defect alleged
alleged to tobebepresent
presentininthe
the tire
tire in
in
question.
question. Accordingly,
Accordingly, this
this request
request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
an impermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition"
for information generally related to every aspect
generally related aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing
manufacturing process, whether or
not related to intervenors' claims in
intervenors' claims in this
this case.
case. MNA
MNA further
further objects to this request because it is
overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to
to the subject matter of this case nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY
INTERROGATORY
INTERROGATORY NO. NO.1:1: Please identify any
Please identify any entity
entity which
which may
may bebe designated
designated asas "a
responsible third party"
responsible third party" as
as that
that term
term is used in section
section 33.004
33.004 of the Texas
Texas Civil
Civil Practice
Practice and
Remedies Code by
Remedies Code by listing
listing (a)
(a) the
the entities'
entities' name
name or names,
names, (b)
(b) the
the entities'
entities' addresses
addresses and
and
4517897 48
SuppR 233
telephone numbers
numbers and other contact information,
information, (c)
(c) the
the entities' registered agents for for service if
any,
any, (d)
(d) the county
county of the entities'
entities' principal
principal office in this
office in this state
state if any,
any, (e) the states
states that the
entities are believed
entities are believed to
to be
be "citizens"
"citizens" of as that word is used used in in 28
28 United
United States
States Code
Code section
section
1332, (f) the duties which such entities are believed to have breached, (g) any acts and omissions
and product defects
defects which are believed to have breached
breached those duties, and (h) (h) the
the contentions
contentions
about
about the entities
entities which would confirm
confirm that the designation
designation of those entities
entities as aa responsible
responsible
third
third party
party would
would not be be groundless
groundless to to the
the best
bestofofthe
thedesignating
designating counsel's
counsel's "knowledge,
"knowledge,
information, and belief formed
information, and formed after
after reasonable
reasonable inquiry"
inquiry" asas that
that phrase
phrase is
is used in Texas Rule of
Civil Procedure 13.
RESPONSE:
Subject to and without waiving the following objections, MNA states that discovery is in
its preliminary stages and it will supplement this response in accordance with the Texas Rules of
Civil
Civil Procedure.
Procedure. In
In addition,
addition, MNA refers to its
its response
response to requests
requests for disclosure and list of
disclosure and
persons with knowledge of
of relevant facts, and any supplements thereto.
RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR PRODUCTION
PRODUCTIONNO. NO.1:1: Please
Please produce
produce allall written
written oror otherwise
otherwise recorded
recorded
statements
statements (this includes
includes audio-recordings,
audio-recordings, video-recordings,
video-recordings, written statements,
statements, electronic
electronic
communications, complaints,affidavits,
communications, complaints, affidavits,depositions,
depositions,and andother
other testimony
testimony as as well
well as another
another
"witness statement" as
"witness statement" as that
that term
term is used in in Texas
Texas Rule Rule ofof Civil
Civil Procedure
Procedure 192.3(h))
192.3(h)) of any any
Michelin employee or
Michelin employee or ex-employee
ex-employeeoror agentsagentsor or ex-agent
ex-agentwho who worked
workedfor for or
or on
on behalf of
Michelin at the Fort Wayne plant in 2011 which address any of of the following issues: (a) leaks in
the roof
roof over the rooms where tire building or tire inspection occurred, (b) puddles on the floor in
the rooms where tire building or tire inspection occurred, (c) the use of of plastic sheeting to divert
leaks in the roof
roof over the rooms where tire building or tire inspection occurred, (d) allegations of
sexual misconduct alleged to involve personnel whose job responsibilities included tire building
or tire
tire inspecting,
inspecting, (e)
(e) sexual
sexual harassment
harassment or or discrimination
discrimination claims
claims of personnel
personnel whose
whose job
responsibilities included tire
responsibilities included tire building
building or or tire
tire inspecting,
inspecting, (f) (f) the falsification
falsification of inspections
inspections on
inspection documentation,
documentation, (g) (g) allegations
allegations of insufficient
insufficient timetime for employees to perform quality
tire building or quality tire inspecting,
inspecting, (h) the use of of out
out of
of specification
specification tire components
components in the
tire assembly processes,
processes, (i)(i) the use of of rubber
rubber or or rubber-coated
rubber-coated tire components
components which had lost
some
some of their tackiness
tackiness before being implemented
before being implemented in in the
the tire
tire assembly process, (j)
assembly process, (j) the
the use
use of
solvent in an attempt
attempt to restore tackiness to rubber rubber or or rubber-coated
rubber-coated tire components
components which had
lost some of of their
their tackiness before being implemented in the tire assembly assembly process, (k) trapped
air in tires
tires during
during the
the tire
tire assembly
assembly or or curing
curing or or inspection
inspection processes,
processes, (1)(1) trapped
trapped moisture
moisture in
tires during the tire assembly or curing or inspection processes, (m) voids in tires during the tire
assembly or curing or inspection processes,
processes, (n) blows in tires during the tire assembly or curing
or inspection processes, (o) (o) separations between components
components in tires during the tire assembly or
curing
curing or inspection processes,
processes, (p) (p) contamination
contamination in in tires
tires during
during the
the tire assembly
assembly or curing or
inspection processes, ((q)
inspection processes, misplacementof
q) misplacement of tire
tire components
components as as noticed
noticed inin the
the tire assembly
assembly or
curing
curing or inspection
inspection processes,
processes, (r) (r) improper
improper splicing
splicing of of tire
tire components
components as as noticed
noticed in in the tire
4517897 49
SuppR 234
assembly or curing or inspection processes, and (s) the failure of
of the cured tire inspection process
to detect defects before tires were sold to customers.
RESPONSE:
MNA objects to
MNA objects to this
this request
request because
because have
have not
notidentified
identified the
the specific
specific design
design or
or
manufacturing processthat
manufacturing process that produced
producedthe
the defect
defect alleged
allegedtoto be
be present
present in
in the tire in
in question.
question.
Accordingly, this request
Accordingly, this request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
animpermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition" for
for
information generally related
information generally related to
to every
every aspect
aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's design
design and
and manufacturing
manufacturing process,
process,
whether or not related
related to
to claims
claims in
in this case.
MNA objects to this request
objects to request because it is
is overly
overly broad,
broad, unduly
unduly burdensome,
burdensome, and seeks
seeks
documents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to
lead
lead to the discovery
discovery of admissible evidence. MNA
admissible evidence. MNA further
further objects
objects to the
the extent
extent this
this request
request
seeks
seeks or attempts
attempts to
to seek
seekinformation
informationthat
thatconstitutes
constitutescommercially
commercially sensitive,
sensitive, confidential
confidential
business informationof
business information of MNA.
MNA. Pursuant
Pursuant to Rule
Rule 507
507 of
of the
the Texas
Texas Rules
Rules of
ofEvidence,
Evidence, MNA
MNA
asserts trade secret protection for such information.
REQUEST
REQUEST FOR FOR ENTRY
ENTRY UPON UPON LAND:
LAND: Pursuant
Pursuant to Texas
Texas Rule
Rule ofof Civil
Civil Procedure
Procedure 196.7,
196.7,
Robert Coleman requests
requests to enter upon property;
property; specifically,
specifically, entry
entry upon
upon Michelin's
Michelin's tire plant in
Woodburn, Indiana (located
Woodburn, Indiana (located near
near Fort
Fort Wayne,
Wayne, Indiana;
Indiana; this
this plant
plant is hereafter referred to
hereafter referred to as the
"Fort Wayne
Wayne plant").
plant"). InIn order
order to
to obtain
obtainsubstantive
substantive evidence
evidence ofofthe
themanufacturing
manufacturing processes
processes
most similar
similar to the
the first
first and
and second
second stage
stage tire
tire manufacturing
manufacturing processes
processes used to assemble
assemble the
failed
failed LT265/75R16
LT265/75R16 BF BF Goodrich
GoodrichRugged
RuggedTerrain
TerrainT/AT/ALRELREtiretireatat issue
issue and
and to obtain
obtain
substantive evidence of
substantive evidence of the proposed
proposed safer
safer alternative
alternative design,
design, Robert
Robert Coleman
Coleman requests
requests to
visually inspect and videographically document the tire building machines at the plant subject to
the following protocol and limitations:
Robert Coleman requests
requests one hour of limited access to particular tire building
building machines
machines
at Continental's Mt.
Mt. Vernon,
Vernon, Illinois facility
facility at a mutually agreed time and date within 60 days
from the date ofof this
this request.
request. Robert
Robert Coleman
Coleman requests
requests that his
his only
only representatives
representatives allowed
allowed to
attend the observation
attend the should be
observation should be his
his attorneys, his tire
attorneys, his tire failure
failure analysis
analysis experts, and a
experts, and
videographer selected by
videographer selected by Robert
Robert Coleman.
Coleman. Robert
Robert Coleman
Coleman proposes
proposes that
that all
all who
who attend the
observation should sign whatever
observation should whatever confidentiality
confidentiality requirements
requirements thatthat Michelin
Michelin should
should request
request
provided that such confidentiality is consistent with Texas law and the information obtained can
be had and videographically recorded for
videographically recorded for use
use in
in this
this case
case by Robert Coleman's counsel and his
tire failure analysis experts.
experts. Robert Coleman proposes
proposes that
that each
each side should bear its own costs.
Robert Coleman proposes
proposes that the observation should include
include the machine or machines used to
4517897 50
SuppR 235
place the innerliner on the tire building dram and to assemble
assemble the belts and and nylon
nylon reinforcement
reinforcement
into the pre-cured tire (sometimes referred to as first and second stage tire building machines) on
which LT265/75R16
LT265/75R16 BF BF Goodrich
Goodrich Rugged
Rugged Terrain
Terrain T/A
T/A LRELRE tires
tires were
were built
built in the
the 6th week of
2011
201l at Michelin's Fort
Fort Wayne
Wayne plant
plant (or,
(or, in
in the
the alternative,
alternative, observation
observation of of the most similar
similar tire
building machines
machines toto be identified by Michelin if if the specific
specific tire building
building machines on which
LT265/75R16
LT265/75Rl6 BF BF Goodrich
Goodrich Rugged
Rugged Terrain
Terrain T/A.
T/A. LRE
LRE tires
tires were
were built
built in the 6th week ofof 2011
cannot
cannot be identified).
identified). Robert Coleman
Coleman proposes
proposes that the the observation
observation should
should include
include visually
visually
inspecting and videotaping the machines
videotaping the machines while
while they
they are
are in use building light truck car tires, and
the scope
scope of
of the
the observation
observation should
should not include
include anyany sampling
sampling or destructive
destructive testing and should
include nothing more than a visual
visual observation
observation - - including
including recording
recording by by videotape
videotape -— and be
limited to one hour
hour of
of observation
observation and videotaping the machines while they
machines while they are in use. Robert
Coleman proposes that the observation should include:
(a)
(a) 15 minutes of observation
observation of the first stage
stage tire building process conducted
conducted in a
manner
manner asas near as is
is practical
practical to
to the
the first
first stage
stage tire
tire building
building processes
processes implemented
implemented in
building LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires built in the 6th week
of 2011
2011 at Michelin's Fort Wayne plant,
(b)
(b) 15 minutes of
of observation of
of the second stage tire building process conducted in a
manner as near as is practical to the second
second stage
stage tire building
building processes
processes implemented in
LT265/75R16
LT265/75Rl6 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires built in the 6th week of 2011
of201l
at Michelin's Fort Wayne plant,
(c)
(c) 15
15 minutes
minutes of observation
observation of the second
second stage
stage tire
tire building
building process
process where
where a
jointless nylon
jointless nylon strip
strip spirally
spirally wound
wound over
over the
the belts
belts in
in at least two layers
layers and covering a
greater portion of the belt package as compared to the portion of of the belt package covered
by nylon in the
the LT265/75R16
LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain
Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A
T/A LRE
LRE tires
tires built in the
6th
6th week
week of 2011
2011 is being
being applied to a light
applied to light truck
truck car
car tire
tire as
as similar
similar as
as practical
practical to
LT265/75R16
LT265/75Rl6 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires built in the 6th week of 2011
of201l
at Michelin's Fort Wayne plant, and
(d)
(d) 15
15 minutes
minutes of
of observation
observation of the
the second
second stage
stage tire
tire building
building process
process where
where
Filament at Zero
Filament at Zero is
is being
being applied
applied to
to a light truck tire car tire as similar as practical
practical to a
LT265/75R16
LT265/75Rl6 BFBF Goodrich Rugged
Rugged Terrain
Terrain T/A
T/A LRE
LRE tires
tires were
were built
built in the
the 6th week of
2011.
Robert Coleman proposes that the videotaping should occur while these machines are in
noimal
normal use.
use. Robert
Robert Coleman proposesthat
Coleman proposes that his
his counsel, his tire
counsel, his tire failure
failure experts,
experts, and
and his
his
videographer who who would attend the observation should be identified within seven days of when
the
the inspection
inspection protocol
protocol is is agreed
agreed or ordered
ordered byby the
the court
courtand
andshould
shouldpresent
presentphotographic
photographic
identification in the form of a driver's
driver's license
license or
or similar
similar government
government issues
issues identification
identification before
entering the plant, and that all such attendees should wear visitor badges the entire time they are
in the plant (if
(if Michelin
Michelin requests), should be accompanied and escorted by Michelin's personnel
at all times
times they
they are
are in
in the
the plant
plant (if
(ifMichelin
Michelin requests),
requests), should
should wear
wear hardhats
hardhats and
and safety
safety glasses
glasses
and ear protection and steelsteel toed boots
boots during
during the observation
observation (if
(if Michelin requests), should not
interrupt
interrupt oror interfere with the
interfere with the equipment
equipment or or the
the nothial
normal operations
operations of of the
the plant
plant or plant
plant
4517897 51
SuppR 236
employees, and should
employees, and should not attempt
attempt to speak
speak with any
any plant
plant personnel
personnel except for their
their escorts.
escorts.
Robert Coleman proposes that his representatives
representatives should not be allowed to videotape any other
area of
of the plant except the tire building machines being observed and should not bring recording
or photographing
photographing or or videotaping devices other
videotaping devices other than
than the videographer's
videographer' s equipment
equipment to to the
the
observation. Robert Coleman proposes that Michelin should be allowed to take whatever steps it
deems appropriate
appropriate to limit access so that access includes only access to the particular
particular machines
and processes to be videotaped as set out out above.
above. Robert Coleman
Coleman proposes that Michelin should
be allowed
allowed to conduct
conduct itsits own
own videotaping
videotaping of of the
the inspection.
inspection. Robert
Robert Coleman
Coleman proposes
proposes that
Michelin
Michelin should
should be allowed
allowed to to all videotapes
videotapes should
should be copied
copied and provided to the other side
provided to
within 10
10 days after
after the observation
observation of of the tire building machines. Robert Coleman proposes that
the videotapes as well as anyany documentation
documentation of of the equipment and processes recorded during the
inspection
inspection should be governed
governed by by whatever
whatever confidentiality
confidentiality requirements
requirements that Michelin
Michelin should
should
request
request provided that such confidentiality
provided that confidentiality is is consistent with Texas
consistent with Texas law andand the
the infoiiiiation
information
obtained can be had and
obtained can and videographically recorded for
videographically recorded for use
use in
in this
this case by Robert
Robert Coleman's
Coleman's
counsel and his tire failure analysis experts.
In the alternative,
alternative, if
if Michelin
Michelin would
would prefer,
prefer, Robert
Robert Coleman
Coleman would agree to protocols
protocols
based on the attached order. See Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
If Michelin
Michelin refuses
refuses to allow
allow the
the entry
entry upon
upon land
land as
as requested
requested above,
above, Robert
Robert Coleman
Coleman
requests that Michelin preserve and document the evidence
requests evidence by videotaping
videotaping the same
same machines
machines
and the same processes without Robert Coleman or his representatives being present and further
requests that Michelin file
requests file such videotapes
videotapes under seal with the trial court
court as
as permitted
permitted pursuant
Texas Rule of
of Civil Procedure 76a.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ENTRY UPON LAND:
MNA objects
objects to the extent this request
request because it seeks
seeks information
information that constitutes
constitutes the
highly
highly confidential and closely
confidential and closely guarded
guarded trade
trade secrets
secrets of MNA,
MNA, which should not be divulged
divulged
except under extraordinary circumstances.
circumstances. Intervenors
Intervenors have not demonstrated
demonstrated any need for these
trade secrets.
secrets. Pursuant
Pursuant to
to Rule
Rule 507
507 of
ofthe
the Texas
Texas Rules
Rules of
ofEvidence,
Evidence, MNA
MNA asserts
asserts trade
trade secret
secret
protection for such information.
protection for information. Furthermore,
Furthermore, the
the requested
requested inspection
inspection is overly
overly broad, would
impose
impose an undue burden on MNA,
MNA, and is not reasonably calculated
calculated to
to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. MNA's
admissible evidence. MNA's trade
trade secrets
secrets within
within the Fort
Fort Wayne,
Wayne, Indiana
Indiana plant today have no
bearing
bearing as to whether
whether MNA
MNA manufactured
manufactured a defective tire in 2011,
defective tire 2011, and
and any
any information
information from
4517897 52
SuppR 237
observing this machinery in 2015 would be both confusing and misleading if presented to a jury
in this case.
Finally, MNA objects to this request because intervenors have not identified the specific
manufacturing processthat
manufacturing process that produced
producedthe
the defect
defect alleged
allegedtoto be
be present
present in
in the tire in
in question.
question.
Accordingly, this request
Accordingly, this request is
is nothing
nothing more
more than
than an
animpermissible
impermissible "fishing
"fishing expedition"
expedition" for
for
infoiiiiation
information generally related to
generally related to every aspect of
of MNA's
MNA's manufacturing process,
process, whether
whether or not
related to intervenors' claims in this case.
4517897 53
SuppR 238
CAUSE NO.
NO. 2014-57952
KOLLYE KILPATRICK,
KOLLYE KILPATRICK, Individually §
Individually
as Heir at
at Law
Law and
andRepresentative
Representativeofofthe
the §
Estate of BEVERLY
BEVERLY ANN §
KILPATRICK, Deceased; ERIC §
KILPATRICK; and KAREN §
KILPATRICK, §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
AND §
§
ROBERT DWAYNE COLEMAN, §
Individually, and KIMBERLY §
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
HARRIS.COUNTY,
COLEMAN as Next Friend of §
BLAYNE MICHAEL COOK, §
CAMERON
CAMERON BAILEY BAILEYCOOK,COOK, minors, §
minors,
Intervening Plaintiffs and Cross- §
152ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Claimants, §
§
vs. §
§
MICHELIN
MICHELIN NORTHNORTHAMERICA,
AMERICA,INC.,
INC., §
BF GOODRICH,
GOODRICH,ROBERT ROBERTDWAYNE
DWAYNE §
COLEMAN,
Defendants.
VERIFICATION OF MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA,
AMERICA, INC.'S RESPONSES AND
OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENING COLEMANS' FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION,
INTERROGATORY, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
I, Traci Gudger, certify and declare that I have read Defendant Michelin North America,
Inc.'s Responses
Responses and
and Objections
Objections to
to Intervening
Intervening Colemans'
Colemans' First
First Requests
Requests for
for Admission,
Admission,
Interrogatory, and Requests
Interrogatory, and Requestsfor
forProduction
Production(the
(the"Responses")
"Responses")and
andknow
knowitsitscontents.
contents. I am
am
authorized to make this
this verification for
for and
and on
on behalf
behalf of
of Michelin
MichelinNorth
NorthAmerica,
America,Inc.
Inc. ("MNA")
and I make this verification for that reason.
verification for reason. The
The Responses
Responses were
were prepared
prepared with
with the
the assistance
assistance
and advice
advice of employees
employees of, and counsel
counsel for,
for, MNA, upon whose assistance
assistance and advice
advice I have
SuppR 239
relied.
relied. The
TheResponses,
Responses, subject
subject to
to inadvertent
inadvertent or
or undiscovered
undiscovered error, are based on and
and therefore
therefore
necessarily limited by the records and infoimation
necessarily limited information still in
in existence,
existence, presently
presently recollected,
recollected, and
thus far discovered
discovered in the course
course of preparation of these
preparation of these responses.
responses. MNA
MNA reserves
reserves the right to
change or supplement these responses, or to apply for relief to permit insertion of
of unintentionally
omitted matters.
matters. Subject
Subject to
to the
the limitations
limitations set
set forth
forth herein,
herein, I am
am informed
informed and
and believe,
believe, and on
that ground allege, that the matters stated in the Responses are true to the best of
of my knowledge,
infoiniation
information and belief.
MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.
Traci Gudger
D-015
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED
Before Me This /,..51r- Day Of 2015.
No y ublic
My Commission Expires: ///--/6 --11
/—/6 -174'
-2-
2
SuppR 240
E RM E R r LE C
GERMER_
AUSTIN BEAUMONT HOUSTON
BEAUMONT HOUSTON
G
ATTORNEYS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
www.germer.com
KATHRYN M. LINDSAY
KATHRYN LINDSAY
PARALEGAL
direct: (512}
direct: (512) 482-3532
482-3532
klindsay@germer-austin.com
January 16, 2015
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RRR
John Gsanger
The Edwards Law Firm
802 N. Carancahua, Ste. 1400
Frost Bank Plaza
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Re: Cause
Cause No.
No. 2014-57952; Kollye Kilpatrick,
2014-57952; Kollye Kilpatrick,Individually
IndividuallyasasHeir
Heir at
at Law
Law and
and
Representative of
Representative of the
the Estate of
of Beverly Ann Kilpatrick,
Kilpatrick, deceased;
deceased; Eric Kilpatrick;
and
and Karen
Karen Kilpatrick
Kilpatrick v.
v. Michelin
Michelin North
North America,
America, Inc.
Inc. and
and Robert
Robert Dwayne
Dwayne
Coleman; In the 152nd Judicial District, Harris County,
County, Texas.
Texas.
Dear Counsel:
Enclosed please find
Enclosed please find Michelin North America,
Michelin North America, Inc.'s
Inc.'s Responses
Responses and Objections
Objections to
Intervening Colemans' First
First Requests
Requests for Admission,
Admission, Interrogatory, and Requests for Production
to Defendant, Michelin North America, Inc.
Yours very truly,
-K~
26re; (004,
r /YL--;;p~Cl-/
Kathryn M. Lindsay
Paralegal
KML:lq
Enclosure
cc.: (w/encl.) (via regular mail)
Robert E. Ammons
Michael E. Bourland
Timothy D. "Tim" Riley
GERMER
GERM ERBEAMAN
BEAMAN & BROWN PLLC
& BROWN PLLC
CONGRESS AVE,
301 CONGRESS AVE, SUITE
SUITE1700
1700 AUSTIN,
AUSTIN,TXTX78701
78701
PHONE:
PHONE: 512.472.0288 FAX: 512.472.0721
512.472.0288 • FAX: 512.472,0721
4517935
SuppR 241
· .. ·....·
·. :.
1820 0001
7014 1820
7014 5824
3477 5824
0001 3477
II
GERMER
GERMER
AiTORNEY S
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
AT LAW
GERMER BEAMAN &
GERMER BEAMAN BROWN PLLC
& BROWN PLLC
301 Congresss Avenue,
301 Congres 1700
Suite 1700
Avenue, Suite
Austin, Texas
Austin, 78701
Texas 78701
#86973
,.t;
John Gsanger
Edwards Law Firm
The Edwards Finn
ua,
802 N. Carancahua,
·802 Carancah Ste. 1400
1400
Frost Bank Plaza
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
·--·
··~·-------
SuppR 242