in Re: Michelin North America, Inc.

Opinion

ACCEPTED

05-15-01480-CV

05-15-01480-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS

12/4/2015 2:42:24 PM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

NO. _______________

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT DALLAS, TEXAS AT DALLAS, TEXAS 12/4/2015 2:42:24 PM LISA MATZ

Clerk

IN RE MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Samuel Medina, et al

v.

Michelin North America, Inc., et al

Original Mandamus Proceeding From the 134th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas No. DC-14-07255

MANDAMUS RECORD

Debora B. Alsup Thomas M. Bullion III State Bar No. 02006200 State Bar No. 03331005 debora.alsup@tklaw.com tbullion@germer-austin.com Nathan K. Palmer Chris A. Blackerby State Bar No. 24098220 State Bar No. 00787091 nathan.palmer@tklaw.com cblackerby@germer-austin.com THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN PLLC 98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1900 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701-4238 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 469-6100 (512) 472-0288 (512) 482-5028 Alsup Facsimile (512) 472-0721 Facsimile (512) 482-5006 Palmer Facsimile

COUNSEL FOR RELATOR MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

INDEX TO RELATOR’S MANDAMUS RECORD

1. MR 1-2 November 11, 2015 Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel

2. MR 3-4 November 19, 2015 Amended Order on Plaintiffs’

Motion to Compel

3. MR 5-6 November 21, 2015 Order regarding November 3 Hearing

4. MR 7-70 September 8, 2015 Hearing Transcript

5. MR 71-108 October 5, 2015 Hearing Transcript

6. MR 109-160 November 3, 2015 Hearing Transcript

7. MR 161-193 Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, 7/9/14

8. MR 194-202 Michelin’s Special Exceptions, Amended Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, 10/15/15

9. MR 203-333 Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion to Compel Michelin to Respond to Discovery and Identification of Withheld Michelin Documents, 8/25/15 [Redacted copy]

10. MR 334 Letter from Michelin’s counsel to Medina’s counsel, 9/1/2015

11. MR 335-351 Affidavit of Vaneaton Price, 9/1/15

12. MR 352-431 Michelin’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’

Motion to Compel Discovery and Identification of Withheld Michelin Documents, 9/4/15

13. MR 432-592 Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Their Motion to Compel, 9/4/15 14. MR 593-754 Plaintiffs’ Supplement in Support of its Original (08-

25-15) Motion to Compel, 11/24/15

15. MR 755-757 Plaintiffs’ Short Motion to Compel Michelin’s Employee Most Knowledgeable about: Financial Information of Michelin North America, Inc., 10/19/15

16. MR 758-784 Michelin’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Short Motion to Compel Michelin Employee Most Knowledgeable about Financial Information of Michelin North America, Inc., 10/30/15

17. MR 785-789 Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion to Compel the Depositions of Michelin’s Employees Most Knowledgeable about Financial Information & Net Worth, 11/2/15

18. MR 790-791 Plaintiffs’ Short Motion to Compel Michelin to Comply with Order and Produce Tire Training Documents, 10/19/15

19. MR 792-810 Michelin’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Short Motion to Compel Michelin to Comply with Order and Produce Tire Training Documents, 10/30/15

20. MR 811-829 Michelin’s Motion for Clarification, Reconsideration, and for Stay, 11/18/15

21. MR 830-896 Plaintiffs’ Response to Michelin’s Motion for Clarification, Reconsideration, and for Stay, 12/02/15

22. MR 897-900 Michelin’s Motion for Bifurcated Trial, 11/30/15

23. MR 901-918 Michelin’s Motion for Stay of Disclosure of Financial Information and Supplement to Michelin’s Response Opposing Disclosure of Financial Information, 11/30/15

Respectfully submitted,

THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP

By: /s/ Debora B. Alsup Debora B. Alsup State Bar No. 02006200

Nathan K. Palmer State Bar No. 24098220 nathan.palmer@tklaw.com

98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1900 Austin, Texas 78701-4238 (512) 469-6100 (512) 482-5028 Alsup Facsimile (512) 482-5006 Palmer Facsimile

GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN PLLC

Thomas M. Bullion III State Bar No. 03331005 tbullion@germer-austin.com

Chris A. Blackerby State Bar No. 00787091 cblackerby@germer-austin.com

301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 472-0288 (512) 472-0721 Facsimile

ATTORNEYS FOR RELATOR MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

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,

facsimile, or e-mail on this 4th day of December, 2015.

Via E-Service and E-Mail Via E-Service and E-Mail Luis P. Guerra James B. Ragan David C. Shapiro Law Offices of James B. Ragan Luis P. Guerra, L.L.C. 723 Coleman Ave. 6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Via E-Service and E-Mail Via Regular Mail Noel Sevastianos Jose Bustillo d/b/a Mundo Cars Sevastianos & Associates, PC 6422 Day Street 120 S. Central Avenue, Suite 130 Dallas, Texas 75227 St. Louis, Missouri 63105

/s/ Debora B. Alsup

Debora Alsup

CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA and OBDULIA § IN THE DISTRICT COURT MEDINA, husband and wife, § individually; NATAL YE MEDINA, § individually; NAVIL GIBSON, § individually; § §

PLAINTIFFS, § § 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. § §

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; § AND JOSE BUSTILLO d/b/a MUNDO § CARS, an in state defendant, § §

DEFENDANTS, § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL MNA TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY AND IDENTIFICATIONOF WITHHELD MNA DOCUMENTS

On September 8, 2015, after reviewing the legal memoranda, hearing the arguments of counsel and the Parties met and conferred in the jury room. The Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion and makes the following orders:

It is hereby ORDERED that Michelin shall produce to Plaintiffs' counsel within fourteen (14) days - on or before November 24, 2015 the oldest version of all Aspect Specifications.

It is further ORDERED that, at this time, the Scope for Production concerning Michelin's production is expanded to include:

1. All Michelin P255/70R16 LTX MIS tires including the three (3) common green tires made at the Dothan, Alabama plant from the date production started (1998) until the date it allegedly stopped in 2003.

2. All Michelin P-Metric 235, 245, 255 and 265 LTX MIS tires manufactured, within six ( 6) months before and one (1) year after the incident made the basis of this lawsuit.

It is further ORDERED that Michelin will produce the following documents - which it agreed to disclose:

1. Technical Notes and Tire Non Conform (INC) Procedures

2. Training documents

3. General Principles 4. Nylon Cap Ply documents 5. All versions of Michelin's Position Paper re: Date Limit 6. Manufacturing Tolerances and Reaction Limits

7. Adjustment data/claims/lawsuits/manuals Finally, the Court grants Plaintiffs' Request for Leave to Supplement Legal Authority concerning the production of Belt Skim Stock and Tire Component data, which Plaintiffs filed on Friday, September 11, 2015 titled "Legal Authority Requiring Production of Belt Skim Stock." Michelin is allowed to respond to it.

All relief not expressly granted is hereby denied. Signed this/-/_ day ofNovember, 2015.

CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA and OBDULIA § IN THE DISTRICT COURT MEDINA, husband and wife, § individually; NATAL YE MEDINA, § individually; NAVIL GIBSON, § individually; § §

PLAINTIFFS, § § 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. § §

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; § AND JOSE BUSTILLO d/b/a MUNDO § CARS, an in state defendant, § §

DEFENDANTS, § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

AMENDED ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL MNA TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY AND IDENTIFICATIONOF WITHHELD MNA DOCUMENTS

On September 8, 2015, after reviewing the legal memoranda, hearing the arguments of counsel and the Parties met and conferred in the jury room. The Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion and makes the following orders:

It is hereby ORDERED that Michelin shall produce to Plaintiffs' counsel on or before December 8, 2015, the oldest version of all Aspect Specifications.

It is further ORDERED that, at this time, the Scope for Production concerning Michelin's production is expanded to include:

1. All Michelin P255/70R16 LTX M/S tires including the three (3) common green tires made at the Dothan, Alabama plant from the date production started (1998) until the date it allegedly stopped in 2003.

2. All Michelin P-Metric 235, 245, 255 and 265 LTX M/S tires manufactured, within six (6) months before and one ( 1) year after the incident made the basis of this lawsuit.

It is further ORDERED that Michelin will produce the following documents - which it agreed to disclose:

1. Technical Notes and Tire Non Conform (TNC) Procedures 2. Training documents

AMENDED ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL MNA TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY AND IDENTIFICATION OF WITHHELD MNA DOCUMENTS Page 1 of2 3. General Principles 4. Nylon Cap Ply documents 5. All versions of Michelin's Position Paper re: Date Limit 6. Manufacturing Tolerances and Reaction Limits 7. Adjustment data/claims/lawsuits/manuals Finally, the Court grants Plaintiffs' Request for Leave to Supplement Legal Authority concerning the production of Belt Skim Stock and Tire Component data, which Plaintiffs filed on Friday, September 11, 2015 titled "Legal Authority Requiring Production of Belt Skim Stock." Michelin is allowed to respond to it.

All relief not expressly granted is hereby denied. Signed this /tJ day of November, 2015.

AMENDED ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL MNA TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY AND IDENTIFICATION OF WITHHELD MNA DOCUMENTS Page 2 of2

CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA and OBDULIA § IN THE DISTRICT COURT MEDINA, husband and wife, § OF DALLAS COUNTY individually; NATAL YE MEDINA, § individually; NAVIL GIBSON, § individually; § §

PLAINTIFFS, § § 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. § § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; § AND JOSE BUSTILLO d/b/a MUNDO § CARS, an in state defendant, § §

DEFENDANTS, §

ORDER re: November 3. 2015 Hearing

On November 3, 2015, after reviewing the legal memoranda and hearing the arguments of counsel, the Court makes the following orders:

It is hereby Ordered that Michelin shall produce a Corporate Representative to testify

about the financial condition, wealth, assets, and financial statements of Defendant Michelin

North America, Inc.

It is hereby Ordered that Michelin shall produce a Corporate Representative to testify

about the tire training documents discussed in Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Tire Training

Documents.

It is further Ordered that Michelin shall produce a Corporate Representative to testify

about the Aspect Specifications produced in this case in response to Plaintiffs' Request for

Production.

It is further Ordered that Michelin shall produce a Corporate Representative( s) to testify about the code key to decipher the documents provided by Michelin to date with Bates Nos. MNA-MEDINA3380-3386 and MNA-MEDINA1313-1365, 1530-1814, 3516-3615, 3819- 4513.

Signed this-2/-day of November, 2015.

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 REPORTER'S RECORD VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUMES

2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255 3 SAMUEL MEDINA AND OBDULIA ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT MEDINA, HUSBAND AND WIFE, ) 4 INDIVIDUALLY; NATALYE MEDINA )

INDIVIDUALLY; NAVIL GIBSON, ) 5 INDIVIDUALLY, )

)

6 Plaintiff(s), )

)

7 vs. ) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS )

8 MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; )

AND JOSE BUSTILLO D/B/A MUNDO )

9 CARS, AN IN STATE DEFENDANT, )

)

10 Defendant(s). ) 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 11 12 13 _____________________________________________ 14 PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL MICHELIN TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY AND IDENTIFICATION OF WITHHELD MICHELIN 15 DOCUMENTS HEARING

_____________________________________________

16 17 18 On the 8th day of September, 2015, the following 19 proceedings came on to be held in the above-titled and 20 numbered cause before the Honorable Dale B. Tillery, 21 Judge Presiding, held in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas. 22 Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype 23 machine. 24 25

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 APPEARANCES 2 LUIS P. GUERRA SBOT NO. (Admitted Pro hac vice) 3 DAVID C. SHAPIRO SBOT NO. (Admitted Pro hac vice) 4 Luis P. Guerra, L.L.C.

6225 N. 24th Street 5 Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 6 Telephone: (602) 381-8400 Fax: (602) 381-8403 7 E-mail: Pmigliorini@lpguerra.com Counsel for PLAINTIFFS 8 CHRIS A. BLACKERBY 9 SBOT NO. 00787091 Germer Beaman & Brown, P.L.L.C. 10 301 Congress Avenue Suite 1700 11 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 472-0288 12 Fax: (512) 472-0721 E-mail: Cblackerby@germer-austin.com 13 Counsel for DEFENDANTS 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

3

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 VOLUME 1 2 PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL MICHELIN TO RESPOND 3 TO DISCOVERY AND IDENTIFICATION OF WITHHELD MICHELIN 4 DOCUMENTS HEARING 5 September 8, 2015 6 PAGE VOL. 7 Proceedings .......................................4 1 8 Adjournment ......................................63 1 9 Reporter's Certificate ...........................64 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

4

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 THE COURT: All right. We're on the 3 record in Cause No. DC-14-07255, Medina, et al vs. 4 Michelin North America. Announcements and appearance on 5 the record for the Plaintiff, please. 6 MR. GUERRA: Luis Guerra and David 7 Shapiro. And I have with me also, Your Honor, my 8 clients, in fact, the real parties in interest, Mr. and 9 Mrs. Medina, Samuel and Obdulia. And in the middle of 10 them is an interpreter so they can understand what we are 11 saying here, Your Honor, is Olga -- 12 THE COURT: All right. Very, very good. 13 Welcome to y'all. Welcome to the Court. 14 And for the Defendants. 15 MR. BULLION: Your Honor, Tom Bullion and 16 Chris Blackerby for Michelin North America Corporation. 17 THE COURT: All right. Plaintiffs' 18 motion. 19 MR. GUERRA: Yes, Your Honor. 20 We are here -- we are here but we 21 shouldn't be here. We are here talking about can we hide 22 the evidence, can we hide documentation, can we not give 23 these folks the ability to fairly adjudicate their claims 24 in court. 25 Your Honor, when we were here in May 11

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

5

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 when I met you, at the end of their hearing, I said, Your 2 Honor, I'm having problems with documentation and how 3 fast can I get a hearing? I don't know if you remember 4 that. You said, Luis, three days; unless they object, 5 they have waived their notice. 6 I ask Chris, do you object, do you waive 7 the notice? 8 And he said, no. 9 I said, okay, Your Honor, I'll go down 10 there. I'm going to talk to him about this document. 11 It's all on the record. 12 I went outside, talked to Chris. And he 13 said, Luis, I'm not in charge of discovery. I don't do 14 any of that. This is the national discovery counsel, 15 Nelson Mullins. And the guy that you need to talk to is 16 Giles, you know Giles Schanen. He is not here today. 17 You notice that. He's not here. Giles Schanen. 18 I said, I never met Giles. I hold you 19 accountable because you are the face of Michelin. 20 And he said to me, okay, but, you know, 21 that's the guy that is dealing with this. You dealt with 22 Kate Helm before, same firm, Nelson Mullins, on a case 23 that we have previous against Michelin, same tire, same 24 exact stuff. And so you know how it goes. 25 I said, no, I don't know how it goes, but

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

6

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 okay. 2 And he said, you sign a protective order, 3 you get the documents. 4 I don't like protective orders. I really 5 don't, Your Honor, because they hide all these defects, 6 problems with these products away from the public 7 forever. 8 Okay. Onto documents. That's how they 9 get us. They have us because without the documents I 10 can't prove my case. 11 Obdulia is quadriplegic. These are the 12 facts. It's not my case. It's her. So when I'm 13 speaking, it's her speaking. I'm asking you, she is 14 sleeping, coming with her husband from Chicago to 15 St. Louis laying on his shoulder -- 16 THE COURT: I'm familiar with the facts 17 from last time and from reading the pleadings. Tell me 18 what you want. How about that? 19 MR. GUERRA: Yes. I'll do that, Your 20 Honor. 21 I want fairness. And the fairness that I 22 want -- we were here on May 11th and we were talking 23 about that -- 24 THE COURT: Yeah. What documents do you 25 want?

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

7

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 MR. GUERRA: I'll tell you, Your Honor. 2 I'll tell you, but I need to explain a little bit. I can 3 tell you exactly which documents I want. 4 THE COURT: Okay. 5 MR. GUERRA: There they are, Your Honor. 6 Here's the list. Would you give a list to opposing 7 counsel, please. 8 But the point I was making, all the 9 objections of the Defendants are absolutely worthless at 10 this point. First, the documents are trade secret. 11 There's a protective order. There was no problem before. 12 There's no problem now. They are protected. They never 13 proved that they were confidential or trade secret 14 documents. That's okay. They have that. 15 The documents are not relevant. Okay. 16 All right. But this is discovery. We're not talking 17 about admissibility for trial. If they are not relevant, 18 you will be able to file the motions in limine. 19 But they also say, Your Honor, that -- one 20 of the arguments that the documents are not relevant is 21 because it relates to different tires and the tires that 22 have nothing to do with this tire. That's not true. The 23 LTX M/S line is a line of tires -- and, in fact, Michelin 24 doesn't even categorize them by line. It categorizes 25 them by the type of use. So light truck tires are

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

8

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 manufactured, inspected and designed the same way. And I 2 can prove it to you with physical evidence not talk. 3 And also, Your Honor, remember if in fact 4 we follow Michelin logic about just giving the 5 documents -- you can only try the case with the documents 6 that I choose you should have. That's not the way the 7 system works based upon good Texas case law. 8 The Cheer Mark (phonetic) case, Your 9 Honor, that I'm sure you're familiar with from the court 10 of appeals has pages and pages and pages of explanation 11 why you are entitled to similar tires, not identical, not 12 just the product, not just the identical product, similar 13 so you can look for alternative designs, notice to the 14 manufacturer, consequences of not putting the alternative 15 design, all of it covered by our lawsuit. 16 And it says -- the phrase is relevant to 17 the subject matter and reasonably calculated to lead to 18 admissible evidence and legally construed to allow 19 litigants to obtain the fullest knowledge of the facts 20 and issues prior to the trial. And that's the point 21 here. 22 Mr. Blackerby came here on May 11th and 23 said, Your Honor, we need to have that tire -- we need to 24 have those tires so we can have what Plaintiffs have. 25 Just fairness, just level playing field, that's what I

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

9

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 want. 2 Because if we follow Michelin's logic, I 3 can only have some portions of it. I believe you will 4 only be able to look at that tire, not even the rim. 5 Since we were here, this is what we've done for Michelin, 6 we sent them that tire plus the three additional tires 7 plus the spare tire plus all the rims. Then they call us 8 and said, we need to inspect the vehicle. 9 Now, there is no evidence that any of the 10 other tires caused anything. And, in fact, all the other 11 types are not even Michelin. They inspected them all. 12 In addition, they said, we want to inspect 13 the vehicle. Okay. There is no evidence that the 14 vehicle caused anything, but they inspected the vehicle. 15 And then they said, we want to inspect the seatbelts. 16 They inspected the seatbelt. 17 THE COURT: Okay. But what do you want? 18 MR. GUERRA: I want all those documents. 19 But most important, Your Honor, they told me -- 20 THE COURT: All right. Let's start going 21 through them. We have got to go through your request and 22 what they're not providing. 23 MR. GUERRA: Okay. Aspect specifications, 24 Your Honor. Aspect specifications and you have the 25 listings there, documents that are used by the verifiers,

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

10

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 inspectors at the factory to determine whether or not the 2 tire that has been manufactured is up to speed, up to 3 spec. And the aspect verifiers the -- the inspectors 4 have a full set at the inspection station -- these are 5 guys that do this day in and day out -- and they still 6 must have all of the aspect specifications present. 7 There's 200 of them. On this case -- 200 aspect 8 specifications. On this case -- don't be sorry. I got 9 excited. Interrupt me, please. 10 On this case, they gave me nine useless 11 aspects. So I'm missing 191. 12 Let me show you, Your Honor, how useless 13 they are. 14 THE COURT: No. I just need you to tell 15 me what you want. 16 MR. GUERRA: Just with this stuff, but it 17 shows they are not providing evidence. They know that 18 nobody can read this because what is -- what is an R3H? 19 What is an A? What is an E? What is a D? What is an H? 20 They have the code. It's on a general principles, which 21 is another document. 22 Now, recently, about a couple of days ago 23 or maybe Thursday, we got a letter from Mr. Blackerby 24 that said, oh, you can have the general principles. I've 25 been waiting five months for them. All right. You can

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

11

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 have the technical notes. Okay. I've been waiting 2 nine -- five months, in fact, a year for them. 3 Then they said, you can have the technical 4 notes. Okay. Then they said, you can have the tire 5 nonconforming procedures. Okay. I also want all of the 6 technical repertoire which tells me all technical notes 7 that exist and then also the aspect specifications 8 repertoire, which is French for the least of aspect 9 specifications. 10 Now, I speak French, just happen to, Your 11 Honor. It's my second language. My first one is 12 Portuguese, second one is French, third one is Spanish, 13 and this is my fourth language. Sometimes I'm not very 14 accurate in what I say in English and for that I 15 apologize, Your Honor. But I do know French. And all I 16 want is the same courtesy that I gave these folks that 17 Michelin gives to us. 18 I also need the tolerance and the limits. 19 The tolerances and the limits, the actual limits and 20 tolerances, are the specifications of the tire before the 21 tire gets baked or cured. I don't have that, Your Honor. 22 I also need to get the belt skim stock, 23 which is the material that Michelin makes or the 24 component of material that Michelin makes that covers the 25 components to glue them together. It's in lay terms kind

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

12

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 of the glue of the materials so they stay together. 2 I also need, Your Honor, the warranty 3 data, the warranty data. Every time there's a defect on 4 a tire -- and defect includes separation, a separation of 5 the tread belt, edge belt, because the tire is inside of 6 two steel belts. And when the tread comes apart with the 7 belt, separates from the rest of the carcass, that's what 8 I'm talking about. It's a well-known defect and they 9 warrant for that. 10 I want the warranty data on that. It's 11 called the adjustment data. And it gives you all kinds 12 of details about that gives you -- not only it gives you 13 the claims forms initially, but also the Michelin claims 14 forms, the dealer claims forms, gives you also those code 15 keys for those -- for the codes. For instance, in the 16 case of Discount Tire, 23 is tread belt separation, 54 is 17 edge separation. So I need the code keys that come with 18 the code; otherwise, I will have the same problem that I 19 have here with the aspect specs. 20 You know, the issue with the aspect specs, 21 Your Honor, and you can see that they apply even though 22 this gentleman here filed something to say that the tires 23 are different. That's nonsense. Michelin classifies 24 their tires based upon the type of use. So passenger and 25 light truck, the manufacturing process, the design

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

13

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 process, the inspection process is exactly the same. And 2 the proof is in the pudding. 3 This is one of the aspect specifications, 4 one of the nine useless that they gave me, 51. And each 5 one of them will say aspect specifications, passenger and 6 light truck, not lines, not different lines of tires, not 7 different molds of tires, not different speeds or ratings 8 or whatever, light truck. All the same across the board 9 for all light truck tires. Michelin LTX M/S 275s, 255s, 10 265s, 245s, 255s, all of it. So I need all that 11 adjustment data, Your Honor. 12 I also need the work instructions. The 13 adjustment data also has graphs and photographs that 14 depict the exact -- the type of data that they see when 15 they get the defective tires returned and they're going 16 to issue credits or issue -- allow the client to buy a 17 new tire, they take photographs and they analyze all that 18 data and send it to two centers here in the United 19 States. And they put charts and graphs so it shows the 20 trend of what they are seeing. I don't have any of that. 21 Also I need the work instructions of the 22 training for the tire inspectors. The tire inspectors 23 don't get on first day on the job and know how to inspect 24 a tire or to build a tire. I don't have any of that, 25 Your Honor.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

14

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 I mean, it's -- they gave us absolutely 2 nothing. They waited six months now and they're offering 3 something else with a caveat, which is, I will give you 4 this but you can't do that. No. I'm not going to take 5 any less than what I came at. I mean, if it was me or if 6 it was anybody that we know, you wanted to know why that 7 tire came apart, Your Honor. So I need all of those 8 documents. I have manufacturing defects, design defects, 9 claims for manufacturing defects, design defects. And 10 so, Your Honor, I need exactly those documents for the 11 defective design, defect in manufacturing, defect in 12 inspection, defect warranty adjustment data. Those are 13 documents that absolutely are necessary for Plaintiffs to 14 fairly adjudicate their claims, Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: All right. Response? 16 MR. BULLION: Your Honor, let me first 17 start off by saying that I'm probably the guy who hates 18 discovery disputes worse in this courtroom other than 19 Your Honor. I've been representing Michelin for more 20 than 15 years. I almost never have hearings on discovery 21 disputes. This is the first one I've had in more than 22 two years. I've had -- I literally have had a handful 23 except one case up in Wichita Falls where I had them over 24 and over and over again about 12 or 15 years ago. 25 The reason that I don't have discovery

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

15

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 dispute hearings is we work these things out with good 2 and reasonable lawyers. We work them out. 3 I'll submit to you, Your Honor, if you've 4 read the briefing provided by the Plaintiffs lawyers in 5 this case, you will know they're not interested in 6 discovery in this case. They're interested in a 7 discovery dispute. What they want to do is try to 8 prejudice this Court against Michelin by citing orders in 9 out-of-state cases where Michelin allegedly did things 10 that they shouldn't have done. 11 If I was -- these folks are from Arizona. 12 And if I was appearing in a case in Arizona, I would 13 admit upfront I don't know anything about the Arizona 14 rules, but I would sure enough find somebody who did know 15 them. And I would rely upon them to make sure that the 16 rules were followed. 17 As the Court is aware, when these lawyers 18 from Arizona got admitted pro hac vice in this case, they 19 had to certify that they had read the Texas rules and 20 were familiar with them and would follow them. And I'll 21 submit to you they have not done that in this case, Your 22 Honor. 23 They also have a Texas lawyer on their 24 pleadings, a lawyer I know very well from Corpus named 25 Jim Reagan. And Mr. Reagan has had cases against

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

16

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 Michelin over the years, not just in Texas but in other 2 states. I've got a current -- got a case with him now. 3 He's very familiar with the Texas rules. The other case 4 I've got pending with him, which is up in Palmer County, 5 right up between Amarillo and almost on the border of New 6 Mexico, we didn't have any kind of a hearing on discovery 7 disputes. We got together and we talked about what he 8 wanted and we worked out an agreement. 9 We basically begged these guys -- as you 10 will see from the letters that we attached to our 11 response, we have begged these guys to confer with regard 12 to this motion, Your Honor, and they have -- they have 13 thwarted us every step of the way. 14 The Texas rules require a conference. The 15 local Dallas rules are strong as horseradish on this. As 16 the Court knows, they have to schedule a conference to 17 resolve the disputed matters. They have to schedule a 18 conference to resolve the disputed matters. They have to 19 have a substantive discussion of every item presented to 20 the Court. Before they come in here and burden the Court 21 and take the Court's time, there is supposed to be a 22 substantive discussion of every item. 23 Instead, what these fellows do is they 24 write letter after letter after letter and make telephone 25 calls, Where are our documents, where are our documents,

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

17

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 where are our documents? They are unyielding in what it 2 is that they want and we can talk about the details if 3 the Court is so inclined. 4 Even after they filed their motion to 5 compel, we have still continued to say, hey, there's a 6 requirement that you confer with us on this. We want to 7 do it. We had a conference scheduled for a week ago 8 today, September 1. We had said, hey, we need to get 9 together on a conference call and go through these 10 discovery requests. We had a court reporter lined up in 11 order to do it. It was going to be last Tuesday 12 afternoon, which I remember well because it was opening 13 day of dove season. I was taking two of my boys out dove 14 hunting. So I was trying to figure out, how am I going 15 to get this call in before I take them dove hunting. 16 And Mr. Shapiro, who is here, you haven't 17 heard from him, but he works with Mr. Guerra. 18 Mr. Blackerby talked and he said, hey, in order to be 19 able to sell Mr. Guerra on this on having a call, I'm 20 going to need some kind of a proposal from you. 21 So we worked hard, Your Honor, to put 22 together a proposal. We went through Plaintiffs' motion 23 to compel point by point and we put together a proposal 24 which we think is very reasonable to try to compromise 25 the disputes that are set out in the Plaintiffs' motion

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

18

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 to compel. That letter is part of Exhibit C to our 2 response to the motion. 3 Mr. Blackerby sent it to Mr. Shapiro I 4 think via e-mail. He almost immediately got a call back 5 where Mr. Shapiro said, this proposal is BS. He didn't 6 use the abbreviation. He called it BS and he said, if I 7 show this to Mr. Guerra he will flip out. 8 Mr. Blackerby said, you need to respond to 9 it. We need to try to confer on this. You need to 10 respond. And as I understand it -- I wasn't a party to 11 the conversation, but Mr. Shapiro said, I will have you a 12 counterproposal in 30 minutes. We never got any such 13 thing. 14 Given all this, Your Honor, the failure of 15 these lawyers to follow not just the Texas Rules of Civil 16 Procedure, but the local rules of the Dallas courts, I 17 would urge the Court not to consider this motion today, 18 but instead to order the parties to confer. We were 19 prepared to do it in the presence of a court reporter and 20 that's the only way, frankly, that we would want to do 21 it. But I would urge the Court to order the parties to 22 confer, at least to narrow the issues and see that 23 they're submitted to the Court in writing or come back 24 for a followup hearing. 25 I don't think that -- when parties don't

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

19

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 follow the applicable rules, they should not be able to 2 take advantage of a ruling of the Court. 3 THE COURT: Well, y'all go in the jury 4 room and start conferring and let me know when you get 5 through conferring and we'll look at this at that time. 6 MR. BULLION: Could we -- could we -- I 7 don't know, your court reporter may be tied up with other 8 things, but we need a -- 9 THE COURT: She will be tied up. 10 MR. BULLION: We need to make a record of 11 it, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Of the conferring? 13 MR. BULLION: Yes, sir. 14 THE COURT: Why? 15 MR. BULLION: Because we need a record of 16 what's said. If we're able to reach any kind of 17 agreements, we need a record of what is said. 18 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, we met with these 19 folks more than 10 times, starting with Chris Blackerby. 20 This gentleman was never involved, Your Honor. 21 THE COURT: Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. 22 Y'all are both here. Have these guys working on it 23 through y'all. Y'all are the ones that are always with 24 the ultimate say in it. Y'all are here now. Y'all are 25 going to confer. That's what you're going to do.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

20

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 MR. GUERRA: Okay, Your Honor. Thank you. 2 THE COURT: If you can't trust each other, 3 okay, we'll come back and you'll make your notes and 4 we'll put on the record the different notes and we'll 5 just kind of see how it goes. 6 MR. GUERRA: Thank you, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: I think more highly of y'all 8 than you think of yourself. I think y'all will be able 9 to know what you agree on and what you don't agree on. I 10 think y'all will figure out that and you'll be able to 11 communicate that to the Court and I'll go from there. 12 All right? 13 MR. GUERRA: Thank you, Your Honor. 14 MR. BULLION: So I guess, Your Honor, to 15 the extent that we're not able to reach an agreement on 16 everything, I would like to obviously address the 17 substantive issues. 18 THE COURT: Sure. Yeah. 19 MR. BULLION: Thank you. 20 THE COURT: I don't imagine y'all are 21 going to agree on everything, but we'll deal with it. 22 Nice accommodations in there. It's good 23 enough for the jurors. I think there's a coffee machine 24 in there. 25 Mr. Fisher, make sure that gets working

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

21

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 and -- 2 MR. GUERRA: Thank you, Your Honor. 3 MR. BULLION: Thank you, Your Honor. 4 (A break is taken.) 5 THE COURT: All right. We're back on the 6 record in Cause No. DC-14-07255 Medina vs. Michelin. All 7 right. What is the results of y'all's conferring? 8 MR. BULLION: Your Honor, we went through 9 Mr. Blackerby's letter dated September 1 of 2015 which is 10 attached as Exhibit C to our response to the Plaintiff's 11 motion and we can just take these items in the order in 12 which they are set out and I think we'll need to have 13 some additional argument. 14 THE COURT: All right. 15 MR. BULLION: We have proposed and I 16 probably ought to give you a little bit of background on 17 the tire, Your Honor. 18 MR. GUERRA: All right. This was a 19 Michelin LTX M/S in the size P25570R16 and I'm sure 20 you've read the affidavit and briefing but this tire was 21 about 11 years old at the time of the accident. We have 22 already produced the specs for this particular tire plus 23 three. There were three common green tires. The common 24 green tires are basically are just the same guts but 25 different outside.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

22

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 THE COURT: Uh-huh. Branded different. 2 MR. BULLION: I'm sorry. 3 THE COURT: Basically branded different. 4 MR. BULLION: Yes, sir. There might be 5 a -- this is a Michelin tire but in the Uniroyal or BF 6 Goodrich world there might be a Uniroyal version or a BF 7 Goodrich version and they're virtually -- from a 8 performance standpoint they're the same, but the outside 9 they're different. 10 MR. GUERRA: If I may, Your Honor, just 11 really quick. If we are going talk about the agreement, 12 we are going talk about the agreement. If it's just the 13 argument, I'll just sit down. 14 THE COURT: Well, you can sit down. 15 MR. GUERRA: It's going to be the argument 16 or it's only going to talk about the scope. 17 THE COURT: Well, you know, I'll hear what 18 I want to hear and then when I get tired I'll move on to 19 something else. 20 MR. GUERRA: Thank you, Your Honor. 21 MR. BULLION: I was just going to try to 22 give you a little flavor for what this dispute was about 23 and then tell you where we are and maybe argue it when 24 you're ready. 25 THE COURT: All right.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

23

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 MR. BULLION: So what we have already 2 given them is the tire in question plus the three common 3 greens, made in Dothan, Alabama which is where this tire 4 was made six months before and after the production of 5 this tire, which was the 31st week of 2001. We agreed in 6 our letter to expand that to the whole time this tire was 7 produced. It was about a six-year period sometime in '98 8 to -- 9 THE COURT: Why not the LTX M/S line? 10 MR. BULLION: Well that -- the affidavit, 11 I think, makes it clear, Your Honor. The line is -- this 12 is a marketing-type -- a marketing-type designation. 13 It's been a round for 20 plus years. It comes in a wide 14 variety of sizes. The designs are different. 15 THE COURT: Well sure it comes in 16 different sizes. 17 MR. BULLION: The proof in front of the 18 court -- the only proof in front of the court today, Your 19 Honor, is the affidavit of Mr. Andy Price and it talks 20 about the fact that the tires are different sizes or are 21 different designs and that's certainly the case. 22 We have -- we have -- we have offered to 23 give -- 24 THE COURT: Why that would not be somewhat 25 relevant to the alternative design.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

24

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 MR. BULLION: I'm assuming that the safer 2 alternative design -- the alleged safe or alternative 3 design is Nylon Calphalon. That typically is the safe or 4 alternative design in this case. We have not gotten to 5 the expert disclosure form, but I'm assuming that's what 6 their safe or alternative design is. 7 THE COURT: Well, I know, but when you say 8 that the -- 9 MR. BULLION: Yeah, in the other point, 10 Your Honor, is we have established via Mr. Price's 11 affidavit that information on all of this is trade secret 12 and there's not any counterproof on it. And as the Court 13 knows under the Supreme Court's decision in In re 14 Continental General Tire, once we establish the 15 information as trade secret then the burden shifts to the 16 Plaintiffs to come in with evidence and show that it's 17 necessary for a fair adjudication of the Plaintiff's 18 claims. They've certainly claimed with lawyer talk that 19 information on other tire lines is necessary to a fair 20 adjudication of Plaintiff's claim, but they haven't 21 brought forward any proof at all with respect to that. 22 We're willing to give up the -- we're 23 willing to give up information on the tire in question 24 because there is a protective order in place and we're 25 willing to concede that information on the tire in

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

25

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 question is necessary to a fair adjudication. But when 2 you get far afield and what they want, Your Honor, is '98 3 all LTX M/S tires from '98 to 2012 from the affidavit 4 we've looked at a six-year period from '98 to 2003 if you 5 got all of those tire lines we're talking about 50 some 6 odd different tires, 5,000 specs almost 20 million tires. 7 If you expand it to their scope this is 8 one of Michelin's best selling tires in history. They 9 have been making it for 20 plus years. LTX M/S, Your 10 Honor, is to Michelin like Chevrolet is to General 11 Motors. It's a market. And if you expand it to 150 to 12 discover -- if I talk in between 50 and hundred million 13 tires, maybe more than 100 million tires and they haven't 14 demonstrated a need for them. They haven't demonstrated 15 that it's necessary to a fair adjudication of Plaintiff's 16 claims. That's really is the point that I'll come back 17 to with regard to anything. 18 If you're trying to expand the scope, 19 you've got to show a need for these documents. They can 20 do that. They can come up with an affidavit from their 21 tire expert and he can say, I need this that and the 22 other. In order to be able to prove my case I need this, 23 that and the other and they have not done it. They've 24 got no proof whatsoever. They could've submitted an 25 affidavit or they could have had testimony.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

26

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 As I said the only evidence before the 2 Court is the affidavit. 3 THE COURT: The trade secret affidavit. 4 MR. BULLION: Sir? 5 THE COURT: Right? The only evidence is 6 you say it's y'all's trade secret affidavit. 7 MR. BULLION: Yes, sir. And it's got more 8 than just trade secret. It's got a lot of information -- 9 THE COURT: I understand but your 10 argument. 11 MR. BULLION: Right. 12 THE COURT: Or part of this was. 13 MR. BULLION: Right. That's exactly 14 right. 15 THE COURT: And established trade secret. 16 They've got to come forward. 17 MR. BULLION: Yes, Your Honor. That's 18 exactly right. 19 THE COURT: And you're saying they didn't 20 come forward with any evidence. 21 MR. BULLION: Right. Exactly right. 22 THE COURT: What about that? 23 MR. GUERRA: Yes, Your. The case that 24 you -- if I may refer you to Your Honor, Exmark case. It 25 talks about all of this. In fact, when we were in there

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

27

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 we were willing to reduce -- and this is 20 million 2 tires. That's 20 million tires sold. The specifications 3 are much less than that. And we were willing to reduce 4 it to 10 years from '98 to 2008. 5 THE COURT: Wait a minute. You're off 6 point. 7 MR. GUERRA: Yes. Yes. 8 THE COURT: He said that they've got an 9 uncontroverted trade secret. 10 MR. GUERRA: They don't. 11 THE COURT: Affidavit and that y'all 12 needed to come forward with some evidence. 13 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, we got this 14 request in April. No affidavit in May, June, July until 15 we file the motion to compel no affidavit still. Now we 16 got this affidavit. 17 This they got that can only two people 18 that give affidavit or testimony in the case, only two 19 type of witnesses, fact witnesses, expert witnesses. 20 This guy has never been disclosed. I don't know who he 21 is. I know who he is. I will tell you in a second. If 22 you look at his affidavit. 23 THE COURT: I don't know that he has to be 24 for the purpose of a discovery dispute. 25 MR. GUERRA: Just for one second.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

28

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 THE COURT: And a trade secret affidavit. 2 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, he needs to be 3 qualified to testify about that. 4 THE COURT: Okay. 5 MR. GUERRA: Okay once he tells us that he 6 is -- he says that he is a senior consultant. Is he a 7 tire builder, no. Is he a tire designer, no. 8 THE COURT: Wait. Wait. Does this all go 9 to the point that you didn't have to come forward with 10 any evidence because they didn't establish trade secret? 11 MR. GUERRA: First, they didn't establish 12 trade secret and secondly, Your Honor, second, I have the 13 proof and the documents. Every single one of these 14 documents relate to light truck and tires. Now they 15 refuse to produce the documents and then they say you 16 come up with evidence, but it's difficult to do, Your 17 Honor. But I know for a fact that this applies across 18 the board aspect specification and warranty data. How do 19 I know that warranty data the adjustment data may tell us 20 all the information about the tires. Because on the Velo 21 case. 22 THE COURT: All right. If y'all have an 23 agreement, we'll take y'all up. We'll break here because 24 y'all will be what's left. 25 MR. BULLION: You want us to leave, Your

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

29

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 Honor. 2 THE COURT: No. Y'all are fine. Y'all 3 come up here. Vielica if you will. 4 (A break is taken.) 5 THE COURT: All right. We're back on the 6 record in Cause No. DC-15-07255. 7 All right. I'm sorry I interrupted you 8 counsel. 9 MR. GUERRA: No problem, Your Honor. It 10 was good we took a breather. 11 Your Honor, we have that Velo case before 12 this one and discovery on that case was end of with a 13 lady by the name of Kate Helms from the same firm of that 14 gentlemen Giles and I just found out when I was in there 15 that she's involved also in the discovery of this case, 16 this specific case. So the Velo case was the LTX M/S 17 from the same plant and was also from 2001, three weeks 18 before so the Velo tire is a little older than this tire, 19 three weeks old. 20 On that case we got production and that 21 was a 265. We got production on some 235s, 245s, 265. 22 We got 16 rims, 17 rims. This argument here is made for 23 the courtroom today. 24 Now the point that we're talking about 25 visible alternative design, this is what the Court of

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

30

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 Appeals said. What Defendants are confusing is they 2 wanted to give us only the identical tires, the identical 3 design. 4 THE COURT: I understand. I understand. 5 MR. GUERRA: -- as opposed to alternative 6 design and this is what the Court of Appeals said back in 7 2009; and this is the products liability case, trade 8 secrets. It's about vehicle aspects or whatever and it's 9 about also a lawn mower. 10 Indeed. Indeed. Because products 11 liability claimants must prove a safer alternative 12 design, it would be absurd to limit the discovery to the 13 specific model at issue because that would necessarily 14 preclude alternative discovery and alternative request. 15 It doesn't even make sense, you know, Your Honor. I need 16 to put alternative -- 17 MR. BULLION: I'm sorry. I thought you 18 were done with that. 19 MR. GUERRA: I need to prove alternative 20 design. I need to prove awareness of the danger. I need 21 to prove visibility, all of that information is there. 22 This millions and millions. This is lawyer talk, Your 23 Honor. And going back to the affidavit that you demand 24 and I check them because it's not a tire builder, not a 25 tire manufacturer. It doesn't say on the affidavit

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

31

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 anywhere not a tire designer; didn't design this tire; 2 was not a project manager; didn't work on the plant and I 3 remember that name, Your Honor. I remember that name 4 because years ago I did a deposition in South Carolina at 5 the Nelson Mullins office and who attended that 6 deposition in addition to the four attorneys who were 7 representing Michelin Vandy Price. He works on the 8 litigation Defendant of Michelin. I think he a 9 paralawyer, you know, I know if he is a paralegal or a 10 lawyer. I don't know. He is some type of individual on 11 that tier which was 2014. I got on the record he is 12 currently employed in the legal department for Michelin. 13 Now they have other people there and I 14 checked to see if he was a professional engineer 15 registered in South Carolina where Michelin is located at 16 the MARC Center. That's why he works at MARC Center 17 because the litigation is at the MARC Center. The 18 lobbyist, the major lobbyist we choose them that 19 testifies in all these case runs the litigation 20 department. Vandy works underneath him. 21 So I checked South Carolina. He is not a 22 professional engineer in South Carolina so maybe he has 23 some technical experience so I checked Alabama, Dothan. 24 No, he is not registered as a professional engineer in 25 Dothan. He never claims to have worked at the plant in

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

32

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 Dothan, never been at the plant, never been a 2 professional so I also checked if he was a professional 3 engineer in Texas because that's where it -- he is not, 4 Your Honor. He is a guy that they wrote the affidavit 5 and decided in the end but he's not qualified. They have 6 not established any qualifications for him to say that he 7 knows the tire that the tires are differently 8 manufactured that the tires are differently inspected and 9 be there that it's a trade secret, Your Honor. If it 10 were, there was a protective order. What is the harm. 11 If the documents are not relevant shove them away. Force 12 them to return like I did on a prior case. There is no 13 harm. But this woman is entitled to know why the tire 14 came apart. 15 THE COURT: All right. Let me ask you: 16 Different sizes and all that you have alluded it in the 17 LTX M/S line, how many different sizes are we talking 18 about? 19 MR. BULLION: If you look at Mr. Price's 20 affidavit, Your Honor. Can I briefly respond? 21 THE COURT: Well, why don't you answer my 22 question first. 23 MR. GUERRA: 245, 255. 24 MR. BULLION: There are -- if you look at 25 that pair of 18 in Mr. Price's affidavit it says the LTX

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

33

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 M/S line in it's common greens manufactured between '98 2 and 2003 that's the time frame that we've offered to 3 decide will encompass approximately 54 tire models built 4 more than 5,000 tire specifications, approximately 5 19.2 million different tires; that's for a six-year -- a 6 six-year period. 7 THE COURT: Well -- 8 MR. BULLION: Can I -- I definitely need 9 to respond to what he said about the Velo at some point 10 whenever you're ready. 11 THE COURT: Yes. Well, tell me. 12 MR. BULLION: Velo involved a certain size 13 of LTX tire also made at Dothan. I wasn't in this case. 14 MR. GUERRA: I was. 15 MR. BULLION: But I do have the Rule 11 16 Agreement. There was a motion to compel filed. There 17 were no common greens to the Velo tire. I'm saying it 18 wrong, I'm sure. In this case there are common greens. 19 We've given up the common greens. So just by way of 20 compromise, Your Honor, Michelin agreed to give some 21 other tires because he wanted -- the Plaintiffs wanted to 22 compare different sizes so they agreed to give us as set 23 out in the Rule 11 Agreement which I'll be glad to give 24 you. They agreed to give up six P metric tires and two 25 light truck tires.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

34

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 The letter specifically says this 2 agreement is limited to this matter and may not be 3 revealed outside of this case or used by any party in any 4 matter. It's not right to be doing what he just did. It 5 was a compromise like we should have compromise this case 6 before we came in here today. 7 Mr. Price is -- he's got a mechanical 8 engineering degree. He worked at MARC, Michelin of 9 America Research and Development Corporation, for a 10 number of years as a tire designer. He is now in the 11 litigation department. His qualifications are set out in 12 the affidavit and the affidavit speaks for itself and 13 it's uncontroverted. 14 MR. BLACKERBY: Your Honor, can I just 15 speak about the law real quick? 16 THE COURT: Yeah. 17 MR. BLACKERBY: They've cited the Exmark 18 case. We've cited in our brief the In re Cooper Tire 19 which deals with this same exact issue and if you -- I 20 don't know what they call it now -- shepherdize. 21 THE COURT: Yeah. 22 MR. BLACKERBY: If you go on Westlaw or 23 whatever and you do that, guess what, decline(phonetic) 24 to follow by In re Cooper that case and in In re Cooper 25 what the court is deciding if when you get discovery on

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

35

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 these other tires that don't have the same design that 2 they're a different tire than the one at same issue and 3 this was on a mandamus proceeding the Court of Appeals in 4 Houston said no you don't because they established it as 5 a trade secret and you have to -- and it doesn't because 6 it's just relevant it has to be -- it's necessary for the 7 fair adjudication of claims. You use the same kind of 8 affidavit that we have in this case proving it up as a 9 trade secret. And once you've done that the burden 10 shifts. And the language on the shifting burden is 11 pretty pointed both by the Dallas Court of Appeals and 12 the Houston. Both Court of Appeals have talked about 13 this and it's not supposed to be -- you can't satisfy it 14 by general assertations [sic] of fairness or relevance. 15 What you have to do is you must demonstrate with 16 specificity exactly how lack of this information will 17 harm the presentation of the case. So you won't have a 18 fair opportunity. That's what they call for. Once you 19 establish it's a trade secret. That's what we've done in 20 this case so the burden has shifted. We try to do some 21 negotiation and part of the processes in these cases is 22 all of these are trade secrets. We know they need 23 something so we negotiated with them. That's why I have 24 been yelling at them to please confer. We'll come up 25 with something. But in the absence of it, we have our

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

36

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 trade secret. We've proved it all up as trade secrets. 2 THE COURT: Well the conferring didn't 3 work out so good. 4 MR. BLACKERBY: Yeah, I agree with you. 5 THE COURT: Well, I don't know why he 6 would want to confer if it didn't work out so good. It 7 come to the same conclusion and the one tire is what 8 y'all want to get. Well, y'all didn't want to give that 9 but -- 10 MR. BLACKERBY: Well we've expanded. 11 THE COURT: Well you don't want to give 12 any. I mean that's -- 13 MR. BULLION: We recognize they're 14 entitled to that, Your Honor. And you know this is -- 15 this is not about discovery fights. I've tried -- I've 16 tried eight cases for Michelin similar cases to this 17 involving tires and Blackerby and I are not into 18 discovery fights. We want to try the case. And he's 19 going to accuse us of just being discovery hounds, but we 20 are interesting in trying cases. We like to give them 21 the documents they are legitimately entitled to, to allow 22 them to prosecute their case and get on down the road. 23 We think given the State of the record 24 though that what we've offered is more than fair. This 25 size tire for the period during which it was made at

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

37

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 Dothan which is approximately a six-year period, and they 2 want all LTX's for a 15-year period and that is just not 3 supported by the facts or the law. 4 MR. GUERRA: If I may, Your Honor. 5 Mr. Bullion I don't -- in fact, his name is Bullion in 6 French, Tom, but he has done nothing, Your Honor and I'm 7 very sorry and I'm used to it being insulted all the time 8 and while we there were repeatedly told me I didn't know 9 the rules. I'm not from here. I get it. It's fine. 10 It's par for the course. But he said this letter that I 11 used from Ms. Helms says anything about being protected 12 the letter that letter I used says absolutely nothing. 13 That's a misrepresentation to the Court, Your Honor, they 14 I couldn't use. 15 THE COURT: Well, is that part of the Rule 16 11? 17 MR. BULLION: Yes, Your Honor. 18 THE COURT: Just because you pulled a part 19 off that have a the -- 20 MR. GUERRA: This is from my case in 21 Arizona. This is from my case in Arizona. 22 MR. BULLION: I'll give you, Your Honor -- 23 there's a June 12th 2013 letter. 24 THE COURT: Well, I'm talking about this 25 letter. This is what he used. This is what he used. Is

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

38

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 that what you're referring to? 2 MR. GUERRA: Separate and apart. 3 MR. BULLION: That is the same letter. It 4 says this agreement is limited to manner and may not be 5 revealed outside this case. 6 MR. SHAPIRO: It is not signed. 7 MR. BULLION: I've got a signed copy. 8 MR. GUERRA: That is not signed. 9 MR. BULLION: I've got a signed copy and 10 his is a signed one. 11 MR. BLACKERBY: Yeah. 12 MR. BULLION: It has the language in it. 13 And I've also got a -- he had a local lawyer in to sign 14 this one, Your Honor. I've got an e-mail back as a local 15 lawyer accepting -- there was effective equivalent of a 16 Rule 11 Agreement in Arizona. 17 MR. GUERRA: If I may, Your Honor. Here 18 is what it says: This case they want us to be stuck to 19 the same exact tire. That's not the way. This is good 20 law earmark. We can all read it. 21 THE COURT: He says Cooper tire chunked -- 22 MR. BLACKERBY: Exmark is not a tire case. 23 It didn't involve tracing. 24 MR. GUERRA: But it cites tire case 25 reportedly all over the place.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

39

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 THE COURT: But he says Cooper tire 2 specifically rejects it. 3 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, it doesn't reject 4 it. What it does is it states in certain circumstances 5 you need to be more specific. 6 THE COURT: Yeah. 7 MR. GUERRA: But this is discovery, Your 8 Honor. This is just discovery. I cannot find what the 9 alternative designs are. 10 THE COURT: All right. Tell me -- I can 11 be persuaded that it's not limited to just this one tire. 12 That having been said, there's got to be a basis for 13 expanding it and you've got to identify for me what tires 14 we're going into. 15 MR. GUERRA: I was willing to reduce it to 16 10 years, Your Honor, LLTM [sic]-- 17 THE COURT: I'm not talking about 10 18 years. I'm talking about first the tires. We'll talk 19 about the period of time -- 20 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, physical 21 evidence. 22 THE COURT: -- is a separate thing. 23 MR. GUERRA: Physical evidence. All -- 24 this is the inspecting of the manufacturer. It relates 25 to all light truck tires independently of rim size, line

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

40

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 size, pressure speed rating. One more example, Your 2 Honor. This is the Velo owners manual of the tire. This 3 owners manual of the tire. This is the Medina owner's 4 manual of the tire. The same owner's manual, different 5 sizes and it applies to all LTX M/S's, Your Honor, same 6 exact document, same ID number, same version, all the 7 same. It is the same. It is absolutely no different on 8 the manufacturing, design and inspection of the tire. 9 I'm entitled to take a look at that information. 10 Moreover, Your Honor, this is not my -- 11 this is not lawyer talk -- this is not part of lawyer 12 talk. These are the documents. The owner's manual that 13 Michelin puts out for the owners of these different 14 tires, the 255's on this case the 265 on the Velo case, 15 the same word, same documents; everything the same, Your 16 Honor. 17 THE COURT: Okay. So I go the 265 to what 18 else? 19 MR. GUERRA: At least I have two right 20 now. 21 THE COURT: Well, I'm willing to go more, 22 but you have got to have something. 23 MR. GUERRA: The aspect specs again, which 24 is the major document. 25 THE COURT: Look. I'm not going to go

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

41

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 solely by that document that says all passengers of light 2 trucks. 3 MR. GUERRA: Okay. 4 THE COURT: Because that will be -- 5 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor -- 6 THE COURT: How many? 7 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, if I may Your 8 Honor; if I may, Your Honor. 9 (Simultaneous speakers.) 10 MR. GUERRA: I'm not done. I'm not done. 11 MR. BULLION: It will probably be hundreds 12 of millions, Your Honor. 13 MR. GUERRA: I'm not done. Your Honor, 14 the general principal which is the basic document that it 15 tells all these folks how to manufacture and inspect 16 these tires and repair the tires before they leave the 17 factory. It specifically says that applies to all. 18 THE COURT: I'm not giving you all tires, 19 okay. 20 MR. GUERRA: No. No. 21 THE COURT: You've argued it. 22 MR. GUERRA: No. No. No. I only want 23 the LTS and then -- 24 (Simultaneous speakers.) 25 MR. BULLION: Your Honor -- I think there

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

42

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 is a rule. I think there's a little confusion that I 2 think I can clear up very easily. Aspect specification 3 is a plant document. That's a document that we use at 4 the Dothan plant. 5 Mr. Guerra is right, it is not tire line 6 specific. The manufacturing documents by definition are 7 not going to be. They're going to apply to whatever 8 tires are being made at the time at the plant. 9 THE COURT: Whatever is rolling off. 10 MR. BULLION: What we're talking about 11 here in terms of this scope is design documents and 12 adjustment data and he doesn't -- and, you know, with all 13 due respect, Your Honor, we can't just willy-nilly expand 14 this without any proof. He doesn't have any prove 15 whatsoever. The proof is in the form of an affidavit or 16 a live witness or a document that's admitted into 17 evidence. And he does not have any proof whatsoever that 18 would support expanding beyond what we've offered to give 19 which is this tire line during the time frame that it was 20 made at Dothan, Alabama. 21 MR. GUERRA: That's not true, Your Honor. 22 They preclude me from having the documents and then want 23 to say that the documents prove that. 24 THE COURT: No. No. No. What he's 25 saying is you hadn't put on any evidence for this

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

43

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 hearing. Tell me what the evidence for the record what's 2 the evidence -- 3 MR. GUERRA: The owners manual. 4 THE COURT: What's the evidence? 5 MR. GUERRA: The owners manual is the 6 same. 7 THE COURT: All right. That tells us -- 8 MR. GUERRA: The aspect specifications 9 it's a pile of documents, Your Honor, that state on the 10 first page apply to all light truck tires. The general 11 principal its says on the page 17, I think, that applies 12 to all light and truck tires. They don't make this 13 distinction. This sounds letter on the Velo case, I saw 14 it, Your Honor. The warranty claims -- the document 15 itself doesn't make a distinction. The passenger -- this 16 is from Michelin. The warranty claims -- the thousands 17 of warranty claims for the defect on the tires the same 18 across the board for all light truck tires. These are 19 people on are the field after the tires left the plant 20 and failed on the field, Your Honor. So they prevent me 21 from having documents that would prove that and then say 22 come up with proof. 23 THE COURT: All right. On those warranty 24 claims, what are the sizes? 25 MR. GUERRA: Warranty claims --

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

44

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 THE COURT: Yeah, what are the sizes? 2 MR. GUERRA: All I want is the LTX M/S's. 3 THE COURT: I have already told you, 4 you're not getting every LTX M/S. That's too broad. 5 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, give me the 225s 6 through 265s. 7 THE COURT: 255 to 265? 8 MR. GUERRA: 225 to 265. 9 THE COURT: 225 to 265? 10 MR. GUERRA: On Velo I have 235s, 245s -- 11 THE COURT: All right. I get it. I get 12 it. 13 MR. GUERRA: So all I want is the same, 14 Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: I get it. You are going to 16 tell me into something less. Tell me why 225, 265 17 wouldn't be similar. 18 MR. BULLION: It's trade secret, Your 19 Honor. And he has not yet come forward with any proof. 20 They're different design. Each tire size is made to a 21 different spec and Mr. Price is very specific in his 22 affidavit. In paragraphs 19 they really -- if you are 23 inclusive 17 through 22. 24 THE COURT: What's the next one after 225? 25 MR. GUERRA: I'm sorry, Your Honor.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

45

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 THE COURT: What's the next one, 235? 2 MR. GUERRA: 235. 3 MR. BULLION: Yeah, there's a 225, 235. 4 (Simultaneous speakers.) 5 THE COURT: All right. 235 to 265. 225 6 is getting pretty small for my rudimentary knowledge of 7 tires dealing with trailers and -- 8 MR. BULLION: And you're talking P metric 9 tires as opposed to LT metric tires, I assume, Your 10 Honor. This is a P metric tire. 11 MR. GUERRA: That's fine. Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Yeah. Now from there where do 13 we go. 14 MR. BULLION: Your Honor -- we. 15 MR. GUERRA: We have an issue with the 16 aspects. 17 THE COURT: Wait. Wait. Wait. I asked 18 them. 19 MR. BULLION: We are -- just going through 20 the letter to Exhibit C to our response, Your Honor. 21 We've agreed to produce the oldest available copies of 22 the general principals, technical notes and not tire 23 marks (phonetic), informed procedures. It's my 24 understanding that the Plaintiffs have agreed to accept 25 that.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

46

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 THE COURT: The oldest they got. It 2 sounds like a pretty good start. 3 MR. GUERRA: One down. 4 MR. BULLION: Aspect specifications. We 5 have a dispute, Your Honor. And that's the document he 6 has shown you a couple of times. Aspect specifications 7 are used by the people that are called plaspectors 8 (phonetic). 9 THE COURT: Okay. You would only have 10 those as they relate to the sizes I gave you. 11 MR. BULLION: Well, this is not a size 12 issue. 13 THE COURT: I understand what you're 14 saying, but there's got to be a way to correlate it, 15 isn't there? 16 MR. BULLION: Here's what we typically do 17 in these cases, Your Honor and what we think is 18 reasonable. 19 THE COURT: All right. 20 MR. BULLION: There are aspect 21 specifications that deal with a lot of things. Aspect 22 specifications are just documents that are reference 23 documents for the people who are inspecting the tires 24 after they're cured. 25 THE COURT: Okay.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

47

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 MR. BULLION: And there may be a blemish 2 on the side wall. There may be a white side wall that 3 has got a blemish on it and they go to a category for 4 that. 5 THE COURT: Okay. 6 MR. BULLION: Or maybe there's any number. 7 It's a stack about this big. 8 THE COURT: Yeah. 9 MR. BULLION: And what we typically do and 10 we've done in this case is we get the Plaintiff to 11 identify the components of the tire that are at issue and 12 we give them aspect specifications related to that. 13 For instance, the expert I assume they're 14 using whom Mr. Blackerby and I are very familiar with has 15 a theory where regard to steel belts. There was a gap 16 belt splice that should have been butt to butt. There 17 was not belt splice. 18 THE COURT: Okay. So ordinarily you would 19 argue that your aspect material sheet should be limited 20 to those that deal with the -- 21 MR. BULLION: Plaintiff's theories in the 22 case. 23 THE COURT: The ply, the belt. 24 MR. BULLION: Well, not just that, but 25 just any theory that have in the case we have done that

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

48

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 and we have provided those to them. 2 THE COURT: What about that? 3 MR. BULLION: They are super trade secret, 4 Your Honor. And again, we felt we've proven them up as 5 trade secret and we're happy to give them the ones that 6 relate -- not happy to be blunt, but we are willing to 7 give them the ones that relate to the case, but we don't 8 think we should have to give them something that relates 9 to a B when there's never a B allegation in this case. 10 So that's our whole issue. 11 MR. GUERRA: So, Your Honor, on that issue 12 you heard it has nothing to do with the tire size, the 13 rim size or pressure size. It's just across the board on 14 light truck tires. Therefore, on Velo I add exactly the 15 same conditions that I had on this one minus a few. So 16 on the Medina case I have more conditions at issue than 17 on the Velo case. I got more than 60 aspect 18 specifications, Your Honor. I got more issues -- 19 THE COURT: All right. You need to tell 20 me I'm not going to give just a blanket aspect sheet for 21 everything in the world. So how are these -- 22 MR. GUERRA: His aspect specifications 23 relates to a specific defect on the tire, Your Honor. 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 MR. GUERRA: First we have --

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

49

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 THE COURT: I'm not giving them every 2 defect. 3 MR. GUERRA: Not saying that I wanted to. 4 THE COURT: I understand. 5 MR. GUERRA: I want a little less than 6 that but I know at least 63 apply because on the Velo 7 case we have exactly the same issue a few less in fact 8 and we got 63 of them so I want all of the Velo ones and 9 you know it has nothing to do with the tire size. The 10 tire was manufactured on the same plant manufactured on 11 the same year on the same line. I should at least get 12 those 63. I think that's the ones I got in Velo plus I 13 have more issues on this case and they have a specific 14 problem. 15 THE COURT: Well, no. Look. The way to 16 go is not just to say, well, they did this in another 17 case. 18 MR. GUERRA: Okay, Your Honor. 19 THE COURT: I might as well let Mr. Fisher 20 wear the robe if I'm going do that and trade places. 21 MR. GUERRA: I can do that, Your Honor. 22 They gave me the document. This is the issue that I have 23 and they also have it in Velo. 24 THE COURT: Here's what I'm going to do to 25 you unless can you talk me out of it, all right?

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

50

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 MR. GUERRA: All right. 2 THE COURT: I kind of buy his argument the 3 Plaintiffs got to say the defect that they're -- but then 4 again that leaves no room for the possibility and that's 5 part of discovery is taking a fresh look at it because 6 there maybe have been something else. 7 MR. GUERRA: That's fine. 8 THE COURT: So how I do get there? 9 MR. GUERRA: How I do get there, Your 10 Honor? 11 THE COURT: No how do I get there not how 12 do you get there. Because how you get there is going to 13 be different from how I get there. How you get there you 14 would get all the aspects sheets -- 15 MR. GUERRA: And I should, Your Honor. 16 THE COURT: And all the LTMS tires. I get 17 it. 18 MR. GUERRA: This has nothing do with 19 specific lines. 20 THE COURT: But you and I don't agree with 21 that. 22 MR. GUERRA: This has nothing to do with 23 specific lines and I'm not done Tom. 24 MR. BULLION: I was just going to 25 volunteer a solution. But we have a plane to catch and

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

51

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 all. I have a proposed solution. 2 THE COURT: Well, let me hear it. 3 MR. GUERRA: Go ahead. Let me hear it. 4 MR. BULLION: We talked in chambers about 5 giving him a list of the aspect specifications and let 6 him pick them and it came clear to me that he was going 7 to pick all of them and I didn't think that was fair. 8 I'll agree on behalf of Michelin give him a list and he 9 picks the ones that are really at issue in the case. If 10 he comes back and picks all of them I think the Court 11 ought not tolerate that and it seems like to me that's a 12 fair compromise. 13 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, again, the 14 characterization is I'm the bad guy. I gave him this -- 15 THE COURT: You know I'm not taking it 16 that way. 17 MR. GUERRA: That's nonsense. 18 THE COURT: I understand you are. 19 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, I told him what I 20 needed. I told him exactly what I needed. I need all of 21 the aspect specifications about blisters. I need all of 22 the aspect specifications about defects on the moldings, 23 defects on the inner line, defects in the junctures 24 between material, defects in the joints, defects 25 regarding the sticking of the joint.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

52

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 THE COURT: And that's going to be 2 everything, right? 3 MR. BULLION: Yeah. 4 MR. GUERRA: No, no, it's not everything, 5 Your Honor. It's not everything. I just know these 6 documents but it's not everything. Defects in the bead 7 defects in the tread and they said to me, Luis you have 8 an allegation about the bead. I said, no. And I said, 9 but I always see when I go against tires the bead is 10 always the issue so I'm waiting for that and I'm not 11 willing to sit on it and then you make that allegation on 12 the defense side. There was a problem with the bead and 13 I have to come back and ask for the documents. 14 THE COURT: What's wrong with that? 15 MR. GUERRA: Timing. Timing. Timing. 16 It's been going on a year. But, Your Honor, I asked the 17 gentlemen here to provide me the factual basis of this 18 defense that the tire -- tire abuse that's the defense, 19 tire abuse. And he has refused to give me the factual 20 basis, Your Honor. So I'm fighting in the dark. I 21 submitted three letters talk about not complying with the 22 rules. He said that's the expert disclosure. It's not 23 the expert disclosure. It's the factual basis for the 24 defense before the expert disclosure. I need to know 25 that. I have allowed them to take deposition after

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

53

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 deposition. I don't know what I'm defending against so 2 here is the problem. 3 THE COURT: Hold on. I get it over there. 4 MR. BULLION: I'm sorry. 5 THE COURT: I get his argument over there. 6 You know I could see you put it together then all of a 7 sudden your guy comes in and says, well, really. It was 8 something else totally out there and I had limited his 9 discovery to where he can't even defend against that 10 affirmative defense. 11 MR. BULLION: I understand what you you're 12 saying, Your Honor. I've never seen this being an issue. 13 I will tell you generally what our position is in the 14 case, but I don't think it is an expert issue. We don't 15 have company witnesses who talk about why this tire 16 failed. 17 THE COURT: I understand. 18 MR. BULLION: Our position is this tire 19 was 11 years old at the time of the accident and it 20 should not have been in service. There were five 21 different tires on this vehicle. It was an expedition. 22 There was a light truck tire on it. There were 4P metric 23 tires and they were a horrible mess of tires. These 24 folks should not have been driving with these on this 25 vehicle.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

54

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 And there is going to be plenty of proof 2 at the appropriate time that this tire was run 3 underinflated. Probably there's going to be proof that 4 it suffered an impact which caused its failure. 5 MR. GUERRA: No it's not. 6 MR. BULLION: This is all expert stuff 7 that -- 8 THE COURT: Well, wait a minute. Wait a 9 minute. He just went through a litany of them. They're 10 all on the record. You get aspect sheets related to -- 11 (Simultaneous speakers.) 12 MR. GUERRA: Wait. I don't get all of it. 13 Let me explain. Let me explain why. 14 THE COURT: No, I've been hearing you. 15 MR. GUERRA: If I may, Your Honor. If I 16 may. If I may. Tire inspectors, the verifiers, tire 17 verifiers that do this day in and day out they cannot see 18 all of these defects and they're experienced people. 19 They need all the aspect specs to compare. Why am not 20 entitled to have that to compare to see if there's 21 initial defects. They are so precised as defects, Your 22 Honor, that they don't even let you make color copies of 23 the photographs. They have to be colored laser copies of 24 the photographs because of preciseness. So I'm entitled 25 to all the aspect specs for these truck tires so I can

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

55

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 compare to see if there's any defects that we miss. Why 2 can't we have that for this specific tire, Your Honor? 3 It has nothing to do with other tires -- this tire. Give 4 meet the aspect specs so my expert and we can take a look 5 at what should be. 6 THE COURT: What was the year of the 7 manufacture of this tire? 8 MR. BULLION: 2001. 9 THE COURT: What happens with all the 10 aspect sheets for 2001, 2002 and 2000? 11 MR. BULLION: We probably don't have 12 those, Your Honor. What we typically would give would be 13 the oldest available. They're not going to be 14 appreciably different. 15 THE COURT: All right. 16 MR. BULLION: The question is not the date 17 I don't think in this case. It's there are -- I don't 18 know, this many -- 19 THE COURT: Okay. 20 MR. BULLION: I'm showing 3 inches maybe. 21 THE COURT: Oldest available two years 22 what does that do to you? 23 MR. BULLION: It's not -- again, it's not 24 the date. It's just having to give up all of them. What 25 we ought to have to give up -- if there's anything --

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

56

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 (Simultaneous speakers.) 2 THE COURT: It's defects. 3 MR. BULLION: If there's anything -- 4 THE COURT: It's defects. 5 MR. BULLION: But a lot of them don't 6 relate to anything having to do with what they claim in 7 this case. He for example-- he wants the one relating to 8 B. 9 THE COURT: Yeah, but y'all got a whole 10 bunch of allegations against the Plaintiffs that you just 11 went through. 12 MR. BULLION: But -- 13 MR. GUERRA: For the first time. 14 MR. BLACKERBY: These documents are used 15 in the plant to look at tires that have just been cured. 16 These have not been used to look at tires that are 11 17 years old and have been run down on a vehicle. 18 THE COURT: Well, I understand. But it 19 would certainly go to discovery of issues that were 20 potentially that were out there and that way they can 21 look at these tires in the context of these defects. But 22 I didn't want to give 10 years of all that massive 23 documentation because I just think it's irrelevant and 24 too much now. 25 MR. BULLION: Well the issue is trade

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

57

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 secret though. That's the problem we have with this 2 whole deal. If we give them the aspect specifications 3 that relate to the claims in the case and it can be 4 relate to the defenses too that's fine. There won't be 5 anything I think on what I just said. But if we give 6 them the aspect specifications that relate to the claims 7 in the case, then we'll concede that that's necessary for 8 a fair adjudication of the claim. When you get beyond 9 that then we're back in the mode of the In re Continental 10 tire case where we have proven this -- 11 THE COURT: Oldest two years. 12 MR. BULLION: I'm sorry. 13 THE COURT: Oldest two years. 14 MR. BULLION: Okay. You want us to you 15 give them all of them, huh? 16 THE COURT: The oldest two years. 17 MR. BULLION: Your Honor, one thing I 18 didn't -- you said 235 through 265 but we didn't talk 19 about a date range. I would urge the court on that if 20 what he wants to do is be able to compare to limit it to 21 a narrower date range like maybe plus or minus six months 22 as opposed to it's going a ton of documents if you give 23 him those sizes for the five years that we offered plus 24 there's a reason -- there's a basis for the '98 to 25 2003 time frame with regard to the tire in question on

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

58

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 this case because that's when it was made there. I would 2 urge you to either pick. 3 THE COURT: Two years forward or two years 4 after. That's what we're going to start with. 5 MR. BULLION: I'm sorry. 6 THE COURT: Two years before or two years 7 after the manufacturing year. 8 MR. BULLION: That's going to be a ton, 9 Your Honor. That's going to be a whole lot. I can come 10 back to you and tell how it's -- just printing these 11 specs takes a lot of time. 12 THE COURT: All right. What about six 13 months before and the year after to start. 14 MR. BULLION: Okay. I don't know how much 15 effort that will be frankly, but I will put six months 16 before and one year after. 17 With regard to the aspect specification, 18 Your Honor, I want to make sure that I'm being clear. 19 Giving up two different versions of it -- 20 THE COURT: I don't know what you're 21 talking about two different versions. 22 MR. BULLION: You said the oldest two 23 years. 24 THE COURT: Yeah, just because most likely 25 you will have them for the year of manufacture. If you

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

59

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 had it the year of manufacture then it's the year of 2 manufacture. 3 MR. BULLION: What we typically would do 4 is give them the oldest version that we have. 5 MR. GUERRA: That's good enough, Your 6 Honor. 7 MR. BULLION: But what you're saying is 8 you want more than just the oldest version? 9 MR. GUERRA: That's good for now, Your 10 Honor. 11 THE COURT: The oldest version. 12 MR. GUERRA: Yes. For now, yes. 13 MR. BULLION: You won't go with my 14 proposal to give them a list and let them pick? 15 MR. GUERRA: No. 16 MR. BULLION: That seems -- 17 MR. GUERRA: It's a waste of time. 18 MR. BULLION: From a standpoint of 19 protecting trade secrets, Your Honor. 20 THE COURT: I understand your argument. 21 The oldest version. I wanted the manufacturer if it's 22 not there it's not there. 23 MR. GUERRA: Are you talking about the 24 skin stock? 25 MR. BULLION: That's the biggest lay down

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

60

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 of all, Your Honor. He's asking for actual the rubber 2 content formula which is the -- that's the Coca-Cola 3 formula of the tire world. In re Continental General 4 Tire is directly on point. 5 THE COURT: You're going to tell me how 6 you get there on that. 7 MR. GUERRA: Coca-Cola doesn't kill 8 people. These tires kill people, Your Honor. We are 9 talking about the ability to hold materials together. We 10 have a claim for that. We cannot know whether or not 11 that product can do it. You can't test. You can't do 12 anything. You can put the claim out there, but you can't 13 do anything about it. You cannot conduct any discovery. 14 How is that fair? They might as well check that out and 15 say you can never make that claim because the -- 16 THE COURT: What's your best case on it 17 that specific formulation is a red flag, red flag. 18 MR. GUERRA: Yes, let me have it. 19 THE COURT: No. You show me your best 20 case. What's your best legal authority that you're going 21 to get the specific formulation? 22 MR. GUERRA: I mean right now -- 23 THE COURT: I'm not going to be a pioneer 24 on that. 25 MR. GUERRA: It's not a pioneer --

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

61

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 THE COURT: This is not first tire case. 2 MR. GUERRA: I understand, Your Honor. 3 THE COURT: I'm just telling you give me 4 the best case on this specific issue. 5 MR. GUERRA: Would you give me a couple of 6 days. 7 THE COURT: Yeah. 8 MR. GUERRA: All right. 9 THE COURT: I'm ruling with him until you 10 give me a case from the specific formulation. 11 MR. GUERRA: Fantastic, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: And if he gives one, you get 13 to counter back. 14 MR. BULLION: Thank you, Your Honor. I 15 sure hope so. 16 THE COURT: I don't want 15 cases from 17 both of you. 18 MR. GUERRA: No problem. 19 THE COURT: You give me your best case. 20 You give me the best counter. 21 MR. BULLION: We have already submitted 22 two that are on this direct point that we're talking 23 about. 24 THE COURT: I understand. I'm just saying 25 that's what you can do.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

62

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 MR. BULLION: Okay. One other thing that 2 we discussed in chambers that I just want to put on 3 record that I agree to do. 4 THE COURT: Well, actually y'all were in 5 the jury room not in the judge's chamber. I wasn't part 6 of the conversation. 7 MR. BULLION: No. No. No. I misspoke. 8 I apologize. 9 THE COURT: Well, I didn't want anyone 10 reading the record -- well I didn't want anyone reading 11 the record being confused. 12 MR. BULLION: It says jury room all on the 13 door. 14 THE COURT: I don't want anyone to be 15 confused and think this was a conversation among us all 16 in chambers. I wasn't a party. That was y'all's 17 conference. 18 MR. BULLION: I appreciate the 19 clarification. Mr. Guerra thinks that -- 20 MR. GUERRA: Call me Luis. 21 MR. BULLION: Usually in the courtroom I 22 would call you Mr. Guerra. 23 MR. GUERRA: Call me Luis. That's my 24 name. 25 MR. BULLION: We have produced what is

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

63

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 known in Michelin as physician paper on tire service life 2 and he thinks that there is a different version of the 3 one we produced and I had agreed to check on that. I 4 don't think that there is but I just want to put on the 5 record that that is something I agreed to. 6 THE COURT: If there is a different 7 version, you give it to him. 8 MR. BULLION: To check on it. I think 9 that's all I have on my notes. 10 MR. GUERRA: I think it's covered. 11 THE COURT: All right. Y'all got a record 12 of it. Y'all got a record of it. It's good to see 13 y'all. 14 (End of Proceedings.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

64

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion To Compel Hearing September 8, 2015

1 STATE OF TEXAS 2 COUNTY OF DALLAS 3 4 I, Vielica R. Dobbins, Official Court Reporter in 5 and for the 134th District Court of Dallas, State of 6 Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing 7 contains a true and correct transcription of all portions 8 of evidence and other proceedings requested in writing by 9 counsel for the parties to be included in this volume of 10 the Reporter's Record in the above-styled and numbered 11 cause, all of which occurred in open court or in chambers 12 and were reported by me. 13 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of the 14 proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if 15 any, offered by the respective parties. 16 I further certify that the total cost for the 17 preparation of this Reporter's Record is $384.00 and was 18 paid/will be paid by Mr. Thomas Bullion, III. 19 20 21 Vielica R. Dobbins, CSR, RPR Texas CSR No. 6248

22 Official Court Reporter 134th District Court

23 Dallas County, Texas 600 Commerce Street, Suite 650 24 Dallas, Texas 75202 Telephone: (214) 653-7239 25 Expiration: 12/31/2016

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 REPORTER'S RECORD VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUMES

2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255 3 SAMUEL MEDINA AND OBDULIA ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT MEDINA, HUSBAND AND WIFE, ) 4 INDIVIDUALLY; NATALYE MEDINA )

INDIVIDUALLY; NAVIL GIBSON, ) 5 INDIVIDUALLY, )

)

6 Plaintiff(s), )

)

7 vs. ) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS )

8 MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; )

AND JOSE BUSTILLO D/B/A MUNDO )

9 CARS, AN IN STATE DEFENDANT, )

)

10 Defendant(s). ) 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 11 12 13 _____________________________________________ 14 SHORT MOTION TO STRIKE MICHELIN'S CLAIMS OF TIRE ABUSE HEARING

15 _____________________________________________ 16 17 18 On the 5th day of October, 2015, the following 19 proceedings came on to be held in the above-titled and 20 numbered cause before the Honorable Dale B. Tillery, 21 Judge Presiding, held in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas. 22 Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype 23 machine. 24 25

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 APPEARANCES 2 LUIS P. GUERRA SBOT NO. (Admitted Pro hac vice) 3 DAVID C. SHAPIRO SBOT NO. (Admitted Pro hac vice) 4 Luis P. Guerra, L.L.C.

6225 N. 24th Street 5 Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 6 Telephone: (602) 381-8400 Fax: (602) 381-8403 7 E-mail: Pmigliorini@lpguerra.com Counsel for PLAINTIFFS 8 THOMAS M.'TOM' BULLION, III 9 SBOT NO. 03331005 CHRIS A. BLACKERBY 10 SBOT NO. 00787091 Germer Beaman & Brown, P.L.L.C. 11 301 Congress Avenue Suite 1700 12 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 472-0288 13 Fax: (512) 472-0721 E-mail: Cblackerby@germer-austin.com 14 - and - 15 DEBORA B. ALSUP 16 SBOT NO. 02006200 Thompson Knight 17 98 San Jacinto Blvd., Ste. 1900 Austin, TX 78701-4238 18 Telephone: (512) 469-6114 Fax: (512) 482-5028 19 E-mail: Debora.alsup@tklaw.com Counsel for DEFENDANTS 20 21 22 23 24 25

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 VOLUME 1 2 SHORT MOTION TO STRIKE MICHELIN'S CLAIMS OF TIRE ABUSE 3 HEARING 4 October 5, 2015 5 PAGE VOL. 6 Proceedings .......................................4 1 7 Adjournment ......................................37 1 8 Reporter's Certificate ...........................38 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 THE COURT: All right. We're on the 3 record in Cause No. DC-14-07255 Medina vs. Michelin. 4 Announcements and appearance on the record for the 5 Plaintiffs, please. 6 MR. GUERRA: Luis Guerra and David 7 Shapiro, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: And for the Defendants. 9 MR. BULLION: Your Honor, Tom Bullion and 10 Chris Blackerby and we brought Debbie Alsup from the 11 Thompson Knight firm today as well. She is Michelin's 12 appellate lawyer in the case. 13 THE COURT: All right. You may proceed. 14 MR. GUERRA: Do you have any preference, 15 Your Honor, how you want me to argue this? 16 Here is my problem, Your Honor. 17 Concerning the orders that you made at our prior hearing 18 September 8th we would like to, you know, request the 19 Court to review the transcript and it will be available 20 shortly. I know that Vielica has been working admirably 21 and she has explained it to me. And I think she going to 22 it available shortly so you can just read it and just 23 issue the order regarding some of the disputes that we 24 have here. 25 THE COURT: Yes. That's what I'll do.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 MR. GUERRA: Concerning Your Honor -- 2 here's the problem that I have in a nutshell. On 3 March 30th you gave us until December 15 to produce the 4 expert opinions. That is about from March 30th -- I'm 5 sorry -- April 30th. You gave us -- on April 30th you 6 gave us the Court's scheduling order until December 15th 7 to produce the expert's opinions. And that is, Your 8 Honor 229 days. 9 Of those 229 days I am supposed to conduct 10 discovery, get the information. I have not been able to 11 do that. I was here on May 11 asking for documents. 12 THE COURT: I understand. 13 MR. GUERRA: I've been here on September 14 8th asking for -- 15 THE COURT: So what is it that you want to 16 do? 17 MR. GUERRA: I those documents and I want 18 the documents they promised to produce. And so they 19 promised prior to the hearing to give me -- that's the 20 letter to us -- general principals, the technical notes, 21 the tire nonconfirming procedures and the oldest 22 available tire building training document for tires. 23 Then they came to the hearing on September 8th and they 24 promised again that I would get all that stuff. Then 25 they wrote a letter to you on September 17th saying

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 again, despite that proposal on September 1st to produce 2 additional documents Plaintiffs used a -- 3 (unintelligible) --their offer, despite that we agree 4 during the hearing to produce the documents any way. So 5 three times they have told them. They told us, they told 6 you, they've made judicial declarations. We're going to 7 produce them. I don't have them. I don't have -- all I 8 have out of those documents, I have the general 9 principal. That's it. 10 They produced incompletely the tire 11 nonconforming. There's no qualifications on what they're 12 going to produce. There's no qualifications. We will 13 produce -- 14 THE COURT: Well, but isn't this part of 15 what we all, I mean what whey went through? 16 MR. GUERRA: Yes, Your Honor. 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 MR. GUERRA: I don't have the documents. 19 THE COURT: Well, I'm sure they're going 20 to say we're waiting on the order and y'all don't agree 21 to the order. I'll go over the order as soon as we get 22 the transcript. And if this creates a problem for the 23 December, your time will be extended. That's the way 24 it's going to be. 25 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, I don't want to

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 lose my trial date. I do not want to lose my trial date. 2 I have spent 70 percent of the time -- 70 percent of the 3 time -- some this I've been up to today 158 days of those 4 229. This is the traditional traditional litigation 5 strategy of this company. On May 11 when I was here I 6 stated that I'm already having problems, Your Honor. I 7 know that's the way they work. So out of my time that I 8 have to conduct discovery on the merits of the case, I 9 have spent 70 percent of my time -- 10 THE COURT: Yeah, but if your concern is 11 over the amount of time you have to commit to accomplish 12 your discovery, you're not going to have a problem with 13 that. 14 MR. GUERRA: Okay. Okay. All I need is 15 the documents really so can I conduct my discovery. In 16 the meantime -- 17 THE COURT: As soon as I get the 18 transcript, I will read it over and do the order since 19 y'all couldn't agree to what the rulings were. 20 MR. GUERRA: Some of these documents they 21 claim, Oh, we agree to produce them so and it's not even 22 part of the order. We agreed to produce them. No, it's 23 got to be on the order because they promised they would 24 produce them. So if they don't produce them and when I 25 find through the witnesses they didn't produce these

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 documents, I can come back here and talk to you about 2 these matters, Your Honor. 3 MR. BULLION: Your Honor, it's not correct 4 that we're waiting on an order to produce documents. 5 It's not correct. We have produced -- 6 THE COURT: Well, if you produced all 7 those that he's got his poster on and he'd said that 8 y'all agree to produce then there's nothing to argue 9 about. 10 MR. BULLION: He is wrong, Your Honor. He 11 is wrong. We made a proposal as the Court will recall a 12 week before the hearing on September 8th we made a 13 proposal. He has excerpted part of it on the board that 14 he has got there. And it was we will produce certain 15 documents in an effort to resolve this motion to compel 16 and you withdraw your motion to compel. They didn't 17 accept it. They called it BS as you'll recall. They 18 didn't accept the offer. 19 Despite that we came in, in good faith at 20 the hearing and we said we'll agree to produce these 21 documents. We have produced almost 5,000 pages of 22 documents. Now we have produced the documents. 23 THE COURT: Are you saying that you have 24 already gave him what he is talking about on that poster? 25 MR. BULLION: Yes. That's what I'm

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 saying. 2 THE COURT: Okay. Then he can say what he 3 wants. If you've already gave it him, you gave it to him 4 and you will be sitting good. He don't think you did and 5 he's going to have to prove that. 6 MR. BULLION: The only thing, Your Honor, 7 is I understand that the motion for sanctions that he 8 filed only relates to thing that are not things the Court 9 ordered us to produce, but things that we voluntarily 10 offered that we would produce. We have not produced 11 documents relating to the other tire sizes that the court 12 ordered because, again, we are waiting on the order on 13 that. 14 THE COURT: I understand. 15 MR. BULLION: Aspect specifications, 16 expanding aspect specifications, we have not produced 17 that. 18 THE COURT: I understand. 19 MR. BULLION: But with regard to the 20 documents that we said in that proposed Rule 11 Agreement 21 that we will produce on September 1 even though he didn't 22 accept it, we have produced those. There are certain of 23 those documents that he is complaining about in the 24 motion that don't exist that we have said it in our 25 responses.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 THE COURT: Okay. Sounds easy. 2 MR. BULLION: I wish it was. 3 MR. BLACKERBY: We agree I think it should 4 be easy, but it has not been. 5 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, it's absolutely 6 not true. They have not produced a single technical 7 note. It's right here; not a single one, not a single 8 one tire nonconfirming -- 9 THE COURT: Okay. Well, how are you going 10 to prove that? 11 MR. GUERRA: They have told me. They have 12 told me they have not produced them. 13 THE COURT: Have y'all not produced a 14 single technical note? 15 MR. GUERRA: Not a single technical note. 16 MR. BULLION: Technical notes, Your Honor, 17 are referred to in certain aspect specifications. You 18 will recall briefly at least what the aspect 19 specifications are. They're the documents that -- 20 THE COURT: Yeah, I remember -- 21 MR. BULLION: Class spectors use in the 22 final finish department. Certain of the aspect 23 specifications have technical notes associated with them 24 certain of them don't. The ones that we have produced in 25 the case today, he did not.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 THE COURT: It's an easy question. He 2 says you have not produced a single technical note. 3 MR. BULLION: We have, Your Honor. 4 THE COURT: You're saying, yes, we have. 5 MR. BULLION: There are no technical notes 6 associated with the aspect specifications we have 7 produced today. If we -- 8 THE COURT: Okay but if there are just 9 none because there is none created then that's why you 10 have none. 11 MR. BULLION: We've said that in our 12 responses. The Court has ordered that we produce 13 additional aspect specifications -- 14 THE COURT: Yeah, and you're waiting for 15 an order. 16 MR. GUERRA: All of them. 17 MR. BULLION: And when we do that -- 18 (Simultaneous speakers.) 19 THE COURT: I understand. 20 MR. GUERRA: Here we are, Your Honor. He 21 said he will produce them. He told you -- 22 THE COURT: No. No. 23 MR. GUERRA: He said I will produce all 24 the documents that he had here. 25 THE COURT: And he has.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 MR. GUERRA: He hasn't. 2 THE COURT: He says on his aspect size 3 those don't have technical levels. 4 MR. GUERRA: No, Your Honor. 5 THE COURT: On the remaining ones he is 6 waiting for the order that there are some that have 7 technical notes. 8 MR. GUERRA: No, Your Honor. 9 THE COURT: I don't know that to be 10 factually true or incorrect. 11 MR. GUERRA: In general, Your Honor, there 12 are no qualifications here or here or in the courtroom. 13 There were no qualifications. 14 THE COURT: Well, no, I'm not going to 15 suggest -- I'm not going to entertain that they agreed to 16 produce every technical note that they've ever had or 17 anything -- that's a little broad. 18 MR. GUERRA: No, Your Honor. It's 19 concerning the aspect specifications. 20 THE COURT: That's what I just said. He 21 gave you the aspect specifications. He said they don't 22 have technical notes. The other ones are subject of the 23 order. And he says soon as the order comes down, they'll 24 be some that have technical notes. I don't know if 25 that's true. I'm just saying that's what he's telling

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 me. Isn't that what you're telling me? 2 MR. BULLION: That's exactly right, Your 3 Honor. 4 THE COURT: All right. You may know 5 different but you need to give me proof. 6 MR. GUERRA: If we came here during the 7 oral argument and the court ordered for them to produce 8 all of the aspect specifications it's on the record. And 9 the aspect specifications -- 10 THE COURT: That's one of the things y'all 11 disagree with. That's one of the things y'all disagree 12 with. That's why there's not an order signed. You think 13 I ruled certain ways. He thinks I ruled other ways. 14 We're going to get the transcript. And if you're right, 15 then he may have a problem. If he's right the way he 16 heard it, then what he's telling you -- 17 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, part of the 18 problem is they have the documents. We don't have the 19 documents. 20 THE COURT: I know that. 21 MR. SHAPIRO: So you're telling us to 22 prove what we don't have. How do we do that? 23 THE COURT: No. No. You said you've got 24 no technical notes. He says I understand for the aspect 25 specs that we've given you voluntarily --

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 MR. GUERRA: They gave us nine aspects, 2 nine, Your Honor. 3 THE COURT: Exactly. That's fine. He's 4 saying there's no technical notes for those. Now if you 5 can prove, yes, there are. There are technical notes for 6 all those then you would be showing me that what he 7 saying is not correct. He says the other things that 8 would include and have technical notes are subject of the 9 order. 10 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, they play this 11 game in every single litigation parsing things that were 12 said. Your Honor, it's the strategy that they use, Your 13 Honor. The general note -- 14 THE COURT: What do you want me to do? 15 You want me to take this and say you've got to give them 16 some technical notes because -- 17 MR. GUERRA: All of the technical notes; 18 not some, all of them. All of it, Your Honor. 19 THE COURT: I done asked you. If your 20 argument is they have got to give you every technical 21 note that has ever flown past Michelin no matter what, 22 that would be a little broad. 23 MR. GUERRA: Concerning the aspect 24 specifications they've been ordered to produce and the 25 court ordered them all produced, so I need the technical

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 notes. 2 THE COURT: Have you ever seen a dog chase 3 his tail? That's where you and I -- that's what you and 4 I are doing. I get it. I hear your argument. You want 5 me to accept as a fact your position on what I've 6 ordered. He wants me to accept as a fact their position 7 on what I've ordered. 8 He says if their position is right, he's 9 given you all the aspects -- 10 MR. GUERRA: No, he hasn't, Your Honor. 11 He hasn't. 12 THE COURT: Show me one piece of evidence 13 for the aspect sizes he's given you, technical notes 14 exist and he didn't give it to you. 15 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, I came here on 16 September 8th because I don't have the aspect 17 specifications that I need. We wasted another month on 18 this nonsense that have 200 aspect specifications. We 19 have already heard this argument, Your Honor. You 20 ordered them produced -- what's clear as daylight. 21 THE COURT: Y'all don't agree to what I 22 ordered. As soon as I get the transcript, I'll read it. 23 One of y'all is going to be right and one of y'all is 24 going to be wrong. Maybe y'all will both be a little 25 right, y'all both will be a little wrong. Any way you

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 will get an order. And if there are -- if it comes the 2 way you think I've ordered, then he probably has a lot of 3 technical notes from what you're telling me he needs to 4 give. 5 If it comes out the way he thinks the 6 ruling was, he says he's good and you will be getting 7 technical notes because some of the information that he 8 thinks I ordered will be associated with technical notes, 9 right? 10 MR. BULLION: Exactly. 11 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, on the tire 12 building training, we don't have any of them. These 13 folks that start at Michelin they don't just start 14 building tires. They're trained. We don't have any of 15 them, not a single one. 16 THE COURT: Any what? 17 MR. SHAPIRO: The tire building training, 18 how they build the tires. 19 MR. BULLION: We given them a ton of -- 20 (Simultaneous speakers.) 21 MR. SHAPIRO: No, they have not. 22 MR. BULLION: It would be proper and 23 polite to let me finish addressing the Court before 24 interrupting, okay. We have referenced in our 25 supplemental discovery responses what we have produced

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 specifically. Without an order from the Court we 2 produced 3,000 approximately more pages of documents 3 since that hearing. We've referenced in our responses 4 what we produced and they can go -- if they're willing to 5 read it, they can go and find the documents we have 6 produced. We have produced our builder. We've build 7 machine setup type documents and tire builder training 8 documents. 9 THE COURT: You said you got no tire 10 builder training. 11 MR. BULLION: Your Honor -- 12 THE COURT: Here is the way we are going 13 to handle that. You know what you sent them. Bates 14 stamped -- 15 MR. BULLION: Yes, Your Honor. It's set 16 out in our response -- 17 THE COURT: Listen. Do me a little favor 18 all right. Humor me. Send them the Bates Stamp range 19 where you say tire training. 20 MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, Your Honor, tire 21 training. 22 THE COURT: Tire training information 23 exist. 24 MR. BULLION: That is set in out in our 25 response to the motion for sanctions as well, but I will

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 send it again. 2 THE COURT: And just send a letter 3 pursuant to my instruction to you that specifically 4 addresses here are the Bates number ranges for the tire 5 installation training or what is it tire -- 6 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, When some of -- 7 THE COURT: What is it that you want? 8 MR. SHAPIRO: We want the orientation 9 documents. 10 THE COURT: No. No. You started off with 11 tire training information. 12 MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. 13 THE COURT: That's what I want you to 14 Bates Stamp range. 15 MR. BULLION: Just backing up just 16 briefly, Your Honor. We produced a lot of documents. We 17 produced them even before we supplemented our discovery 18 responses -- 19 THE COURT: If they're Bates stamped just 20 tell them ranges. 21 MR. BULLION: I am. 22 THE COURT: And then you're going to look 23 at that and if none of that is tire training information, 24 bring it to me. If it's not tire training information, I 25 guess you overlooked and it's going to be a problem. It

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 goes to your credibility and what you're asking. 2 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. 3 THE COURT: All right. What else. 4 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, I'm sorry. I 5 call him my son's name. My apologies. 6 These folks here -- for instance, Your 7 Honor. They say that they produce all these documents. 8 They don't produce the most important. That is the 9 tactic. 10 THE COURT: Okay. We are waiting on the 11 order. 12 MR. GUERRA: So the tire nonconforming 13 procedures we know for a fact they are missing. First of 14 all, we just got them 14 days ago, but they're missing 15 all of the reference documents contained on the ones that 16 they produced. They proved TNC2s and 3s but they didn't 17 produce the reference documents associated with it. In 18 addition, Your Honor, they didn't produce TNC4s and 5s. 19 They claim they didn't exist then. 20 Now they have to deal with those 21 complaints at the same time at the time that the tire was 22 manufactured which were already complaints and after the 23 tires left the factory. Those are 4s and 5s. So -- 24 THE COURT: What do you want me to do? 25 MR. GUERRA: Order them produced, Your

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 Honor. 2 THE COURT: I've already gone through a 3 whole big order that y'all don't agree with. I'm going 4 to go through the transcript. I'm going to give you that 5 order. This wasn't part of the order. All of this that 6 you're bringing up wasn't part of -- 7 MR. GUERRA: No. Because they agreed with 8 it. They agreed to produce them and here I am again 9 another 58 days into -- 10 THE COURT: He just told me he produced 11 them. 12 MR. BULLION: Your Honor -- 13 MR. GUERRA: He hasn't, Your Honor. 14 MR. BULLION: This is the hide the ball 15 game and we are not the ones playing it. 16 (Simultaneous speakers.) 17 THE COURT: Hold on. Do don't interrupt 18 them. 19 MR. BULLION: We have asked these guys 20 they have complained every day multiple times about our 21 discovery responses every day. I promise you. 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 MR. BULLION: We have asked them, what is 24 your problem? What is it that you think we haven't 25 produce and they don't respond. When they finally put in

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 their motion for sanctions what they claimed we hadn't 2 produced, the TNC4 and 5, we wrote a letter and said, 3 Hey, it here is why you don't have TNC4. We were able to 4 erase original equipment tires. This is a replacement 5 market tire. Here is why you don't TNC5. It didn't 6 exist at the time. 7 We have explained this to them and asked 8 them to withdraw their motion for sanctions yet they 9 don't do it. 10 The reason, Your Honor, there are so many 11 miscommunications in this case. We feel like everything 12 needs to be put in writing and we have requested and that 13 I'm going to stick with that position. 14 THE COURT: I can't blame them. 15 MR. GUERRA: These folks we call them more 16 than 15 times after this hearing. They refused to take 17 the calls, refused to take the calls even discuss it. 18 THE COURT: That's all right. Send it in 19 writing then. I've been in your shoes then send it in 20 writing. 21 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, we have send them 22 in writing. They know exactly what we want. They just 23 hide the ball and then pretend that we gave you 5,000 24 documents. None of them include this nonsense. It's 25 missing, Your Honor. They do this on every game. If I

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 read the Bates number order to you it's the same thing. 2 THE COURT: You don't have an order on 3 that. 4 MR. GUERRA: I don't. 5 THE COURT: We went through all of that 6 because you said we've got all of these things they're 7 supposed to give us. They didn't me and went through a 8 whole big hearing. I made an order. Y'all don't agree 9 with what that order was. I'm going to go through the 10 transcript and I'll give you the order. 11 He says they're going respond. I'm sure 12 they are because they don't have much choice and then you 13 will know where you are. 14 MR. GUERRA: On the Velo case which they 15 refer to it several times. It was a very similar tire 16 which was LTX M/S manufactured at same plant different 17 size was a 265 as opposed to 255, but other than that was 18 exactly the same. The tires are exactly manufactured the 19 same way. 20 I got many more aspect specifications, 21 many many more and I have the same exact defects plus 22 more on this one. 23 THE COURT: So maybe when I do my order 24 and they do their response based on the order you will 25 have that same treasure troll. You want me to assume

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 that you won't. 2 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, I just want what 3 was ordered here after we had the oral argument about 4 that matter and I want the matters that they promised me 5 that they will produce so I didn't put it on the other 6 argument and I think I am entitled to that. There is 7 absolutely no qualifiers anywhere about what they're 8 going to produce and they now after we did that -- they 9 do this in every case, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: Wait a minute. We're going 11 round and round. He said they produced it. You say they 12 didn't. 13 MR. GUERRA: He didn't. 14 THE COURT: Well what's the proof. He 15 says they don't exist. 16 MR. GUERRA: No. No. No. What they say 17 is that they didn't exist at the time, but there has to 18 be some way to deal with that matter; complaints after 19 the original equipment for the original equipment 20 customers. It's the same tire. So I need to -- 21 THE COURT: Look. Here's the deal. He 22 says on the record they don't exist. They don't exist. 23 Bring me in one that show they don't exist and that's 24 going to somewhat problematic for him. 25 MR. GUERRA: Okay.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 THE COURT: Right now you're telling me 2 they do exist. He says no they don't. 3 MR. GUERRA: Can you just incorporate on 4 the order for them produce the documents so then I have 5 an order that I can go against. 6 THE COURT: What documents? 7 MR. GUERRA: All tire nonconfirming 8 procedures to be produced, technical notes to be produced 9 concerning these aspect specifications. That's all I 10 need and the tire building documents. Just put it in the 11 order, Your Honor. 12 MR. BULLION: Your Honor, you have already 13 said multiple times you are going to read the transcript 14 and prepare an order that reflects your rulings and we 15 trust that you'll do that. He keeps referring to 16 agreement. The September 1 document was written as a 17 Rule Agreement. It has a place for a signature for 18 Mr. Guerra and Mr. Shapiro here. They never signed it. 19 It says in exchange for the production agreed above -- 20 THE COURT: It doesn't matter. Like I 21 said it's not a Rule 11. It's not signed. 22 MR. BULLION: There was not an agreement 23 despite that we produced a lot of documents. 24 MR. GUERRA: What not signed but he came 25 into the court and said that I'm going to produce them.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 THE COURT: If he did that it's on the 2 record. 3 MR. GUERRA: It's on the record. And 4 then -- 5 THE COURT: Y'all obviously don't agree. 6 Why do we keep going around on this. 7 MR. GUERRA: Because he is saying -- now 8 he is trying to go back on his word. He said it in open 9 court. He then said it here despite what we said. We 10 agree to again to produce the documents any way. 11 THE COURT: You said it's on the record. 12 MR. GUERRA: It's on the record. 13 THE COURT: Okay. I told you I'm going to 14 go based on what the record was. 15 MR. BULLION: Your Honor, they're here 16 asking for sanctions against us and it doesn't relate to 17 the Court's ruling. They say in footnote note one of 18 their motion it does not relate. This motion does not 19 address the documents the Court ordered Michelin to 20 produce. 21 THE COURT: The Court can award sanctions 22 based upon representations and, you know, representations 23 in writing you know that's possible. But right now I 24 don't -- until I read that transcript, you're telling me 25 all that matter that's on your posters it was stated on

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 the record. 2 MR. GUERRA: Yeah. I need to see it, but 3 words to the effect. 4 THE COURT: Yeah. 5 MR. GUERRA: I am going produce them any 6 way. 7 THE COURT: Well then we'll deal with 8 that. If it's on the record, it's going to be there. 9 MR. GUERRA: During the hearing -- 10 THE COURT: If it's not on the record -- 11 MR. GUERRA: During the hearing we 12 agree -- during the hearing we agree to produce the 13 documents any way. He wrote it. That's a letter to you, 14 Your Honor. That's the representation he made to the 15 Court. 16 THE COURT: Okay. 17 MR. GUERRA: It's here. It's on our 18 record right here. 19 THE COURT: I'll look at it. When he gets 20 an order he is waiting on the order. He's a got right to 21 do that. 22 What else? 23 MR. BULLION: We've got a motion to 24 designate responsible third parties, Your Honor, the 25 first one we've ever had to have a hearing on in my

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 memory. I've done hundreds of these. This is the first 2 one we've had to have a hearing on. But if you want to 3 take that up, we'll be glad to do that. Mr. Blackerby 4 will address that. 5 THE COURT: Is it timely? 6 MR. BULLION: Oh yeah. 7 MR. GUERRA: Yes, sir. 8 MR. BULLION: It's been set. It's been 9 filed a long time ago. 10 MR. BLACKERBY: It's pretty simple pretty 11 straightforward. We've -- the owners and the operator of 12 the vehicle were the Rico family. We went out and 13 deposed the Ricos and about 10 days later we filed a 14 motion to designate them as responsible parties. This is 15 what happens in every single tire case. The allegation 16 is they properly maintained the tire and the allegation 17 is the driver failed to maintain control of the tire. We 18 should be good. The objection that they are allowed to 19 make is we didn't complete it. The sufficiency to 20 special exceptions. They filed an objection and instead 21 of doing that, their objection is it is baseless and 22 unsupported and they have given a lot of testimony 23 primarily from actually all leading questions by the 24 Plaintiffs saying you took care of the tire, right, yes 25 and all these kind of sayings and basically that's their

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 objection which is not a proper objection you know. 2 THE COURT: Not for -- not at this stage. 3 MR. BULLION: Not at this stage. 4 THE COURT: Maybe at the time of 5 submission -- 6 MR. BLACKERBY: Exactly. 7 THE COURT: -- when the evidence is before 8 the court as to whether or not there's anything that 9 would raise the issue of responsibility but not just on 10 just designating. 11 Response. 12 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, first of all 13 Mr. Blackerby actually asked the questions about the 14 tire. He didn't like the answer. The driver and the 15 owner of the vehicle and the tires say I had the tires 16 checked. So they're just completely -- it's sad to say 17 they're making up facts. There's no evidence of poorly 18 maintaining the tire and it goes hand and hand with our 19 motion to strike claims of tire abuse. 20 They won't disclose it. We keep asking 21 them. You know it's just trial by ambush. We keep 22 asking them. We provide the vehicle. We send them the 23 tire. They had the tire for over a month. They looked 24 at everything. We gave them the vehicle. They deposed 25 the driver, all the folks, nothing. There's no tire

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 abuse. We ask -- we're taking fact discovery. We're 2 taking depositions. They claim there's tire abuse. They 3 don't tell us how, where, when, nothing. They have to 4 plead some specificity under the rule that we cited, Your 5 Honor. 6 And even if there is a claim of only 7 checking the tire once, how does that cause the tire to 8 fall apart. There's no causation. Even if can the take 9 the pleadings as true so their motion to designate does 10 fail. There's no evidence of responsibility. We've 11 asked them for it. 12 THE COURT: All right. 13 MR. BLACKERBY: I'll respond, again, Your 14 Honor. The amount evidence is not at issue here. It's 15 whether we've pled it. What we've pled is they checked 16 the air pressure one time and they never had the tire 17 inspected during the time they own the tire. That's our 18 allegation. We'll see what the evidence says but that's 19 what they testified to during his deposition. A lot of 20 the other things and a lot of the other evidence that 21 we'll have to support either tire abuse claim or service 22 history is going to come from expert. We've looked at 23 the tire and we do expert disclosures. They'll get those 24 in theory just like we'll get what their expert says 25 caused the tire to fail when we get their experts and

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 disclosures. So that's the rest of it and they'll get 2 all that. That's the way these cases go and we are 3 following procedure today. 4 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, we have that 5 motion on that issue. I would like talk a little bit 6 about it. 7 And the is these folks said it was tire 8 abuse but it's like saying your tire failed because there 9 was a defect. That wouldn't fly. I need to give some 10 specificity. The same goes for them. They say tell us 11 what it is. What is the tire abuse -- anything; not all 12 the evidence. They don't have too much, but they need to 13 put facts. They have not put a single fact, not one. 14 Maintenance demanded the tire for a month. 15 THE COURT: All right. I understand your 16 argument. I understand your argument. 17 MR. GUERRA: And on that month it went to 18 the shop; undisputed evidence. So all this lack -- even 19 if that were the case-- lack of maintenance for a month 20 even though it went to the shop as recommended by 21 Michelin, checked the tires, looked at them and said that 22 they all look good; how does that go into the fact that 23 the tire came apart and there was tire abuse? We don't 24 have one single fact of tire abuse. 25 THE COURT: All right. I'll look at it.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 What else? 2 MR. GUERRA: We have a motion. 3 THE COURT: Yeah, y'all had your motion on 4 the deposition. 5 MR. GUERRA: Yes. We need to depose that 6 folk that came here with the affidavit. 7 THE COURT: On the trade secret stuff. 8 MR. GUERRA: Yeah. And, Your Honor, we 9 just got that stuff. 10 THE COURT: You get to depose him. 11 MR. GUERRA: Thank you. Your Honor, I'm a 12 little concerned about deposition dates. Because the way 13 this has been going, no documents, no witnesses, no 14 contacts, I sense it's going to be a lot of problems to 15 get deposition. I have sent them a letter on Friday -- 16 THE COURT: When are you going to take 17 this guy's deposition? 18 MR. GUERRA: I'm sorry, Your Honor. 19 THE COURT: When do you want it? 20 MR. GUERRA: I want it -- when can we do 21 it? 22 MR. BULLION: The next couple of weeks. 23 THE COURT: Is that a problem? 24 MR. BULLION: I have to check his 25 availability, Your Honor. I don't need to be there for

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 them, but certainly I would think we would get it done by 2 the end of the month. 3 THE COURT: All right. Today is the 5th. 4 It's ordered to be taken on October 23rd at 10 a.m. at 5 your offices. 6 MR. BULLION: He is in Greenville, South 7 Carolina, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Will that work for y'all? 9 MR. GUERRA: I don't mind. Yeah, I love 10 Greenville. 11 THE COURT: All right. At the Greenville, 12 South Carolina, unless y'all agree to something 13 different. So that way you got plenty of time to work. 14 MR. GUERRA: Thank you. 15 THE COURT: If you can work out something, 16 wonderful. If you can't, Greenville, South Carolina 17 10 a.m. on the 23rd. 18 MR. GUERRA: Can I ask you one last thing, 19 Your Honor? I think it's the last thing that we have to 20 talk about. When you issue your order, would you please 21 put a time in which they have to produce the documents 22 with the order? 23 THE COURT: Sure. 24 MR. GUERRA: Since we have been asking for 25 these things since April 3rd.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 THE COURT: Okay. I will do that. 2 MR. GUERRA: A week will be more than 3 plenty of time. 4 THE COURT: I will do that. 5 MR. BULLION: We put our proposed order. 6 We put a blank in there for you to complete. 7 THE COURT: Y'all got proposed orders on 8 the motion for leave? Both sides got any proposed 9 orders. If not, just e-mail one to Francine to both 10 sides. 11 MR. BULLION: We will submit it to the 12 responsibility third party when we submitted it with our 13 motion. 14 THE COURT: That, too, if you need one. 15 All right. Anything else? 16 MR. GUERRA: Yes. 17 THE COURT: Anything else? 18 MR. GUERRA: No. I'm very concerned that 19 I'm not going to get the documents. 20 THE COURT: All right. 21 MR. GUERRA: I'm very concerned that I'm 22 not going to get documents and I'm going to have to come 23 back here and talk to you about these again, Your Honor. 24 MR. BULLION: I bet we will be back, Your 25 Honor. I think he's a soothsayer on that. I just bet

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 you we will be back. I hate it. 2 THE COURT: We'll see. We'll see. 3 MR. BLACKERBY: Your Honor, who do you 4 want me to give the proposed order on responsible third 5 parties? 6 THE COURT: Do y'all have one yet? 7 MR. SHAPIRO: No. 8 THE COURT: You can e-mail me. 9 MR. BULLION: Your Honor, the motion on 10 the tire abuse, did the Court rule on that? 11 MR. GUERRA: We need to submit an order. 12 They're want to strike our defense. You're not striking 13 our defense entirely. 14 THE COURT: Oh I thought y'all were 15 arguing that on the designated responsible third parties. 16 MR. BULLION: No. He had a separate 17 motion to strike our defense. Our position is it's 18 expert stuff. 19 THE COURT: Well, that's more in the 20 nature of special exception, right, whether or not you've 21 been given fair notice. 22 MR. GUERRA: Yes. I don't have any notice 23 about what -- 24 THE COURT: I don't than I'm going strike 25 it, but -- y'all are probably going have to plead a

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 little bit more. 2 MR. BULLION: The way that this typically 3 plays out in these cases, Your Honor, is the expert 4 will -- and I will just give you an example. There is a 5 concept known as compression roots in the B area of a 6 tire that there is proof according to some experts that 7 the tire has been run underinflated or overdeflected. If 8 there is evidence on this tire of that which I think 9 there is our expert in his report would say this tire has 10 a history of overdeflected operation and here are the 11 conditions. It's all expert stuff. This isn't a -- this 12 is -- 13 THE COURT: But still basic notice in 14 pleadings in Texas they are probably entitled to 15 something a little more than a whatever y'all said this 16 has been used. 17 MR. GUERRA: Tire abuse. 18 THE COURT: Just like the flip side the 19 Plaintiff says you are negligent. 20 MR. GUERRA: Exactly. 21 THE COURT: You know in a special 22 exception, you're going to have to put a little bit more 23 meat on the bone than you're negligent. The same thing 24 with it's been abused. 25 MR. BLACKERBY: Right. And that's not

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 where the pleadings are right now. I will tell you what 2 we've alleged is that they were negligent in the 3 maintenance and the driving of the vehicle. That all 4 came in before we went out and deposed Ricos. And then 5 once they deposed them, we did our motion to designate 6 responsible third party, where we specifically said 7 they're negligent because they didn't check the pressure. 8 THE COURT: Yeah, but that's a motion for 9 designated parties -- 10 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, he is rearguing 11 the same motion. 12 THE COURT: That's not your pleading. 13 MR. BLACKERBY: I'm actually -- I'm not 14 actually regarding the same motion. 15 THE COURT: I understand what you are 16 saying. 17 MR. BLACKERBY: We put it out there. 18 THE COURT: What answer you are you on? 19 Do you have an amended answer? I don't remember what 20 iteration you are on, on your plea -- are you still on 21 your original answer? 22 MR. BULLION: No. I think it's our 23 amended answer. But also they want is for us to update 24 our responses to request for disclosures I think is the 25 vehicle they have been going at. That's what they have

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 this cited in this motion. 2 THE COURT: No. The discovery rules 3 control when you have to supplement and all that. 4 Basically I take that as a special exception. You need 5 to amend your pleadings within 10 days on what abuse is. 6 MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you, Your Honor. 7 MR. BLACKERBY: Thank you. 8 THE COURT: Some fact basis for the 9 allegation of abuse. 10 MR. BLACKERBY: Will do. 11 THE COURT: All right. We'll see y'all. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 STATE OF TEXAS 2 COUNTY OF DALLAS 3 4 I, Vielica R. Dobbins, Official Court Reporter in 5 and for the 134th District Court of Dallas, State of 6 Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing 7 contains a true and correct transcription of all portions 8 of evidence and other proceedings requested in writing by 9 counsel for the parties to be included in this volume of 10 the Reporter's Record in the above-styled and numbered 11 cause, all of which occurred in open court or in chambers 12 and were reported by me. 13 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of the 14 proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if 15 any, offered by the respective parties. 16 I further certify that the total cost for the 17 preparation of this Reporter's Record is $228.00 and was 18 paid/will be paid by Mr. Luis Guerra. 19 20 21 Vielica R. Dobbins, CSR, RPR Texas CSR No. 6248

22 Official Court Reporter 134th District Court

23 Dallas County, Texas 600 Commerce Street, Suite 650 24 Dallas, Texas 75202 Telephone: (214) 653-7239 25 Expiration: 12/31/2016

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 REPORTER'S RECORD VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUMES

2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255 3 SAMUEL MEDINA AND OBDULIA ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT MEDINA, HUSBAND AND WIFE, ) 4 INDIVIDUALLY; NATALYE MEDINA )

INDIVIDUALLY; NAVIL GIBSON, ) 5 INDIVIDUALLY, )

)

6 Plaintiff(s), )

)

7 vs. ) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS )

8 MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; )

AND JOSE BUSTILLO D/B/A MUNDO )

9 CARS, AN IN STATE DEFENDANT, )

)

10 Defendant(s). ) 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 11 12 13 _____________________________________________ 14 VARIOUS MOTIONS' HEARING

_____________________________________________

15 16 17 On the 3rd day of November, 2015, the following 18 proceedings came on to be held in the above-titled and 19 numbered cause before the Honorable Dale B. Tillery, 20 Judge Presiding, held in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas. 21 Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype 22 machine. 23 24 25

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 APPEARANCES 2 LUIS P. GUERRA SBOT NO. (Admitted Pro hac vice) 3 DAVID C. SHAPIRO SBOT NO. (Admitted Pro hac vice) 4 Luis P. Guerra, L.L.C.

6225 N. 24th Street 5 Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 6 Telephone: (602) 381-8400 Fax: (602) 381-8403 7 E-mail: Pmigliorini@lpguerra.com Counsel for PLAINTIFFS 8 THOMAS M.'TOM' BULLION, III (Appeared by telephone) 9 SBOT NO. 03331005 Germer Beaman & Brown, P.L.L.C. 10 301 Congress Avenue Suite 1700 11 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 472-0288 12 Fax: (512) 472-0721 E-mail: Cblackerby@germer-austin.com 13 Counsel for DEFENDANTS 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 VOLUME 1 2 Various Motions' Hearing 3 November 3, 2015 4 PAGE VOL. 5 Proceedings .......................................4 1 6 Adjournment ......................................51 1 7 Reporter's Certificate ...........................52 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 THE COURT: All right. We're on the 3 record in Cause No. DC 14-07255 Medina, et al vs. 4 Michelin North America, et al. Announcements and 5 appearance on the record for the Plaintiffs, please. 6 MR. GUERRA: Luis Guerra and David Shapiro 7 for the Plaintiffs, Medina. 8 THE COURT: And for the Defendant. 9 MR. BULLION: Your Honor, Tom Bullion for 10 Michelin North America, Incorporated. 11 THE COURT: All right. You may proceed. 12 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, we have I think 13 all together six motions on the docket. 14 THE COURT: Yeah. 15 MR. GUERRA: Tom, can you hear me? 16 MR. BULLION: Yes. 17 THE COURT: You want to come up here? 18 MR. GUERRA: Yes. 19 THE COURT: Y'all come up here. 20 MR. GUERRA: Out of the six motions, I was 21 wanted to see if we can maybe the motions that we filed 22 to quash your depositions and the motion that you filed 23 to quash Wischhusen's deposition maybe that's something, 24 you know, in between this hearing we can take a 25 five-minute break, we can go outside and talk and work it

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 out. 2 MR. BULLION: Well neither one of those 3 are set for a hearing properly. We didn't get -- you 4 sent a notice of the hearing on your motion to quash 5 yesterday afternoon which is not timely pursuant to the 6 Texas rules. But the way the Texas rules work is the 7 depositions are automatically quash if you file a motion 8 within three days of the notices so I'm happy to take 9 that up or not whatever your preference is on that, Your 10 Honor. 11 THE COURT: I would certainly rather hear 12 those type of issues rather than make either one of y'all 13 come back or spend additional time on something that's, 14 you know, motions to quash depositions are easy to talk 15 about. It doesn't take a lot of -- not a lot of facts a 16 lot of time, you know. So I would rather deal with that 17 today if we can get it dealt with. 18 MR. GUERRA: Tom. 19 THE COURT: But y'all can take a break and 20 talk about it. I am going to be here. It don't matter. 21 I'm willing to entertain them. If he's going to make a 22 notice if Mr. Bullion makes a notice objection then we'll 23 deal with that. But I would prefer to deal with those 24 deposition issues. 25 MR. BULLION: I'm fine with that, Your

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 Honor. 2 MR. GUERRA: And what I was suggesting Tom 3 is that since this just seems to be mostly calendaring 4 issues we could probably take five minutes and talk on 5 the phone and try to resolve it really quick and come 6 back and talk to the Judge on what we agree upon. 7 MR. BULLION: Whatever you want to do. 8 With regard to the depositions that we noticed. 9 MR. GUERRA: Yes. 10 MR. BULLION: Your Honor, I got a stack of 11 e-mails and letters conferring on dates and we never got 12 a response and we noticed the depositions up and they 13 quashed them and we've asked them. We said this is 14 Mr. Bustillo. He's the codefendant and the trooper and 15 some fact witnesses and we've been trying since July to 16 get those scheduled and we surprisingly we have not been 17 able to do that. 18 MR. GUERRA: Tom -- 19 THE COURT: Well, that's all right. We'll 20 get them scheduled. I got a way to handle that if y'all 21 can't agree. So y'all are going to talk about it and 22 we'll take that up after we discuss it but we will get 23 that set up today. 24 MR. GUERRA: I was trying not to argue 25 this matter at all. I mean I was just trying to get to

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 the -- 2 THE COURT: Well, it's all right. I told 3 y'all how I'm going to handle this. 4 MR. GUERRA: I can argue back, Your Honor. 5 THE COURT: No, you can't. Let's go to 6 the next thing. I told you how we're going to do this. 7 MR. SHAPIRO: So we're going to talk to 8 him on the phone. 9 THE COURT: Yeah, and then we'll come back 10 in here. 11 MR. SHAPIRO: Perfect. 12 MR. GUERRA: You want to do that right now 13 or do that at the end. 14 THE COURT: No let's take care of that. 15 MR. GUERRA: Tom, we're going to be 16 outside for a second to talk to you. 17 THE COURT: No. No. 18 MR. SHAPIRO: No, he wants to do the 19 motions. 20 MR. GUERRA: I'm sorry. 21 THE COURT: We are going to do the motions 22 and then you will break to do the quash stuff. 23 MR. GUERRA: No problem. So then we also 24 have the motion for the -- 25 MR. SHAPIRO: The Bates range regarding

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 the tire training. 2 MR. GUERRA: Did you hear that, Tom? 3 MR. BULLION: Yes. We've given you the 4 Bates number for the tire builder training documents and 5 I don't know -- I don't if you want to take that up or if 6 you're good with that. 7 MR. SHAPIRO: No, Your Honor. And Tom, in 8 fact that was October 5th when the Judge ordered the 9 Bates range to be produced we got it on Friday because 10 the first time it was set on Monday he gave us the wrong 11 Bates numbers. So, you know, we looked at the Bates 12 numbers and we looked at the Bates ranges and these are 13 not tire training documents. I have for example, the 14 first Bates range document that Mr. Bullion represented 15 was a tire training document. It's a work instruction. 16 It doesn't mention training anywhere on there, Your 17 Honor. 18 THE COURT: Wait. What about that, 19 Mr. Bullion? I want you to give him the tire training 20 documents. 21 MR. BULLION: Your Honor, we've given them 22 the documents that are used to train tire builders. A 23 lot of them are documents like work methods and things 24 like that. They don't say tire builder training on them, 25 but those are the in fact the tire builder training

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 documents that were available and that we used and given 2 them. 3 THE COURT: Well, it don't have to say it 4 on there. But if it is what was used and what was relied 5 upon as documents for that purpose, it doesn't have to be 6 headed or title that. So I don't have a problem with 7 titling. 8 MR. SHAPIRO: I don't have a problem with 9 title either. The problem is in previous cases by the 10 way, in Velo, these same documents were produced and they 11 were called work instructions. Now they're calling them 12 tire building training. They're not tire building 13 training and I can show it to and you there is nothing 14 about how the tire is built. 15 THE COURT: Hold on. What you want was 16 the tire training, right? 17 MR. SHAPIRO: That's right. 18 THE COURT: All right. He's saying he 19 provided that. What Bates range, Mr. Bullion? 20 MR. BULLION: Let me look real quick, Your 21 Honor. This is as we discussed before this -- this was 22 in our supplemental responses and in our response to a 23 motion for sanctions. I've got to pull this motion up. 24 It is -- let's see, in the 3362 through 3515 it's about a 25 little over -- a little over 150 pages of documents.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 THE COURT: And that's supposed to be 2 responsive to the tire training. 3 MR. BULLION: Yes, Your Honor. 4 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, they're not tire 5 training. 6 THE COURT: Okay. But what do you want? 7 Do you think I know? 8 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, the problem is 9 we don't have the documents. They have the documents. 10 So I can't tell what you they look like because they've 11 never produced them to us. 12 THE COURT: I understand but -- 13 MR. SHAPIRO: And that's the problem. 14 These are not tire training documents. 15 THE COURT: Wait a minute. Listen to me. 16 All right. He has represented to you that's what they 17 are, right? So he is bound by that representation. You 18 say it's not. Okay. There's a way to deal with that, 19 right? 20 MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah, there is a way to deal 21 with that which kind of segues into the next motion which 22 is about a person who is responding to discovery, the 23 employee, because the employee would know -- 24 THE COURT: Wait. Wait. You're getting 25 ahead of the deal.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 MR. SHAPIRO: I'm not trying to get ahead. 2 THE COURT: I know. Understand y'all are 3 in this. Y'all know. Y'all know what these documents 4 are. I don't know. So I hear this gentlemen from 5 Michelin, Mr. Bullion say, Gave these, gave everything we 6 got responsive what you told us to you give on tire 7 training. Here they are Bates range M3362 through 3515 8 easy for me to identify, know what those are. It can be 9 not a problem. And you say that's not what that is. And 10 he says, Yeah, it is. So where do we go from there? 11 MR. BULLION: Your Honor, might I suggest 12 that we've offered the deposition. They've sent us a 13 they sent us several letters asking for depositions of 14 representatives of Michelin and we offered the deposition 15 of the manufacturing witness from Dothan and I've offered 16 a couple of days for it and they have not yet noticed it 17 and it seems to me that they have -- if they don't think 18 these are in fact tire builder training documents the way 19 for them to develop that is to ask the manufacturing 20 witness from Dothan what was used to train tire builders 21 back in this time frame and are these the documents and 22 are there other documents out there and I'm assuming at 23 some point they're going to take their deposition. 24 THE COURT: Not a bad idea. 25 MR. BULLION: I offered them

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 November 13th -- 2 THE COURT: Hold on. Would you hold on -- 3 (Simultaneous speakers.) 4 THE COURT: Can you not hear me? 5 MR. BULLION: I can hear you, Your Honor, 6 mostly. 7 THE COURT: Can you not hear me? 8 MR. BULLION: Yes, Your Honor, I can hear 9 you right now. 10 THE COURT: Well I asked you to stop 11 talking in the middle of that. 12 MR. BULLION: Again, I apologize, Your 13 Honor. I apologize if I talked on top of you. 14 THE COURT: All right. Now what about 15 taking that deposition? 16 MR. GUERRA: Here is the problem. Here is 17 here is the manufacturing guy and we don't have documents 18 that we have questions to ask. Not these documents. The 19 other documents the aspect specifications. 20 THE COURT: No. No. Listen to what he's 21 say. Listen to what he's saying. 22 MR. GUERRA: I did. 23 THE COURT: No, you didn't. Because he is 24 saying you trot down here and you take the deposition of 25 the person who knows whether or not these are the

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 documents. 2 MR. GUERRA: I understand, Your Honor. 3 THE COURT: Okay. That's not the same 4 thing as what you're talking about. Now that would be a 5 costly deposition. 6 MR. GUERRA: Yes. 7 THE COURT: And if that guy were to say 8 this range that has 33 through 62 -- 3362 through 3515. 9 If he were saying, for instance, that's some of it or not 10 all of it or if he says, no, that's not the tire building 11 training documents, Bullion is going to pay for all of 12 that. He is going to pay for your time to go down there. 13 He is going to pay the whole turnkey deal because he's 14 the one making the representation that these are the 15 responsive documents and then he's saying, Well, if you 16 don't believe me, go talk to the people and they'll tell 17 you that these are the responsive documents. And if you 18 go down there and you go through that and the guy says, 19 No, it's not all the responsive, Bullion is going -- he 20 is the one making the representations to the Court. 21 Now if they say, yes it is and you're like 22 good and you're able to come in and prove somehow that 23 they're not, it starts getting pretty serious Rule 215 24 stuff in Texas. 25 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, the issue is, you

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 know, we're trying to schedule the deposition and we know 2 the man, Mr. Riley, in Alabama, but there's other 3 documents unrelated to the training documents related to 4 the inspection of the tires that we've been able to 5 receive them. So our thinking -- and that's Mr. Bullion 6 I give him the dates, no. Until we get the documents we 7 cannot be setting depositions of these folks willy-nilly 8 until we get the basis for us to prepare to go take the 9 depositions. I understand what you're saying. 10 THE COURT: I don't think you do. 11 MR. GUERRA: It's a little different. 12 You're saying, Luis, go down there. Talk to this guy and 13 if anything -- 14 (Simultaneous speakers.) 15 THE COURT: It's calling the bluff. 16 MR. GUERRA: Yes. Yes. I get it. 17 THE COURT: It's calling the bluff and 18 like I say I do this from the position that y'all both 19 have been involved in these cases before. Y'all both 20 know these documents. It's not like you've never seen 21 these documents before. It's not like Mr. Bullion has 22 never seen these documents before. You know it's calling 23 somebody's bluff. 24 For instance from Mr. Bullion's position I 25 leave room for the possibility that he's like they know

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 these are the documents and they're just trying to get 2 that Judge down there to throw something else in when 3 they know these are the documents. Maybe that's what he 4 believes. And then he's calling your bluff. He's 5 calling your bluff saying, Well, you don't think so. 6 Hook'em on down here. Talk to this. 7 Because you know you know he gone say, yeah, that's all 8 we got. Those are the documents. And then you didn't 9 get anymore from me through this exercise than what he 10 gave you. I leave that as a possibility. 11 MR. GUERRA: Okay, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: The flip side is you've seen 13 it. You've seen it and they're stepping right into your 14 analysis. 15 MR. GUERRA: And my caveat is, Your Honor, 16 is, you know, I get the additional documents concerning 17 when this gentleman is supposed to testify about when the 18 Court makes the ruling and then I will go back and depose 19 him about that. 20 THE COURT: See how that works. 21 MR. GUERRA: No problem. No problem. 22 That will be fantastic. 23 THE COURT: That's the way it works around 24 here. 25 MR. GUERRA: Thank you, Your Honor. I

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 guess we're done with that and the only question is to 2 set the deposition of Mr. Riley. 3 THE COURT: It should be quick. 4 MR. GUERRA: Yep. Thank you, Your Honor. 5 THE COURT: Mr. Bullion, how long you said 6 this guy would be available. They can hot foot it on 7 down there. You ought to be able to have this guy 8 available certainly within the next 30 days for sure. 9 MR. BULLION: Yes, Your Honor. I don't 10 think that's a problem at all. I will say that I told 11 Mr. Guerra and Mr. Shapiro that we only want to put these 12 witnesses -- I've got four maybe five witnesses 13 identified to cover their topics and we only want to put 14 them up once so I would like to -- 15 THE COURT: Mr. Bullion, hey, hey, hey. 16 We all got wants and needs in life. 17 MR. BULLION: Yes, sir. May I proceed, 18 Your Honor? What I was going to say is -- 19 THE COURT: I told you how we're going to 20 do this little part of it. We move in small fight bites 21 around here. Simple things for simple minds. 22 Unfortunately you got the simple mind on the bench here. 23 So you're going to do things in small bites and 24 simple-minded ways, all right? 25 MR. BULLION: Yes, sir.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 THE COURT: It's like Sisyphus pushing 2 that rock up the hill. It's just what you have to 3 endure. I'm not trying to the level -- 4 MR. BULLION: What I would like to say on 5 the record if possibly, Your Honor, is once we get a 6 ruling on that on that motion to compel then we will be 7 in a position to produce the additional documents and 8 they can ask all of these witnesses whatever questions 9 they want to ask them with regard to all of the documents 10 we produced. So that is what I would like to make sure 11 it's clear on the record. 12 THE COURT: Well, we'll see how it goes. 13 We'll see how it goes. I've got a way to go about this. 14 It might not be the way you'd go about it. It might not 15 be the way opposing counsel would go about it, but it 16 will be the way I go about it. 17 So I don't want to get distracted with all 18 of these other things. It just confuses the simple mind. 19 I have a dispute on whether or not these responsive 20 documents have been produced. You've been very kind to 21 identify for the Court exactly the range and what they 22 are and you feel very confident that those are the only 23 ones that are responsive to the point you told him, come 24 on down and talk to the guy. They can either take up 25 that invitation or not. If they choose not to, then they

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 have what you give them and we move on to the next issue. 2 Now what's the next thing? I told you how 3 we're going to handle this little issue about the motion 4 to compel on the tire building training documents. That 5 is done and closed for the record. 6 MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you, Your Honor. 7 MR. GUERRA: If we can go on a segue that 8 David was talking about. We would like to discuss that 9 motion regarding identification of the individuals that 10 provided them discovery responses and the financial 11 information. 12 Did you hear that, Tom? 13 MR. BULLION: Yes. 14 MR. SHAPIRO: And, Your Honor, 15 Mr. Bullion's brief outlines the Exxon case which talks 16 about -- in that case by the way the Plaintiff served 17 several depositions and in fact they were depositions. 18 Deponents were produced from Exxon to talk about 19 documents. 20 THE COURT: Okay. 21 MR. SHAPIRO: Now what the Court denied 22 was the production of an attorney of record to discuss 23 the documents. That's not what we want. We want the 24 employees' bios -- 25 THE COURT: Right.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 MR. SHAPIRO: For example -- 2 THE COURT: Okay. But what if the person 3 in charge just happens to have a J.D. from one of the 4 finer legal institutions of this country. Just because 5 you're a lawyer doesn't mean -- just because you have a 6 law degree doesn't exclude you -- 7 MR. SHAPIRO: That's why the Court was 8 very careful and the Court of Appeals wrote the attorney 9 of record. 10 THE COURT: Right. 11 MR. SHAPIRO: And we're not looking for 12 work products here. We're looking for folks that 13 actually do this day in and day out who can identify, you 14 know for example those glass aspects. These are how they 15 come to that. Those are those glass specters that 16 Mr. Bullion talks about all the time. They actually use 17 those documents on the field. 18 THE COURT: All right. You want a person 19 who has knowledge of that information with the 20 corporation. 21 MR. SHAPIRO: That's right. 22 THE COURT: Mr. Bullion, what about that? 23 MR. GUERRA: Regarding the responses for 24 discovery specifically who is the guy that told these 25 folks.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 THE COURT: I got it. What about that? 2 Can you tell them that? 3 MR. BULLION: I'm not sure I got 4 everything. What I understand the Plaintiffs are asking 5 for is somebody to be deposed about our discovery 6 responses and we've in our brief in Texas law I think 7 it's very clear that that is not permitted. It's work 8 product and it's not -- it's not permitted to get to 9 basically do discovery into discovery. I heard him 10 mention of class spectors (phonetic) and I am not sure 11 what that is related to. 12 THE COURT: I don't hear them asking for 13 that. What you're hearing is different from what they 14 are saying. Run that by me again. What is it that you 15 want. 16 MR. SHAPIRO: We want the folks that 17 identify for example we asked for the aspect 18 specifications. 19 THE COURT: You want the person who has 20 knowledge of the aspect specifications. 21 MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. 22 THE COURT: Right. 23 MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah, who took those 24 conditions. They asked for conditions at issue that 25 we're claiming.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 THE COURT: Yeah. 2 MR. SHAPIRO: And they have gave us nine 3 aspect specifications. 4 MR. GUERRA: We want that the guy. 5 THE COURT: You want to talk to that 6 person who made that judgment that decision. 7 MR. SHAPIRO: Exactly, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bullion, what 9 about that? 10 MR. BULLION: They're asking for somebody 11 in the legal department, Your Honor. The people who make 12 decisions as to what documents are responsive to 13 discovery requests are either lawyers in the legal 14 department at Michelin or their representatives that are 15 either engineers or paralegals. And so what they're 16 asking for is what I just said; discovery about 17 discovery. 18 If they want to talk to somebody about how 19 the aspect specifications are used in the plant then the 20 plant manager would be able to get into that. 21 THE COURT: No. 22 MR. BULLION: But if they want to get into 23 why you picked these aspects specifications as opposed to 24 others, that's a lawyer's decision or a lawyer's 25 representative's decision and it's clearly work product

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 under Rule 192.5. 2 THE COURT: That's not what they're asking 3 for from what I'm hearing. Here is what I'm hearing that 4 they're asking for and they'll tell me if I've stated 5 this wrong. What they're asking for is based upon the 6 answers to the discovery somebody has knowledge and went 7 through a process of giving the responsive information. 8 They want to know who is that person in the company that 9 has knowledge about these -- this particular aspect 10 information. 11 MR. BULLION: I -- I think we're on the 12 same page, Your Honor, but the people who have knowledge 13 about that would have the use of the aspect 14 specifications that would be the people at the Dothan 15 plant. 16 THE COURT: Okay. 17 MR. BULLION: We offered a witness who can 18 address the aspect specifications. The question of -- 19 THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. 20 That's what y'all want, right? 21 MR. GUERRA: We want that but we certainly 22 want the person that for these responses said these are 23 the ones. It cannot be -- 24 THE COURT: No. No. No. No. That's 25 getting kind of gray area. Now listen to me. Here's the

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 deal. Remember small minds. Small minds. Simple ways 2 for small minds. You're going to go down there and 3 you're going to talk to these people that he's saying 4 know all about these aspects and then you're going to ask 5 them how come I was given these and he is going to say, I 6 don't know. I don't know. And you're going to have all 7 kinds of good little questions about, Well, did you give 8 this information to somebody and who did you give this 9 information to somebody and then you will find out who 10 the filter is. And then maybe we will take the next step 11 once we know what that filter is, right? 12 MR. GUERRA: Sounds good, Your Honor. 13 MR. SHAPIRO: Sounds good, Your Honor. 14 MR. GUERRA: Simple things for simple 15 minds. 16 THE COURT: I know it tends to make things 17 more costly, but sometimes that's only way to get to the 18 truth. 19 MR. GUERRA: Thank you, Your Honor. 20 MR. BULLION: One thing I also want to 21 point out for the record is Your Honor ordered at least 22 from the bench that we produce the oldest version of all 23 of the aspect specifications and you said at Dothan and 24 once you entered an order on that and we produced those 25 and I think why certain ones were selected to be produced

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 in discovery probably becomes moot as well. 2 THE COURT: I disagree. I disagree. I'm 3 not sure about your framing of that order, but the 4 purpose was not just to say give them old irrelevant, you 5 know, material but to give them the current responsive 6 material and the only reason there would be an issue 7 about old or how far back or dated is just to set a date 8 on how far back. Not saying you only give them old, 9 irrelevant, out of date and, you know, none -- 10 nonmaterial information. I don't think my order said 11 that. 12 MR. BULLION: No. No. Your Honor, that 13 wasn't what I was saying. It was that this was a really 14 old tire. This tire was built in 2001 and Your Honor you 15 wanted us to produce the oldest version of all of the 16 aspect specifications in use at Dothan. And that's at 17 least the way we understood the order. I think there's 18 some disagreement on that. So once you enter your 19 written order, then we'll produce the oldest version. 20 Whether they were actually in effect at the time this 21 tire was built or newer than that I think will depend on 22 the aspect specifications? 23 THE COURT: Huh, that's an interesting 24 dance. 25 MR. BULLION: Well just all the aspects

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 specifications, Your Honor, are not dated the same. They 2 don't have the same date on them. Some might have been 3 written in the late '90s. Some might have been written 4 in the late 2000s. They don't have all the same date on 5 them is all I'm trying to say. 6 THE COURT: Yeah, I think what the court 7 would probably be interested in is up until the time of 8 the production of this particular aspect and going back a 9 reasonable period of time all of those responsive 10 documents not just the oldest and not just the current 11 but it would be really from the time of production back a 12 reasonable period of time. Have we not done that with 13 that order? 14 MR. GUERRA: It has not been written down, 15 Your Honor. 16 THE COURT: You just got the language. 17 MR. BULLION: You know Michelin has a 18 document retention policy, Your Honor, and, you know, I 19 think there's some confusion on what -- on what it is 20 that you ordered us to you produce. Because my 21 understanding of what the oldest version of the aspect 22 specifications in use at Dothan I think that's different 23 than what you are saying now and I think Mr. Guerra and 24 Mr. Shapiro have a different understanding as to what you 25 ordered too --

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 THE COURT: Yeah, listen to me. 2 MR. BULLION: -- we will simply have to 3 see the written order and see what it is that you ordered 4 us to produce. 5 THE COURT: All right. Listen to me all 6 right. 7 MR. BULLION: Yes, sir. 8 THE COURT: Do you have any confusion when 9 I say for the aspect of this tire that's the subject of 10 this litigation I'm ordering production from the time of 11 production of that tire back, the aspect documents on 12 that tire or that aspect. 13 MR. BULLION: Yes, I understand what 14 you're saying, Your Honor. And to the extent they exist 15 we'll produce those. 16 THE COURT: Yeah, I get it. You can't 17 create or something that doesn't exist, you don't have 18 that, but you will set it out in there. I'm sure you'll 19 answer with, if they don't exist but they used to how a 20 document retention program affected your ability to 21 produce, right? 22 MR. BULLION: Yes, Your Honor. 23 THE COURT: All right. 24 MR. SHAPIRO: When, Your Honor? 25 MR. GUERRA: When.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 THE COURT: When can you get that? What's 2 a reasonable period of time on that, Mr. Bullion? 3 MR. BULLION: Once we get the written 4 order, I think we can get those within two weeks. 5 THE COURT: All right. We'll put 14 days 6 from the signing of the order. 7 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, that motion had a 8 second issue which is the financial information. 9 Did you get that, Tom? 10 MR. BULLION: Yes. 11 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, in their 12 response we're shocked that they would even challenge 13 this because they cited that statute. 14 MR. GUERRA: Tell the Judge what you are 15 looking for specifically. 16 MR. SHAPIRO: Oh, that the witness -- the 17 financial information of the net worth of Michelin. 18 THE COURT: Yeah. 19 MR. SHAPIRO: And they quoted the statute 20 and it took effect on September 1st 2015, expressly, 21 expressly wrote that this act takes effect on 22 September 1st 2015. 23 MR. GUERRA: That for. 24 MR. SHAPIRO: So in fact it says Section 25 3. The change in law made by this action apply only to

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 an action filed on or after the effective date of this 2 act. And, Your Honor, all of the case law we provided 3 certainly provides and mandates for the production of 4 this witness. 5 THE COURT: What about that? 6 MR. BULLION: The statute does say on it's 7 face that it's effective to lawsuits filed after whatever 8 date. There is -- the Supreme Court has indicated in our 9 brief is considering whether that should be applied 10 retroactively and that's been briefed and it's before the 11 Court at this point. And I think frankly the reason that 12 and I don't pretend to understand why the Court has done 13 a lot of things it's done. But I think the reason is 14 there has been a lot of confusion as to what should be 15 discovered and there has been a lot of abuse from this. 16 To the extent all you have to do is plead 17 punitive damages and then you get to go out and do 18 discovery as to financial information particularly with a 19 company like this that is not publicly traded, Michelin 20 North America Incorporated is not a publicly traded 21 company and it's financial information is very sensitive 22 to it. The entire industry is very competitive and just 23 mere allegation of punitive damages -- we don't think 24 this is a punitive damage case and not even close. And 25 just to be able to allege punitives and then be able to

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 get a bunch of financial information from a privately 2 held company we don't think it's fair and we think that's 3 what the Supreme Court is likely going to find in 4 response to this. 5 And from a timing standpoint they don't 6 need early in the discovery of this case to develop net 7 worth information on Michelin North America. If the 8 Supreme Court doesn't apply this statute retroactively 9 and if the court decides that they're entitled to net 10 worth information that is something they wouldn't need 11 until basically until the time of trial because the, you 12 know, there's a bifurcation statute as to punitive 13 damages. And the only time that net worth information 14 would be admitted would be in the second phase of the 15 trial. 16 THE COURT: Okay. 17 MR. BULLION: So I ask given that the 18 Supreme Court. 19 THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. 20 MR. BULLION: Yes, sir. 21 THE COURT: What about that? 22 MR. GUERRA: We have experts. 23 MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, Your Honor we have 24 experts about that. 25 THE COURT: Well, yeah I understand.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 That's an issue of you don't want to get short-haired on 2 the expert and say the Court say, Oh, the expert deadline 3 is cut off and all that. That's not going to go down 4 that way. 5 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, it's important 6 to know that first off this is a punitive damage case. 7 THE COURT: Well, how I do know that? 8 MR. SHAPIRO: Hold on a second. The 9 reality is when we're talking about early discovery, 10 we're talking about just over a month. It's just over a 11 fact discovery. Your Honor, that's really no time to 12 waste. That is the law and the law is on our side. They 13 have not -- but that's great the Supreme Court is 14 considering this, but they haven't. And in fact right 15 now the statute I don't think it could be more clear 16 honestly. The change of law made by statute applies 17 only -- 18 THE COURT: All right. Until the Supreme 19 Court tells me something different I'm going to go by the 20 statute, Mr. Bullion. 21 MR. BULLION: So are you -- is your order 22 then, Your Honor, that we put up a witness to discuss 23 this or that we respond to an interrogatory or what? I 24 think the lawyers are supposed to use the least obtrusive 25 means to do the discovery.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, we asked for the 2 deposition. 3 THE COURT: I'm going to let him take the 4 deposition, but I do buy your confidentiality issue. So 5 we've got to have a way -- 6 MR. BULLION: Your Honor, for the record I 7 might ask you to stay that order in the event that we 8 decide to take that up to the Court of Appeals. Are you 9 going to put a deadline on the deposition or how do you 10 want to do that? 11 THE COURT: Yeah, when do y'all want the 12 deposition? 13 MR. GUERRA: As soon as possible. 14 THE COURT: How do you want me to do it, 15 Mr. Bullion? And I will stay if y'all chose to seek 16 review because I think this is an important issue for 17 your client. 18 MR. BULLION: Typically the way I've seen 19 requests for depositions handled is they would send their 20 notice of the deposition and we would file a response 21 with objections to it. 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 MR. BULLION: But I would ask you to stay 24 you know I understand what the Court's ruling is but I 25 would ask you to stay it pending a filing of the petition

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 for writ of mandamus to the Dallas Court of Appeals. 2 THE COURT: I will when that's filed. So 3 here is what we're going to do. I'm going to order that 4 this be taken no less than 30 days. That way you got a 5 certain time period that you have to deal with. And then 6 if you chose to seek the writ of mandamus, I will stay 7 the discovery on the net worth while you do that. 8 MR. BULLION: Okay. Would it be okay, 9 Your Honor, for you to order that they notice the 10 depositions so that we'll have an opportunity to file a 11 response with objections to it before we have to take it 12 up if we do? 13 THE COURT: Yeah, I think that's the way 14 procedurally that it ought to be done and for a record to 15 be clear that there was a deposition notice and request. 16 I'm ordering that they serve y'all with that and I'm also 17 ordering that it be done, and no less than 30 days from 18 the service of that notice for the deposition of the 19 person with knowledge of relevant facts regarding the net 20 worth. And then if you file -- if you serve notice and 21 file a writ from mandamus on that issue, I will stay the 22 deposition until the Court of Appeals has addressed that 23 issue. 24 MR. BULLION: Thank you, Your Honor. 25 THE COURT: All right.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 MR. GUERRA: The next one up, Your Honor, 2 is the motion regarding indecipherable design documents 3 which is these documents. We can't read them without the 4 code keys for the codes and the acronyms and that's the 5 issue. 6 Did you hear that, Tom? 7 MR. BULLION: Yes. 8 THE COURT: What about that, Mr. Bullion? 9 MR. BULLION: There is no code key. It's 10 set out in our response, Your Honor. I have been doing 11 this for a really long time and I have never seen a 12 motion like this ever. What happens is when we produce 13 documents that have acronyms and Michelin uses a lot of 14 acronyms and some of them are based on French words 15 because the parent company is a French company. 16 Well happens is they take the documents to 17 the deposition or the design witness and they say, What 18 does FE mean, what does GI mean and he says sidewalk, 19 tread. I mean there is not a document to produce it and 20 it would be improper in the Texas rules just to create 21 some kind of a code key. 22 THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on. No, I'm 23 not going to compel you to do that. 24 How do you think I'm going to handle this 25 now.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I will say 2 that -- 3 THE COURT: No. How do you think I'm 4 going to handle this now? 5 MR. GUERRA: Take the deposition. 6 MR. SHAPIRO: Take the deposition. 7 THE COURT: See. You will take the 8 person -- the deposition of the person with Michelin that 9 has knowledge of these acronyms and these keys. It has 10 gotta be a person with Michelin that does that or knows 11 that, right Mr. Bullion? 12 MR. BULLION: I don't know that there 13 would be one person, Your Honor. I mean some of these 14 documents are design documents and some of the documents 15 are manufacturing documents and the way that it would be 16 typically happening is on a manufacturing document. They 17 would ask the manufacturing witness that they're deposing 18 this witness any way about the quality control processes 19 and the manufacturing processes and they would ask them 20 what does this acronym mean -- 21 THE COURT: No. Mr. Bullion. 22 Mr. Bullion. Mr. Bullion -- 23 MR. BULLION: -- if they want to know want 24 to know acronyms they would ask that witness. I don't 25 know that there's a -- I don't know --

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 THE COURT: Mr. Bullion. 2 MR. BULLION: -- I don't know that there 3 is any one person that you could go in and give every 4 single definition of every abbreviation that's used on 5 the -- 6 THE COURT: Mr. Bullion. 7 MR. BULLION: -- on all these productions 8 documents. We produced thousands of pages -- yes, sir. 9 THE COURT: Mr. Bullion, I guess you can't 10 hear when you are talking. 11 MR. BULLION: I think it's -- I'm on the 12 speaker phone. It somehow mutes the other side. If I 13 talked on top of you again, I apologize. 14 THE COURT: Okay. Here's going to be the 15 deal. Michelin is a corporation or a legal entity. It's 16 bound to have somebody that knows these acronyms and 17 keys. It may not anybody that knows them all. It may be 18 several people with Michelin's knowledge, but I found it 19 hard to believe that Michelin somehow don't know what 20 everything in these documents means whether it's an 21 acronym, an abbreviation or code or whatever. So you're 22 going to produce the person or persons who have knowledge 23 of what these codes and acronyms mean in the documents 24 that you've produced or you will -- and you will identify 25 those acronyms so forth that nobody in Michelin knows

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 what it means. You understand? 2 MR. BULLION: Yes, sir. Can I ask for 3 clarification? 4 THE COURT: Yeah. 5 MR. BULLION: And I alluded to this 6 earlier, but they sent us a number of letters with topics 7 for depositions. And I understand the Court may not -- 8 may not agree with me that it makes sense for them to be 9 able to only depose this witness once. But what I would 10 like to do is I don't want to have to go to Greenville 11 for a deposition on abbreviations and then go back to 12 Greenville for a deposition on the design of a tire. 13 What I would ask is if they will include that in whatever 14 notice of the deposition of the company that they served 15 in, then we might designate the design witnesses to talk 16 about the design of the tire and talk about it's field 17 performance and to talk about the abbreviations on the 18 specs. And we might designate the manufacturing witness 19 to talk about the manufacturing processes and procedures 20 and the abbreviations on the manufacturing documents. 21 So I'd just want to do it as efficiently 22 as we possibly can. And once they notice these 23 depositions, I think maybe some of this will kind of come 24 out in the wash. 25 THE COURT: My order is that you're going

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 to produce somebody from Michelin the person or persons 2 who have knowledge of these acronyms, abbreviations, 3 codes for deposition. 4 MR. BULLION: Okay. 5 THE COURT: If it ends up being a person 6 who has knowledge of these four or five different subject 7 matters, well, we will have to deal with that when the 8 time comes, but it's not going to change the fact that 9 I'm ordering at this time that you produce the person or 10 people who have knowledge of the information of the 11 abbreviation, the codes, the acronyms and the documents 12 that you have produced to opposing counsel so that they 13 can ask Michelin's understanding of those -- of that 14 information in the record. 15 MR. BULLION: I get it, Your Honor. Just 16 for clarification purposes, if it turns out that we would 17 have the design witness talk about some of the 18 abbreviations and addition to the design of the tire are 19 you saying that it's okay with you that that's two 20 different depositions still on two different days. 21 THE COURT: Well, yeah, it may have to be. 22 MR. SHAPIRO: And Your Honor -- 23 THE COURT: If y'all can work it out to 24 where you it's not, I'm not saying it can't be. I'm just 25 saying that it does not have to be because simple

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 steps -- 2 MR. SHAPIRO: Right. Simple steps we're 3 having -- 4 THE COURT: Really bad idea. You don't 5 have an idea how bad an idea that is. Simple steps. So, 6 you know, we'll figure out what these codes are and 7 whatever and then we'll see where we go on the next area 8 of discovery. 9 MR. BULLION: Okay. 10 THE COURT: What's next? 11 MR. GUERRA: Next, Your Honor, if we're 12 going to work out the depositions motion to quash outside 13 after we're done with this. There is one more, Your 14 Honor, after Mr. Bullion's motion concerning motion to 15 designate the records as responsible third parties. 16 Did you hear that, Tom? 17 MR. BULLION: Yes. 18 MR. GUERRA: It's Tom's motion. 19 THE COURT: All right. You may proceed. 20 MR. BULLION: Your Honor, you are ordered 21 after the last hearing that we plead additional facts 22 with regard to the liability of the Ricos who were the 23 owners and driver of the accident vehicle and we have 24 done that and there's no question but that we have 25 complied with Texas law with regard to the requirements

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 of designating these folks as responsible third parties. 2 I don't really have anything to add. It will be 3 reversible error in the case if they're not -- I think 4 very clearly based on talking to my appellate people. If 5 they're not designated as responsible third parties, it 6 Will be reversible error in the case. 7 THE COURT: Response. 8 MR. GUERRA: Yes, Your Honor. The 9 arguments -- the additional arguments that they place the 10 problem is that these facts have nothing to do with the 11 Ricos, Your Honor. The Ricos were using an old tire, 12 okay, but that comes from a bulletin from Michelin. The 13 technical bulletin came from February 9, 2006. We 14 deposed Michelin employees in the past about this 15 specific bulletin that allegedly performs that the tires 16 that are within 10 years -- 17 THE COURT: Okay. But what does it have 18 to do with somebody being named responsible third 19 parties? 20 MR. GUERRA: Because they have nothing to 21 do with that. The Ricos had nothing to do with that. 22 It's alleged facts that the Ricos had anything to do with 23 it. 24 THE COURT: Well, he says that they used a 25 tire that they knew or should have known was not safe.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 MR. GUERRA: That's not what they said, 2 Your Honor. They say that they used a 10-year-old tire 3 which they depose the Ricos and the Ricos told them who 4 inspected the tire it looked good -- 5 THE COURT: I know but it's not a mini 6 trial under Texas rules. 7 MR. GUERRA: I understand. 8 THE COURT: They may not get submitted in 9 the body of the trial but so I'm going to grant your 10 motion, Mr. Bullion, for the responsible third party. 11 MR. BULLION: Okay. Thank you, Your 12 Honor. 13 THE COURT: Anything else? Y'all want to 14 take's y'all's break and discuss -- 15 MR. BULLION: The only thing I want to 16 make sure I'm clear on, Your Honor, has to do with the 17 on -- I think I might have gotten us offtrack a little 18 bit on the aspect specifications, but they want a 19 deposition of a Michelin employee to talk about 20 discovery. 21 THE COURT: That's not. 22 MR. BULLION: I don't know what the -- 23 real clear what the Court's ruling is on that. 24 THE COURT: That's not what they requested 25 at least my understanding. That's not the way I treated

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 it. I've given you the ruling that I've made in that 2 regard. I even asked you if understood it and you said 3 you did. I understand what your argument is and you want 4 it on the record. It is on the record. Ms. Dobbins is 5 just taking it away feverishly. I am not going to snake 6 you without a record. It is on the record that you feel 7 like this is a deposition to try to get somebody's mental 8 processes on discovery answers, right? 9 MR. BULLION: Yes, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: All right. 11 MR. BULLION: When they notice the 12 deposition if they do then we will have an opportunity to 13 file objections to it and come back before the Court. I 14 think I understand the Court's ruling. I didn't mean to 15 beat a dead horse. I just wanted to make sure it was 16 clear. 17 THE COURT: I'm not planning on you being 18 back here for an objection. I've ordered this deposition 19 and you've made your objection based on you feel like 20 it's, you know, them trying to take discovery of people 21 who made basically a legal decisions on how to answer 22 discovery. Okay. You've made that or I've overruled 23 that objection. I do not believe -- and especially based 24 upon the way I've attempted and the way I have ordered 25 it -- that it does that.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 So you've made an objection that it's 2 improper discovery on discovery analysis and decision 3 making. I've overruled your objection. It's on the 4 record. And I've ordered the deposition be taken with, 5 you know, so within. 6 MR. BULLION: In light of that, Your 7 Honor, I would ask you to stay that one as well and same 8 procedure I would like for them to notice the deposition 9 they want give us a chance to respond it and then I would 10 ask you to stay that ruling pending a petition for writ 11 of mandamus. 12 THE COURT: No, I'm not staying that one. 13 Not staying that one. 14 MR. BULLION: Okay. 15 THE COURT: All right. Y'all take y'all's 16 break and come about on the issue on the scheduling I 17 guess that y'all were talking about. 18 MR. GUERRA: Tom, we'll talk outside, 19 okay. 20 MR. BULLION: Okay. 21 MR. GUERRA: Thank you so much. 22 THE COURT: You can use the jury room if 23 you want to or conference room or outside. 24 (A break is taken.) 25 THE COURT: All right. We're back on the

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 record in Cause No. DC-14-07255. This is on a motion to 2 quash depositions, right? 3 MR. GUERRA: Yes. 4 MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, Your Honor. 5 THE COURT: All right. 6 MR. SHAPIRO: Tom, I'm going to reiterate 7 what we talked about. Concerning the four depositions 8 that Michelin noticed and we quashed Mr. Bullion and I 9 discussed it and I will talk to Wendy Emmons, 10 Mr. Blackerby's paralegal to coordinate dates to pair 11 down the witnesses to a day or a day and a half, the ones 12 in Dallas and then obviously the gentleman is in a 13 different state, the trooper, and we will take that 14 deposition. We'll coordinate and work those dates out. 15 MR. BULLION: That sounds right. 16 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Concerning 17 Mr. Wischhusen, Plaintiffs noticed that deposition. That 18 date is unavailable for Mr. Bullion. Mr. Bullion's 19 position is that -- I will let Mr. Bullion explain. 20 MR. BULLION: Your Honor, backing up just 21 slightly. Plaintiffs sent us letters asking for 22 witnesses on 20 some odd topics and I've offered one 23 witness in Dothan, Alabama, and I've offered three in 24 Greenville. And then after that they asked for 25 depositions of six different Michelin employees by name

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 and they happen to be the same people other than one. 2 And what I've told them is I will put Michael Wischhusen 3 up who is the subject of this motion to quash to address 4 a couple of the topics in their letters which ultimately 5 will get turned into deposition notices. But I don't 6 think it's fair for them to be able to notice him as an 7 individual and as a representative of the company and he 8 get to depose him for technically 12 hours. 9 So what I've said is when we get these 10 deposition scheduled in Greenville, I will put 11 Mr. Wischhusen up. They apparently want to do it on a 12 different trip, but I'm not agreeable to that just from a 13 cost perspective; just make a special trip out there to 14 depose Michael Wischhusen when they can depose him as a 15 corporate rep on these topics maybe in a couple of hours. 16 So that's my position on that. I think it's something we 17 ought to be able to work out. And I certainly -- and 18 again, I don't think these depositions can take place 19 until we have an order from the court on that motion to 20 compel so that we have the all of the documents out 21 there. 22 MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, here is the issue 23 Mr. Wischhusen -- first of all, we sent the letters about 24 the topics separate and apart from this and Mr. Bullion 25 refused to tell us or identify witnesses. So he never

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 told us who the witnesses were. He just said notice them 2 and I will give you people and certain names, but he 3 didn't give us names or the identity, never gave us. We 4 had the hearing October. 5 MR. SHAPIRO: October 5. 6 MR. GUERRA: And he left. We found him at 7 the airport and we ended up talking to him. But 8 meanwhile we had to send a letter out saying in addition 9 to those guys we want to depose these specific people and 10 Wischhusen was one of them. If we wants to offer him in 11 addition to cover some of the areas that's fine. But I 12 am going to ask him every question that I want about any 13 topic that is relevant to this matter and that he knows 14 about. And that's what Mr. Bullion is trying to do. Oh, 15 no, he's only going to be offered on these two topics and 16 nothing else. No. No. 17 Also he is telling us when we're going to 18 conduct the depositions. That's not the way it works. 19 We tried to accommodate folk, we do. We waited for two 20 long hours for Mr. Blackerby in Dallas on the depositions 21 on the records. He was late. We said no big deal buddy. 22 You ordered the deposition on Mr. Vaneaton Price for a 23 specific date. After that hearing there was -- 24 (unintelligible) -- Mr. Bullion wrote a little ML that 25 said, Hey, it's not good for me that day I have a

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 commitment and we said anything for opposing counsel and 2 we moved it two days back. How long did that deposition 3 take, two hours. That was it. 4 We got to the point. We asked the 5 questions we are done. We don't want to be told by 6 Michelin how to conduct the discovery for our burden of 7 proof. 8 Mr. Wischhusen is a very well known man 9 with a lot of knowledge on that company. He knows a lot 10 about the company and a lot about the documents at issue 11 here not just two topics. That's our problem with the 12 issue, Your Honor. 13 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bullion, tell 14 me about that. 15 MR. BULLION: I had a little bit of a hard 16 time understanding some of that, Your Honor. 17 MR. GUERRA: I'm sorry for my accent. 18 MR. BULLION: But the thing is they have 19 deposed Wischhusen before. Mr. Guerra deposed him in 20 that case -- and he's referring to Velo case out in 21 Arizona. I'm probably mispronouncing it so I apologize. 22 He has deposed him before and he asked for him by name 23 and I figure the Court is going probably going to let 24 them depose Mr. Wischhusen. 25 All I'm asking is we're going have to

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 spend a week in for Greenville these depositions. 2 There's three other witnesses. And I don't want to make 3 a special trip out there for Michael Wischhusen if we can 4 help it. I would like to make as few trips out there as 5 I can. 6 Just from a personal perspective, I've got 7 a bunch of little kids and that are playing baseball. 8 I've got all kind of stuff going on and I would like not 9 to have to go out there one deposition at a time. I 10 would like to do it efficiently and at the least cost to 11 my client and the Plaintiffs. 12 MR. GUERRA: Like Mr. Bullion we have a 13 small practice and it's just difficult for us to take a 14 full week off. So we'll, accommodate counsel but it's 15 not going to be all in one trip. It's not going to be 16 all in the same time. That's just not the way we work 17 and I'm sorry about that. 18 THE COURT: I'm not going to make you do 19 that. Y'all both have reasons why and you would 20 certainly want to be efficient. I don't see an inherent 21 inefficiency if the person he's named Wischhusen or 22 however you pronounce it. They've named him as a person 23 who has relevant knowledge of facts for this issue. If 24 Mr. Bullion Michelin wants to designate him also as a 25 person with knowledge of relevant facts for the

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 corporation, you certainly can do that and I'm going to 2 say that Plaintiffs need to cover those areas too at the 3 time. If they want to take Mr. Wischhusen -- if you have 4 give him notice that he is going to serve as a person 5 with knowledge of relevant facts for Michelin on certain 6 issues if you identify that then they need to cover that. 7 And if they don't cover it then they didn't cover the 8 person for Michelin that Michelin tendered regarding 9 those areas that you designate Mr. Wischhusen's or 10 whatever as the person who had knowledge of relevant 11 facts. 12 MR. BULLION: That's fair, Your Honor. I 13 told them the topics in their letters that he would 14 address and that's fair. 15 THE COURT: You get what I'm saying there? 16 MR. BULLION: Yes, sir. 17 THE COURT: Plaintiffs need to cover that 18 with him. I understand can you call anybody you want to 19 as a named person. But if Michelin and Mr. Bullion in 20 trying to be efficient I think it's a good idea says, 21 Hey, by the way we're also going to be identifying him as 22 a corporate spokesperson a person with knowledge of 23 relevant facts of the corporation on these areas. You 24 need to cover those areas too or when you get there 25 you've passed that by.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: Y'all understand. 3 MR. BULLION: I doubt it's going to be 4 know issue, but, you know, they're entitled to six hours 5 on whatever corporate rep we put up under the rules. If 6 we then put up 10 of them they get 60 hours. But it sure 7 seems like a lot to me. I don't think they will take 12 8 but -- 9 THE COURT: We won't be doing that. But I 10 don't know that we're going to get there until we do, but 11 I get your point. I appreciate the heads up. Plaintiffs 12 need to be observant of the fact that, you know, as you 13 take these depositions of people of kind of dual capacity 14 components, we're not going to have, you know, crazy 15 number of hours racked up because of dual capacity. 16 That's -- it's not likely to go that way. 17 MR. BULLION: Okay, Your Honor. I just 18 wanted to make that clear. 19 THE COURT: I appreciate the heads up on 20 it because I see what you're saying. 21 MR. BULLION: I never had thought those 22 rules were very fair frankly. If you come up with 23 infinite topics you can take infinite hours of 24 depositions. I have looked at it a number of times and I 25 have not been able to figure out any argument to limit it

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 so. 2 THE COURT: You know it would be hard to 3 argue that was the intent or purpose of the rules because 4 the intent or purpose was to limit it and make it less 5 costly. So I get your point and I will be cognizant of 6 that. 7 MR. BULLION: Thank you, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: I caution both sides to keep 9 that in mind. Anything else? 10 MR. GUERRA: I have one small issue that I 11 would like to ask Tom on the record. We have had some 12 documents produced that are not on its original format, 13 specifically the document that I produced that are in 14 black and white that in the original format that are in 15 color and the color makes the difference because there 16 are different colors in the document and those colors 17 mean something concerning the color. 18 THE COURT: Well, produce the original 19 format. 20 MR. BULLION: If we have color copies, 21 we'll certainly produce them to you. 22 THE COURT: All right. The Court is 23 ordering it be produced in the original format. If it's 24 not technologically possible, advise the Court. Thank 25 y'all.

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 MR. GUERRA: Thank you, Tom. Tom, we 2 certainly missed you hear buddy. 3 THE COURT: All right. We're off the 4 record. 5 (End of Proceedings.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Various Motions' Hearing

November 3, 2015

1 STATE OF TEXAS 2 COUNTY OF DALLAS 3 4 I, Vielica R. Dobbins, Official Court Reporter in 5 and for the 134th District Court of Dallas, State of 6 Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing 7 contains a true and correct transcription of all portions 8 of evidence and other proceedings requested in writing by 9 counsel for the parties to be included in this volume of 10 the Reporter's Record in the above-styled and numbered 11 cause, all of which occurred in open court or in chambers 12 and were reported by me. 13 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of the 14 proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if 15 any, offered by the respective parties. 16 I further certify that the total cost for the 17 preparation of this Reporter's Record is $312.00 and was 18 paid/will be paid by Mr. Thomas Bullion. 19 20 21 Vielica R. Dobbins, CSR, RPR Texas CSR No. 6248

22 Official Court Reporter 134th District Court

23 Dallas County, Texas 600 Commerce Street, Suite 650 24 Dallas, Texas 75202 Telephone: (214) 653-7239 25 Expiration: 12/31/2016

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY 7/9/2014 2:20:46 PM GARY FITZSIMMONS

DISTRICT CLERK

DC-14-07255 Pointer Tonya

2

2.04 Plaintiff NAVIL GIBSON is an individual and a citizen, domiciliary, and resident

of Missouri and the last 4 digits of her Social Security Number are 6831, and the last three digits of her driver's license is 011.

3.0 PARTIES - DEFENDANTS

3.01 Defendant Michelin North America, Inc. ("Michelin") is a New York corporation

that conducts business in the State of Texas.

3.02 Michelin sells and distributes tires throughout Texas, and maintains its principal

place of business in South Carolina and which conducts business in Texas as authorized.

Michelin may be served by serving its registered agent for service of process (CT Corporation System, 350 N. St. Paul Street, Dallas, Texas 75201).

3.03 Defendant Jose Bustillo d/b/a Mundo Cars JOSE BUSTILLO d/b/a MUNDO

CARS is a resident of the State of Texas who may be served with process at 6422 Day Street, Dallas, Texas 75227.

4.0 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4.01 The amount in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

4.02 Venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas, pursuant to section 15.002(a) of the

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because Dallas County is the residence of Defendant

Jose Bustillo d/b/a Mundo Cars and a portion of the events and omissions giving rise to the claim

occurred in Dallas County.

4.03 Pursuant to § 13.005 of the Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code, because

venue is proper as to Defendant Jose Bustillo d/b/a Mundo Cars, venue is proper as to the other

Defendant, Michelin No1th America, Inc., because the claims against such Defendants arise out

of the same occmTence.

5.0 FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5.01 On or about September 3, 2012 at approximately 0451 hours, Adrian Rico,

Adriana Rico, Maria Rico and Laura Rico, along with Plaintiffs Samuel Medina, Obdulia

Medina and Natalye Medina, were traveling in a 2000 Ford Expedition southbound on Interstate 55 near Exit 60 in Illinois.

5.02 Adrian Rico was the driver and owner of the Ford Expedition, and the remaining Plaintiffs were passengers and occupants.

5.03 At this time and place, Mr. Rico's operation of the 2000 Ford Expedition was careful, lawful and prudent.

5.04 Suddenly and without warning and a result of Defendants' negligently, grossly

negligently and carelessly designed, tested, processed, assembled, fabricated, manufactured,

labeled, engineered, inspected, distributed, sold and warranted tire, the left rear tire on the Ford

Expedition experienced a catastrophic failure directly and proximately causing the subject

vehicle to, crash, flip, roll and/or ovetiurn on Interstate 55.

5.05 Each of the Plaintiffs in the vehicle at the time the subject Tire (the "Tire") failed

sustained serious, permanent and/or catastrophic injuries.

5.06 The Tire failed as alleged due to the defendants negligence, gross negligence,

recklessness and/or carelessness in designing, testing, processing, assembling, fabricating,

manufacturing, labeling, engineering, inspecting, distributing, selling and/or warranting the Tire.

5.07 The official Illinois Traffic Crash Report states in pertinent part that the Ford

Expedition "[w]as traveling south on I-55, approximately .30 miles n01ih of exit 60, when the

driver's side rear tire blew out." The Crash Report also states that at the time of the incident, all

of the occupants of the subject vehicle were wearing their safety seatbelt restraints.

5.08 The subject Tire that failed (the "Tire") was a Michelin LTX MIS P255 70R16 tire (DOT B7LBEVUX3101) manufactured, designed, assembled, fabricated, labeled, inspected

and distributed by Defendant Michelin.

5.09 Upon information and belief, the Tire was sold with the 2000 Ford Expedition by

Defendant Jose Bustillo, d/b/a Mundo Cars in Dallas, Texas.

5.10 At the time the Tire failed, Plaintiffs were driving and traveling carefully and

prudently, with the Tire being used for its ordinmy use and intended purpose.

5.11 At and before the collision date of September 3, 2012, Defendant Michelin was

engaged in the business of designing, testing, processing, assembling, fabricating,

manufacturing, engineering, constrncting, distributing, labeling, inspecting, warranting and

selling tires to the public, including the subject defective and dangerous Tire.

5.12 Michelin was responsible for the research, development, design, manufacture,

labeling, construction, assembly, testing, labeling, marketing, inspecting, warranting and sale of the Tire.

5.13 The Tire was manufactured, assembled and constrncted at Michelin's Dothan, Alabama tire plant during the 31st week of 2001.

5.14 Prior to the date of the permanent, catastrophic and severe ittjuries sustained by

Plaintiffs and at all times material hereto, Michelin placed the defective and ultra-hazardous Tire into the stream of commerce.

5 .15 At the time of the aforementioned incident, the subject defective and ultra-

hazardous Tire was being used as intended and in a manner foreseeable to Michelin, and as so

foreseeably used was defective, unfit, unreasonably dangerous, failed to provide adequate

warnings, notices and instructions concerning its safety, use, maintenance, inspection,

replacement, expiration and repair.

5.16 The defective and unreasonably dangerous nature of Michelin's subject Tire

rendered it unsafe for the use and purpose for which it was intended, and this dangerous and

defective condition was known or should have been known by Michelin.

5.17 The two most important components of a steel-belted radial tire including the

subject Tire are the two (2) steel belts layered on top of each other underneath the tread area.

5.18 One of the primary concerns in the manufacture of steel-belted radial tires is the

adhesion between the two (2) steel belts, which must stick to each other and not move.

5.19 Another primary concern in the manufacture of steel-belted radial tires is the.

adhesion between the steel belts and the rubber, both on top the tread and on the bottom of the

carcass.

5.20 Michelin is aware that the rnbber and steel materials in its tires do not naturally

adhere to each other. Therefore, the steel belts are coated with an adhesive rubber compound

called skim stock.

5.21 Michelin knows that the edges of the radial tire's steel belts suffer the most

strain, heat and stress during operation and are susceptible to tread separation like what

happened to the subject Tire.

5.22 Michelin admitted in an official document submitted to NHTSA in 2006 under

the heading of "Fundamental Mechanics of Belt Separation ... " and under the subheading

"Basic Concepts" of belt separation that "Belt crack initiation and propagation" sta1ts around

the ends of the cable. p.6-7.

5.23 This undeniable fact is also concluded by NHTSA in its white paper "What

Applied Research Has Learned From Indust1y About Tire Aging" dated May I, 2003 which at

Slide 4 reads "Failures of Tires In the Field - Industry has told NHTSA that common tire failure

modes seen in the field are: Belt Edge Cracking,"

5.24 Defendants defectively designed, tested, fabricated, manufactured, constructed,

assembled, inspected, adve1tised, labeled, maintained, sold and/or distributed the subject Tire

and placed it into the stream of commerce in an umeasonably dangerous condition.

5.25 The defects and lack ofreliability in the Tire were beyond the contemplation of a

reasonable and foreseeable consumer because Michelin knew or should have known that

ultimate users, operators or consumers are not tire manufactures, tire technicians, or tire experts

6

and merely members of the public whom would not and could not properly inspect this product

for defects and dangerous conditions, and that detection of such defects and dangers would be

beyond the capabilities of such persons or individuals.

5.26 Michelin negligently and recklessly caused the following non-exhaustive list of

deadly and hazardous defects to exist in the subject Tire: over-age rubber stock, liner pattern

marks, excessively thin inner-line, premature oxidation on the belt skim; improper splicing and

spacing of belts and improper final inspection.

5.27 Michelin also carelessly and recklessly designed the subject Tire by failing to

incorporate nylon overlays and a nylon cap ply, nylon belt edge layers, nylon safety belts to

reduce the hazard of tread belt separation and catastrophic tire failure, as well as failing to

incorporate adequate protection against air migration through the inner liner and tire aging.

5.28 Such inadequate quality control measures and inappropriate manufacturing and

design practices and procedures promoted, allowed and failed to prevent separation of the Tire's

internal components and contributed to the tire failure and tread belt separation of the subject

Tire.

5.29 Michelin also is in possession of documents, testimony and information which

confirm that its manufacturing practices have included 1) building tires after they had trapped

air or steam and had been exposed to inappropriate levels of moisture within the components of

the tire, 2) not promptly using pre-cured rubber and rubber-coated tire components to prevent

premature oxidation from occurring within the tires' components so as to cause liner pattern

marks, 3) misplacement of the steel belts in the assembly which increases strain at the belt

edges, promoting belt edge separation, 4) insufficient use of x-rays to detect improper and

defective manufacturing practices after the tires are built, 5) stacking of rubber components on

7

the unclean floor where those components were subject to contamination and 6) improper

splicing of the steel belts and innerliner of the tire which increases strain at the belt edges and

the tires' susceptibility to oxidative degradation and premature failure.

5.30 Michelin, knows or in the exercise of reasonable care should know, that some of

the manufacturing defects found in the subject Tire are invisible to the naked eye and can only

be detected or identified with an x-ray.

5.31 Michelin knows that the older the age of the tire, the more likely it is to suffer

tire failure.

5.32 Michelin knows that its steel belted radial tires such as the subject Tire 1) have a

date limit or expiration date of ten (10) years, 2) have a finite life and 3) suffer inevitable aging

processes. Meanwhile, Michelin also knows that its consumers are not very experienced with

tires.

5.33 Michelin is aware of the risk to its company posed by 10 year-old tires is very

small because there are only a very small percentage of these very old tires on the road.

5.34 Michelin privately and publicly opposes tire age legislation such as laws

requiring expiration dates on tires because it would "create supply chain issues ... Larger

customers may well expect a stock buy-back for tires they can't sell before the age deadline

lapses."

5.35 Michelin's tire verification depaiiment at its Dothan, AL plant follows work

instructions titled "General Principles" during the inspection of its finished tires. According to

Michelin's own General Principles, tires that are rejected by the tire inspectors and not up to the

standards of Michelin's vehicle manufacturer customers such as GM or Ford are downgraded

and sold to the replacement market as new replacement Michelin tires. However, Michelin's

8

consumers and even the dealers who purchase replacement tires have no idea that the tires they

are purchasing were downgraded and rejected by Michelin's automotive customers.

5.36 Michelin purports that its Dothan tire plant is ISO QS 9000 certified and

compliant but Michelin does not comply with ISO QS 9000 requirements and quality standards.

5.37 Because of Michelin's poor manufacturing practices, the Tire at issue fails to

meet standards, which Michelin itself recognized as necessary tlu·ough its own internal

standards concerning tire-building practices.

5.38 Michelin has a Bad Habits List of manufacturing issues which sets forth some of

these internal standards.

5.39 In addition, Michelin has Decision Tree and Aspect Specification documents,

which set fotih Michelin's own internal standards concerning tire building and tire

manufacturing of its tires.

5.40 Michelin's Decision Tree and Aspect Specification documents have annexes,

glossaries, illustrations, photographs, and attachment with additional information and caveats

pertaining to such standards.

5.41 Michelin's Decision Tree and Aspect Specification documents and their annexes

set forth numerous standards, which tire inspectors must check when inspecting cured tires.

5.42 Michelin also has a Product Standards and Guidelines Manual for Required Tire

Dimensional Tolerances, work procedures, reaction limits, product tolerance limits training

materials and videotapes and tests for the tire builders - all of which set forth internal standards

which Michelin is required to follow in the assembly, manufacturing and making of its tires.

5.43 In connection with Michelin's design, manufacturing and warranty practices,

Michelin performs Failure Modes and Effects Analysis and tire endurance tests, which address

failure modes of its tires.

5.44 Michelin also maintains and analyzes warranty return adjustment data with

graphs to chatt and compare tire models against other tire models and tire plants against other

tire plants.

5.45 Michelin has a tire adjustment claims procedure and replacement policy

administration guidelines to maintain its knowledge of the link between its manufacturing

practices and designs and tire tread separations.

5.46 Michelin's own internal confidential data about the LTX MIS tire line returns

reveal that more than 700 (just from one of its hundreds of dealers and the largest tire retailer in

the world - Discount Tire) of its defective LTX MIS tires were returned for belt edge

separations. In addition, over 1,000 tires were returned to Michelin's dealers for ride vibration

- an admitted precursor to tread belt separation.

5 .47 This staggering number of many more than 1,500 defective tires demonstrates,

documents and proves that Michelin knew - as early as 2001 (11 years before the incident) -

that its LTX MIS tire line was dangerously defective.

5 .48 Instead of investigating this epidemic of defects, discovering the cause of the

excessive number of tread separations and correcting it, Michelin did the exact opposite and

concealed and still conceals this information from the public and its consumers that its LTX line

posed and poses unreasonable risks of deadly danger to its consumers.

5 .49 Therefore, Michelin has direct knowledge of the link between its improper and

inadequate tire design and manufacturing practices and procedures and tire tread separations.

5.50 Michelin also is in possession testimony and information, which confirms that

the individuals responsible for inputting, monitoring, reviewing and analyzing the adjustment

data were careless and never bothered to look at the staggering number of returns made to

Discount Tire for tread belt edge separation.

5.51 The subject Tire was defectively designed and the risks of the chosen design of

the tire outweighed the utility of the chosen designs, because known safer alternative designs

were technologically and economically feasible and were used by Michelin in other tires made

for foreign markets while not used in the U.S. market.

5.52 Safer alternative designs for the tire at issue also include the use of a belt skim

rubber compound more resistant to heat and less susceptible to degrading from ozone and other

factors, which Defendants knew through its own research would cause premature degradation of

the chemicals in its tires.

5.53 Safer alternative designs for the subject Tire also include a thicker gauged belt

skim rubber and inner liner, effective use of nylon reinforcement of one or both steel belts (such

reinforcement could have been implemented as a full-width cap ply, a spirally wound strip, or

two strips of sufficient width to reinforce to belt package at the steel belt edges).

5.54 Through its access to the underlying patents and other research regarding tire

design and manufacturing including but not limited to J.Boileau/Michelin, U.S. Patent

3,717,190, February 20, 1973 and A.L. Pollard/Michelin, U.S., Patent 5,711,829, January 27,

1998, Uniroyal Tire Sales Promotional Literature, YHL31123 1997 MNA Inc, Uniroyal Laredo

Durashield Registered 7704185 Aug. 1997 UGTC The Laredo Tire's Patented 6 ply Durashield

Construction, Michelin specifically knew about the efficacy, safety and cost-efficiency of these

safer alternative designs concerning its design and manufacture of its tires.

5.55 Through its access to the underlying patents and other research including

J.Boileau/Michelin, U.S. Patent 3,717,190, February 20, 1973 and A.L. Pollard/Michelin, U.S.,

Patent 5,711,829, January 27, 1998, Uniroyal Tire Sales Promotional Literature, YHL31123

1997 MNA Inc, Uniroyal Laredo Durashield Registered 7704185 Aug. 1997 UGTC The Laredo

Tire's Patented 6 ply Durashield Construction, Michelin specifically knew that the nylon cap

ply prevents belt-edge separations by: 1) reducing corrosion of the steel wires, 2) maximizing

constriction of the steel belts, and 3) substantially reducing the centrifugal forces/stress at the

belt edges of a tire - which cause the tread and steel belts to separate from the tire - by

compressing the belt package during periods of high centrifugal force which occurs when, like

in this case, a vehicle is traveling at highway speed.

5.56 Even though Michelin's new LTX M/S2 tire has a lower speed rating than the

subject LTX MIS, the LTX MIS2, has a nylon cap ply, defeating Michelin's claim that cap plies

are only used for high speed tires.

5.57 There are at least twenty-three (23) defective Michelin LTX MIS tires involved

in tread separations leading to vehicular wrecks. These Michelin LTX MIS tires are of the

same: a) type, b) model, c) line and cl) come from the same exact manufacturing plant -

Michelin's Dothan, Alabama facility:

TIRE TYPE PLANT MANUFACTURE DATE

1. Michelin L TX P265/70Rl 7 Dothan, Alabama 37th week, 1997

2. Michelin LTX P235/70Rl 6 Dothan, Alabama I st week, 1999

3. Michelin LTX P265/70Rl 6 Dothan, Alabama 211 d week, 1999

4. Michelin LTX P265/70Rl 7 Dothan, Alabama 12'h week, 2000

5. Michelin L TX P265/70Rl 7 Dothan, Alabama 28'" week, 2001

6. Michelin LTX P255 70R16 Dothan, Alabama 31st week, 2001 (Subject Tire)

7. Michelin LTX P265/70R16 Dothan, Alabama 4°1 week, 2002

8. Michelin LTX P265/70R 17 Dothan, Alabama 6th week, 2002

9. Michelin LTX LT245/75R16 Dothan, Alabama 4ih week, 2002

10. Michelin LTX P265/70Rl 6 Dothan, Alabama 61h week, 2003

11. Michelin LTX P265/70Rl 7 Dothan, Alabama gth week, 2006

12. Michelin LTX LT265/70R16 Dothan, Alabama 16th week, 2006

13. Michelin LTX LT245/75Rl6 Dothan, Alabama 34th week, 2006

14. Michelin LTX LT265/75R16 Dothan, Alabama 51 st week, 2006

5.58 These Michelin tires share common characteristics with the subject Tire. These

tires suffered from defective premature oxidation like the subject Tire that caused or contributed

to their failures and were aged when they failed like the subject Tire, which caused or

contributed to their failures. Many of these tires evidenced liner pattern marks like the subject

Tire, indicative of poor adhesion that similarly caused or contributed to their failures. Many of

these tires contained belt irregularities such as improper splicing and spacing which existed in

the subject Tire that caused or contributed to their failures. Finally, all of the above-referenced

tires, like the subject Tire, failed to include the well-known safety nylon cap plies

aforementioned, which are now used on the lower speed Michelin LTX M/S2.

5.59 Therefore, Michelin consciously sells a line of defectively dangerous tires that it

knows have killed or maimed dozens of Americans across the Country.

6.0 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST MICHELIN (Strict Liability against Michelin North America, Inc.)

6.01 Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and adopt all of the allegations contained in the

previous claims for relief, counts and paragraphs, and incorporates the same by reference, the

same as though fully set length herein.

6.02 Michelin was negligent, malicious and grossly negligent in designing and

manufacturing the tire in such a mam1er that it was a defectively designed and manufactured tire

that was umeasonably dangerous, failed to meet Defendants' own recognized standards and was

unfit for its ordinary uses.

6.03 Michelin was aware at all relevant times 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 - including the risk of death or catastrophic injuries - posed by a tread belt separation.

6.04 Michelin's awareness and knowledge of the risks is proven by its own

knowledge of prior property damage claims, injmy claims and death claims caused by tread

separation of Defendants' tires.

6.05 Michelin carelessly, negligently and grossly negligently failed to exercise

reasonable care when issuing and disseminating instructions and warnings for its passenger car

and light truck tires such as the subject Tire by failing to ensure that its end-users and

consumers such as Plaintiffs were warned about the dangers and hazards posed by aged tires.

Therefore, as a result of said conduct, Michelin's tire, which caused the permanent, catastrophic

and fatal injuries to Plaintiffs, was defective and unreasonably dangerous when used in a

reasonably foreseeable mam1er since Michelin failed to warn or protect against a danger or

hazard in the use or misuse of those instrumentalities and failed to provide proper instructions

for the use of those instrumentalities.

6.06 That the negligent, grossly negligent and reckless conduct of Michelin, in

addition to the hereinabove alleged, consisted of, but was not limited to:

a. Carelessly and recklessly making dangerous and unsafe the said tire by defectively designing, manufacturing, assembling, constructing, labeling, selling, distributing, inspecting, warranting, and selling the subject Tire;

b. Carelessly and recklessly making dangerous and unsafe the said tire by failing to develop and incorporate a proper and safe design in the constrnction, assembly, and manufacture of the tire;

c. Carelessly and recklessly utilizing improper materials which were inferior, unsafe, unsuitable, and which were mechanically, physically, structurally, and chemically defective;

d. Carelessly and recklessly failing to properly inspect and test the tire for defects and, reasonable and adequate strnctural integrity, reliably and durability;

e. Carelessly and recklessly failing to design, assemble, construct, manufacture and incorporate reasonably safe, appropriate, feasible, inexpensive and available means, mechanisms, procedures, policies and safeguards to prevent injuries and death caused by tire failure;

f. Carelessly and recklessly failing to recall the said tire, modify the design and failing to provide a post-manufacture, post-sale and post-inspection warning to the foreseeable public, end-users, consumers, operators, motorists, occupants and passengers such as Plaintiffs;

g. Carelessly and recklessly manufacturing, producing, assembling, labeling, designing, testing, inspecting, and selling the subject Tire;

h. Carelessly and recklessly and completely failing to provide a reasonably safe tire for the public, end-users, consumers, motorists, occupants and passengers;

i. Carelessly and recklessly allowing and permitting on its tires, such as the subject Tire, hazardous and extremely dangerous and defective conditions;

j. Carelessly and recklessly failing to warn the public, end users, consumers, motorists, occupants and passengers lawfully and carefully utilizing the said tires, such as Plaintiffs, of dangerous, defective and hazardous conditions present;

k. Carelessly and recklessly failing to appropriately assess and identify the hazards to which the end-users, consumers, motorists, occupants and passengers were exposed and likely to arise under foreseeable circumstances;

I. Carelessly and recklessly failing to provide easy, available, and inexpensive safety means, measures, mechanisms, devices and safety equipment that would have provided end-users and consumers such as Plaintiffs with reasonably safe tires for travel;

m. Carelessly and recklessly maintaining, inspecting, managing and supervising its tires, tire design firms and tire factories, allowing or implicitly approving hazardous and extremely and highly dangerous conditions to be present;

n. Carelessly and recklessly failing to warn the pubic, end-users, consumers, motorists, occupants and passengers of dangerous, defective and deadly hazardous conditions and defects present;

o. Carelessly and recklessly failing to provide and intentionally removing or ordering to be removed, easy, available, and inexpensive safety means, measures, devices, policies, processes and equipment that would have prevented the subject Tire failure and tire tread belt separation and would have provided a reasonably safe tire to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated;

p. Carelessly and recklessly failing to close down or suspend business operations at Michelin's tire factories, tire design firms, tire manufacturing facilities, tire manufacturing plants until reasonably safe conditions, policies, procedures, equipment, means, measures and devices were implemented and foreseeable hazards, defects and dangers eliminated;

q. Carelessly and recklessly failing to evaluate the exposures, dangers and hazards present at Michelin's tire factories, tire design firms, tire manufacturing facilities, and tire manufacturing plants, including the subject Dothan, Alabama plant;

r. Carelessly and recklessly failing to design, manufacture, produce, test, inspect, distribute, fabricate, assemble, sell, place, warrant and label Defendants' tire with reasonable care;

s. Carelessly and recklessly failing to recall Michelin's tire or red-tag and shutdown Michelin's tire factories, tire manufacturing facilities, and tire manufacturing plants, until dangerous, defective and hazardous conditions were eliminated;

t. Carelessly and recklessly intentionally increasing the risk of injury by manufacturing, selling, distributing, and designing a defective and dangerous tire such as the subject Tire;

u. Carelessly and recklessly failing to exercise reasonable care to undertake special and specific precautions in view of the peculiar risk of physical harm which the

16

foreseeable public, end-users, consumers, motorists, occupants and passengers such as Plaintiffs were subject or exposed to;

v. Carelessly and recklessly failing to exercise reasonable care by selling and distributing tires such as the subject Tire containing design, manufacturing and inspection defects that caused the tire to fail;

w. Carelessly and recklessly manufacturing, designing, assembling, labeling, testing and producing tires such as the subject Tire without adequate and reasonable quality control measures and with inappropriate manufacturing procedures and processes to prevent the manufacture, design, assembly, labeling, testing and production of tires containing, the following non-exhaustive list of dangerous, deadly and hazardous defects concerning tires: over-age rubber stock, inappropriate exposure of materials and matter to moisture during the manufacturing process, improper material handling of belt wire, improper splicing of belts and improper final inspection. Said inadequate quality control measures and inappropriate manufacturing practices and procedures contributed to the tire failure and tread belt separation of the subject Tire;

x. Carelessly and recklessly manufacturing, designing, assembling, labeling, testing and producing tires such as the subject Tire that lacked proper adhesion of the steel belts to surrounding material resulting in tread belt separation and catastrophic failure during normal use such as the subject Tire;

y. Carelessly and recklessly manufacturing, designing, assembling, labeling, testing and producing tires such as the subject Tire, including a substandard design, that failed to incorporate gum edge strips, nylon overlays, nylon belt edge layers, nylon safety belts to reduce the hazard of tread belt separation and catastrophic tire failure, as well as failing to incorporate adequate protection against tire aging;

z. Carelessly and recklessly manufacturing, designing, assembling, labeling, testing and producing tires such as the subject Tire that contained improper tire specifications;

aa. Carelessly and recklessly failing to warn the public end-users, consumers, motorists, occupants and passengers including Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' beloved decedent, of the dangerous conditions and defects described herein and the unreasonable risk of tread belt separation and catastrophic tire failure, resulting therefrom, as well as the dangers and risks associated with tire aging in the subject Tire;

6.07 The subject Tire was defective in design, manufacture and marketing and

presented an unreasonable risk of iitjury resulting from such defects, which include, but are not

limited to the following:

a. Manufacturing and/or design defects resulting in inadequate adhesion

between the layers of the tire;

b. Design defects, which allowed the tread to separate from the tire during

diminished adhesion;

c. Lack of warnings regarding use of tires beyond a certain age; and

d. The Tire lacked a nylon cap ply.

6.08 Michelin's conduct, including its design and manufacturing defects and/or its

failure to warn and instruct in the safe and proper use of the subject Tire, Michelin's tire failed

and separated, directly and proximately causing the incident and resulting catastrophic injuries to

Plaintiffs. Therefore, Defendants are strictly liable to Plaintiffs for their defective product.

(Negligence - Michelin)

6.09 Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and adopt all of the allegations contained in the

previous claims for relief, counts and paragraphs, and incorporates the same by reference, the

same as though fully set length herein.

6.10 As designers, testers, assemblers, fabricators, manufacturers, engineers,

distributors, labelers, inspectors, warrantors and sellers of the subject Tire, the Michelin had a

duty towards Plaintiffs to use ordinary care in the design, manufacture, testing and marketing of

the subject Tire to avoid foreseeable risks of injmy caused by defects in the product which

include, but are not limited to the following:

a. Michelin failed to adequately design and test the product;

b. Michelin failed to utilize a manufacturing process that would have resulted

in a reasonably safe tire;

c. Michelin knew or should have known that the subject Tire would

experience a tread separation when used in a reasonably safe manner;

d. Michelin knew or should have known that such a tread separation could

result in injuries and/or loss of life;

e. Michelin failed to adequately protect the public when they became aware

of the problem; and

f. Michelin failed to adequately warn of the risks involved in using the tire

including but not limited to about tire aging.

6.11 Said negligent conduct by Michelin was a proximate cause of Plaintiffs' injuries

and damages.

(Breach of Implied and Express Warranties - Michelin)

6.12 Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and adopt all of the allegations contained in the

previous claims for relief, counts and paragraphs, and incorporates the same by reference, the

same as though fully set length herein.

6.13 That the subject Tire was covered by express and implied warranties and

promises made by Michelin including the subject "Service Life for Passenger Car and Light

Truck Tires including Spare Tires" bulletin. Michelin herein represented and warranted that

said tire was safe and fit for use and was of merchantable quality and safe condition.

6.14 That the aforesaid representations, promises, and express and implied warranties

were false and untrue in that said tire was not safe nor fit for use; was not of merchantable

quality and, in fact, was defective and umeasonably dangerous for use by the purchaser and

19

those would foreseeably come in contact or rely upon said product. Said misrepresentations

made by Michelin were made knowingly and in conscious disregard of a substantial risk to

others.

6.15 That the breach of the express and implied warranties was a proximate cause of

Plaintiffs' catastrophic, serious, permanent and fatal injuries.

6.16 That the conduct on the part of Michelin, and each of them, was negligent,

reckless, careless, wanton and willful in that the likelihood ofhann was highly probable and the

result and foreseeable harm was devastating.

(Deceptive Trade Practices Act Violations - Michelin)

6.17 Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and adopt all of the allegations contained in the

previous claims for relief, counts and paragraphs, and incorporates the same by reference, the

same as though fully set length herein.

6.18 Michelin engaged in false, misleading, and/or deceptive acts or practices that Plaintiffs

relied on to their detriment. Specifically, Michelin failed to disclose, warn, ale1t, tell, inform and admit

to its consumers, users and foreseeable occupants that its tires have a finite life, weaken with age, are

more likely to fail as they become older and that ten (10) year old tires are "extremely old," exposing

consumers, users and foreseeable occupants such as Plaintiffs to risks of tire failure, tread and/or belt

edge separation and the catastrophic injuries associated therewith.

6.19 That the aforesaid acts, conduct and promises were false and untrue in that said tire was

not safe nor fit for use; was not of merchantable quality and, in fact, was defective and umeasonably

dangerous for use by the purchaser and those would foreseeably come in contact or rely upon said

product. Said misrepresentations made by Michelin were made knowingly and in conscious disregard of

a substantial risk to others since Michelin had actual awareness of the falsity, deception and unfairness

20

of its representations which, to Plaintiffs' detriment, took advantage of its superior knowledge, science,

engineering, test data and education about tire aging, all of which was a producing and proximate cause

of the incident and catastrophic injuries alleged herein.

7.0 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT JOSE BUSTILLO d/b/a/ MUNDO CARS

(Negligence against Jose Bustillo d/b/a/ Mundo Cars)

7.0 Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and adopt all of the allegations contained in the previous

claims for relief, counts and paragraphs, and incorporates the same by reference, the same as though

fully set length herein.

7.01 At all times relevant to this cause of action, Jose Bustillo d/b/a/ Mundo Cars had a duty to

act reasonably and prudently in the distribution and sale of the subject vehicle as well as the Michelin

LTX MIS tire.

7.02 Jose Bustillo d/b/a/ Mundo Cars breached its duty by selling a vehicle equipped with a

tire that was defectively manufactured, designed and marketed, as alleged herein. The above-referenced

negligent acts and/or omissions, among others, each individually and cumulatively, contributed to

Plaintiffs' catastrophic ittjuries and damages.

(Strict Liability against Jose Bustillo d/b/a/ Mundo Cars)

7 .03 Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and adopt all of the allegations contained in the previous

claims for relief, counts and paragraphs, and incorporates the same by reference, the same as though

fully set length herein.

7 .04 Jose Bustillo d/b/a/ Mundo Cars furnished and/or sold the subject Ford Expedition with

the subject Tire. Such tire was a defective product, unreasonably dangerous to potential customers, end-

users and occupants of the vehicle including the Plaintiffs where it was mounted in that such tire was

21

defectively designed, manufactured and marketed and failed during normal, foreseeable use for which it

was fit.

7.05 The defective condition of the tire and failure of Jose Bustillo d/b/a/ Mundo Cars to warn

of its defects condition rendered the tire unreasonably dangerous and was the direct and proximate cause

of the catastrophic injuries sustained by Plaintiffs.

8. DAMAGES

8.01 As a producing, direct and proximate result of the incident, injuries, and damages

for which all defendants are liable, the Medina family seeks and are entitled to general damages,

special damages, economic damages, punitive damages and non-economic damages in an

amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Texas state district court, as

determined to be just and fair by the jury, and as augmented by prejudgment interest, post-

judgment interest, and an award of costs.

8.02 In addition to all breach of warranty damages, the actual damages sought herein

include but are not limited to personal iitjury damages (such as pain and mental anguish in the

past and future, lost earnings and loss of earning capacity in the past and future, disfigurement in

the past and future, physical impairment in the past and future, medical expenses in the past and

in the future, and all other personal injury damages allowed by law and equity) and all lawful

compensations for injuries to the familial relationship including all harms one spouse suffers

when the other spouse in injured (such as loss of household services in the past and future and

loss of consortium in the past and future). In addition to each of these damages, the Medina

family also seeks prejudgment and post-judgment interest as well as all compensable court costs.

8.03 That Defendants' egregious and willful conduct constitutes serious and

conscious disregard for the life and limb of Plaintiffs in that the Defendants knew or should

22

have known of that their tires were not reasonably safe, contained manufacturing and design

defects, and would not adequately, reasonably and safely protect the public, end-users,

consumers, motorists, occupants and passengers such as Plaintiffs from serious injuries.

Defendants' egregious and willful conduct in failing to warn Plaintiffs of said tire design,

manufacturing, tire aging including but not limited to that tires have a date limit and other

dangerous conditions further constitutes serious and conscious disregard for the life and limb of

Plaintiffs.

Additionally, Defendants acted to serve their own interests, having reason to know yet

consciously disregarding the consequential injuries to Plaintiffs by placing the subject Tire in

the stream of commerce and selling it to the public. Fmiher, Defendants consciously pursued a

course of conduct knowing that it created a substantial risk of significant harm to Plaintiffs.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to and demand exemplary and punitive damages against

Defendants, and each of them, in a sum that is reasonable and just in the premises.

8.04 That futihermore, upon information and belief, the outrageous misconduct of

Defendants, and each of them, was committed with an "evil mind" and constituted a serious and

willful disregard for the safety and welfare of Plaintiffs and of the deceased. The events herein

arose from Defendants' callous disregard for the safety and welfare of Plaintiffs, in that

Defendants, and each of them, knew full well of the consequences of their unlawful and reckless

acts. Further, Defendants, and each of them, acted to serve their own interests, having reason to

know and consciously disregarding the substantial risk that their conduct might significantly

cause serious i1tjury and/or damages. Fmihermore, Defendants, and each of them, consciously

pursued a course of conduct knowing that the conduct as described herein created a substantial

risk of significant harm to others.

8.05 That the tortious misconduct of Defendants, and each of them, was clearly and

convincingly outrageous, oppressive, and committed with "evil mind" such that these

Defendants, and each of them, deserve to be punished in a substantial, meaningful way in order

to deter these Defendants from committing future misconduct, deter others from committing

similar misconduct, to make an example out of these Defendants, and to send a message to these

Defendants and others expressing society's detestation and condemnation of such reprehensible

misconduct. Michelin's conduct was such that when viewed objectively from the standpoint of

the actor at the time of its occurrence, Michelin was aware that its conduct involved an extreme

degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others.

Further, Michelin had actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but neve1iheless

proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others. Accordingly,

Plaintiffs are entitled to and demand exemplary and punitive damages against Defendants, and

each of them, in a sum that is reasonable and just in the premises.

8.06 Specifically, as a direct and proximate result of the above-described acts,

omissions and conduct of Defendants, jointly and severally, Plaintiffs have sustained the

following serious, disabling, catastrophic and permanent injuries:

(Plaintiff Obdulia Medina)

8.07 Plaintiff OBDULIA MEDINA, hereby realleges and adopts all the allegations

contained in the previous claims for relief, counts and paragraphs, and incorporates the same by

reference, the same as though fully set f01ih at length herein.

8.08 That prior to the said acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff OBDULIA

MEDINA was a spirited, energetic young woman and mother in the prime of her life, and that

as a direct and proximate result of the defective, careless, reckless and grossly negligent acts of

Defendants, Plaintiff OBDULIA MEDINA was caused to sustain, amongst many other injuries,

a C6 and C7 fracture causing permanent quadriplegia and suffer other severe and permanent

injuries including but not limited to a C7 ASIA B spinal cord injury, and many other injuries to

her body and systems all of which completely destroyed Plaintiff OBDULIA MEDINA's life as

she knew it and forced her into a permanently disabled life, all to Plaintiffs' detriment and

damages.

8.09 That Defendants' reckless actions and misconduct caused Plaintiff OBDULIA

MEDINA to be severely, permanently and catastrophically injured about her body and person,

and to severely and permanently injure among other things, her back, head and spinal cord as

well as sustaining severe, catastrophic and permanent injuries and shock to her whole spine and

nervous system, and because of said injuries, Plaintiff OBDULIA MEDINA was caused to be

subject to several surgeries and caused to be committed to the care and treatment of healthcare

providers, which she is informed and believes that she will be required for the rest of her life,

that as a result of the intense and excruciating pain it became necessary that Plaintiff OBDULIA

MEDINA be administered sedatives and pain medication in an effoti and attempt to relieve the

physical pain and suffering sustained by said Plaintiff, and as a fmiher result of said injuries

Plaintiff has had to undergo medical treatments, and will in the future be required to continue in

the care of physicians, surgeons and nurses, the exact extent of which is at the present time

unknown, to Plaintiffs' damages, that Plaintiffs are at this time unable to supply the itemized

actual damages and costs of physicians services, hospital costs, medical and surgical appliances,

surgeries and treatments, and other future medical expenses, but upon request of this Comi, and

at the proper time, said itemized statements and costs will be supplied.

8.10 That as a direct and proximate result of the misconduct, negligence and fault of

Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff OBDULIA MEDINA sustained catastrophic, serious,

painful, lasting, catastrophic and disabling spinal cord ittjuries. Plaintiff has suffered and will

continue to endure and experience tremendous physical and mental pain and suffering and loss

of enjoyment of activities for the rest of her natural life. Plaintiff has been required to make

numerous and diverse expenditures for surgery, medical care, and occupational, speech and

physical therapies, and other medical/medical-related treatments and will continue to incur

expenses for future surgeries, medical care, and medical treatment.

8.11 That as a fmther direct and proximate result of the misconduct, negligence and

fault of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff OBDULIA MEDINA is informed and believes

that she will be permanently unemployable or have a diminished earning potential and that her

future earning capacity is permanently impaired, all to the detriment and damage of Plaintiffs in

a sum that is reasonable and just in the premises.

8.12 That as a further direct and proximate result of the misconduct, negligence and

fault of Defendants, each of them, Plaintiff OBDULIA MEDINA has suffered severe mental

anguish and anxiety as a result of the catastrophic injuries suffered, and her mental anguish is

expected to continue indefinitely. That prior to the time of the injuries to Plaintiff OBDULIA

MEDINA, she was young thitty- female in the prime of her life and was fully capable of

performing and actually did perform all of the usual duties as a spouse and mother. By reason

of her permanent and catastrophic injuries, Plaintiff OBDULIA MEDINA is now forced into a

permanently disabled life and has been unable to perform the spousal, and motherly duties,

which she had previously performed.

8.13 In addition, the resulting serious, permanent, and disabling injuries to Plaintiff

OBDULIA MEDINA have permanently interfered with the husband-wife and parent-child

relationship in a substantially gratifying way, and therefore she has sustained major, permanent

and catastrophic losses of consortium with her husband and children (Plaintiff SAMUEL

MEDINA, NATALYE MEDINA and NAVIL GIBSON).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff OBDULIA MEDINA prays for judgment against Defendants,

and each of them, as follows:

I. For that amount as is reasonable and just as and for compensatory damages to the

plaintiff and for the losses of cons01iium suffered by plaintiff;

2. For that amount as is reasonable and just as and for punitive damages;

3. For the amount necessary as and for medical expenses incurred herein and to be

incurred in the future to be supplied at a later date;

4. For loss of income to Plaintiffs to date and to be incurred in the future;

5. For the loss of earning power;

6. For costs of suit incurred; and

7. For such other and futiher relief as to the Court may deem just and proper in the

premises.

(Plaintiff Samuel Medina)

8.14 Plaintiff SAMUEL MEDINA, hereby realleges and adopts all the allegations

contained in the previous claims for relief, counts and paragraphs, and incorporates the same by

reference, the same as though fully set forth at length herein.

8.15 That prior to the said acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff SAMUEL

MEDINA was a spirited, energetic young father and husband in the prime of his life, and that as

27

a direct and proximate result of the defective, careless, reckless and grossly negligent acts of

Defendants, Plaintiff SAMUEL MEDINA was caused to sustain injuries including a left

trapezius strain and cervical strain.

8.16 That as a result of his injuries Plaintiff SAMUEL MEDINA has been required to

make numerous expenditures for surgery, medical care, and other medical/medical-related

treatments and will continue to incur expenses for future surgeries, medical care, and medical

treatment, the exact extent of which is at the present time unknown, to Plaintiffs' damages, that

Plaintiffs are at this time unable to supply the itemized actual damages and costs of physicians

services, hospital costs, medical and surgical appliances, surgeries and treatments, and other

future medical expenses, but upon request of this Court, and at the proper time, said itemized

statements and costs will be supplied.

8.17 That as a fmiher direct and proximate result of the misconduct, negligence and

fault of Defendants, each of them, prior to the time of the injuries to Plaintiff OBDULIA

MEDINA, she was a young wife in the prime of her life, in good health, and was fully capable

of performing, and actually did perform all of the usual duties as a wife and was a loving and

pleasing wife to Plaintiff SAMUEL MEDINA, and he received much comfort and happiness in

her society and companionship. By reason of her pennanent and catastrophic injuries, Plaintiff

OBDULIA MEDINA is now forced into a permanently disabled life and has been unable to

perform any of the spousal duties which she had previously performed, and is unable to render

and provide the same love, affection, companionship, care, protection and guidance to her

husband, Plaintiff SAMUEL MEDINA, who now is required to care for Plaintiff OBDULIA

MEDINA.

8.18 Accordingly, Plaintiff SAMUEL MEDINA has been deprived of her services as

his wife, and his comfort and happiness in her society and companionship and consortium have

been permanently impaired and destroyed; and Plaintiff SAMUEL MEDINA is informed and

believes that his loss of his wife's consottium and her incapacity to do her duties will continue

permanently and for an indefinite time in the future, all to Plaintiff's damages in that sum found

reasonable and just.

8 .18 In addition, the resulting serious, permanent, and disabling injuries to Plaintiff

OBDULIA MEDINA have permanently interfered with the husband-wife relationship in a

substantially gratifying way, and therefore Plaintiff SAMUEL MEDINA has sustained major,

permanent and catastrophic losses of consortium with his wife.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SAMUEL MEDINA prays for judgment against Defendants,

and each of them, as follows:

I. For that amount as is reasonable and just as and for compensatory damages to the

plaintiff and for the losses of consottium suffered by plaintiff;

2. For that amount as is reasonable and just as and for punitive damages;

3. For the amount necessary as and for medical expenses incurred herein and to be

incurred in the future to be supplied at a later date;

4. For loss of income and earning capacity and potential to date and to be incurred

in the future;

5. For costs of suit incurred; and

6. For such other and further relief as to the Court may deem just and proper in the

premises.

(PlaintiffNatalye Medina)

8.21 PlaintiffNATALYE MEDINA, hereby realleges and adopts all the allegations

contained in the previous claims for relief, counts and paragraphs, and incorporates the same by

reference, the same as though fully set forth at length herein.

8.22 That prior to the said acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff NATALYE

MEDINA was a spirited, energetic young woman in the prime of her life, and that as a direct

and proximate result of the defective, careless, reckless and grossly negligent acts of

Defendants, Plaintiff NATALYE MEDINA was caused to sustain severe injuries including but

not limited to a thoracic strain and multiple contusions all of which completely changed

Plaintiff NATALYE MEDINA's life as she knew it, all to Plaintiffs' detriment and damages.

8.23 That Defendants' reckless actions and misconduct caused Plaintiff NATALYE

MEDINA to be severely injured about her body and person, and to severely and permanently

injure among other things, her back and because of said injuries, Plaintiff NATALYE MEDINA

was caused to be committed to the care and treatment of healthcare providers, which she is

informed and believes that she will be required for the rest of her life, that as a result of the

intense and excruciating pain it became necessary that Plaintiff NATALYE MEDINA be

administered sedatives and pain medication in an effort and attempt to relieve the physical pain

and suffering sustained by said Plaintiff, and as a fmiher result of said injuries Plaintiff has had

to undergo medical treatments, and will in the future be required to continue in the care of

physicians, surgeons and nurses, the exact extent of which is at the present time unknown, to

Plaintiffs' damages, that Plaintiffs are at this time unable to supply the itemized actual damages

and costs of physicians services, hospital costs, medical and surgical appliances, treatments, and

30

other future medical expenses, but upon request of this Court, and at the proper time, said

itemized statements and costs will be supplied.

8.24 That as a fmiher direct and proximate result of the misconduct, negligence and

fault of Defendants, each of them, prior to the time of the injuries to Plaintiff OBDULIA

MEDINA, she was a young mother in the prime of her life, in good health, and was fully

capable of performing, and actually did perform all of the usual duties as a mother and was a

loving and pleasing mother to Plaintiff NATAL YE MEDINA, and she received much comfort

and happiness in her society and companionship. By reason of her permanent and catastrophic

injuries, Plaintiff OBDULIA MEDINA is now forced into a permanently disabled life and has

been unable to perform any of the motherly duties which she had previously performed, and is

unable to render and provide the same love, affection, companionship, care, protection and

guidance to her daughter, PlaintiffNATAL YE MEDINA.

8.25 Accordingly, Plaintiff NATAL YE MEDINA has been deprived of her services

as her daughter, and her comf011 and happiness in her society and companionship and

consortium have been permanently impaired and destroyed; and Plaintiff NATALYE MEDINA

is informed and believes that her loss of her mom's consortium and her incapacity to do her

duties will continue permanently and for an indefinite time in the future, all to Plaintiffs

damages in that sum found reasonable and just.

8.26 In addition, the resulting serious, permanent, and disabling injuries to Plaintiff

OBDULIA MEDINA have permanently interfered with the parent-child relationship in a

substantially gratifying way, and therefore Plaintiff NATALYE MEDINA has sustained major,

permanent and catastrophic losses of cons011ium with her mother.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff NATALYE MEDINA prays for judgment against Defendants,

and each of them, as follows:

1. For that amount as is reasonable and just as and for compensatory damages to the

plaintiff and for the losses of consortium suffered by plaintiff;

2. For that amount as is reasonable and just as and for punitive damages;

3. For the amount necessary as and for medical expenses incurred herein and to be

incurred in the future to be supplied at a later date;

4. For loss of income to Plaintiffs to date and to be incurred in the future;

5. For the loss of earning power;

6. For costs of suit incurred; and

7. For such other and fmther relief as to the Court may deem just and proper in the

premises.

(PlaintiffNavil Gibson)

8.27 Plaintiff NA VIL GIBSON, hereby realleges and adopts all the allegations

contained in the previous claims for relief, counts and paragraphs, and incorporates the same by

reference, the same as though fully set fotth at length herein.

8.28 That as a futther direct and proximate result of the misconduct, negligence and

fault of Defendants, each of them, prior to the time of the i1tjuries to Plaintiff OBDULIA

MEDINA, she was a young mother in the prime of her life, in good health, and was fully

capable of performing, and actually did perform all of the usual duties as a mother and was a

loving and pleasing mother to Plaintiff NAVIL GIBSON, and she received much comfo11 and

happiness in her society and companionship. By reason of her permanent and catastrophic

injuries, Plaintiff OBDULIA MEDINA is now forced into a permanently disabled life and has

32

been unable to perform any of the motherly duties which she had previously performed, and is

unable to render and provide the same love, affection, companionship, care, protection and

guidance to her daughter, PlaintiffNAVIL GIBSON.

8.29 Accordingly, PlaintiffNAVIL GIBSON has been deprived of her services as her

daughter, and her comfort and happiness in her society and companionship and consottium have

been permanently impaired and destroyed; and Plaintiff NAVIL GIBSON is informed and

believes that her loss of her mom's consortium and her incapacity to do her duties will continue

permanently and for an indefinite time in the future, all to Plaintiffs damages in that smn found

reasonable and just.

8.18 In addition, the resulting serious, permanent, and disabling injuries to Plaintiff

OBDULIA MEDINA have permanently interfered with the parent-child relationship in a

substantially gratifying way, and therefore Plaintiff NAVIL GIBSON has sustained major,

permanent and catastrophic losses of consottium with her mother.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff NAVIL GIBSON prays for judgment against Defendants, and

each of them, as follows:

1. For that amount found reasonable and just as and for compensatory damages and

for the loss of consortium suffered by Plaintiff;

2. For that amount as is reasonable and just as and for punitive damages;

3. For costs of suit incurred; and

4. For such other and further relief as to the Coutt may deem just and proper in the

premises.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs pray that Defendants be cited and

required to answer herein accordingly to law, that this cause be set for trial before a jury on all

33

their claims, that Plaintiffs recover judgment of and from Defendants, jointly and severally, for

all damages referenced above, including such actual, compensatory, punitive and special

damages - all of which exceed of the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Texas state district

court - 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 show themselves justly entitled to at law or in equity.

PLAINTIFF RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS A TRIAL BY JURY.

Respectfully submitted,

LA \V OFFICES OF JAMES B. RAGAN

723 Coleman Avenue Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: (361) 884-7787 Facsimile: (361) 884-9144 email: Jimragan 13@gmail.com

By:

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY

10/15/2015 3:17:35 PM

FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK

NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA AND OBDULIA ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MEDINA, HUSBAND AND WIFE, ) INDIVIDUALLY; NATALYE MEDINA, ) INDIVIDUALLY; NAVIL GIBSON, ) INDIVIDUALLY, )

)

PLAINTIFFS, )

) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS VS. )

)

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; AND ) JOSE BUSTILLO D/B/A MUNDO CARS, AN ) IN STATE DEFENDANT, )

)

DEFENDANTS. ) 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED PETITION, AND RELIANCE UPON JURY DEMAND

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW Michelin North America, Inc. (“MNA”), one of the defendants in the

above-styled and numbered cause, and files this its Special Exceptions, Amended Answer to

Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, and Reliance Upon Jury Demand, and shows the Court as follows:

A. Special Exceptions

1. MNA specially excepts to Paragraph 6.0 in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and

respectfully asks that plaintiffs be required to replead to specify the managing agent at MNA

who committed the alleged malice or gross negligence and specifically what acts he or she

committed.

2. MNA also specially excepts to Paragraph 8 in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition where

plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts. Pursuant to Rule 47 of the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure, plaintiffs should be required to replead to specify the range of damages sought and should not be allowed to conduct discovery until this failure is corrected. Plaintiffs should

additionally be required to state the maximum amount of damages sought.

3. MNA requests that these Special Exceptions be granted and that the offending

allegations be stricken or that plaintiffs be given an appropriate but limited period of time within

which to replead. If plaintiffs do not timely replead, MNA requests that the allegations in

question be stricken.

B. General Denial

MNA invokes the provisions of Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and

exercises its legal right to require plaintiffs to prove all of the allegations contained in their

pleadings, if plaintiffs can so prove them, which is denied. Accordingly, MNA denies generally

the allegations in plaintiffs’ pleadings and demands strict proof thereof by a preponderance of the

evidence.

C. Affirmative Defenses

1. MNA alleges that the tire in question met or exceeded all applicable government

standards. As such, MNA is entitled to a presumption that it is not liable under a theory of strict

products liability.

2. MNA alleges that plaintiffs’ alleged damages were proximately caused by or, in

the alternative, were solely proximately caused by the acts, omissions, or fault of Adrian Rico,

the driver of the vehicle in question. The acts and/or omissions of Adrian Rico amounting to

negligence include losing control of the vehicle in question and causing the accident in question.

The investigating officer’s crash report notes that Adrian Rico’s “failing to reduce speed to avoid

crash” was a contributory cause of the crash. In addition, Adrian Rico was driving without

adequate sleep and failed to properly steer the vehicle following the failure of the tire. MNA

4542675 2 alleges that Adrian Rico was negligent in his operation of the accident vehicle and that said

negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. In addition, Adrian Rico and Maria Rico were

negligent in their maintenance of the tire in question. Specifically, they never had the vehicle or

tires inspected prior to the accident and only checked the air pressure in the tire in question once

during the time they owned the vehicle. The tire was more than 10 years old at the time of the

accident, which is contrary to the service life recommendation of MNA and other tire

manufacturers. The tire failed because of a history of overdeflection, which weakened the tire,

and damage suffered due to a prior impact. Evidence of overdeflection includes rim line

compression grooves and balance weight clip marks. Evidence of prior impact includes a radial

split, bare and broken polyester cords, broken steel cords and accelerated tread wear. MNA

alleges that Adrian Rico and Maria Rico were negligent in their maintenance of the tire and that

said negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. MNA alleges that Adrian Rico and Maria

Rico are responsible third parties as those terms are defined and used in sections 33.003, 33.004

and 33.011 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

3. MNA alleges that plaintiffs’ claims for damages may be barred in whole or in

part, whether under the doctrine of comparative responsibility or failure to mitigate damages, by

the failure of plaintiffs to utilize available and functional safety restraint devices as required by

Illinois law. The same constitutes negligence per se and MNA requests that the jury be so

instructed.

4. MNA alleges in the alternative that plaintiffs’ alleged damages were proximately

caused by, or, in the alternative, were solely proximately caused by, the acts, omissions, or fault

of third parties for whose conduct MNA is not in any way liable or responsible.

4542675 3

5. MNA specifically pleads the provisions of Chapters 32 and 33 of the Texas Civil

Practices and Remedies Code dealing with contribution and comparative responsibility and

requests that any damages be assessed in accordance with those provisions. Plaintiffs have sued

Jose Bustillo d/b/a Mundo Cars and alleged that his negligence was a proximate cause of the

accident. MNA alleges he was negligent because he sold a vehicle with 5 different tires of 4

different sizes including the subject tire that was over 10 years old. MNA alleges that Jose

Bustillo d/b/a Mundo Cars is a co-defendant or, if the claims against him are subsequently

dismissed, a responsible third party or settling party as those terms are defined and used in

sections 33.003, 33.004 and 33.011 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

6. MNA specifically pleads Chapter 82 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies

Code dealing with design defects and requires plaintiffs to meet their burden of proof with regard

to all claims of design defect as specified in Chapter 82. Plaintiffs must prove by a

preponderance of the evidence (1) there was a “safer alternative design,” as that term is

statutorily defined, and (2) the defect was a producing cause of the personal injury, property

damage, or death for which the claimant seeks recovery. MNA requests that the jury be

instructed on all statutorily required elements of a “design defect case.”

7. MNA asserts that plaintiffs’ recovery of medical or health care expenses incurred

be limited to the amount actually paid or incurred by or on behalf of the plaintiffs. Tex. Civ.

Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.0105.

8. MNA alleges that plaintiffs’ claims for breach of warranty are barred by the

applicable statute of limitations, having been asserted more than four years after original delivery

of the subject tire.

4542675 4

9. MNA alleges that plaintiffs’ claims for breach of warranty are barred on account

of plaintiffs’ failure to give notice as required by Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 2.607.

10. MNA alleges that by virtue of the 1995 amendments to the Texas Deceptive

Trade Practices – Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.41, et seq., recovery

under the DTPA is limited to “economic damages” as defined by statute. Tex. Bus. & Com.

Code § 17.45(11). “Economic damages” are statutorily limited to pecuniary loss. By statute,

plaintiffs may not recover exemplary damages, damages for physical pain and mental anguish,

lost of consortium, disfigurement, physical impairment, or loss of companionship and society.

Furthermore, “mental anguish” damages may not be awarded unless the trier of fact finds that

MNA’s conduct was committed intentionally. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.50(b)(1).

11. With respect to plaintiffs’ allegation of punitive or exemplary damages, MNA

alleges as follows:

a. Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive or exemplary damages against MNA cannot

be sustained because an award of punitive damages in this case would contravene

and violate Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the

United States, which guarantees due process of law and equal protection of the

laws; Article 1, Section 3 of the Texas Constitution, which guarantees equal

protection of the law; and Article 1, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution, which

guarantees due process. Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive or exemplary damages are

unconstitutional in the following respects:

b. Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive or exemplary damages against MNA

cannot be sustained because the standard for determining liability for punitive

damages under Texas law is vague and arbitrary and does not define with

4542675 5

sufficient clarity the conduct or mental state which gives rise to such a claim and

therefore violates MNA’s constitutional due process rights under the Fourteenth

Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 19 of the

Texas Constitution.

c. Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive or exemplary damages cannot be sustained

against MNA in this case because Texas law does not (i) provide a standard of

sufficient clarity for determining the appropriateness, or the appropriate size, of a

punitive damages award, (ii) provide limits on punitive damages imposed by the

applicable principles of deterrence and punishment, (iii) prohibit an award of

punitive damages, in whole or in part, on the basis of invidiously discriminatory

characteristics, including the corporate status of defendants, and (iv) provide for

judicial review on the basis of objective standards in violation of defendants’ due

process and equal protection rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to

the United States Constitution and the double jeopardy clauses of the Fifth

Amendment as incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment and by Article 1,

Section 3 of the Texas Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of the law;

and Article I, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution, which guarantees due process,

and Article 1, Section 14 of the Texas Constitution, which guarantees against

double jeopardy.

d. Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive or exemplary damages against MNA cannot

be sustained in this case because any award of punitive damages under Texas law

without bifurcating the trial of all punitive damages issues and the failure of the

Court to adopt other procedural constitutional safeguards in the submission of

4542675 6

evidence relative to determining the size of any punitive damages award would

violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which

guarantees due process of law and equal protection of laws; Article I, Section 3 of

the Texas Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of the laws; and Article

I, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution, which guarantees due process of law.

e. Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive or exemplary damages against MNA cannot

be sustained in this case because imposition of a punitive damages award would

violate the due process clauses of the Constitution of the United States and the

Texas Constitution because the standard for the imposition of punitive damages

lacks objective guidelines, invites the jury to engage in caprice and discrimination

in the administration of the law and permits repeated and unlimited punishment

for the same alleged misconduct.

f. Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive or exemplary damages against MNA cannot

be sustained because an award of punitive damages under the Texas law for the

purposes of compensating plaintiffs for elements of damage not otherwise

recognized by Texas law would violate MNA’s due process rights guaranteed by

the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by the due

process provisions of Article 1, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution.

g. Any award of punitive damages based on anything other than MNA’s

conduct in connection with the sale of the specific single tire that is the subject of

this lawsuit would violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to

the United States Constitution and the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth

Amendment as incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment and the due process

4542675 7

clause of Article 1, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution and Article I, Section 14

of the Texas Constitution providing guaranty against double jeopardy, because

any other judgment for punitive damages in this case cannot protect defendants

against impermissible multiple punishment for the same alleged wrong.

h. Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive or exemplary damages against MNA cannot

be sustained because any judgment for punitive damages in this case would

constitute multiple punishment for the same alleged wrong and cannot protect

defendants against multiple punishment for the same alleged wrong in future

cases in violation of MNA’s rights to due process and equal protection of the laws

under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I,

Section 3 and 19 of the Texas Constitution.

i. Alternatively, in the event the Court allows the jury to consider awarding

punitive damages despite the constitutional defects described above, MNA

asserts that the cap on exemplary damages contained in Chapter 41 of the Texas

Civil Practice & Remedies Code applies and limits the amount of exemplary

damages which can be awarded.

D. Reliance Upon Jury Demand

MNA relies upon plaintiffs’ jury demand.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, defendant Michelin North America, Inc.

prays that plaintiffs take nothing by their suit, that MNA have judgment for its costs in this

proceeding, and that the Court grant MNA such other and further relief as the Court may deem

just and proper.

4542675 8

Respectfully submitted,

GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, P.L.L.C. 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 472-0288 Telephone (512) 472-0721 Facsimile

By: /s/ Thomas M. Bullion III Thomas M. Bullion III tbullion@germer-austin.com State Bar No. 03331005 Chris A. Blackerby cblackerby@germer-austin.com State Bar No. 00787091

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

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 facsimile, on this 15th day of October, 2015.

Luis P. Guerra Via E-Service & Facsimile David C. Shapiro Luis P. Guerra, L.L.C. 6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85016

James B. Ragan Via E-Service & Facsimile Law Offices of James B. Ragan 723 Coleman Ave. Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

Noel Sevastianos Via E-Service & Facsimile Sevastianos & Associates, PC 120 S. Central Avenue, Suite 130 St. Louis, Missouri 63105

Jose Bustillo d/b/a Mundo Cars Via Regular Mail 6422 Day Street Dallas, Texas 85227

/s/ Thomas M. Bullion III Thomas M. Bullion III/Chris A. Blackerby

4542675 9

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY 8/25/2015 10:02:37 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK

--··-~··--

SAMUEL MEDINA and OBDULIA CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255

§ IN THE DIS"IR!CT COURT l I

MI~l)INA, husband and wife, § OF DALLAS COUNTY individually; NATAL YE MEDINA. § individually; NAVTL GIBSON, § individually; § §

PLAINTIFFS, § § I34.11l JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. § § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; § AND JOSE BUSTILLO ctn,/a MUNDO § (Oral Argu1nent Requested) CARS, an in state defendant, § §

DEFENDANTS, §

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I) age

I. Snapshot l

II. Background 2

Ill Michelin's Discovery Modus Operandi 4

IV. Michelin's stonewalling 5

v. Aspect Specifications 11

V.a. Aspect Specification Annexes 12

V.b. Instructions l3

V.c. Tire Non Conforining Procedures ('fNCs) 13

VI. (;cncral Principles 13

Vil. Technical Notes 14

VIII. Michelin's Aspect Specifications (and related documents), Genera) l)rinciples and Technical Notes arc inextricably intertwined 14 I

l_._._ ------ MR 0204

I

J

I IX Reaction Tolerance and Limits for both (-irccn and Cured 1'ircs 16 I x. Adjustment Data including Warranty Claims 16

a. Michelin Warranty Claims 17

b. Michelin's Tire Dealers Warranty Claims 18

XI. Critical Evidence 18

XII. Prejudice to Plaintiffs 19

Conclusion 20

CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA and OBDULIA § IN THE DISTRICT COURT MEDINA, husband and wife, § OF DALLAS COUNTY individually; NATALYE MEDINA, § individually; NAV!L GIBSON, § individually; § §

PLAINTJFFS, § § 134 m JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. § § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; § AND JOSE BUSTILLO d/b/a MUNDO § (()rat Argument Requested) (~ARS, an in state defendant, § §

DEFENDANTS, §

TO TITE HONORABLE JUDGE DALE TILLERY:

COME NOW Plaintiffs complaining of Defendant MICHELIN'S intentional and

deliberate failure to dh;close critical docun1ents and evidence requested since April:

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion 1'o Compel Michelin To llespond To J)iscovery And Identification Of Withheld Michelin J)ocuments

I. Snapshot: The 2012 I.abor Day weelccnd had been great fOr the M.edinas. 1'hc family

reunion in Chicago was a success. Fainily, food, and fi.Jn. That was what life was all about. The

Medinas were happy and on their way back home to St. L,ouis after a great weekend. Belted and

fast a<:lecp by her husband, C)bdulia was in heaven. Suddenly, and without any warning the left

rear Michelin L1''X 1v1/S co1nes apart with a loud noise. ]'ry as he might, Obdulia's brother can't

control his now disabled SUV. In the blink of an eye, it veers to the left m1d rolls over and over

and over in the ditch nledian. When it stops, tragedy: Obdulia, the Medina n101n, had become a

quadriplegic.

Thus, this lawsuit is a products liability and negligence case arising out of the

catastrophic failure of that defective Mcl1elin I/l'X M/S tire on Septe1nbcr 3, 2012 which caused

2

the quadriplegia of Plaintiff Obdulia Medina and a myriad of injuries to the other occupants.

Just lil(e it has done to many otl1cr fmnilics including the Velo fan1ily, Michelin's defectively

designed and manufactured T,cfX :MIS tire line just added another victhn to its long list and

Plaintiffs can prove it with Michelin's own documents. 'fhat is why Michelin refuses to produce

the critical info1mation, documents and evidence repeatedly requested since April. All of it

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of ad1nissible evidence in accordance with the

'J'cxas Rules of C:ivil Procedure.

II. Background: 'fhis Motion simply requests the ITonorable Court to order Defendant

Micl1elin to comply with the "fexas discovery rules and produce the critical documents,

information and evidence repeatedly asked for more than four (4) monihs since the beginning of

April 2015. Requests for Production, r;xhibit A. At the end of April, Michelin produced next

to nothing. Defendant's Responses, Exhibit B. On May 11, 2015, after the hearing, in a meetit1g

just outside this courtrootn, and ihcreaftcr, defense counsel repeatedly promised that if Plaintiffs

just signe(f Michelin's Protective Order, they would get the re1nainh1g documents:

Your email is co1rcct that MNA anticipates being able to make its supplemental production within 10-14 days of the protective order being entered,

E-lvfail fron1 Nelson Mullins, counsel for NfNA, May 28, 2015, r<,Xhfbit (~.

[W}c will rr1ovc forward with the agreed protective order and \Vith our supplemental production, which we would anticipate making within 10-14 days of entrr of the protective order.

Ji:-Mail fro1n Nelson Mulli11s, counsel for MNA, Mlty 29, 2015, Exhibit D.

We are worl{ing on the production anti still anticipate mal<lng it within 10-14 days of entry of the protective order as originally estimated.

r~·-.MaiL fron11Velson M11lli11s, counsel for .MlYA, June 4, 20.15, Exhibit E'.

Though Plaintiffs disagree witl1 Protective ()rders, in view of Michelin's repeated

promises, Plaintiff.'> executed it All a sham. Michelin's production at the end o.f'June was a

joke. It failed to produce about fo1iy (40) of the fifty (50) requests for production. Despite

countless e-mails, co1Tespondcnce and phone calls by Plaintiff<;' counsel concerning Michelin's

production of docun1cnts about the design, inspection, testing, building, curing, quality control

processes, 1nanufacture and retu111s concerning Micl1elin LTX M/S tires, it is clear that Michelin

has 1nisled Plaintiffs about its production every step of the way.

So, 011 ,July 16, 2015, Plaintiffs informed Michclh1 that their production was cxh·emcly

deficient mid that they would seek ::;anctions fi·om the Cou1i. In response Michelin did nothing.

'fhcy never tried to teach J>laintiffs' counsel by phone, e~mail or letter. So, on August 3, 2015,

Plaintiffs sent another letter. Still nothing. 'fhe next day, on August 4, 2015, Plaintiff<>' counsel

£)avid Shapiro directly contacted defense counsel about the deficient disclo::;ure and was

info1med that tl1c atto1ney in chm·gc of Michelin's discovery was no 1011ger working 011 the case.

Mr. Shapiro did not give up. So, he contacted other Michelin counsel. Still, Michelin offered no

additional production and Mr. Shapiro was told that the production o-f documents had to be

negotiated v.,1ith Michelin. Yet, again, Plaintiff.<>' counsel wrote to Michelin's counsel. Still, 110

additional production. Instead, Michelin played du1nb, wasted time and acted like it did not

know that their production wa::; grossly deficient. Refush1g to give up, the next day, August 5,

2015, Plaintiffs' counsel Luis Guen·a called and also wrote to Michelin's counsel about its

deficient disclosure. (;orrespondence, Exhibit F In response, Plaintiff."' counsel got no

docu1nents and was told that Plaintiffs needed to negotiate the discovery with Michelin. Still,

just four (4) days ago on August 17, 2015, during the depositions of the driver and his family,

PJah1tiffs' counsel again discussed this issue with defe11sc counsel in Dallas, 'I'exas. In response,

Plaintiffs' counsel was again told that they should know the process by now having done it in

Velo and that they needed to 11egotiate the production Vvith Michelin.

ln short, after waiting nearly five (5) months and even executing Michelin's Protective

Order, Michelin responded to about ten (10) of Plaintiffs' fifty (50) Requests for Production.

Thousands of pages of relevant documents inte11tionally concealetl and withheld by Michelin to

prevent Plaintiff.<> from exposing their shoddy practices and known defects tl1at led to this L'fX

MIS failure. Therefore, this Motio11 simply requests the flonorable Court to order J)efcndanl

Michelin to comply with the Texas discovery rules and prod11ce the critical docun1ents,

info11nation and evidence repeatedly asked for 1norc than fOur (4) months since the beginning of

April 2015.

111. Michelin's 'Discovery Modus ()perandi: The subject defective Michelin tire itself and

t11c docu1ncn1.s requested together with a plant inspection arc critical evidence in this case.

Michelin knows the critical importance of the docu1nents and how they are interrelated to each

other. Plaintiffs' counsel knows the docu1nents because a couple of years ago they had a case

similar to t11is one na1ncd Velo. Similar to Velo, the passengers of this vehicle were severely

injured, 5Jinn?ar to Velo, a scat-belted morn bccan1e a quad1iplegic, paraly7.cd fi:om the neck

down. ,')imilar to Velo, this case involves a rollover caused by a defective Michcli11 tire corning

apart on the highway. c'limilar to Velo, the defective Michelin tire is a light truck tire. Sin1ilar to

Velo, the defective Michelin light tn1ck tire is a I.,TX ivf/S. /{iniilar to Velo, the defective

Michelin LTX MIS was nlanufactured at Michelin's plant in Dothan, Alabama. Similar to Velo,

tbc defCctive Michelin LTX M/S tire was manufactured in the year of2001. c'limilar to Velo, the

defective Michelin l,'l'X M/S tii·e had a significat1l an1ount ofuscablc and legal tread. 1bc cases

arc so similar that in the present case Michelin demanded to use the exact same Protective Order

5

as the one used in Velo. Similar to Velo, one of Michelin's law .firms handling the discovery is

Nelson Mullins. So, because of Velo PlaintiffS' counsel lmows that each of the documents

requested is critical in this case.

l.JnfOrtunately, just like the Tle/o case aJJd a myriad of other 1\.1ichelin cases, stonewalling

is Michelin's strategy ru1d discovery practice. First, Michelin makes up its own sclf~serving

scope of discovery and disregards the applicable Rules of Discovery. Second, Michelin claims it

did nothing Mong, denies liability and discloses nothing. Third, 1\.1ichelin pro1nises to produce

docun1ents after it tricks the Plaintiffs into signing a Protective Order. Fourth, even after

executing a l)rotective Order, Michelin still produces next to nothing, Fifth, Michelin alleges

that procedural technicalities such as meet m1d confer 1 has not been 1net to further delay

production. Sixth, J.>Iaintiffs are forced to file motions to compel. This is not argument. This is

a fact. 1''here are multiple examples of Micl1elin's illegal course of conduct in Courts across the

country, (Plaintiffs will search and obtain the best example they can and will provide it to the

Court prior to the hearing on this motion).

This way the all mighty Michelin misdirects the lawsuit from its merits and forces the

disabled quadriplegic Plaintiff to waste their limited resources in time consuming and expensive

discovery disputes. As a result, the Plaintiffs gain nothing and waste precious time and

resources. Just plain Mong. 'J'herefore, Plaintiffs respectfully ask this 1-Ionorable Court to deal

swiftly with Michelin's illegal conduct and order it to co1nply with the Rules of Civil Procedure

and produce the long overdue requested discovery immediately or face severe sanctions.

IV. Michelin's stonewalling: At the inception of this products liability lawsuit, Plaintiffs

served Michelin with discovery requests asking for products liability documentation concerning

1 True to form a few days ago on August 13, 2015, Michelin's counsel wrote a letter threatening that meet and confer requirements were not complied with. Defense counsel corresponde11ce, August 13, 2015, Exhibit(}.

their LTX M/S tire. Requests}Or Production, April 3, 2015, Exhibit A. In f{,'Sponsc, Michelin

withheld thousands of doewnents.f about the design, testing, inspection, bidlding, manufacture,

and warranty claims of the subject tire. IIere is the breakdovvn:

Summa a of Information requested Requested Relevance Produced?

DocuillentS about t~;·rganiZationai 4/0J/2015 I)esign & Manufacture I No "] structure of Michelin North America =~~~--+~

Aspect Specifications Repertoire and all its inclusive documents (criteria used by tire 4/03/2015 Manufacture -·---1No I

I

I

l ~~~;~ers ~~~~. . . .~roduction ~.~ t to test ....

(lcncral Princi~lcs quality . . . . . . . . J_ _ _ _ _ , ~4/03/2015

............- · - - ·

~~ufacture

' 4. ~~~~~~~~~piration date materials produced L03/2015 I Desig~~Manufact~re--+N········"·····

1

5. 2011 Michelin LTX MIS Data Sheet ' 4/03/2015 Design & Maintenance No

6. 2001 Michelin J.,,imited Wa1Tanty Manual 4/03/2015 Maintenance Yes ·-- ·--- -·-------

7. Claim fo1ms and consun1er claims for 4/03/2015 Design & Manufacture No Micl1elin LTX WS tires rctmned for tread/belt separ~tio!l:· 8. J)iseoUllt 'fire .. claims and code sheet for 4/03/2015 l)esif:,rn. & Manufacture Micheli11 L'fX MIS tires. 9. Identify arld. . . _produce coPies of the model 410312015 Design & Manufacture tire's and similar tires specifications, including belt skim stocl(, carcass ply, belt edge strip, and belt edge cushion or insert I specifications, steel cord specifications, green tire specifications, cw·ed tire

l 1 spe.cificatio.ns, tire ..b....". schematics, blueprints, drawings, . . QQ..?togra~L-~ay~,--

i.·.. ld

..i.ng specifications,.

diagrams,

1-ray~'--~d/o~

J· - · - · L _ _.._ I I

In i7e/o, the case I)efendants repeatedly cite that involved the same tire from the sa1nc manufacturing plant and the san1c year, Michelin produced in excess of20,000 pages of documents. Here. Michelin produced not even 10o/o of\\·hat it disclosed (after repeated Motions to Compel were filed) in Velo. 3 Compared to Velo, Michelin's production falls way short. Jn addition, Michelin failed to produce its belt skhn stock formula pe1taining to the subject tire. The rubber used between the steel belts is referred to as skim stock. Skim stock is what iuakcs the belts adhere to one another. 'fherefore, the design ofthe skim stock and its resfatance to degradation is critical evidence to understand the subject tire's resistance to tread belt separation failure like it happened here.

... . 4/03/2015 l)csign & Manufacture 'No

410312015 J)csign & Manufacture No

4/03/2015 l)esign & Manufacture No

4/03/2015 l)csign & Manufacture No4

i

4/03/2015 Design & Manufacture

f

I

I

I

'

North America's 4/03/2015 Design & Manufacture No I recommendations, dete11ninations, or guidelines as to the acceptable or unacceptable rate or :fi·equeney of loss adjustment (how the tire is doing in the Geld)

16. Des{gn d1:awings -~fthe sUbject ti~:c-.--·· 4/03/2015 Design

17. All non-lawsuit co1nplaints, incident reports ! 4/03/2015 Des-i-gn_&_M_an_u_fa-et-u-rc-·-r"·N·~ or other notices 1nade by any dealership, custon1cr, consumer or govc1n1nent agency to Michelin 'North An1erica alleging a tread separation of 1'265/70 Rl7 Michelin LTX MIS p-metric tires, similar tires and all tires from the same J,1'X tire line I ~1~8-.A~dju<;tfileI-11___ . _. dataJPersonaf. . _ _ 1IlJury 4/03/20~J5J)csign..&-Manufacture claims/property dmnage claim:; from before and after the intJ:oduction of nylon cap plies ( safe~~chm1is_~n) in ..Michclin __~ires. . __ _ --~

4 Michelin identified only two (2) prope1ty clain1ants. No other inforn1ation wa;; provided.

19. Training docun1ents relating to the buil ding, 4103/IManufacturc testing, and inspection of passenger and light t1uck tires at the l)othan, Ala ba1na plant where the subject tire was i manufactured.

20. Audits pc-~~ro1mea. . - by Mi~hclin re: 4/03/2015 Design & Mru1ufacture 1 failure/durability/design or quality of the i sugj_~-~! . !ire and simil~E . !!rc~. ~ .............................

21. All training documents made availahle, at I 4;0312015 M the time the subject t:lre was built, to pc1·sons I who construct, manufilcture or asse mble tires or operate tire-building cquipme nt at the pl~int where the subject ti~~-:vas buil (. ~----- ---- +--...;

22. All training program n1atcrials or other 4/03/2015 Manufacturc No docmnents provided to Michelin N orth America's employees building P265/70 R17 Michelin I.,TX MIS p-metric tires, sitnilar tires and all tires fi·om the sainc l,TX tire line. I

I

·----

IM

J_~ufacture - - - -

23. Inspection methodology materials used to 4/03/2015 identify trapped air/stcmn blisters in fini shed tires (quality control procedures abollt the s~~fl£.!!!:_~ufacturing defects ii~ . !ires)

24. 'Testing of steel belted radial passenger and 4/03/2015 IDesign & Manufacture light truck tires manufactured with the ,same belt skim stock as subject tire, including peel tests, pull tests, performru1ce tests and

I

endurance tests ..... ,~

I

2S~"~rCSti'll'!i results relating to the relationship 4io31201s j)esign & Manufacture - . -.between ~.1:!?~.~:~1£11:ition and tre~?~.~1?.~~!1ti on 26. Rim groove analysis documenting the 4/03/2015 D esign & Manufacture relationship between under-irrflation, 11m I

[Z'ffj~i:~~~~Ic ~~ct l!f;;'n~;I~~:~~:tioicsting 14/03/2015 Design & Manufacture I concerning the Michelin l,'J'X tires ~~1filct~r_ed at the I)oth~_:q.., Ala~ama plant I I 28. Curing COllditions at tl;~· J)Othan;· AI, plant 1470'3!2615 used in the manufftctm·e of the subject tire I and any ai1d all subsequent changes to the _ cur~1g CO.!.,~~}tions ™·-~ ~- · - - - 29. l)ocuments abont 1) the use or potential use 4/03/2015 Design & Manufactm·e of nylon overlay/belt edge strips/belt edge 1-No wraps/belt edge gum strips in Michelin passenger or light truclc tires and the application of such during- the tire building P~5'.~.~-~- and 2) .J2~.~cnts(~rticles/m'1;~crials

j

- - - . · · - - - - - - ... __L. .

I

l~~~o~:~a niio: I truck_ tires (nylon overlays are layers of I ·elin re: r-

i~!~l~~;Si:1 ;~~~:~~

er/light I

nylon that extend around the two steel belts ,-- ··-

m1derneath the tread to provide better tread/belt integrityL._

I

-~

30. Michelin's docu1nent retention policy fro1n 410312015 I Document rete~1t'i'Oll' Yes the time it manufactured the subject tire to

I

the presen!. -.. - - -

31. Written warranty for su~jcct tire 410312015 I Maintenance Yes I I 32: Michelin docmnents/testing abou t tire 4/03/2015 aging No ~ging!_tr_il~cr_m_1~e_es_ _. ___ ~··---

I 33. Communications or correspondc11ce 410312015 Tire aging No I between Michelin and any auto I manufaeturer and/or NJfJ'SA concerning tire for any

L us.e and.. limits o. r limit date all passenger andofu·tl·····l···1···za.t i.!:,19luding the subject tire m~dcl, __ light . true

34. Cut analyses and reports on the subj ect tire from n1anufacturing release to time of the ion k tires

- G·---··························· - - - - - -

4/03/2015 Design & Manufacture .........----

No

subject tire's date of manufacture (a nalyscs _ ~~f_returncd_.~.~! . .!.~1? section.~-- - G 35. Cured, finished gauges for the manufacture 4/03/2015 Design Yes of the subject tire (thickness levels for the f--e_o.~1?2~ents of.~he s.~bject tire) --

36. J>rocess control chart in place at the ti1ne of I 41m1201 s Manufacture No the manuf~~.~ure of the. s1:!.~ject tire I '

·or the-I 4;03/2015 I Design & ManufactLn·e .. '

37. Quantitative listing of the inf,rredients No subject tire's inner liner in llse at the time of !~~. . manufacture of the subi.?~.!. . !~~:~-·--·· 38. DFMEA or PFMEA testing/results and 4/03/2015 documentation of the subject tire and any other tires incorporating its exact green tire cons1J11ction. ··----------

39. l)Csigll and p·roduc. tion . tolerances for thC 4/03/2015 Design & Manufacture subject tire in effect at the time of its I . _man~fact?.r_e_.- - · - - · · - - · · - - · - - - --··1··························-···-

40. Michelin's regulatory compliance test 4/03/2015 Design results for the subject tire including 'I endurance tests, high speed endurance tests, - ..~ungeI. . ~!1ergy te::.is,_~.~~~?seat te~!?. . . . . . . . . . . . . - + -

I

41. Adjusttnent data/property <lainage clain1s 4/03/2015 Design &_M_a_nUf:-ac_t_ur_e_~.; . ·-

······--··-1.~

after t11e introduction of design changes to .thc subject tire since the date of the suhje:J_·ct '

IL... tire's manufacture ---~ .........- - . - - - - · · - · - . - - - - · - - . - --·-

-----·-

'fable of Contents (inspection instructions to fmd defe_'?~S in manufactured . tires)

sic

42. A-sp_e_e_tSp_e_e-ifi-1c-·~tions in-cl-u-di-ng-I-n_d_eX_e_s_a_n_d__.. 4/03/2015 · 1Mfinufact~·~:e 1 I 1""'N~·1

I

I

1

43. Index (;f -My and all teC:hnical bulletills 4/03/2015 <.:·~·mmU-nication I No I i~~e~o~ncerning passen~~-~~-~ light 1:I::!~~. .~i.~·es 44. Discovery produced by Michelin in Vel~o-,e-1-.-r4/03)2015 l"'I I)eSign & Manufa-c-tu_r_e-~+N·······o········· ~'

al. v. 1'.1.ichelin, er al., filed in Maricopa I L~ounty Superior Court, CV2 012-007346 involving the same exact brand and 1nodel tire from the sa1ne Michelin plant f--m=~~~.fac1Jjred ju~!. . ~ . f~~ wecks . . ~p art. I 45. J)epositions with exhibits given b y Michelin I 4;0312015 ~----

l)esign & Manufacture

employees Randall Clark, Michael Wiscchusen, Michael Riley, I>aul No1ihrop and 'fom G1uenholz who are the most knowledgeable individuals about tire aging, communication with NHTSA, manufacturing, design and adju st.tnent data _!egardin~c fft1bject tire --

46. Quality control/work proccd~ s including 4/03/2015 Manufact ure but not limited to: 1'N(~ and TNC,3R-A work 1 procedures/inst1uctions (tire non~ conforming n1anufacturin,g.Jnstructions)

47. Michelin's T'cchnical Notcs/Techni·cal Note 4/03/2015 Manufact ure No Repertoire (quality co11trol instru:ctions fOr tire inspectors to detect and eliminate defects) --······-- _,, ...........--'------ ·-

I

48. i\1ichelin's Print Advertising conccrning the 4/03/2015 Co1nmunic-at-io_n_·--· -+.N-o-J subjcc~ tire.

49. Michelil1-i3Wncr's Manual and T-i~:C. . .f'ihncnt -----·~ ~··

4/03/2015 Maintcna nee 1 Yes I i Guide

~~~~~/~' J --~ ~

PowerPoint P1csentation made 4/03/2015 Com1nunication Yes ···-----

Michelin's S'U/Jp!en1ental responses, E'xhibit H.

The evidence is clear: Michelin's stonewalling is undeniable. It reveals Michelin's

arrogance and total and co1nplete disregard for: a) the 'Texas judicial system, b) this Honorable

Court's authority, c) the sacred nature of the discovery process, and d) tl1e quadriplegic

5 Each of Plaintiffs' separate rcqt1est<; addresses :,pecific Michelin document<; which Michelin is withholding and refuses to produce.

l)laintiff and her family. T'o illustrate t11e blatant and intentional extent of Michelin's

concealment, as a matter of example, we will address just a few of the requested docmnents: 1)

Aspect Specifications, 2) General l)rinciples, 3) Technical Notes, 4) Adjustment Data including

Warrru1ty Claims, and 5) Reaction Limits and 'I'olerances for the grecn6 nnd c1ued tires.

DOCUMENTS

FILED UNDER SEAL

DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER SEAL

l2

DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER SEAL

DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER SEAL

DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER SEAL

DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER SEAL

DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER SEAL

l7

DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER SEAL

DOCUMENTS

FILED UNDER SEAL

XJI. Prejudice to Jlfaintiffs

Michelin's actions are extremely prejudicial to Plaintiffs preventing them from

conducting products liability discovery in this case. !<~or instance, Plaintiffs cannot conduct

discovery or depose Michelin's witnesses and employees about 1) manufacturing and/or design

defects, 2) the ma11ufacturing and design .Process, 3) the Aspect Specifications, 4) the General

Prh1ciples, 5) the 'Technical Notes, 6) Quality Control, 7) Classification of tires, 8) Repair

procedures, 9) the L1'X MIS reac,ied tolerance limits, 10) manufUctul'ing and design of the LTX

MIS, 11) the wa1ranty clairns on the LTX MIS, 12) problems occu1Ting d11riI1g 1nanufilcturing,

13) the tire inspection process and damage ru1alyses, etc., etc., etc. Without tl1ese docmnents,

Michelin prevents: a) Plaintiffs fro1n conductir1g product;; liability discovery, b) prevent

Plaintiff.~' experts from obtaining tl1e necessary foundation, and c) further prevents Plaintiffs

from cross-examining Michelin's expe1ts. Even worse, Michelin will attempt to be rewarded

for its absconsio11 of evidence by filing Motions :for Summary Judginent, Daubert Motions and

Motions to Exclude Plaintiffs' liability cxpe1t - claiming that they did not have reliable data

20

inf(nmation or evidence supporting their opinions. Thus, Michelin's stonewalling is extremely

prejudicial to l)laintiffs.

Michelin's delays are even more egregious when one considers the spastic quadriplegic

Obdulia. It is easy to forget and lo;;e sight of the real Plaintiffs including Obdulia whose life

was destroyed by Michelin's defective tire. Now, they add insult to injury, preventing

discovery and withholding relevant evidence. All this to prevent Obdulia and her family fi:om

having their day in Court. ()bdulia has no time to waste. Iler life as a result of the defective

Michelin's tire failure is unbearable. She cannot walk. She cannot 1nove. She cannot even

turn herself around in bed. She cannot cut her ovvn fOod. She cannot even open her pill box

with her hm1ds to take her strict daily prescription regimen. She cannot urinate or evacuate like

a 11011nal human being. Her husband and children have to excavate fCces out of her rectu1n.

She cannot perform the most basic hu1nan functions. She repeatedly contracts deadly bed

sores, and urinary tract infections which require fi·cquent hospitalizations - all of which a direct

result of Michelin's defective tire f3.ilure.

(~onclusion: Michelin intentionally withheld and concealed the Aspect

Specifications and all corresponding documents. Michelin intentionally withheld and

concealed the General Principles. Michelin intentionally withheld and concealed the

Technical Notes and related documents. Similarly, Michelin intentionally withheld and

concealed all the Reaction and Tolerance Limits documents. ln addition, Michelin

\Vithhcld and concealed the adjustment data and thousand.11 of warranty claims as well as

all the internal documents it uses to identify, adjust and evaluate the returned defective

tires after they leave the plant.

Conversely, Plaintiff.~ have diligently assisted Michelin in their discovery by: 1)

shipping the detCctive tire to Michelin for their forty-Jive (45) day inspection, 2) 1naking the

vehicle available fOr inspection to Michelin's cxpe1is, 3) producing Plaintiff."! and fmnily for

depositions, and 4) assisting in the depositions of the driver and family. In all, nine (9)

depositions that J>laintiffs made possible and available to Michelin. Plaintiffs have given

Michelin access to all they needed to conduct their discovery and further their defenses,

The facts speak for themselves. Michelin k11ows the importance of the documents

requested and how critical the info1mation is. So, Michelin made a conscious and intentional

decision to withhold and conceal them. ·rhls is Michelin's modus· 011erandi. J)efiant, an·ogant,

and in disregard of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. When M'ichelin is sued, Michelin acts

like they have their own special rules of civil procedure m1d: 1) discloses nothing, 2) delays

always, and 3) prevents justice. Michelin's conduct directly violates the 'I'exas discovery ii.des,

the fundamental principles of litigation, and the authority of this Honorable Court. Michelin's

actions co1Tupt the i11tegrily of the legal process and make a mockery of the l'exas justice

system.

This cannot be tolerated. T11is is not how litigation is done in t11e -Lone Star State. 'fhe

tortfeasor docs not control the litigation proccs;; and usurps fron1 the Great State of Texas its

exclusive power to dcte1111inc the llules of Civil Procedure and its prescribed scope of

di;;covcry. Moreover, \Vith a fa;;t approaching expert disclosure deadline, tiinc i;; of the

essence. Accordingly, pursuant to 1'ex. R. C~iv. P. 215.2, PlaintiffS respectfully request this

flonorable c:ourt 15 to order J)efendant Michelin to iinmediatcly produce the requested

inforn1ation and documc11ts and "make such orders ... as m·e just."

---~---

15 1''he choice of authorized sanctions is within the sound discretion of the trial court In re F,sfate ofMarley, 390 8.W.3d 421, 424 (Tex. App. 2012).

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF LUIS P. GUERRA, LLC

6225 N. 24'" Street, Suite 125 J>hoenix, Arizona 85016 Telephone: (602) 381-8400 Facsimile: (602) 381-8403

By: _Isl Luis 1). Guerrg J,uis P. Guerra (Admittecl Pro !Jae Vice) AZ State Bar No. 015768 David C. Shapiro (Aclmitted Pro H'ac Vice) AZ State Bar No. 028056 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAlNITFFS

I.,A W OFFICES OF JAMES B. RAGr'\'N 723 Coleman Avenue Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: (361) 884-7787 Facsimile: (361) 884-9144 Jaines B. Ragan State Bar No. 16466100

£:.ERTIF!CATE QF CONFERENCE

c:ounscl for 1novant and counsel for rc::;pondent have personally conducted a conference concc111ing J>laintiffs' Requests for J>roduction and Michelin's responses and despite best efforts the counsel have not been able to resolve those matters presented.

CERIJ.FICATE OF SERVl<:;E

I hereby certify that a true and co1Tect copy of the foregoing document has been forwarded to all known counsel of record as set forth below via E-Mail & 1J.S. Mail, on this 24st day of August, 2015.

Thomas M. Bullion llI Chris A. Blackerby GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, PLLC 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 Atto1neys for J)efenda11t Michelin No1ih America, Inc.

Jose Bustillo d/blal Mundo Cars 6422 Day Street Dallas, Texas 85227 Pro Per l)cfendant Jose Bustillo dlblal Mundo Cars

Isl Dayid C. Shapiro David c:. Shapiro

EXHIBIT A

CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA and OBDULIA § IN 111E DISTRICT COURT MEDINA, lrusband and wife, § individually; NATALYE MEDINA, § individually; NAVIL GIBSON, § individually; § §

PLAINTJIIFS, §

§

vs. § 134th TIJDIC!AL DISTRICT §

MICIIELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; § AND JOSE BUSTILLO d/b/a MUNDO § CAlZS, an in state defendru:rt, § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS §

DEFENTJANTS §

PLAINTIFF'S FillS'I' SET OF' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT, MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TC): Defenda11ti :Michelin North America, Inc.:

c;OME NOW, Plaintif'fS, by ind through their attorney of record) Luis P. Guerra,

LLC, 6225 N. 24lli Street, Suite 125, Phoenix, Arizona 85016:

Plaintiff in the above e11titled and nu.:1nbered cause, and subject to the provisions of

Rule 197, 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, propo1111ds the following Request<>

for Production to Defendant, MICilELIN NOR1TI AMERICA, INC.

The questions which follow are to be co11sidcred as continuing, and you are

reque~ied to provide, by way of SllJJplemerrtal answers hereto, additional inforrnation as

yoll or any oilier person acting on your behalf may ,hereafter obtain which wi.11 augtnent

or otherwise modify yoUr answers given to the questions below. Such supple111ental

answers are to be served upon this party im1nediately llpon receipt of such infor1nation.

PRFPOOOO!

Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 197 of the J'exas Rules of Civil Procedure, the

above person is instructed to answer the following written I.nterrogatories separately and

fully, in writing and under oath, have the answers to the Interrogatories signed by said

person and duly notarized and to serve a ttue copy of the answers on the undersigned

atto111ey within fifty (50) days after service hereof.

J)ursuantto IZuJe 196 of the J'exas .Rules of Civil Procedure, .Plaintiff requests that

Defendant serve written responses to the following l:Zequest ±Or Production and produce

and per1nit Plaintiff to inspect and copy all documents which arc related in any manner

either to an individual item or to a category described and en1ltnerated in the following

Requests for Production. Defe11dant sh.all serve written .responses to the Request for

Produ.ction and shall produce each and all of tb.e documents fOr inspection and copying

by not later thar1 10:00 a.m., fifty (50) days after receipt of these requests} at the I,A w

OIIFICBS OF r,ms P. G~JBRRA, I.LC, 6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125, Pl1oenix, Arizona

85016.

Pursuant to Rule 198 of the Texas Rules o.f Civil Procedure, Plaintiff requests that

Defendant admit the truth of each of the matte.rs set forth below, You are advised tha:t

each of the requests below ,shall be deemed adinitted 1111.lcss you cause to be dtlivered to

within fifty (50) days after receipt of these req11ests, at the 1,AW OFFICES OF Lurs P.

GmlRRA, LLC, 6225 N. 24"' Strec~ Suite 125, Phoenix, Arizona 85016.

1. Identify and produce the organizational charts showing the functions and reporting sttucture o:f.Tvf:ichc.lin North Alr1erica's d~a:rtment", divisions, or llllits, whether do1nestic or foreign, responsible) eithe1· directly or indirectly, for: tesearch, design and develop1nent; manufacturing artd production; quality control ofihe subject tire and the modc.1 tires.

2

PRFP00002

2. Identify and produce true, complete and accurate Michelin's l)ecision 'free Manual also know11 as Michelin~ s A.spect Specification;,:,

3. Please produce true, cornplete aJ1d accmatc copies of the General Principals.

4. Please produce any position paper regarding tire date limitation~ prodllced by any employee or past employee of Michelin Nortl1 America including but not limited to any and all drafts and Versions of the paper titled "Iiimit l)ate of Utilization."

5. Please produce a true, complete and accurate copy of the 2011 Michelin LTX MIS Data Sheet.

6. Please produce a true, cornplcte and accurate copy of the 2001 Michelin J,imited Warranty Manual.

7. Please produce hue, complete and acc11rate copy of any and all limited warranty claim forms and consumer claims for Michelin .·L'fX M/S tire..<; returned for tread/belt sepaJation.

8. Please produce true) complete and accurate copies of Discount Tire claims and code sheet for Michelin L TX MIS tites.

9. Identify and produce copies of the model tire is and si1nilar tires specifications, including belt skim stock:, carcass ply, belt edge strip, and belt edge cushion or insert specifications, steel cord specifications, green tire specifications, cured tire specifications, tire building specifications, blueprints, drawings, schematics, diat,1farns, photographs, x-rays, 1-raysi and/or holograms from the date those tires were manufactured to the present or to the end of prod11ction. 'fhis request includes documents, including but not limited to change orders arid prodt1ct ch.ange proposals (including product change proposals that we:re not adopted) relating to changes in the specifications for the production life of t11e model tire and tires that replaced the 1nodel tire. This request include."> s.pecificatio11s and change d(}crnne.nts for the 1nodel tire prepared prior to the manufacture of the subject tire. '.'[bis request also includes any tire data boolc or Tire Fitment Guide covering the subject model tire.

10. ldentilY and produce the reaction limit specificatioru and/or OPL Worlcing Limits and Aging for the subject tire.

11. Identify· and produce any and all docmnents, relating to personal injury claims and/or lawsuits i11volving sepa1'atio11s, or alleged separations of Micl1elin Nortl1 America !32001 P265/70 Rl 7 Michelin LTX MIS p-metdc tires, similar tires and

3

PRFP00003

all tires from the same I.:r.X tire line from the date those tires were first i11anufactured to the _present or to the end of production. This request also incJudes ineide11t reports, accide11t reports, correspondence, and photographs. Also, aS' to lawsuits, this request includes copies of complaintsi discovery response;; o:f .Michelin North America, reports of both plaintiffs' and defenda11ts' experts, and deposition arid trial testimony of current and former Michelin North Alnerica employees and experts. Also please produce a summary of this data.

12. Identify and produce any and all document;;, relating to adjustment of P265/70 R.l 7 Michelin l ..'l'X MIS p-metric tires, similar tires and all tires fro111 tl1e same L':rX tire line manufa<.ii.ured by Michelin North A·merica with the same belt sldr:n stoclc code and/or belt edge cushior1 or insert code as the subject tire, bearing separation related adjust1nent codes, including· but not li1nited to any and all adjustnent codes for tread separation, belt edge separatio11, separation between the belts, separations between tlie inner belt arid outer body ply, separations between the body pilel'J, sepa1'ations between the cushio11 and number one or botto1n belt, separations ir1 the sidewall or bead area; all this infonnation fro1n the date the tires were fir&t man.ufacture to the present or end of production. Thls request includes, but is not limited to adjustment forms) adjustment ticlcets, and summaries, inch1ding co1nputer and graphical summaries of adjustment forms or adjustln.ent ticlcets, manuals relating to fue adjustment and inspection of tires and the documentation necessary to interpret adjust1nent records, including the service condition codes index and/or adjustJnent record<:. Also, please produce a summary of fuis adjusttnent data stating for each tire, the model and size, the n1011th and year of manufacture, the date of the adjustment or rejection o:f tl1e cla:hn and the lltate wh.ere the adjustment claim or tbrm wa::i made or submitted.

13. Identify and .Produce any and all documents, compute1' g!)nerated tran&"Inissions, such as email, compute1' prilltouts, prograrns, tapes, photographs, and ·videotapes !'elating to property damage claims h1volvi11g separations, or alleged sepa1'ations, in Michelin North America P265/70 Rl7 Michelin LTX MIS p-mclric tires, sirnilar tires and all tires from the same J_,TX tire line mauufactru:ed wit11 the same belt skim stock code and/or belt edge cushio11 or irisert code as the subject tire from the date those tires were first manufactured to the present or to the end of production. 1'his reque::.'t includell incident reports 1 accident report."l 1 co11'esponde11ce, and photographs for evel'y property dam.age claim aris.ing out of belt separations, belt edge separations 1 separations between the inner belt arid the outer body .Ply) separations betwee11 fue body piles, separations between tlie cushion and the number one, or botto:m bel.4 and separations in the sidewall or bead area.

14.All t'ecords of at1y co1nmunicatio11 between Michelin Noti:h America and any insurer, state or federal governmental entity, con::;urner or safety grotip or

4

PRFP00004

advocates relation to questior1s, insurance claitns, trends, pa:tte111s or failure of the subject tire or model tires inclu.dir1g but riot limited to the subject of tread, ply, belt, and/or cord separation.

15, .All documents that co11tain Michelin. North Arr1erica's internal reco1nmendations, dcterrninations, or guidelines as to the acceptable or lmacceptable rate or fi:equency of loss adjustrnent or any rate of frequency of loss adjustrnent tl1at requires that actior1 be talcen or notificatior1 be given by or to any :internal Michelin North Arnerica persons or organization.s.

16. Please produce true, complete and accurate copies of the design drawh1gs for the subject tire .

.17.All non-lawsuit complaints, incident reports or other notices made by any dealership, customer, consumer or government agency to Michelin North America alleging a tread separation of P265/70 Rl 7 Michelin LTX MIS p-metrie tires, similar tires and all tires frorr1 the sa1ne LT.X tire line docume11ting similar tires tread, belt, ply or cord separation or detachmen~ whetl1erpartial or full.

18. Idcr1tify and produce any and all doc1nn.ents, relating to personal injury claims ai1d!or lawsuits, property damage claims and adjustlnents involving separatio:ns, or alleged separations of sirni1ar Michelir1 Nortl1 America tires that contain nylon cap pules from the date the similar tire was first manufacture to the present or end of_production.

19. Identify and produce any and all documents, relating to the bT1ilding, tire builder training) testing, and inspection of passen.ger and light truclc tires at the Dothan, Alabama plant where the subject tire was rr1anufactured. This req11est .inch1des, but js not limited to standard practice bir1ders, tire buildin.g manuals, tire builder trah1ing manuals) equipment manuals, arid/or other .1naterials and videotapes used to train tire builders. This req11est also includes docu1nents, photographs, m1d cl1aits used to illustrute defects, o:r potential defects, in tires and/or problems or potential problems in the tire b11ilding process.

20, Identify and produce any audits, reports, exa1ninations, investigations, studies, or reviews, ir1clud'ing any worlc papers, whether created within or outside Michelin North Arr1erica, in any 1nann.er related to the return, failure, performance, durability, and life expectai1cy, design, or quality of the s1rbject tire and model tires.

21, All trainir1g doemnents made available, at the time the subject tire was built) to persons wl10 construct, 1nanufacture or assemble th·es or operate tireMbuilding equipment at the ,plaint where the subject tire was built.

5

PRFP00005

22. All training program ma:terjals or other docume11ts provided to Michelin North America's employees building P265/70 Rl 7 Michelin LIX MIS p-metric tires, similar tires 1111d all tires from the same L1'X tire line.

23. All inspection methodology materials or other docun1ents uses or followed to determine any trapped air/steam blisters i11 finished tires.

24. Any and all documents relating to testi11g of steel belted radial passenger and light truck: tires manufactured with same belt skim stocl< code as the subject tire at the Dothar1, Alabarr1a plant where t11e s11bject tire was 111anufacture. Tills request includes docurnents relating to peel te..<::ts, .Pull tests) performance tests, and endurance tests whether conducted on a test wht>el or a test track.

25. Any and all documents relating to under-inflation testing that led to tread separation.

26.Any and all dO(.,'Umcnts relating to tim groove analysis in which the rim groove profile was generated by under-ir1flation and led to tread belt separations.

27. All Department of Transportation (DOT) testing related to all "Michelin LTX"

tires manufactru:ed at the Doilian Alaba1na plant.

28. The cuiing conditions at tl1e Dothan Plant that we:re used for the curing of the subject tire and any subsequent changes to those curing conditions.

29.Any and all documents, relating to t11e use or pote11tial use of nylon overlays, or belt edge stri.ps, or belt edge Y..'taps belt edge gum strips in passenger or light truclc tires and the application of the nylon overlays, belt edge strips or belt edge wraps during the ti:re buildin.g process. Also, please produce copies of any docurncnts, including patents an.d articles in possessio.n of Michelin North America discussing the use or potential use of nylon overlays, or belt edge strips~ and/or belt edge wraps in passenger or light truck: tires manufactured an.d/or desig·ned by Michelin North Alner.ica. 'I'his request specifically inch1des _patents disc1Jssing the use of nylon overlays or belt edge strips or belt edge wraps. 'fhis request also includes brochures, cl1arts, and/or iliustrations of Michelin Nortl1 America tires with nylon overlays, incl11ding but riot limited to illustrations supplied to Michelin North Arr1erica dealers or service centers.

30. Identify and produce all documents that discuss Michelin's document retention policy from the tin:te it manufactured the subject tire to the present.

31. The written wa1Tanty in effect for the subject tire.

6

PRFP00006

32.Any and all docu1nents that di8cuss Michelin's recommendations regarding tire aging including Michelin's testing to support those recommendations including any and all technical bulletins.

33. Produce a complete copy of any communications or correspon.denee between Michelin and any auto manufacturer and/or Nf11'SA concerning tire 11sc limits or limit date of utilization fOr any and all passenger and light truclc tires including the subject tire 1nodel.

34.Please produce true, complete ai1d accurate C()pies of any and all cut analysis (sectional) reports on the subject tire from production release to time of subject tire_'s 1nanufactured date or archite<:..'ture reportoire.

35. Please produce all cured, fmished gauge,_c; for the manufacture of the subject tire.

36.Ploasc produce true, complete and accmute copies of the plant's IJroces..<; control chart or documentation at the time of the tnanufacture of the subject tire.

37.Please produce true, complete and acc11rate copies of tb_e quantitative listing of the ingredients of the subject tire's iruier liner ir1 use at the thr1e of the mai1u.facture of the subject tire.

38. Please produce true, complete and accurate copies of any ru1d all J)}"'MI:~A or PFivIBA documentation of the subject tire and any other tires incorporating its exact gree11 tire construction,

39.Please produce the design and production tolerances fOr the s11bjeot tire in effect at the time of its rnantifacture.

40. l)lease produce true, complete and accurate copies of any and all specific regulatory cornp1iance te.st. re,sults for the subject tire and all associated brand and line nmne tires sharing the s_ame green tire construction as the subject tire from production release to present, including but not limited to endurance tests) higl1 speed ei1durance tests, plunger energy tests, bead unseat tests all foT FMVSS requirerr1ents.

41.Please produce the adjustine11t and claim data for the subject tire and all associated brand and line naine tire,_s sharing the same green tire consttuctio11 after eac·h chat1ge to design occurring after tl1e manufacture date of the subject tire.

7

PRFP00007

42. Please produce true, com:plete~ and accurate copies of all the aspect specifications including Indcxe..<; and 1'able of Contents.

43. Please produce an. h1dex of any and all technical bulletins.

44. Please produce a true, complete and accurate co_py of all discovery ptoduced by Michelin ir1 Velo, et. al. v. Michelin, et. al., filed in Maricopa C'ount:y 1<:Jt.q:1erior Court, CV2012-007346.

45. Please provide true, complete and accurate copies of any and all depositions ·wifu exhibits given by :tvlichelir1 employees R.andall Clark, Michael Wiscchusen, Michael Riley, Paul Northrop and Tom Grucnholz.

46. Please provide true} complete and acc11rate quality conttol/worl( procedures including but not limited to: l'NC and TNC;JIZ-A worl( procedures/instructions.

47.Plea.'le provide true, complete and accurate copie,.<; of'Michelin 'fechnical Notes.

48.J>lease provide tru.~ complete and accurate copies of Michelin's Print Adve1tising concerning th.e subject tire.

49.Please provide true, complete and accurate copies of Michelin's Owners Manual and FI'irc f-?itment Guide.

50. T>lease provide a true, complete arid accurate copy of .Michelin's Power Point Presentation made to NHTSA. on November 1, 2006.

Respectfully s11bmitted,

LAW OFFICES OF LUIS P. GUERRA

6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 (602) 381-8400 - Office

By: :::),)~£··

State Bar No. 015768 David C. Shapiro, Esq. State Bar No. 028056

8

PRFP00008

ATTORN'EY FOR PLAINTIFFS

I hereby ce1tify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing documcn1t has beJ{!} forwarded to all known counsel of record as set forth below via TJ.S. M:ail, on this .9 day of April, 2015. J

'l'l1omas M. Bullion ill Chris A Blackerby GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, PLLC 301 Congress A:venue, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 Attor11eys for Defendant Michelin North A.lr1erica, Inc.

Jose Bustillo d/b/a/ Mundo Cars 6422 Day Street Dallas, Texas 85227 Pro Per Defendant Jose Bustillo d/b/a/ Mundo Cars

&DavidC. Shapiro David C. Shapiro

9

PRFP00009

EXHIBITB

/

< \/. ' CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA AND OBDULIA ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MEDINA, HUSBAND AND WIFE, ) INDJVIDUALLY;NATALYEMEDINA, ) INDIVIDUALLY; NAVIL GIBSON, ) INDIVIDUALLY, )

)

PLAINTIFFS, )

) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS vs. )

)

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; AND ) JOSE BUSTILLO D/B/A MUNDO CARS, AN) IN STATE DEFENDANT, )

)

DEFENDANTS. ) 134111 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

MICHELIN NORT]LAMERJ.CA INC.'S RESJCOJ:lSES AND O!lJECTIONS TO !'_l,AI)'ITIFE:_S FIRST SET. OFJl,EOUEST FORPRQJ)UCTION

TO: Plaintiffu, .by and through their attorneys of record, Jduis P. Cruerra, D1:1vid C. Shapiro, I,uis P. Guerra, Ll,C, 6225 N. 241h Street, Suite 12.5, Phoenix, Arizona 85016 and Jarnes B. Ragan, Law Offices of James B. Ragan, 72'3 Cole1nan Ave., Corpus Christi, 1'exas 78401 and Noel Sevastianos, Sevl:lstianos & Associates, PC, 120 S. (;entral Aveni1e, Suite 130, St. Louis, Missouri 63105.

COMES NOW Michelin North America, Inc. ("MNA"), defendant in the above~styled

and numbered cause, and submits these, its responses and objections to Plaintiffs First Set of

Request for Production.

Respectfully submitted,

GERMERBEAMAN &BROWNPLLC 301 Congress Avenue, Suite l 700 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 472-0288 Telephone (512) 472-0721 I:<acsirnile

PRFPOOO!O

I

/'· ,//···

'

By:_ (}A4·/1-~_.

Thomas M. Bullion III tbul IionU-Oge1:rner-au~tin. CQ!Jl State Bar No, 03331005 Chris A.. Blackerby .c;bl qck erQy@gerrris:r-aut>t.i.!:1.9:.Q_fTI State Bar No. 00787091

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDAN!' MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

I 11ereby certify that a ttue and correct copy of' the foregoing document has been f{}rwarded to all known counsel of record as set f'o1ih below on this 30th day of April, 2015.

Luis P, (}uerra Via C'ertffied Mail, Re.turn Receipt Requested David C. Shapiro I.,uis P. Guerra, I,, I,, C. 6225 N-. 24th Street, Suite 125 Phoenix, Ai·izona 85016

James B. Ragan Via Regular Mail Law Offices of James B. Ragan 723 Coleman Ave, Corpus Christi, Texas 7840 I

Noel Sevastianos Via Regular Mail Sevastianos & Associates, PC 120 S, Central Avenue, Suite 130 St Louis, Missouri 63105

Jose Bustillo d!b/a Mundo (;ars Via Regular J.1ail 6422 Day Street Dallas) 'l'exas 85227 /'1 Pro Se I / <"--.

L,/t::.1 _L] ---······- Thomas M. Bullion III/Chris, kBlackerby

4526987 2

PRFPOOOIJ

r / "'

The tire at is::>ue in this case is a Michelin L'fX MIS P255/70R16 tire bearing L10'r

number 137LBEVlJX3101 (the "tire in question"), The tire in question was designed by

Michelin Americas Reseal'ch & Developn1ent Corporation ("MARC"), which merged with and

became a division o.fMNA on January 1, 2008, and manufactured by MNA during the 31st week

of 2001 at its Dothan, Alabama plm1t. lJnless otherwise indicated, :MNA's responses are limited

to iufo1mation concerning the tire in question and tires built to the specification in place for the

tire in question at the Dothan, Alabama plant during the sixth rr1onths befo!'e and six months after

the date of manufacture of the tire in question (the Hrelevant scope"),

MNA objects to many of the discovery requests because they seek information and/or

documents that are of a confidential, proprietary or commcrclally sensitive nature to MNA,

exempt frorn discovery under notions of constitutional prlvacy and/or that may be covered by or

be the subject of express or ln1plied confidentiality, secrecy or nonpublication agreements or

understandings. 'fo the extent necessary, MNA objects to the discovery requests in that they

seek the discovery o:f trade secret intOrmation and documents, including confidential research,

develop1nent and technical information. MNA states that information and documents responsive

to some of the discovery requests may have been withheld because these discove1y requests seek

privileged information and privileged documents that con.~litute the trade secrets of MNA.

Disclosure of these trade secrets would result in substantial prejudice and hann to MNA.

Therefore, MNA contends it is essential to MNA's operations that its work and documents

remain confidential.

1'exa,o, law pl'otects the disclosm·e of MNA's trade secrets. A trade secret 111ay consist of

any trade formula, patterni device or co1npilation of inforrnation that is used in one's b11siness

4526987 3

PRFP00012

.d //,

and gives one an opportunity tq obtain an advantage over cornpetitorS who do not know or use it.

Computer AsfiQ,,C. Int') Inc. v. ~ltai, In9. . , 918 S.W,2d 453, 453 (1'ex. 1996) (citing fuQ~ Corp-L.Y,

Huffine~, 314 S.W.2d 763, 776 (1958)).

MNA's confidential policies, research, development and technical inforrnation are

valuable and crucial trade secrets of MNA that give it an advantage over its competitors in a

highly competitive and secretive industry, Moreover, M'N'A rnakes reasonable efforts to

maintain the secrecy of this information, the infor111ation is of substa11tial value to MNA, the

inforrr1ation would be very valuable to MNA's competitors, and the information derives its value

by virtue of the effort of its creation and lack of dissemination. Accol'dingly MNA believes such

infol'm<1tion constitutes a trade secret and should be protected fron1 disclosure.

Unless otherwise stated in its responses, MNA is not withholding any privileged

docmnents/infonnation withh1 the relevant scope. However, to the extent plaintiffs do 11ot agree

with the scope of MNA 's discovery responses, MNA reserves the right to have its objections to

scope ruled upon prior to expanding the scope of its responses and its search for responsive

and/or privileged documents/infonnation.

Sub,iect to the foregoing, :MNA hereby answers the individual requests us follows:

.RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR PKODUCTJON

!~OUES_T FOR PRODUC:I!PN NO~ . .L

Identify and produce the organizational cha1is showing the functions and reporting structure of Michelin North America 1s depa1iments, divisions, or units, whether domestic or foreign, responsible, either directly or indirectly, for: research, design and development; manufacturing nnd production; quality control of the subject tire and the model tires.

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive

to i:his request relating to the Dothan, Alaba111a plant during the relevant scope. Upon entry of an

4526987 4

PRFP00013

appropriate confidentiality ptotcctive order, MNA will produce its record retention policy in

place at the time this lawsuit was served upon MNA. MNA objects to this request because it is

overly broad and because it seeks docu1nents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this

case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. MNA further

objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that constitutes

commercially sensitive, confidential business information oi' MNA. Pursuant to Rule .507 of the

Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information.

!{J!OUES'f FOR PRODUCTION N0.2:

Identify and produce trlle, complete and accurate Michelin's Decision Tree Manual also known as Michelin's Aspect Specitl.cations.

MNA objects to this reque::.i because plaintiffu have not identified the specific design or

manufacturing process that produced the defect alleged to be present in the t:ire in question.

11

Accordingly, this reque.<;t is nothi11g more than an impermis.i:;ible fishing expedition!' for

infonnation generally related to every aspect of MNA1s design and manufacturing process,

w.hethet' or not related to plaintiffs1 claims in thh; case. If plaintiffs will identify the components

and processes at issue in this case, MNA will search for and produce documentR responsive to

this request for the cornponents and processes identified during the relevant scope,

To the extent this request seeks document<; outside the rclt'Vant scope, MNA objects to

this request because it is overly broad and seeks documents that are neither relevant to the

subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to lil.nit the scope of this request to the plant and time period

relevant to this action.

45:16987 5

PRFP00014

MNA fu1iher objects to the extent this request seeks or atte1npt.<> to seek inforrnation that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business information of MNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas llules of Evidence, M'NA asserts trade secret protection for such info1mation,

Please produce truei complete and accurate copies of the General Principals,

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any docu1nents responsive

to this request for the relevant scope, lJpon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective

order, MNA wfll produce its record retention policy in place at the time thls lawsuit was served

uponMNA.

To the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, NINA objects to

this request because it is overly broad and seek<> documentfl that are neither relevant to the

;;ubject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of adinlssible

evidence, Plain:tiffu have fuiled to limit the scope of thifl request to the plant and time period

relevant to this action.

MNA further objects to the extent tills request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business inforrr1ation ofM'NA, Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection fOr such infonnation.

Please produce any position paper regal'ding tire date lhnitations produced by any employee or past employee of Michelin 'N'o1ih America including but not limited to any and all drafts and Ver:;.ions of the paper titled "Limit Date of Utilization. n

Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will produce

documents responsive to this request. To the extent this request seeks documents outside the

4526987 6

PRFP000!5

j/,.'

relevant scope, MNA objects to this request because it is overly broad and seeks docu1nents that

are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence, Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this reque1>t to the

tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action.

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or atte1npts to seek lnfOrmation that

constitutes commercia11y Bensitive, confidential business informatlon ofM'NA. Pursuant to Rule

.507 of the 'fexas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection ±Or such info1111ation,

Please produce a true, complete and accurate copy of the 2011 Michelin IJTX MIS Data Sheet

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request for the relevant 1>cope. To the extent this request seeks docuinents outside the

relevant scope, MNA objects to this request because it is overly broad and seeks docu1nents that

are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discove1y of ad1nissible evidence, Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the

time period relevant to this action,

RllQUEST POR PRODUCTION NO, . 9l

Please produce a true, complete and accurate copy of the 2.001 Michelin Limited Wa1Tanty Manual.

MNA produces the 1irr1ited warranty manual as MNA-MEDINA-0001270 - MNAM

MEDINA-0001285,

4526987 7

PRl<'P00016

.

,{!

]IBOUE!lJ FQR PRQRl!QTION_l',10. 7~

Please produce true, complete and accurate copy of any and all !irnitcd wan·anty claim fonns and consu1ner claims for Michelin L'rX MIS tire:>. returned for trca<l/be!t separation.

MNA produces claim forms and consumer claim.~ for the model of the tire in question

manufactured at Dothan during the relevant scope retun1cd with the allegation of the condition of

a tread 01· belt separati()n as MNA-MEDINA-0000001 - MNA-MllDINA-0000010, MNA-

MEDINA-0000151, and MNA-MEDINA-0000231 - MNA-MEDINA-00002.59. Up"n entry of

an appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will search for and produce ck)cuments

responsive to this request for tires common green to the tire in question, if any exist. ·ro the extent this reque8t seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA objects to thl,<; request

because it is overly broad, u11duly burdensome, and seeks documents that m·e neither relevant to

the subject matter of this case nor reasonably Calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the tire, plant, and tiine

period relevant to this action.

Please produce true, complete and accurate copies of Discount 'fire claims and. code sheet for Michelin LTX .M/S tires.

RllSPONSE,:

MNA produces Discount Tire clairri forms for the model of the tire in question

manufactured at Dothan durlng the relevant scope as MNA-MEDINA-0000231 and MNA-

MEDINA-0000260 - MNA-MEDINA~0000563, Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality

protective order, MNA will produce documents responsive to this request fbr tires comn1on

green to the til'e in question) if m1y exist. To the extent this request seeks documents outside the

relevant Bcope, MNA objec,is to this rcqi1est because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and

4526987 8

PRFP00017

seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject rnatter of this case nor reasonably

C?tloulated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the

scope of this request to tl1e tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action.

Identify and produce copies of the model tire 1s a11d similar tires speoi.fications, including belt skim stock, carcass ply, belt edge strip, and belt edge cushion or insert specifications, steel cord specifications, green tire specificutions, cured tire specifioations1 tire building specifications, blueprints, drawings, sohemutics, diagrams, photographs, x-rays, I-rays, and/or hologran1s frorr1 the date those tires were manufactured to the present or to the end of production, 1'his request inch.ides documents, including but not lhnited to change orders and product change proposals (including product change pror;osals that were not adopted) relating to changes in the specifications for the production life of' the model tire and tires that replaced the model tire. This request includes specifications and change documents for the model tire prepared prior to the 1nanufacture of the subject tire. This request also includes any tire data book or 1'ire 'F1tment Guide covering the subject model iire,

MNA produces the data book and fitment guide relating to the model of the tire in

question during the relevant scope as l\llNA-MEDINA-0000152 - MNA··MEDINA~0000230 and

MNA-MEDINA-0000564 - MNA-MEDINA-0001192. Upon entry of an appropriate

con'fidentiality order, MNA will search for and produce the specifications, change documents,

and 1nold drawings for tires in the relevant scope. MNA also objects to this request as being

vague and arnbiguous in its use ofthc te1rn "similar tires!! as that term is undefined.

1'o the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA objects to

this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither

relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

adrnissible evidence, Plaintiffu have fuiled to lhnit the scope of this request to the tire, plant, and

time period relevant to this action

4526987 9

PRFP00018

M.NA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business inf-ormation of:MNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the T'exas R.ules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information,

rvrNA specifically objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of MNA1s

rubber compound formula<>, Rubber compound formulas are trade secrets .that are closely

guarded and protected by MNA The information is of significant value to and is not known to

1V[NA1s cornpetitors. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any need to discover these valuable trade

secrets of MNA.

Identify and produce the reaction !irnit specifications and/or ()PI, Working L,imits and Aging for the subject tire.

After a reasonab.le and diligent ~earch, MNA has not located any documents responsive '

to this request for the relevant scope. M.NA objects to this request because plaintiffs have not

identified the specific design or manufacturing process that produced the defCct alleged to be

present in the tire in question, Accordingly, this reque."lt is nothing 1nore than an imperrnissible

"fishing expedition" for infonnation generally related to every aspect of MNA's design und

1nanufacttll'ing process, whether or not related to plaintiffs' clai1ns in thi~ case.

To the extent this request seeks docu1nents outside the relevant scope, MNA objcct'3 to

this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither

relevant to the subject 1natter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead (o the discovery of

admissible evidence, Plaintiffs have failed to lhnit the scope of this request to the tire, plant, and

time period relevant to this action,

4526987 10

PRFP00019

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes corrunercially sensitive, confidential business info1mation ofMNA Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, :NfNA assert\'. trade secret protection for such information.

Identify and produce any and all documents, relating to personal injury claims and/or lawsuits involving separations, or alleged separations of Michelin North America B2001 P265/70 Rl 7 Michelin L'IX MIS p~metric tires, siruHar tires and all tires from the same LTX tire line from the date those tires were first manufactured to the present or to the end of production. This request also includes incident repo1is, accident reports, correspondence, and photographs. Also, as to lawsuits, this request includes copies of complaints, discovery responses of Michelin North America, reports of both plaintiffs' 1:1nd defendants' experts, and deposition and trial testimony of cun·ent and forrner Michelin North America employees and experts. Also please produce a summal'y of this data.

MNA produces MNA-MEDINA-0000131 - MNA-MEDINA-0000150 for the model of

the tire in question manufactured at the f)othan plant during the l'elevant scope. T.Jpon entry of an

appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will search for and produce any lawsuit

complaints, or documents identifying any personal injury claims, concerning tires commo11 green

to the tire in question during the relevant scope, if any exist. MNA objects to this request as

being vague and ambiguous i:n its use of the term HB2001" as that term is undefined. MNA also

oQjects to thi'l request as being vague and ambiguous in its use of the term 11 similar tires" a;; that

term is undeiined.

To the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, and to the extent it

seek;; documents in addition to those which identify personal inju1y claims, or lawsuit

complaints, MNA objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdenso1ne, and

seeks docun1ents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of thls case nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the

4,)26987 II

PRFP00020

scope of this request to the tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action. The tire is

incorrectly identified a11 a 11 P265/70 RJ 7 11 tire. The tire in question is a P255/70Rl 6.

:M:N"A objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by the atton1ey··

client and/or attorney work product privileges. MNA further objects to the extent this request

seeks or attempts to seek information that constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential

business info1mation of MNA. Pursuant to Rule 507 of the "fexas Rules of Evidence, MNA

asse1is trade secret protection for such infonnation.

REO!JJlST FOR PRODUCTION.NO. 12:

Identify and produce any and all documents, relating to adjustments of P265/70 RI 7 Michelin L1'X M/S p-1netric tires, similar tires and aJl tires fro1n the sa111c I.,TX tire line manufactured by Michelin North America with the same belt skim stock code and/or belt edge cushion 01· insert code a.".: the subject tire, bearing separation related adjustment codes including but not limited to any and all adjustment codes for tread separation, belt edge separation, separation between the belts, sepal'ations between the it111er belt and outer body ply, separations benveen the body piles, separations between the cushion and number one or bottom belt, separations in the sidewall or bead area; all this information from the date the tires were first manufactm·e to the present or end of production. This request includes, but is not limited to adjustment forms, adjustment tickets, and su·mmaries, including computer and graphical surumuries of adjustment forms or adjustment tickets, manuals relating to the adjustment and inspection of tit· es and the documentation necessary to interpret adjustment records, including the service condition codes index and/or adjustment records. Also, please produce a smnn1ary of this adjusUnent data stating fo1· each tire, the model and size, the month and year of manufacture, the date of the adjustment or rejection of the claim and the staie where the adjustinent claitn or form was made or subrnitted.

11'NA p1·oduces the wan·anty claim procedure 1nanual for the relevant scope as MNAM

MEDINA-0001193 - :tvfNA-MEDINA-0001220 and claim fo1·1ns for the model of the tire in

question manufactured at Dothan during the relevant scope with the allegation of the condition of

a head or belt separation as MNA-MEDINA-0000001 - MNA-MEDINA-0000010 and MNA-

MF:DINA-0000231 MMNA-MEDINA-0000259. Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality

protective order, MNA will search for and produce claim forms for the tires common green to

4526.987 12

PRFP00021

the tire in questio11 mMui'actured at l)othan during the relevant scope for the condition of a tread

or belt separation, if any exist. Also upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective

order, MNA will produce a list of aqjustment codes. 1'o the extent plaintiffs identify codes

relevant to the condition of the tire in question and plaintiffs' claims in this matter, ivfl\!A wil!

produce documents re11ecting the number of tires in the relevant scope retu111ed with those

conditions) if any exist. Th the extent this request seeks document<; concerning code.'l that are not

relevant to the condition of the tire in question and plaintiffs 1 claims in this tnatter, or seeks

information concerning tires outside the relevant scope, MNA objects to this request because it is

overly broad, lUlduly hm·denson1e, and seeks inforrnation that is neither relevant to the subject

matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admi.<:..<:.ible evidence,

Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the tire, plant, and tirne period relevant

to this action. 'fhe tire is incorrectly identified as a "P265/70 Rl 7" tire. The tire in question is a

P255/70Rl6.

:MNA also objects to this request a;.i being vague and arnbiguous in it:; use of the tenn

"similar tire.-; 1' as that tern1 is undefined. 'fires are not necessarily substantially similar to each

other because they sbare a common component, such as belt skim stock or belt edge cushion.

See ]3ar~@§.V. Fo1tj Motor.Co., 2004 WL 2827249 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2004); MeGJoud v.

Goodyear .Dunlop Tires NA, Ltd., 2006 WL 64491, *1 (C.D. Ill. 2006).

M'NA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek_ information that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business il1fo1mation ofMNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the "fcxas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information.

Identify and produce any and all documents, computer generated transmissions, such as email, computer printouts, programs, tapes, photographs, and videotapes relating to property

4526987 13

PRFP00022

dan1age claims involving l'ieparations, or alleged separations, in Michelin No1th A1nerica P265/70 Rl 7 Michelin I.:rx MIS p-metric tires, similar tires and all tires froni the same I.:rx tire line manufactured with the same belt skiln ,o,tock code and/or belt edge cushion or in::;crt code as the subject tire from the date those tires were first manufactured to the present or to the end of production. This request includes incident repo1is, accident repo1is, · con·espondcnce, and photographs for every property darr1age claim arising out of belt separations, be!t edge separations, separations between the inner belt and the outer body ply, separations between the body piles, separations between the cushion and the nurnber one, or bottom belt, und separations in the sidewall or bead area.

MNA produces MNA~MEDINA-0000151 which contains information responsive to this

request regarding property damage claims for the 1node1 of the tire in q11estion manufactured at

Dothan during the 1'elevant scope with the condition of a tread or belt separation. After a

reasonable and diligent search, lvINA has not located any docu1nents responsive to this request

regarding property damage claims fo1' the tires comrnon green to the tire in question

rnanufactured at Dothan during the relevant scope with the condition of a tread 01' belt separation.

Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective order, M'NA will produce it<J record

retention policy in place at the tin1e this lawsuit was served upon MNA.

'fo the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, and to the extent it

seeks documents in addition to those which identify personal ir~iury clain1s or lawsuit con1plaints,

MNA objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks

docmncnts that are neither relevant to the ;;ubject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this

request to the tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action. l'he tire is incorrectly identified

as a 11 P265/70 Rl 71' tire. The tire in question is a P255/701Zl 6.

MNA also objects to this request as being vague and ambiguous in its use of the term 11 shnilar tires!I as that term is undefined. 1'i1·es are not necessarily substantially similar to each

otl1er because they share a common co1nponent, such ao, belt skim stock or belt edge cushion.

4526987 14

PRFP00023

Se0 Barc~na~ YL . .ford. Motor Co., 2004 WI, 282'7249 (N.D. Ca!. Dec. 9, 2004); M.f'..~lO.\J.~.•.

Qg_odyeai: DunlopJireL!JihlM,, 2006 WL 64491, '1 (C.D. Ill. 2006). MNA ol{jects to thfa

request to the extent it seeks inforrnation protected by the attorney"client and/or attorney work

product ptivileges.

All records of any communication bt.1ween :Michelin North Arr1erica and any insurer, 1:1tate or federal governmental entity, consumer or safety group or advocates relation to questions, insurance claims, trends, patterns 01· failu1·e of the subject tire or model tire1:1 including but not limited to the subject of tread, ply, belt, at1d/or cord separation.

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any docurnents responsive

to this request for tires in the relevant scope. MNA object:i. to this request to the extent it seeks

information protected by the attomey"client and/or attorney work product privileges. To the

extent this request seeks docurnent& outside the relevant scope, MNA further objects to this

tequest because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seek11 ·documents that are neither

relevant to the subject matter of thi& case nor 1·easonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admis::iiblc evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the tire, plant, and

tirnc period relevant to this action.

All documents that contain Michelin No1ih America's internal recommendations, determinations, or guideline.~ a~ to the acceptable or unacceptable rate or frequency of loss adjustrnent or any rate of frequency of loss adjust1nent that requires that action be taken or notification be given by or to any internal Michelin North America pel'sons or organizations.

After a rea&onable and diligent search, M'NA ha:(l not located any docun1ents responsive

to this request for the relevant scope. 1'o the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, ivfNA objects to this request because it i& overly broad, unduly burdensome, and

4526987 15

PRFP00024

seeks docurnents that al'e neither l'elevant to the subject 1natter of this ca.'ie nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the

scope of this request to the tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action.

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek inforrnation that

constitutes co1nmercially sensitive, confidential business information of MNA. Pur8Uant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information.

Please produce true, complete and accurate copies of the design ch·awings for the su~jcci tire.

Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will produce

documents responsive to thi1; request, if any.

All non~law::iuit complaints, incident reports or other notices made by any dealeIBhip, custo1ner, con.<:1umer or governrnent agency to Michelin North America alleging a tread separation of P265/70 R17 Michelin I~TX MIS p-metric tires, similar tires and all tires :frorn the same I,1·x tire line docu1nenting similar tires tread, belt, ply or cord sepatation or detachment, whether partial or full.

MN1\ produces consumer claims fot the model of the tire in question manufactured at

Dothan during the relevant scope returned with the allegation of the condition of a tread or belt

separation as MNA-MEDINA-0000151. Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective

order, MN'A will sem·ch for and produce consumer claims for the tires corr1rnon green to the tire

in question rnauufactm·ed at Dothan during the relevant scope with the allegation of the condition

of a tread or belt separation, if any exist.

4526987 16

PRFP00025

'[o the extent this request seeks document~ outside the relevant scope, MNA further

object!il to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdenso1ne, and seeks documents that

arc neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of ad1nissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the

tire, plant, and tin1e period relevant to this action. MNA also objects to this request as beh1g

vague und ambiguous in its use of the tenn 11 similar tires" as that tennis undefined. Further, the

tile is incorrectly identified as a 11P265no R17" tiro. The tire in question is a P25.'l/70R 16.

Identify and produce any and all documents, relating to personal injury claims and/or lawsuits, property damage claims and adjust1nents involving separations, or alleged separations of similar Michelin North America tires that contain nylon cap pules fro1n the date the similal' tire was first manufactu1e to the present or end of production.

After a reasonable and diligent seal'ch, MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request for tire:;; in the relevant scope. No tires in the l'elevant scope were manufactured

with nylon cap plies. MNA objects to this request a!il being vague at1d ambiguous in its use of the

term "nylon cap pules 11 and 11 similar til'es, 1' as those terms are undefined

1'o the extent thiiil request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, M'NA further

objects to this request because it is overly broadi und1Jly burdensome, and seeks docu1nents that

al'c neither Ielevant to the subject rnatler of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this requeat to the

tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action.

Identify and produce any and all documents, relating to the building, tire builder training, testing, and inspection of passenger and light truck tires at the J)othan, Alabama plant where the subject tire was manufactured. Thi11 request includes, but i:s not limited to standard practice binders, tire building manuals, tire builder training manuals, equipment rnanuals, and/or other

4526987 17

PRBP00026

materials and videotapes used to train tire builders, 'l'his reque..'>t al~o includes documents, photographs, and charts used to illustrate defects, or potential defects, in tires and/or problems or potential problems in the tire building process.

MNA objects to this request because plaintiffs have not identified the specific design 01·

manufacturing procc.o,s that produced the defect alleged to be pl'esent in the tire in question.

Aceordingly, this request is nothing mo1·e than an in1pe1missible "fishing cxpedition 1' for

information generally related to eve1y a~pect of .MN A's design and manufacturing process,

whethe1' or not rel::ited to plaintiffs' claims in this case. If plaintiffs will identify the components

and processes at issue in this case, MNA will seal'ch for and produce documents responsive to

this request for those components and processes during the relevant scope, if they exist.

T'o the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA furthe1·

objects to thi8 request because it ls overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that

are neither relevant to the subject 1natter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to. the

discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the

tire and time period relevant to this action.

MNA furthe1· objects to the extent this request seeks 01· attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business information of MNA. Pursuant to Rule

.507 of the 'fexas Rules of Evidence, MNA assert:; trade secret prott-"Ction for .'>ucb inf(>rm::ition.

Identify and produce any audits, reports, examinations, investigations, studies, or reviews, including any work papers, whethel' Cl'eated within or outside Michelin North America, in any inanner i·elated to the retu1n, failul'e, performance, durability, and life expectancy, design, or quality ofthe subject tire and model tires.

4526987 18

PRFP00027

!vlNA produces claims forms for the rnodel of the tire in question 1nanufactured at Dothan

during the relevant scope as MNA-MED!NA-0000011 - MNA-MElJ!NA-0000130, MNA-

MED!NA-0000260 - MNA-MED!NA-0000563, and MNA-MED!NA-0000231. Upon entry of

an appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will search for and produce c!airn fo1111s fo1·

the tires common green to the tire in question manufactured at Dothan during the relevant scope.

Also upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will produce a list of

adjustment codes. To the extent plaintiffs identify codes relevant to the condition of the tire in

question and plaintiffs' clai1ns in this matter, MNA will produce documents reflecting the

number of tires in the relevant scope returned with those conditions, if any.

MNA oqjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome,

and seek<; inforn1atiOn that is neither relevant to the subject n1atter of this case nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. MNA further objects to this request

to the extent it seeks infor1nation protected by the atto1ney~client and/or attorney work product

privileges. Finally, MNA objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek infonnation

that constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business information of MNA. Pursuant to

R:ule 507 of the 'fexas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such

inforrnation.

All training documents made available, at the thne the subject tire was built, to persons who construct, manufacture or assemble tires or operate tire~building equipment at tl1e plaint[SIC] where the subject tire Wa8 built.

MNA objects to this request because plaintiffs have not identified the specific design or

manufacturing process that produced the defect alleged to be present in the tire in question.

4526987 19

PRFP00028

Accordingly, this request is nothing more than an impermissible Hfishing expedition" for

info1mation generally related to every aspect of MNA's design and manufacturing process,

whether or not related to plaintiffs' c!airns in tbis case. If plaintiffs will identify the cornponents

and processes at issue in this case, MNA will search for and produce docu1nents responsive to

this request for those components and processes during the relevant scope, if they exist.

'fo the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA furthct

objects to this request because it is overly bi:oad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that

are neither relevant to the su~ject rnatter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the

tire relevant to this action.

MNA fu1ther objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business infonnation of MNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such infonnation,

Rll_Q]}J;\ST FQR Pl1,9DU(:JION NO. 22:

All training progrrun materials or other documents provided to Michelin North America1s employees building P265/70 Rl7 Michelin LT'X MIS µ-metric tires, similar tires and all tires from the same T,1··x tire line,

MNA oqjects to this xequest because plaintiffs have not identified the specific design or

rnanufacturing pro<.less that produced the defect alleged to be present in the tire in question.

11

Accol'dingly, this request is nothing more than an impermissible fillhing expedition" for

information generally related to every aspect of MNA's design and manufacturing process,

whether or not related to plaint:i_ffs 1 claims in this case. If plaintiffs will identify the components

and processes at i.<;sue in this case, M'NA will search for and produce documents responsive to

this request for those co1nponents and processes during the relevant scope, if they exist.

4526987 20

PRFP00029

MNA objects to this request as being vague and ambiguous in its use of the te1m "similar

tiresoi as that term is undefined. 1'o the extent this request seeks docu1nents outside the relevant

scope, MNA further objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and

seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably

ealculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the

scope of this request to the tire and time period relevant to this action. The tire is inco11·ectly

identified as a "P265/70 Rl 7" tire. The tire in question is a P255/70R16.

MNA further object."i to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes co1nmercially sensitive, confidential business infotmation of:rvrNA Pursuant to Itlde

507 of the Texas Ilules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such inforrnation.

All inspection 1nethodology materials or other docu1nents uscs[SIC] or followed to determine any trapped air/steam blisters in finished tires.

MNA objects to this request because plaintiffs have not identified the specific design or

manufact1n·ing process that produced the defect alleged to be present in the tire in questiOn.

Accordingly, this request is nothing more than an impermissible "fishing expedition 11 for

infonnation generally related to every a'3pect of MNA1s design and manufacturing process,

whether or not related to plaintiffs1 claims in this case. If plaintif-f's identify the components and

processes at issue in this case, upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective order,

MNA will search for and produce documents responsive to this request for the components and

processes identified at the time the tire in question was manufactured at the Dothan, Alabama

plant

4526987 21

PRFP00030

To the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA further

objects to this request becau!!>c it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that

are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the

tire, plant, and tiine pt-'l'iod relevant to this action.

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes comn1ercially sensitive, confidential business infOrmation of MNA. l~rsuant to _Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA a<>.<>crts trade secret pt'otection for such information.

Any and aU document<J relating to testing of steel be!ted radial passenger and light truck tires manufactured with same belt skim stock code as the sul!ject tire at the Dothan, Alabarna plant where the subject tire was manufacture. 'fhis reque;;t includes documents relating to peel tests, pull tests, pei·fonnance tests, and endurance test<; whether conducted on a test wheel or a test track.

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request for tires in the relevant scope, Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality

protective order, MNA will pl'oduce its record retention policy in place at the time this lawsuit

was served upon MNA.

To the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, Iv!NA further

objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that

are neither relevant to the subject mattel' of this case nor reasonably calculated to leud to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the

tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action, Tires are not necessarily substantially similar

to each other because they share a common component, such as belt skim stock. See ;J3m·c@!!§. .Y-'

4526987 22

PRFP0003!

Ti,~., Nb. Ltd, 2006 WL 64491, *1 (C.D. 1ll. 2006).

lVINA further o~jects to the extent this request seeks or alte1npts to seek infonnation that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business information of MNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 ()fthe 'J'exas l~ulcs of Evidence, MNA asse1is trade secret protection for such information.

REQUEST FOR PRQDUC1JON NO ..~~

Any and all documents relating to under-inflation testing that led to tread separation.

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request for tires in tl1e relevant scope. To the extent this request seeks documents outside

the relevant scope, MNA object'l to this retiuest because it is ove1·ly broad, undi.ily burdensome,

and seeks docurnents that arc neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible e'vidcnce. PJainti:ff.'l have failed to limit the

scope of this request to the tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action. MNA further

object8 to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek inforrnation that constitutes

commercially sensitive, confidential business info1mation of MNA. Pursuant to Rule 507 of the

Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asse1is trade secret protection for such inforrnation.

MNA further objects to this request on the ground8 that it is a premature request for

expert testimony. MNA states that it will provide discovery of its experts and expert testhnony

in accordance with the Texas rules and the scheduling order for this case. 1vfNA further reserves

the right to rely on information generated or produced by Plaintiffs or their expc1is in discovery.

Any and all docu1nents relating to rim groove analysis in which the rim groove profile was generated by undcr~inflation and led to tread belt separations.

4526987 23

PRFP00032

After a reasonable and diligent .<;earch, MNA has not located uny docu1nents responsive

to this request for tires in the relevant scope. To the extent this request seeks documents outside

the relevunt scope, MNA objects to thi:'> request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome,

and seeks docurnents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of adrnissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to lin1it the

scope of this request to the tire, plant, and ti1ne period relevant to this action. MNA further

o"t!jccts to the extent thi.'l rt'que.<>t seek<> or atternpts to seek information that' constitutes

cornrnercially sensitive, confidential b1.1siness information of MNA. Pursuant to Rule 507 of the

'fexas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information.

MNA further objects to this request on the ground.o, that it ls a prernature request for

expert testimony. MNA states that it will provide discovery of its expt"l't8 and expert testimony

in accordance with the Texas rules and the scheduling order for this t:ase. MNA further reserves

the right to rely on inforrnation generated or produced by Plaintiffs or theil' expe11s in discovery,

All l)epartn1ent of Transportation (D01') testing related to al! "Michelin Ll''X" tires manufactured at the Dothan Alaba1na plant.

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request for tires in the relevant scope. To the extent this request seeks documents outside

the relevant scope, MNA fu1'ther objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly

burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovel'y of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to

limit the scope of this request to the tire and time period relevant to this action.

4526987 24

PRFP00033

The cu1ing conditions at the Dothan Plant that were used for the curing of the subject tire and any llub,<icquent changes to those curing C?n<litions.

Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective order, rvrNA wil! produce

docruncnts responsive to this request, if any exist, To the extent this request seeks documents

outside the relevant scope, 1'1NA further objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly

burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's have failed to

lirnit the scope of this request to the time period relevant to this action.

MNA further objeG'ts to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek inforrnation that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business inf()rmation ofMNA. Pursuant to Itule

.507 of the 1'exas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information.

Any and all documents, relating to the use or potential use of nylon overlays, or belt edge strips, or belt edge wraps belt edge gum strips in passenger or light truck til·cs and the application of the nylon overlays, belt edge strips or belt edge wraps during the tire building proGe<>'S. Also, please produce copies of any documents, including patent and miicles in possession of Michelin North America discussing the use or potential use of nylon overlays, or belt edge strips and/or belt edge wraps in passenger or light t1uck tires manufactured and/or designed by Michelin North America. This request specifically includes patents discussing the use of nylon overlays or belt edge strips or belt edge vvraps. This request also includes brochures, charts and/or illusU·ations of Michelin No11h America tires with nylon overlays, including but not limited to illustrations supplied to Michelin North AmG-'lica dealers or sDrvice Genters.

MNA objects to this request as being vague and a1nbiguous in its use of the te11n 11 belt

edge wraps belt edge 1:,rum strips" and 11 belt edge st:dps 11 as those terms are not terms used by

MNA and are undefined. MNA further objects to this request because it is overly broad and

seeks doctunent;; that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably

4526987 25

PRFP00034

calculated to lead to the discovery of a<lmis::1ible evidence. No tires in the relevant scope were

manufactured with nylon cap plies. Plaintiffs have failed to lbnit the scope of this request to the

til'e, plant, and time period l'elevant to this action.

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information thal

constitutes cornmcrcially sensitive, confidential business infonnation of MNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules off~vldence, :MNA asserts trade ,.,,ecret protection for suvh information.

Identify and produce all documents that discuss Michelin's document retention policy fron1 the tin1e it manufactured the subject tire to the present.

Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective order, 11NA will produce its

record retention policy in place at the tirne this lawsuit was served upon MNA. MNA objects to

this request to the extent it seeks info1111ation protected by the attorney-client and/or attorney

work product privileges. :MNA further objects to this request be.cause it is overly broad and

seeks docmnents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of ad1nissible evidence. Plaintiffs have ·fuiled to limit the

scope of this request to the tin1e period relevant to this action.

The written warranty in effect for the subject tire.

REgPONl!!t MNA produces MNA-MED!NA-0001270 - MNA-MEDINA-0001285.

\IBQQEST FQR PRODl)J;:TIONN0.)2:

Any and all documents that discuss Michelin's recotnmcndations regarding tire aging jncluding Michelin's testing to suppo1i those recomrncndations including any and all technical bulletins.

4526987 26

PRFP00035

:MNA objects to this request as being vague and ambiguous ln its use of the tenn 11-Ure

aging 11 as that term is undefined. MNA produces its 1'echnical Bulletin regarding the Service

f,ife for Passenger and f,ight 'fruck 'fires as :MNA-MEDINA-0001269. Fu1iher, MNA produces

its fitment guide and limited. wan·einty n1anual as MEDINA-0000564- MNA-MEDINA-0001192

and MNA-MEDINA-0001270 - MNA-MEDINA-0001285, both of which contain MNA's

1<ccommendation concerning service life of tires. Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality

protective order, MNA will produce additional docun1ents in its possession related to service life.

MNA objects to the extent this request seeks or atte1npts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business information of ilANA, Pursuant to R.ulc

507 of the 1'exas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade ,<;ecrct protection for such information.

Produce a complete copy of any communications or correspondence between Michelin and any auto manufacturer and/or l\'HTSA concerning tire use limits or limit date of utilization for any and all passenger and light truck til'es including the subject tire model.

MNA produces its Technical Bulletin regarding the Service Life for Pa."lsenger and Light

Truck Tires as MNA-MI~DINA-0001269.

Please prod11ce true, complete and accurate copies of any and all cut analysis (sectional)

repo1is on the sul!ject tire fi·orr1 production release to time of subject tire's manufactured date or architecture repertoire.

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has no1 located any documents responsive

to this request for tires in the relevant scope. To the extent this request seeks docu1nents outside

the relevant scope, MNA further objects to this request because it is overly broad, tmduly

4526987 27

PRFP00043

burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subjei:,,i 1natti:,,"1' of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to

limit the scope of this request to the time period relevant to this action.

MNA fu1iher objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially :o,ensitive, confidential business information of MNA, Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules ofl~videncc, :NINA asserts trade l;ecret protection for such information.

Please produce all cured, finished gauges for the manufacture of the subject tire.

Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will produce the

specifications it has for tires in the relevant scope.

Please produce true, compk:te and accurate copies of the plant's process contl'ol chart or documentation at the time of the manufacture of the subject tire.

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request in the relevant scope. Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective

order, M'NA wHl produce its record retention policy in place at the ti1ne this lawf'.luit was served

upon MNA. M'NA objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts 10 seek inforn1ation that

constitutes ccnn1nercially sensitive, confidential business information ofMNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the ·rexas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection fo1· such information.

Please produce true, complete and accurate copies of the quantitative listing of the ingredients of the subject tire's inner liner in use at the time of the manufacture of the subject tire.

4526987 28

PRFP00044

MNA object.o, to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business info1mation of MNA. Pursuant to R:ule

507 o.fthe Texas .Rules of.Evidence, MNA assc1is trade secret pl'otection for such infonnatio11.

MNA specifically objects to this request because it seeks production of MNA1s rubber

compound formulas. Rubber compound formulas are trade secrets that are closely guarded and

protected by MNA. 1''he information is of significant value to and is not known to MNA 1s

competitors. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any need to discover these valuable trade secrets

ofMNA

!\EOUEST FOR PI\ODlJQTION N(). 38:

Please produce ttue, co1nplete and accurate copies of any and all DFMEA or PFMEA documentation of the subject tire and any other tires incorporating its exact gi·een tire construction.

After a rea.".lonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents respon."iive

to this request for tires in the relevant scope. Upon entry o:f an appropriate confidentiality

protective order, MNA will produce its record retention policy in place at the time this lawsuit

was served upon MNA.

MNA objects to this request because plaintiffs have not identified the specific design ol'

manufacturing process that produced the defect alleged to be present in the tire in question.

A.ccordingly, this request is nothing 1nore than an impermissible Hfishing expedition 11 for

inforrr1ation generally related to every aspect of MNA's design and manufactul'ing process,

whethel' or not related to plaintiffs' clahns ln this ca.<:1e. Plaintiffs have failed to identify the

components and processes at issue in this case.

4526987 29

PRFP00045

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks ot attempt.~ to seek informaiion that

constitutes commercially sensitive> confidential business inforination ofMNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the 'fexas Rule.<J of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection fol' such information.

Please produce the design and production tolerances for the subject tire in effect at the time of its manufacture.

After a :rea.o,onable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request fo1· the relevant scope. Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective

order, MNA will produce its record retention policy in place at the time this lawsuit was served

upon :MNA MNA objects to this request because plaintiffs have not identified the specific

design or manufacturing proces.".l that produced the defect alleged to be present in the tire in

question, Accol'dingly, this regue.".lt is nothing mo1·e than an impermissible "fishing expedition"

fol' inf'o'nnation generally related to evel'y aspect of MNA1s design and manufactul'ing process,

whether or not related to plaintiffs1 claims in this case, Plaintiffs have failed to identify the

components and processes at isst1e in this case.

MNA objects to the extent this request seek."> or attempts to seek inform1:1tio11 that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business information of MNA. Pursuant to Rule

:507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection fo1· such information.

Please produce true, complete and accurate copies of any and all specific regulatory cornpliance test tC,'\ults fo:r the subject tire and all associated brand and line name tires sharing ihe same green tire construction as the subject tire from production release to present, including but not limited to endurance tests, high speed endurance tests, plunger ent."fgy tests, bead lll1Seat tests all for FM'VSS requirernents.

4526987 30

PRFP00046

RJlSPONSE:

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any docu1ncnts responsive

to this request for the relevant scope. Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protce-tive

order, MNA will produce its record retention policy in place at the tirne this !uwsiiit was served

upon:MNA.

1'o the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA further

objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks docurnents that

are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the

time period relevant to this action.

MNA objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sen."litive) confidential business inforrnation ofMNA. Pllrsuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information.

REQUEST FORJ'RODUCTION JjO. 41~

Please produce the adjustment and clairn data for the subject tire and all associated brand and line name tires sharing the same green tire construction after each change to design occurring after the manufacture date of the subject tire.

MNA produces claim fo11ns for the model of the tire in question rnanufactured at Dothan

during the relevant scope as MNA-MDDINA-0000011 - MNA-MEDINA-0000130, MNA-

MEDINA-0000260 - MNA-MEDINA-0000563, and MNA-MEDINA-0000231. Upon entry of

an appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will search for and produce clai1n forms for

the tires co1nmon green to the tire in question manufactured at Dotha11 during the relevant scope.

Also upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will produce a list of

adjustinent codes. To the extent plaintiffs identify codes relevant to the condition of the tire in

4526987 31

PRl'P00036

question and plaintiffs1 claims in this rnatter, MNA will produce documents ref1ecting the

number of tires in the relevant scope· rettn11ed with those conditions, if any. 'fo the extent this

request seeks documents concerning codes that are not relevant to the condition of the tire in

question and plaintiftS1 claims in this matter, or seeks in±Ormation concerning tires outside the

relevant scope, MNA objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and

seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the

scope of this request to the tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action, 'fires are not

necessarily substantially similar to each other because they share a common component, such us

belt skim stock or belt edge cushion, See !2.§rcen{ls v, Fo;@Moto;i;,,_Co., 2004 WL 2827249 (N,D,

Cal. Dec. 9, 2004); McCloud_y, G·oQ<lyear P.llJ1lQ12.J~ires NA. Ltd.,., 2006 WL 64491, *l (C,D, Ill.

2006),

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business information of MNA, Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asse1is trade secret protection for such information,

REQUJl.~T FOR PRODUCTION NQc.'\2i

Please produce true, complete, and accurate copies of all the aspect specifications including Indexes and Table of Contents,

MNA objects to this request because plaintlftS have not identified the specific design or

manufactruing process that produced the defect alleged to be present in the tire in question,

Accordingly, this request is nothing more than an impermissible 11fi;;hing expedition 11 fur

infor1nation generally related to every a<ipect of MNA's design and manufacturing process,

whether or not related to plaintiffs' claims in this case. If plaintiffs identify the components and

4526987 32

PRFP00037

processes ai issue in this case, upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality proiective order,

MNA will search for and produce docmnents 1·esponsive to this request for the corr1ponents and

processes identified at the time the tire in question was 1nanufactured at the Dothan, Alabama

plant.

To the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA further

objects to this request because it is ove1·ly bl'oad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that

are neither relevant to the subject tnatter of this case nor rea~onably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the

tire, plar1t, and time period relevant to this action.

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek inforn1ation that

con::i.titute.~ uommercially sensitive, confidential business infbnnation ofMNA. Pur&uant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asse1is trade secret protection for such information.

)lliQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43. ~

Plea<:e produce an index of any and all technical bulletins.

!<ESp()NS!l;

After a reasonable and diligent se~nch, MNA has not located any document.~ responsive

to this request. MNA object<; to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and

seeks docun1en:ts that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor 1·easonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. MNA fmther objects to this request

because plaintiffs have not identified the specific design or manufactt1ring process that produced

the defect alleged to be present in the tire in question. Accordingly, this request is nothing more

than an impermissible 0 fishing expedition" for information generally related to every aspect of

MNA1s design and manufacturing proce3s, whe·ther or not related to plaintiffs 1 claims in this case.

Plaintiffs have failed to identify the components and processes at isl'>ue in this case,

4526987 33

l'RFP00038

Please produce a t1ue, complete and accurate copy of all discovery produced by Michelin in Velo, et. Al. v. Michelin, et al., filed in lvfaricopa County Superior Court, CV2012"·007346.

MNA objects to this request because .it is overly broad and seeks documents that are

neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor :reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Velo, et. al. v. MNA involved a different tire from the tire in

question in this case. Plaintiffs have failed to lhnit the scope of this request to the tire relevant to

this action. MNA objects to the extent this request seeks or atten1pts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sens"itive, confidential businest:i information of MNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information.

REOU8STFORP]1QDUCTIONNO. 45:

Please provide tlue, complete and accurate copies of any and all depositions with exhibits givml by Michelin employees Randall Clark, Michael Wiscchusen, Michael Riley, Paul Northrop and Tom Gruenholz.

After a rea<;onable and diligent search, MNA haH not located any documents responsive

to this request fol' tires in the relevant scope. MNA objects to this request because it is overly

broad and seeks documents that are neither relevant to the suQiect matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to

limit the scope of this request to the tire, plant, and tirne period relevant to this action. MNA

objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that constitutes

commercially sensitive, confidential business info1mation of MNA. Pursuant to Rule 507 of the

Texas Rule.<; of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information.

4526987 34

PRFP00039

Please provide true) complete and acci.1rate quality control/work procedures including but not limited to: 1NC and 1NC3R-A work proce<lul'es/instructions.

After a reasonable and diligent ,..,earch, MNA has not located any 1NC and 1NC3R-A

Wol'k procedures/instructions for the relevant scope,

To the extent this request seeks additional docu1nents, MNA objects to this request

because plaintiffs have not identified the .'5pecific design or manufacturing process that produced

the defect alleged to be p1·esent in the tire i.n question. Accordingly, this request is nothing more

than an hnpermi:;sible 11fishing expedition 11 for info1·mation generally related to every aspect of

MNA's design and rnanufacturh1g proces~, whether or not related to plaintiffs' clairns in this case.

If plaintiff.<.> identify the components and processes at issue in this case, upon entry of an

appl'opriate eonfidcntiality protective order, MNA will seal'ch for and produce documents

responsive to this request for the components and processes identified at the tirr1e the tire in

question was manufactured at the l)othan, Alabama plant.

To the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA fiui:her

objects to this request because it is overly btoad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that

&t'e neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to lhe

discovery of admissible evidt..nce. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this reque11t to the

tire, plant, and ti1ne pel'iod relevant to this action.

M'NA further oQjects to the extent this reque3t seeks or attempts to seek infol'mation that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential bu<iiness information ofMNA. Pun;uant to Rule

507 of the 'fexas Rules of Evidence, MNA asse1ts trade secret protection for 3uch infol'mation.

4526987 35

PRFP00040

Please provide true, complete and accurate copies of Michelin Technical Notes.

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request for tires in the relevant scope. MNA objects to this request as being vague and

ambiguous in it8 use of the term !!Michelin 1'echnical Notes 0 as that tenn is undefined. ·ro ·the

extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant sc()pe, M'NA further obj.ects to this

request because it is overly broad, unduly burdenso1ne, and seeks documents that are neither

relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

adrn.issible evidence. Plaintiff\:; have fhiled to limit the scope of this request to the tire, plant, and

time period relevant to this action.

MNA .further oQiects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

C()nstitutes commercially sensitive, conJidential business information ofMNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such infonnation.

Please provide true, complete and accurate copies of Michelin's Print Adve1iising conce111ing the subject tire.

MNA produces MNA-MED!NA-0000152 - MNA-MEDINA-0000230. MNA objects to

this request as being vague and mnbigi1ous in its u11e of the term nPrint Advertising" as that term

is not de'fined.

Please provide true, complete and accurate copies of Michelin's O'W11ers Manual and 1'ire Fitrnent Guide.

4526987 36

PRFP00041

MNA produces MNA-MEDINA-0001270 - MNA-MED!NA-0001285 and MNA-

MEDINA-0000564 - MNA-MEI)INA-0001192 fol' the relevant scope,

Please provide a true) con1plete and accurate copy of Michelin's Power Point Presentation 1nadc to NH'fSA on November 1, 2006,

MNA prnduccs MNA-MEDINA-0001221 - MNA-MEDINA-0001268.

4526987 37

PRFP00042

EXHIBITC

Pat Mi liorini

From: David Shapiro Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 4:56 PM To: Pat Subject: Fwd: Medina v. Michelin

David C. Shapiro, Esq. Luis P. Guerra, L.L.C. 6225 N. 24th Street1 Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85016

0: 602.381.8400 F: 602.381.8403 E: dshapiro@1QQ.!Jgr.r.g. ,i:;om W: V:LYIJW.lpguerra.com

LUIS ~ GUERRA, • f • J •

l

. . I I I - "' I ·1 1. I I. i \ , • i 'y

- ' . • I ! ! ,_ 1

• !

1

. ,- _: i J ! i l -· •. f >.I ,

I3egin forwaI<lcd message:

From: David Shapiro <dshapiro@lpguerra.com> Subject: Re: Medina v. Michelin Date: May 28, 2015 at 8134112 AM MST To; Giles Schanen <giles.schanen@nelsonmullins.com> Cc: Chris Blackerby <cblackerby@germer-austin.com>

We added two paragraphs at the very end. Thx.

David C. Shapiro, Esq. Luis P. Guerra, L.l...C. 9225 N. 24th Str~et Suite 125 Phoenix Arizona 85016

O: 602.381.8400 F: 602.381.8403 E: dshaplr.g_@lpguerra.com W: www.lpguerra.9grn

Sent from my iPhone On May 28, 2015, at 4:21 AM, Giles Schanen <giles.s9hanen@nelsonmu!li.r:rn.c.com> wrote:

David,

Thank you for sending this draft. Would you mind identifying the changes you have made to the Velo protective order? This version is not red lined and so ! would appreciate if you could please list any changes/additions so that we do not have to make a tine by line comparison, which will take time.

Your email is correct that MNA anticipates being able to make its supplemental production within 10-14 days of the protective order being entered.

Also, after we spoke yesterday I went back through the discovery requests/responses. For several requests, particularly those seeking manufacturing/inspection related documents, Michelin has asked you to identify your defect theories and the tire components/manufacturing processes at issue so that Michelin can identify and produce relevant documents. In order for Michelin to locate the appropriate responsive documents and produce them within the time frame, discussed above, we need you to provide this information as soon as possible. If you have any quest.io~;;: or would like to discuss further, please let me know.

Thanks, Giles

<image001. gif> Giles M. Schanen, Jr. Partner giles,?Sbanen@n~,lsonmullins,5,'.Q!I!

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP Poinsett Plaza, Suite 900 104 South Main Street, Greenville, SC 29601 Tel: 864.250.2296 Fax: 864.232.2925 www.nelsonmullins.com (view ~1.Qr----- -

EXHIBITD

Pat Mi liorini

From: Giles Schanen [giles.schanen@nelsonmullins.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 20151:20 PM To: David Shapiro; 'e.pmig!iorini@lpguerra.com'; guerra@lpguerra.com Cc: Chris Blackerby (cblackerby@germer-austin.com); Tom Bullion (tbullion@germer-austin.com) Subject: FW: Medina - Protective Order

David and Luis,

I have been in an offsite meeting all day and just retrieved two voice mails from you in which you state that! have not responded to your communications concerning your proposed protective order. You voice mails are not correct, as I responded in writing concerning your proposed protective order early this morning. Please see below, where I am again forwarding my response. I believe our position on the protective order is very clear-that we cannot agree to your added language, which would render the protective order meaningless and would expose Michelin's trade secrets to public disclosure. If you will agree to remove that language, we will move forward with the agreed protective order and with our supplemental production, which we would anticipate making within 10-14 days of entry of the protective order. !fyou will not agree to remove the language, please let me know as soon as possible so we can move the court for entry of our protective order.

Also, you have not acknowledged my email to David of 5/28/15, in which I noted that for several requests, particularly those seeking manufacturing/inspection related documents, Michelin has asked you to identify your defect theories and the tire components/manufacturing processes at issue so that Michelin can identify and produce relevant documents. !n order for Michelin to locate the appropriate responsive documents and produce them within the time frame discussed above, we need you to provide this information as soon as possible. If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please let me know.

Thanks, and I hope you both have a great weekend.

-Giles

Nelson Mullins Giles M. Schanen, Jr. Partner gi les. s~hanen@nelsO.IJ.[IJ,1,1,l lins. corn Nelson Mullins Riley B: Scarborough LLP Poinsett Plaza, Suite 900 104 South Main Street, Greenville, SC 29601 Tel: 864.250.2296 Fax: 864.232.2925 www .nelsonmullins.com (View.,JJ:i2) ............

From: Giles Schanen Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 6:19 AM To: 'David Shapiro'

EXHIBITE

Pat Mi liorini From: David Shapiro Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 9:42 AM To: Pat Subject: Fwd: Medina v. Michelin

David C. Shapiro, Jtsq. I,uis P. Guerra, L.I,.C . .9225 N. 24th.ii(reet, Suite 125 Phoenix. -6.rizoIJJl 85016

0: 602.381.8400 F: §02..181.8403 E: dshapiro(dJJpglJ_erra.con1 \V: W\\'\V.l.QfilLGITa.co1n

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Giles Schanen <giles.schanen(a1nel§Q.11n1ullins.co~11> Date' lune 4, 2015 at 2:51 :01 PM MST To: "~shapiro (ii) IPfilJerr a. c0111" <_Q;;;l1si.D:i ro 1il' l pguerr a,f_on1> Subject: RI~: Medina v. Michelin

David, I got your email and am basing the production off what you identified in the cornplaint and response to disclosures. We are working on the production and still anticipate making it within 10-14 days of entry of the protective order as originally estimated.

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodes~.com)

-----Original Message----- From: David Shapiro [dshapiro@J.Rguerra.com] Received: Thursday, 04 Jun 2015, 5:48PM To: Giles Schanen [giles.schqnen@nelsonmulUns.com] Subject: Medina v. Michelin

Giles:

We never heard baclc frotn you. When can we expect to receive the docutnents?

David C. Shapiro, Esq. l.,uis l>. Guerra, l,,f,.C. 6225 N. 24th Street,""Suire 125 p_@s;nix. Arizona 85QJ6

EXHIBITF _.,.,,!

LA\¥ OFF!CI:S

LUIS P. GUERll~A, L.L.C.

6225 North 7.4ti. Stnwt, Suite 125 PHOENIX, ARI~()]llA 85016

LUIS P. GUF,RRA* DA YID C. SHAPIRO Telephotic (602) 381-8400 Telccop\c1· (602) 381-8403 WWW.LFGUERRA.COM

August 4, 2015

Via E-mail and lJJL. Mail Chris Blackerby Ger1ner Bea1nan & Brown PLLC 301 Congress Ave, Ste. 1700 Austin, TX 73701

Re: Medina v. Michelin, ~t al

Dear Chris:

We are very disappointed by your letter 1 • It is inisleading and inaccurate. The burden is on MicheliI1 when it Vlithholds ru1d conceals its ow11 documentation and evidence. Si11ce all of the docum·~nts requested are Michelin is docIDnents, Michelin knows exactly which documents ii withheld and did not produce. Plaintiffs have been waiting for more than lhree (3) mcnths for this docurneutation with false promises and assuran.ces.

Notably, to assure that th;:se sher1an.igans did not occur, wl1ile wa1t1ng for Michelin's disclosure over t11e last 8everal ~11ontl1s·, Plaintiffs' com1sel took. the initiative and· repeatedly reached out to- J'vfichelin 's defense coun.<;el and perfo1med 1nany rneets and. confers about the 011tstandin.g discovery, All to no avail. Michelin's production at the e11d of June wa:; grossly defective and deficient-·- eve11 after these r1u1nerous 1neets and confers.

After Plaintiffs finally. rec('ived the dcficier1t Michelin prodt1ctior1, we vvrote a letter documenting Michelin's totd lack of production on July 16, 2015-20 days ago. Still, up to today, 011 August 4, :~Ol5i no 011e frorn Micl1elin or Michelin:s cou113el contacted m about it. In fact, Michelin sat on this letter for about lhree (3) weeks and did absolutely nothing. Not once did Michelin through its multiple defense counsel reach <)ut to us by letter, pho11e call, perso11ally or e-1nail. Moreover, I saw you for a full day last week during the depositions om clients including the quadriplegic mom Obdulia Medina, and not once did you ~;tate that Michelin had proble1ns understanding

' Jn the future, please direct all correspondence to us by e-mail.

August 4, 2015 Page 2

our leiter cortce1ning its reprehensit le lack of clisclosure.

Consequently, your letter of today· is nothiI1g but a self-serving letter only sent after! called you today about Michelin's lack of production. Still, Micbelin had no farther production to offer. Therefore, the meet and confer already took place not only today but throughout the wait for the outstanding discovery. As such, Plaintiffs much more than met and complied with the letter, spirit and intent of Rule 191.2 of Tex. R. Civ. Proc.

Still, in s.pite ofMic.helin's steadfast refusal to produce the doct11ne11ts and eve11 after receiving your letter, we attentpted ·yet arlother rneet arid con.fer just minutes ago when Luis 1.eJt you a voic.ernail. Still, in_ a final effort before we file our Motior1) we would be willh1g to 1neet and confer with Michelin this afternoon at a ti1ne conve11ier11.

Micheli11's actions are even more egregious because at the sa1ne ti111e .'Michelir1 hides and c011ceals releva11t docu1r_ents, I)laintiff.'l have made the tire available, 11ave offered the1nselves for depositioru (which have take11 place) and made the vel1icle available for an unfettered ir1spectic11 for-Michelin's experts.

Enough is enough. Obduli1's life - as you saw last week - is a day-to-day struggle to survive without any resemblance to the life she led before the tire failure. There is no time to waste. We arc hot on Michelin's schedule. The lives of this family are at stake. It is ti1ne to act. Words l1ave proved lL<>eless. So, unless we l1ear fro1n you today about tlte 1neet and con.fer, we are ready and willing to file the necessary 1notion infOrrning the Court of.'Michelin's ·;iolation of the discovery rules and defiant conduct i11 this case and others.

To tr1ake sure that you. have received this letter, we have e-1nailed it to you and have contacteti your office infonnir ,g t11e1n of it.

Very truly yours,

LUIS P. GJJJ;RRA,1=.L.C. . ·~.---~~=:::=> \j "'· -·· S'-- ---, =-·-·-·---- Lih&P: Guerra David C. Shapiro

LPG/DCS/pm

EXHIBITG

AUSTIN BEAUMONT HOUSTON

~ermer co.111

THOMAS M. BULLION JU

PARTNER

Direct Dial: 512.482.3535 tbulllon@germer.co111

August 13, 2015

VIAFACSlMJ.!Jl

l;uis P, Guerra I>avid C. Shapiro l,uisP. Guerra, I~.L.C. 6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Re: Cause No, DC-14-07255; Samuel Medina, et al. v. Michelin North America, Inc..

and Jose Bustillo d/bla Mundo C~ars; In the 134111 District Court of /)a/la~ County, l'exas.

I)ear Counsel:

I arr1 writing this k~lter to rc'lpond to your letters dated August 2, 31 4 and 5 in which you allege that M'ichelin North America, lnc, C'MNA") has refused to produce documents in this case. :M.NA responded to plaintiffs' request for production, lodged objections, and produced documents subject to those o~jections, As we have made clear several times, we will be glad to con±br with you about each of MNA,s discovery responses and the scope of discovery. Please let us know if you arc willing to co1tl'er as required by the 'fexas Rules of Civil Procedure. If you file a motion to compel without doing so, \Ve will inform the Court that you have refused to engage in a .meaningful discovery conference.

1'hc request in your August 2 letter for infonnation on MNA 1 s contentions about why the tire in question failed caUs for the opinions of MN'A' s testifying experts and is premature. MNA will timely disclose the opinions of its testifying experts and provide the1n for deposition in accordance with tho scheduling order entered in this case. 1 Furthel' the Texas Rules do not provide for discovery by con·espondence. Yom· staten1ent that your letters or ours amount to admissible evidence is contrary to both the 1··exas Rules of Civil Procedure and the 1'exas Rules of Evidence.

With respect 1o your lett~1· dated August 3, MNA will produce corporate repl'esentative witnesses ±Or deposition pursuant to the 'Tex.is Rules. Let me la1ow when you would like to 1 To the extent you are equ<1ti11g your request for such c:ontent!ons to MNA's request that you identlfy the coinpouents and proc:essei; <'It issue in this case, t11e two are not comparable. I\1NA \Vas trying to work with you to respond to plaintiffs' discovery requ1ists while at the same time protecting its trade secrets. ldentifying generally the cornponents and processes (such tis lhe steel belts) in no way reveals ymlr expert opinions 11nd serves to help define the scope of discovery.

GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN PLLC 301 CONGRESS AVE, SUITE 1700 AUSTIN, TX 78701 PHONE: 512.472.0288 • FAX: 512.472.0721 4535400

August 13, 2015 Page2

discuss dates and topics. In Texas, it is standard pmctice to provide a list of proposed topics so the parties ca11 address and hopefully resolve any issues before the depositions,

Finally, in response to the statements in your August 4 and 5 letters regarding the Velo case, MNA has of±bred to confer with you on a scope of discovery as was done in Velo. We have i1ot offered to produce the san1c documents as produced in Velo as that case involved a different tire.

We remain willing to have a meaningful conference on any discovery issne and we look forward to hearing from you regarding scheduling such a conference.

j{d;;ltt.~ Thomas M. Bullion lll

cc.: Noel Sevastianos (via facsimile)

EXHIBITH

CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA AND OBDULIA ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MEDINA, HUSBAND AND WIFE, ) INDIVIDUALLY;NATALYEMEDINA, ) INDIVIDUAI,LY; NAV!L GIBSON, ) INDIVIDUALLY, )

)

PLAINTIFFS, )

) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS vs. )

)

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; AND ) JOSE BUSTILLO D/B/A MUNDO CARS, AN) IN STATE DEFENDANT, )

)

DEFENDANTS. ) 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA. INC. 'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONsES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

TO: Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney of record, Luis P, Guerra, David C. Shapiro, Luis P, Guerra, LLC, 6225 N, 24th Street, Suite 125, Phoenix, Arizona 85016.

COMES NOW Michelin North America, Inc. ("MNA"), defendant in the above~sty!ed

and numbered cause, and submits these, its supplemental responses and objections to Plaintiff's

First Set of Reque&'t for Production.

Respectfully submitted, GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, P.L.L.C, 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 472-0288 Telephone (5 I2) 472-0721 Facsimile

By: lllM ~J11~ l,ll Thomas M. Bullion III StateBarNo. 03331005 'fvl..\l(JUI' c:~, Chris A Blackerby State Bar No. 00787091

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

PRFP00047

CERTIFICATE 9F SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been forwarded to all known counsel of record as set forth below on this 16th day of June, 2015.

Luis P. Guerra Via Certified Mall, Return Receipt Requested David C. Shapiro Luis P. Guerra, I,,L,C. 6225 N. 24th Stree~ Suite 125 Phoenix! AZ-8-5016

James B. Ragan Via Regular Mail Law Offices of James B. Ragan 723 Coleman Ave. Corpus Christi, TX 7840 I

Noel Sevastianos Via Regular Mail Sevastianos & Associates, PC 120 S. Central Avenue, Suite 130 St. Louis, Missouri 63105

Jose Bustillo dlb/a Mundo Cars Via Regular Mail 6422 Day Street Dallas, 'I'exas 85227 Pro Se

4530886 2

PRFP00048

!!ITRQDUGTION

The tire at issue in this case is a Michelin LTX M/S P255/70R16 tire bearing DOT

number B7LBEVUX3101 (the "tire in question''). The tire in question was designed by

Michelin Americas Research & Development Corporation ("MARC"), which merged with and

became a division ofMNA on January I, 2008, and manufactured by MNA during the 3 lst week

of2001 at its Dothan, Alabama plant. Unless otherwise indicated, MNA's responses are limited

to infonnation concerning the tire in question and tires built to the specification in place for the

tire in question at the I)othan, Alabama plant during the sixth months before and six months after

the date of manufacture of the tire in question (the "relevant scope').

TRADE SECRETS OBJECTION

:MNA objects to many of the discovery requests because they seek information and/or

documents that are of a confidential, proprietary or commercially sensitive nature to MNA,

exempt from discovery under notions of constitutional privacy and/or that may be covered by or

be the subject of express or implied confidentiality, secrecy or nonpublication agreements or

understandings. To the extent necessal'y, MNA objects to the discovery requests in that they

seek the discovery of trade secret information and documents, including confidential research,

development and technical information. MNA states that information and documents responsive

to some of the discovery requests may have been withheld because these discovery requests seek

privileged information and privileged docun1ents that constitute the trade secrets of MNA,

Disclosure of these b·ade secrets would, result in substantial prejudice and harm to MNA.

'fherefore, MNA contends it is essential to MNA's operations that its work and documents

remain confidential.

Texas law protects the disclosure ofMNA's trade secrets. A trade secret may consist of

any trade formula, pattern, device or compilation of information that is used in one's business

4530886 3

PRFP00049

and gives one an opportunity to obtain an advantage over co1npetitors who do not know or use it.

Computer Assoc. Int 11. Inc. v. Altai. Inc., 918 S,W.2d453, 453 ('fex. 1996) (citing Fiyde CJml,__Y,.

Huffines, 314 S.W.2d 763, 776 (1958)),

MNA's confidential policies, research, development and technical information are

valuable and crucial trade secrets of MNA that give it an advantage over its competitors in a

highly competitive and secretive industry. Moreover, MNA makes reasonable effo11s to

maintain the secrecy of this information, the information is of substantial value to MNA, the

information would be very valuable to MNA's competitors, and the infonnation derives its value

by virtue of the effort of its creation and lack of dissemination. Accordingly :MNA believes such

information constitutes a trade secret and should be protected. from disclosure.

Unless otherwise stated in its responses, MNA is not withholding any privileged

documents/information within the relevant scope. However, to the extent plaintiffs do not agree

with the scope of :MNA's discovery responses, MNA reserves the right to have its objections to

scope ruled upon prior to expanding the scope of its responses and its search Jar responsive

and/or privileged documents/information.

Subject to the foregoing, MNA hereby answers the individual requests as follows:

RESPQNSE TO REQUESTS EQR PRODUCTION

REQUEST FOR PRO!JUCTJON N0.-1;.

Identify and produce the organizational charts showing the functions and reporting structure of Michelin North America1s departments, divisions, or units, whether domestic or foreign, responsible, either directly or indirectly, for: research, design and development; manufacturing and production; quality control of the subject tire and the 1nodel tires.

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any docurnents responsive

to this request relating to the Dothan, Alabama plant during the relevant scope. Upon entry of an

4530886 4

PRFP00050

appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will produce its record retention policy in

place at the time this lawsuit was served upon MNA, MNA objects to this request because it is

overly broad and because it seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this

case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. MNA further

objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek infonnation that constitutes

commercially sensitive, confidential business information ofMNA. Pursuant to Rule 507 of the

'I'exas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information,

SU_pPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:

:tvt:N"A incorporates its objections above in its original response. Subject to the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, MNA produces its record retention policy in

place at the time this la"\Vsuit was served upon MNA as MNA~MEDINAw0001507 - MNA-

MEDINA-0001529.

REQUEST FOR PRQDUCTION NO. 2:

Identify and produce true, complete and accurate Miche!in 1s Decision Tree Manual also known as Michelin's Aspect Specifications,

RESPONSE:

MNA objects to this request because plaintiff.'3 have not identified the specific design or

manufacturing process that produced the defect alleged to be present in the tire in question.

Accordingly, this request is nothing more than an impennissible "fishing expedition 11 for

infonnation generally related to every aspect of MNA's design and manufacturing process,

whether or not related to plaintiffs' claims in this case. If plaintiffs will identify the components

and processes at iss11e in this case, MNA will search for and produce documents responsive to

this request for the components and processes identified during the relevant scope.

4530886 5

PRFP00051

To the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA objects to

this request because it is overly broad and seeks documents that are neither relevant to the

subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this reque.<>t to the plant and time period

relevant to this action.

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek infonnation that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business infonnation of M:NA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of' the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information.

l!UPPLEMEN'(AL RES]'ONSE:

MNA incorporates its original response. Subject to the confidentiality protective order

entered in this case, MNA produces MNA-MEDINA-0001287 - MNA-MEDINA-0001312 and

MNA-MEDINA-0001815 - MNA-MEDINA-0001820 for the relevant scope or the oldest

available for the components arid processes identified by plaintiffs.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:

Please produce true, complete and accurate copie.<> of the General Principals.

RESPONSE:

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request for the relevant scope. lJpon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective

order, MNA will produce its record retention policy in place at the time this lawsuit was served

uponMNA.

To the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA objects to

this request because it is overly broad and seeks documents that are neither relevant to the

subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

4530886 6

PRFP00052

evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the p!ant and tilne period

relevant to this action.

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek infonnation that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business information ofMNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of F,vidence, MNA asse1ts trade secret protection for such information.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response. Subject to the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, MNA produces its record retention policy in

place at the time this lawsuit was served upon MNA as MNA-MEDINAM0001507 - MNA-

MEDINA-0001529.

REOUEST FOR PRO])UCT!ON NO _1;_

Please produce any position paper regarding tire date !imitations produced by any employee or past employee of Michelin North America including but not limited to any and all drafts· and Versions of the paper titled !!J.Jmit Date of Utilization. u

Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will produce

documents responsive to this request. To the extent this request seeks documents outside the

relevant scope, MNA objects to this request because it is overly broad and seeks documents that

are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the

tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action.

MNA fmther objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information tha1

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business infor1nation of MNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the 'fexas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information,

4530886 7

PRFP00053

SUPPLEMENJAL RESPONS]l;

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response, Subject to the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, MNA produces :MNA~MEDINA-0001435 -

MNA-MEDINA-0001441.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:

Please produce a true1 complete and accurate copy of the 2011 Michelin LTX M/S Data Sheet.

RESPONSE:

After a reasonable and diligent search, lvINA has not located any documents responsive

to this request for the relevant scope. To the extent this request seeks documents outside the

relevant scope, MNA objects to this request because it is overly broad and seeks documents that

are neither relevant to tlie subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence, Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the

time period relevant to this action.

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

Please produce a true, complete and accurate copy of the 2001 Michelin Limited Warranty Manual.

RESPONSE:

MNA produces the limited warranty manual as MNA-MEDINA~OOOI270 - MNA~

MEDINA-0001285.

REOUESTFORPRODUCTIONNO. 7:

Please produce true, complete and accurate copy of any and all limited warranty claim forms and consumer claims for Michelin I.,TX MIS tires returned for tread/belt separation,

4530886 8

PRFP00054

RESPONSE:

MNA produces claim fonns and consumer claims for the model of the tire in question

manufactured at Dothan during the relevant scope returned with the allegation of the condition of

a tread or belt separation as MNA-MEDINA-0000001 - MNA-MEDINA-0000010, MNA-

MEDINA-0000151, and MNA-MEDINA- 00 00231 - MNA-MEDINA-0000259. Dpon entiy of_

an appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will search for and produce documents

responsive to this request for tires common green to the tire in questioni if any exist. To the

extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA objects to this 1·equest

because it is overly broad, unduly burdenso1ne, and seeks documents that are neither relevant to

the subject matter of thls case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the tire, plant, and time

period relevant to this action,

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response. Subject to the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, MNA produces MNA~MEDfNA~0001286,

MNA-MEDINA-0001366 - MNA-MEDINA-0001376 and MNA-MEDINA-0001431 - MNA-

MEDINA-0001434 for tires common green to the tire in question for the relevant scope.

REQUEST FOR pRODUCTJON NO,_!!;

Please produce true, complete and accurate copies of Discount Tire claims and code sheet for Michelin LTX MIS tires.

RESPONSE:

MNA produces Discount Tire claim fonns for the model of the tire in question

manufactured at Dothan during the relevant scope as MNA~MEDINA~0000231 and MNA~

MEDINA-0000260 - MNA-MEDINA-0000563. Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality

4530886 9

PRFP00055

protective order, MNA will produce documents responsive to this request for tires common

green to the tire in question, if any exist. "fo the extent this request seeks documents outside the

relevant scope, MNA objectR to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and

seeks docmnents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably

c_aJ_ciilate_cl_Jo le~d __t_q __th~ ~~~-~-overy__(}_f_admissible _e\li_c!_ence. Plaintiff~_ have failed to limit the

scope of this request to the tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action.

SUPPLEMENTAL RE.SPONSE:

MNA incoiporates its objections above in its original response. Subject t() the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, MNA produces MNA-MEDINA~0001286

and MNA-MEDINA-000143l -MNA-1vIEDINA-0001434 for tires common green to the til'e in

question for the relevant scope.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCT10N NO. 9:

Identify and produce copies of the model tire's and similar tires specifications, including belt skim stock, carcass ply, belt edge strip, and belt edge cushion or insert specifications, steel cord specifications, green tire specifications, cured tire specifications, tire building specifications, blueprints, drawings, schematics, diagrams, photographs, x-rays, I-rays, and/or holograms from the date those tires were manufactured to the present or to the end of production. This request includes documents, including but not limited to change orders and product change proposals (including product change proposals that were not adopted) relating to changes in the specifications for the production life of the model til'e and tires that replaced the model tire. This request includes specifications and change documents for the model ti!'e p!'epared prior to the manufacture of the subject tire. This request also includes any tire data book or Tire Fitment Guide covering the subject mode! tire.

RESPONSE:

MNA produces the data book and fitment guide relating to the model of the tire in

question during the relevant scope as MNA-MEDJNA-0000152 - MNA-MBDJNA-0000230 and

MNA-MBDJNA-0000564 - MNA-MEDJNA-0001192. Upon entry of an appropriate

confidentiality order, MNA will search for and produce the specifications, change documents,

4530886 lO

PRFP00056

and mold drawings for tires in the relevant scope. MNA also objects to this request as being

vague and ambiguous in its use of the tenn 11 similar tires 11 as that term is undefined.

'fo the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA objects to

this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither

releyiro_t..,to th~ __sµbject,,,1p_atter o_t_this c_a:>e nor___r_~~sonably calc~1lated to le.ad to the discovt."l'Y of

admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the tire. plant, and

time period relevant to this action.

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business information of MNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such h1formation.

MNA specifically objects to this request to the extent it seeks production of MNA's

rubber compound fotmulas. Rubber compound formulas are trade secrets that are closely

guarded and protected by MNA. The information is of significant value to and is not known to

MNA1s competitors. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any need to discover these valuable trade

secrets ofMNA.

MNA incorporates it<J objections above in its original response. Subject lo the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, MNA produces MNA-MEDINA-0001313 ~

MNA-MEDINA-0001365, MNA-MEDINA-0001469 - MNA-MEDINA-0001506 and MNA-

MEDINA-0001530-MNA-MEDINA-0001814 for tires in the relevant scope.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:

Identify and produce the reaction limit specifications andlor OPL Working Limits and Aging for the subject tire.

4530886 11

PRFP00057

RESPONSE:

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request for the relevant scope. MNA objects to this request because plaintiffs have not

identified the specific design or manufacturing process that produced the defect a!leged to be

p;re_~-~rit1ll__ the t_il;:~_il1 qu~~ti_'?!l:. A_ccord_i~gly, thi_s_ .!::guest i_s __!lo_!hing more than an impermissible

"fishing expedition 11 for information generally related to every aspect of MNA1s design and

manufactm'ing process, whether or not related to p!aintiffs1 claims in this case.

To the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA objects to

this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither

relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to liinit the scope of this request to the tire, plant, and

time period relevant to this action.

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business infotmation ofMNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such intOrmation.

REOUESTFORPRODUCTIONNO. 11:

Identify and produce any and all documents, relating to personal injury claims and/or lawsuits involving separations, or alleged separations of Michelin North America B2001 P265/70 Rl 7 Michelin LTX MIS p-metric tires, similar tire..<; and all tires from the same I,.,1'X tire line from the date those tires were first manufactured to the present or to the end of production. This request also includes incident reports, accident reports, correspondence, and photographs. Also, as to lawsuits, this request includes copies of complaints, discovery re8Ponses of Michelin North America, reports of both plaintiffs' and defendants' experts, and deposition and trial testimony of current and former Michelin Notth America employees and experts. Also please produce a summary of this data.

RESPONSE:

MNA produces MNA-MEDINA-0000131 • MNA-MEDINA-0000150 for the model of

the tire in question manufactured at the Dothan plant dlU'ing the relevant scope. Upon entry of an

4530886 12

PRFP00058

appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will search for and produce any lawsuit

complaints, or documents identifying any personal injury claims, concerning tires common green

to the tire in question during the relevant scope, if any exist. MNA objects to this request as

being vague and ambiguous in its use of the term "B2001" as that te1m is undefined. MNA also

o_bJe_yts_ t() __:t]lis reqtJ_est a_s__}J_eing _yag':fe ~nd ai::ibiguoEs in its use of the term 11 similar tires'1 as that

term is undefined.

'I'o the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, and to the extent it

seeks documents in addition to those which- identify personal injury claims, or lawsuit

co1nplaints, MNA objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and

seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed lo limit the

scope of this request to the tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action, The tire is

incorrectly identified as a "P265/70 R17" tire. The tire in question is a P255/70Rl6.

MNA objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-

client and/or attorney work product privileges. MNA fu1ther objects to the extent this request

seeks or attempts to seek information that constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential

business information of :MNA. Pursuant to Rule 507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA

asserts trade secret protection for such information.

SUPPLE!y!ENIAL RESPONSE:

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response. Subject to the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, MNA produces MNA-MEDINA-0001377 -

MNA-MEDINA-0001430 for tires common green to the tire in question for the relevant scope.

4530886 13

PRFP00059

REQUEST FOR.PROD!)CTION NO. 12:

Identify and produce any and all documents, relating to adjustments of P265/70 RI 7 Michelin LTX MIS pwmetric tires, similar tires and all tires fron1 the same LTX tire line manufactured by Michelin North America with the same belt skim stock code and/or belt edge cushion or insert code as the subject tire, bearing separation related adjustment codes including but not limited to any and all adjustment codes for tread separation, belt edge separation, separation between the belts, separations between the inner belt and outer body ply, separations between he body piles, separations between the cushion and number one or bottom belt, separatiOriif"in the-sidewall or-·bead- ·area; all this·-· information from the date- the-- tires were-first manufucture to the present or end of production. This requer:.i includes, but is not limited to adjustinent forms, adjustment tickets, and summaries, including computer and graphical summaries of adjustment forms or adjustment tickets, manuals relating to the adjustment and inspection of tires and the docwnentatfon necessa1y to interpret adjustment records, including the service condition codes index and/or adjur:.1:rnent records. Also, please produce a summary of this adjustment data stating for each tire, the 1nodel and size, the month and year of manufacture, the date of the adjustment or rejection of the claim and the state where the adjustment claim or form was made or submitted.

RESPONSE:

MNA produces the warranty claim procedure manual for the relevan1 scope as MNA"

MEDINA-0001193 - MNA-MEDINA-0001220 and claim fornis for the model of the tire in

question manufactured at Dothan during the relevant scope with the allegation of the condition of

a tread or belt separation as MNA-MEDINA-0000001 - MNA-MEDINA-0000010 and MNA-

MBDINA-0000231 - MNA-MBDINA-0000259. Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality

protective order, MNA will search for and produce claim forms for the tires common green to

the tire in question manufactured at Dothan du1ing the relevant scope for the condition of a tread

or belt separation, if any exist Also upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective

order, 11NA will produce a list of adjustment codes. 1'o the extent plaintiffs identify codes

relevant to the condition of the tire in question and plaintiffs' c!ahns in this niatter, MNA will

produce documents reflecting the number of tires in the relevant scope returned with those

conditions, if any exist. To the extent this request seeks documents concerning codes that are not

relevant to the condition of the tire in question and plaintiffs' claims in this matter, or seeks

45308S6 14

PRFP00060

infonnation concerning tires outside the relevant scope, MNA objects to this request because it is

overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject

matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the tire, plant, and time period relevant

to this action. The tire is incorrectly identified as a 11 P265/70 Rl 7 11 tire. The tire in question is a

P255/70Rl 6,

MNA also objects to this request as being vague and ambiguous in its use of the tenn 0 similar tires 11 as that tern1 is undefined. Tires are not necessarily substantially similar to each

other because they share a common component, such as belt skim stock or belt edge cushion.

See ;!:3arcenas v. Ford Motor _Co., 2004 WL 2827249 (N,D, Cal. Dec. 9, 2004); McCloud v.

Goodyear Dunlop Tires NA, Ltb 2006 WL 64491, *! (C,D. Ill. 2006).

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business information ofMNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the 1'exas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information,

SUPPLEMENT/l..1JlJlliPONSE:

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response, Subject to the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, MNA produces MNA-MEDINA~0001286,

MNA-MED!NA,.0001366 - MNA-MED!NA-0001376 and MNA-MEDINA-0001431 - MNA-

MEDINA-0001434 for tires common green to the tire in question for the relevant scope,

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. l 3:

Identify and produce any and all documents, co1nputer generated transmissions, such as email, computer printouts, programs, tapes, photographs, and videotapes relating to property damage claims involving separations, or alleged separations, in Michelin North America P265/70 Rl 7 Michelin LTX MIS p-metric tires, similar tires and all tires from the same L'fX tire line manufactured with the same belt skim stock code and/or belt edge cushion or insert code as the subject tire from the date those tires were fitst manufactured to the present or to the end of

4530886 15

PRFP00061

production. This request includes incident reports, accident reports, correspondence, and photographs for every property damage claim arising out of belt separations, belt edge separations, separations between the inner belt and the outer body ply, separations between the body piles, separations between the cushion and the number one, or bottom belt, and separations in the sidewall or bead area.

RESPONSE:

1'v1NA produces MNA-MEDINA-0000151 which contains information responsive to this

request regarding property damage claims for the model of the tire in question manufactured at

Dothan during the relevant scope with the condition of a tread or belt separation. After a

reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive to this request

regarding property damage claims for the tires common green to the tire in question

manufactured at Dothan during the relevant scope w:ith the condition of a tread or belt separation.

Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA w:ill produce jts record

retention policy in place at the time this lawsuit was served upon MNA.

To the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, and to the extent it

seeks documents in addition to those which identify personal injury claims or lawsuit complaints,

MNA objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks

documents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have fuiled to limit the scope of this

request to the tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action. The tire is incorrectly identified

as a 0 P265/70 Rl 71' tire. The tire in question is a P255/70Rl 6.

MNA also objects to this request as being vague and ambiguous in its use of the term

asimilar tires" as that term is undefined. Tires are not necessarily substantially similar to each

other because they share a common component, such as belt skim stock or belt edge cushion.

See Barcenas v. Ford Motor Co., 2004 WL 2827249 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2004); McCloud v.

Goodyear Dunlop Tires NA, Ltd., 2006 WL 64491, *I (C.D, Ill. 2006). MNA objects to this

4530886 16

PRFP00062

request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney"olient and/or attorney work

product privileges.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response. Subject to the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, MNA produces its record retention policy in - -

place at the time this lawsuit was served upon MNA as MNA"MEDINA~0001507 - MNA-

MEDINA-0001529.

REQUEST FQR PRODUCTION NO. 14:

All records of any communication ,between Michelin North America and any insuret, state or federal governmental entity, consumer or safety group or advocates relation to questions, insurance claims, trends, patterns or failure of the subject tire or model tires including but not limited to the subject of tread, ply, belt, and/or cord separation.

RESPON!lli;

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request for tires in the relevant scope, :MNA objects to this request to the extent it seeks

infonnation protected by the attorney~client and/or attorney work product privileges. To the

extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA further objects to this

request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither

relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the tire, plant, and

time period relevant to fuis action.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOJ2;

All documents that contain Michelin North America's internal recommendations, determinations, or guidelines as to the acceptable or unacceptable rate or frequency of loss adjustment or any rate of frequency of loss adjustinent that requires that action be taken or notification be given by or to any internal Michelin North America persons or organizations.

4530886 17

PRFP00063

RESPONSE:

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive to this reque~'t for the relevant scope, To the extent this request seeks documents outside the

relevant scope, MNA objects to this request because it is over!y broad, unduly burden&ume, and seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the

scope of this request to the tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action.

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business information ofMNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information.

RFOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

, Please produce true, complete and accurate copies of the design drawings for the subject tire.

RESPONSE:

Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will produce

documents responsive to this 1·equest, if any.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response. Subject to the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, MNA produces MNA MNA-Mb"DINA~

0001469 - MNA-MBDINA-0001506.

REQUEST FOR PRODUC110NNO. 17;

All non-lawsuit complaints, incident reports or other notices made by any dealership, customer, consumer or government agency to Michelin North America alleging a tread separation of P265/70 Rl 7 Michelin LTX MIS p-metric tires, similar tires and all tires from the same LTX tire line documenting similar tires tread, belt, ply or cord separation or detachment, whether partial or full.

4.530886 18

PRFP00064

RESPONSE:

MNA produces consumer clairns for the model of the tire in question manufactured at

Dothan during the relevant scope returned with the allegation of the condition of a tread or belt

separation as MNA-IvIBDINA-0000151. Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective

qrde_r, Jv1NA ·vvJJJ~ search__ for an~----~~oduce consumer clai~s for the tires common green to the tire

in question manufactured at Dothan during the relevant s<.::ope with the allegation of the condition

of a tread or belt separation, if any exist.

To the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA further

objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that

are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the

tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action. M'NA also objects to this request as being

vague and ambiguous in its use of the term 11 similar tires" as that term is undefined. Further, the

tire is incorrectly identified as a 11 P265/70 Rl 7" tire. 'The tire in question is a P255/70Rl 6.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response. After a reasonable and

diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive to this request for tires common

green to the tire in question manufactured at Dothan during the relevant scope with the allegation

of the condition of a tread or belt separation.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0~18:

Identify and produce any and all documents, relating to personal injury claims and/or lawsuits, property damage claims and adjustments involving separations, or alleged separations of similar Michelin North America tires that contain nylon cap pules from the date the similal' tire was first manufacture to the present or end of production.

4530886 19

PRFP00065

RESPONSE:

After a reasonable and diligent search, .MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request for tires in the relevant scope, No tires in the relevant scope were 1nanufactured

with nylon cap plies, MNA objects to this request as being vague and ambiguous in its use of the

tenn 11 11y.l9:n__c'1.P_Pl!les!l an_~-!l~i_Jnilar_!_ires," a~ t~ose tenns are undefined.

To the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA further

objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that

are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of adtnissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the

tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action.

Identify and produce any and all documents, relating to the building, tire builder training, testing, and inspection of passenger and light truck tires at the Dothan, Alabama plant where the subject tire was manufactured. This request includes, but i& not limited to standard practice binders, tire building manuals, tire builder training manuals, equipment manuals, and/or other materials and videotapes used to train tire builders. This request also includes documents, photographs, and charts used to illustrate defects, or potential defects, in tires and/or problems or potential problems in the tire building process.

MNA objects to this request because plaintiffs have not identified fue specific design or

manufacturing process that produced the defect alleged to be present in the tire in question.

Accordingly, this request is nothing more than an impermissible 11 fishing expedition 11 for

infonnation generally related to every aspect of MNA1s design and manufacturing process,

whether or not related to plaintiffs' claims in this case. If plaintiffs will identify the components

and processes at issue in this case, MNA will search fo1· and produce documents responsive to

this request for those components and processes during the relevant scope, if they exist.

4530886 20

PRFP00066

'fo the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA further

objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks docurnents that

are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the

tirQ_ a_nd tim~ Q_erioQ___rel~v_;:u:it_ to tp_i~_~c_tio~~ ...

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek infonnation that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business infonnation of:MNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA a.<iserts trade secret protection for such infonnation.

SUPPLEMENT AL RESPONSE:

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response. Subject to the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, MNA produces MNA-MEDINA-0001287 -

MNA-MEDINA-0001312 and MNA-MEDINA-0001815 - MNA-MEDINA-0001820 for the

relevant scope or the oldest available for the components and processes identified by plaintiffs.

MNA has located no additional responsive docu1nents for the relevant scope for the components

and processes identified by plaintiffs.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:

Identify and produce any audits, reports, examinations, investigations, studies, or reviews1 including any work papeis, whether created within or out<:iide Michelin North America, in any manner related to the return, failure, performance, durability, and life expectancy, design, or quality of the subject tire and model tires.

MNA produces claims forms for the mode! of the tire in question manufactured at Dothan

dming the relevant scope as MNA-MEDINA-0000011 - MNA-MEDINA-0000130, MNA-

MEDINA-0000260 - MNA-MEDINA-0000563, and MNA-MEDINA-0000231. Upon enuy of

an appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will search for and produce claim forms for

4530886 21

PRFP00067

the tires common green to the tire in question tnanufactured at Dothan during the relevant scope.

Also upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will produce a list of

adjustment codes. To the extent plaintiffs identify codes relevant to the condition of the tire in

question and plaintiffs1 claims in this matter, 1vINA will produce documents reflecting the

_number __of :tires_ in thexelevartt _scope _l'{ltul'l'.letl witll__tfiose _ggnditi_()_ns, if_~Y·

MNA objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome,

and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. MNA further objects to this request

to the extent it seeks infonnation protected by the attorneywc!ient and/or atton1ey work product

privileges. Finally, MNA objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information

that constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business information of MNA. Pursuant to

Rule 507 of the 'fexas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such

information.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response. Subject to the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, MNA produces MNAwMEDINA~0001286,

MNA-MEDINA-0001366 -MNA-MEDINA-0001376 and MNA-MEDINA-0001431 - MNA-

MEDINAw0001434 for tires common green to the tire in question for the relevant scope.

REQUESTFORP!WDUGTIONNO. 21.~

All training documents made available, at the time the subject tire was built, to persons who construct, manufacture or assemble tires or operate tireHbuilding equipment at the plaint[SIC] where the subject tire was built.

RESPONSE:

MNA objects to this request because plaintiffs have not identified the specific design or

manufacturing process that produced the defect alleged to be present in the tire in question.

4530886 22

PRFP00068

Accordingly, thi& request is nothing more than an impermissible "fishing expedition\! for

information generally related to every aspect of MNA's design and manufacturing proces.':i,

whether or not related to plaintiffs 1 claims in this case. If plaintiffs will identify the components

and processes at issue in this case, MNA will search for and produce documents responsive to

this re.qu~_sJ for tbo2e components _and__ pro_cesses__d~rin~_~he rel~vant scope, if~hey exist.

To the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA further

objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that

are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence, Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the

tire relevant to this action.

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business information ofMNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texa.<J Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response. After a reasonable and

diligent search, MNA has located no documents for the relevant scope applicable to the

components and processes identified by plaintiffs.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0 . .22:

All training program materials or other documents provided to Michelin North America 1s employees building P265/70 Rl7 Michelin LTX MIS p~metric tires, similar tires and all tires from the same r..;rx tire line.

RESPONSE:

MNA objects to this request because plaintiffs have not identified the specific design or

manufacturing process that produced the defect alleged to be present in the tire in question.

Acco1·dingly1 this request is nothing more than an impe1missible "fishing expedition 11 for

4530886 23

PRFP00069

information generally related to every aspect of MNA1s design and manufacturing process,

whether or not related to plaintiffs1 claims in this case. If plaintiffs will identify the components

and processes at issue in this case, MNA will search for and produce documents responsive to

this request for those components and processes during the relevant scope, if they exist.

_ :MNA objects_ to thi_.;i__tJ~que,st__(l,S_ b~i11g_ vagu_~-~i:i_d a_JI!b_i_guo\}_S in_ its u_se of theJerm nsimilal'

tires11 as that term is undefined. rfo the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant

scope, MNA further objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and

seeks documents that are neitht--r relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the

scope of this request to the tire and time period relevant to this action, The tire is incorrectly

identified as a 11P265/70 Rl 711 tire. The tire in question is a P255/70R16.

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes conunercially sensitive, confidential business information ofMNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information.

SUpPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response. After a reasonable and

diligent search, MNA has located no documents for the relevant scope applicable to the

components and processes identified by plaintiffs.

]lEOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:

All inspection methodology materials or other documents uses[SIC] or followed to determine any trapped air/steam blisters in finished tires.

RESPONSE:

MNA objects to this request because plaintiffs have not identified the specific design or

manufacturing process that produced the defect alleged to be present in the tire in question,

4530886 24

PRFP00070

Accordingly, this request is nothing more than an impermissible fishing expedition" for

information generally related to every aspect of MNA1s design and manufacturing process,

whether or not related to plaintiffs' claims in this case, If plaintiffs identify the components and

processes at issue in this case, upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective order,

MNA_will _se_atch for__A11d_ p-i:o¢1u@ __ go_c:µ_ments __r_e_sp_9_l}~i_ve to this _!~ques_!_!(Jr t_~_e_ con:iponents and

processes identified at the time the tire in question was manufactured at the Dothan, Alabama

plant.

1'o the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA further

objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that

are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to lhnit the scope of this request to the

tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action.

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business infom1ation ofMNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asse1ts trade secret protection for such information,

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response. Subject to the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, MNA produces MNA-MEDINA~0001287 -

MNA-MEDINA-0001290, MNA-MEDINA-0001294 and MNA-MEDINA-0001301 - MNA-

MEDINA-0001304 fOr the relevant scope or the oldest available for the components and

processes identified by plaintiffs. After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has located no

other documents for the relevant scope applicable to the components and processes identified by

plaintiffs.

4530886 25

PRFP00071

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 74:

Any and all docu1nents relating to testing of steel belted radial passenger and light truck tires manufuctured with same belt skim stock code as the subject tire at the Dothan, Alabama plant where the subject tire was manufacture. This request includes documents relating to peel tests~ pull tests, perfonnance tests, and endurance tests whether conducted on a test wheel or a test track.

RESPONSE:

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request for tires in the relevant scope. Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality

protective order, MNA will produce its record retention policy in place at the time this lawsuit

was served upon MNA

To the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA further

objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that

are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the

tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action. Tires are not necessarily substantially simila1·

to each other because they share a common component, such as belt skim stock. See Barcenas v.

Ford Motor Co., 2004 WL 2827249 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2004); McC)oud Y.. Goodyear Dunlop

Tires NA, Ltd., 2006 WL 64491, *! (C.D. Ill. 2006).

11NA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business information of MN A, Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information.

Sl,!PPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response. Subject to the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, MNA produces its record retention policy in

4530886 26

PRFP00072

place at the time this lawsuit was served upon MNA as MNA-MEDINA-0001507 - MNA-

MEDINA-0001529.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0._25:

Any and all documents relating to under-inflation testing that led to tread separation.

After a reasonable and diligent search, }.ANA has not located any documents responsive

to this request fo1· tires in the relevant scope. To the extent this request seeks documents outside

the relevant scope, MNA objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdenson1e,

and seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the

scope of this request to the tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action. MNA further

objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that constitutes

commercially sensitive, confidential business info1mation ofMNA. Pursuant to Rule 507 of the

Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information.

:MNA further objects to this request on the grounds that it is a premature request for

expert testimony. :MNA states that.it will provide discovery of its experts and expert testimony

in accordance with the Texas rules and the scheduling order for th.is case. MNA further reserves

the right to rely on information generated or produced by Plaintiffs or their experts in discovery.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:

Any and all documents relating to rim groove analysis in which the rim groove p1'0fi!e was generated by under-inflation and !ed to tread belt separations.

RESPONSE:

After a reasonable and diligent search, }.ANA has not located any documents 1·esponsive

to this request for tires in the relevant scope. To the extent this request seeks documents outside

4530886 27

PRFP00073

the relevant scope, MN'A objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome,

and seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admis,!,ible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the

scope of this request to the tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action. MNA further

objectli to... the___ ~~tent this____ r_eqll~§t se~~s_ or att_empts to se~k informatic:1_n that constitutes

commercially sensitive, confidential business information of MNA. Pursuant to Rule 507 of the

Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such infonnation.

MNA further objects to this request on the grounds that it is a premature request for

expert testimony, MNA states that it will provide discovery of its experts and expert testimony

in accordance with the Texas rules and the scheduling order for this case. MNA further reserves

the right to rely on information generated or produced by Plaintiffs or their experts in discovery.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27:

All Depaiiment of Transportation (DOT) testing related to all "Michelin LTX" tires manufactured at the Dothan Alabama plant.

RESPONSE:

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request for tires in tbe relevant scope, To the extent this request seeks documents outside

the relevant scope, MNA further objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly

burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to

limit the scope of this request to the tire and time period relevant to this action.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28~

The curing conditions at the Dothan Plant that were used for the curing of the sul!ject tire and any subsequent changes to those curing conditions.

4530886 28

PRFP00074

Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will produce

documents responsive to this request, if any exist. To the extent this request seeks documents

outside the relevant scope, MNA further objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly

bll:rd_i::_nSQ_m_e,_ '~l)d se~-~-s docum_e_l_l_t_s _thi_it_ are___ l_1_e_ither relevant tg_ the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to

limit the scope of this request to the time period relevant to this action.

MNA further oQjects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business information of MNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the 'fexas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such infonnation.

_ilUPPLEMENT AL RESPONSE:

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response. After a reasonable and

diligent search, MNA has located no documents for the relevant scope applicable to the

components and processes identified by plaintiffs.

)IBOUEST FORPRODUCTl()NNO 29:

Any and all documents, relating to the use or potential use of nylon overlays, or belt edge strips, or belt edge wraps belt edge gum strips in passenger or light truck tires and the application of the nylon overlays, belt edge strips or belt edge wraps during the tire building process, Also, please produce copies of any documents, including patent and articles in possession of Michelin North America discussing the use or potential use of nylon overlays, or belt edge strips and/or belt edge wraps in passenger or light truck tires manufactured and/or designed by Michelin North America. This request specifically includes patents discussing the use of nylon overlays or belt edge strips or belt edge wraps. This request also includes brochures, charts and/or illustrations of Michelin North America til'es with nylon overlays, including but not limited to illustl'ations supplied to Michelin North America dealers or service centers.

RESPONSE:

M'NA objects to this request as being vague and ambiguous in its use of the tenn "belt

edge wraps belt edge gum strips" and 11 belt edge strips11 as those tenns are not terms used by

4530886 29

PRFP00075

MNA and are undefined. MNA further objects to this request because it is overly broad and

seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discove1y of admissible evidence. No tires in the relevant scope were

manufactured with nylon cap plies. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the

tire, plant, and _ti_m_e peri_qci __re_levarit_tg _this actjq_n_.

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek infurrnation that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business infonn ati on of MNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such infonnation.

Identify and produce all documents that discuss Michelin's document retention policy from the time it manufactured the subject tire to the present.

RESPONSE:

Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will produce its

record retention policy in place at the time this lawsuit was served upon MNA. MNA objects to

this request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney~client and/or attorney

work product privileges. MNA fmther objects to this reqi1est because it is overly broad and

seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the

scope of this request to the time period relevant to this action.

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response. Subject to the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, MNA produces its l'ecord retention policy in

place at the time this lawsuit was served upon MNA as 1mA-MEDINA-0001507 - MNA-

MEDINA-0001529.

4530886 30

PRFP00076

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3)~

'l'he written warranty in effect for the subject tire,

RESPONSE:

MNA produces MNA-MEDINA-0001270 - MNA-MEDINA-OOOI285.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32:

Any and all documents that discuss Michelin's recommendations regarding tire aging including Michelin's testing to support those recommendations including any and all technical bulletins.

RESPONSE:

MNA objects to this request as being vague and ambiguous in its use of the term 11 tire

aging 11 as that term is undefined. MNA produces its Technical Bulletin regarding the Service

I....ife for Passenger and Light Truck Tires as MNA-l\IBDINA-0001269. Further, MNA produces

its fitment guide and limited warranty manual as MEDINA-0000564 - MNA-MEDINA-0001192

and MNA-MEDINA-0001270 - MNA-MEDINA-0001285, both of which contain MNA's

recommendation concerning service life of tires. Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality

protective order, MNA will produce additional documents in its possession related to service life.

MNA objects to the extent this request seeks or i;tttempts to seek infonnation that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business info1mation ofMNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information.

SUPPLEMENTAl, RESPONSE:

MNA inco1porates its objections above in its original response. Subject to the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, MNA produces MNA-MEDINA-0001435 -

MNA-MEDINA-0001468.

4530886 31

PRFP00077

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33:

Produce a complete copy of any communications or correspondence between Michelin and any auto manufacturer and/or NHTSA concerning tire use limits or limit date of utilization for any and all passenger and light truck tires including the subject tire model.

RESPONSE:

_MNA pr(l_c!_uces its __T_~~~ni_c_El!_Bulletin regarding the Service Life for Passenger and Light

Truck Tires as MNA-MEDINA-0001269.

EEOUESTFORPRODUCTIONNO. 34:

Please produce true, complete and accurate copies of any and all cut analysis (sectional)

reports on the subject tire from production release to time of subject tire's manufactured date or architecture repertoire.

_RESPONSE:

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request for tires in the relevant scope. To the extent this request seeks documents outside

the relevant scope, MNA further objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly

burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Plaintiffs have failed to

limit the scope of this request to the time period relevant to this action.

l\1NA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business infonnation ofMNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection fur such information

!IBOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO~

Please produce all cured, finished gauges for the manufacture of the subject tire.

RESPONSE:

Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will produce the

specifications it has for tires in the relevant scope.

4530886 32

PRFP00078

SUPPLEMhNTAL RESPONSE:

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response. Subject to the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, MNA produces MNA-MEDTNA-0001530 -

MNA-MEDINA-0001814 for tires in the relevant scope.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36:

Please produce true, complete and accurate copies of the plant's process control chart or documentation at the time of the manufacture of the subject tire.

RESPONSE:

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request in the relevant scope. Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective

order, MNA will produce its record retention policy in place at the time this lawsuit was served

upon MNA. MNA objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes corrunercially sensitive, confidential business information of MNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the ''fexas Rules of Evidence, JvfNA asserts trade secret protection for such information.

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response, Subject to the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, Ivt:NA produces its record retention policy in

place at the time this lawsuit was served upon MNA as lv1NA-MEDINA~0001507 ~ MNA~

MEDINA-0001529.

Please produce true, complete and accurate copies of the quantitative listing of the ingredierits of the subject tire's inner liner in use at the time of the manufacture of the subject tire.

4530886 33

PRFP00079

REjiPONSE:

MNA objects to the extent this 1·equest seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business information ofMNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection fol' such information.

MNA _specific_al_ly_. Qbjects_JQ _this _r~qtJ_est b~9_{lu_se it_ g~~~s P!t:>_<h1_ction 1 ()f..¥NA ~ __!lJpber

compound formulas. Rubber compound formulas are trade secrets that are closely guarded and

protected by MNA. The information is of significant value to and is not known to MNA1s

competitors. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any need to discover these valuable trade secrets

ofMNA.

!IBOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38:

Please produce true, complete and accurate copies of any and all DFMEA or PFMEA documentation of the subject tire and any other tires incorporating its exact green tire construction.

After !le reasonable and diligent search1 MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request for tires in the relevant scope. Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality

protective order, MNA will produce its record retention policy in place at the thne this lawsuit

was served upon MNA.

MNA objects to this request because plaintiffs have not identified the specific design or

manufacturing process that produced the defect alleged to be present in the tire in question.

11

Accordingly, this request is nothing more than an impermissible fishing expedition" for

information generally related to every aspect of MNA's design and manufacturing p1·ocess,

whether or not related to plaintiffs1 claims in this case. Plaintiffs have failed to identify the

components and processes at issue in this case.

4530886 34

PRFP00080

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business information ofMNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information.

fil:!l'PLEMENTAL RESPONSE:

MNA __ incorporates___ its_ objyytion~ ?,boye ip. it!)_ __ qrigina! _resp()_nse. Subj_~_~t_ to th~~ ..

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, MNA produces its record retention policy in

place at the time this -lawsuit was served upon MNA as MNA-MEDINA-0001507 - MNA-

MEDINA-0001529.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39:

Please produce the design and production tolerances for the subject tire in effect at the time of its manufacture.

After a reasonable and diligent search, :MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this reque..">t for the relevant scope. Upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective

order, :MNA will produce its record retention policy in place at the time this lawsuit was served

upon MNA. MNA objects to this request because plaintiffs have not identified the specific

design or manufacturing pl'ocess that produced the defect alleged to be present in the tire in

question. Accordingly, this request is nothing more than an impel'missible "fishing expedition"

for info1mation generally related to every aspect of MNA 1s design and manufacturing process,

whethel' or not related to plaintiffs' claims in this case, Plaintiffs have failed to identify the

components and processes at issue in this case.

MNA objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business information ofMNA, Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information.

4530886 35

PRFP00081

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response, Subject to the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, MNA produce.".! its record retention policy in

place at the thne this lawsuit was served upon MNA as MNA-MEDINA~0001507 - MNA-

MEDJNA,0001529.

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION_NO. 40:

Please produce true, complete and accurate copies of any and all specific regulatory compliance test results for the subject tire and all associated brand and line name tires sharing the same green tire construction as the suqject tire from production release to present, including but not limited to endurance tests, high speed endurance tests, plunger energy tests, bead unseat tests all for FMVSS requirements.

RESPONSE:

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request for the relevant scope, lJpon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective

order, MNA will produce its record retention policy in place at the time this lawsuit was served

uponMNA.

To the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA further

objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that

are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the

time period relevant to this action,

MNA objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business information of MNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 oftbe Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA a9.serts trade secret protection for such infonnation.

4530886 36

PRFP00082

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response. Subject to the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, MNA produces its record retention policy in

place at the time this lawsuit was served upon MNA as MNA~MEDINA~OOOl 507 ·- MNA~

MEDINA-OOQ1529,

REOUESTFOR PRODUCTION NO. 41:

Please produc,-e the adjustment and claim data for the subject tire and all associated brand and line name tires sharing the same green tire construction after each change to design occurring after the manufacture date of the subject tire.

RESPONSE:

MNA produces clahn fonns for the model of the tire in question manufactured at Dothan

during the relevant scope as MNA-MEDINA-0000011 - MNA-MEDINA-0000130, MNA-

MEDINA-0000260 - MNA-MhDINA-0000563, and MNA-MEDlNA-0000231. Upon entry of

an appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will search for and produce claim forms for

the tires common green to the tire in question manufactured at Dothan during the relevant scope.

Also upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will produce a list of

adjustment codes. To the extent plaintiffs identify codes relevant to the condition of the tire in

question and plaintiffs 1 claims in this matter, MNA will produce documents reflecting the

number of tires in the relevant scope returned with those conditions, if any. To the extent this

request seeks documents concerning codes that are not relevant to the condition of the tire in

question and plaintiffs 1 claims in this matter, or seeks information concerning tires outside the

relevant scope, MNA objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and

seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff..<; have fai!ed to limit the

scope of this request to the tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action. Tii·es are not

4530886 37

PRFP00083

necessarily substantially similar to each other because they share a common component, such as

belt skim stock or belt edge cushion. See Barcenas v.~Motor Co, 2004 WL 2827249 (N.D.

Cal. Dec. 9, 2004); McClou<l_y,_Qoodyear Dunlop Tires NA. Ltd., 2006 WL 64491, *I (C.D. Ill.

2006).

MN.A further __ o_bject~ to __t:be ex_te:nt thi~ __re:que:_s_t__se~k-~_ ()1' ~ttell?:p_ts to _.~_~ck infonuation thft~

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business infonnation of MNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such infonnation.

SU],>PLEMENTAL Rl;lSPONSE:

MNA incorporates its ol!jections above in its original response. Subject to the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, lVfNA produces MNA-MEDINA-0001286,

MNA-MEDINA-0001366 --- MNA-MEDINA-0001376 and MNA-MEDINA-0001431 -- MNA-

MEDINA-0001434 for tires cominon green to the tire in question for the relevant scope.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42:

Please produce true, complete, and accurate copies of all the aspect specifications including Indexes and Table of Contents.

MNA objects to this request because plaintiffs have not identified the speciflc design or

manufacturing process that produced the defect alleged to be present in the tire in question.

11

Accordingly, this request is nothing more than an impennissible fishing expedition" for

information generally related to every aspect of 1V1NA1s design and manufacturing process,

whether or not related to plaintiffs1 claims in this case. If plaintiffs identify the components and

processes at issue in this case, upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective order,

MNA will search for and produce documents responsive to this request for the components and

4530886 38

PRFP00084

procei:.ses identified at the time the tire in question was manufactured at the Dothan, Alabama

plant.

To the extent this request seeks docu1nents outside the relevant scope, MNA fuiihel'

objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that

are_ neither relevant to ___thc sµbj_(!9t mat1:~r of t}J_i§.. ()£1SC ___l19~ reaso~ably_(::Cl}~_ulated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the

tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action.

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek infonnation that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business infonnation of MNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such infonnation.

SUPPLEMENTAL.RESPONSE:

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response, Subject to the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, M'NA produces MNA-MEDINA-0001287 -

MNA·MEDINA-0001312 and MNA-MEDINA-0001815 - MNA-MEDINA-0001820 for the

relevant scope or the oldest available for the components and processes identified by plaintiffs.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43:

Please produce an index of any and all technical bulletins.

RESPONSE:

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request, MNA objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and

seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. MNA further objects to this request

because plaintiffs have not identified the specific design or manufucturing process tlmt produced

the defect alleged to be present in the tire in question. Accordingly, this request is nothing more

4530886 39

PRFP00085

than an impermissible "fishing expedition 11 for information generally related to every aspect of

MNA1s design and manufacturing process, whether or not related t() plaintiffs' c!aims in this case.

Plaintiffs have failed to identify the components and processes at issue in this case.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44:

Pleas_e: procl_1JQC__11Jrue, c_o:mpl_e_t~ _fl"Qsl ~cc:i:il'ate copy,_of all_ _c;ljsco_y~ry_ p_ro~u~ed b_y___fyfi_cheli11 in Velo, et. Al. v. Michelin, et al., filed in Maricopa County ~'Juperior Court, CV2012-00f346.

MNA objects to this request because it is overly broad and seeks docutnents that are

neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Velo, et. al. v. MNA involved a different tire from the tire in

question in this case. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the tire relevant to

this action. MNA objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek infonnation that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business infonnation ofMNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIQNNO. 45·

Please provide true, complete and accurate copies of any and all depositions with exhibits given by Michelin employees Randa11 Clark) Michael Wiscchu.<;en, Michael Riley, Paul Northrop and Tom Gruenholz.

After a reasonable and diligent search. MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request for tires in the relevant scope. MNA objects to this request because it is overly

broad and seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to

limit the scope of thls request to the tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action. MNA

objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that constitutes

4530886 40

PRFP00086

commercially sensitive, confidential business infOrmation ofMNA. Pursuant to Rule 507 of the

Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade i;ecret protection for such information.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46·

Please provide true, complete and accurate quality controlfwork procedures including but not lhnited to: TNC and 1NC3R-A work pl'oceduresfinstructions.

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any TNC and TNC3R-A

worlc procedures/instructions for the relevant scope.

To the extent this request seeks additional documents, MNA objects to this request

because plaintiffs have not identified the specific design or manufacturing process that produced

the defect alleged to be present in the tire in question. Accordingly, this request is nothing more

than an impermissible "fishing expedition11 for info1mation generally related to every aspect of

MNA*s design and manufacturing process, whether or not related to plaintiffs' claims in this case.

If plaintiffs identify the components and processes at issue in this case, upon entry of an

appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will search for and produce documents

responsive to this request for the components and processes identified at the time the tire in

question was manufactured at the Dothan, Alabama plant

To the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA further

objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that

are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the

tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action.

4530886 41

PRFP00087

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sensitive1 confidential business inf~rmation of MNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:

MNA__ jnc_o_rpori;ites__ i_t_s__ gbjectio:n._s_~~-b~_ye in its origin~~ r~~-P0'.1-se. After a reasonable and

diligent search, 'MNA has not located any re.sponsive documents used at the Dothan plant for the

relevant scope for the components and processes identified by plaintiffs. If any such documents

are located in the future MNA vv:ill supplement its response accordingly.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47:

Please provide true, complete and accurate copies of Michelin ·rechnical Notes.

RESPONSE:

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request for tires in the relevant scope. MNA objects to this request as being vague and

ambiguous in its use of the term 11Michelin Technical Notes11 as that term is undefined. To the

extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA further objects to this

request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that are neither

relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the tire, plant, and

time period relevant to this action.

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek infonnation that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business information of MNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information.

4530886 42

PRFP00088

REQUEST FOR PRODUQT!ON NO. 48:

Please provide true, complete and accurate copies of Michelin's Print Advertising concerning the subject tire.

MNA produces MNA-MEDINA-0000152 - MNA-MEDlNA-0000230. MNA objects to

this requeBt--as beirig~Vague arid ambl'gtiOUs in its-Use of the-term "Pfihf Advertising" atrthat terru is not defined.

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ_,_±2:

Please provide true, complete and accurate copies of Michelin's Owners Manual and "fire Fitment Guide.

RESPONSE:

MNA produces MNA-MEDlNA-0001270 - MNA-MEDlNA-0001285 and MNA-

MEDlNA-0000564 - MNA-MEDlNA-0001192 for the relevant scope.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ. 50:

Please provide a true, complete and accurate copy of Michelin'& Power Point Presentation made to NHTSA on November 1, 2006,

MNA produces MNA-MEDlNA-0001221 - MNA-MEDINA-0001268.

4530886 43

PRFP00089

c ·ER.M .EL~--

~

AUSTIN BEAUMONT HQUST9N

www.germer.com

ATTORNEVS - AT CHRIS A. BLACKERUY PARTNER

Direct Dlol: 512.482.3534 cblackerby@gormer.com

September I, 2015

VIA E-MAIL

David C. Shapiro Luis P. Guerra, L.L,C. 6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125 Phoenix, AZ 85016

Re.: Cause No. DC-14-07255; Samuel Medlnd, et al. v. Michelin North America, Inc..

and Jose Bustillo dlb/a Mundo Cars; In the 1341h District Court of Dallas County. Texas.

Dear David:

This is a follow up to om· telephone conversation just a moment ago Where you called MNA's discovery proposal "bullshit" and indicated that you could not show it to Luis or he would flip out. As I requested, if you will not agree to meet and confer, please send a written response to MNNs proposal.

Thanks.

. '.: : .- ..

y ·"7~very1rulR

I_ •

..

. -__ #'9 . ~Jnokel'\>¥ .· .

CAB:lq

GERMER BEAMAN & BR9WN PlLC 301 CONGRESS AVE, SUITE 1700AUSTIN, TX 78701 PHONE: 512.472.0288 • FAX: 512.472.0721 4537956 EXHIBIT

MNA'S RESPONS!l CN OPPOSITION TO l'LAINTIP!lS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGB 61 J3

FILED DALLAS COUNTY 9/1/2015 04:45:49 PM

CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255 FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK

SAMUEL MEDINA and OBDULIA § MEDINA, husband and wife, individually; § NATALYE MEDINA, individually; NAVIL § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

GIBSON, individually, § §

Plaintiffs, § §

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

vs. § §

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC. and § JOSE BUSTILLO d/b/a MUNDO CARS, an in § 134111 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

state defendant, § §

Defendants.

AFFIDAVIT OF VANEATON PRICE, III

Having first been duly sworn, I, Vaneaton Price, III, an employee of Defendant Michelin

N01ih America, Inc. ("MNA"), competently testify as follows:

1. This affidavit is based on my personal knowledge and my review of information

available to me in my role at MNA. I am over 18 years of age, of sound mind, and

competent to execute this Affidavit.

2. I have never been convicted of a felony or a crime of moral turpitude.

3. I am a Senior Technical Advisor employed by MNA. I was employed with Michelin

Americas Research and Development Corporation ("MARC"), which merged with and

became a division of MNA on January 1, 2008, from January 2007 to December 2011.

Since May 1999, I have been employed by MNA. During my employment with MNA

and MARC, I have become familiar with the tires that are designed by MARC and

manufactured by MNA, as well as the design and manufacturing procedures used.

4. I am familiar with the process by which tire specifications are developed, with the

composition and dimensions of certain tires MNA has designed and manufactured during

my employment, with MNA manufacturing processes and equipment, and with the

efforts that MNA makes to protect its proprietary and trade secret information.

5. The Subject Tire is a P255/70R16 109S Michelin LTX MIS bearing DOT number

B7LBEVUX3 l 01 and manufactured by MNA in its Dothan, Alabama plant in the 31st

week of 2001.

6. A tire is built to a single green tire and a single cured tire specification. The Subject Tire

was manufactured pursuant to a particular specification in place for P255/70R16 109S

LTX MIS tires manufactured at MN A's Dothan, AL plant during the 31st week of 2001.

7. The "P" designation means "passenger." The "255" is this tire's nominal section width in

millimeters. The "70" is the tire's aspect ratio - the sidewall height is 70% of the tire's

width. The "16" is the tire's inner diameter in inches, which means that the tire fits on a

16" wheel. The tire's service description, "109S," includes the load index (109), which

means that the tire is designed to support loads of 2271 pounds at 35 psi inflation

pressure, and the speed rating (S), which indicates that the tire is ceiiified to carry a load,

under specified conditions, at a maximum speed of 112 mph.

8. "Common green" tires are tires that share the same specifications except for exterior

moldings. The model of the Subject Tire has three common green tires that also were

manufactured at the Dothan, AL plant. With the exception of these common green tires,

there are no other tires that were made to the same green tire specifications as the Subject

Tire.

9. Throughout my employment with MARC and MNA, MNA has manufactured steel belted

radial tires for a wide variety of passenger vehicles, light trucks, medium trucks, heavy

trucks, and special purposes such as high performance tires, and aircraft tires. During

2001, the year the Subject Tire was manufactured, MNA manufactured approximately

1500 different tire designs at its various plants in No11h America. The design of these

tires often varies significantly depending on the particular service applications such as

highway, mud and snow, all-season, off-road, and high performance.

I 0. A tire is a highly engineered, scientifically developed, complex laminate structure. It

incorporates elements of the disciplines of polymer chemistry and mechanical

engineering, among others.

11. For a tire to perform properly, it must be engineered so that the numerous components

and rubber compounds work together to carry the intended load at the inflation pressures

appropriate for the service applications. Thus, even tires bearing the same marketing

label or "name", like the "LTX MIS", have different design features to accommodate the

intended load and expected service application.

12. Most modern automotive tires share some basic features. Virtually all tubeless tires have

a tread, belt assemblies, a body ply or plies, an inner liner, and bead wires. Steel belt

assemblies typically consist of two or more steel belts with a rubber compound that

surrounds and coats the steel cables. Textile body ply or plies generally consist of one or

more plies of textile cord coated with another rubber compound. The inner liner consists

of a different rubber compound and performs a function similar to that of an inner tube in

a tube-type tire, helping the tubeless tire maintain air pressure. The bead wires are two

4

hoop-shaped bundles of wire encased in rubber and located at the tire's inner edges,

which help hold the tire flush against the rim flange and anchor the tire's components.

13. Most modern automotive tires are assembled in stages as a laminate structure and then

placed in a mold and vulcanized, or "cured." Vulcanization consists of exposing the

assembled tire to high temperature and pressure for a pre-determined time; this process

causes various chemical changes in the rubber compounds, causes bonds to form between

the tire's various components, and increases the rubber's strength, resilience and

durability. A tire that has been assembled but not yet vulcanized is referred to as a "green

tire."

14. Despite this common basic strncture, however, it would be a gross oversimplification to

say that all passenger and light truck tires with a steel-belted radial construction are

similar in design. Although certain tires may share one or more common components or

compounds, the unique performance requirements of each tire will lead to design

differences between them.

15. There are many ways in which tire designs may differ. For example, tire designs may

differ according to (I) the basic classification as a passenger, light truck, truck or

specialty tire; (2) inner diameter size; (3) width; (4) aspect ratio (the tire's width as

compared to its sidewall height); (5) load index or load capacity; (6) component

materials; (7) intended use or application; (8) bead wire design; (9) sidewall

reinforcements; (10) speed rating; (11) recommended inflation pressures; (l 2) tread

design; and (13) the use of additional components such as belt edge wedges and extra

strips or plies.

16. Most tires are broadly classified into four categories: passenger tires, light truck tires,

truck tires, and specialty-use tires (such as commercial tires, temporary spare tires, or

trailer tires). There are substantial differences in the design of tires in each classification.

Tires in one classification are not substantially similar to tires in another classification.

There are no Michelin tires in one classification that are "common green" to tires in

another classification. The federal regulations in place in 2001 governing light truck

tires, 49 C.F.R. § 571.119, was different than those governing passenger car tires like the

tire in question, 49 C.F.R. § 571.109.

17. Plaintiffs' Requests for Production seek information on all "Michelin LTX M/S tires."

The names of tire lines, such as "LTX M/S," the line of the Subject Tire, are marketing

labels used by MNA to describe many tires that are suitable for use in a sport utility

vehicle ("SUV") or light truck application. They are not a designation of a tire's design

or a specific set of manufacturing specifications. The "LTX MIS" marketing label has

been used for at least 20 years, for multiple sizes, load ranges, and applications of tires.

Futther, "LTX MIS" tires are made in multiple sizes and load ranges, for different vehicle

fitments and applications, all of which would have different designs. At the time the tire

in question was manufactured in 2001, the "LTX MIS" label was used for approximately

40 different tire sizes. MNA uses many different marketing labels for its tires.

18. For example, the LTX MIS tire line and its common green lines manufactured between

1998 and 2003 would encompass approximately 54 tire models built to more than 5000

tire specifications, and approximately 19.2 million different tires. These tires were

manufactured at 5 different MNA and MNA (Canada), Inc. plants in North America.

19. All tires manufactured under the "L TX MIS" marketing label are not substantially

similar. These tires differ in design in many ways, including size, load capacity,

components, number of plies, types of plies, recommended pressures, speed ratings, tread

depths, and intended applications.

20. The Subject Tire is a 16" P-Metric (Passenger) tire; however, the LTX M/S line

encompasses LT-Metric, P-Metric and Flotation tires. Moreover, the LTX MIS line

includes tires with rim diameters ranging from 15" to 17'' section widths from 205

millimeters to 285 millimeters, and with total diameters from 27" to 32.8". These tires of

different sizes, dimensions and applications are necessarily of different designs, and are

not substantially similar to each other.

21. Tires of different sizes do not, as a general rule, merely have propo1tionally larger

dimensions; there are a number of other specification changes, as well. For example, an

LTX MIS 15" tire will have very different performance requirements and expected

service conditions than an LTX MIS 17'' tire. The carcass strength, load-carrying

capacity, inflation pressure, rubber compounds, number of carcass plies, and densities of

steel belt cables or polyester carcass ply cords may all be different, depending on tire size

and expected vehicle fitment. The tire designer will use different components, materials,

and configurations for different tire sizes, depending on the performance goals for the

tire. Thus, tires of different sizes are not substantially similar to each other.

22. The LTX M/S line includes tires designed for original equipment fitments as well as tires

designed for the replacement market. Tires designed specifically for fitments on new

vehicles may be tuned specifically to meet the requirements of the original equipment

programs. They may be made of different components than replacement market tires,

7

have different tread depths and designs than replacement market tires, and have different

performance profiles than replacement market tires. Thus, original equipment tires may

have very different designs and constructions than replacement market tires, and are not

necessarily substantially similar to replacement market tires.

23. The LTX M/S line of tires includes tires with different aspect ratios ranging from 65 to

85. The term "aspect ratio" describes the relationship between the height and width of

the tire. More precisely, aspect ratio is the ratio between the "section height" (the

distance from the top of the tread down to an imaginary line running from bead to bead at

the bottom of the tire) and "section width" (the distance from the outermost bulge of one

sidewall to the other) when the tire is mounted on a rim that is 70% of the tire section

width and inflated to a prescribed pressure. A tire with a high aspect ratio may be a tall,

skinny tire, while one with a low aspect ratio may be a short, squatly tire. These different

structures are affected in different ways by the loads and forces that they encounter in

service, and the design of tires with different aspect ratios differ significantly. Tires of

different aspect ratios are not substantially similar.

24. The LTX MIS line of tires encompasses tires with different load indexes and speed

ratings, which also make a difference in the application for which the tire is suitable. The

LTX M/S tire line includes tires with load indexes from 97 to 123 and speed ratings from

R to H. For example, an LTX M/S tire with "H" speed rating (130 mph) would have a

significantly different design than the Subject Tire, which has an "S" speed rating

(l 12mph), to accommodate the increased heat and centrifugal forces the tire would be

expected to withstand at higher speeds. For example, a P205/75Rl 5 97S LTX M/S,

which has a load index of97, is rated to carry a maximum load of 1435 pounds at 35 psi,

8

whereas the Subject Tire, which has a load index of 109, is rated to carry a maximum

load of2271 pounds at 35 psi. The design of these tires is different to accommodate the

differences in load and expected application. Thus, tires of different load indexes and

speed ratings are not substantially similar.

25. Tires within the LTX MIS line differ according to their component materials, even when

the basic type, size, load index, and speed rating are the same. Among other differences,

tires within the LTX MIS line made in different plants contain different tread compounds,

and undertread compounds. In addition, steel belt construction and strength, as well as

polyester ply construction and strength, can differ. The tread compound is the material

comprising the outermost layer of the tire in the paii of the tire that is intended to contact

the road; the undertread compound is the material comprising the next layer down,

between the tread and steel belt assembly. Tire designs within the LTX MIS line can

differ for many other reasons, including tread designs, bead designs, recommended

inflation pressures, sidewall reinforcement, and others. Tires with these differences in

component materials and design features are not substantially similar.

26. The LTX MIS line includes tires manufactured with 2-belt and 3-belt configurations.

Tires with different numbers of belts are not substantially similar.

27. MNA uses many different rubber formulations in its tires, including different rubber

formulations between tires within the LTX MIS tire line. For example, all passenger and

light truck tires contain different types of rubber. Rubber formulas in replacement-

market tires may differ from those used in certain original equipment applications.

MNA, through its MARC division, researches, tests, and develops the rubber compounds

used in the construction of tires. The type of rubber compound ultimately used in each

9

component will affect the tire's performance results. Even within a single manufacturing

facility, the rubber compound formulas used may differ depending on the size and

application of the tire. Tires that use different rubber formulations are not substantially

similar.

28. Tires are not substantially similar simply because they use the same belt skim compound.

Tires with the same belt skim but different sizes, classifications, load ranges, speed

ratings, and/or applications will have different designs and different service life, and are

not substantially similar tires.

29. Tire designs evolve over time as new technology, materials, and equipment are

developed and the tire manufacturing processes and procedures in any given plant

change. Although bearing the same marketing label and size designation, tires that are

manufactured under different specifications are of different designs. Over the period of

time during which the model of the Subject Tire was made, changes were made to its

design and specifications.

30. Tire designs generally will differ for tires manufactured at different facilities. Because

MNA operates facilities formerly owned by three different manufacturers (which use

different processes), manufacturing specifications and component compounds are

frequently different for tires otherwise of the same marketing label and size designation,

to account for varying plant-specific technology and available equipment, including

mixing equipment, tire building equipment, and curing methods.

31. No two MNA plants have the exact same equipment and manufacturing processes.

32. Specifications are developed for the equipment and processes at a particular

manufacturing plant. Tires manufactured at one plant are produced based on a

specification different than the specification used at other plants.

33. In the last thirty (30) years, MNA has manufactured tires under several thousand different

brand names and sizes. Each of these tire types is of a different design. Within each

category, the designs have changed multiple times as the specifications evolved.

34. In the last ten (! 0) years alone, MNA has manufactured several hundred million tires, to

tens of thousands of different specifications, including those marketed under the

"Michelin," "Uniroyal," "BF Goodrich," and various private brand name.

35. Certain of Plaintiffs' requests seek MNA's adjustment data, including comparisons of

adjustment data concerning tires manufactured with and without nylon cap plies.

36. Adjustment data is information collected by MNA that records the number of tires

returned, as well as the condition of the returned tire, without regard to cause.

37. One condition which may be discerned by a trained inspector is a tread or tread/belt

"separation." A "separation" refers to a crack or potential crack between two of a tire's

components. A "separation," if actually present, does not mean or imply that the tire

became disabled. It also does not mean or imply that the tire is defective in design or

manufacture. If the inspector observed a tread/belt separation in a returned tire, that

condition would be noted and the adjustment would be coded accordingly.

38. Tread/belt detachments resulting from separations occur infrequently, but they have

occurred and do occur in steel belted radial tires generally, regardless of their size,

design, or intended use.

39. A tread/belt separation can occur in any steel belted radial tire.

40. A tread/belt separation in a tire does not indicate a defect in the design or manufacture of

the tire because there are many different causes for tread/belt separation that are

independent of the design and manufacture of the tire. Numerous other factors, such as

tire overloading, under inflation, unrepaired or improperly repaired punctures or cuts,

damage from road hazards, to name a few, can lead to tread/belt separation in a properly

designed and manufactured tire.

41. The MNA's design and manufacturing specifications, specification changes, testing and

design-related documents requested by Plaintiffs in their discovery requests contain

highly protected trade secrets of MNA. In addition, Plaintiffs requests call for the

production of other highly protected trade secrets of MNA, including but not limited to

information concerning MNA's research and development, formulas, tire adjustment

processes and analysis, marketing strategies, internal research and studies, propriety

manufacturing and inspection processes and procedures, and tire production information.

42. Furthermore, MNA's adjustment data is of significant value to MNA because it reveals

MNA's processes and analysis, and because it is not known to MNA's competitors. This

information constitutes valuable trade secrets of MNA and gives MNA an advantage over

its competitors. Disclosure of this information to those competitors would cause

irreparable damage to MNA.

43. Ce1tain of Plaintiffs' requests seek MNA's design and manufacturing specifications,

specification changes, testing and design-related documents, research and development,

tire adjustment processes and analysis, internal research and studies, propriety

manufacturing and inspection processes and procedures, and tire production information.

All such documents are highly protected trade secrets ofMNA.

44. MNA spends millions of dollars each year on research, development, testing of tires and

their component parts, and developing its proprietary design and manufacturing

technologies. Disclosure of this information to those competitors would cause irreparable

damage to MNA's competitive advantage.

45. MNA takes extreme care to protect this information from being disclosed because this

information is what gives MNA an advantage in the competitive field of tire design and

allows it to deliver economic value to its customers. MNA derives economic value and

competitive advantage by not having that information available in the public domain.

Any disclosure, direct or indirect, of such trade secrets and confidential information

would severely and permanently impair MNA's competitive position.

46. Disclosure of MNA's confidential information to multiple individuals would subject

MNA to a substantial risk of subsequent disclosure to MNA's competitors, the

consequences of which would be irreversible.

47. The steps that MNA has in place to protect the secrecy of its confidential design and

development information include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a) An 8-foot high cyclone topped with barbed wire fence surrounds the

perimeter ofMARC's facility and premises in Greenville, South Carolina;

(b) All employees access the premises through a gated entrance by use of a

limited access turnstile and badge reader. Visitors are given access only

after registering with a security officer, presenting identification and

naming the specific employee with whom they have business. Thereafter,

the MNA employee escorts or supervises the visitor(s), who must display

"Visitor" credentials while on the premises.

(c) The security gates are manned Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to

5:00 p.m. aud patrolled by security all other hours, weekends, and

holidays. In addition, the entire MARC campus and its perimeter is

monitored 24 hours a day by surveillance cameras;

(d) While vehicles generally are not allowed on MNA's premises, if a vehicle

does enter, it is subject to a random search by security before it is

permitted to exit;

(e) To the extent MNA maintains its confidential design and development

information electronically, it is stored in a secure, limited access database;

(f) MNA's employees execute stringent non-disclosure and secrecy

agreements as a condition of their employment;

(g) MNA's vendors sign confidentiality agreements before they are provided

access to any documents or information regarding MNA's work for them;

(h) The research and development information developed by MNA at MARC

is maintained at MARC; and

(i) Certain areas on the MARC campus are accessible only to MARC

personnel with heightened security access, and are not accessible to other

MNA employees.

48. MNA employs these extreme efforts to maintain the confidentiality of information

relating to its testing, research, technology, processes, designs, compilations of

information, and formulas because it is this information that gives MNA and its clients an

advantage in the competitive field of tire design and manufacture.

49. I understand Plaintiffs are requesting documents and/or testimony concerning one or

more ofMNA's rubber compound formulas.

50. For many decades, MNA has spent millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of man

hours researching, testing, and developing rubber formulas in an effort to increase the

performance of its tires. The rubber compound formulas are of significant value to MNA

because they are not known to MNA's competitors.

51. MNA believes that its superior rubber compound formulas are an extremely critical factor

in its ability to maintain its competitive advantage over its rivals.

52. Because a tire is vulcanized during manufacture (a process that alters the tire's chemistry

and dimensions), it cannot be "reverse engineered." Thus, a competitor cannot recreate

all of its design specifications simply by purchasing and analyzing a tire, nor can a

competitor take a tire apaii and determine the components in the rubber, the length of

time the rubber is cured, or the machinery used.

53. In addition to the measures discussed above, MNA takes even more extreme steps to

protect its compound formula information. Only MNA employees who have a business

need to know the information have access to the formulas. Of MNA's thousands of

employees, only a few know or have access to the rubber compound formulas.

54. Any disclosure, direct or indirect, of MNA's compound formulas would severely and

permanently impair MNA 's competitive position. Once disclosed, this damage could not

be repaired, even if the disclosure was inadvertent and/or subject to a confidentiality

order.

55. Plaintiffs have also requested information and documents relating to MNA's

manufacturing and quality procedures.

56. Like all tire manufacturers, MNA keeps secret its specific design, manufacturing, and

quality assurance processes. MNA's specific manufacturing processes and equipment are

not known to MNA's competitors or the general public. MNA has developed the

processes, including manufacturing techniques, machinery, and methods of production,

for many decades at a cost of many millions of dollars. MNA also spends millions of

dollars every year replacing and updating facilities and equipment. A principal part of

MNA's competitive edge in the tire industry derives from its proprietary and unique

manufacturing methods and equipment. Most of MNA's processes are not patented for

fear of losing their secrecy.

57. The divulgence ofMNA's proprietary manufacturing and quality processes to the public

or to a competitor would cause an unacceptably high risk of irreparable harm and injury.

If third parties were allowed access to these trade secrets, they could take advantage of

proprietary information which MNA has spent years and millions of dollars developing,

and which MNA's competitors could not duplicate on their own without a similar

investments of time, expe1tise, and money, and perhaps not even then. The damage that

could be created by the loss of trade secrets is a direct financial threat to MNA, its parent

and affiliated corporations, and risks the loss ofMNA's competitive edge and, potentially

the employment of thousands of employees tlll'oughout the United States and worldwide.

58. MNA spends millions of dollars and countless man hours developing manufacturing

processes and quality procedures. Specifically, MNA's building procedures employed at

the Dothan plant were developed over an extensive amount of time and at tremendous

expense.

59. MNA takes extraordinary measures to maintain the secrecy of its proprietary

manufacturing processes and equipment, including the following:

(a) Plants are not open to the public. Facilities are surrounded by fences. The

Dothan plant maintains a security department with security systems and

security officers.

(b) Additional security controls are imposed in certain departments because of

the highly confidential manufacturing and industrialization work that is

carried on in those departments. Persons with access authority are subject

to strict control, and employees with access authority are required to

execute confidentiality agreements. Employees are not permitted to

photograph or videotape the interior of the plant and are not permitted to

remove documentary trade secrets except for controlled, business

purposes.

(c) MNA does not generally permit third persons to enter any plant unless

there is a legitimate business reason. Each visitor must wear a badge

denoting his or her status and the extent of their access within the plant

was limited based on business need and prior approval, with signed

secrecy agreements in many instances. The MNA employee with whom

the visitor is meeting has to accompany the visitor until the conference is

terminated and the visitor leaves the plant.

(d) Many of the production machines at the MNA plants are designed, built,

and/or modified and installed by MNA itself.

(e) Employees at MNA plants sign stringent non-disclosure and secrecy

agreements as a condition of their employment.

60. The tire development and manufacturing industry is extremely competitive and is

dependent on continuing research and development of new tire products and component

parts.

61. The information concerning MNA's manufacturing processes, design processes, testing

and testing methods, green tire specifications, compounds, and components of tires,

including those pertaining to the Subject Tire, is of significant value to MNA because it

reveals MNA's design, testing, and analytical processes. T his is information that is not

known to MNA's competitors. Disclosure of this information to those competitors would

cause irreparable damage to MNA's competitive advantage.

FURTHER, AFFIANT SAITH NAUGHT.

SWORN to and subscribed before me c+.

this ti!::<tay ofoSfpl.. ernlwW15.

~~_.t!_/ -t('7fY71'ft~J)~ Notary Public for South Carolina ~ My Conunission Expires: ()b;

I

J1'-J ~) )b

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY 9/4/2015 1:45:18 PM

FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 1

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 2

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 3

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 4

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 5

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 6

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 7

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 8

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 9

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 10

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 11

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 12

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 13

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 14

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 15

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 16

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 17

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 18

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 19

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 20

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 21

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 22

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 23

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 24

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 25

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 26

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 27

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 28

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 29

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 30

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 31

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 32

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 33

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 34

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 35

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 36

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 37

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 38

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 39

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 40

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 41

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 42

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 43

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 44

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 45

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 46

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 47

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 48

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 49

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 50

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 51

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 52

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 53

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 54

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 55

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 56

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 57

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 58

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 59

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 60

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 61

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 62

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 63

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 64

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 65

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 66

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 67

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 68

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 69

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 70

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 71

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 72

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 73

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 74

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 75

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 76

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 77

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 78

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 79

MNA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PAGE 80

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY 9/4/2015 4:37:44 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK

~ ... -.~~---~---------------.

CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA and OBDULIA § IN THE DIS"!RlCT COURT MEDINA, husband and wife, § OF DALLAS COUNTY individually; NATAL YE MEDINA, § individually; NAVIL GIBSON, § individually; § §

PLAINTIFFS, § § 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT VS. § § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; § AND JOSE BUSTILLO d/b/a MUNDO § (Oral Argument Requested) CAllS, an in state defendant, § §

DEFENDANTS, §

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. Parade of llorrors 3

II. L'fX M/S's Plague of Defects 4

III. Texas Scope of Discovery 5

IV. Absconded Evidence Needed for Fair Adjudication of their Claims 6

v. Michelin's Deceitful 'l'rack Record 8

Conclusion 12

CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA and OBDULIA § IN THE DISTRICT COURT MEDINA, husband and wife, § OF DALLAS COUNTY individually; NATAL YE MEDINA, § individually; NA VIL GIBSON, § individually; § §

PLAINT!fFS, § § 134rn JUDICIAL DISTRJCT vs. § § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; § AND JOSE BUSTILLO d/b/a MUNDO § (Oral Argument Requested) CARS, an in state defendant, § §

DEFENDANTS, §

PLAINTJli'FS' REPLY' IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO COMPEL

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE DALE TILLERY:

After reviewing Michclins entire R.csponse2 and squeezing it to the last drop, one (1)

q11cstion ren1ains:

Q. Has Michelin produced the docu1nents? A. The answer is an absolute: NO.

1 Please see Plaintiffs' Separate State1nent of Moving Counsel attached as Exhibit JJ, •vhich proves Plaintiff<;' repeated meets and confers with Michelin, Please also sec Plaintiffs' multiple exchanges of correspondence with Michelin attached hereto as Exhibit G. Regardless of undersigned counsel's countless efforts to reach out, Michelin continues to refuse production of necessary evidence for Plaintiffs to fairly adjudicate their clahns. Jn other words, PlaintijjS still tlo not ltave the doc11n1ents, 2 Michelin's "trade secret" argu1nent holds no \Yater. First, \tlichelin failed to prove the requested infor111ation is a trade secret because the law requires that the "subject 1natter of a trade secret nlust be secret." Sten art & ~<:;tevenson ,'Jervices, Inc. v. /ierv-Tech, Inc., 879 S.W.2d 89, 95 (Tex. App,-l·Iouston

1

[14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied). Michelin's only evidence of trade secrets are conclusory state1nents. Second, there is already a Michelin Protective ()rdcr in place that protects it. TI1erefore, Michelin's trade secret objection is a red herring.

TherefOre, Plaintiffs file their Reply in support of their Motion to Compel to talk about

the real issue: Michelin's refusal to produce documents. For manufacturing purposes, the

ei1tire I..,TX M/S li11e is the same. The physical evidence proves it. Michelin's affidavit is yet

anotl1er smokescreen and more of the same attempt to mislead intentionally and blatantly.

'fhercfore, Plaintiffs respectfully the IIonorahle c:ourt lo read the attached l"ederal Judge Amy

'fotenbcrg Order (attached hereto as Exhibit A) to understand the depth, extent and range of

deceit Michelin engages in to prevent production of docu1nents and trial on the merits.

c:once111ing the afiidavit, one (1) thougl1t co1nes to mind: a nicely wrapped turd even with

a bow is still a turd. Its Michelin's litigation-made contents from Vru1eaton Price arc hogwash.

It claims that the tires sought by Plaintiffs are conipletely different3 because of their width, rim

size, load indexes, aspect ratio, etc., etc. Nonsense. In the !ast case l>laintiffS' counsel had

against this same defendru1t, Michelin provided adjustment data, general principles, aspect

specifications, design specifications for a n1ultitude of LTX M/S tires with all kinds of different

tire widths, 1in1 sizes, aspect ratios and speed ratings. I'hc common deno1ninator? Michelin

LTX MJS tires 1nanufactured at J)othan - just like the subject tire.

----------- 3 Moreover, oven if the design and 1nanufacture of different sizes of the LTX M/S were diffCrent - 'vhich they are not - Plaintif'tS are still entitled to discovery about alternative designs w'itb different features:

Funda1nentaUy, the scope of discovery is obviously much broader than the scoue of admissible evidence, and evidence of incident., involving other products besides the exact model at issue can be admissible, and therefore. obviously, dis(~overable.

In re J{xn1ark Mfg. (;o,, inc., 299 S.W.3d 519, 528 (Tex. App. 2009). (e.a.).

Michelin continues its deliberate refusal to disclose critical docun1cnts and evidence

requested sh1ce April. Every Michelin case is the exact satne sto1y and strategy. Stonewall.

Mislead. Do anything and everything necessary to prevent production of critical docu1ncnts and

evidence. All in a deliberate effort to preclude PlaintilTs from obtaining what they are legally

entitled to: "the fullest knowledge of the fact:> and issues prior to trial." In re Exn1ark Mfg. (;o.,

Inc., 299 S.W.3d 519, 526 (Tex. App. 2009).

I. f>arade of Horrors

We know wl1y. Michelin want<; to hide the causes of this epidemic of defective L'fX tires

manufactured at I>othan, each of which has either killed, paralyzed, or mahn.ed people across the

country such as the following tires:

TIRE TYPE PLANT MANUli'ACTURE DATE

J, Michelin LTX P265/70Rl 7 Dothan, Alabama 37'h week, 1997

2. Michelin LTX P235/70Rl6 l)othan, Alabama 1st week, 1999

3, Michelin LTX P265/70Rl 6 Dothan, Alabama 2nd week, 1999

4, Michelin I .TX P265/70Rl 7 Dothan, Alabama 12th week, 2000

4

5. Michelin LTX P265/70Rl 7 Dothan, Alabama 28th week, 2001

6, Michelin LTX P255/70/Rl 65 Dothan, Alabama 3l~t wee}{, 2001

7. Michelin LTX P265/70Rl6 Dothiu1, Alabama 4th week, 2002

8. Michelin LTX P265/70RI 7 f)olhan, Alabama 6th week, 2002

9. Michelin !.TX LT245/75Rl6 Dothan, Alabm.na 47th week, 2002

JO. Michelin LTX P265/70R16 Dothan, Alabm11a 6th week, 2003

4 This is the Velo tire.

5 crhis is the subject tire.

11. Michelin LTX P265/70R 17 Dothan, Alabmna 8th week, 2006

12. Michelin LTX LT265170RJ 6 Dothan, Alabama 16th week, 2006

13. Michelin LTX LT245175R16 Dothan, Alabama 34\h week, 2006

14. Michelin LTX LT265/75R16 f)ot11an, Alabama 51 st week, 2006

These are just the tires Plaintiffs' counsel is aware of that have pcm1anently maimed

folks across America including several paraplegic, quadriplegic and deaths. Mothers, sisters,

husbands, -fathers. All innocent viclin1s initially injured severely by the defective J_,TX then by

Michelin's awful litigation tactics - both as a result of Michelin's secretive defective and

shoddy tire design, manufacturing and inspection practices. t'or in;;tance, in Velo, there were

seven (7) passengers inside the SlJV. One (1) was lcilled, One (I) becmnc a quadriplegic.

Three (3) suffered traun1atic brain injuries. And all suffered a inullitude of other injuries. So

every one of Michelin's tread belt separations leads to many, many n1ore victims including

victi1ns not at the scene of t11e crash. l"or instance, the dead father left ;;everal children witl1out

a dad. T'he quadriplegic inother left ;;everal children with a ;;evercly disabled mother. So, one

(I) single defective tire injured and victinlized n1ore than ten (10) individuals.

'I11ere are so many inorc. Plaintiffs know this because in Velo, when it;; back was

against the wall due to its lack of disclosure, Michelin was forced to cough up its own intc111al

numbers about the L]'X MIS tire line defeciive returns·· irrespective of width, 1i1n size, aspcci

ratios or s1)eed ratings. To put it mildly, the evidence was frightening.

II. LTX M/S's Plague ofJ)efccts

For starters, n1ore than 700 (inst ft·on1 one of its hundreds of dealers and the largest tire

retailer in the world - Discount 1'ire) of its defective I..TX MIS tires were returned for belt edge

separations. In addition, over l,000 tires were returned to Michelin';; dealers for ride vibration

5

a precursor to tread belt separation. 1·his staggering number of many n1ore than 1.500

defective tires den1onstrates, docu1nents and proves that Michelin h:new- as early as 2001 (10

years bef'Ore the incident) - that its IJ TX MIS tire line was dru1gerously defective. Michelin had

to disgorge all this evidence ti·om the I,'fX MIS line whether they were 235s, 245s, 265s, 275s

tread width or whether it is 16 or 17 rin1 size or whether they had ditferent speed ratings

siinilarly to what PlaintiffS are asking here.

Instead of warning the public about its defective product, 6, Michelin did and continues

to do the exact opposite: conceal from the public and its consun1ers that. its IJ l'X line posed and

poses unreasonable risks of deadly danger to its consumers. This adjustme11t/warranty

info11nation and evidence was provided in Velo to counsel, undersigned counsel used it ii1 their

case to annihilate Michelin. ·rhis is the only reason Michelin now refuses to produce it. It is

important to note that the defective nature of the 1:rx MIS line ru1d its injury rate is not a

national scandal because in every case, Michelin blackmails the Plaintiffs into protective orders

and nan·ow discovery or will not produce anything.

lll. Texas Scope of J)iscovery

rrhus, lil(e any crin1e, there is a motive behind Michelin's stonewalling: prevent the

disclosure of Michelin's shoddy tire design, manufacturing, inspection practices ·-directly at

issue in this case - to prevent the public knowledge of its defective tires. fortunately, Texas

law does not pe1mit it. In "fexas, the scope of its llules of Civil J>rocedurc is tl1e ''just, fair,

equitable and impartial adjudication of the rights of litigants":

6 Pursuant to the 1·ransportation Recall Enhanccinent Accountability, and Documentation ("'l'R.EAD") Act, Michelin was required to "report ... data on claims submitted to the nJanufacturer for serious injuries (including death} and aggregate statistical data on property damage from alleged detCct·s in a motor vehicle or in motor vehicle egninment." (e.a.).

The proper objective of rules of civil procedure is to obtain a just, fair, equitable and impartial adjudication of the rights of litigants under established principles of substantive law. 'I'o the end that this objective inay he attained with as great expedition and dispatch and at the least expense both to the litigants and to the state as may be practicable, these rules shall be given a liberal const111ction.

Tex. R. Civ. P. I. (e.a.).

'I'o that end, the Texas - not Michelin - scope <~f discovery is "libel'ally construed to

allow litigations to obtain the fullest knowledge of the facts and issues prior to trial":

'l'he rules of procedure provide that the scope of discovery includes any 11nprivilcged information that is relevant to the subject of the action, even if it would be inadmissible at trial, as long as the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

*****

'fbe phrases "relevant to the subject matter" and "reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence" arc liberally construed to allow litigants to obtain the fullest knowledge of the facts and issues prior to trial

Tex.R. Civ. P. 192.3(a); ln re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tcx.2003) (orig. proceeding); In re Exmark Mfg. Co., Inc., 299 S.W.3d 519, 525-526 (Tex. App. 2009). (e.a.).

So, through its Requests for Production, Plaintiffs asked Michelin to produce the facts

and issues concerning the design, inanufacture and inspection of the subject I,TX MIS tire for the

dliration of its production. ,_~ee ,~lotion to (,'ompel at pp. 6-10, With the exception of nine (9)

Requests, Michelin failed to respond and produce the requested docun1ents about the design,

testing, manufacture, building, and inspection of the Sllbject I"TX M/S. 'rhis info1mation is

indispcnsible for Plaintiffs to fairly adjudicate their products liability, negligence, consu1ner

fraud and exc1nplary dan1ages claims against Michelin.

IV. Absconded Evidence Needed for Fair Adjudicatio11 of their <::Iaims.

1. 'fo fairly adjudicate their clai1n that the tire was defectively inspected, Plaintiffs requested Michelin produce:

a. Aspect Specifications/Aspect Specification Repertoire/Aspect Specification Annexes ·~ the same manufacturing and quality control infOrn1ation/laser photographs that the tire inspectors and verifiers use (and used on the subject tire) when they arc physically looking fOr defects, ru101nalies and abno1mal conditions (such as blisters, abnoimal coloring, molding, eord/cable placement, i1nproper creases, folds, and openings, mold or curh1g issues, foreign material found in the tire and other various conditions) found after the tire is manufaetured but before it leaves the factory for distribution. The aspect specifications also provide a deeision tree on what the inspector/verifier should do when a specific defect is found (repair, scrap, etc.)

b. General Principles the docu1ncnts that instruct the tire inspectors and verifies how to use the Aspect Specifications.

c. Technical Notesffechnical Note Repertoire - the procedures/processes used to address specific d~feets found in the tire.

d. TN<: Tire Non-Confonning l'rocedures used to address tires that are not n1anufactured within specification ru1d arc addressed i11 the Aspect Specifications,

2. To fairly adj11dicatc their claim that the tire was defectively designed, l)laintiffs requested Michelin produce:

a. The adjusttncnt data (inte1nal data (claims, graphs, property claims, adjustment, ina11uals, rctu111s, retu1n codes, correspondencc/inforn1ation exchanged with 'Nfl'fSA pursuant to the 1···RI~AD act) about how tires arc perfonning in the field - based on <lesignfdesign cl1anges/modifications to the tire line/i1nple1nentation of nylon cap plies)

b. The tire specifications including but not limited to:

i. Belt Slcim stock (the rubber coating used between the steel belts is referred to: as skim stoclc. Ski111 stocl( is what makes the belts adhere to one ru1other. Sl<lm stock consists of: a mixtrn·e of vru·ious chemical ingredients, including anti-degradants (added to resist deterioration and loss of physical and adhesive properties), reinforcing agents (added to make the tire sufficiently tnallcable), and accelerators (added to cause the nlolecules of the compound to la1it together when a particular tc1nperature and pressrn·c ru·e applied fOr a given length of time during the vulcanization process). The design of the skim stocll and its resistance to degradation is a critical clen1ent in the design of tires concc111ing the resistance to belt edge separations.

ii. Tire component data - including but not limited to steel belt specifications, inner li11er specifications, carcass ply specifications, bead specifications.

3. ·ro fairly adjudicate their claim that the tire wa.:;; defectively nlanufactured, Plaintiff..:;;

requested Michelin produce:

a. 'fhe work instructions (how to build the tire)

b. Reaction and working tolerances/limits (used by Michelin during manufacturing to dete1mine compliance with design and aging specifications).

Michelin knows that Plaintiffs need these docurnents. Michelin knows that Plah1tiffs

cannot fairly adjudicate its product liability, negligence, conswner fraud and excn1plary dan1ages

clain1s. Michelin also knows that by enacting its own extremely narrow and self-serving scope

of production, it prevents Plaintiffs clain1s of alte1native safer designs, inanufacturing processes

ru1d inspection. Enough is enough. 'I'he stonewalling 1nust stop.

V. Michelin's lleceitful Track Record

Michelin's su1Tcptitious behavior is well docun1entcd from countless cases, atto1neys and

even federal judges such as Judge Amy 'fotenberg. c:asc after case, plaintiff after plaintiff, it is

the sa1ne exact story. /\cross the nation, there are countless examples of plaintiffs and their

fa1nily ine1nbcrs all Michelin users or consumers inain1ed or killed by Michelin's tires ·-

desperately trying in vain to obtain critical evidence just to be bamboozled and nlisled time and

ti1ne again. J,ike in .Bates v. Micl1elin attached as E'xhibit A or in Salinas v. Michelin. attached

as li,'xhibit C' or in Velo v. Michelin. attached as Exhibit D or in Allen v. Michelin attached as

Exhibit};,' or in llribe v. Micltelin, attacher[ as lixhibit F', the plaintiffs had to file Motions to

Compel to obtain tJ1e evidence needed to fairly adjudicate tJ1eir claims.

All of these plaintiffs were required to file n1otions to compel against this sa1nc defendru1t

- Michelin. Like here, because of Michelin's self-serving stonewalling, those plaintiffs from all

9

over the country were forced to waste time and resources trying to obtain what ru1y litigant in any

case deserves: the facts, discovery and evidence necessruy to prepare fOr trial to prove their case.

In !Jates v. Michelin, Federal District Court Judge Amy "l"otenberg found and ruled that

Michelin committed blatant and repeated discove1y violations by concealing evidence -

including through its attorneys ru1d legal counsel. It is worth noting that in Bates, Judge

Totenberg was not an advocate or a pa1iy. Rather, Judge ''fotenbeg was an unbiased, objective

and impartial officer of the Court - appointed by the President of the United States - who

happened to witness firsthand Michelin's "pattern of subterfuge and withholding relevant

and responsive documents" including the very same documents (aspect specifications, reaction

li1nits and tolerances, warranty and adjustlncnt data, etc., etc.) that Plaintiffs seek fro1n this

Cowi.

After multiple inotions to co1npcl, inotions for sanctions and repeated rnisstate1nents to

the Court, the Honorable I•'ederal District Judge A1ny Totenberg had ei1ough of Michelin's

conduct and ruled accordingly:

Michelin's conduct has certainly resulted in delay and disruption of this litigation and has hrunpcred tl1e enforcement of this Cou1i's discovery Orders. ~')ee Malautea v. Suzuki lvforor C'or11., 987 F.2d at 1540 (finding that defenda11ts engaged in ru1 unrelenting can1paign to obfuscate the truth by improperly oqjecting to inten·ogatorics, providing incomplete) eva<>ivc and unreaso11ahle narrow discovery responses, delayed co1npliance with court orders and thus ha111pcrcd tl1c discovery process and sl1owcd disdain for tl1e courCs orders).

First, Michelin's initial production refusal followed by its ongoing delay and obstruction of discovery central to the case have affected the integrity of the legal process.

For example, Michelin's misrepresentations at the J)ccc1nbcr 20, 2010 discovery hearing regardiI1g its production of reaction lhnits and tolcrru1ces resulted in a substru1tivc c1Tor in the January 3, 2011 ()rder that was perpetuated by Michelin's counsel's failure to correct the Court's misunderstanding about what documents had actually been produced.

Michelin refused to produce the documents until ordered to do so by the (~ourt on Septen1ber 19, 2011, thereby precluding the Plaintiffs fro111 seeking a n1ore expansive production of these docu1nents for over a year and a half.

Moreover, Micl1elin scek.s to limit Plaintiff,<;' potential recovery on the grounds that there i;; no evidence to suppo1t a claim for punitive damages after attempting to withhold the very documents on which Plaintiff,<; rely to demonstrate a conscious indifference to the tire's defective design and manufacture. (Sept. 19, 2011 Sanctions Hr'g Tr, 54, Doc, 230,)

Second, Michelin delayed producing its most relevant documents and data for over a year and a half \Vhile seeltlng to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff'.<;' tire expert, in part, on the grounds that his opinions are based on insufficient or unreliable data. (l)oc. 203, 204) Yet, Michelin refused to produce docu1ncnts and data that migl1t potentially support Plaintiffs' expe1t's opinions regarding the defectiveness of the subject tire.

FiI1ally, Michelin's dilaton discovery gamesmanship has ha1npered Plaintiffs' pursuit of a swift judicial proeess to provide a remedy addressing the extreme nature of Mr. Bates' physical injuries. Plaintiffs' steadfast eftOrts to move the case fo1ward to resolution at trial, including their strean1lined discovery, has been needlessly deferred by Michelin's haggling and endless parsing over the production of its evidence on its own time schedule. Not only bas this delay and disruption of the litigation prejudiced Plaintiffs, it demonstrates Micl1clin's bad faith. Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F,3d at l 12L

'fhus, Michelin's course of conduct described herein \Varrants the imposition of sanctions to remedy the impact of repeated violations of the Court's Orders, inaccurate representations to the <:ourt, and prolonged abusive discovery conduct.

'Ihe Court docs not impose :;anctions lightly and has taken great care in the review of the record before it in it:; dete1n1ination of this inattcr. The pattern of abuse by Michelin is extremely troubling. ]'he Court is obligated to uphold the integrity of the legal and discovery process to ensure t11at Plaintiffs here and all parties have the opportunity to fairly present their clahns in a reasonable eflicient and prompt 1nanner. Plaintiffs would not have

to

uncovered the 1najo1ity of the most probative documents i11 exlstence in this case but for their persistence in pul'suing discovery motions and seeking the Court's intervention. Contrary to Michelin's assertion that this belated production dc1non;;trates its good faith, it is preeiscly this ongoing belated production, in conjunetion with Michelin's multiple violations of the Court's Orders and its evasive, hair-splitting and inaeeurate representations to the Court that demonstrate Miehelin's bad faith and why a serious, substantive sanetion is warranted.

A dete1mination that the tire at issue in this case is defective and unreasonably dangerous i;; an appropriate sanction to remedy the diseovery of abuses perpetrated hy M.ichelin in bad faith and in disregard of this Court's prior discovery Orders, First, Michelin made multiple representations to the Court that it had produced documents as ordered by the Court "\Vhen it in fact had not,

Second, Michelin repeatedly refused to produce documents in direct violatio11 of the Court's January 3rd, June 3rd and June 24th ()rders.

Third, Michelin intentionaHy engaged in ru1 extremely nruTow, 11njustified interpretation of tUe Court's ()rders in order to limit, or altogether avoid, producing relevant and useful documents in response to Plaintiffs' discovery requests.

*' *

In smn, Michelin's bad faith conduct caused serious prejudice to the integrity of the legal process and to Plaintif£'1' orderly, effective development ru1d proof of t11eir case. Michelin's course of conduct described herein \Varrants the imposition of sanctions to remedy the impact of repeated violations of the Cot1rt's ()rders, inacc11rate or false representations to the Court, and prolonged abusive discovery conduct.

Order, P'ederal District .Judge Amy Totenberg, Januar)1 2012, PJJ. 51-54, 59, .f(xhibil A. (e.a.).

Michelin is not your typical defendant. Michelin is a well oiled, refined 1nachinc

designed to confuse ru1d mislead tJ1e Court to disrupt litigation, lengthe11 the discove1y process

and preve11t disclosure~ all at the expense of trying the 1nerits of the case a11d ensure prejudice to

the victi1nized plaintiffs,

Here, fron1 the get go, Michelin has been delaying this case. Exactly a year ago,

Michelin and its legal representatives 1nisled the Court to ren1ovc tl1c ease to the federal district

by clailning that J>laintiffS did not serve 'fexas resident, Mundo Cars. S}ee Notice of Rernoval at 4-

5, This was a n1istruth and was in1111ediatcly exposed by Plaintiffs' counsel and documented by

Federal Judge David Godbey:

The Court notes that MNA also removed this case on the basis that Mundo had not been properly served. In their motion to remand. Plaintiffs established that they served Mundo.

,Judge Go<lbey's March 24, 2015 ()rder Granting Reniancl, p. 3,footnote 2. (c.a.).

Michelin and its legal counsel knew their n1istruth to the federal district court would be

easily exposed. It was blatant and easily dispelled by physical evide11ce. Still, they did not care

because in the end, they got their reward. They delayed the case for an entire year. No scruples,

No concerns. No honor. No good fl:iith. 'fhat is Michelin's entire game. Delay. Mislead.

Obfuscate. Prevent trials on the merits. We ask that the Honorable Court to not allow it.

Conclusion: A year later, not11ing has changed. Just like in .Bates, Michelin still has the same

strategy: delay. Plagued with infections and bed sores, the quadriplegic Obdulia's daily

existence is a struggle. ()bdu!ia is out oftiine.

Also, with loon1ing pretrial deadlines including expe1i disclosures, disclosure 1nust be

made. Michelin will use its lack of production to file sumn1ary judg1nc11ts, ]Jaubert n1otions and

further clain1 that Plaintiffs' experts do not have foundation for their opinions. 1.''his is the best

evidence that such absconded evidence is needed for Plaintiffs to fairly adjudicate their claims.

All extre1nely pr~judicial and unfair to the innocent Plaintiffs and their fmnily. It is tin1e f(ll

Michelin to face the music and respond to Plaintiffs' requests for production so Plaintiffs can -

pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure ~ "obtain the fullest li:nowlcdgc of the facts and

13

issues prior to trial." Jn re E:xn1ark M.fi;. C'o., !nc., 299 S.W.3d at 526. Plaintiffs do not want

sympathy or pity. All they want is justice, fairness and a level playing field.

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES Of LUIS P. GUERRA, LLC

6225 N. 24'" S1see1, Sui1c 125 l)hocnix, Arizona 85016 Telephone: (602) 381-8400 Facsimile: (602) 381-8403

I3y: Isl l,uis 1>. Gue1Ta J.,uis P. Gue1Ta (Admitted l)ro Hae Vice) AZ S1a1e Bar No. 015768 David C. Shapiro (Adniitted Pro Hae Vice) AZ State Bar No. 028056 ATTORNEYS FOR PLATNITFFS

LAW 0FFJCE8 OF JAMES B. RAGAN 723 (:ole1nan A venue (:orpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: (361) 884-7787 Facsimile: (361) 884-9144 James 13. J{agan State Bar No. 16466100

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing docu1ncnt has been fo1wardcd to all known counsel of record as set fOrth below via E-Mail & U.S. Mail, on this 4th day of September, 2015.

'rho1nas M. Bullion III Chris A. Blackerby GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, PLLC 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, 'fcxas 78701 A ttorncys for Defendant Michelin North America, Inc.

Jose Bustillo d/b/a/ Mundo c;ars 6422 I)ay Street Dallas, Texas 85227 l)ro Per Defendant Jose Bustillo d/b/a/ Mundo Cars

{'§./ David C. Shapiro__ . . .

EXl-1 ~BIT A

EXl:lIBIT D

lVH!.Ah:ltl l'>. Jtdllt::S, lA\XK Ul l,UU!

*** b!ectronically Filed*** Michelle Palgen S/29/2013 5:07:00 PM

Filing ID 5271448

1 Law Offices of I.VIS P. GUERRA, L.L,(,"'.

2 6225 North 24th Street, Suile 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85016

3 (602) 381-8400 Luis P, Guerra, #015768

4 David C, ~')hapiro, #028056 Attorneys for Plaintiffii;

5 GOLDBERG & OSBORNE, 6 33 North Stone Ave,, Suite 900 1'ucson, Arizona 8570 I

(520) 620-3975

7 John E, Osborne, #07085 Maria def Pilar Mendoza, #024740 8 Attorneys for Jlfaintijfs 9

10 IN 'IBE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA 11 IN AND FOR 11IB COUNTY OF MARICOPA 12 SANDRA VELO, ct al, No, CV2012-007346 13 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL 14 V, (Assigned to the Honorable Judge Rea)

15 MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC, a 16 New York Corporation, et al, Oral Argument set for:

17 Defendants, Tuesday, ,June 25, 2013

18 3:00 p.m.

19 20 P1·eface: This Motion and Separate Statement of Moving Counsel simply request the Court to

21 order Defendant Michelin to comply with the Arizona discovery rules and produce the 22 information Plaintiffs have been repeatedly and patiently asldng for, dating as far back as July 23 31, 2012. Correspondence, January 31, 2013, Exhibit A; Correspondence, February 14, 2013;

24 Correspondence, March 6, 2013, Exhibit B; Correspondence, April 4, 2013, Exhibit C; E-mail 25

26 correspondence, May 6, 2013, Exhibit D; Correspondence, May 10, 2013, Exhibit E,

2

1 After nearly a year of empty promises and conntless e-mails, correspondence, phone calls 2 and several meet and confer conferences, conceming the production of documents about the } design, inspection, testing, building, curing, quality control processes and manufacture' of 4

5 Michelin's defective LTX tire, Michelin produced nothing in response to 51 of the 56 discovery

6 requests. Adding insult to injury, very recently, after weeks and weeks of false assurances and 7 empty promises that some of the documents were forthcoming, Defendants have produced 8 nothing. This is Michelin's modus operandi in litigation. It discloses nothing. It produces 9

10 notl1ing nntil motions to compel are filed and production is required by a Court Order. Even

11 then, it still produces nothing. This stonewalling should not be permitted and Michelin should 12 be ordered to produce tlle requested information that is reasonably calculated to lead to tlle 13 discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 26(b), A.R.C.P.

14 15 I. Defendants have produced next to nothing.

16 Since the inception of this lawsuit, Plaintiffs have served Defendants with the following 17 discovery requests - all of which have yielded ZER0 2 documents and fact witnesses about the 18 design, testing, inspection, building and manufacture of the subject tire:

19

20 Information requested Reg nested Releva11ce Produced?.

21 1~.~D~oc-·u_m_e_n_ts- ___a_b_m-1t-··~th~e-o-1-·g-an-i~z-at·ico-11-aJ-,-7""/~3~1/~2~0 !2~~D-cs-i~gn-&'~Manufactore 7 7

strnctore of Michelin North America 22 -~==~~========--~----~~-------~----~

23 11----------~ 1 There are eleven (ll) basic stepS to tire ·manufacturing: 1) 1uixing and combining the raw inate1ials into rubber co1npound, 24 2) tnilling to wann up the rubber co111pound, 3) extruding operations to transfo.rm rubber compow1ds into specific tire components, 4) processing fabric and wire and coating the1n with 1ubber, 5) processing bead wires and coating then1 with 25 rubber, 6) cementing and marking of beads, material~ and exbuded components, 7) cutting and cooling the various extruded components, 8) assen1bli11g all of the components (bead wires, coated fabrics, treads) on a tire~building machine funning a 26 green tire, 9) lubrication of the green tire, 10) curing the tire with heat and pressure and 11) fmishing and inspecting the completed tire.

27 2 As shown below, Michelin produced less than an inch of docu1nents. 1'his Ls not an exaggeration. On the contrary, an inch 28 of documents is au ove1'8tatemcnt because nearly all of these docu1nents are iUegible or written in French.

"-·- - -----

2. Decision Tree Manual/Aspect 7/31/2012 Manufacture No 2 Specifications re: quality control of tires made (criteria used hy tire builders to 3 test the production quality of cured tiJ!S} -· 4 and si1nilar tire 7/31/2012 Design & Manufacture No 3. Subject tire 5 specifications concerning design and manufacture (the specifications ahout 6 the construction of the tire's helt skim 7 stock, carcass ply, steel cord snecifications) ·-"''"'"""'"'

8 4. Records of other tires built with the same 7/31/2012 Design & Manufacture No belt skim stock as subiect tire "···-·-·-"'

9 5. Reaction limit specifications for the 7/31/2012 Manufacture No 10 subject tire to determine whether built tires comply with design specifications 11 (criteria used by tire huilders to test 12 the production quality of uncured tires) ..

13 6. Document~ arising out of personal injury 7/31/2012 Design & Manufacture No claims/lawsuits re: the subject line of 14 LTXtires "_.., ...... _ 15 7. Documents re: adjustment of the subject 7/31/2012 Design & Manufacture No3 tire and similar tires to obtain internal 16 data about Michelin's lmowledge of 17 alleged tire defects and failures (information about how Michelin deals 18 with returned tires with defects and failures) ·-· 19 8. Documents re: property damage claims 7/31/2012 Design & Manufacture No 20 arising out of the subject tire and similar - line of tires ...

-···-"""~--~

21 9. Governrnent/consrnner safety agency 7/31/2012 Design & Manufacture No 22 c<mtacts/communications/rccords re:

questions, claims, tren.ds or patterns of 23 fail~re of the subject tires ·~

10. Internal rec<>mmendatio11s re: 7/31/2012 Design & Manufacture No 24 acceptable/unacceptable rates of loss of 25 adjustment (documents ahout trends of ~ defective tires} .. .... . .....

26 ·~

27 3 In response to this Request tbr Production, Defendant Michelin produced one-hundred and thirty-five (135) l'agcs of illegible 28 doeuments.

1 11. Complaints/reports/notices authored by 7131/2012 Design & Manufacture No 2 dealerships, customers, consumers or govc1nment agencies addressed to 3 Michelin re: tread separations of the subject LTX tires or similar lines of tires 4 7131/2012 Design No 12.Personal injury claims/lawsuits/property 5 damage c.laims/adjustments involving failures of Michelin tires that incorporate 6 _ .. nylon cap plies . -·----

13. Training, testing and inspection 7/31/2012 Manufacture No 7 docu1nents concerning the manufacture 8 of tires at the Dothan, Alabama nlant 14.Audits performed by Michelin re: 7131/2012 Design & Manufacture No 9 failure/durability/design or quality of the 10 subject tire and similar tires 15. Training materials issued by Michelin 713112012 Manufacture No 11 addressed to the tire builders at the 12 Dothan, AL plant at the time the subject tire was built

13 16.All training materials issued by Michelin 7131/2012 Manufacture No addressed to Michelin North America's 14 employees building the subject tire and 15 similar tires -· 17. lnspection methodology materials used 713112012 Manufacture No 16 to identify trapped air/steam blisters in 17 finished tires (quality control procedures about the detection of 18 manufactu1·in2 defects in tires) -~

18. Testing of steel belted radial passenger 7131/2012 Design & Manufacture No 19 and light truck tires manufactured with 20 tbe same belt skim stock as subject tire, including peel testsi pull tests, 21 11erformance tests and endurance tests 22 19. Testing results relating to the 7131/2012 Design & Manufacture No relationship between under-inflation and 23 tread separation 20. Rim groove analysis ·documenting the 7/31/2012 Design & Manu facturc No 24 relationship between under-inJlation, rim 25 groove nrofile and tread belt separation 21. Department of Transportation testing 7/3112012 Design & Manufacture No 26 conce1ning the Michelin LTX tires 27 1nanufacturcd at the Dothan, Alabama plant

- -

1 22. Michelin testing about the causes of 7/31/2012 Design & Manufacture No 2 tread separation in the subject tire, similar tires and all tires f'ro1n the same 3 LTX line of tires _..,,,_ 23. Michelin documents about the 7/31/2012 Design & Manufacture No 4 relationship between imp,act testing and 5 tread senaration ..- - -

-·-"''""'"""""-·~- -- ..,_ ""'-'""""'-

24. Cnring conditions at the Dothan, AL 7/31/2012 Manufacture No 6 plant used in the manufacture of the 7 subject tire and any and all subsequent ~ _c:_hanges to the curing conditions -- --- ~ ...., _ ' ..,_ ~ ......... _ 8 25.Documents about 1) the use or potential 7/31/2012 Design & Manufacture No use of nylon overlay/belt edge strips/belt 9 edge wraps/belt edge gum strips in 10 Michelin passenger or Iight truek tires and the application of su ch during the 11 tire building proccs s and 2) 12 patents/articles/materials authored by or in possession of Michel'1n re: use of 13 nylon overlays in passengernight truck tires (nylon overlays a re layers of 14 nylon that extend around the two steel 15 belts underneath the tread to provide

16 ~- heJ!er tr.,ad/belt integri tyl --"'"'"'"'' ___ 26. Michelin document retention policy - 7/31/2012 Yes t~talingfifteen (15) pages 17 -- -- -

27. Depositions and statements of Chuck 7/31/2012 Design & Manufacture No 18 Patrick from Bates v. MJl:A, USDC N.D.

Georgia,_Case No. 1:09-CV-3280-RWS 19 28. Michelin documents and testing about 7/31/2012 Tire aging No'

20 tire aging ---·-"' -

r 29. Michelin communications addressed to 7/31/2012 Tire aging No 21 auto manufacturers conceming tire use 22 limits r-3~0-.-QUality procedures re: components used 2/28/2013 Manufacture No 23 in manufacture of subject tire· 31. Customer drawings associ ated with OE 2/28/2013 Design No 24 __contracts involving the sub~ect tire --..-···- --·-- .. ~-

... _

25 32. Splice overlap standards/tolerances for 2/28/2013 Manufacture No plies and belt materials re: subjeet tire 26 (quality C()!llro!Jlrocedu res abo11t the 27 4 Instead of producing the internal testing, memoranda, training tnate1ials and adjustlnent data about tire aging, Defendants 28 only produced a one fl) page document titled "Technical Bulletin."

·------~""'"'" -

l detection of manufacturing defects 2 during the splicing of various tire com"onents}

3 :l:i. Field surveillance data re:- subject tire 2/28/2013 Design & Manufacture No (claims records about how a tire is 4 performing in the field - different than 5 adinstment data)

34. Adjustment data/prope1ty damage claims 2/28/2013 Design No 6 from before and after the introduction of 7 nvlon can nlies in Michelin tires 35. Ac\justmcnt data/property damage claims 2/28/2013 Design No 8 since the intmduction of nylon cap plies into Michelin tires in the same size as the 9 subject tire

10 36. Curing specifications for the subject tire 2/28/2013 Manufacture No at the time of its manufacture (chemical II process called "vulcanization" in 12 which the green tire obtains its final shape and tread in a "press" under 13 heat and pressure wl1ile the various components chemically and physically 14 ~()nd togethe_rt -·-- ---"-"""" --

15 37.Cnrrent curing specifications for the 2/28/2013 Manufacture No subject tire

16 38. Belt edge integrity test results for the 2/28/2013 Design & Manufacture No 17 subject tire or other tires with the same oreen tire or belt_,.kirn C(Jffij)Onnd -- "" .. ~·-· 18 39. Michelin's list of substitutions for 2/28/2013 Manufacture No component' concerning tbe subject tire 19 at the time of its manufacture -···--··---·-· 20 40. Michelin's rheometric measurements 2/28/2013 Design No produced on the belt skim/tread cap/tread 21 base/nndertread for the subject tire to the 22 present --

41. Michelin's endurance testing results for 2/28/2013 Design & Manufacture No 23 low-pressure testing conducted on the subject tire or tires witl1 the same green 24 specifications or belt skim 25 42. Cost reductions applied to the design of 2/28/2013 Design No the subject tire from initial production 26 release to tbe date of manufacture of tbe 27 ~--~11bJe~t tire

' '

1 43. Cost increases applied to the design and 2/28/2013 Design & Manufacture No 2 manufacture of the subject tire from initial production release to the date of 3 _____l)lauufacture of the subject tire ________ 44. Regulatory compliance test results for 2/28/2013 Design & Manufacture No 4 the subject tire and all associated tires 5 sharing the same green tire construction ~as s~~j.~ct tir~-~·- "" ·---- 6 45. Green tire specifications and "2/28726i3"" Design & Manufacture No 7 specificatio11 change histmy for the subject tire from production release to 8 present (changes made to tbe subject tire's and components' design and 9 mannfactm·e} 10 46. Tread die profile for the subject tire ~~-- 2/28/2013 Design & Manufacture No

11 ~~---- .. -·---" -·-·-.. -- 2/28/2013 Design & Manufacture No 47. Adjustment data/property damage claims 12 after the introduction of design changes to the subject tire since the date of the 13 subject tire's manufactu1'e

5

48. Design drawings for the subject tire 2/28/2013 Design No 14 ""

15 "49: Cut analyses and reports on the subject "2/28/2013 Design & Manufacture No tire from manufacturing release to time 16 of the subject tire's date of manufacture 17 (analvses of returned cut tire sections\ --~-

6

50. Cured, finished gauges for the 2/28/2013 Manufacture No 18 manufacture of_the subjeci tire -··-- 19 51.Michelin's process control chart 2/28/2013 Manufacture No concerning the manufacture of the 20 ___s_ulJject tire at the Dothan,_Alabama pla11t - --

52. Diagram about the process of applying 2i28/2013 Manufacture No 21 the innerliner of the subject tire to tl1e 22 -·.

building drum

----------- ~·-- -·-·-

53. Quantitative listing of ingredients of the 2/28/2013 Design & Manufacture No 23 sidewalls of the subject tire used at the time of the manufacture of the subject 24 tire ..... _ "" --·--·-

25 54.Design Failure Mode and Effect' . "2/28/2013 Design & Manufacture No Analysis of the subject tire in nossession 26 "

27 5 Michelin produced a total of three (3) illegible pages in response to this Requellt.

28 6 These docutnents - MNA00859MMNA00864 are alJ written in French and incoinprehensible,

8

ofMichclin ---· SS.Daily production scrap report for 12 2/28/2013 Manufacture No 2 months before and after the manufacture 3 of the subdect tire of the subject tire and tires sharing the same com11onento;; as the 4 subject ti re (tires that are no longer 5 able to be used for their original f-c-"'•,,,11.:Jl~stl}._ ---

6 S6. Identity <>f tire -buildefs, tire examiners 3/1/2013 Manufacture No 7 and supcl'V!·sors employed by Michelin who worIced at the Dothan, Alabama 8 plant and were physically present at the time the sugj~~t tire wasplanufactured 9 1o See Plaintiffe Irma Olivas, Antoinette Olivas and Marcos Olivas Request for Production dated July 31, 2012, Exhibit F and .Michelin responses thereto, Exhibit G; Plaintiff Rqfael Olivas' 11 Request/or Production dated February 28, 2013 and Michelin responses thereto, Exhibit H; 1 2 Plaintiff' Mary Ann Olivas' Request for Production dated February 28, 2013 and Michelin responses thereto, Exhibit I; Plaintiff Sandra Velo 's Request for Production dated February 28, 13 2013 and .Michelin responses thereto, Exhibit J; Plaintiff Maryann Valdez' Request for Production dated February 28, 2013 and .Michelin responses thereto, Exhibit K; Plaintiff Irma 14 Olivas, Antoinette Olivas and Marcos Olivas' Non-Uniform Interrogatory dated March 1, 2013 15 and Michelin's response thereto, Exhibit L.

16 Conclusion: The facts speak for themselves. In other words, Defendant Michelin has produced 17 next to nothing. Enough is enough. Michelin's failure to disclose this evidence and information 18 violates all the Arizona discovery rules, the basic principles of litigation, corrupts the integrity of 19 20 1he legal process and makes a mockery of this litigation.

21 Michelin's stonewalling is extremely prejudicial to Plaintiffs, preventing them from 22 reasonably preparing for trial including: 1) conducting discovery, 2) preparing for and 3) taking 23 depositions, 4) cross-examining Michelin's employees or S) Michelin's experts, 6) providing full 24 25 expert opinions and 7) disclosing areas of expert testimony, forcing Plaintiff to request the

26 Court's assistance. 27

9

1 Accordingly, pursuant to Rules !, 26, 26.1, 33, 34, 37(a)(c) and (d) A.R.C.P., Plaintiff 2 respectfully requests this Honorable Comt to order Defendant Michelin to immediately produce 3 the requested information and documents.

4

5 DATED this~t day of May, 2013. 6

7 Isl Luis P. Guerra

8 Luis P. Guerra David C. Shapiro

9 LUIS P. GUERRA, LLC.

6225 N. 24t1' Street, Suite 125 10 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Attorneys for P/aintiffe

11

12 John E. Osborne Maria de! Pilar Mendoza

13 GOLDBERG & OSBORNE 33 North Stone Avenue, Su, 900 14 Tucson, AZ 85701 Attorneys for P/aintiffe

15 ORIGINALE-filedthis.2..-~ day

16 Of May, 2013 and COPY of the foregoing MAILED this same day of 17 May, 2013, to: 18 C. Bradley Vynalek, Esq.

19 Ryan S. Patterson, Esq.

QUARLES & BRADY, LLP 20 Renaissance One 21 Two North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85004-2391 22 Co-Counsel for Defendants Michelin 23 Chris S. Pacetti, Esq.

24 K. Noelle Ponsetto, Esq.

Christina Ciminelli, Esq.

25 YlJKEVICH CALFO & CAVANAUGH 26 355 South Grand Avenue, 15"' Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 27 Co-Counsel for Defendant Michelin

Christopher M. Nal6n CARNAHAN PERRY HANLON & l:illDONS, PLC 2 722 E. Osborn Rd., Suite 400 Phoenix, AZ 85014 3 Attorneys for Defendant Tire Direct, Inc.

4 Josue-Alfonso Munoz S. Esq. 5 LAW OFFICES OF JOSUE-ALFONSO MUNOZ S.

1802East111omas Road, Suite 14 6 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 7 Attorneys for Llantera Chandler Heights, L.C.C. dba El Mil Amores Tires aka Llantera Mil Amores aka 8 Mil Amores #IO; Martin Chacon; David Chacon;

Mario Chacon; Rosie Chacon, and Lauro Chacon 9 Juvenal Espinoza 1O 298 e. Sheffield Comt 11 Gilbert, AZ 85296 ESPINOZA ENTERPRISES, LLC. 12 dlb/a JUVES AUTO CLINIC Prose 13 John E. Osborne 14 Maria de! Pilar Mendoza GOLDBERG & OSBORNE 15 33 North Stone Avenue, Su, 900 Tucson, AZ 85701 16 At neys for Plaintiffs '

17 /~~ 18 19

20 21

22

23

24 25 26 27

J[Xl~lIBIT E

FILED -····-"~---

WISAPR 16 PHl2:22

VlRLYixf; ilNNtLL

1 GOLDBERG & OSBORNE

698 E. Wetmore Road, Suite 200 SUPEfliOR cm Jffi am

2 Tucson, Arizona 85705

(520) 620-3975

3

John E. Osborne, Esq. 4 State Bar #07085

joshornc(li: goldhc1·gandosborne.con1

1

5 \Villiam C. Bacon, Esq.

State Bar #04895 6 'vbacon@goldbergandosborne.com Kristin J. Schriner, Esq. 7 State Bar #026631

kschriner@.goldbergandosbon1e.com 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

~o 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MOHAVE Kimberly Allen, a single woman, No: CV 2013-07176 °' ~ o.~ 11 aJ ·~ Plaintiff, (/)~~ ~ PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO 0 ~"'~ 12 vs.

.•N oe:ln::No COMPEL DEFENDANT MICHELIN ~ g~i 13 NORTH AMERICA TO PROVIDE FULL AND COMPLETE ANSWERS w 4) "!!?. al;: i:: Ow 14 TO PLAINTIFF'S -'• INTERROGATORIES AND 0$ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION,

"' 15 AND TO SUPPLEMENT 16 DISCLOSURES

17

18

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, a New York Corp.; SUPERIOR TIRE CORPORATION, an Arizona Corporation, JOHN DOES I-X and XYZ PARTNERSHIPS 1-X,

j. ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

19 . c. . . co. RPO. R··A···TIONS.I-.Xand JANED·····o·· ES . I. . .-.. X; A. B ____ ... __ _j2~fc~~anJ~.'.. __"_., _ --"-·--" __ _

20

21 PlaintiffKi1nberly Allen, pursuant to Rule 37, Ariz. R. Civ. P., inove,.q this Court for an Order

22 compelling Defendant Michelin North An1erica ("MNA") to produce docu1nents responsive to

23 Plaintifrs Requests fOr Production, to provide supp1etnenta1 and verified responses to Plaintiff's 24 Interrogatories, and to supplement its disclosures. 25 MNA decided that it only had to disclose and answer discovery that 1) fit into MNA 's severely

26

restricted self~defined 1 year scope of discovery, and 2) that only concerned this exact model tire.

27

MNA unilaterally acted as the Court and defined this as "The Relevant Scopen. "fhis scope not only

1 violates Arizona's broad discovery rules, but it also contradicts Arizona's strict product liability !aw

2

and the hindsight test articulated in Dart v. Wiebe, 147 Ariz. 242, 709 P.2d 876 (1985), which allows

3

for admissibility (and thu:; discovery) of the manufacturer's kno\vledge regarJing the product up to the

4

date of the trial.

5

MNA also made the premeditative choice to restrict the discovery of docuinents to only 6

6

7 months after the manufacture of the subject tire kno\ving that M-NA had already allegedly destroyed nil

8 of these documents. 'fhus, M">. Allen would receive nothing. If MN A destroyed all relevant documents

9 that fall within MNA's "relevant scope," then this alone requires a broader scope of discovery.

10 MNA also refused to answer discovery based on "trade secret" objections despite the fact tlu1t

~~ 11 the Court has entered Protective Order ("PO") for MNA 's confidential docun1ents. 0 ·~ 12 (/)~~~ "' 0 .

MNA failed to ang\vcr discovery requests that are reasonably calculated lo lead to the 016wl?l ~£~~ 13 e> e c"' discovery of ad1nissiblc evidence regarding both Ms. Allen's rnanufac.:hiring and design defect clnin1. ffi§!J~14 m3i=- MNA 's objections arc u continued ubusc of discovery that contradic.:ts Arizono's rules against 9~ 15 g$ gnn1es111anship in the discovery process. Kin1herly Allen therefore requests that this Court cotnpel 16 MNA to ans\vcr Ph1intiff's discovery requests nnd for appropriute sanctions pursuant to Rule 17 18 }7('1)(2)(A) and A.R.S. 12-349 (A)(4).

19 Ms. AHe:n proposes the tO!!o\ving as the scope of disi.:overy for MNA 's responses: J<'or other

20 incidents, ad.jnst111ent datn, clai111s and con1plaints, the scope should be the scope of production

21 of the n1odcl tire and the sintllar green tires. 22 The scope of discovery for testing, \Vhich is non-specific to the tire ;1t issue, hut rather

23 rclntcs to i\'INr\'s l\_no,vlcdgc regarding the cause of tire l'ailurcs, should be all 15, 16, and 17 inch

24 pnssengcr and light truck tires 1110u111fnct·urcd by !VINA for five years priol' to the 111anufacturc ol 25 the suhjcct tire to the present day.

26 I. BACKGRO\JNJ) FACTS:

27 ()n ()ctober 8, 2011, I<in1bcrly Allen \Va:l driving \Vith her duughter on 1-40 fron1 C.alifornia to

28 i\·1ohavc Valley, Arizona. K..in1bcrly \V<ls 1n0ving to l\1ohave Valley to be \Vlth her n1other aHcr the

28

1 unexpected death of Kimberly's stepfather. Kimberly was also starting a new job at the Aquarius 2 Casino in Laughlin in a few days and was very excited about her new life in Mohave County. 3 Wl1ile driving on 1~40, the Michelin tire on the vehicle Kimberly was driving suddenly and 4 unexpectedly suffered a tread separation. The failed tire caused the vehicle to go out of control and roll 5 over. Kimberly was trapped in the vehicle for close to an hour, hanging from her seatbelt while the

6 emergency responders atte1npted to extract her. Kimberly suffered severe injuries to her leg/ankle as 7 well as to her ann. It took many surgeries and months of recovery before Kimberly was on her feet 8 again, and tl1e job she was excited about starting was no longer available. 9 The tire at issue is a P215/70R15 Uniroyal Tiger Paw AWP 1I tire, manufaetured at MNA's 10 Ardmore, Oklahoma plant ("The Subject Tire"). MNA manufactured this tire during the 40'h week of

At the beginning of t11is case, Plaintiff was concerned about MNA's discovery abuses given past tactics by MNA's current discovery finn. See e.g., Sanction Order in Bates v. MNA, attached as Exhibit B; see also Sanction Order in (}uzn1an v. MNA, attached as Exhibit C. In the Joint Report filed almost a year ago, Plaintiff addressed this concern: "In tl1e past, the Plaintiff's attorneys had a difficult 1S time obtaining timely, complete, and accurate responses to tl1eir discovery requests from defendant 17 Michelin North America." ,)"ee June 13, 2014 Joint Report at p. 4. MNA responded stating: "MNA

18 objects to Plaintiff's atton1ey's unfounded claim as it atte1npts to portray MNA as uncooperative and 19 unreasonable, neither of which is true. MNA has co1nplied with all applicable rules, regulations and 20 laws and will do so in this case." See id. Unfortunately, MNA did not live up to this promise. 21 II.

MNA'S IMPROPER OBJECTIONS INCLUDING A VIOLATION OF THIS COURT'S 22 ORDER REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF FACT WITNESSES.

On October 31, 2014, Ms. Allen served MNA with one set of Inte1Togatories ("NU Is") and one 23 set of Requests for Production C'RFP"). On December 12, 2014, Plainti'ffreceived MNA's responses, 24 which stated: "MNA objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks or attempts to seek trade secret, 25 proprietary, or othenvise co1nmercially confidential." S"ee MNA 's Responses to NU Is at p. 3, Ex hi bi I 26 D. MNA 1nade this objection despite the fact that the Court had entered a PO with a Heightened 27 Confidentiality Clause, \Vhich protects all of MNA's confidential docu1nents. A heightened

4

1 confidentiality clause is an extreme protection generally only entered in patent cases, or in litigation 2 against direct competitors. With this PO, MNA has no excuse for its failure to answer discovery. 3 MNA also took it upon itself to edit Plaintiffs request and restricted its answers to: "the 4 Subject Tire and tires manufactured to the specification in place for the Subject Tire at the Ardmore,

5 Oklahoma plant during the six rnonths before and the sjx 1nonths after the date. of 111anufucturc of the 6 Subject Tire." See j(f. at p. 2, Exhibit D. By this means, MNA decided it would create its own

7 discovery rules and defined this as ~'the Relevant Scope." Then, MNA refused to ans\.ver discovery that 8 did not fall within this self-defined "relevant scope." For example, many of Ms. Allen's requests relate 9 to MN A's notice of other incident or clailns in which consumers alleged tread separations or other 10 defects involving the same model tire. Other requests involve testing performed by or on behalf of'

w ~~ 11 MNA that does not relate specifically to any one model tire, but instead relates to MN A's knowledge g.~.,, 12 CJ) enc.,., regarding the cause of tread separations. MNA failed to answer any of these requests. 0 .p!;; !;;

i"" :6 13 o6 ~ ~ N ivfNA also made numerous objections which have no support under Arizona law. For example, t!1 e "":::. ~Et!~ w . . :i ~ 14 M'NA refused to identify anyone with knowledge about the design or manufacture of the subject tire ""~ c_, w 15 0 :g clai1ning it did not have to answer interrogatories until the fact witness deadline. See MN A's (!l ~ 1 6 supplemental responses to NU! 3, 4, 6 and 11, attached as Exhibit E. 17 Not only docs Rule 26. 1 require that MNA provide fact witness information in its lnitinl 1 8 Disclosure, but Plaintiff also specifically requested this information in an interrogatory. 19 Moreover, the Court's Scheduling Order instn1cted: "This order does not replace the parties' 20 obligation to seasonably disclose Rule 26.l information on an on-going basis and as it becomes 21 available." See Dcce1nber 4, 2014 Scheduling Order. MNA's refhsal to identify lay witnesses is n 22 direct violation of this Court's order and alone is grounds for sanctions. By MNA's refusal to identiry 23 any witnesses until the fact witness deadline {April 27, 2015), MNA leaves Plaintiff only t\vo months 2 4 (June 26, 2015) to depose these out of state individuals. 25 MNA also refused to answer interrogatories stating that Ms. Allen is required to subpoena n 2 6 30{b)(6) witness if she wanted responses. This has no support under Arizona law, and actually negates 2 7 the entire purpose of serving inten·ogatories. 28 One of the MNA's 1no:-;t confusing objections can be found in MNA's objections to Plaintiff's

1 NUl' s 3) 5 and 6, Exhibit D. In each of these responses, MNA stated it would not answer the request

1

2 because "Plaintiff has not alleged a specific theory of defect in this case, nor is it clear what aspect o

3 the design and manufacturing process Plaintiff alleges to have been improper." Id. MNA's objection 4 fails to recognize that Plaintiff sent MNA a correspondence detailing Plaintiffs defect claims. See

5 January 12, 2015 correspondence from counsel for Ms. Allen to MNA, at p. 3, Exhibit F:

6

1-lo\vcvcr, in on ctTort to encourage Michelii1 to follow Arizona's discovery tules, upon 7 infOrn1ation and belief the potential defect issues with this tire include but are not !in1itcd to pren1ature oxidation, inadequate bonding, lo\V belt to tread \Vidth ratio, dog 8 eared splices of' the belts, \Vhich are out of tolerance pursuan! to Michelin's standards, gapped belt ::iplices, and no nylon cap ply. 'fhese are specitic design and n1anufacturing 9 defects., \Vhicb are not inclusive or intended to replace the expeti disc!osurei but are provided to rrddress Michelin's objection.

10

Id.

w zo 11 Even though Plaintiff provided this defect infonnation, MNA still refused to supplement its "'~ o~ m~ ~ ;e 12 answers and instead repeated the same objections. See Supplemental_ responses to NUis, 3, 5, 6, Q'g((l~13 o6 ti.~~ Exhibit E. What is more, in response to NUI lSi which requested MNA describe its position regarding C) f:! 1£"'

.,.. "§3~14 w 9~ ~ ::i - the cause of the tire failure, MNA objected that this was a "pre1nature request for expert testhnony."

15 See id. at p. 16.

0m (!)

16 MN A's objection is nonsensical given that MNA had required Plaintiff to disclose her !.ire

17 defect theories, which MNA then refused to do itself. 18 Ms. Allen also requested the specifications for the subject tire, which are basic documents that 19 should always be disclosed without a request in a tire product liability suit. However, MNA claims it 2 0 destroyed the specs as part of it docu1nent destruction policy. ,l:)ee MNA's Supplemental llesponse to 2 1 RFP 1, attached as Exhibit G. Plaintiff therefore asked MNA to provide the following infOrmation:

22

Please make sure that you include the date on \Vhich Michelin destroyed these 23 docun1ents. Please also confinn that Michelin has performed a search and that the specs are not in the possession of any of Michelin's attorneys, representatives, employees, 24 agents and/or that these specs are not in any court depository.

,<:)ee February 16, 2015 email to Giles Schanen, attached as Exhibit H.

25

Plaintiff never received a response t<) this request.

26

In place of the subject 2007 tire specifications, MNA produced specifications for a tire

27

manufactured in 200<2. Y ct, MNA's scope of discovery is lilnited so severely that it does not include

1 any documents or infor1nation past 2008. Therefore, Ms. Allen is left with specifications for a 2009 2 tire, but absolutely no other infonnation regarding this tire. This is illogical. TI1ese are just a fc\v 3 examples ofMNA's improper objections. 4 Pursua11t to Mohave County Local Rule CV~l(D), attached are the questions 5 propounded, MNA's responses, and why these responses are deficient. See Exhibit A. 6 On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff sent MNA correspondence detailing the deficiencies in MNA's 7 responses and disclosure statements. See January 12 correspondence, attached as Exhibit L PlaintifJ

8 provided MNA with Arizona's law regarding the breadth of discovery, as well the law regarding

9 adtnissibility vs. discoverability because MNA objected to inany requests using a strict standard for 1 0 admissibility at trial. See id. at p.4- 5, Exhibit !. Plaintiff also asked that MNA provide support for w ~~ 11 MNA's numerous objections to "unduly burdensome" and "overly broad."

m: 0 .~ ~~

12

0 .. .,,"' 13 As the Court knows, boilerplate objections without support are improper. See id. (citing ,f:Jee

~ ~~~ e.g., Cornet Stores v. Superior Court Jn & For Yavapai Cnty., 108 Ariz. 84, 88-89, 492 P.2d 1191, Jw ~~ 14 1195-96 (1972) ("The objection based i1pon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the °'ca~.=~ o·~ 15 quantum of \York required, while to support an objection of oppression there 1uust be some showing gm ..J

16 either of an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of t11e burden is 17 incommensurate with the result sought.'); See also e.g., April 13, 2011 Trial Transcdpt from State oj

18 Arizona v ASARCO: 19 THE COURT: And let me tell you, I mean, I'm beyond offended by it, and I'll tell you why. Your general objections are obstn1ctionist, frivolous, lack any basis in law or fact, 20 and are -- actually have been ba1Ted by every circuit that has ever ruled on the question, 21 including the Ninth Circuit.

So. if I ever see &eneral objections, you object becnuse it's attorney-client privilege, you 22 object because it1s overbroad and vagU(;; and an1biguous, unduly burdenson1e and oppress -- you know, you have every boileq1lnte objection in these nns\vers to 23 interrogatories. And there's absolutely nothing objectionable about lhc interrogatories asked in this docun1ent. ~ '

24

1

And every circuit has held that if you make an objection based on the fact that they re 25 vague or overbroad, you have a duty to specifically point out why they're vague or 26 overbroad, and you don't do that.

And so I don't know if it's a cultural practice in this district that allows you to do that, 27 but I know it's contrary to Ninth Circuit law and every other circuit law. 28 Id., attached as Exhibit J.

1 Plaintiff provided this infonnation in an effort to avoid Court intervention. 2 Ill.

MNA'S "COMPROMISE" OFFERED TO SUPPLEMENT A FEW ANSWERS ONLY 3 IF MS. ALLEN AGREED TO WITHDRAW ALL OF HER REMAINING DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND AGREED TO FORFEIT HER RIGHT TO HAVE THE COURT 4 DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE SCOPE OF DISCOVERY UNDER ARIZONA LAW.

5 A. Ms. Allen ShouliJ_Not l{g_yc ]'o Withdr<nv Anv Of Her Requests In I'.'.:::;.chang9 For M-NA 6 Agreeing 1'o Do What lt ls AlrcnQyQJ)ligated By La\V To Do.

On February 12, 2015, Plaintiff and MNA conducted a "meet and confer" to discuss MNA's 7 objections to Plaintiffs discovery. This "meet and confer" was between Plaintiffs counsel and 8 MNA's discovery counsel, which is now the third law firm currently representing MNA in this 9 lawsuit. MNA is currently represented by Farhang & Medcoff from Arizona, Yukevich Cavanaugh 10 from Los Angeles, CA, and now Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP from South Carolina.

11 During the meet and conferi Plaintiff provided her proposal regarding the scope of discovery.

See Feb1uary 12, 2015 email to MNA coun.o:;el, attached as Exhibit K. MNA responded with its O\Vn proposal. This Proposal required Ms. Allen to waive her right to seek court intervention to all of her issues regarding MNA_'s discovery responses as a condition precedent to receiving only a few additional responses from MNA. See February 20, 2015 email from Giles Schanen, attached as 16 Exhibit L:" MNA will agree to provide the above information and documents only if doing so 'vill 17 resolve all issues \Vi th regard to plaintifPs discovery requests, and if plaintiff 'viii agree to tOrego 18 a request for a plant inspection." Id.

19 For the tire testing information Ms. Allen requested, MNA has made no offer to expand the 20 scope of discovery in tenns of the types of tires even thot1gh many of the requests seek information 21 about MN A's knowledge of tread separation causes and testing, which is not specific to a single tire.

22 MNA's offer to supple1nent was still excessively restrictive and still failed to comply with 23 Arizona's discovery rules. Ms. Allen was required inake this agreement before even having the chance 24 to review the docu1nents MNA intended to disclose. What is tnore, Ms. Allen would have to withdra\v 25 t1vcnt-v of her requests in exchange for MNA expanding its "Relevant Scope" to three years rather 26 than one, when even three years is too limited under Alizona law. See Exhibit R; su1n1nary list of the 27 requests Ms. Allen would have to \Vithdraw under MNA's "proposal."

1 Plaintiff imn1ediately responded that this type of threat was unacceptable in Arizona: "Your 2 requirement that Ms. Allen give up all of her issues regarding Michelin1s lack of disclosure and

3 answers to her discovery in exchange for your restricted number of documents is unfair gamesmanship

4 at best, and bad faith at worst." See February 24, 2015 correspondence to Giles Schanen, attached as 5 Exhibit M. Plaintiff explained that the proper procedure for discovery is "for Michelin to disclose 6 the information, allow for the Plaintiff to examine it, and then if there are further issues, have

7 the Court determine the narrow issues on \Vhich \Ve cannot agree.'' See id., Exhibit M. 8 MNA's "Proposal" makes it appear as if it is making great Hconcessions." M'NA starts every

9 correspondence with wonderful verbiage about how it would like to come to a resolution and that it is 10 making great efforts to do so. When in fact, MNA would require Ms. Allen to \Vithdraw almost all ot ~~ 11 his discovery requests in exchange for a few documents MNA is already obligated by law to provide. OJ ~, • 0 12 A Court would never condone this type of coercion and gmne playing by a Plaintiff, and the san1e tJ) Ill 0 ....

.pl;;[;;

0 o• 13 o6 &~ ~

M

standard should be true for a large corporation.

C)i'!C!, ~§~G14 w.,:i- Ms. Allen certainly did not make the disclosure of her medical bills contingent on MNA giving Ol ~" 9 ul 15 up its right to conduct discovery of other medical records as this would be highly inappropriate. gm 1 6 Moreover, Ms. Allen did not put in place a self~defined scope of discovery and only provide one year

17 worth of medical records. 18 MNA's effort is highly deficient despite its protestations to the contrary. Despite the verhillge 1 9 in MNA's correspondence that it has gone above and beyond and "bent and bent," MNA providing a

20 few select documents it is already required to provide is not an exceptional effort. See March 25, 2015 21 e1nail from Giles Schanen, attached as Exhibit S. 22 \Vhen Ms. Allen did not agree to MNA's proposal, MNA refused to expand its 1 year scope o 23 discovery. MNA eventually agreed to supplement a few responses. Ho\vever, when Plaintiffreceivct.l 24 the supplemented responses, she discovered that MNA only supplem.ented fill£ filRFP, provided little 25 additional infom1ation in the inte1Togatories, and kept the one scope. 'l'he responses Ms. Allen received 26 are far from what is required under Arizona law. MNA has a duty to disclose discoverable infotmation 2 7 and none of this should be contingent on Ms. Allen giving up her rights. Ms. Allen now has no choice

28 but to seek Court intervention.

1 IV. MNA FAILED TO COMPLY WITH RULE 26. l BY REFUSING TO NAME A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL WITH KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE DESIGN OR MANUFACTURE OF 2 THIS TIRE AND BY REFUSING TO DISCLOSE DOCUMENTS DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THIS TIRE.

3 Under Rule 26, l, there are certain documents and infonnation that a party is required to 4 disclose without discovery requests, MNA has failed entirely to comply with R~le 26,l in its 5 disclosure statements and in its answers the discovery Ms, Allen sent in an attempt to cure MNA's 6 deficient disclosure statements,

7 On October 13, 2014, Plaintiff sent MNA a correspondence requesting that MNA comply with 8 Rule 26.l(a)(4) because MNA's had failed to name a single person who may have knowledge

9 regarding the design or manufacture of the subject tire, or the model tire, including the identities of the 10 tire builders, tire inspectors, or the tire designers/engineers. See Rule 26. I (a)(4) (parties are required to w zo 11 disclose "the names and addresses of all persons whom the party believes may have knowledge or "'~ ffl ~ ~ ~ 12 information relevant to the events, transactions, or occurrences that gave rise to the action, and the 0 "g«>~ 13 oO ii.~~ nature of the kno\.Vledge or infonnation each such individual is believed to possess.' 1) see also 2 Ariz. e> e . "' fi:§~~14 ~ ~ i= - Prac., Civil Trial Practice§ 16,4 (2d ed.) ("'All that is required to trigger a duty to disclose under Rule ~m 15 26, 1(a)(4) or (9) is a detennination that a person "may" have relevant knowledge or a document "n1ay" (!)

16 have relevant content "Relevance" is not limited to evidence that is admissible at trial, but also 17 includes infonnation that 1nay be useful solely because it may reasonably lead to admissible

18 evidence.") See October 13~ 2014 correspondence to MNA, attached as Exhibit N, Plaintiff also 19 requested that MNA comply with Rule 26.1(9) and provide: 20 A list of tl1e documents ... known by a party to exist \Vhcther or not in the party1s 21 possession, custody or control and which that party believes n1ay be relevant to the subject matter of the action, and those \Vhich npJJClll' reasonably calculated to lead 22 to tl1e discovery of admissible evidence ... LJuless good cause is stated for not doing so, a copy of the docu1nents and electronically stored infor1nntion listed shall be scrve<l 23 wit11 the disclosure, · 24 Adz. R. Civ. P. 26.1(9)(emphasis added).

Plaintiff never received a response to this correspondence, Therefore, on November 25, 2014,

25

Plaintiff followed up, again rtx1uesting an updated disclosure statement. ~)ee November 25, 2014 e1nail

26

to MNA's counsel, attached as Exhibit 0. MNA finally responded and stated: "I \.vill get back to you

27

ASAP." See November 25, 2014 einail fro1n MNA counsel, attached as Exhibit P, 1'o date, Plaintif

1 has never received a response fron1 any of the three law firms currently representing M'NA. 2 Plaintiff has since learned that there are documents directly relevant to this tire that MNA has 3 never produced. For example, the Corporate witness MNA identified in this case l1as recently avowed 4 that: "Michelin requires that its tire designs also meet additional test requirements, including tread 5 wear testing~ traction testing, handling testing, and high speed testing." See Charles Patrick Affidavit 6 at p.4, para. 7, attached as Exhibit Q. Mr. Patrick also confirmed that MNA "requires that its tires 7 designs undergo finite ele1nent analysis." See id. at para. 8. However, MNA has failed to produce any 8 testing or finite ele1nent analysis relevant to this tire. These are items that should have been included in

9 the Initial Disclosure Statement. 10 v. UNDER ARIZONA LAW, THE DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION REQUESTED 11 ARE DISCOVERABLE.

Ariz.R.Civ.P. 1 instructs that the Rules "sl1all be construed to secure the just, speedy) and inexpensive dete1mination of every action." Id. Many courts view this rule as the most important mandate regarding discovery obligations. See e.g., Paulsen v. Case l~orp., 168 F.R.D. 285, 287 (C.D. Cal. 1996)("There probably is no provision in the federal rules that is more important than this mandate. It reflects the spirit in which the rules were conceived and written, and in which they should 16 be, and by and large have been, interpreted .... The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that 17 these rules 'are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment.'")

18 ln Arizona, "relevance" for discovery purposes is broadly construed and not limited to 19 evidence that is ad1nissible at trial but need only be reasonably calculated to lead to tl1e discovery o 20 admissible evidence. Northwest Bank v. Symington, 197 Ariz. 181, 185, 3 P.3d 1101, ll05 (App.

21 2000). The 1nodem practice of allowing pleadings "based on good-faith speculation.,. requires liberal 22 discovery to determine whether a valid case or defense in fact exists." U-Totem Store v. YValke.r, 142 23 Ariz. 549, 553, 691 P.2d 315, 319 (App. 1984).

24 When discovery requests are contested, it is the "burden'! of the party resisting (not requesting)

25 the discovc1y "to explain precisely why its objections are })roper" given the broad discovery rules.

26 United Oil Co .. Inc. v. Parts Associates. Inc., 227 F.R.D. 404, 411-12 (D. Md. 2005). "This includes, 27 of course, where the resisting party asserts that the discovery is in,elevant." .lei,

11

1 MNA restricted what it considers "relevant" for discovery purposes to the subject tire and tires

2 made under the same "internal specifications" (basically the exact same tire) manufactured between 3 April 2, 2007~April 8, 2008. Ilowever, MNA did not begin manufacturing the subject tire until August 4 2007, meaning MNA actually limited the scope of discovery to only 8 or 9 months. This scope is too

5 restrictive for purposes of admissibility at trial, much less discovery. 6 MNA may not create its own definition of relevance that fits within its theory of the case,

7 especially when relevance has already been defined by our courts. See In re Cooper Tire & Rubber 8 [Co., 568 F.3d 1180, 1192 (10th Cir. 2009)(citing 8 Federal Practice,§ 2011) ("Cooper essentially

9 seeks to limit the plaintiffs' discovery based upon its own theory of what tires are substantially similar. 1 0 flow ever, a party should not be limited by its opponent's theory of the case in determining '\vhat 11 is discoverable.")(ernphasis added). Moreover, MNA failed to provide any support as to why a 1 year scope of discovery is proper. MNA has not explained how a tire made under the same specs, but manufactured 6 months and 1 day after our tire makes it irrelevant under the broad discovery rules, or

how testing conducted 6 months and 1 day after our tire was built inakes it irrelevant.

15 Uniform Interrogatories allow for at least 5 years of past medical records all the way throug 16 present. The same scope should be applied to Defendants.

17 The proper scope for "other incidents," should be the scope of production of the model tire and 18 the similar green tires. Proper discovery for "testing," which is non~specific to the tire at issue (but 1 9 rather relates to MNA's knowledge regarding the cause of tire failures) should be all 15, 16, and 17

20 inch passenger and light tn1ck tires manufactured by MNA for five years prior to the inanufacture ol

21 the subject tire to the present day. 22 Other than these t\vo restrictions, t11e Court should require MNA to ans\ver the Requests as 23 they are written. Prior to trial the Court may dete1mine that so1ne of the infonnation is not admissible

2 4 for trial, but it is i1ot up to MNA to make this decision for the Court.

25 A. .lJnder ArizoQ~~<; Strict Product .jJillt.U.H.~_ l·lindsight Tqst._. A Plaintiff lvt!y_OffQt 26 J~vfdcnce R.egardin!Z The lp1'orn1al1.on_1\.Y.~tilal)!e To the M111111facturer At The Tin1e Q ..

~[rial. -rhis i\1~.fl:JlS That A Plaintift.~Ll:.!$1..J!.e ecrn1itted_ 1'o J2J,~<;.9vcry Design C'hunges.

27 'festino Of'TlJ...9..P.rodlJ.ct APd ()thcr !11ciQents Which Occurre.d.J1R.J2o 'rhe Present 1)U1Q. .

In Dart v. Wiebe Mfg., Inc., 147 Ariz. 242, 709 P.2d 876 (1985), the Arizona Supreme Courl

1 distinguished between the tests for negligence and strict product liability. The Court held that in a 2 strict liability st1it "the quality of t11e product may be measured not only by the infonnation available to

3 the manufacturer at the time of design, but also by the information available to the trier of fact at 4 the time of trial." Id. at 247 (emphasis added). This "hindsight" test allows the trier of fact to inquire

5 as to whether "a reasonable manufacturer would continue to market 11is product in the same condition 6 as he sold it to t11e plaintiff with knowledge of the potential dangerous consequences the trial juSt 7 revealed." Id., citing Byrns v. Riddell, Inc., I 13 Ariz. 264, 267, 550 P.2d 1065, 1068 (1976). 8 Under this standard, MNA inay not restrict discovery to only 6 months after the manufacture o 9 the subject tire. Ms. Allen inust be pennitted to discovery infonnation up to the present time. Without 1 O this infonnation, Ms. Allen will be denied her ability to pursue her strict liability claim. 11 B. The Scope Of Discovery FQ~:_(~thcr lq_cj.Qents_t\nd ~fires ls Not What ls Ad1nissiblc At Trial It Is What Is Discov~:ablejJ.nder r\rizona's Rules. "Substantial Sin1ilarity" o Products Is Not Required Fot.J'he Dif1£...0j:'erv Staue.

MNA limited "other incidents" of tread separations and "other claims" to 8 months for the subject tirei and cited the requirement for "substantial similarity". MNA failed to distinguish the

standards for admissibility vs. discoverability. ,"Jee L.ohr v. Stanley-Bostitch, Inc., 135 F.R.D. 162, 164 16 (W.D. Mich. 1991). It is not until trial that "courts require the plaintiff to demonstrate the 'substantial 17 similarity' of other accidentsi complaints, clain1s or lawsuits." Id. In contrast, discovery of other

18 incidents is 1nuch broader, as the Cou1t in Lohr explained: 19 In order to be entitled to discovery concerning other incidents, plaintiff need not lay the same foundation concerning substantial similarity as would be necessary to 20 support admission into evidence. For discovery purposes, the court need only find that the circumstances surrounding the other accidents are similar enough that 21 discovery concerning those incidents is reasonably calculated to lead to the uncovering of substantially similar occurrences.

22

***

23 Adn1issibility into evidt.nce, however, is not the issue at this stage of the proceedings.

The only issue is 'vhether information concerning such incidents appears 24 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Although the previous incidents may not involve the same product, as long as they involve contact~ 25 trip devices, the products are sin1ilar enough for discovery purposes. 26 Id. at 164-165 (emphasis added) (citations omitted); see also 111 re Exmark Mfg. Co., Inc., 299 S.W.3d 27 519, 528~29 ('fex. App. 2009) ("Funda1nentallyi the scope of discovery is obviously much broader 28 than the scope of admissible evidence, and evidence of incident.'> involving other products besides

13

1 the exact model at issue can be adn1issible, and therefore, obviously, discoverablc.")(emphasis 2 added); Cohalcm v. Genie Indus., Inc., 276 F.R.D. 161, 166-67 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ("Unlike at trial, 3 where evidence of similar accidents is admissible only if those accidents are shown to be 'substantially 4 similar,' a court may allow discovery of siinilar accidents provided that the 'circumstances 5 surrounding the other accidents are similar enough that discovery concerning those incidents is 6 relevant to the circumstances of the instant case. "i) 7 Even if Plaintiffs were held to the substantial siinilarity standard at the discovery stage, "[t]he 8 'substantially similar' predicate for the proof of similar accidents is defined ,,, by t11e defect ... at 9 issue." Jackson v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 788 F.2d 1070, 1083 (5th Cir.1986), cited with 10 approval by Cooper v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 945 F.2d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir.1991). As the ~~ 11 Desrosiers v. MAG Indus. Automation Sys., LLC, 675 F. Supp. 2d 598, 602 (D. Md. 2009) court 0 Ol .~om 12 (/)~~~ recognized: Q]lo;onJ13 Q/S£~~ Courts look to see whether the 'salient characteristics' of the subject incident and prior (!I f;' ci ID

0::~51~14 incident are the same, or whether 'the accidents have occurred under similar w i \.I!!}. circUinstances or share the same cause,'' or whether '[d]ifferent models of a product ... ro ~~ 9: 15 share with the accident-causing model those characte1istics pertinent to the legal issues 0$ raised in t11e litigation.' (!)

16 L.

d

17 In fact, appellate courts have found it an abuse of discretion to limit admissibility (much less 18 discovery) to the single prod·uct in question. See Stokes v. Nat'! Presto Indus., Inc., 168 S.W.3d 481

1

1 9 484 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). (The circuit court abused its discretion by applying "single product rule" 20 rather than focusing on the similarity of the previous incidents.) 21 Courts also routinely permit discovery of incidents involving different products where the 22 different products share the saine co7nponent parts that are pa1t of the injury causing defect claim. Sec 23 United Oil Co., Inc. v. Parts Associates, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 404, 410-11 (D. Md. 2005):

24

[C]ou1is have allowed discovery of infon11ation regarding the same component part 25 in a different product in a nu1nber of product defect cases. ~S'ee, e.g., Fine v. Facet Aerospace Products Co., 133 F.R.D. 439, 441 (S.D.N.Y.1990) ("Generally, different 26 1nodels of a product will be relevant if they share with the accident-causing 1nodel those characteristics pertinent to the legal issues raised in the litigation."); Schaap v.

27 Executive Industries, .Inc., 130 F.R.D. 384, 387 (N.D.111.1990) (holding infonnation concerning si1nilar inodels that have the same con1ponent parts to be discoverable);

28 Bowman v. General Motors C01p., 64 F.R.D. 62, 70-71 (E.D.Pa.1974) (allowing discovery of infOrn1ation about subsequent vehicle 1nodel with si1nilar fuel system);

1 Uitts v. General Motors Corp., 58 F.R.D. 450, 451 (E.D.Pa.1972) (allowing discovery of all infom1ation relating to similar accidents in vehicles manufactured by defendant 2 with a spring identical to the one at issue).

ld. (emphasis added); see also Lohr, 135 F.R.D. at 164-165 ("Plaintiff is entitled to discovery

3

concerning accidents involving not only the stapler used by plaintiff but also other products that

4

exhibit the features that plaintiff claims caused or cont1ibuted to his injury.")(emphasis added).

5

Jn terms of this case, tread separations on tires with similar components and manufacturing and

6

design defects, are at a minimum, discoverable. .'Jee In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180,

7

1191 (10th Cir. 2009) ("Because the plaintiffs' theory of the case includes the argument that Cooper

8

was on notice of the tread separation problem, the district court was not clearly in error in concluding

9

that infonnation on tires manufactured to specifications other than GTS 5015 could tend to lead to

10

~ discoverable evidence.") (emphasis added); see also United Oil Co., 227 F.R.D. at 410-12 0 11 o"'~~ "[Discovery] of other accidents involving similar products is relevant in products liability cases to "'Oen (/)-g".~ ~ 12 0 on

show notice to defendants of the danger and cause of the accident.")

C>!j £~~ 13 ~ *~ j Ms. Allen should not be held to MNA's theory of the case, or MNA's self-defined rules of w "'"!!?. 14 £03::~ 0 . relevance. Ms. Allen is allowed broad discovery of other incidents of tread separations and de1ects.

' It

-';:; 15 g m

16

will then be for the Court (not MNA) to detennine which of these incidents meet the admissibility requirements at trial.

17

18 VI. THE PURPOSE OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER IS TO ALLOW FOR DISCLOSURE OF COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE MATERIAL. PLAINTIFF ONLY AGREED TO;

19 MNA'S "HEIGHTENED CONFIDENTIALITY PO" WITH THE UNDERSTANDING IT WOULD FACILITATE MNA'S ANSWERS TO DISCOVERY. DESPITE THE PO, 20 MNA STILL REFUSES TO ANSWER BASIC DISCOVERY, OR PROVIDE BASIC DISCLOSURE.

21 The Cou1i entered a PO wit11 a ''heigl1tened confidentiality" clause at M'NA's request to allow 22 for disclosure ofMNA's comn1ercially sensitive/trade secret material. The PO requires that Plaintit1

23 file any docun1ents with alleged confidential infonnation under seal with the Court. The PO prohibits 24 disse1nination of any of what MNA considers confidential documents. The PO also requires the 25 Plaintiff, her experts, and atton1eys to either retun1 or destroy every confidential document they 26 t'eceived fron1 M.NA at the close of the case. Ms. Allen's counsel and expe1is are also restricted fro1n 2 7 showing any of MNA's confidential documents to anyone who has not signed the PO and does not 28 qualify under the tenns of the PO. Despite the entry of this higl1ly restrictive PO, MNA still refuses to

1 answer t11e n1ost basic discovery rt:quests, clain1ing "trade· secrets", Ms. Allen is not a competitor, this

2 is not a patent infringement case and Ms. Allen no has interest in making tires, especially defective 3 tires which MNA claims it no longer manufacturers.

4 Nevertheless, M'NA no doubt will argue in its Response and at oral argu1nent that it wiJl suffer 5 irreparable hann by disclosing to Ms. Allen the requested documents even though every single 6 document that is truly a trade secrt:t must be kept confidential by the Plaintiff. 7 The entry of a PO preventing open and public litigation is an extreme measure and in

8 contradiction of Arizona's Constitutional mandate for open courts. Stewart v. Carroll~ 214 Ariz. 480, 9 484, 154 P.3d 382, 386 (App. 2007) ("The Arizona Constitution requires that 'justice in all cases shall 10 be administered openly',,, The 'open courts' provision essentially commands public judicial ~~ 11 proceedings.") Even where the claim of a "trade secret" is made, a PC) is still an extreme ineasure. See 0 .~ , . "'tr)~~~ 0 'g..,lll

12

13

Union Oil Co. of California v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567 (7th Cir. 2000) ("No one would dream o o6 &~~ saying that every dispute about trade secrets must be litigated in private. Even disputes about claims o (.!)Ill"" o:i~~14 w <»:i~ national security are litigated in the open."). Ho\.vever, a PO may be entered to allow for disclosure o "'~" gw 15 documents which may qualify as trade secrets or contain cominercially sensitive information. S'ec gm 16 Ariz.R.Civ.P 26(c)(7). A party, however, cannot file a trade secret objection and refuse to ans\ver 17 requests without proper support. See Paulsen v. Case Corp., 168 F.R.D. 285, 289 (C.D. Cal. 1996): 18 There is no absolute privilege for trade secrets and similar confidential information. 19 Federal Open Market Committee v. Merrill, 443 U.S. 340, 362, 99 S.Ct. 2800, 2813, 61 L.Ed.Zd 587 (1979); Centurion Industries, Inc. v. Warren Steurer & Associates, 665 20 F.2d 323 (10th Cir.1981). The defendant corporation, tnoreover, has not shown the requested infonnation to be a trade secret or sitnilar confidential information. Rather, 21 defendant corporation has inerely n1ade these claims as conclusory assertions. If defendant corporation believes that disclosure of this information might be harmful, it 22 inust explain and support its objection, or seek a protective order under Rule 26(c), rather than refuse to produce the docu1nents. Defendant s objections are without merit, 23 and plaintiff's 1notion to co1npel responses to Request Nos. 29 and 30 is GRAN1'ED.

24 Id.

In cases of the most secretive docu1nents (such as cases where parties are direct co1npetitors), ll

25

"heightened confidentiality" provision is someti1nes entered. See e.g., La;1ne Christensen Co. v.

26

Purolite Co., 271 F.R.D. 240, 246-47 (D. Kan. 2010) ("Comts allowing these two-tier protective

27

orders have generaJly allowed their entry to protect against business harm that would result from

1 disclosure of sensitive docun1ents to a con1pctitor ... ") fn this case, M-NA requested a provi5ion for 2 "Heightened Confidentiality," \Vhich requires the follo\>ving:

3 19. MNA ha.'> e.xpressed the need tl)r heightened protection \Vith respect to a !itnited nu111bcr of confidential doct1n1cnts subject to the Confidentiality Order. \Vhen 4 producing docuinents for \Vhich it believes that a higher level of protection is required than other\Vise specified in this Protection Order, MNA shall advise Pluintitfs as to 5 \Vhy the additional level of protection is needed. The pa1iies further agree as follo\vs: 6 (a) Disclosure of those certain confidential docun1cnts designated by MNA to receive heightened protection (hereinafter ''[~Jeightened Protection Docume11ts") is lirnited to 7 the attorneys in this litigation_. their e1nployecs, and their experts for use only related to this case. Such docu1nents \Vill be ~tamped or 1narkcd "Heightened Protection."

8 See PO al pp. 9· I0, attached as Exhibit T.

9 As suppo1i for its "trade secret" objections, lvfNA cited to Arizona's definition of"trade ~ecret"

10 in Arizona Unifon11 Trade Secrets Act. Ho\vcvcr, even in cases involving trade secret litigation (1,vhich ~o 11 a:::~ this is not), Arizona recognizes that preserving secrecy of "alleged trade secrets" 1neans: "granting g ·~ ~ 12 "'o ~ e; ~ protective orders in connection 1vith discovery proceedings, holding in ca1nel'a hearings, scaling • "" 13 er;&~~ l? e c.,, th e recor d so f the action or ordering a person involved h1 the litigat1on . ' not to disclose an nllcgccl a::gg~14 ~~~e trade secret \Vithout prior court approval" A.R.S. § 44~405 (en1phasis added). This is exactly 1,vhat g: om 15 the PO in this case already does. If this protection is good enough in cases against direct coinpetitors in (!)

16 trade secret litigation, it is certainly good enough in pcrsonul injury cases.

17 Moreover, MNA's case law citations involve case~ against direct co1npetitors. Sec rv!NA'

18 Responses to Plaintiff's NlJis at pp. 3~4, Exhibit D. For ex_a111plc, /~~r JJOtte 1VJ;/ro1;e Co17)., 823 So. 2d 19 640, 644 (Ala. 2001) involved,business co1npetitors. Like\vise, E.txo11 C'he111. f>atents, Inc. 1·. Lubrizol 20 Corp., 131 F.R.D. 668 (S.D. Tex. 1990) is a patent infringc1ncnt case, and even in such a case, the 21 Court held that the trade secret objection was insufficient:

22 The Court \Vill allo\v Lubrizol an opportunity to file an affidavit \Vithin i11teen (15)

23 days fro1n entry of this order sufficiently dcscrihing the nature of the trnde secrets it deserves to protect to warrant non~disclosurc, ho\v disclosurt \Vould be harn1ful, and 24 lvhy a protective order '\Vould not adequatcl,V protect its f'l'acle sec!'cts. I.ubl'izol should be mindful that an in1proper assert'ion of a privilege is no assertion at all.

25 Id. at 671 (emphasis added).

26 MNA in its decades of litigation has never i>hn\vn an exa111ple- of an injured Plnintiffbreaching 27 a PO to disclose confidential trade secrets to one of i'llNA 's co1npctitors. 'The type of speculative hnnn 28 described in MNA's objections is the exact type of spccu!r1tivc "hnnn" courts have hugely rejected in l (J

1 product liability suits. In fact, "[b]road allegations of hann, unsubstantiated by specific examples or

2 articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test" for just the entry of a protective order (much 3 less a complete failure to disclose docu1nents after a protective order is entered). See Beclcman Indus.,

4 Inc. v. Int'/ Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. l992)(quoting Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785

5 F.2d l 108, 1121 (3rd Cir.l 986); See also Koval v. Gen. Motors Corp.:

6

[O]ther courts have required the movant to show "~a particular and specific 7 demonstration of fact as distinguished from stereotyped conclusory statements."'

Garcia, 734 S.W.2d at 345, quoting United States v. Garrett (C.A.5, 1978), 571 F.2d 8 1323, 1326, at fn. 3. In recent cigarette litigation the Third Circuit stated: "Broad allegations ofhann, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning'" do 9 not justify a protective order. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. (C.A.3, 1986), 785 F.2d l 108, 1121. See also Parsons v. General Motors Corp. (N.D.Ga.1980), 85 F.R.D. 724, 10 726 ("GM1s allegations of competitive hann are vague and conclusory when specific examples are necessary.")

w ~~ 11 62 Ohio Misc. 2d 694, 700, 610 N.E.2d l 199, 1200-01 (Com. Pl. 1990). 0 ~, .

"'cn~i=::; 12 MNA's claims in its objections are almost identical to the "trade secret" claims the Court Q'g~~13 oac2~~ rejected in in Koval in refusing to grant a protective order: (!)~C~ 0::Elil~14 UJ-.; 0 ~ OJ 3: ~ General Motors has not given specific exatnples of competitive hann. It simply argues 9::! 0$ 15 that the infonnation was costly to develop and that if the materials were to fall into the <!) hands of its competitors, it might or could result in its competitors obtaining 16 infonnation concen1ing how they how inight iinprove the quality and perfo1mance of 17 their products. Such vague conclusions regarding the value of these documents and their possible use by General Motors' competitors are insufficient grounds for a 18 protective order, and fall short of the good cause requirement of the iule.

19 Id. at 610; N.E.2d at 1201. 20 Ms. Allen's medical records are statutorily protected by Federal law. Yet, Ms. Allen is required 21 to produce all of her incdical records including sensitive psychological counseling records. Ms. Allen 22 disclosed her medical records without a PO. l\ifNA, has a PO and as a result no excuse for failing to 23 answer Ms. Allen's discovery requests, or provide full disclosures. 24 Plaintiff only agreed to the entry of the PO on the good faith basis that MNA would 1nake full

25

and complete disclosures and to elhninate MNA's boilerplate objections to «trade secrets" and

26

"co1nmercially sensitive" material. This has not been the case. Despite the entry of the n1ost extrerne

27

type of PO, MNA refused to answer fourteen !H:} of Plaintiff's discovery request, claiining the

1 responses constitute "trade secrets." See MNA 1s privilege log, attached as Exhibit U. MNA's 2 responses to Plaintiff's discovery are as obstructionist as they would be \.Yithout any PO.

3 With a "heightened confidentiality" provision in place, a Defendant should never be objecting 4 to the request of documents because lt requires disclosure of a "trade secret," or "commercially 5 sensitive." 'frade secret and commercially sensitive information is, by definition, the entire purpose ot 6 7 the entry of a PO. MNA's trade secret objections are in bad faith, unsupported by the law and

8 purposefully obstructionist.

9 VII. CONCLUSION: 1O Wherefore, Ms. Allen respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order compelling MNA to

11 supple1nent its discovery answers, and for an order awarding Ms. Allen the cost and fees associated

with bringing this Motion.

Dated this t::i"'dayof April, 2015.

GOLDBERG & OSBORNE

18 /£._,y /L~. ~,;:;:;"-~ . .

13 y ;r;·/ / ___".::-::~:-~---------

17 John E. Osbome1 Esq.

William C. Bacon, Esq.

18 Kristin J. Schriner, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

19 Copy of the foregoing mailed this 1.Y!t day of April, 2015, to: 20 Timothy M. Medcoff 21 Roberto C. Garcia 22 FARHANG & MEDCOFF, PLLC 4801 E. Broadway Blvd., Suite 311 23 Tucsun, AZ 85711 Attorneys for Defendant 24 Michelin North America 25 26 27 ................. ' " ............... .

1 Thomas Borncamp Ni11a J. Kim 2 YUKEVICH CAVANAUGH 355 South Grand Avenue, 15 111 Floor 3 Los Angeles, CA 90071 4 Attorneys for Defendant Michelin North America 5 Giles M. Schanen~ Jr. 6 NELSON MULLINS RILEY & 7 SCARBOROUGH, LLP 104 S. Main Street, Suite 900 8 Greenville, SC 29601 Attorneys for Defendant 9 Michelin North America 10 Douglas H. Fitch 11 Law Office of Don D. Skypeck One East Camelback Road, Suite 870 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-1672 Attorneys for Defendant Superior Tire Corporation

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

EXfJ[IBIT F

1 GREENE BROILLET & WHEELER, LLP (SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY)

LAWYERS

100WILSH!RE BOULEVARD, SUITE 2100 2 P.O. BOX 2131 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90407-2131 TEL. {310) 576-1200

3 FAX. (310) 576-1220 BRUCE A. BRO!LLET, State Bar No. 63910 4 CHRJSTINE D. SPAGNOLI, State Bar No. 126355 ALEXIS B. DJJVRE, State Bar No. 245138 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6

7

8 SUPERJOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA

10

11 CARLOS ALVAREZ URJBE, individually; ) CASENO. 56-2009-00337811-CU-PL-VTA ESTATE OF SILVIA SANDOVAL, by and )

12 through her Successor in Interest CARLOS l) (Dept.43)

ALVAREZ URJBE; ESTATE OF ELENA 13 ALVAREZ, by and through her Successor in PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL Interest CARLOS ALVAREZ URIBE; ) FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST 14 MANUAL SANDOVAL, individually; ) FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE, TO MAYRA ALVAREZ, a Minor, by and ) MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

15 through her Guardian Ad Litem, BERTHA ) AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY PRECIADO; YOLANDA RODELA, ) SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT 16 individually; MARJA DE LA LUZ ) MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA IN 'ffiE SANDOVAL, Individually; ) AMOUNT OF $3,000; MEMORANDUM

17

18

Plaintiffs, l

)

OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE D. SPAGNOLI WITH EXHIBITS IN vs. ) SUPPORT THEREOF

19

20

21

MICHELIN NORTH AMERJCA, INC., a foreign corporation; CALIFORNIA TIRE COMPANY, a California business entity; and DOES 1 through I 00, )

)

l DATE:

TIM~:: DEPT:

April 27,.2010 8:30 a.m.

43

Trial Date: May 24, 2010

22

23

Defendants. l

24

25 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR A1TORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:

26 PLEASETAKENOTICEthaton April27,2010 at 8:30a.m. inDepartment43 ofthe

27 above-entitled court, Plaintiffs will move the Court, pursuant to California Code ofCivil Procedure

28 §§ 2031.3 IO(a)(l) and (3) for an Order Compelling Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Request for

-1-

1A16. 387 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 Production of Documents, Set 1, to Defendant Michelin North America, Inc. ("MNA" or 2 "Defendant"), and for monetary sanctions against Defendant MNA in the amount of$3,000.00 on the

3 following grounds:

4 I. The documents sought are relevant and/or reasonably calculated to lead to the 5 discovery of admissible evidence as they concern specific issues related to the design of the Subject

6 Model Tire and defects shared by a variety of tires that were made at the plant in question.

7 2. MNA has asserted meritless objections to these requests, has refused to provide 8 a statement of compliance in conformance with CCP § 2031.220, and has simply refused to produce

9 all reb'Ponsive documents.

10 3. The Defendant's objections based upon the qualified attorney work product

_, "- 11 privilege are without merit given the nature ofthe material sought-namely correspondence with third _, ~ M <i 12 parties, traffic col~ision reports, lawsuit complaints, inspection notes and photos on failed tires that ~ ~ i~~ Mm 13 were in MNA's possession, custody and controJ and were destroyed.

~~ <S 14 4. Pursuant to CCP § 2023.030, Plaintiffs seek both monetary and issue sanctions !;; g - ::l -OZ .~ o ·o 15 against Defendant MNA for its continued misuse and obstruction ofthe discovery process. The failure "' "- ,. "' w < to provide full and complete production ofdocuments in its possession, custody and control is without ~ z 16 w w "' (!) 17 substantial justification and is an abuse of discovery and warrants monetary sanctions in the sum of 18 $3,000 for reasonable attorneys fees incurred in the preparation of this Motion. 19 This Motion is based on the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 20 the Declaration of Christine D. Spagnoli in support thereof and the attached exhibits thereto, the

21 complete file maintained by the Court in this action, and all such other oral and documentary evidence 22 as may be presented at the time of bearing on this Motion.

23

24 DATED: April 2, 2010 GREENE )ill{<:{f\,LET & WHEELER, LLP

25

26

27

28

-2-

1A16 .38'1 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE

l TABLE OF CON1ENTS

2 Pa

3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................ 3

4 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................. 3

5 11. STATEMENT OF FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY .................... 5

6 Ill. A MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO A DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IS 7 AUTHORIZED PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 2031.310. . ................................. 7

8

IV. THE QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE OF ATTORNEY WORK 9 PRODUCT SHOULD NOT PREVENT DEFENDANT FROM ,PRODUCING EVIDENCE IN ITS SOLE POSSESSION OF 10 OTHER TIRE FAILURES ........................................... 9

"- 11 ........ ;;

V. MICHELIN HAS FAILED TO FULLY IDENTIFY SCOPE OF 12 ITS PRODUCTION OR PROVIDE A MANDATORY "'~ ~ ~~ w ~

13

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE .................................... 13

$ E <( VI. SANCTIONS MUST BE IMPOSED DUE TO THE DEFENDANT'S "' >< (} 14 ONGOING AND MERITLESS ABUSE OF DISCOVERY ................ 14 Iii 0 ~"'· - ~ c3

aqa 15 0: a. " a.\ w "'

~

16

zw w 0:

~

t? 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-ii-

1A16.3S7 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE

1 TABLE OF AUI1IORITIES

2

3 Cases

4 2,022 Ranch, L.L.C. v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal. App.4th 1377 .............................................. 12

5

Aguayo v. Crompton & Knowles Corp.

6 (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 103 ................................................ 10

7 Ault v. International Harvester Co.

(1974) 13 Cal.3d 113 ................................................... 9, 10

8

Brake v. BeechAircrqft Corp.

9 (1986) 184 Cal. App.3d 930 ............................................... 10

10 Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785 ...................................................... 7 "- __, 11 __, ~ Davies v. Superior Court

M (1984)36Cal.3d291 ..................................................... 10 ci N

12

!!! w ~ Mm 0

~ <! " 13 Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc.

(2009) 174 Cal. App 4th 967 ............................................... 16 .., ~ <3 14 r- 0 - w "' 13 ;;;joz Elsworth v. Beech Aircrqft Corp.

15 (1984) 37 Cal.3d 540 ................................................... 9, 10 ~ a:~ "' w < '-' 16 Fellows v. Superior Court zw ii! ~ (1980) 108 Cal. App.3d 55 ................................................ 12 (!) 17 Ghanooni v. Supe.r Shuttle 18 (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256 ................................................ 15

19 Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal. App.4th 1539 .............................................. 7, 8

20

Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court 21 (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355 ................................................... · 7, 12

22 Hasson v. Ford

(1982) 32 Cal.3d 388 ................................................... 9, 10

23

Jensen v. i'>outhern Pacific Co.

24 (1954) 129 Cal. App.2d 67 ................................................ 10

25 Kohan v. Cohan

(1991) 229 Cal. App.3d 967 ............................................... 15

26

National Steel Products Co. v. Superior Court 27 (1985) 164 Cal. App.3d 476 ............................................... 11

28

-iii-

1Al6.387 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 Petterson v. Superior Court (1974) 39 Cal. App.3d 267 ............................................. 11, 12

2

Reedy v. Bussell

3 (2007) 148 Cal. App.4th 1272 .............................................. 15

4 Sherman v. Kinetic Concepts (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4'" 1152 ............................................... 15

5

Stephen v. Ford

6 (2005) Cal.App. 4"' 1363 .................................................. 10

7 Sullivan v. Superior Court (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 64 .................................................. 12

8

Williamson v. Superior Court 9 (1978) 21 Cal.3d 829 .................................................... II

10

"- 11 Statutes -' -' ;; rt: 12 Code ofCivil Procedure§ 2017.010 ............................................ 8, 14 · w ~

Ill !;' "'

~

13 Code of Civil Procedure§ 2018.030 ............................................... II ~ ;; g o; "'

"'... "0 "<5 "l "'

14 Code ofCivil Procedure § 2030.300 ............................................. 8, 14 ~ ·- -OZ Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.220 .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 13 o ·o 15 "' a. " co w "' 16 Code ofCivil Procedure § 2031.230 .. .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 13 zw '"'

z ;,\ !:! 17 Code of Civil Procedure§ 2031.310 . . .. .. .. . . .. . . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . .. .. 8 Cl

18 Code ofCivil Procedure§ 2031.240 ......... , . , .............................. , ... 13

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

·~.

26

27

28

-iv-

1Al6.387 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2' I. 3 INTRODUCTION 4 T'his is a product liability case in which the Plaintiffs, who lost a mother and a 5 daughter in a rollover crash, contend that a tire manufactured by Michelin North America C'MNA" 6 or·"J)efendant') in 1998 at its Ardmore Plant contained manufacturing and design defects that

7 caused a tread separation, The separation occurred on July 4, 2007 while Carlos Uribe, his wife, 8 two daughters, father-in-law and sister-in law were driving home on the 4th of July from a picnic in

9 Tehachapie. The tire that failed was on the rear of the family's vehicle. The forces exerted on the

10 vehicle from the separation caused a loss of control and led to the vehicle's rolling over down an 11 embankment on the 5 freeway. Carlos's wife Sylvia and his daughter Elena were killed in the

12 crash. The tire at issue is a P245/75 R 16 Long Trail TIA model tire manufactured at Michelin's 13 Ardmore plant during the 481h week of 1998. The discovery at issue in this motion specifically 14 relates to MNA's notice of lawsuits for personal injury and wrongful death or property damage

15 claims in which consumers alleged a tread separation incident involving the exact same size and 16 model tire. 17 Defendant MNA has unnecessarily· delayed providing appropriate responses to 18 simple, yet important, discovery requests. Although Plaintiffs' counsel has repeatedly attempted

19 to meet and confer about certain deficient responses, the meet-and-confer process has been 20 unproductive. SpecificaJly, Defendant has failed to provide a fu1I and complete response to

21 Request for Production No. 18 (which is the sole issue of this Motion), which was served on

22 MNA on August 13, 2009. "fhis request, which is crucial to this case seeks the following

23 materials:

24 REQUEST NO. 18 25 All DOCUMENTS or WRITINGS relating or referring to 26 any report of a full or partial tread separation of a Uniroyal Laredo

27 tire or any SIMILAR PRODUCT which was manufactured between 28 1996 and 2005 that YOU have received, including but not limited to

tA16. 387 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE

lawsuits for personal injury or wrongful death, or property damage

2

claims, or correspondence. (This request does not seek any attorney-

3

client or attorney work product documents related to litigation.

4

Rather, it seeks non-privileged information related to such claims

5

and lawsuits, including traffic collision reports, witness statements,

6

correspondence, and photographs of the tire, vehicle or scene.)

7

8

In response to this request, MNA initially provided a list of property damage claims

9 and lawsuits. The entirety of the documents (4 pages) produced by MNA in its initial response is

10 attached to the Declaration of Christine D. Spagnoli as Exhibit 1. Michelin also attempted to

11 unilaterally limit the scope of the request to tires manufactured within the 6 months before and the

12 6 months after the subject tire (basically June 1998 to J uue 1999). Immediately after the initial

13 responses were received, Plaintiffs' counsel sent a meet-and-confer letter pointing out the obvious

14 deficiencies in the responses, and asking for a supplemental response. MNA's counsel agreed to

15 supplement the responses by January 15, 2010. As that date approached, MNA's counsel asked

16 for additional time, and promised that supplement responses would be provided.

17 In the face of these delays, Plaintiffs' counsel continued to press MNA's counsel

18 for production of the non-privileged records concerning these other incidents, as well as further

19 expansion of the scope to include other similarly designed tires. In the meantime, Plaintiffs'

20 counsel served additional discovery to determine what, if any, information MNA hiid in its

21 possession about these other tires and whether it even had the failed tires available for inspection

22 by plaintiffs's experts. As a result of these discovery efforts, it was ultimately determined that

23 MNA had, in fact, obtained possession of many of the failed tires which were the subject of claims

24 and lawsuits, had investigators inspect and photograph these tires, and then after resolving those

25 clai.ms, destroyed the tires.

26 Finally, after Plaintiffs' counsel's continuing attempts to obtain further responses to

27 Request #18, on March 30, 2010, MNA produced an additional piece of paper on which it listed

28 the names of four additional lawsuits which purportedly stemmed from tread separations involving

-4-

1A16.3B7 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE

1 the same mode] tire. This new piece of paper did not identify the tires invo1ved in the incidents.

2

No other documentation of these incidents wa'> provided. The next day (March 31, 2010) at a

3 deposition of a representative of MN A regarding the design and manufacture of the subject model

4

tire, MNA's counsel hand-wrote the DOT numbers for the tires involved in these additional four

5 incidents on MNA 4195.

6 As a result, as of April 1, 2010, despite a delay of more 1han 8 mon1hs, MNA has

7 not produced a single document in its possession concerning any of the incidents identified on any

8 of the five pieces of paper identifying 119 consumer complaints and the 26 tread separation

9 property damage claims and lawsuits involving ofP245/75R 16 Longtrail TIA tires. MNA has

10 failed to explain the scope of its production, failed to produce documents about these incidents and

11 failed to provide mandatory statements of compliance explaining its lack of production. These

·12 inadequate responses are adverse1y prejudicing P1aintiffs' counsel's trial preparation, are required

13 by law, and as a consequence, the Court must grant this Motion and impose monetary sanctions so

14 that Plaintiffs can obtain complete discovery responses.

15

16 II.

17 STATEMENT O~' FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

18 On August 13, 2009, Plaintiffs sent a Request for Production of Documents, Set

19 One, to MNA. (See Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents, Set One, attached as Exhibit

20 2to1he Declaration of Christine D. Spagnoli.) As would be explained to MNA in Plaintiffs' meet-

21 and-confer letter and as set forth in P1aintiffs' concurrently filed Separate Statement of Discovery

22 in Dispute, these requests sought very specific documentary evidence concerning the design of the

23 Subject Mode] Tire and similar models as well as MNA's manufacturing processes and quality

24 contro1 practices. Since there are signs of both design and manufacturing defects in the Subject

25 Tire and such allegations form the basis of Plaintiffs' complaint, documentary evidence related to

26 the design of the Subject Model Tire and evidence related to the quality control and manufacturing

27 practices at the Ardmore plant are highly relevant, indeed critical, to the central issues in this case.

28

-5-

lA.16.387 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FQR PRODUCTION, SET ONE

1 MNA served responses on September 14, 2009, indicating it would produce

2

confidential materia1 only upon the entry of a suitable protective order. (See Responses to

3 Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents, Set One, attached as Exhibit 3 to the Declaration

4

of Christine D. Spagnoli.) Plaintiffs then sent their lengthy meet-and-confer letter, including the

5 proposition that the parties simply agree to an Order previously agreed to by MNA in another case.

6 (See Meet-and-Confer letter dated September 24, 2009, attached as Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of

7 Christine D. Spagnoli.)

8 Although MNA provided some supplemental responses after the September 24th

9 meet-and-confer process, it still failed to provide adequat~ responses to Plaintiffs' requests. On

10 December 8, 2009, Plaintiffs' counsel sent yet another meet-and-confer letter, which indicated that

11 MNA's responses were still inadequate. (See Meet-and-Confer letter dated December·S, 2009,

12 attached as Exhibit 5 to the Declaration Of Christine D. Spagnoli.) Specifically, the December 8th

13 letter addressed Request Number 18 (which is the sole subject of this Motion); this section of the

14 letter provided:

15 In order to fully comply with this request, MNA must produce a complete list

16 ofall claims and lawsuits/or the subject model tire, regardless ofwhen the

17 incidents occurred, and including the date MNA received notice ofthe

18 incident. MNA also must provide a complete record ofchanges made to the

19 subject model tire, before and after it was manufactured, so that we can

20 evaluate whether the limitation to one year post manufacture as a "relevant

21 scope" is appropriate. Finally, MNA must. produce all of the foandational,

22 non-privileged materials related to these claims and lawsaits, such as

23 trafflC collision reports and photographs, and provide a privilege log for

24 any privileged materials that are being withheld, such as notes of

25 inspections of the tires by MNA consultants or investigators. Accordingly,

26 please supplement this response and provide all responsive documents and/or

27 a proper statement of compliance.

28

-6-

1A16. 387 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TQ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE

l

In addition to the above letter, Plaintiffs' counsel sent another meet-and-confer

2 letter on December 15, 2009, which again discussed Defendant's deficient responses to Request

3 No. 18. (See December 15, 2009 letter attached as Exhibit 6 to the Declaration of Christine D.

4 Spagnoli.) MNA's connsel promised supplemental responses by January 15, 2010, but then requested an extension, which Plaintiffs granted to February 1, 2010. However, February 1~ 1

5

6 passed and MNA had still failed to provide responses. On Fehroary 26, 2010, MNA's counsel sent

7 a letter to Plaintiffs' counsel which indicated that they were still working on the suppJemental

8 responses. (See February 26, 2010 letter attached as Exhibit 7 to the Declaration of Christine D.

9 Spagnoli.) Finally, on March 30, 2010, MNA identified 4 additional lawsuits, but still did not

10 produce any of the foundational documents concerning those incidents or the other incidents

11 identified earlier. (See Letter dated March 29, 2010 sent Fed Ex and MNA 4195 attached as

12 Exhibit 8 to the Declaration of Christine D. Spagnoli.)

13 Given the rapidly approaching trial date ap.d MNA's failure to respond to PJaintiffs'

14 requests (for which Plaintiffs granted MNA numerous extensions to respond, and attempted to

15 meet and confer about numerous times), Plaintiffs have no choice but to file a motion to compel

16 Defendant MNA to respond to Request for Production No. 18.

17

18 III.

19 A MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO A DEMAND FOR

20 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IS AUTHORIZED PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA

21 CODE OF CML PROCEDURE § 2031.310.

22 The right to discovery is broad in California, and plaintiff.<; seek highly relevant

23 ·infonnation. California courts are to broadly construe the right to discovery. (Greyhound Corp. v.

24 Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 377-378.) Information is "relevant to the subject matter of

25 the litigation" if it possibly assists the party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or aiding in

26 settlement of the case. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal. App.4th 1539, 1546.) Any

27 doubt is to be resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v.

28 Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.)

-7-

1A16.30"/ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE

1 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2031.310, a party demanding

2 production and identification of documents may make a motion, supported by specific facts

3 showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand, for an order compe1ling

4 further responses when the party receives a response that is deemed to be unsatisfactory. A

5 response is unsatisfactory if statements of compliance and representations of inability to comply

6 with the demand are inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or objections to the demand are without

7 merit or too general. (See CCP § 2030.300 and § 2031.310.)

8 AS stated above, Plaintiffs are seeking information regarding tires involved in other

9 similar incidents, specifically those for which individuals filed complaints, claims or lawsuits

10 against MNA related to tread separation failures. MNA's responses to Plaintiffs' requests are.

11 inadequate and incomplete. To date, the Defendant has not produced a single piece of paper from a. __, __,

~ UJ -" ;; N

0 12 the files involved in any of these incidents. Indeed, MNA seems to have completely forgotten the.

broad swath of permissible discovery in this state. As noted above, CCP § 2017.010 (a) provides ~ -M 11rn 13 .., 0~ (). I- 14 that "any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that. .. appears W ID () ::l -OZ .- reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Infonnation is relevant if it o ·o 15 "' 0. " " UJ' <( I- 16 possibly assists a party to evaluate a case, prepare for trial, or aid in settlement. (Gonzalez, 33 Cal.

z UJ w 0:

~ App.4th at 1546.) MNA has not provided complete and straightforward responses to the extent (9 17

18 possible to this Request for Production.

19 Moreover, while MNA has objected based upon privileges of attorney work product

20 and attorney-client privilege to production of notes and photographs which contain factual

21 evidence concerning the condition of these tires, no privilege log has been forthcoming despite

22 plaintiffs' requests for the same. Without a privilege log or a statement under oath, and given that

23 MNA acknowledges it has not produced all the documents plaintiffs requested, there is no way to

24 determine if, in fact, documents have been improperly withheld.

25 Ill

26 Ill

27 Ill

28 Ill

-8-

1A16.387 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE

IV.

2

THE QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE 0}' ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT SHOULD NOT

3

PREYENT DEFENDANT FROM PRODUCING EVIDENCE IN TI'S SOLE POSSESSION

4

OF OTHER TIRE FAILURES

5

Clear precedent in California establishes that evidence of other similar incidents, bot

6

prior and subsequent, involving the type of product that caused the injury, is generally admissible in

7

a products liability action to prove a defect. (See, e.g. Ault v. International Harvester Co. (1974) 13

8 Cal.3d 113, 121.)

9

In Ault, which involved a design defect in the gear box of a motor vehicle, the

10 Supreme Court allowed a plaintiff to introduce evidence of two other accidents involving the same

11

model vehicle, including a prior and subsequent accident. The defendant contended that the plaintif

12 had not established a substantial similarity between the other two accidents and the circumstances o

13 the case at issue. But the court concluded that this did not preclude the admission of the evidence

14 because: "The focus was not on accidents themselves hut upon the inherent similarity in the

15 physical andmechanical properties of the three gear boxes, all of which purportedly contained

16 similar defects." (Id. at 122 (emphasis added).)

17 Similarly, in Elsworth v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 540, 555, the

18 California Supreme Court held that admission of evidence of20 other accidents, including 15

19 involving a different model airplane, was proper. According to the court: "Evidence of the

20 similarity in the design of the Baron and the '!'ravel Air was sufficient to justify the court1s

21 conclusion that evidence regarding accidents in the Baron was admissible." (Ibid.)

22 In Hasson v. Ford (1982) 32 Cal.3d 388, the defendant was sued over a defective

23 brake design. Plaintiff so.ugh! to admit evidence of accidents caused by brakes that pre-dated a 1966

24 recall and modification by the defendant. In allowing the evidence to be admitted, the California

25 Supreme Court wrote: "The trial court plainly had a reasonable basis for admitting evidence of the

26 numerous failures occurring in 1965 models for the purpose of showing the nearly identical 1966

.27

models to be similarly defective. Plaintiffs were not required to prove that the 1965 system was

28 exactly the same as the 1966 system. "Identical conditions wi11 rarely he found. Substantial

-9-

1A16 .387 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE '

1 similarity is normally sufficient." (Jensen v. Southern Pacific Co. (1954) 129 Cal. App.2d 67.) This

2 detennination "is primarily the function of the trial judge." (Hassan, supra, at 404 (emphasis

3 added).)

4 It is also well-established that evidence of other incidents is also admissible to prove

5 notice provided that the circumstances of the other incidents are similar and not too remote.

6 (Aguayo v. Crompton & Knowles Corp. (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 103; Elsworth, supra, 37 Cal.3d at

7 540; Ault, supra, 13 Cal.3d at 113.) Indeed, where it concerns the issue of notice, the admissibility

8 of evidence of oilier incidents has been characterized as ~'quite broad." (Davies v. Superior Court

9 (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 299.) According to the court in Elsworth: "Even ifthe accidents did not

10 occur in precisely the same manner as in the present case, testimony regarding the accidents that

11 occurred prior to the crash ... was admissible to show that [the defendant] had notice of a dangerou

12 condition. For this purpose, 'all that is required .•• is that the previous injury should be such

13 as to attract the defendant's attention to the dangerous situation.'" (37 Cal. 3d at 555 (emphasis

14 added).)

15 In llasson, supra, the California Supreme Court held that evidence, including letters and

16 testimony of brake failures in other vehicle models, was admissible to establish notice of a defect in

17 a specific vehicle, The court stated that: "When evidence is offered to show only that defendant

18 had notice of a dangerous condition, the requirement of similarity of circumstances is

19 relaxed." (32 Cal.3d at 404.) In fact, in Brake v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1986) 184 Cal. App.3d 930,

20 937-38, the Court stated that prior accidents were admissible to prove notice by the defendarits eve

21 though the plaintiff had failed to lay the foundation for similarity for flight altitude, trim settings,

22 engine power, loading, weather conditions, altitudes, feathering etc.

23 The law clearly allows the discovery of the foundational facts concerning other incidents

24 involving the same product, and it incumbent on the defendant to produce the infonnation that it has

25 in its possession. l'his is especially true in thls case because it can be expected that MNA will

26 attempt to challenge the admissibility of evidence concerning these other incidents as it did in

27 Stephen v. Ford (2005) Cal.App. 4" 1363, at 1371-72. There, in detennining if the plaintiffs expert

28 was entitled to base hls defect opinion on other similar incidents, over Firestone's objection, the

-10-

1Al6 .38"/ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE

1 court held that sufficient similarity had not been established by plaintiff's expert because he had not

2 produced foundational information about those incidents such as traffic accident reports and

3 photographs.

4 In light of the evidentiary showing that is necessary to admit evidence of other incidents,

5 the Defendant can not foreclose 1he ability of1he plaintiffs to make such a showing by refusing to

6 produce the underlying information about those incidents that is in its possession, even if that

7 information may otherwise be protected by the qualified attorney work product privilege.

8 'I'his is particularly true where the tires were inspected by investigators or consulting experts but

9 have since been destroyed by MNA, leaving plaintiffS' expert no similar opportunity to examine

10 those tires to determine the failure mode and the similarity of the defects in the tires.

11 Code of Civil Procedure section 2018.030(b) sets forth 1he rules regarding discovery of

12 documents that fall under the attorney work product :Privilege. It provides a conditional or qualified

13 protection from discovery for materials that do not contain an attorneys impressions, conclusions,

14 opinions, legal research or theories. Discovery is permitted if the court determines that: "denial of

15 discovery will unfairly prejudice the party seeking discovery in preparing that party's claim or

16 defense or will result in an injustice." (Id.)

17 'fhe deterrilination of good cause contemplates a balancing of the need for disclosure

18 against the purpose served by tbe work~product doctrine. (National Steel Products Co. v. Superior

19 Court (1985) 164 Cal. App.3d 476, 490.) "'The rule predicated on fairness articulated in the

20 decisions is a shield to prevent a litigant from taking undue advantage of his adversary's industry an

21 effort, not a sword to be used to thwart justice or to.defeat the salut[a]ry objects of the Discovery

22 Act."' (Williamson v. Superior Court(I978) 21 Cal.3d 829, 838, quoting Petterson v. Superior

23 Court (1974) 39 Cal. App.3d 267, 273.) 1 Accordingly, privilege statutes generally are narrowly

24

1

25

ln Williamson, f'irestone, a co-defendant in a defective tire case, made an arrangement to indemnify its co~defendant, the manufacturer of a tire-changing machine, if the co-defendant would

26

withdraw a certain expert witness whose report was unfavorable to Firestone. The court rejected 27 :firestone's claim that the report was privileged, and held that the manufRcturer of the tire-changing

28 machine could not he permitted to withhold an expert's report that would have been discoverable but (continued ...

-11-

J./:\16.387 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE

1 construed, while discovery statutes are liberally construed. (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court

2 (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 377; Sullivan v. Superior Court (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 64, 72.)

3 The inability to obtain an adequate substitute for tbat which is sought by discovery is a

4 compelling basis, according to the courts, for ordering discovery. In Petterson v. Superior Court,

5 supra, the court stated that "[i]t would be unthinkable to adopt a rule which, for example, would

6 prohibit a litigant from taking the deposition of an expert who has examined or tested a relevant

7 object even though the object is no longer available or the testing so altered the object tested that the

8 adversazy party cannot make like tests, merely because the party who retained the expert has elected

9 not to call him as a witness. It is patent that such a rule would not ~e consonant with ordinary

10 principles of fairness or the interests of justice." (39 Ca1.App.3d at 272.)

11 In addition to the necessity of the photographs and notes concerning the inspection of a. -' -'. "' ~ -

;; ~ 12 similar tires because those tires have been destroyed, presumably by MNA, and are no longer

Ill li; 13 available to plaintiffs' expert for inspection, there is also a question as to whether the notes and ~ c;; 0)

" photographs are even protected attorney work product privilege. In2,022 Ranch, L.L.C. v. Superior "<( ,_ 0x < "' 14 ~"' :::! o ·o dz " 15 Court (2003) 113 Cal. App.4th 1377, the defendant attempted to prevent disclosure of certain "' 0. " "' < memos to the file by claims adjusters concerning the claim and transmittal of information ~ ~

16

w "' concerning the plaintiff's claim by claims adjusters to their superiors. The court held the work "' CJ 17

18 ~roduct privilege did not apply and ordered that ~e materials were discoverable because the claims

19 adjusters were performing claims investigations and the information constituted factual matters

20 concerning that investigation and even though some claims adjusters-were attorneys, in this instance

21 they were working as claims adjusters, not legal advisors.

22 In claiming the statutory protection, counsel must do more than merely state that somethin

23 is protected by the work product rule. The burden is on the attorney to prove the preliminary facts to

24 show the work product rule applies. (Fellows v. Superior Court (1980) 108 Cal. App.3d 55, 66.)

25 Even if the materials are protected, the privilege is a qualified, not absolute 011e because the

26 photographs and notes do not contain the opinions, conclusions or legal theories of an attorney. In

27

'( ... continued)

28

for tbe payment of consideration by one of the parties to the litigation. (21 Cal.3d 829.)

-12-

1A16. 387 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE

1 light of the fact that MNA has now admitted that the tires were in its possession and were destroyed,

2 plaintiffs' expert will be unable to examine the tires to establish the foundational similarity for

3 admission of evidence about those tires at trial. Under those circumstances, it would create an unfai

4 advantage to allow MNA to withhold the notes and photographs which document the condition of

5 the tires, while at the same time arguing that plaintiffs' experts can not Jay the necessary foundation

6 for admissibility of evidence concerning those incidents at trial.

7

8 v. 9 MICHELIN HAS FAILED TO FULLY IDENTIFY SCOPE OF ITS PRODUCTION OR

10 PROVIDE A MANDATORY STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

11 Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.220 requires: "A statement that the party to whom an _,_, (L

;;

12 inspection demand has been clirected will comply with the particular demllnd shall state that the "' "' w ~ w !:; ~~; M rn 13 production, inspection and related activity demanded wi11 be allowed either in whole or in part, and oil ~ 5 14 that all documents or things in the demanded eategory that are in the possession, custody or control >- 0 !'Im 6 d.QZ o ·o 15 of that party and to which no objection is heing made will be included in the production." "' a_ " "'zww " Code of C'ivil Procedure § 2031.230 requires: "A representation of inability to comply ~

16

w 0: <!l 17 with the particular demand for inspection shall affinn that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry 18 has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement sha11 also specify whether 19 the inability to comply is because a particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed 20 has been Jost, misplaced or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody or 21 control of the responding party."

22 Code of Civil Procedure §2031.240 requires:

23 (a) Jf only part of an item or category of item in an inspection demand is '24 objectionable, the response shaJJ contain a statement of compliance or a 25 representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that ite 26 or category.

27 (b) If the responding party objects to the demand fOr inspection of an item or 28 category of item, the response shall do both of the following:

- 3-

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE

1 (!) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing or land

2 falling within any category of item in the demand to which an

3 objection is being made.

4 (2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the

5 objection.

6

7 Michelin has not provided the required statements of compliance. It has narrowly and

8 unilaterally limited its response to Request # 18 and has refused to explicitly state either the scope of

9 its search and production or whether it is withholding any responsive documents. MNA must be

10 required to provide a statement under oath that confinns it bas conducted a diligent search and

11 reasonable inquiry to locate responsive documents and that it has produced the responsive

12 documents that are in its posseSsion, custody or control. If Michelin is withho1ding any documents

13 then it must identify the documents it is withholding, and provide a legal basis for its objection to

14 production of the documents. Moreover, where the request seeks a broader time frame of incidents,

15 and Michelin has responded by unilateral1y narrowing its production to incidents it contends are 16 relevant, it must exp1ain the scope of the.production it is making, and affirm under oath that it has

l 7 produced all materials within its narrowed scope. Otherwise Plaintiffs wiU be left with no ability to

18 hold Michelin to its discovery obligations.

19

20 VI. 21 SANCTIONS MUST BE IMPOSED DUE TO THE DEFENDANT'S ONGOING AND 22 MER1TLESS ABUSE OF DISCOVERY 23 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d) clearly states that the court "shall" (not

24 "may') impose sanctions commencing with Section 2023.010, against any party opposing a motion

25 to compel unless it finds the party acted with substantial justification. Abuses of discovery under

26 Code ofCivil Procedure section 2023.010, include: "(c) making, without substantial justification,

27 an un-meritorious objection to discovery; or (f) providing evasive responses to discovery requests."

28 Sanctions are mandated against defendant Michelin North American in an amount that reflects an

-14-

1Al6.387 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE

appropriate sum associated with the effort of having to file yet a motion to obtain proper discovery

1

responses, since Michelin has established no justification for its refusal to respond. Plaintiff:S'

2

counsel spent a minimum of 6 homs preparing this motion, and at the reasonable hourly rate of

3

$500.00, Plaintiffs' counsel requests that the Court order Defendant to reimburse Plaintiffs in the

4

sum of$3,000 fortl1e reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in bringing this motion, plus any filing fee

5

for this Motion.

6

A trial court has broad discretion to impose discovery sanctions. First, it should be noted

7

that it is not necessarily an "absolute prerequisite" that willfulness is a requirement for the

8

imposition of discovery sanctions. (See Reedy v. Bussell (2007) 148 Cal. App.4th 1272,1291;

9

Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 260.) That requirement was dropped from

10

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023, subdivision (b), as part of the Civil Discovery Act of 1986.

11

(Kohan v. Cohan (1991) 229 Cal. App.3d 967, 971.) Indeed, the Reedy case is instructive because it

12

indicates that courts can construe the willful misconduct and violations of court orders from repeate

13

failures to respond and the use of objections and other tactics to delay production until motions are

14

filed. (Reedy, 20 Cal.App.4th 256.)

15

Courts have been particularly harsh on product manufactures or sellers who conceal or

16

refuse to provide infOnnation about other similar incidents involving similar products. For example,

17

in Sherman v. Kinetic Concepts (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4" 1152, concealment of evidenced concerning

18

other i!1cidents involving an allegedly defective product led to a new trial after the plaintiffs

19

discovered that a number of such incidents had not been disclosed in discovery. As the court

20

explained: !(throughout the litigation, KCI failed to produce and concealed t~e existence of crucial

21

documents relating to material issues in the Shermans' lawsuit. Compounding that inexcusable

22

dereliction of its discovery obligations, at trial KCI created the false impression its product rarely

23

malfunct~oned and then with only transient, inconsequential effects on the consumer. In truth, the

24

dozens of undisclosed incident reports told a far different story about both the frequency and gravi

25

of the problem. 1'o the Shermans' prejudice, the jury never had a chance to evaluate liability against

26

the backdrop of the big picture." (Id. at 1155.)

27

28

-15-

1Al6.3B7 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE

l The California Court of Appeal, in the recent case of Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009

2 174 Cal. App 4th 967, examined a defendant's persistent misuse of the discovery process in failing

3 to provide discovery concerning consumer complaints about an unusual odor in Bentley Armage

4 vehicles. Nearly two years after plaintiff's initia1 discovery request, a discovery referee found that

5 "Bentley failed to timely produce relevant and properly demanded, but potentially damaging,

6 documents." (Id at 977.) 'The referee further found that "Bentley engaged in persistent and serious

7 misuse of the discovery process," specifically concluding that Bentley either withheld documents or

8 failed to conduct a diligent search to find them. (Id at 993.)

9 Not unlike Bentley, MNA has engaged in persistent and serious misuse of the discovery

10 process by withholding documents and failing to provide meaningful responses to basic requests

ll seeking relevant, pertinent infOnnation. MNA's non~compliance and continued delay tactics

12 illustrates an unwillingness to engage in meaningfu] discovery with the PJaintiffs, and, therefore,

13 monetary sanctions are warranted. Thus, Plaintiffs request that the Court order Defendant Michelin 14 North America, Inc. to pay Plaintiff...,' reasonable attorneys' fees in the sum of $3,000, and for the 15 filing fee for bringing the inst.mt Motion.

16

17 DATED: April 2, 2010 GREENE B OILLET & WHEELER, LLP

18

19

C in ~-~p~a~h--fl--}t".,/):'.lfl!!.Jc__~ 20 Alexis B. Djivre Attorneys for Plaintiff

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-16-

1A16.387 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE

EXElIBIT G

GERMER AUSTIN BEAUMONT HOUSTON

www.germer.com

ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHRIS A. BLACKERBY PARTNER

Direct Dial: 512.482.3534 cblackerby@germer.com

September I, 2015

VIA FACSIMILE

Luis P. Guerra David C. Shapiro Luis P. Guerra, L.L.C. 6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125 Phoenix, AZ 85016

Re: Cause No. DC-14-07255; Samuel Medina, et al. v. Michelin North America, Inc., and Jose Bustillo dlb/a Mundo Cars; In the 1341• District Court of Dallas County, Texas.

Dear l,uis/David:

Despite the fact that you have refused to confer as required hy the applicable rules, I am writing this letter to propose an agreement to resolve the discovery issues in this case. If you agree on behalf of your clients, this letter will serve as a Rule 11 Agreement between the parties gove1ning the scope of discovery. We propose that the agreed scope for design documents, lawsuits, adjustments (once you identify codes), claims, and testing is Michelin P255170Rl6 LTX MIS tires and the 3 common green tires made at the Dothan, Alabama plant from the date production started in 1998 to the date it stopped in 2003.

MNA will produce the oldest available copies of the General Prit1ciples, Technical Notes, and ''fire Non-Conform procedures.

MNA has already produced the aspect specifications relating to plaintiffs' identified components and processes. To the extent annexes are identified in those aspect specifications or other aspect specifications are referred to in those that were not produced, MNA will produce them.

MNA will produce the oldest available tire building training documents for tire building relating to the identified components and processes. MNA will review the aspect specifications produced and, if they refer to another one, MNA will produce that one as well.

MNA will produce the patents it has on nylon cap plies.

MNA has already produced the tire service life docmncnts.

GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN PLLC 301 CONGRESS AVE, SUITE 1700 AUSTIN, TX 78701 PHONE: 512.472,0288 • FAX: 512.472.0721 4537956

September 1, 2015 Page2

In exchange for the production agreed to above, plaintiffs will withdraw their motion to compel and all requests for formulas. Plaintiffs also agree not to seek a plant inspection.

Once MNA makes this production and supplements its discovery responses, plaintiffs agree that MNA will have fully responded to all discovery served to date.

If you agree to the terms of this letter, please sign below and return to me in accordance'

with the Rule 11 of the 1'exas Rules ofCivH Procedure.

very y,

/ ' 'y

Chris A Blackerby

AGREED:

Luis P. Guerra David Shapiro Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CAB:lq

LA\V OFFICES

LlliS P. GUERRA, L.L.C.

6225 North 24th Street, Suite 125 PIIOENIX,ARIZONA 85016

I.,IJJS P. GUI~JillA * DAVID C. SHAPIRO Telephone (602) 381-8400 Tclecopler (602) 381-8403 WWW.Ll'GUERRA.CO?.l

September 2, 2015

Via Email and U.S. Mail Chris Blackerby Germer Beaman & Brown PLLC 301 Congress Ave, Ste. 1700 Austin, TX 78701

Re: Medina v. Michelin, et al

Dear Chris:

We are in receipt of your letter of today. We disagree wi1h it. We have dealt wi1h Michelin before, and you and I bo1h know 1here is no1hing inadvertent about Michelin and the manner in which it produces evidence.

Very truly yours,

LUIS P. GUERRA, L.L.C.

~~=c~~-,,;;:=:S~-::=::c::_ '~ '1 ------- Luis P. Gue1rn David C. Shapiro

LPG!DCS/tk

LAW OFFICES

I,UIS P. GUERRA, L.L.C.

6225 North 24th Street, Suite 125 PHOli:NIX, ARIZONA 85016

LUIS P. GUERRA* DAVID C. SHAPIRO Telephone (602) 381-8400 Te!ecopier (602) 381-8403 °W'VW.LPGllJ>RRA.COM

September 2, 2015

Via E-Mail and U.S. Mail Chris Blackerby Germer Beaman & Brown PLLC 301 Congress Ave, Ste. 1700 Austin, TX 78701

Re: Medina v. Michelin

Dear Chris:

Your last two (2) letters are a misrepresentation of what has happened conce1ning production of docu1nents and are outright inaccurate. Moreover, concerning your third letter, for all intents and purposes, I stick by it. However, other adjectives whicl1 also accurately characterize Michelin's prior actions and recent proposal include: dishonest, deceptive and misleading. Michelin's lack of consideration for the numerous innocent victims such as Obdulia Medina, Sandra Velo and many, many others throughout the years caused by its shoddy and defective tires - coupled with its lack of disclosure about it··· demonstrates a corporate culture 1hat has no place in our modern society.

Yours/Michelin's request that Plaintiffs "identify codes" reveals Michelin's bad faith discovery tactics since Michelin still has not produced 1he Code Sheets for Adjustment Data including but not limited to "List of Objective or Subjective Damages: Expert Codification." 1bus, Michcli11's most recent "proposal" is more of 1hc same: intentional refusal to produce discoverable evidence.

Finally, yo·ur statement that we have refused to 1neet and confer is inaccurate, and you know it. Regardless of what you write, we bo1h know we have had multiple and sundry conversations with Michelin's counsel about production since May of 2015. Moreover, recently at 1he deposition of Adrian Rico and his family in Dallas, we conferred wi1h you specifically about the documents. You told us that nei1hcr you nor 'I'om had authority to malce decisio11s, and we needed to "negotiate discovery'i with Michelin because that was their "process."

September 2, 2015 Page2

We told you that Michelin does not make the Rules. It is not the Michelin's Rules of Civil Procedure, We further told you that Plaintiffs follow the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The same stands true today. Accordingly, yet again, we ask that Michelin follow the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and its discovery scope and produce the documents previously requested.

Very truly yours,

LPG/DCS/tk

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113112 Page 1 of 61

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

JOHNNY BATES and PATRICIA MIDDLETON BATES,

Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO.

1:09-C'V-3280-AT

v. MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Defendant.

I. Background of Previous Discovery Disputes ................................................. 3 A. Plaintiffs' RPD 37 for Adjustment Data .............................................. 5 B. Michelin's Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Adjustment Codes .................................................................................................... 7 C. Michelin's Failure to Produce Adjustment Codes and Supporting Data ...................................................................................................... 8 D. Plaintiffs First Request for Sanctions ................................................. 9 i. .rune 3, 2011 Hearing ................................................................. 9 2. June 24, 2011 Order on Sanctions ........................................... 11 II. Plaintiffs' Second Request for Sanctions ..................................................... 12 A. Standard of Review ............................................................................ 14 B. September 19, 2011 Sanctions Hearing ............................................. 16 C. Michelin's Post-Sanctions Production of Adjustment Data ............ 16 1. Michelin's multiple misrepresentations regarding adjustment codes and conditions ............................................ 20 2. Michelin's failure to produce graphs and other interpretive adjustment data ....................................................................... 23 D. Michelin's Misrepresentations About Reaction Limits and Production Tolerances and the Failure to Produce Those Documents ......................................................................................... 28 E. Michelin's Failure to Produce Certain Documents in Response to RPD 50 .................................... ,, ......................................................... 37 F. Michelin's ,July 19th Production in Response to RPD 50 ................ -43 G. Michelin's Failure to Produce Expert Reports for Employee Experts Patrick and Glazener .......................................................... -47 H. Prejudice to Plaintiffs ....................................................................... 50 III. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 53

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 2 of 61

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

,TOHNNY BATES and PATRICIA MIDDLETON BATES,

Plaintiffs, CIVILAC'TION NO.

1:09-C'V-3280-AT

v.

MICHELIN NORTII AMERICA, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER

On September 19, 2011, this Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for

Sanctions [Doc. 180, 181]. This is the Plaintiffs' second Motion for Sanctions

arising ont of Defendant Michelin North America lnc.'s ("Michelin") violation of

the Court's multiple Orders requiring the production of certain documents.'

Plaintiffs request that the Court enter an Order establishing issue preclusion as a

diseovery sanction - specifically, a determination that the subject tire was

1 Plaintiffs dicl not request that the Court impose sanctions against Micl1elin's counsel because

in Plaintiffs' view the conduct giving rise to the sanctions request is part of a larger pattern of discovery abuse and disregard for the legal process by Michelin. Michelin was initially represented only by Robert Monyak, Bo11nic Lassiter and Benjamin Chastain of Peters and Mony<lk, LLP. On April 5, 2010, Elizabeth C. "IZate" Ilelm, of Nelson Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, IJ.•P entered an appearance on behalf of Michelin. (See Doc. 27.) Ms. Helm is Micl1elin's national discovery counsel. As a result of her participation on 'behalf of Michelin in tl1e discovery process, Ms. I-Ielm ultimately became a material witness on the sartctions issue. Thus, after Plaintiffs made their secortd request for sanctions, Richard I(. Hines of Nelson Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP and Susan A. Cahoort of I<ilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, I..I.,P-GA entered appearances on behalf of Michelin.

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113112 Page 3 of 61

defective and unreasonably dangerous and that the subject tire failed as a result

of its defective and unreasonably dangerous condition.

Viewed in isolation, Michelin's failure to produce certain documents in

response to Plaintiffs' discovery requests and this Court's Orders could be seen as

legitimate mistakes and misunderstandings. However, Plaintiffs have

demonstrated that Michelin has engaged in a pattern of subterfuge and

withholding relevant and responsive documents until Plaintiffs are forced to seek

the Court's intervention. In light of this pattern of prejudicial discovery abuse by

Michelin throughout the course of the litigation, the Court finds that Michelin

acted willfully in violating the Court's discovery Orders. Therefore, a more

substantive sanction than the previous monetary sanction imposed by the Court

is warranted.

Accordingly, after careful consideration of the evidence and the record of

this case, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs'

Motion for Sanctions as set forth below. Because the district court must clearly

state its reasons for imposing sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37

to allow for meaningful appellate review, the Court provides a detailed discussion

of the record as background and in its analysis. See Carlucci v. Piper Aircraft

Corp., 775 F.2d 1440, 1453 (11th Cir.1985).

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 4 of 61

I. Background of Previous Discovery Disputes

Plaintiffs brought this products liability and negligence action on

November 23, 2009, alleging a defect in a tire designed and manufactured by

Michelin. 2 Plaintiffs served Michelin with their Requests for Production of

Docmnents ("RPDs") on .January 15, 2010. In addition to objecting to Plaintiffs'

requests as not being limited to the tire, plant, and time period relevant to this

action, Michelin asserted a blanket objection that the requested docmnents

contained confidential trade secrets and were protected from disclosure. On

April 5, 2010, the parties agreed upon a Stipulated Confidentiality Order to

govern the production and use of such documents which was entered by the

Court on April 7, 2010. (See Docs. 28, 29.) Michelin produced documents on

April 23, 2010, subject to the Stipulated Confidentiality Order. Michelin initially

produced a strikingly small number of documents in response to Plaintiffs'

discovery requests.' A dispute ensued between the parties over certain of

Plaintiffs' RPDs, and Plaintiffs presented the dispute to the Court in the form of a

letter-motion as instructed on November HJ, 2010. (See Pis.' Reply Ex. B, Doc.

215-3.)

-·------- 2 This case was originally assigned to IIon. Richard Story after its initiation and \Vas reassigned to the instant judge on Marcl1 7, 2011. 1 At the time of the December 20, 2010 discovery hearing before the Court, Michelin had not even produced a full banker's box of documents, a fact which was admitted by Michelin's counsel at the ,June 3, 2011 hearing on I)laintiffs' first request for sanctions. (Dec. 20, 2010 J)isc. Hr'g Tr. at 5:5-13, Doc. 104; June 3, 2011 Sanctions IIr'gTr. 32-33, Doc. 169.)

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 5 of 61

Prior to bringing the discovery dispute before the Court, the parties

negotiated an "agreed scope" to govern Plaintiffs' discovery requests generally.•

The parties agreed to limit Michelin's document production to (1) the subject tire,

a P235/70RL5 Uniroyal Laredo AWR ORWL tire, and (2) the time period of

1998-2001, a four year period surrounding the date the Bates tire was

manufactured.s However, Plaintiffs made clear to Michelin (and subsequently to

the Court) that discovery requests seeking information that transcends a

particular tire line such as alternate designs and information about conditions at

the manufacturing plant should not he limited to the agreed scope. (See Pis.' Ex.

B, Sept. 19, 2011 Sanctions Hr'g, (June 7, 2010 "Meet and Confer" Tr. 6:8-20);

Dec. 20, 2011 Disc. Hr'g Tr. 5-11, Doc. 104; Pis.' Reply Ex. B (November 10, 2010

Letter to .J. Story), Doc. 215-3.)

Plaintiffs sought an order compelling Michelin to produce documents

responsive to, inter alia, RPD 16 (specific documents listed by name), RPDs 25

and 35 (design and production tolerances), RPD 37 (adjustment data), and RPD

4 Michelin repeatedly asse1ted at the Septcrnber 19, 2011 sanctions hearing that Plaintiffs proposed the discovery time scope of 1998-2001 a11d that Michelin agreed to the scope as reasonable. Hov.;ever, Michelin's representation is misleading. Plaintiffs only ultimately agreed to limit the scope of their requests after Michelin ol)jected that the requests were not limited in scope to the tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action and refused to produce documents on those grounds. Further, Plaintiffs clearly did not agree to this limited time frame in connection -with all of their Requests for Production. 5 Michelin began designing the P235/70R15 Uniroyal I...aredo AWR ORVVL tire in October 1995. 'fhe P235/70R15 Uniroyal Laredo AVVR ORWL tire was manufactured solely at the Ard1nore Plant. 'I'he first P235/70R15 Uniroyal L,aredo AVVR ()RWL tire was rnanufactured in April 1998. 'l'he Bates tire was manufactured in August 2000. The la&1: P235/70R15 lJniroyal Laredo AWil ORWL tire was manufactured in Ap1il 2007. (Sept. 19, 2011 Sanctions :tir'g Tr. 91:9-24, Doc. 2:JO.)

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 6 of 61

50 (documents relating to specific defects). (See Pis.' Reply Ex. B (November 10,

2010 Letter to J. Story), Doc. 215-3.) The Court heard argument on the Plaintiffs'

request on December 20, 2010, and on .January 3, 2011, the Court entered an

Order compelling Michelin to produce nearly aU of the documents sought by

Plaintiffs.

A. Plaintiffs' RPD 37 for Adjustment Data

Plaintiffs' RPD 37 (which was the subject of Plaintiffs' first request for

sanctions and remains a subject of Plaintiffs' second request for sanctions) asks

Michelin to:

Produce any documents containing, discussing or summarizing by calendar year tire aqjustment or exchange data for the Uniroyal Laredo series of tires, any tires with the same or similar specifications as that series regardless of name or branding, or any tire made from the same or similar "green" tire as that used in that series for tires manufactured at the Ardmore, Oklahoma, [sic] facility as compared to other manufacturing facilities of defendants.

In response to Plaintiffs' request for adjustment6 data, Michelin initially

produced a chart. summarizing by month (from 1998 to 2001) the number of tires

produced and the total number of tires returned for tread belt separation - the

alleged condition at issue.7 Plaintiffs objected to the creation of the chart for

6 "Adjustment" is the term Michelin uses to describe the process of issuing credits or payments to consumers or dealers \Vhen its tires arc returned fOr alleged defects and failure.<;. Plaintiffs' discovery requests seek internal information pos.".lessed by Michelin regarding how it "adjusts" credits for tire.<> returned ±Or alleged defects and failures. 7 Prior to production of the doGument".l, the parties agreed, at least initially, to narrow the scope of the request to cover only the alleged defective conditio11 at issue in this case ~ tread belt separation. At the discovery hearing, the Court recognized that a variety of adjustment codes

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113112 Page 7 of 61

purposes of the litigation without the production of accompanying information

that was used to create the chart. Plaintiffs argued to the Court that the

information provided by Michelin was useless without the raw data, the codes,

and the accompanying documents about how the data is collected, tabulated, and

analyzed. In addition, Plaintiffs requested that Michelin be compelled to produce

the internal manuals that Michelin uses for classifying the various types of

manufacturing and design conditions for which tires are returned. Plaintiffs also

requested documents used to interpret the adjustment data in order to determine

whether additional codes may cover the alleged tread belt separation condition at

issue. (Dec. 20, 2010 Disc. Hr'g Tr. 17-18, Doc. 104.)

The Court addressed Plaintiffs' request for these documents at the

December 20, 2010 discovery hearing specifically as follows:

The Court: [M]y concern is if they are input by a code and there's no other information other than entry of a code ... if [Michelin] would provide the list of codes and what those codes represent so that if [Plaintiffs] wanted to ask for additional codes to be checked, you could do that, fearing that tread separation covers more than one code and it may not have been covered, because what I understand is if you push in ... the code for tread separation, it will tell you how many there were, but it doesn't tell you specifics. It's just that this tire, tl1is date, tread separation; but there's not a picture, there's not an analysis beyond someone having categorized it as tread separation.

(Id. at 57-58.) On January 3, 2011, the Court ordered that

1night potentially be relevant to the tread l)elt separation condition. (See Dec. 20i 2010 Disc. Hr'g Tr. 57-58) Doc. 104.)

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113112 Page 8 of 61

RPD 37: Defendant shall provide to Plaintiff the codes that are used for identifying the causes for adjustment. As for any adjustment identified in association with components and processes at issue in this case, Defendant shall provide all data availahle to it concerning that adjustment, including the date the tire was returned, the age of the tire, the mileage, etc.

(Doc. 90 at 5.) Accordingly, the Court ordered production of the documents as a

two step process. First, Michelin was required to "provide to Plaintiff[s] the

codes that are used for identifying the causes for adjustment," such that Plaintiffs

could identify which codes and conditions are potentially relevant to the alleged

defect at issue in this case. (Id.) Second, with respect to any adjustment codes

identified hy Plaintiffs as heing at issue, Michelin was required to "provide all

data available to it concerning that adjustment, including the date the tire was

returned, the age of the tire, the mileage, etc." (Jd.)

B. Michelin's Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Adjustment Codes

Michelin sought reconsideration of the Court's January 3rd Order only so

far as it compelled production of adjustment code data in response to RPD 37

contending that the information contains trade secrets. Consequently, Michelin

did not produce the adjustment codes as ordered on January 3, 2011. On April

28, 2011, the Court denied Michelin's motion for reconsideration on the gronnds

that (1) the trade secret issne was discussed and considered by the Court at the

December 20th hearing and (2) Michelin offered no reason or change in law

warranting reconsideration of the Court's prior ruling compelling production of

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113112 Page 9 of 61

the adjustment data. (See Doc. 123.) In fact, at the December 20th hearing the

Court rejeded Michelin's trade secrets objection stating that documents could be

produced in accordance with the terms of the parties' Stipulated Confidentiality

Order and that counsel would be cxpeded to abide by the terms of that Order as

approved and entered by the Court. (Dec. 20, 2010 Disc. Hr'g Tr. 8:9-13, Doc.

104.)

C. Michelin's Failure to Produce Adjustment Codes and Supporting Data

After its motion for reconsideration was denied on April 28, 2011, Michelin

again did not produce the adjustment data as ordered by the Court. Rather,

Michelin informed Plaintiffs two weeks later, on May 12, 2011, that it no longer

agreed that Plaintiffs' expert could receive or maintain copies of the documents,

as contemplated by the Stipulated Confidentiality Order, due to Michelin's

concerns regarding the expert's protection of the confidential nature of the

documents. Michelin unilaterally determined it could defer compliance with the

Court's Order requiring production of the documents after reconsideration was

denied and refused to produce the documents unless Plaintiffs agreed to modify

the terms of the Stipulated Confidentiality Order previously entered by the Court.

On May 13, 2011, Plaintiffs insisted that Michelin immediately comply with the

Court's Order compelling production of the documents and notified Michelin that

they would seek sanctions if the documents were not produced.

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113112 Page 10 of 61

D. Plaintiffs First Request for Sanctions

Plaintiffs made their request for sanctions on May 19, 2011, after Michelin

failed to produce the adjustment codes and data under the current terms of the

parties' Stipulated Confidentiality Order. Plaintiffs asked the Court to impose

issue preclusion sanctions upon Michelin for its failure to produce the

adjustment code data ordered by the Court. On May 20, 2011, only after

Plaintiffs made their request for sanctions, Michelin produced a list of conditions

identifying, by name only, the causes for adjustment, but not the numeric codes

for the adjustments. (Pis.' Reply Ex. E, Doc. 215-6.)

1. .June 3, 2011 Hearing

The Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' request for sanctions on ,Tune 3,

2011. At the beginning of the hearing, counsel for Michelin informed the Court

that the adjustment code data had been produced and that the parties had

reached an agreement allowing Plaintiffs to provide the documents to their

expert. (June 3, 2011 Sanctions Hr'g Tr. 16:18-17:13, Doc. 169.) Based on these

circumstances, Michelin argued that Plaintiffs' continued request for sanctions at

the hearing was premature and improper without a "meet and confer" session. 8

(Id. at 17:17-19:6.) Nonetheless, the Court proceeded with the hearing based on

8 At the hearing and again in the June 24, 2011 ()rdcr, the (;ourt rejected this argument and found tl1at M.icl1elin was obligated to comply with the Court's January 3, 2011 Order com1)elling the production of the documents and that no "1ncct and t.'Onfer" '\\'US requirc'<l prior to Plaintiffs seeking sanctions for Michelin's failure to fully comply with the Court's prior orders. (,June 3, 2011 Sanctions Hr'g Tr. 19:13-14, Doc. 169; June 24, 2011 Order at 5 n.4, Doc. 173,)

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 11of61

Plaintiffs' contention that Michelin's late prodnction of the six pages of

adjnstment conditions prodneed without codes (or the explanatory photos or

descriptions anticipated by Jndge Story) did not fully comply with the Jannary

3rd Order reqniring Michelin to provide the nnmerie "codes that are nsed for

identifying the eanses for adjnstment." (Doe. 90). The Conrt fonnd that this issne

was the eontinnation of the same discovery dispnte addressed in its Order of

April 28, 2011, and .Jndge Story's Order of Jannary 3, 2011. (Jnne 3, 2011

Sanctions Hr'g Tr. 19:7-14, Doe. 169.)

Michelin's connsel repeatedly represented that the list of adjnstment

conditions produced to Plaintiffs was "how the conditions are maintained in the

regular course of business." (Id. at 36:17-18, 37:6-8, 58:14-22.) However,

Michelin's counsel subsequently admitted in response to the Court's question at

the hearing that there were numbers that corresponded with the conditions and

that Michelin (not she) redacted the code numbers from the document produced

to Plaintiffs. (Id. at 40:7-41:4.) In addition, in response to further inquiry by the

Court, Michelin's counsel revealed that additional documents describing t11e

adjustment conditions existed. Michelin maintained that it was not ordered to

produce such documents and that the Court's January 3rd Order required only

production of the codes. (Id. at 43:8-17, 59:1-10.)

The Court found that Michelin's redaction of the codes from the list of

adjustment conditions violated the express terms as well as intent of the .January

Case 1 09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113/12 Page 12 of 61

3rd Order and that the list of adjustment conditions alone did not provide a

sufficient documentary hasis or description from which Plaintiffs could identify

all codes that might he relevant to the alleged tire defect in this case. (Id. at 52:8-

55:1; 62:23-64:7.) Therefore, the Court ordered Michelin to produce the numeric

codes hy June 8, 2011, and all availahle documentary information descrihing the

nature and causes for each adjustment code hy June 13, 2011. At the conclusion

of the hearing, the Court warned Michelin that "any further delays, manipulation

of discovery ... or hasically failure to function in good faith in producing fully all

information requested or ordered ... will result in a suhstantive sanction ...

comparahle to what Plaintiffs have asked the next time it comes in front of [the

Court]." (Id. at 65:15-66:4.) The Court also cautioned Michelin's counsel ahout

her client's hairsplitting, narrow constrnction of the Court's January 3, 2011

Order stating 'Tm not going to waste our time for us to go through another

conference where you argue ahout ... what's really intended." (ld. at 54:15-25,

63:20-64:7.)

2. June 24, 2011 Order on Sanctions

On June 24, 2011, the Court issued a written Order on Plaintiffs first

request for sanctions. (See Doc. 173.) The Court found sanctions were warranted

hased on Michelin's failure to fully and timely comply with the Court's discovery

Orders hut declined to impose issue preclusion sanctions. The Court instead

awarded Plaintiffs attorney's fees incurred in connection with their request for

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113112 Page 13 of 61

sanctions and ordered Michelin to produce additional documents in response to

Plaintiffs' discovery request for adjustment data. (Id.) The Court reiterated its

finding at the hearing that Michelin's extremely limited production "essentially

side-stepped by its narrow parsing and production response an essential purpose

of the Court's original January 3, 2011, discovery order regarding production of

the adjustment code data and information." (Id. at lo.) With respect to any

additional relevant adjustment codes identified by Plaintiffs, Michelin was

ordered to produce all tire data and documents available to it conceming those

adjustment codes, including the internal manuals Michelin nses for classifying or

discussing the conditions and issues arising in connection with application of a

specific adjustment code. (Id. at ll.) Finally, the Conrt again cautioned Michelin

that "any failure to respond fully in producing these documents and tire data may

result in the imposition of sanctions, including the Court's entry of default,

determination of issue preclusion relative to the tire defect at issne, or other

sanctions authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)." (Id.)

II. Plaintiffs' Second Request for Sanctions

Just five days after the Court issued its written Order imposing sanctions,

Plaintiffs made a second request for issue preclusion sar1ctio11s 011 ~Tune 30, 2011,

that was supplemented in further submissions in connection with the Court's

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113112 Page 14 of 61

sanctions hearing condnctcd on September 19, 2011.9 (Docs. 180, 215, Hr'g Exs.

A-X). Plaintiffs' second sanctions reqnest is based on additional alleged

discovery abuses by Michelin since the Court's June 3rd sanctions hearing.

Plaintiffs seek the sanction of issue preclusion a' to the defectiveness of the tire

because, at the time of their second sanctions request, Plaintiffs assert that: (1)

Michelin had not produced all the adjustment codes as ordered by the Court on

June 3, 2011, and June 24, 2011, and, (2) Plaintiffs learned during the depositions

of two Michelin employees that Michelin had withheld documents directly

relevant to the defect issue previously covered by the Court's Orders.

Plaintiffs corrtend that a finding that the tire at issue was defective is

warranted for several reasons. First, Michelin withheld numerous documents in

violation of Court Orders compelling their production. Second, Michelin made

repeated misrepresentations to the Court that all responsive documents had in

fact been produced and thereby obstructed and altered the course of discovery.

Finally, the Court's prior monetary sanction proved insufficient to ensure

compliance with the Court's Orders.

On the other hand, Michelin contends that Plaintiffs have fabricated a

discovery dispute where none exists in order to avoid proving the merits of their

case. Michelin asse1ts that no responsive documents were withheld under its

9 The Court ordered that PlaintiftS' letter request for sanctions be filed as a formal motion on the CM/ECF system. (See Doc. 180.)

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 15 of 61

interpretation of Plaintiffs' discovery requests and the Court's Orders. To the

extent any documents were withheld, Michelin contends it was the result of

human error as opposed to any willful violation of the Court's Orders. In

addition, Michelin contends it never made any intentional misrepresentations to

the Court Finally, Michelin asserts that Plaintiffs have not heen prejudiced

because it has now produced all the documents Plaintiffs requested, despite

Michelin's belief that such production was not required, in a good faith effort to

resolve a manufactured discovery dispute.

As Plaintiffs asserted in their second sanctions request, and more keenly

demonstrated at the second sanctions hearing and in response to Michelin's

motion for partial summary judgment, Michelin withheld nearly all probative

documents for over one and a half years after Plaintiffs served their discovery

requests. These documents would likely never have emerged hut for Plaintiffs'

persistene.c in seeking the Court's intervention. For the reasons set forth below,

Michelin's serial abuses, misrepresentations, and willful violations of the Court's

discovery Orders warrant substantive sanctions.

A. Standard of Review

When a party fails to ohey a court order to provide discovery, the court is

authorized to sanction the party hy "directing that the matters embraced in the

order or other designated facts he taken as established for purposes of the action,

as the prevailing party claims [or] prohibiting the disobedient party from

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113112 Page 16 of 61

supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing

designated matters in evidence." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)&(ii). District

courts have broad discretion to fashion appropriate sanctions for violations of

discovery orders. See Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de

Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 707 (1982); BankAtlantic v. Blythe Eastman Paine

Webber, Inc., 12 F.3d 1045, 1048 (11th Cir. 1994). "A primary aspect of that

discretion is the ability to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which

abuses the judicial process." Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 2, 44-45 (1991).

However, this broad discretion is governed by the most fundamental due

process safeguard of fairness. See Ins. Corp. of Ireland, 456 U.S. at 707. To

ensure the provision of due process in the review of a sanctions request, a court.

must impose sanctions that are both "just" and "specifically related to the

particular 'claim' which was at issue in the order to provide discove1y." Id. "Due

process requires that the party be given fair notice that its conduct may warrant

sanctions and the reasons why." In re Sunshine Jr. Stores, 456 F.3d 1291, 1306

(11th Cir. 2006). A party can he given notice from either tl1e court or from the

party seeking sanctions. Id. Moreover, a party's "blatant disregard for the []

Court's orders is itself notice." Id.

Rule 37(b)(2) docs not require the court to make a finding of bad faith

before it may impose sanctions for a party's failure to comply with a court order.

Devaney v. Continental American Ins. Co., 989 F.2d 1154, 1162 (11th Cir. 1993).

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113112 Page 17 of 61

Although not a necessary precursor for sanctions, had faith is a relevant factor in

determining the magnitude of a sanction. Id. (noting Court's discussion of had

faith in Carlucci v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 775 F.2d 1440 (11th Cir. 1985). "A party

... demonstrates had faith hy delaying or disrupting the litigation or hampering

enforcement of a court order." Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1121 (11th Cir.

2001).

B. September i.9, 2011 Sanctions Hearing

On September 19, 2011, the Court conducted a full day evidenliary hearing

on Plaintiffs' second request for sanctions. Extensive argument was heard and

the parties submitted additional exhibits including hundreds of pages of

documents produced hy Michelin after Plaintiffs filed their second sanctions

request. Michelin's national discovery counsel Ms. Helm took the stand as the

sole witness at the hearing to testify in Michelin's defense and to accept personal

responsibility for all of the alleged discovery "errors."

C. Michelin's Post-Sanctions Production of Adjustment Data

Plaintiffs contend that Michelin's continued failure to produce the

adjustment codes and adjustment data in violation of the Court's January :ird,

June 3rd, and June 24th Orders warrants issue preclusion sanctions. After

Plaintiffs' first request for sanctions, the Court ordered Michelin to produce three

things: (1) a list of the numeric adjustment codes that correlate to the list of

adjustment conditions produced on May 20, 2011; (2) documents containing

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 18 of 61

explanations and photographs of the adjustment codes and conditions; and (3)

for each adjustment code identified hy Plaintiffs, all availahle tire adjustment

data and the internal manuals Michelin uses for classifying or discussing the

conditions and issues arising in connection with application of the specific

adjustment codes. (See Doe. 173.)

As ordered, Michelin produced a list of the numeric adjustment codes on

June 6, 2011. On June 13, 2011, Michelin produced 313 pages of adjustment

conditions with codes, pictures and descriptions in purported compliance with

the Court's Order. At that time, Michelin informed Plaintiffs it had fully

complied with the Court's orders to produce all the codes. Upon review of these

documents however, Plaintiffs discovered there were discrepancies between the

May 20th list of adjustment conditions, the June 6th list of conditions with

numeric codes, and the June 13th production of the conditions with codes,

pictures and descriptions. Accordingly, Plaintiffs contend that Michelin failed to

produce all the codes as ordered hy the Court on January 3rd, June 3rd, and

again on June 24th.

The Court held a status conference on ,July 7, 2011, to determine whether

Michelin was in fact ohligated to produce additional documents identified hy

Plaintiffs in their second sanctions request. At the July ]th status conference

Michelin vehemently denied that it had not produced all the adjustment codes,

despite the fact that Plaintiffs detailed the discrepancies in the two prior

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113112 Page 19 of 61

productions. (July 7, 2011 Status Conf. Tr. 27, Doc. 183.) However, on July 14,

2011, Miehelin produced another 144 pages of adjustment conditions with codes,

picttrres, and descriptions. 10

Plaintiffs assert that Michelin wrongfully withheld the adjustment codes in

violation of the Court's ,June 24th sanctions Order. In its defense, Michelin

eontends that the incomplete production was the result of human error. At the

September 19th sanctions hearing, Ms. Helm testified that after receiving the

adjustment conditions with codes, pictures and descriptions from Michelin to be

produced on June 13, 2011, she compared them to the June 6th list of adjustment

codes and conditions and noticed that the two did not match. (Helm Aff. ~ 56,

Doc. 192-6; Sept. 19, 2011 Sanctions Hr'g Tr. 171:21-175:12, Doc. 230.) There

were codes on the June 6th list for which Michelin did not have additional

descriptions, and there were additional descriptions of conditions that were not

listed on the ,June 6th code list. (Sept. 19, 2011 Sanctions Hr'g Tr. 171:21-175:12,

Doc. 230.)

Ms. Helm testified that she made several mistakes on June 13, 2011. (Id.)

First, Ms. Helm made mistakes regarding which adjustment codes were missing

in her June 13th transmittal letter to Plaintiffs when the additional descriptions

10 Out of the 144 pages produced by Michelin on July 14i 2011, 113 new conditions with codes, pictures and descriptions were produced that 11ad previously been -withheld (MNA 8436-8548) and 31 were duplicates of conditions that were produced on June 13, 2011 (MNA 8560-8590).

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113/12 Page 20 of 61

were produced.n (Helm Aff. ~ 58.) In her attempt to sort through the documents

to compare them and determine the differences, Ms. Helm testified she

segregated out the documents for the conditions that were not on the June 6th

code list. (Sept. 19, 2011 Sanctions Hr'g Tr. 171:21-175:12, Doc. 230.) Ms. Helm

further testified that when she compiled the documents to produce to Plaintiffs,

the documents for the conditions that were not on the June 6th list were

inadvertently left out of the production. (Id.) According to Ms. Helm, she did not

discover any of this until after Plaintiffs made their second request for sanctions.

(ld.) Therefore, Michelin contends that it" failure to produce all the codes as

ordered by the Court, the result of human error, amounts to excusable neglect

that does not warrant the imposition of the severe sanction requested by

Plaintiffs. However, Plaintiffu contend that Michelin continued to produce the

adjustment data documents in bad faith after the Court's June 3rd sanctions

hearing.

At the September 19th hearing, Michelin requested that it not be sanctioned

for any misconduct, essentially asserting that it should be rewarded for counsel's

self-corrective actions. In response to Plaintiffs' contention that Michelin failed

to produce au the adjustment conditions with codes, descriptions, and pictures in

bad faith, Michelin's counsel claimed that "the only reason they knew of those

11 Ms. Helm admitted these mista}{es during the July ?tl1 status conference, l)ut had not yet discovered her failure to produce all the codes as outlined in her July 14, 2011 lcttcr to Plaintiffs.

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 21of61

missing items was that there was a self reporting." (Id. at 89.) Michelin

contended that the additional 144 pages were produced on its own initiative and

not becanse Plaintiffs had caught Michelin red-handed. (Id. at 145.) However,

Michelin's alleged "self reporting" did not occnr until after Plaintiffs pointed ont

there were missing codes and sought sanctions for Michelin's withholding of the

docnments. Michelin did not simply discover the error on its own and voluntarily

come forward with the documents as it would have the Court believe. While this

conduct alone would not warrant issue preclusion sanctions, the Court is

doubtful of whether Michelin would have discovered this oversight and

voluntarily produced the additional 113 adjustment codes that had previously

been withheld in the absence of Plaintiffs' second request for sanctions.

1. Michelin's multiple misrepresentations regarding adjustment codes aud conditions

Unfortunately, the veracity of Michelin's contentions regarding its conduct

in the discovery process for a variety of reasons has proven unreliable. It appears

Plaintiffs are correct in their assertion that every one of Michelin's counsel's

representations to the Court regarding the production of the adjustment codes

and adjustment data has proven to be inaccurate.

First, as noted above, Ms. Helm told the Court at the June 3rd hearing that

the six-page list of adjustment conditions "are the codes" and that these are the

way the codes are maintained "in the regular course of business." (June 3, 2011

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13112 Page 22 of 61

Sanctions Hr'g Tr. 36:11-19, Doc. 169.) However, when pressed, Ms. Helm

eventually admitted that the numeric codes had been redacted from this list but

that "I didn't do it, Yonr Honor."u (Id. at 40:24-41'4.) She fnrther stated that

"[b]nt there's been no condition of a tire redacted from this list." (Id.) Then,

much to the Court's surprise, at the September 19th Sanctions hearing, Ms. Helm

denied that Michelin redacted the codes and instead took personal responsibility

for the redactions' oeenrrenee.'3 (Sept. 19, 2011 Sanctions Hr'g Tr. 191:17-196:7,

Doe. 230.) Ms. Helm was evasive in response to Plaintiffs' qnestioning of who

redacted the list, stating repeatedly that she did not recall. (Id.) When asked

who provided her with the docnment that had been redacted, Ms. Helm again

testified she did not recall. (Id.) Ms. Helm fnrther testified at the September

19th sanctions hearing that when she told the Conrt on ,June 3rd that the list

contained the adjustment codes as regnlarly maintained by Michelin, she in fact

knew the codes had been ent off the side of the document. (Id.)

Ms. Helm admitted that "we should have produced the codes with the

numbers." (Id.) When asked where was the mistake or human error in the

redaction of the codes, Ms. Helm testified "the mistake and human error was

12 Michelin's redaction of the codes \Vas 1he subject of the Court's June 24tlt Order on sanctions and does not form the basis for the Court'8 imposition of sanctio11s herein. IIowever, the redaction is relevant to the larger pattern of Michelin's abuse of the discovery process as further dcn1onstratcd by Michelin's counsel's subsequent evasive testimony regarding who actually made the decision to redact the codes. 13 It is clear tl1at Ms. Helm attem1)ted to take the blame for the redaction in order to protect Michelin from further sanctions.

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113112 Page 23 of 61

making the decision to redact the numbers off or to produce the document with

the numhers redacted off." (Id.) After repeated questions by Plaintiffs as to who

made that decision, Ms. Hehn stated she made the decision despite her previous

representation to the Court on June 3, that "I didn't do it."'< (Id.) When asked

whether she spoke with anyone at Michelin about the decision, Ms. Helm further

evaded the issue by responding she did not recall. (Id.)

In addition, Michelin's June 13th production of the conditions with codes,

pictures and descriptions revealed the falsity of its representations to the Court at

the June 3rd hearing that the redacted six-page list of adjustment conditions

were the codes and that this skeletal listing constituted the way the codes are kept

in the regular course of business. Ms. Helm subsequently confirmed that the full

production - including the codes, pictures and verbal descriptions of how to

identify the tire conditions represented by each code are "the documents used

by the inspectors in the adjustment centers to evaluate and code returned tires."

(Helm Aff. ~ 55, Doe. 192-6.)

Furthermore, Michelin's counsel represented to the Court at the June 3rd

hearing that while the numeric codes may have been redacted, no adjustment

conditions were redacted from the May 20th list of adjustment: conditions. (June

3, 2011 Sanctions Hr'g Tr. 40:24-41'4, Doc. 169.) This representation turned out

14 Before taldng responsibility for the decisio11, Helrn attempted to assert the attorney-client privilege. (Sept. 19, 2011Sanctions1-Ir'g 'fr. 195, Doc. 230.)

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 24 of 61

to be only partially true. While certain conditions may not have been redacted

from the list, Michelin now admits that 113 adjustment conditions were not

included on the original list. (Helm Aff. iii! 56-59, Doc. 192-6; Sept. 19, 2011

Sanctions Hr'g Tr. 171-176, Doc. 230.)

Although the Court originally believed Ms. Helm's affidavit testimony that

the failure to produce the missing adjustment codes was an innocent oversight,

and while this may very well be true, tbc credibility of her statements over time

has been eroded by the actual course of discovery events. In light of Ms. Helm's

evasive and inconsistent testimony at the September 19th hearing and Defendant

Michelin's shifting representations made to the Court since ,June 3, 2011, the

Court cannot simply rely on Michelin's avowals of good faith regarding any of

these discovery issues.

2. Michelin's failure to produce graphs and other interpretive adjustment data

In accordance with tbe Comt's two-step process for the production of the

adjustment data, after Michelin produced all the codes that are used for

identifying the causes for adjustment and Plaintifts identified the additional

codes for which they sought adjustment data, Michelin was required to provide

all data available to it concerning the identified aqjustment codes. (Doc. 90 at 5;

Doc. 173 at n.)

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 25 of 61

On July 19, 2011, Michelin produced a large chart of indecipherable

adjustment data along with a glossary created for the litigation. After Plaintiffs

were unable to make any sense of the information, they questioned Michelin's

employee-expert Mr. Charles Patrick, who regularly reviewed adjustment data,

about the chart. (Patrick Dep. 76-90, July 28, 2011.) Mr. Patrick testified he had

never seen the information in that format. (Id. at 76.) Mr. Patrick was unable to

interpret the chart during his deposition. (Id. at 84-90.) Indeed, Michelin's own

employee could not decipher the chart using the glossary created by Michelin to

decode the chart. (Id. at 90-95.)

The chart appears to contain information about the number of tires

returned under the relevant aqjustment codes identified by Michelin. At the

September 19, 2011 sanctions hearing, Plaintiffs maintained that Michelin was

still continuing to withhold internal documents necessary to analyze and explain

the data in the chart. Like the original list of adjustment conditions provided, the

chart was a meaningless listing in and by itself, as demonstrated by Mr. Patrick's

deposition testimony. >s

- - ----·---- 1 ~ The chart does however highlight the importance for the numeric adjust1nent codes that were originally redacted by Michelin. '.rhc chart references the numeric adjustment code only and not the name of any of the conditio1is for which the tires were returned. Tl1e Court notes that at the June 3rd hearing regarding production of the adjustment codes Michelin's Counsel stated "what is important is not whetl1er we call it n11ml)er :t, it's \vhether we cal1 it unsticldng or leaking at the joint." (,June,;, 2011 Sanctio11s Hr'g '.I'l'. 4:1:5-10, Doc. 169.) Yet, it is clear, that without the numeric codes, the subsequently prod11ced chart purportedly summarizing the adjustment data would have been even more incompreltensible.

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 26 of 61

The ,July 19th chart of adjustment data does uot comply with the Court's

June 24th Order. The June 24th Order provided that:

With respect to each adjustment code identified by Plaiutiffs, Micheliu shall provide to Plaintiffs all tire data aud documents available to it couceruiug that adjustmeut. To eusure full compliauce with this directive, the Court uotes that Micheliu should produce the internal manuals it uses for classifyiug or discussiug the couditious aud issues arisiug iu couuectiou with applicatiou of the specific adjustment code.

(Doc. 173 at 11.) Moreover, the Court warned Michelin tl1at "any failure to

respond fully in producing these documents and tire data may result in the

imposition of sanctions, including the Court's entry of default, determination of

issue preclusion relative to the tire defect at issue, or other sanctions authorized

by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)." (Td.)

An essential purpose of the Order was to ensure that Plaintiffs were

provided the information necessary to analyze and evaluate the adjustment data

to determine how many tires were being returned for the conditious at issue in

this case. Not only did Michelin produce the adjustment data in a format that

was indecipherable to Plaintiffs, not even a Michelin employee who was

experienced in analyzing adjustment data could understand the information

provided in the chart. Indeed, as Mr. Patrick admitted in his deposition, in order

to understand the meaning of eve1y column and code in tl1e chart, he would need

more than just the glossary prepared by Michelin. (Patrick Dep. 95, July 28,

2011.) In light of the Court's prior directives with respect to the adjustment codes

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 27 of 61

and data, Michelin's production of the adjustment data in this completely

unusable format was patently unacceptable. Michelin's mode of production of

the chart is yet one more strand in its pattern of failing to produce meaningful

responses to Plaintiffs' discovery requests in violation of both the letter and spirit

of the Court's Orders.

According to Mr. Patrick, Michelin itself actually did not nse the chart form

that was produced to Plaintiffs in this litigation bnt instead compiled its tire

adjustment and retnrn data into graphs for comparison and analysis at quarterly

meetings. (Id. at 76.) As Mr. Patrick testified, these graphs compared the return

rates of Laredo tires to other tire lines and to Michelin's overall rates. (fd. at 76,

79, 112, 182-83.) No snch graphs were produced by Michelin in response to RPD

37 requesting information summarizing Michelin's adjustment data.

At the sanctions hearing, Michelin contended that it did not keep these

graphs and that they were destroyed after their nse at these quarterly meetings.

Ms. Helm testified at the hearing that after Mr. Patrick's deposition, Michelin

searched for the graphs and determined that no snch graphs exist. (Sept. 19, 2011

Sanctions Hr'g Tr. 18s-86, Doc. 230.) Ms. Helm further testified that the graphs

were created as demonstratives for the employee meetings and are not

maintained after the staff meetings. (Id. at 241.)

These graphs wonld obviously be highly probative of the issne of what

Michelin knew ahont its tires' comparative failure rates, why certain tires were

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113/12 Page 28 of 61

failing, and what changes in the design or manufacturing process may have been

initiated to prevent future failures. As Mr. Patrick testified, by using this

information Michelin could determine whether it was "starting to see something

new when we put in high-tensile steel, I mean, are the tires lasting longer, does it

look like the wear rates are lasting longer, things like that." (Patrick Dep. 80,

,July 28, 2011.) And indeed, Mr. Patrick as Michelin's key design representative

testified tliat this data was supposedly an essential tool used by Michelin's staff in

guiding its tire design and quality assurance work on an ongoing basis. (Id.)

Furthermore, this testimony serves as the basis for Michelin's summary

judgment motion asserting that Michelin cannot be found to have engaged in the

necessary bad faith to warrant the imposition of punitive daniages because it

employed design and manufacturing quality assurance proc.edures. (See Doc.

205.)

The adjustment data would be extremely relevant to Plaintiffs' ability to

establish whether Michelin knew of identified defects in its tires based on the

return information through the warranty process. As Mr. Patrick confirmed, the

adjustment data could be analyzed to determine whether tires were being

returned for conditions resulting from a manufacturing versus a design issue.

(Id. at 100-105.) Accordingly, at the conclusion of the September 19th sanctions

hearing, the Court ordered Michelin to provide further clarification of the chart's

data and mode of inforniation presentation. Until the Court's Order at the

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113112 Page 29 of 61

conclnsion of the September 19, 2011 sanctions hearing, Michelin delayed in

producing information essential to assessing the comparative data it finally

produced in the chart it provided to Plaintiffs on July 19, 2011, thus seriously

impeding Plaintiffs' preparation of their case.

By withholding the information necessary to understand the adjustment

data in the chart, Michelin effectively attempted to prevent Plaintiffa from using

the adjustment data to establish whether the tire at issue was being returned for

certain manufacturing or design conditions, whether Michelin was aware of these

conditions in the tire, and whether Michelin made any changes to the tire as a

result of a high return rate. Moreover, the "special" chart that Michelin has now

provided is clearly not a full substitute for producing the actual graphs or graph

data that Michelin's staff used to review and assess comparative return aud

failure rates of its various tire lines. Given the centrality of this data to Michelin's

design and quality assurance processes - processes that Michelin seeks to use as

a lynchpin of its product liability defense in this case - the Court is skeptical that

Michelin would not maintain such documents and data.

D. Michelin's Misrepresentations Abont Reaction Limits and Prodnction Tolerances and the Failnre to Prodnce Those Docnments

Plaintiffs contend that Michelin also made misrepresentations to the Court

regarding reaction limits and production tolerance documents so as to persuade

Judge Story to limit his .January 3, 2011 Order based on a false factual predicate.

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 30 of 61

They also maintain that Michelin failed to fully prodnce all available relevant

documents responsive to the three Requests for Production covering these

documents.

The documents at issue here were initially the subject of the discovery

dispute that led to the December 20, 2010 discovery hearing and the .January 3,

2011 Order compelling production of documents. Plaintiffs requested "reaction

limits" documents in RPD 16, "design and production tolerances" in RPD 25, and

"tolerances for plies and belt materials" in RPD 35.' 6 Reaction limits and

tolerances are used by tire builders ·during the manufacturing process to

determine whether the tires comply with their design specifications. Michelin

defines "reaction limits" as "tl1e maximum variation allowed in product, process,

or material and still be considered fit for 'right the first time.""' (MNA 9636.)

16 The full text of tl1ese Requests to Produce are set forth below:

llPJ2..t6.: Produce the following documents, any similar documents and any docun1ents discussing the listed documents speciJlcally identified in the complaint: (a) 111e Bad Habits J..,ist of manufacturing issues; (b) Decision Tree documents; (c) Asset S1}ecifications docu1nents; (d) Reaction J,,imits documents; (e) Product Standards and Guidelines Manual for Required Tire l)imensional Tolerances; (f) Documents relating to and including an inteJnal study by Tokita entitled "Long Term Durability of Tires"; and (g) All -witness statements frorn current or former Michelin employees or sworn depositions from current or former Michelin employees in F'ord v. [Jniroyal from Georgia, (7arver v. [Jniroyal from California, Toscano v. Uniroyal from Texas, Adams v. [!niroyal from Texas, and Castillo v. Uniroyal from 'l'exas. JlPD 25: Provide the design and production tolerances for the subject tire in effect at the time of its manufacture . .Rfil_35: Produce all documents providing specifications for the splice overlaps standards and tolerances for plies and belt materials in the subject tire.

17 Micl1elin's training docume11ts discuss "reaction limit" as being "the lower and upper limits allowed for product or process variation fro1n spec vvithout receiving intervention fro1n a quality technician. Product or processes outside 'reac'tion limits' but within tolerance limit.s - the operator must stop production and notify the Quality 'fccl1nician vvho must 1nake the decision

30

case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113112 Page 31 of 61

Michelin defines "product/process tolerance" as "the range of variation that by

design defines nonconformity. A product or process outside the tolerance limits

is non-conforming.'" 8 (Id.)

While the reaction limits and tolerances are related concepts, it is possible

for a product or process to be outside of reaction limits but within a tolerance.

According to Michelin's intemal documents, "a product mnning outside reaction

limits but within the tolerance is considered to be the 'Range of Expertise."'

Approval from authorized personnel is needed to continue production within this

range." (MNA 9637.) On the other hand, "product variation outside of the

tolerance limits is non-confirming; this product must be tagged and placed in the

non-conforming area. Operator must immediately react to out of tolerance

conditions to bring product in control, if unable to bring product in control, the

operators must stop production immediately."' 0 (Id.)

whether to co11tinue '\vith the product or process. If the Quality Tech gives the authori,,;ation to continue, the builder must ensure that the authorization is recorded in the comment.<; section of the logbook." (MNA 8779.) is Micl1elin's training documents discuss "tolerance limits," as "the range above or l)elow the lower and upper reaction limits that a quality tech has the authority to anthori:te a builder to use products or processes. .A builder should never use a product or process that is outside of the tolerance limit - a quality tech cannot approve use of a product or process out<Jide of tolerance limit." (MNA 8779.) 19 "Variation Range of :Expertise" is defined as "the variation in product, process or material that is outside the reaction li1nits but within the tolerance limits. Approval is required from authorized personnel to cor1t.inue product.ion with this variation range." (MNA 9636.) 20 Michelin's internal <loc111nents di.<Jcuss a similar procedure for "process variation outside of reaction liinits but \Vithin tolerance" and "process variation. outside of tolerance." (MNA 9637- 9638.)

case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113112 Page 32 of 61

At the December 20th discovery hearing, Michelin's counsel led the Court

to believe that the reaction limits and tolerance data and documents requested by

Plaintiffs were duplicative and had already been produced as part of the design

file (also referred to as the development file that contains manufacturing

specifications and decision trees)." (Id. at 42:12-21) Specifically, Michelin's

counsel represented to the Court that RPDs 25 & 35 which ask for design and

production tolerances were duplicative of RPD 16 because a "reaction limit" is

"really a tolerance for a tire before its cured." (Dec. 20, 2010 Disc. Hr'g Tr. 38-39,

42-43, Doc. 104.) In response, the Court inquired: "If you gave the reaction

limits and the decision trees, that would cover those tolerances." 22 (Id. at 42:22-

23.) Ms. Helm responded: "That would [cover] the manufacturing tolerances

because that's really what they are, Your Honor. So I believe that's duplicative of

the earlier discussion." (Id. at 42:24-43:1.)

Based on Michelin's representations that the reaction and tolerance limits

documents had in fact been produced, the Court did not order any further

21 Michelin counsel advised the (;ourt, "We've produced the entire design file ... We've produced the specifications which show ho\v the tire is to be manufactured and the measurements and the components and. all of that." (Dec. 20, 2010 Disc. Hr'g 'l'r. 42:15-21, Doc. 104.) 22 According to Ms. Helm, decision trees (or aspect specifications) are the criteria used by tire builders to test tl1e production quality for cured tires whereas reactio11 limits (used interchangeably by Helm with tolerances) are the criteria used by tire 'builders to test the production quality for uncured tires. (Dec. 20, 2010 Disc. .Hr'g. Tr. 3a:14-24; 39:19-22, Doc. 104.)

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 33 of 61

production by Michelin of reaction limits and production tolerances. Specifically,

the Order stated as follows:

RPD 16: Defendant shall produce documents responsive to (b) [Decision Tree Documents] and (c) [Asset Specifications documents] that were in effect during the agreed upon time frame and which relate to processes at issue: trapped air, placement of steel belts, molding issues, and adhesion issues. Should other components and processes be identified in the future by Plaintiffs, Defendant shall be required to produce documents related to those components and processes as well. The Court finds that the information sought in [(d) Reaction Limits Documents] has been provided by Defendant in the development files already produced. Therefore no further production is required.

RPDs 25 and 35: The documents requested [tolerances] are covered by the Court's rulings as to RPD 16.

(Doc. 90 at 4-5.)

On July 28, 2011, Michelin's former employee tire-design expert, Mr.

Patrick was deposed and testified that he had reviewed the development file

produced by Michelin and it did not in fact contain the reaction limits or

tolerances as had been represented to the Court at the December 20th hearing.

(Patrick Dep. 64-65, July 28, 2011.) Nine days earlier, on July 19, 2011, in

response to Plaintiffs' second request for sanctions for withholding documents

responsive to RPD 50 (documents discussing specific tire defects), Michelin for

the first time produced documents (MNA 8779, MNA 9634-9658) that defined

the notable difference between tolerances and reaction limits and made clear that

Plaintiffs' requests for tolerance and reaction limit data and documents would

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113112 Page 34 of 61

not be duplicative. Until that time, Plaintiffs had accepted the accuracy of the

representations of Michelin's counsel to the Comt at the December 20th hearing.

However, these new internal Michelin documents revealed that Michelin's

representations to the Conrt at the December 20th conference were inaccurate

and had effectively restricted discovery of substantive information bearing on

Michelin's tire design and manufacturing process.

The Court recognizes that the reaction and tolerance limit tire

manufacturing terms - however significant for this case - are terms of art that

Michelin counsel might have confused at the Deeember 20, 2010, hearing, as Ms.

Helm maintained in her testimony at the September 19, 2011 hearing. (Sept. 19,

2011 Sanctions Hr'g Tr. 161:4-6, Doc. 230.). However, Ms. Helm testified at the

September 19th hearing that immediately npon reviewing the Court's .January 3,

2010 discovery Order, she realized the Conrt "pnt reaction limits in the

development file" and that she knew that was not correct. (Sept. 19, 2011

Sanctions Hr'g Tr. 161-62, Doc. 230.) Most significantly, in response to the

Court's inquiry at the September 19th hearing Ms. Helm testified that in .January

2011 or thereafter she did not advise the Court that the Order was incorrect

because of her earlier erroneous representation to the Court nor did she go back

and clarify the issne for the Plaintiffs - despite Michelin's later filing a motion for

reconsideration of the ruling on RPD 37 (with respect to the adjustment data).

(Id. at 161-62). Ratl1er, Ms. Helm testified that she simply eonfirmed for herself

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 35 of 61

that no such reaction limit documents were still available from the 1998-2001

timeframe (because that was the time scope which the Court had applied to the

production under RPD 16 after being advised the reaction limit data and

document' would be included in the development file produced). 2 s

While Ms. Helm may not have originally on December 20, 2010,

intentionally misled the Court, her subsequent failure to correct the mistake once

she realized the Court relied on her statements to conclude that the documents

had been produced in the development file is plainly unacceptable. As of the

September 19th sanctions hearing, more than eight months after Michelin's

counsel's review of Judge Story's Order of January 3, 2011, Michelin had not

produced the reaction limits or tolerances despite its realization that it had

represented to the Court that those documents had previously been produced.

Michelin effectively kept the Plaintiffs and the Comt in the dark by allowing them

to rely on inaccurate information, which Michelin knew to be false upon its

receipt of the January 3rd Order. In essence, Michelin thereby precluded the

Plaintiffs from asking the Court to reconsider its application of a restricted time

scope for these specific production requests. 2 4

23 According to Ms. Hehn's testimony at tl1e September 19th hearing, Michelin did not produce the reaction limits for an uncured ("green") P235/7oll15 lJniroyal l,aredo AWR ORWL tire because these documents for the 1998-2001 timeframc were outside their document retention period and were not captured by any prior litigation hold. (Sept. 19, 2011 Sanctions Hr'g ·rr. 93:15-17; 99:2-10, Doc. 230.) 21 ' Plairttiffs had argue(l for an unli1nited time scope to apply to these specific document requests (RPD 16). I-Iowevcr, the ,January 3rd Order provided a limited time scope to Rl)D 16, but 11ot to

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 36 of 61

Indeed, Michelin was aware that, although reaction limits no longer existed

for the parties' agreed scope, documents concerning reaction limits for other tires

manufactured at the Ardmore plant post-2001 existed that had been caught by a

prior litigation hold and were produced in other cases. (Id. at 228:18-229:10.)

While Michelin disputes the relevance of these documents, the Plaintiffs have

persuasively argued that they are directly relevant to their proof of Michelin's

defective manufacturing and inspection process. (Id. at 255-257.) In any event,

until these issues came to light in ,July 2011 after t11e Court's Orders, Michelin

neither clarified the record nor made responsive documents available. Yet, at the

December 20, 2010 discovery hearing, Michelin's counsel assured the Court that

she was not seeking lo limit the production of the tire manufach1ring and

inspection process docmnents "so narrow that it ends up I produce zero . . .

These documents exist and I know they exist." (Dec. 20, 2010 Hr'g Tr. 35-36.)

Moreover, Mr. Patrick's testimony confirmed that reaction limits and tolerances

arc not tire specific, but relate to the particular processes used at the individual

plants and therefore these documents should not have been subject to the 1998-

2001 temporal scope. (Patrick Dep. 25-26.) For tl1e foregoing reasons, the Court

finds Michelin improperly manipulated the course of discovery and the Court's

n1ultiple others requested by Michelin. As discussed below, the Court li1nited the production rcS]_Jonsive to RPD 16 in an cffo1t to address Michelin's concern<;; regarding disclosure of confidential trade secrets and a potentially over-inclusive docurnent production in light of the evolution of tl1e tire design and manufacturing process.

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113/12 Page 37 of 61

review of the discovery disputes at issue in the December 20, 2010 discovery

hearing and the Court's Order of January 3, 2011.

After learning that Michelin had produced reaction limits in other cases at

the September 19th sanctions hearing, Plaintiffs requested that the Court order

Michelin to produce these documents. On September 23, 2011, the court ordered

Michelin to produce the reaction limits documents identified although they fell

outside the 1998-2001 time scope. Michelin produced the documents as ordered

on September 28, 2011. 'S Plaintif!S assert in their response to Michelin's motion

for partial summary judgment that it became clear after Michelin produced the

documents why it fought production for so long. According to Plaintiffs, the

subject tire failed to meet the tolerance limits and should have been scrapped.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs persuasively argued that these documents would go

directly to the defect issue. Michelin would never have produced these

documents to Plaintiffs in this case without the Court's intervention. Without

these documents, Plaintiffs' ability to prove a defect in the tire would be

hampered and the delayed production resulted in prejudice to Plaintiffs as

discussed more fully below.

25 Indeed, Michelin voluntarily 1)roduced 700 pages of docurnents it deemed nonresponsive to Plaintiffs' discovery requesb:; after receiving Plaintiffs' second sanctions request but did not produce the reaction 1i1nits until ordered to do so by the Court after the September 19th sanctions hearing.

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 38 of 61

E. Michelin's Failnrc to Prodnce Certain Docmnents in Response to RPD50

A substantial part of Plaintiffs' second sanctions request centers around

Michelin's alleged failure to produce documents in response to Plaintiffs' RPD

50.' 6 RPD 50 identified several defects that Plaintiffs believed existed in the

subject tire and asked for documents discussing how design and manufacturing

problems or deficiencies can result in those defects in tires generally. Michelin

initially objected to RPD 50 on the basis that it was not limited in scope to the

tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action and refused to produce

documents on those grounds. Plaintiffs opposed these limitations because RPD

50 was not crafted to be tire or plant specific.

Consequently, the parties addressed t11e scope of RPD 50 with the Court at

the December 20th discovery hearing. Plaintiffs' counsel expressly argued that

RPD 50 should not be limited to the 1998-2001 timeframe because RPD 50 is

broader in scope than the tire at issue.'7 (See Dee. 20, 2010 Disc. Hr'g Tr. 23:24-

26 RPD 50 provides as follows "Please i)roduce any docnn1ents which discuss how desig11 or manufacturing problems or deficiencieB can result ir1 the folloV1ing conditions: a) air pocl<:ets; b) oxidation; c) internal belts not lined u1); d) spread.ing in internal beltr-;; e) tire overshaped in mold; f) brassy Vl:'ires with poor adhesion to belts and rubber; and g) reversion." 27 Michelin's assertion that its interpretation of the Court's Order on RPD 50 as being su~ject to t11e 1998-2001 temporal scope applied to RPD 16 "given tl1at plaintiffs' coun.sel had riot clearly stated anything to the contra1y" at the December 20 hearing is ·flatly contrary to the hearing transcript. (See Dec. 20i 2010 Disc. Jir'g Tr. 24:20-25:18, Doc. 104.) Michelin's contention that its interpretation of RJ)D 50 and the Court's Janua1y :3rd Order was also based on statements by Plaintiffs' counsel that there was no longer a dispute regarding the agreed scope is likewise spurious. In their November lOi 2010 letter-motion to the Court, Plaintiffs asserted that Michelin narrowed its production of docume11ts to one year before and one year after the date the subject tire was manufactured despite the parties' negotiatior1 of an agreed scope of 1998-

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113112 Page 39 of 61

25:11, Doc. 104.) Indeed, the Conrt recognized that not all of Plaintiffs' requests

were tire specific requests and that it was clear that some of Plaintiffs' requests

sought information "generally on the part of Michelin as opposed to how it may

specifically relate to a given tire." (Id. at 10:8-13.) Michelin's counsel did not

provide any response in support of limiting the scope of RPD 50. 28 While

Plaintiffs were ultimately interested in whether certain design and manufacturing

deficiencies resulted in the defects in the Bates tire, it is dear from the language

of the request itself and Plaintiffs' counsel's statements at the December 20th

2001. As a result, Plaintiffs requested that tl1e Court order Michelin to expand its production to the S(~opc as originally agreed of 1998-2001 for specific requests. In its December 16, 2010 response to the Court, counsel for Michelin acknovvle<lged that not all docurn.ents covered by the agreed scope had beer1 produced and represented that Michelin had supplernented its response and produced all documents subject to the agreed scope. Based on this response, Plaintiffs informed the Court at the December 20th hearing that the parties had resolved tl1is issue vvith the agreed scope ±Or specific RPDs and it 11eed not be addressed by the Court. Michelin's reliance on this statement by Ms. May addressing \Vhich years were covered by the agreed scope as support for its assertion that RPD 50 was su~ject to the 1998-2001 agreed time scope is mLsplaced. As discussed infra, Plaintiffs' counsel also continued to argue for an unlhnited time and plant scope for other specific RPDs, including RPD 50. 28 On the other hand, Michelin opposed Plaintiffs' argument that ItrD 16 should 11ot be limited to documents in effect at the time the subject tire was manufactured because Plaintiffs sought to identify what Michelin lmew about J)roblems vvith its tires and its manufacturing processes before the time the subject tire was specifically manufactured. (Id. at 6:7-11.) Based on an Affidavit from a Michelin employee detailing the evolving design and manufacturing process for Michelin tires, the Court expressed concern that if RPD 16 (which called for documents subject to protection as trade secrets) were not limited to some extent, it would require the production of a voluminous amount of docwncnts concerning unrelated tires and unrelated components and processes at issue. (Id. at 7:19-5.) The parties ultimately agreed at the hearing to limit the scope of RPD 16 to passenger tires. Micl1elin requested that the Court liinit its production of documents in response to RPI) 16 to the components and processes at issue and (although not limited to the subject tire itse1D to the docn1nents that were in use at the time the subject tire was made (rather t11an the agreed four year scope). (Id. at 33-35.) With the assurance that a co1nplete development file had been produced, the Court entered its January 3rd Order with respect to RPI) 16 requiring Mic.helin to "produce docmnents . , . that were in effect during the agreed upon time frame and which relale to the processes at issue: trapped aiI\ placement of steel belts, rnolding issues, and adhesiorl issues." (Doc. 90 at 4.)

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113112 Page 40 of 61

discoveiy hearing that RPD 50 was crafted to reach Michelin's knowledge about

tire defects in general. Although the Court expressly applied the temporal

limitation requested by Michelin to other RPDs (i.e., 16, 47 & 48) in the January

3rd Order, the Court delineated no temporal limit for the scope of RPD 50 and

ordered Michelin to "produce the requested documents for the components and

processes at issue." (Doc. 90 at 5.)

According to Plaintiffs, Michelin produced very few documents following

the Court's January 3rd Order. In fact, Michelin confirmed at the September

19th sanctions hearing that the only documents initially produced in response to

RPD 50 were the aspect specifications and decision trees (terms used

interchangeably) that were specifically identified by Plaintiffs in RPD 16. 2 0 (Sept.

19, 2011 Sanctions Hr'g Tr. 98:19-23; 156:21-157:19, Doc. 230.) At the December

20, 2010 discovery hearing, Ms. Helm represented to the Court that Michelin was

not trying to limit the scope of the requests so narrowly so as to end np having to

29 Michelin limited its rcspon.-;e to RPD 50 to these <locurnents because of its admitted "interpretation" of RPD 50 as asldng for the same documents as HJlD 16. Michelin's interpretation is unreasonable for a number of reasons. First, RPl) 16 and RPD 50 call for different documents. H.PD 16 reque.<;ts produc:tion of seven specific categories of documents identified by name. RJ)D 50 requests production of all documents relating to certain design and manufacturing defects. Second, Plaintiffs addressed RPD 16 and RPD 50 separately at the December 20th hearing and dcscril)ed the differences between the requ(:sts. Ms. May discussed RPD 16 as being a more narrow request targeting spec-ific documents, (.Id. at 5:18-6:20), an(l charac"i:erized RPD 50 as asldng for a broader scope of document.stied to the~ specific defects at issue in the case, (Id. at 10:24-11:12.) Finally, the Court compelled production separately under RPI) 16 and RPD 50, in contrast to its treatrnent of RPD 16 (calling for reaction limits) as being synonymous vvith RPDs 25 and 35 (calling for tolerances). (Doc. 90 at 4-5.)

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Flied 01/13/12 Page 41 of 61

produce essentially nothing in response."" (Dec. 20, 2010 Disc. Hr'g Tr. 35:17-

36:6, Doc. 104.) However, at the September 19, 2011 sanctions hearing,

Michelin's counsel (Ms. Cahoon), stated that because the subject tire went out of

production by April 2007 "many of the documents, in fact as we'll see later,

virtually all of the documents about manufacture [sic] are gone under retention

policies before there's ever a lawsuit about the Bates' tire." (Sept. 19, 2011

Sanctions Hr'g Tr. 92:2-9, Doc. 230.) Counsel further stated that "there was a

pretty clear, we thought, understanding with opposing counsel that there were

going to be very few, if anything, by way of documents still available from the '98

to 2001 agreed time frame." (Id. at 104:13-16.) Michelin's position at the

September 19th sanctions hearing presented a remarkable about-face from its

counsel's representation to the Court ten months earlier that if RPD 50 was

framed to cover the summary processes ultimately identified in the Court's

January 3rd Order, she could say that "[t]hese documents exist and I know they

exist.") (Dec. 20, 2010 Hr'g Tr. 35-36, Doc. 104).

However, during the deposition of Michelin's in-house experts in June and

,July 2011, Plaintiffs learned that internal documents such as tire production

standards, training manuals, and Design Failure Mode and Effect Analysis

(FMEAs) existed that Plaintiffs contend should have been produced in response

30 Michelin ad1nittcdly has ar1 aggressive document destruction policy and retains apparently only the narrowest range of docu1nents necessary for business and regulatory reasons.

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 42 of 61

to RPD 50. Michelin responded that it had not been required to produce these

documents because in its view the January 3rd Order on RPD 50 was limited to

the tire at issue, the temporal scope of 1998-2001, and documents from the

Ardmore plant.'" Accordingly, Michelin represented to the Court at the July 7th

discovery conference that it had produced all documents (almost none) that

existed subject to those limitations.

The Court finds that Michelin's interpretation of RPD 50 and the Comt's

January 3rd Order is neither reasonable nor supp01ted by the record as Michelin

contends. Michelin interpreted RPD 50 as being redundant of RPD 16.32

Consequently, because the Court's January 3rd Order limited RPD 16 to the

1998-2001 time scope, Michelin treated RPD 50 as also being subject to the 1998-

2001 time scope. As discussed in footnote 29 above, RPD 16 and RPD 50 call for

different documents. Ms. Helm testified at the September 19th sanctions hearing

as to her reading of the Court's January 3rd Order:

The first thing I interpreted was [the Court] had not limited it to the documents in effect at the time the tire was made, which would have been the documents in use on the 32nd week of 2000. But I read it 31 Nonetheless, Michelin contends that even though it does not believe the trainirtg rnanuals and 1)roduction standards were responsive to RPD 50, it has since produced (after Plaintiffs' second sanctions motion) wl1at is currently available, although not those documents contemporaneous in time with the design and manufacture of the tire because those documents no longer exist. 32 IIowever, the Court notes that Michelin asserted in its December 16, 2010 response to Plaintiffs' letter-1notion seeking to compel documents separately under RPD 16 and RPD 50, that RPD 50 "is inconsistent with Plaintiffs' demand for documents on numerous conditions relating to Request No. 16(b)-(e). If the conditions and components identified in Request No. 50 are those at issue, MNA will search for and produce the documents in place when the Subject Tire was manufactured that address those conditions and components." (Ex. 3 to Resp. to Motion for Sanctions, Doc. 193-4.)

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 43 of 61

as the broader temporal scope of all documents in use from '98 to 2001 that related to the components and processes at issue, which we had addressed in the hearing were the aspect specifications or the decision trees, because those were the documents that specifically addressed components or processes.

(Sept. 19, 2011 Sanctions Hr'g Tr. 156-57, Doc. 230.) The January 3rd Order

specifically limited Michelin's response to RPD 16 to documents "in effect during

the agreed upon time frame." (Doc. 90 at 4.) However, with respect to RPD 50,

the January 3rd Order contains no temporal limitation. Ms. Helm acknowledged

at the September 19th hearing that the January 3rd Order did not contain the

words "1998 to 2001" with respect to the production required for RPD 50 but that

she limited the Order to that time frame. (Sept. 19, 2011 Sanctions Hr'g Tr. 238,

Doc. 230.) Ms. Helm never sought further clarification from the Court on this

issue in the event there was actual confusion.

Michelin's interpretation is completely unsupported by the language of the

Order differentiating between RPD 16 and RPD 50 and the essence of counsel's

discussion with the Court at the December 20, 2010 hearing,33 (Doc. 90 at 4-5.)

By interpreting RPD 50 as requesting the same documents as RPD 16, Michelin

limited its production to only those specific documents already known and

identified by Plaintiffs. Michelin thereby avoided producing any other

documents which discuss how design or manufacturing problems or deficiencies 33 Michelin asserts tl1at Plaintiffs acquiesced to its interpretation by failing to interpose any objection. This is inaccurate. Rather than ac{111ic·scing to Michelin's treatment of RPD 16 and l{_PD 50 as beit1g synonymous, Plaintiffs sought an order com1)elling production of docu1nents in response to both RPD 16 and RPD 50.

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13112 Page 44 of 61

can result in the alleged defective conditions at issne, i.e. the training documents

and tire prodnction standards discovered by Plaintiffs as having been withheld.

The Court therefore must conclude that Michelin made a calculated decision to

"interpret" the Court's discovery order in the narrow way it saw fit so as to justify

withholding entire categories of documents that were unambiguously responsive

to Plaintiffs' request in violation of the Court's direct Order.

F. Michelin's July 19th Produc,-tion in Response to RPD 50

Despite its steadfast position at the July 7th conference with the Court that

it had complied with the Comt's January 3rd Order and previously produced all

required documents, on July 19, 2011, Michelin produced over 700 pages of

documents in connection with RPD 50 in response to Plaintiffs' second request

for sanctions.34

One eateg01y of documents Michelin produced on July 19th after Plaintiffs

moved for sanci:ions referred to as "Failure Mode and Effects Analysis" (FMEAs)

34 Plaintiffs contend that the adjustment data (specifically requsted in RPD 37) should have also been produced as responsive to llPD 50 because: (1) the adjustment conditions described a reason for whicl1 a tire might be returned; (2) some adjustment sets addressed problems originating with the manufacturing process; and (3) most adjustment condition.c.; listed evolutions associated vvith the adjustment condition, i.e problems that could develop if the returned tire \vas not repaired or replaced. Therefore) according to Plaintiffl'>, "when an adjustment condition belonged to a 'manufacturing' set and was expected to evolve into '<>xidati<>n' or the 'infiltration of air' into the rubber, tl1at adjustment condition \Vas directly responsive to RP]) 50." (Doc. 180 at 8.) While the Court agrees that the acljustment data n1ay have been responsive to RPD 50, Michelin sought reconsideration of the January 3rd Order compelling production of the adju&1:1ne11t code data regardless of which of Plaintiffs' RPDs the documents were responsive to. The Court therefore does not find that Michelin's failure to produce the adjustinent code data in response to llPI) 50 prior t.v the Court's Order on Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (I)oc. 123) was done in bad faith or warrants sanctions for any docu1nents not produced prior to April 28, 2011.

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 45 of 61

are internal Michelin documents demonstrating how Michelin evaluates its

manufacturing process to determine the different ways tires can fail, the effect of

the failure, and how to fix the identified deficiency,3s Michelin contends that it

produced these documents in good faith, even though Michelin does not believe

them to be responsive to Plaintiffs' requests, and that its subsequent production

of these documents should not be used as a basis for imposing the sanction

requested by Plaintiffs,36 To the contrary, these documents are dearly very

relevant to Plaintiffs' claims and are directly responsive to RPD 50, The FMEAs

discuss the precise conditions identified by Plaintiffs in RPD 50, Le,, trapped air,

adhesion, molding, how those conditions develop in the manufacturing process,

and the methods for detection and prevention of those conditions in a tire before

it leaves the plant,

As Plaintiffs noted at the September 19th sanctions hearing, Michelin

characterized RPD 50 as calling for "cause and effect" documents and the FMEAs

--------------- 35 Altho11gh Michelin produced FMEAs that deal with the manufacturing process on July 19th, Plaintiffs contend that Michelin is still withholding FMEAs that deal ¥\1th the design process, Plaintiffs learned about the existence of these documents during the July 28th deposition of Mr, Patriclc wl10 testified that Michelin also creates and uses FMEAs tl1at deal vvith problems that ari.se during the (h.'A.;;ign phase, At the September 19th sanctions hearing Michelin ad1nitted the design FMEAs were not in the design file that was produced: "We agree they \Vere not in t11at file, but we 11ever represented that the file wag c::on1plete at all. But what we were able to locate, it was produced ... So, there's a lot to evaluate how the tire was designed, even though we can't say that we've got everything,'' (Sept, 19, 2011 Sanction..<; Hr'g Tr. 118: 10-20, l)oc, 230.) 16 Mic::helin redacted "nonresponsive information" from several pageg of the FMf:,A docuincnt, (MNA 9234- 9271.) Based on the digcovery record thus far, Plaintiffs question the propriety of these redactions and 'vhether the redacted information pertains to the alleged tire defect. The (;ourt therefore DIRECTS Michelin to submit these un-redacted pages for the Court's inca 1nera inspection.

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 46 of 61

are Michelin's ultimate "cause and effect" documents. These documents should

have been produced in response to RPO 50 and without question in response to

the January 3rd Order compelling production under RPD 50.37 Michelin was

obligated to produce these documents in discovery without the threat of

sanctions but failed to do so. The Court finds that Michelin's excuses fall short in

light of its obligation to cooperate fully in discovery following an order

compelling produc'l:ion, an order imposing monetary sanc'l:ions, and the court's

prior warning that additional evidence of discovery abuse would not be tolerated.

See Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1543 (nth Cir. 1993) (rejec'l:ing

the defendants' claim that they simply misunderstood the scope of the discovery

orders because defendants failed to offer credible explanations and failed to ask

the court for clarification of allegedly confusing orders). Moreover, as the Court

in Malautea noted, "ultimately, the [plaintiffs] had to file a motion for sanctions

to force the [defendant] to comply with the court's orders." Id. at 1540. Thus,

Michelin's post-sanctions production of documents does not excuse its conduct

or obviate the need for sanctions.

Another category of documents Plaintiffs discovered had not been

produced in response to the Court's ,January 3rd Order were tire building training

materials and production standards identified by Michelin's in-house 37 During tl1e sanctions hearing, PlaiI1tiffs discussed the relevance of other types of docu1nents that were produce{l on July 19 that described how certain n1anufacturing processes resulted in the precise defects at issue. T11e Court has reviewed these documents and finds that these documents likewise should have been produced far earlier in response to RPD 50.

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 47 of 61

manufacturing expert ,Jack Glazcner.38 At the hearing, Ms. Helm testified that

Michelin decided to produce the training materials39 and tire production

docmuents referenced by Mr. Glazener in his deposition even though Michelin

did not regard those documents as being responsive to RPD 50 because Plaintiffs

asked for them specifically in their request for sanctions. (Sept. 19, 2011

Sanctions Hr'g Tr. 163-64, Doc. 230.) Ms. Helm further testified that Michelin

has produced such training manuals in the past when specifically requested to do

so. (Id. at 164:2-12.) It appears that Michelin's modus operandi here has been -

at very best - to only produce documents specifically identified by Plaintiffs

despite the fact a broader set of documents would be responsive to a general

discovery request. This ease is eerily similar to Malautea in this regard where the

Court imposed the sanction of default.

Another technique the Defendants have used to avoid revealing the truth is to refuse to answer general questions, choosing instead to limit the question to a narrower field. The Plaintiff sought, in

38 Ms. Helm testified at the hearing that Michelin did not characterize tire production standards (also refen·ed to as tire building procedures) as discussing cause and effect type relationships because "they are placed rsic] - thi<> - this component on this drun1 at this angle, check this, move on the next step, do this. It's very much a - it's kind oflilce following a recipe." (Sept. 19, 2011 Sanctions IIr'g Tr. 167, Doc. 230.) This explanation is unavailing - the failure to follow the proper procedures is a l)rime exan1ple of a cause and effect relationship. As anyone \vi.th cooking experience is \Vell aware) the failure to follow certain recipes or to add ingredients in the right order can prove disastrous to tl1e final product. :-19 On July i9th, Michelin produced quizzes that it gave employees, but only produced answer keys to so1r1c of them. For exa1nple, Michelin produced a quiz with the fo1lo\ving question "·---is used to prevent a tread separation." (Pls.' Ex. X Sept. 19, 2011 Sanctions Hr'g, MNA 9034) At the hearing Ms. Helm testified that the answers to the quizzes were located on the opposite side of the quiz page ai1d could be found in the other materials procluced (MNA 8796 to 8828) but that no separate answer lceys were available for these particular qUi7.zes. (Sept. 19, 2011 Sanc'tions Hr'g 1'r. 168:8-169:3, l)oc. 230.)

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Fried 01/13/12 Page 48 of 61

nnmerons interrogatories and requests for production of documents, information no only ahont the 1988 112 Samnrai, bnt also abont other model years and ahont similar sport ntility vehicles ... In all of the early responses to interrogatories, the Defendants steadfastly insisted that Plaintiff was entitled only to information concerning the 1988 112 model year Snznki Samnrai. Accordingly, the Defendants refused, prior to the statns conference, to divnlge any information abont the [other makes and models]. By restricting their answers in this manner, the Defendants managed to avoid revealing a great deal of discoverable information.

Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 148 F.R.D. 362, 366-67 (S.D. Ga. 1991). Such

conduct leaves Plaintiffs and this Court continually uncertain whether all

responsive documents have been produced.

G. Michelin's Failure to Produce Expert Reports for Employee Experts Patrick and Glazener

A final issue for which Plaintiffs seek sanctions is Micl1elin's failure to

produc,e expert reports for its two in-house employee experts identified in its

Rule 26 Expert Disclosures on April 29, 2011. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(a)(2)(B)

requires a written report if the witness is "one whose duties as the party's

employee regularly involve giving expert testimony." Michelin's Rule 26 Expert

Disclosures identifies Charles Patrick and Jack Glazener as corporate

representatives having technical knowledge and experience regarding certain

subject areas pertinent to the litigation. (Doc. 232-14 at 4-5.) See Fed. R. Evid.

702. However, Michelin produced no expert reports for these two witnesses.

Contrary to its representation at the September 19th sanctions hearing,

Michelin did not ever identify Patrick or Glazener as fact witnesses. At the

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113112 Page 49 of 61

hearing Michelin contended that although it had not identified Glazener and

Patrick in their mandatory disclosures, they were specifically identified as fact

witnesses on May 11, 2011, in its supplemental responses to Plaintiffs

Interrogatories. (Sept. 19, 2011 Sanctions Hr'g Tr. 134:11-13, Doc. 230.)

However, Glazener and Patrick were only identified at that juncture in response

to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory #4 requesting the identification of Michelin's expert

witnesses. •0 Indeed, in response to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory # 12 which asked

Michelin to identify the corporate representatives with the most knowledge of the

design and manufacturing process, Michelin did not identify Glazener or Patrick

or any other employee or former employee by name.

Michelin's counsel, Ms. Cahoon, contended that very early in the litigation,

"there was an indication that Michelin would have some witnesses as fact

witnesses who would talk about the manufacture and design of the tire. Quite

frankly, I think Michelin was waiting to see who the tire expert was and what he

was saying in his report to determine who would be the best fact witnesses to call,

particularly on the design side, to deal with whatever one could say about

manufacturing through some knowledgeable witness." (Id. at 147.) Ms. Helm

confirmed it was in fact true and that Mid1elin waited until after Plaintiffs' tire

expert's report was served to name Glazener and Patrick as fact witnesses "so that

40 Although Michelin only identified Patric}( and Glazener at the end of discovery a.._q experts, it sitnu1taneously proclaimed they were not actually experts subject to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113112 Page 50 of 61

[Michelin] identified fact witnesses who could address the issues in his report."4'

(Id. at 223.) But Glazener and Patrick were never identified as fact witnesses. In

response to the Court's concern at the sanctions hearing that Glazener and

Patrick should have been identified earlier as fact witnesses, and while

maintaining they are fact witnesses, Michelin responded that "it was a timely

identification as to experts." (Id. at 133:22-23.)

Michelin identified Mr. Patrick as a Michelin corporate representative

expected to testify regarding the design of the subject tire and related issnes.

(Doc. 232-14 at 4.) Mr. Patrick was disclosed as having technical knowledge and

experience regarding the following areas: tire components and nomenclature;

tire design generally; the developmental design process; monitoring of tire

quality and performance; and industry standards and practices regarding tire

design. Id. Despite counsel's statement at the September lgth sanctions hearing

to the contrary, Michelin also designated Mr. Patrick to testify that "the subject

tire's design was not defective." Id. Michelin further stated that Mr. Patrick "may

also be called to address issues raised by plaintiffs' experts." (Doc. 232-16 at 18.)

Michelin identified Mr. Glazener as a Michelin corporate representative

expected to testify regarding the manufacture of the subject tire and related

41 Michelin maintains this was its strategy dcs1)ite Ms. Helm's representation at the Decen1ber 20th hearing that "I'1n national discovery counsel for Michelin, and ... I can take a orte-in-three shot as to who their expert is and get it right, at least I - you know, and I proba'bly know \Vhat his theories arc and I haven't even sec11 the tire yet." (Dec. 20, 2010 Disc. Hr'g 1'r. 34:20-35:1, Doc. 104.)

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113/12 Page 51of61

issues. (Doc. 232-14 at 4.) Mr. Glazener was disclosed as having technical

knowledge and experience regarding the following areas: tire components and

nomenclatnre; tire design generally; mannfactnring and quality assnrance

processes in place at the Ardmore, Oklahoma plant at the time the snbject tire

was manufactured; the Ardmore, Oklahoma manufacturing plant generally;

industry standards and practices regarding tire manufacturing; and MNA

generally. Id. Michelin further stated that Mr. Glazener "may also be called to

testify in rebuttal regarding issues raised by plaintiffs' expe1ts." (Doc. 232-16 at

19.)

Plaintiffs have separately filed motions to exclude the testimony of Messrs.

Patrick and Glazener. Therefore, the Court will address the admissibility of

testimony of these witnesses in a separate order. However, the Court is troubled

by Michelin's extremely late identification of Messrs. Patrick and Glazener, to the

extent they qualify solely as fact witnesses and finds that such a late identification

was not in good faith and provides further indication of Michelin's pattern of

discovery abuse.

H. Prejudice to Plaintiffs

As Michelin recognized at the sanctions hearing, the issue in this ease is

whether the Bates tire was defective - either defective in its design or in its

manufacturing - and therefore unreasonably dangerous. The wide array of

documents Michelin withheld, is potentially still withholding, and has

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 52 of 61

unquestionably previously destroyed under its internal document "retention"

policy, all go to determining this issue. Michelin claims that the Plaintiffs have

not been prejudiced in preparing their case to a jury on the merits of the claim

because all extant documents have now been produced.

Michelin's conduct has certainly resulted in delay and disruption of this

litigation and has hampered the enforcement of this Court's discovery Orders.

8ee Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 987 F.2d at 1540 (finding that defendants

engaged in an unrelenting campaign to obfuscate the truth by improperly

objecting to interrogatories, providing incomplete, evasive and unreasonably

narrow discovery responses, delayed compliance with court orders and thus

hampered the discovery process and showed disdain for the court's orders).

First, Michelin's initial production refusal followed by its ongoing delay and

obstruction of discovery central to the case have affected the integrity of the legal

process. For example, Michelin's misrepresentations at the December 20, 2010

discovery hearing regarding its production of reaction limits and tolerances

resulted in a substantive error in the January 3, 2011 Order that was perpetuated

by Michelin's counsel's failure to correct the Court's misunderstanding about

what documents had actually been produced. Michelin refused to produce the

documents until ordered to do so by the Comt on September 19, 2011, thereby

precluding the Plaintiffs from seeking a more expansive production of these

documents for over a year and a half. Moreover, Michelin seeks to limit

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 53 of 61

Plaintiffs' potential recovery on the gronnds that there is no evidence to support a

claim for punitive damages after attempting to withhold the very documents on

which Plaintiffs rely to demonstrate a conscious indifference to the tire's defective

design and manufacture. (Sept. 19, 2011 Sanctions Hr'g Tr. 54, Doc. 230.)

Second, Michelin delayed producing its most relevant documents and data

for over a year and a half while seeking to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs' tire

expert, in part, on the grounds that his opinions are based on insufficient or

unreliable data. (Doc. 203, 204) Yet, Michelin refused to produce documents

and data that might potentially support Plaintiffs' expert's opinions regarding the

defectiveness of the subject tire.

Finally, Michelin's dilatory discovery gamesmanship has hampered

Plaintiffs' pursuit of a swift judicial process to provide a remedy addressing the

extreme nature of Mr. Bates' physical injuries. Plaintiffs' steadfast efforts to

move this case forward to resolution at trial, including their streamlined

discovery42 , has been needlessly deferred by Michelin's haggling and endless

parsing over the production of its evidence on its own time schedule. Not only

has this delay and disruption of the litigation prejudiced Plaintiffs, it

demonstrates Michelin's bad faith. Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d at 1121. Thus,

Michelin's course of conduct described herein warrants the imposition of

42 PlaintiffS submitted only one set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and tool<:: a limited number of fact depositions.

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Flied 01/13/12 Page 54 of 61

sanctions to remedy the impact of repeated violations of the Court's Orders,

inaccurate representations to the Court, and prolonged abusive discovery

conduct.

III. Conclusion

The Court docs not impose sanctions lightly and has taken great care in the

review of the record before it in its determination of this matter. The pattern of

abuse by Michelin is extremely troubling. The Court is obligated to uphold the

integrity of the legal and discovery process to ensure that Plaintiffs here and all

parties have the opportunity to fairly present their claims in a reasonably efficient

and prompt manner. Plaintiffs would not have uncovered the majority of the

most probative documents in existence in this case but for their persistence in

pursuing discovery motions and seeking the Court's intervention. Contrary to

Michelin's assertion that this belated production demonstrates its good faith, it is

precisely this ongoing belated production, in conjunction with Michelin's

multiple violations of the Court's Orders and its evasive, hair-splitting and

inaccurate representations to the Court that demonstrate Michelin's bad faith

and why a serious, substa11tive sanction is warra11ted.

A determination that the tire at issue in this case 1s defective and

unreasonably dangerous is an appropriate sanction to remedy the discovery

abuses perpetrated by Michelin in bad faith and in disregard of this Court's prior

discovery Orders. First, Michelin made multiple misrepresentations to the Court

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 55 of 61

that it had produced documents as ordered by the Court when it in fact had not.

Second, Michelin repeatedly refused to produce documents in direct violation of

the Court's January 3rd, June 3rd and .June 24th Orders. Third, Michelin

intentionally engaged in an extremely narrow, unjustified interpretation of the

Court's Orders in order to limit, or altogether avoid, producing relevant and

useful documents in response to Plaintiffs' discovery requests.

Furthermore, a finding that the tire was defective and unreasonably

dangerous is properly tailored to address Michelin's sanctionable discovery

conduct as set forth below:

• Michelin's failure to produce adjnstment codes and data: This is the

second round of the parties' dispute over the production of the adjustment codes

and data. After the Court's June 24, 2011 Order sanctioning Michelin for its

improper redaction of the adjustment codes and failure to produce the

documents necessary to interpret the list of adjustment codes and conditions,

Michelin again failed to produce all documents ordered by the Court. Despite it.>

spirited representations to the Court on July 7, 2011, that all the adjustment

codes had been produced as ordered on .June 13, 2011, an additional 113

adjustment codes had been withheld and later had to be produced. While this

initial failure may not have been intentional, Michelin's repeated

misrepresentations to the Court during the course of discovery call into serious

doubt the credibility of Michelin's assertions that the failure to produce the

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Flied 01113112 Page 56 of 61

adjustment code documents was an innocent, inadvertent mistake that would

have been cured without Plaintiffs pointing to gaps in the production.

Moreover, after providing Plaintiffs with a complete list of the codes and

conditions for adjustment, Michelin was required to produce the data

demonstrating the number of tires returned under Michelin's adjustment

process. Subsequent to the Court's June 24, 2011 Order directing Michelin to

"produce all available tire adjustmeut data and the iuternal mauuals Michelin

uses for classifying or discussing the conditions and issues arising in connection

with the application of the specific adjustment codes," (Doc. 173 at 11), Michelin

instead produced an indecipherable chart along with a glossary created for the

litigation.

Despite being previously sanctioned for producing a meaningless list of

adjustment conditions without the necessary interpretative documents, Michelin

again produced a chart of adjustment data that could not even be interpreted by

Michelin's own in-house expert. Mr. Patrick testified that Michelin does not

analyze its adjustment data in the format produced to Plaintiffs in this litigation

and confirmed that the adjustment data, if presented in a meaningful format,

could be used to determine whether (and how many) tires were being rctnrned

for conditions resulting from a manufacturing or design issue, whether Michelin

was aware of such conditions in the tire, and whether any changes were made to

the tire as a result of a high return rate. Michelin's production of the adjustment

.55

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113112 Page 57 of 61

data in this indecipherable format flies in the face of the Court's June 24, 2011

Order warning Michelin "that any failure to respond fully in producing these

documents and tire data may result in the imposition of sanctions, including ...

determination of issue preclusion relative to the tire defect at issue." (Doc. 173 at

11.)

• Michelin's failure to produce reaction limits and tolerances: TI1e

reaction limits and tolerances used by tire builders to determine whether and

how much a tire deviates from its manufacturing specifications and whether the

tire must be scrapped are directly probative of the defect issue. Nonetheless,

Michelin's counsel allowed the Court and Plaintiffs to rely on her inaccurate

statements at the December 20, 2010 discovery hearing that the reaction limits

and tolerances had been produced in the design file, when they in fact had not

been. When counsel realized she had misled the Court after her review of the

Court's January 3, 2011 Order upon immediate receipt, she failed to contact the

Court or Plaintiffs' counsel to clarify this seminal issue. Even after Plaintiffs

discovered the error during the July 28, 2011 deposition of Mr. Patrick who

testified that the file did not contain the reaction limits or tolerances, Michelin

refused to produce relevant documents until ordered by the Court after the

September 19, 2011 sanctions hearing.

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 58 of 61

• Michelin's failureJ:Q_l)roduce__Qocuments rcspon_sive to RPD 50 as compelled on Januazy 3, 2010:

For nearly two years Michelin failed to produce 700 pages of relevant

documents in response to RPD 50 requesting information discussing specific

defects that may arise in a tire's components and processes based on Michelin's

self-imposed limitation of the temporal scope of the Court's January 3, 2010

Order. Despite Michelin's repeated insistence at the December 20, 2010

discovery hearing that it was not attempting to limit the scope of Plaintiffs'

discovery requests so that it was left having to produce nothing, Michelin's

counsel's statements at the September 19, 2011 sanctions hearing confirmed that

Michelin knew there were very few documents still in existence within the 1998-

2001 time frame. Tl1us, Michelin's convenie11t "interpretation" of the Court's

January 3, 2011 Order compelling production of "the requested documents for

the components and processes at issne" as being snbject to the 1998-2001

temporal scope, was calcnlated to jnstify its withholding hnndreds of docnments

that were unquestionably responsive to Plaintiffs' request.

Because the adjustment codes and data, reaction limits and tolerances, and

the documents responsive to RPD 50 all specifically relate to Plaintiffs' claim that

the tire at issue was defective, an order establishing that the subject tire was

defective and unreasonably dangerous as manufactured and sold to Plaintiffs is

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01113112 Page 59 of 61

narrowly tailored to remedy Michelin's violations and therefore appropriate

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). See Ins. Corp. of Ireland, 456 U.S. at 707.

Michelin objects to Plaintiffs' sanctions request on the grounds that

Plaintiffs did not first initiate a "meet and confer" on each of these discovery

issues. The Court previously rejected this argument in its June 24, 2011 Order,

and found that Michelin was ohligated to comply with the Court's January 3, 2011

Order compelling the production of the documents and that no "meet and confer"

session was required prior to Plaintiffs seeking sanctions for Michelin's failure to

fully comply the Court's prior orders.4'1 Malautea, 987 F.2d at 1542-43 (finding

that defendants "richly deserved the sanction of default judgment" where the

discovery orders clearly encompassed the information requested hy plaintiffs");

In re Sunshine Jr. Stores, 456 F.3d at \306. In addition, Michelin received more

than adequate notice from (1) the Court's multiple warnings that it would not

tolerate any further hampering of the discovery process or violations of its

Orders; (2) Plaintiffs' multiple sanctions requests; and (3) its own flagrant

disregard of the federal discovery rules and the Court's discovery orders. In re

Sunshine Jr. Stores, 456 F.3d at 1306. Therefore, the sanction of issue preclusion

is warranted by the record in this case. Finally, the Court's previous monetary 43 Moreover, after the (;ourt entered the ,January 3, 201.1 Order compelling production of the various RPDs, Plaintiffs contend they had no reason to believe that documents were l)eing withheld. Plaintiffs were unaware that other internal Michelin documents existed until the deposition of Michelin's in-hous.-e expert Glazener - ::.i_x months later - who testified about his 1mowledge of ce1i:ain documents based on his past \Vork as the Ardmore plant manager. Michelin did. not identify Mr. Glazener as a witness until close to the end of discovery.

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13/12 Page 60 of 61

sanction did not serve to remedy Michelin's cavalier attitude toward its

obligations to comply with the Court's Orders and the discovery process.

In sum, Michelin's bad faith conduct caused serious prejudice to the

integrity of the legal process and to Plaintiffs' orderly, effective development and

proof of their case. Michelin's course of conduct described herein warrants the

imposition of sanctions to remedy the impact of repeated violations of the Court's

Orders, inaccurate or false representations to the Court, and prolonged abusive

discovery conduct. Under the circumstances presented here, a finding of issue

preclusion as to the subject tire's defective and unreasonably dangerous

condition is authorized as an appropriately tailored sanction remedy. See Ins.

Corp. of Ireland, 456 U.S. at 707. However, the Court declines to move beyond

this serious sanction and will not impose Plaintiffs' additional request for an

issue preclusion determination that the subject tire failed as a result of its

defective and unreasonably dangerous condition.44 The sanction applied is

sufficient under the circumstances to address the scope of Michelin's discovery

abuse.

44 'fhe Court recognizes that Michelin has now i)roduced a more complete set of docu1ncnts and data in response to I)laintiffs' Requests for Production and tl1c Court's Orders. 'fhough the credibility of Michelin's representation as to the complete11ess of this production remains in question for the reasons discussed in this Order, the Co11rt has recognized Michelin's corrective prod.uction as a factor in its decisio11 to refrain fron1 imposing Plaintiffs' requested sanction of total issue preclusion - a determination tl1at the tire failed as a result o.f its defective a11d unreasonably dangerous condition. 'IJ1at determination would be the death knell of any Michelin defense to liability. Instead, t11e Court has left open the question of whether the failure of the tire in fact was the proximate cause (or partial cause) of Mr. Bates' car accident.

Case 1:09-cv-03280-AT Document 269 Filed 01/13112 Page 61of61

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART

Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions [Doc. 180, 181). The court further DIRECTS

Michelin to submit an unredacted copy of MNA 9234-9271 for the Court's in-

camera inspection. Finally, Plaintiffs may file a petition for reimbursement of

their attorney's fees associated with their second request for sanctions pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (b)(2)(C) within 15 days of this Order. Michelin may file its

objection, if any, to the reasonableness of the fees requested by Plaintiffs within

15 days after receipt of Plaintiffs' petition.

It is so ORDERED this 13th day of January, 2012.

A~~~zl-::= UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

EXIJCIBIT B

CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA and OBDULIA § IN THE DISTRJCT COURT MEDINA, husband and wife, § OF DALLAS COUNTY individually; NATALYE MEDINA, § individually; NAVIL GlllSON, § individually; § §

PLAINTIFFS, § § 134rn JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. § § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; § AND JOSE BUSTILLO d/b/a MUNDO § (()ral Argument 'Requested) CAIZS, an in state defendant, § §

DEFENDANTS, §

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF MOVING COUNSEL DAVI)) C. SHAPIRO

Undersigned counsel represents and certifies that, after numerous perso11al consultations,

written, e~n1ail and in-person co1Tespondence, and good faith efforts, J>laintifTsi counsel has been

unable to obtain the requested docu1nents outlined in Plaintiffs' Requests for Production.

Since April 2015, Plaintiff.<; have requested critical cvide11ce conce1ning the design,

manu13.cturc and inspection of the subject 1:rx MIS tires n1ade at Dothan, AL. Request for

Procluction attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs' liiotion. In response, Michelin produced next to

nothing. Defendant's Responses, Exhibit .B. On May 11, 2015, after the hearing, JllaintiffS met

and conferred with defense counsel about :Michelin's lack of production. ln response, Plaintiffs

were repeatedly pro1nised by defense counsel that. if Plaintiffs just signed Michelin's Protective

Order, they would get the remaining doctunents. Michelin's position wa<; repeatedly confir1ncd

by PlaintifTs counsel in co1respondencc following this n1ect and confer:

Your e1nail is co1rect that MNA anticipates being able to mah:e its supplemental production within 10-14 davs of the protective order being entered.

E-Ma;/ fi·om Nelson Mulli11s, counsel j(;r MNA, May 28, 2015, .l£xhibit C' to l)laintif.JS' lvfotion.

[W]e will n1ove forward with the agreed protective order and with our supplemental production, which we would anticipate making within l 0-1.4 days of entry of the protective order.

E~Mail fron1 Nelson Mullins, counsel for lvfNA, MaJ' 29, 2015, Exhibit D to F'laintiff,\·' ,~1otion.

We are working on the production and still anticipate making it within 10-14 days of entrv of the protective order as originally estin1ated.

l<:~Mail jroni Nelson Mullins, counsel fOr M.lVA, June 4, 2015, Exhibit .El,' to .Plaintiff.<;' l\1.otion.

In view of Michelin's assw·anccs, Plaintiffs executed it. lt was a bait and switch.

Michelin's production failed to produce abo11t fOrty (40) of the fifty (50) requests for production.

So, on July 16, 2015, Plaintiffs info11ned Michelin that their production was deficient and tl1at

they would seek assistance from the c:ourt. Michelin did not reach out. Not even by phone, e-

mail or letter. So, on August 3, 2015, Plaintiffs sent another letter. Still nothing. "fhe next day,

on August 4, 2015, undersigned counsel contacted defense counsel about the deficient disclosure

and was informed that the atton1cy in charge of Michelin's discovery was no longer working on

the case but no reason was provided.

lJndcrsigned counsel then contacted Michelin other counsel and infOrmed said counsel

about Michelin's lack of production and inquired about discovery counsel's removal. Still, no

explanation was given in retu111. Still, undersigned counsel was not offered any additional

production. Rather, undersigned counsel was told to negotiate wi111 Michelin. Yet, again,

undersigned counsel wrote to Michelin';; co1msel. Still, no additional production.

Refusing to give up, the next day, August 5, 2015, Plaintiffs' counsel Luis Gue1Ta called

and also wrote to Michelin's counsel about its deficient disclosure. CorresJJ<indence, Exhibit F

3

to J>Jainliffi·' l'vfotion to Compel. In response, J>laintiffs' counsel got no docun1cnts and was told

that Plaintiffs needed to negotiate the discovery with Michelin.

On August 17, 2015, du1ing a break at the depositions of the driver and his flin1ily,

undersigned counsel again discussed this issue with defense counsel in J)allas, 'l'cxas. In

response, undersigned counsel was again told that they should k_now the process by now having

done it in Velo, and that defense counsel had no authority to com1nit to production. It needed to

be negotiated \Vith Michelin.

(J-iven the nun1erous 1nects and confers, Plaintiffs had with defense counsel - all to no

avail Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Con1peL Since that date, Plaintiffs have exchanged

additional correspondence attached to as Exhibit H to J>Jaintiffs' Reply. Jn such co1Tespondence,

Plaintiffs outline all of the good faith effo1is they have made to 1neet and confer with Michelin.

Therefore, as proven above, lllaintifis' counsel has bent over baclcwards and 1net and

conferred with Michelin's counsel over and over and over- since May of2015 -~ conce1ning its

April 2015 Request for Production.

EXIl[lllIT C

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

DAV!D SAUNAS and § GRACIELA SALINAS, § PLAINTIFFS, § §

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12CV187 §

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC. § and BF GOODRICH in its assumed or § common name, § DEFENDANTS. §

Pl,AINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

TO 'fr!E HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Come now Plaintiffs, David and Graciela Salinas ("the Salinas family") in the

above-captioned cause and file Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery, and would show

the Court as follows.

I. General Background and Standard

1. On June 4, 201 I, in Nueces County, the tread peeled off of the left front tire

1nounted on David Salinas' l<'ord F-350 pickup, which resulted in an injury-causing crash.

Doc. No. 9-2; Doc. No. 34-1 pp. 45-46, 48; Doc. No. 30-2, pp. 2, 8, 12, 27. The failed

tire was a BF Goodrich All Terrain T/A made in !he 19th week of2007 by Michelin at its

Tuscaloosa, Alabama plant. Doc. No. 34-1 pp. 18, 42. In the course of discovery, the

Salinas family sought the production of a limited number of specifically identified

2

docu111ents which Michelin has refused to produce based on Michelin's claim of trade

secrecy. The Salinas family now seeks an order compelling production.

2. Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may request

another party to produce "any designated documents." Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(l)(A). Ruic

34 is balanced against Ruic 26, which provides that where information sought is alleged

to be "a trade secret or other co11fidcntial research, developtncnt, or collllnercial

information," the court 1nay order either tl1at tl1e information "not be revealed, or be

revealed only in a specified way." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(l)(G). The official comments to

Rule 26 confirm that alleged trade secrets are entitled to only a very limited protection

against discovery:

The courts have not givc11 trade secrets automatic and co1nplete immunity against disclosure, hut have in each case wcig11ed their clalln to privacy against the need for disclosure. Frequently they have been afforded a li1nlted protection.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) cmt. In "most eases the key issue is not whether the information

will be disclosed hut u11der what conditions, as the Suprc111e Court has recognized. The

need for t11e ii1fonnation is ordinarily held paramount but reasonable protective 1neasurcs

are supplied to minimize the cffoct on the party making the disclosure." 8 Charles Alan

Wright, Arlher R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2043, p.

252 (3d ed. 2010). Orders prohibiting "any disclosure of trade secrets and confidential

con11nercial infOnnation are rare." Federal ()JJen Market Co11111t. of the Fed. l?eserve S)'s.

v. Merrill, 443 U.S. 340, 363 n. 24, 99 S.Ct. 2800, 61 L.Ed.2d 587 (1979).

3. This process for the discovery of alleged trade secrets was recently discussed in

M-1 LLC v. Stelly:

It is "well settled that there is no absolute privilege for trade secrets and similar confidential infonnation." 8 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2043 (2d ed.1994). Rather, federal courts follow a si1nilar sche1ne in determining whether and how to order the disclosure of trade secrets or other confidential information. First, the party seeking protection must establish that the relevant information falls within the provision of this rule. Id. '"[T]he burden is upon [the party seeking the protective order] to show the necessity of its issuance, which contemplates a particular and spcciJic demonstration of fact as distinguished fi:o1n stereotyped and conclusory statements."' Sanchez v. Property & Cas., 2010 WL 107606, at *l (S.D. Tex. 2010) (quoting In re Terra Int'!, 134 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir.1998)) .... If the party seeking protection establishes that the infonnation sought is both confidential and that disclosure would cause hann, then the burden falls on the opposing party to "establish that the information is sufficiently relevant and necessary" to its case to outweigh the harm that disclosure may cause. 8 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Mille,· & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2043 (2d ed.1994). "'It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to decide whether trade secrets arc releva11t and whether the need outweighs the harm of disclosure. IJilcewisc, if the trade secrets arc dcc1ncd relevant and necessary, the ap11ropriate safeguards that sho1Ild attend tl1eir disclosure by 1neans of a protective order arc also a 1natter within the trial court1s discretion."' R. C. Oln1stead, Inc. v. CU Interface, LLC, 606 F.3d 262, 269 (6th Cir.2010) (quoting Centurion Indus., Inc. v. Warren Steurer & Assocs., 665 F.2d 323, 326 (lOthCir.1981)).

M-1 LLC v. Stelly, 733 F.Supp.2d 759, 801-02 (S.D. Tex. 2010); see also Oldendorff

Carriers GmbH & Co., KG v. Grand China Shipping (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd., 2013 WL

1867604, at *2 (S.l). Tex. Apr 22, 2013) (Corpus Christi Div.).

II. Trai11ing M.aterials for Michelin's Tire Designers

4. The failed tire mounted on David Salinas's pickup was designed

ETEC = nyon cap ply

5. Atnong other causes of action, this case involves claims for negligent tire design,

negligent tire designer training, and breaches of Michelin's own i11ternal tire design

standards. Doc. No. 12 ~~ 57, 71, 77-78, 80. In fact, Michelin's tire design witness

testified that

I I

I I Michelin's tire 1nanufacturing expert also confir1ned t h i s -

I I

I 5

I I I I

6. ··rhe significance

I

I I I

I I

I

I I I . These tire design school documents

are critical to fully understanding the issues raised in this case.

Accordingly, the Salinas family asks this Coutt to

order production of Michelin's tire design docurnents, 2 and the family has no o~jection if

these documents are ordered prod11ccd according to the agreed confidc11tiality order

entered in this case.

III. Michelin's Decision Tree (a/k/a Aspect Specification) Documents

7. The Salinas family's pleadings and expert have identified a number of

1nanufacturing defects in the tire at issue, includiI1g pre1nature oxidation of the tire's

8

rubber, liner pattern marks that should have been cured out of the tire, air pockets trapped

between the tire's components, sloppy placement and splicing of the steel belts, and poor

rubber bonding in the steel belts and carcass.

I I I

I I I I

I

8. 'fhe Salinas .fa1nily's co1nplaint expressly sets forth these decision tree document':>

as Michelin's manufacturing standards applicable at the Tuscaloosa plant where the tire

at issue was made, and Michelin's undcrstaffing of the quality control personnel at the

plant is one of the Salinas fatnily's specific co1nplaints:

Michelin inadequately staffed the quality control operations at its Tuscaloosa plant and assig11ed too many quality assurance tasks for each of the limited number of quality control personnel.

Doc. No. 12 ~ 79; see also id.~~ 34-37.

9. Michelin has produced this

In a prior case, Judge Orlando Garcia addressed the critical nature

of obtaining these doc1uncnts in discovery:

Michelin's inspection practices arc an issue in this case. Michelin's corporate rc:prcsentative testified that the Ardmore plru1 wac; producing 32,000 tires a day when the tire in q11estion was 1nanufactured, or 1nore than 22 tires per 1ninutc. 'l'he corporate representative testi-fied that 15 inspectors examined the 22 tires per tninute, although other witnesses indicate that there were no 1nore than nine inspectors. Even with 15 inspectors, each inspector would have approximately 40 seconds to examine each tire. 1·hc corporate representative testified that inspectors were supposed to identify all of the defects referenced in the decision tree tnanual as well as other iss11es, such as dirt or crayon 1narl(s on the tire. 'The corporate representative testified that the decision tree docu1nents set forth, as a "ballpark estimate," between 30 and 40 different pass-fail standards which each tire was supposed to pass during the inspection. l)laintiffs argue that the jury would be misled by believing that the inspectors had to ins11ect each tire according to only eight pages of decision tree docu1nents, when in reality, they had no more than 40 seconds to inspect the tires according to 30-40 different criteria set forth in the decision tree documents. Thus, plaintiffo argue that all the decision tree documents applicable at the time the tire was made are relevant.

The C<)Urt agrees. The Court's order is clear. lt is not up to Michelin to detcnnine which of the decision tree documents are relcva11t.

Ex. 6 (Ramirez v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., No. SA-07-CA-1032-0G (W.D. Tex. July 27,

2009); see also Ex. 7 (Ramirez v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., No. SA-07-CA-l 032-0G (W.D.

Tex . .Tune 20, 2009) ("The Court finds that the plaintiffs' need for the documents

outweighs the potential harm of disclosure to Michelin."). Accordingly, the Salinas

family asks this Comt to order unredacted production of' Michelin's Aspect Specification

1nanual and the family has no objection if these

documents arc ordered pro,h1ccd according to the agreed confidentiality order entered in

this case.

IV. Michelin Employees' Recorded Statements and Testimony about M.anufacturing Practices and Conditions at tl1e l'uscaloosa Plant

l 0. Micheli11' s corporate representative designated to testify about 1nanufacturing

conditions at the plant confirmed Michelin's awareness of prior state1nents regarding

I

I I I I [n numerous prior ca-ies, Michelin has offered corporate

representatives witnesses to address the manufacturing conditions and practices at its

1'uscaloosa plant, and in many of these cases, tire builders and tires inspectors fi_.orn the

plant have given statements or testi1nony about conditions they eyewitnessed 4

State1nents fro1n a defendant's employees are discoverable when they do not reveal

atton1ey worlc product prepared in anticipation of litigating the case, a11d such stateme11ts

are often discoverable even when they require production of such work product. S'ee

Smith v. Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., 168 F.R.D. 582, 584 (S.D. Tex. 1996); 8

Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and

Procedure § 2026 (2d ed. 2009) (recognizing "a substantial body of authority" for

production of "staten1ents taken fro1n witnesses at about the ti1ne of the occurrence"

described in the statements). ln this case, the Salinas family is willing to remove any

possibility that tl1e discovery request calls for any work product by seeking employee and

ex-employee state1ncnts a11d testimony that predates the tire failure and crash at issue.

11. As one example of why the eyewitness testimony is pivotal in this case, -

-I I

I I I I 12

I - T h i s circumstance is especially critical in this case because temperatures in

Tuscaloosa reached into lhe 90s during !he week the tire was made May of2007. Ex. I I.

T11e danger of either a drop of the tire builder's perspiration or a drop of condensation

fro1n tl1e air conditioning unit at the 1'uscal(lOSa plant creates a grave risk

I

I I I I

I Accordingly, the Salinas family asks Ibis Court to order Michelin to

produce the state1ncnts and testit11ony of its Tuscaloosa employees and cx-e1n11loyees who testified at any time from May of 2007 (when the lire was made) through June of

2011 (when the crash occurred) where any of the following topics5 were addressed:

• Michelin's use or evaluation of the use of bloomed rubher stocl< or rubber-coated components in the ls\ or 2nd stage building of radial light truck tires made by Michelin;

• Michelin's use or evaluation of the use of solvent in the 1st or 2nd stage buildh1g of radial light truck tires made by Michelin;

• Michelin's use or evaluation of the use of awls or other tools used to release trapped air in the 1st or 2nd stage building or the final finish/classification/cured tire repair of radial light truck tires made by Michelin;

• Michelin's use or evaluation of the use of ply stock pricldng used to release trapped air during tire building or tire co111ponent huilding processes for repair of radial light truck tires and radial light truck tire components made by Michelin;

• Michelin's use or evaluation of the use of tarps or water collection containers to redirect {)1' collect rainwater or air conditioning leaks within the tire building rooms where radial light truck tires have been made by Michelin;

• the causes or effects of belt misplacement and out-of-specification belt splicing in radial light truck tires made hy Michelin;

• the causes or effects of inconsistencies in innerliner gauge and out-of-specification innerlincr splicing in radial light truck_ tires 1nade by Michelin;

• Michelin's use or evaluation of the use of rejected materials to huild tires {1espite the fact that those co1nponcnts had previously been scrapped;

• the manufacturing causes of separations between belts in radial light truck tires;

• the causes or effects of trapped air or trapped stea1n hetween rubber or rubber coated tire components;

• Michelin's cvaluati()flS and internal discussions of liner pattern marks or other processing rnark_s that re1nain visible hctwcen rubber or rubber coated components of a separated cured tire;

• Michelin's use or evaluation of the use of various different standards and increased or decreased tolerances for belt width, belt-to-tread width ratios, belt rubber coverage, belt placement, belt centering, and belt splicing; or

• Michelin's use or cval11ation of the use of various different standards and increased or decreased tolerances for inncrliner gauge, innerliner unifo11nity, inncrliner shadowing, and innerliner splicing.

12. Given the }(cy significance of such eyewitness tcsti1nony of those Michelin

employees who worked at the Tuscaloosa plant, the Salinas family also asks this Court to

order Michelin to identify those tire huildc'fs and tire inspectors who were employed by

Michelin during the 19th week of 2007 (when the tire at issue was made). Specifically,

the Salit1as fa1nily a.c;;lcs for the names, contact info11nation (all known current phone

numbers and addresses or last known contact information if current infor1nation is

unlmown), job title, and confirmation whctht-'I' the e1nployee is a past or current

employee. Although the Salinas family has specifically requested this infonnation, 6

Michelin should have disclosed "the name and, if known, the address and telephone

nu1nbcr of each individual likely to have discoverable inf(Jl:ination" even in the absence

of such a discovery request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(l)(A)(i); Vickers v. General Motors

Corp., No. 07-2172 Ml/P, 2008 WL 4600997, *3 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 29, 2008) (in a

product liability case, the scope of discove1y includes "en111loyces1 na1nes, addresses, ru1d

6 1"his information was requested in Plaintiffs' First A1nended Interrogatories to DcfCndant, Michelin North A1nerica, Inc., iute1rogato1y 6. See E'x_ 12 p. 6-7.

telephone numbers" and a general description of the einployees' jobs); see also Axelson,

Inc. v. Mc!lharry, 798 S.W.2d 550, 555 (Tex.I 990) ("a party may discover facts known

by an employee"); In re Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 87 S.W.3d 139, 155 (Tex. App.-

Fort Worth 2002, orig. proceeding) ("If employees obtain factual infonnation relevant to

a case si1nply by virtue of their ernploy1nent as en1ployees, rather than as consulting

expe1ts, that information is discoverable.").

V. Design and Manufacturing Tolerances

13. 'The Salinas family brings both design defect claims and manufacturing defect

claiins in this case, and proof of "a deviation from the manufacturer's specifications or

planned output serves the essential purpose of distinguishing a manufacturing defect from

a design defect." Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d 32, 42 (Tex. 2007).

Micl1clin's corporate witness designated to testify about tire design issues confinncd that

I

I

I

I

I I I I

14. Because the design and rnanufacturing tolerances are necessary to fairly adjudicate

whether the tire deviates, in its construction or quality, from the planned output, the

Salinas f:ilmily asks the (~ourt to compel production of the design a11d 111a11ufacturing

tolerances applicable to the suQject tire. 7 Specifically with regard to tl1e tolerances fOr BF

Goodrich All Terrain TIA tires made by Michelin at its Tuscaloosa plant, the Salinas

family asks the Court to compel production of

--------- 7 'rhesc materials were requested in PlaintiJTs' A1nended Notice of Deposition of Ilank Watkins (with sub oena duces tecu1n), request 2. See J~):. 8 J. 5. "

-· I I I I I I I

I I I

I I I Ex. I p. 68-71. The Salinas family also asks the Court to compel production of

Michelin's FMEA and DFMEA documents.

VI. Prayer

WHEREFORE, the Salinas family respectfully prays that this Court will grant

Plaintiffu' Motion to Compel Discovery and order production of the infonnation and

materials as requested above.

Respectfully submitted this 23'd day of.July, 2013.

By: Isl Anthony F. Constant Anthony F. Constant State Bar No. 04711000 CONSTANT LAW FIRM 800 N. Shoreline Blvd., Ste. 2700 South Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Tel: (361) 698-8000 Fax: (361) 887-8010 afc<(hconstan ti avv firin. co 1n

ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE FOR PLAINTIFFS

John Blaise Gsanger Federal I.D. No. 20883 State Bar No. 00786662 EDWARDS LAW FIRM 1400 Frost Bank Plaza (78470) P.O. Box480 Co1pus Christi, TX 78403-0480

I

Tel: (361) 698-7600 Fax: (361) 698-7614 j 2san gcr(il)ed\vards fir1n. coin

Charles L. Barrera State Bar No. 01805500 BARRERA & BARRERA 700 E. Second Street Alice, Texas 78332 Tel: (361) 664-2153 Fax: (361) 668-8023

OF-COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The parties have conforred exhaustively and have been unable to reach an agreement.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 23"1 day of July, 2013, the foregoing document was filed electronically via ECF in the United States District Court for the Southern District of'·rcxas with 11otice of same being furnished by the Court and served upon:

Thomas M. Bullion, l1I Chris A. Blackerby (Jenner, Gertz, Berunru1 & Brown IJ_,p 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Isl John Blaise Gsanger John Blaise Gsanger

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY 11/24/2015 2:30:37 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK

CAUSF, NO. DC-14-07255

SAMlJLL "\ffiDINA and ORD!JI JA § IN TIJF. DJSTRJ(; l COUR'l' MPJ)IN/\, husband and wife, § 01,· DALLAS COIJ"•rrY i11<1ividw.1ll}; NA"l'AL YL l\1EDINA, § individlWlly; NAVTI. (ilBSClN, § individual!;'; § §

PLALN'l'Il'FS, § § 134 I H JUOlCIAL IJJSTRTCT vs. § § DATJ.AS (;(J!JN'l'Y, 'J'EXl\S MJ(:HELJN NOlfTIIAMF.RTCA, JN(:.; § A"\ID .J(lSt<: BlJS"J'JLLO d/b/a l\.flJNDO § (Oral Argument Rcquc~ted) CARS, a11 in slate defendant, § §

DEFENDANTS, §

l'AllLE OF c:ONTF.NTS

PLAIN'l'Jl•'li'S' SUJ'PT.RMF'.l'\T IN SllPPOlff OF ITS ORT(;JNAL (August 25, 2015)

l\f(lTl<lN 'l'O COMPEJ.

PAG.1£ - --

I. Michelin l1as not cstnblished tl1at the docu1neot'

and iut'ormation requested arc trnde secrets. Tu re G'ont'I Ge11. 1'ire, Inc., _979 S.W.2d 609, 613 (l'ex. 19.98). 1

Tl. \Vithout any ba~is, for mnnlhs, l\licl1elin claimed "t1·:1dc secrets". 2

Ill. Price's Trade Secrets Affidavit lael1s pcr,onn] J{no~·Jedge a11d therefore is of no value. Humphre:;-·s, 888 S.\1.'. 2d 469, 470. 3

•• The Septe1nber 8, 2015 l1caring 3

b. Price's clepnsilinn 4

IV. 1'1·ice's nflidavit l1as "no probative ~ alue" a11d is "legally insuJ'ficient". JJ111nphreys, 888 S.W. 2d 46'1, 470. 14

v. Price's cnnclusory affidavit fails to cstnblisl1 tl1at the information requested are trade ~ec1·ets. 14

CAUSE NO. D(,'-14-07255

SAMl,IFJ. MEDINA and OBDlTTJA § 1N TIIE DJSTRJ(~·r (;(JlJRl' lVIEDINA, hll'b,1n<l and wife, § llF DALL.i\.S COlJNTY individually; NA TAT .YF. MEDINA, § individuall)'; NAVIL GTRS()N, § in di vidLiall y; § §

T'T.AIN J'!FFS, § § 134'lH .llJDIClAL DISTRICT v~. § § DALLAS C()IJN'l'Y, JLXAS JvJJCITFJ.TN N(lR"l'H AMERIC.i\, me:.; § 1\ND JOSE RlTSTJJ ,!,() d/b/a MUNilO § ((}ral Argument Rcquc~tcd) C.'\RS, an in fflate del'en<lant § §

DEJ!LNDA,'!TS, §

PLAIN'l'll,'l•'S' SUT'T'l,Rl\1F.N1' II\ SUl'l'ORT OF TTS <>RIC~INAL (August 25, 2015)

MClTIC}N 'JO COJ\'IPF.l,

TO THF HClNOR..'\L\LE JllDGF. DAl.E '!'lLLJc.KY:

I. Micheli11 has not establi~bcd lhat the cloc11mcut• 11nd inl"onnation requested 11rc trade secrets. Jn re ('ont'l Ge11. Tire, Inc., !>7') S.\\'.2d 609, 613 (Tex.1!>98).

Mi~l1elin litilcd to rncct its b111\len ol' e~iablishing that the do~u1nen!s and information

.~ought in Plaintifti;' di~co\·ery requests and Motion lo (~01npcl arc trade sel.'rels. PLLr~Liar1t to

Texas l>i\V, l\1ichclin has tl1e n1uu1h1lory burden of proving Ll1a( th~ in!Orination requesl~d i~ "

trade secret:

[T]l1c p11rty resisti:ni:: dis~ovcry 111u~t establish that the information is a trade secret.

In l'f ('on1'/ (ien. l'ire, Inc., 979 S_\\1.2d 609, 61'.\ (Tex. 1998). (c.a.).

lJnlikc C'ont'/, Plui.ulill~ have not stip11latc<l Lhal the requested inlin111alion constitute~

2

trade secrets, anU lh~ /\llidav-it ofVanealon Price docs not establi~h anything. As he utlmi1lod in

hl!ndred~ nf qucstioru; al hi~ recent deposition (al/t1ched in irs entire/)' here/o as JJ'xhibit A)/

Price hus uo p"1·sonal knov,-Jcdg>'. of (he ~on tents of his afli<laviL 'l'hcrcforc, Mi~l1elin lias failed

lo establish that its aspe~l ~pccifications, inner liner/anti-oxidant/bell ~kin1 l'orrnulas. adjustn1enl

JllflllUUl0<lu!alphotographs, testing, <le~ign clocurnents, u11d the other clocumenl> and inforrnation

4

sought by Plaintil1'< are trade sccrcts .

A~~or<lingly, pursuant to Tex a~ laV•i, Michelin's lra<le secrets objection is baseless, of no

value and legally insllllicicnt. llun1phreys v. (.'a!Jwell, 888 S.W.2d 469. 47tJ-71 (Tex. 1994); In

re (7ont'I (ien_ 'i'ire, Inc., 979 S,V,',2d at 613. Therel(ire, Plaintiffs Motion lo c:01npc! should be

granted in it, entirely.

II. Without a11y basis, for mooths, Michelin claimed "trade secrets".

llack in April, Micheli.n refiwe<l Ui~closure by clain1ing "trade sccrets in Te~ponsc to

5

"

Plaintiffs' requests for production. Ilowev.,,·, Michelin prDvided 110 e\~<lcncc supporli11g: its

'Unlil'e the prc,cn! cu<c. in Con/'/ "nd In re /Jridges!one!Firesrone, Inc, Lile plaintiffs conceded and in fact stipulated th.1t the rcquu<lcd information c<m,Li!ulcd (rade secrets. In re (.'ont'/ (fen_ tire, Inc., 979 S W 2tl at 615; In 1e Brid,;,,stnne/f'h-eslone_ Inc., 106 ~.W 3d 730, 732 (fex. )003).

'In Texa<, un affiant must prove LhaL ihc facts ore ;viti1in "ai<l amanc"s kno"•led1"'' H111"phrey.1· "-Cu/dwell, 8RR S.\V.2d 469, 4711 (!ex. 1994).

' Lieposition of' . ~I>· friee al pp. 28-31, 50-61, 64..65, 82, 9 !, f 09- / /0, 112 . 114, 120, f 30-13 I, F.J;liihit A ( o.a.)

'Such docOJmcTil< ir1clw:lc buc are not )ln1ilcd LLJ ~laintiffs" R.equeot li1r PnJduclion #I, #2, #8-9, ill 1-13, Hl5, #19-22, #24-)6, /,'29, //32, ~3 7, #d0-12, #44-47' 1 As Phuntil Ii<' """'""I pointed out tu the Court, _\1ichelin ~ot PlaiTili IT<' requests in April and did tJOl provide ;my evidence e<tahli<hittg 1ba1 [he infonnatinn con,litntocl 1l'ade sec1et'.

MR. Cll:ERRA: Your II01101, we h~'l this request in Ap-ril. l\n alTtdavit in lvfuy, J<n1e, July unlil \Ve file the m!Jlio11 lo co1npel no atfi<lavil ,>lill. No\V we ~ot ti1i" al11davit

Seple1nber 8, )015 Tra11.1·c1·1'p! ji-u1n I'ialf•tifft ' Motion Ii! ('ompel llfl1'"inr; at 17- I J-16.

objecli()n, '!hen, aftei· Phtintiffs' counsel signed a protective order Michelin continued Lht:ir

refusal to produce. So, .Plaintifl:, \VCfC forced Lo Jile a Motion to Co1npcL

111. Price's 'frade Secrets At'fidavit lack' pers!n1al k11011·ledge and therel'ore is of no vah1c. Humph1·eJrs, 888 S.'\\'. 2d 469, 470.

·ro support il~ lraclc secrets objection and resist Jiscovery. Michelin relied exc1'1~ivcly on

Price's fdliJa vit'' >vhich Michelin !mew did no111as.1· 1nuster. Tn ·rcxas, to te8Li l'y about privileged

inl'orniation the >111iant n1ust havo; per"onal .knowledge nf it. H11mphreys, 888 S.\V.2J 469, 470.

Pric~ Joe~ not have per~onal kno>vledge:

a. 'l'hc September 8, 2015 hearing

Al the Scpten1l"l!:lr 8, 2015 hef1ring, Plaintiffs' eo\lll.~~1 informed tlio; Honorable Court !llat

~Iiclicli.n's >1lliant Price was unqualified to (es!iljr about the contents of his a[lidavit. As

~>::plained, .Price \York~ in Micl1elin', legal department. lie is not a tire builder, !-'! a tire

miu1uliu:tllrcr, Qf a tire (jesigncr, 9r a tire project rnanager, or a tire rnm1ufi1.Glurer, or a skin1 slock

~01npo11nder, or a tire inspecLor, or an adjustn}ent inspector, and Lhercforc did not hav·c personal

kno1vlcdgc or co1npel"ncc to testify lh>1t the info11nf1tion requested con~litutcd trade secrets:

Ile \\'Orks on the litigation Uefcndant •ic j([epartmcnt] of JVlichclin And goi.ngba~l< lo the affida>il, .. Ihe's] not a tire builder, not a tire 1nannfaeturer . • • not a tire designer; didn't design thi• tire; was not •1 project mauager; didn't 11·ork on the plant.

,~·ej!trn//Jfr X, 21115 1'ranscrip((ro1n l'/ain/ijj.i·' ,\.1otion to (~0"'1'"' I fearing al ]()- 23 32: 2. (.,_a,).

Plaintiffs' ClHln"el further expl<1inccl that Pri~" was also 1101 a registered prnl'e~~ional

engineer:

'' Sh·ongcly, ~lichelin used Mr ~rice's affidavit"" fiu[h a svo•or<l and a d1icld. Michelin u<cJ. Lhe affidov1! tu prevent disclo'"'" or discove<oble evidence lrnt then rcl'u<cd lo ollo\V Pl•inLiIT;' Lo r<oss-exaTI1i11c hhn obollt tho al liJovit and hi' pc1 «1tial kno.,,'lecl1cc o I' ihG contents of ''"uh uITTdavit. The• Honll r"ble Court "'mTuicd Michelin',< ohjcclion and onlcrcJ. Mr. l-'rice'o dcp<J,ilion, ;vhich wa< c<Jtiducred on Oct() her 22, 2015.

He is not a profe~.,ional engineer in South ('.arolina ~o nia)'be bo; ha<, some techni~al experience 80 I cl1ceked _Alabama, ])othan. Nu. he is not registered as a professional engineer in llothan. He never clabns ifl hff\'e ~·orJ<.ed at the plant i11 l}othan nrver hee.n at the nlant . . They hav·e nol established any qLIBlifications for hi111 to say' th11t Jio; kno\'IS the tire , it's Isicl a trade ~ecret,

S'rpte1nhfr 8, 20!5 lf"anscri]'I Jfom J'faintijj~·' 1\1olion to Compe/7 }fearing at 30:23 32:9. (c.a.).

b. l'rice's deposition

i\ware ofPri ce ·~ sho1tco1niugs, l\1ichclin tried lo hlock his cross-exa111ination an\l re llts<w--.:l

to produce Price for deposition, 80, Plaintiil~ 1verc forced to Ille a Motion to l~o111pel 1vhieh \VllS

granted. Deeply \\·onicd about Price's lack of per~onul kno\vlcdge about hi~ affidavit's contents,

l\fichelin contacted an<l retained an army or· aUnrncys fro111 ucross the co1111try lo prepare hin1 li1r

deposition: 1) Kate Helm, (fron1 A1lanta, Georgia); 2) Michael \lliggin-'>, (frorn Orlando, l'lorida);

3) Dan can Sturino, (Jfotn Chicago, Illinois); 4) 'l'om B11lliou, (from Au~iin, T cxas); and 5) Nicole

l3u11tin, ( li·o111 CJrce11viile, South l~arolina ). 8 These attor11eys spent a 1ninimun1 n r· sc1•en (7) l1ouTs

an<l some up lo several days prep>l1ing the unqualified Price for hi~ deposition. It did nol help

Micheli11. In hl1u<lred~ of admission~, under oath, Price repeatedly expo~ed his lack of'per~onal

kno1vledgc aho1n the content~ of his affidavit:

I, Price \vorkg in the leg<1l department deJ~nding MieheliJ.1 9;

Q. \\'hat is your departmeut c~lled'! A. 1'1n in the J,egal llepartmc11t.

*****

Q, i\11 of~'our worl!: a~ a :vlichelin employee i11 the J,egal llepartmcut related to litigaliou?

A. l'hat's correct.

7 TI10 Hnnurable C.ou1t allowcJ ~laintiffS to supplct"ont its a1rthorily regarding slam st"ck/ir111or Hne1/ant1oxi<la11L forruulaN,

'l!eposition rifli11•. l'rr('e rrr l'l'· 22 ..]7, l::J:hib1t A.

' f!epnsition cif ,\fr. Price al l'I' I 5:JO-J !, 62-63, f~-chibi< A. (e.a. ).

Q. Helping defend l\.tichelin in cases'/ A. I'm not sure 'Iv hat }llll meau by that.

Q. Michelin gets sued and ytu1 help defend Michelin'? A. l work on these cases, yg.

2. Yel, P1·ice has no personal knowledge of a 8inglo (1) Michelin's trade secret poli~y :

10

Q. All right. No1v, you arc nut the autl1or of the policies runccrning lrade secret inforn1alio11 within Michelin'!

A. That's correct.

Q. Somebody else is? A. I am nut a1varc or a singular policy.

3. PJ"icc's Affidavit \VflS 11111de U]J by l'vficl1e]in's legal team: rri~e and Kate IIelm -

11

J\1ichelin' s l\ atinna! Lliscl>very c:ounscl :

Q. All right. Did ~·ou "'·rite your affidavit'! A. I did.

Q. Okay. The affidavit 1va~ written by you r.<clf; )'OU typed it out'! A. I '\Vould say lhat there were parts of this that I did 11ot type. And I '\Vas 1,<ivcn ii frllme"'·orli. Hut I did the worl1: and tlid lhe lion's share of' tl1e material that's in it.

Q. 'Vho gave yo11 the frame"'·ork? A. J(atc Helm.

Q. Su the document is a combination of yo1rr 1vurk >Incl Ms. Ilcl1ns'

\\"OJ"J{'!

A. Sonie ofwhich on hc1·e can1e from Ms. Hehn.

4. Price never "'orkcd at Doth.an \\·hc:rc the subje~l Lire \Vas rnanufactuJeJ. 12 :

Q. All right. You have never worl1:ccl in i)olha11? A. J have never had a po•ilio11 in Dothan.

Q. Yo11 nc~·cr had a position in Dothlln in the plant itself!

10 flepnsifion oj'1>1r. rric" alp 91, Exhibil A. (c.a).

11 flepri.\'iliun oj'I'rice at l'I' 50-52. £s/11b1t ~.

" flepr>1·i/ion of Air. P1·ice alp 52, lixJ11bir A. ( c a ).

A. Correct.

Q. Or in the t>fficc'I A, (~nrrect.

Q. You never \VorJ{ed t>n the a~sembly line iu Dothan'/ A. 'l'hat's correct.

5. Price never wDrked <L' or has been fl Lire hL1ilder, Of 3 tire inspector, p~ a Li~ei1scU

13

Prufes~ional i:,ngineer, or a ski1n stDck co1npounder or a foJ"1nulaV>T f(1r Michelin :

Q. Yon 11ever had a po~ition as as~cmhly line worl{Cr~? A. T have never been a ti1·e hnilder.

Q. l'hat's right. You've ncYcr hcen ll class spcL1'or'? A. l'hat's correct.

Q. You've never been a rubher formulator? A. That's correct.

******

Q. Yon' re not licensed as a Prufe•sional .l':ncinccr? A. '!'hat's eo1·rcct.

Q. That's right. You never created any chem stoe\1: formulas for Michelin'/

A. I did not.

6. Price has neYer beeil an adjustment dala inspcctor 1-l:

Q. Rut you have ncYc1· been one, right? You don't test? You never tested the Ll'X M/S prior to its releasing tu the marJ{et?

A. Not in that tire line, no.

Q. ()kay. Yon'Yc nc~er been an ad.iust1nenl dnta inspector'? A. That's correct.

Q. Yo11've uever been a designated Michelin in>pector at thc.~e designated inspection renters?

A. Thar's correct.

7. Price did not authof any a;;pec:( ~pccific3tions, (ec:hnical notes, ge11eral principles, tire non-cDnilll111ing procedures, (jre inspection procedure~, or adjustme11 Liliila policies I l:

JJ 1Jepositiou nf'~!r, !'rice aJ pp. 52-53, hxhibi1 A. {e.o.}.

L·I 1Jeposilio1' of' ,\,Ir !'rice a! p. S3, F.~hihil A. ( e.o.).

Q. You didn't \.\'rite the aspect spccificntious? A. That's correct.

Q. IlolY many aspect specs? A. I dou't kilolv how ma11y aspect ~pees there arc.

Q. You don't knolv? A. Not an cxacl 1111mber, no. I know there lvnuld be huudreds.

Q. I know. I don't work for Michelin. Yo11 don't know'! A. I don't knolv the cxnct 11umbc1' of aspect specs, nu.

**~k*

Q. You didn't write the tcchnicnl 11otes? A. 'l'hat's correct.

Q, You didn't autl1or or 'l'l'Iite the tire non-co11forming procedures? A. Th:it's correct.

(]. You didn't wrile or author the general priuciple.,'! A. l'hat's correct.

Q, You did11' t write or author the adju.1tment data codc1? A. That',1 correct.

Q. Yo11 didn't ,,ct up the adjustment data policic1? A. That's correct.

Q. For the L'l"X l\'1/S line or 3111' other line'! A. That's correct.

Q, You didn't 1''rile or author any of the ad.iustn1ent dnta manual1 <11'

Michelin?

A. That's correct.

Q. You dido 't author or 1" rite nny of the tire ins11ection procedures'{ A. l'm not ~ure I kuow lYhat-

Q. The tire inspection procedure~ for the adjustment tlala samples. A. Correct.

Q. You didn't w1ite any of the i\'lichelin tire limited 'l'l'arrantics'! A. 'that's correct.

" fJe1>r1.\'iliun of Jf1·. Price al PP- 53-54, 130-13 I, lixh1bll A. {e.a.)_

8

8. l'riee ha<; no personal lu1owle<lge of the name or i<le11lilY of a single skim slo~k for1nul alor, lire huildcrs, tire lllilllUl'otclurer inspectors or tire adj llslinont inspectors 16 ·

Q, iVli<·h<0lin al•o ha• tire huilders, right'! A. That's correct.

Q. \'ou are not one of them, right'/ A. That'" correct.

Q. Michelin al.<o has chemists that do chem stocl;: formulations >1nd rubber forn1ulations, right?

A. I don't know lYhat their bacl.:grolll!ds arc but there are peo1>lc that \\' ork for Micl1elin that formu lale 1nixes.

Q. You arc uot one nfthem? A. 'l'l1at's correct.

Q. "'hat dn J'OU call those folks? A. Forn1ulalors.

Q. Do you kno\v an,Y of tl1en1? A. ~otper~onallv.

Q. Do you know their 11an1es'! A. For111ulalors forl\-hat?

Q. l"or skim .<tl>ek or for rubber. A. Fnr what rubber'!

Q, I.TX MIS tires? A. J,TX 1\1/S tires have dozens of different rubber components --

Q. 1 understand. This subject tire. A. -- that arc foru1ulated by different people. I don't knolv the forn1ulators in 2001.

Q. 'fell 1ue the nan1e of any formulator that you know here that 1vorks on L'fX M/S --

A. I don't lrnol\' the nnmes of tl1e formulatn1'' thal worl{cd on the rormulns and the compounds h1 the L'I'X liue - the Ll'X MIS line.

Q. Auythi11g. A. Not that I 1·ccall, uo.

*****

Q. Do you lrnol~· aoy of the l'ormulators or thci1· itlentil)''!

"' l!eposition cif!.1r !-'rice, pp. 53- 58, ~2, Fxhihil A. {e.a.).

A. l\'otspccificall\'.

Q. Not a single one? _A_ Notthn1 ron1e.• to 1nind for the T.TX MIS2 linc. no. Q. Or the l,TX 1\1/S tire line'! A. No.

**"**

Q. "'ho runs the Formulation Departme11t? A. I don't kntt\\'.

Q. Who is the lVTanag-er oftl1c Fnr1n1dation Department? _A, T don't !mow 1vho ma11agcs the Fonn1dation Department.

(}. \Vho is director of the !i'orn1ulation Department? A. I don't know the ans'\\' Cl" to that.

**""*

Q. ,\JI right. What ahout tire builders'! l'ell me the 11a111c of an~'one that 1vorked on the l,TX MIS line.

A. l don't know the nan1c or the tire builder that I know l\'orked on the L'l'X MIS line.

Q. What nbo11t -- Michelin has class ,,pectors, right'! A, In the plant there arc class spector.,, yes.

Q. Yo11 arc not one of them and yo11'vc never been c111c of then1? A. I have not been a class spcctor in a plant.

Q. And did you kno\\' the 11amc of any of the class sectors at Dotha1l'! A. I don't recall the nan1e of a class spcclnr at Dothan.

Q. 1\lichelin a ],o has a dJust1ncn t 1la ta in.•p cctnrs, right? A. Thnt's correct.

Q. You arc not one of them'/ ,\, 'l'hat's correct.

Q. Tell Ille the name of any adjustment d:1ta inspectors in any of the designated inspcclio11 centers.

A. I do not know anv.

9. Price has JlO per~onal ki101vleJ.gc of the ol<i111 stock for1nula or even the identities of the l{,nnu!ators v;ho \Vorked Oil Lhe subject skin1 ~lock forn111l<1 17 :

1' Vepos;tinn of,~11•_ !'rice at pp 59-6/, F:xhif,if A (c.o.).

Q. 'l'hat•., right. You du not kl1ow the Hkim stocli formula for thi~ s11bjcct tire, righr!

A. That's correct.

Q. You -- but tl1erc's folks lVithin the company, within Michelin, that know that, righr!

A. '!'here would be people iu the contpany that hnve accc.s~ to that.

Q. And what -- who would that be? \\'ho would those people be? A. People in lhe compounding plant a1ul compoundcrs.

k****

Q. l)o you lmO\\' the name of any compounder or people that wori{ on the con1po1mding plant that know the skim stock formula fur this subject tire'!

A. I do not.

10. l'rice l1G\'CI built a tire for public >~ile or ever work~<l on a Micheli11 a~~ornbl)' line 18 :

Q. But JOU have never built a tire? A. I have not built a tire thal was intended for public '"le, that'~ correct.

Q. That's your busineHs, right? That's Micl1elin's bu,iness'! A. Thi1t is Michelin's business.

Q. And you have never done that'? A. I have not built a tire that \Va• intended for sale, correct.

Q. Tn fact, )'OU told n1c yon never -- you never wo1·kcd in an as~e1nb\y line for Michelin ever, right'/ A. I never \\'orked as a tire l>uilder.

Q. Al a l\lichclin assen1bly line? A. That's correct.

*****

Q. ,'\gain, not -- let'~ mnke it correct. I"et's make it accurate. You never \vorked in the Micheli11 assembly line as a tire huilder in any Michelin [1h1nl ill the United States?

A. That lYas Ht,'i.·er my job to be a lire builder in a Michelin plant.

Q. J., that a yes or no? A. It',, ~cs.

" Deposition o.f 1'vlr. Pcice al pp. 64-6.'i, F,-,,hi/>1'! A. (e.a.).

11. Price ha_\ no personal kno,vlcdgc aboul the turnstile, badge reader, "Cyclone l'e11cc"

or ve11dor, 1":

Q. >\nd ><'ha! yon ~ay is 1hnt a~ce•.• turnstile and badge reader, ri!!ht? A. That's cnrreet.

Q. All right. And did you \vrite the policy eouccrning the turn"tile and the badge reader'/

A. No. I wrote no pl>licy with regard,, to the tnrn~tilc or the badge reader.

Q, Who \\'rote that policy? A. I don't know.

Q. Did you talk to him? A. 1\'o.

Q, AH right. Did you lalk -- did you order the fence, the L)·clo11c fence'!

A. No.

Q. Who ordered that? .-\. I do not kuow.

Q. Did yon tall• to him, to lhe person that ordered it? A. I did nol tall• to anyone abont ordering the L)·clonc fence.

Q, Did you talk to an~ybocly that set tl1e policy toward that ,,pecific eight-foot high C,yclo11e fence to keep the secrets oul'!

A. l did not tall• to 11nvone about ordering the eight-foot high L'yclonc fence.

Q. All right. Who is the person lhat \\·rote the poliC)' about ~cndo1·s not allowed on the M.NA prc1ni,es'!

A. ldo11otkiio\v,

Q. Diel you speal• \\'ith J1in1'? A. l did not.

Q, llid yo11 lool< at the policy? A. I did not.

Q. Ol•ay. A. l am not a\\- are that there is n 11olicv other than security gu idclines.

1 ' 1Jeposilio11of'~h· P11ce,pp. 112-114, lixhibilA. (e.,.,)

Q, All rigbt. Ilavc you seen tbosc? A. Tbave not.

11_ Prire hCT5 !!'-' r~"""""I kno>vledge of any of the oul~i<le vendors (ex~epl attorneys)

enl<:ring :Vlichelin20 :

Q. Olray. Thank you. You say also that 1\.-INA vendors sign co11tidentiality agreen1enffl before they arc provided access to docn1nents. \Vho are these vendors that you're talking about?

A. Any vendor of 1\.-fNA would have to sign a confidentiality agrccn1 cnt.

Q. That's great, hut I want these ~cndors that you're talking about.

Vendors, what arc the nan1es?

A. I'm talking about anybody that provhlcs products and services to Micl1clin lhal would come on the facility grounds.

Q. I get it. \Vhat's their names? Anyone. A. I do11't have a specific name.

Q. A single one'/ A. ,\.ny contractor doing work at the facility.

Q. Sucl1 as? A. I dnn't l1avc the name of a contractor in n1ind.

******

Q. Today, on this case, you're here on behalf ol' Michelin? A. I am.

Q. As a Michelin employee? A. That's correct.

13• .Pricc did no! talk to a single (1) IV1ichelin Lire builder, n11111uliic!LtTCT, inspector, designer, co1np0Lt11cler, forn1ulaLor, or plant >vorker Lo draft his Aftidavi t21 :

Q. Si1·, just ansv;·cr my questinn. You didn't speal1: to any single worl>cr in design, build, ela~s spec, iuspcL'l:or, this s11bjcct tire for yo11r affidi1vit, right?

A. It was not uccc~sary that I spc11k to >Ill)' of thusc peo11le to prepare lhi.1 at'lidaYit.

Q. Ye.~ or no, did you speak wilh any of them'! A. It \Vas nnl necessary and T did not.

'

0 frpositio11 oj.'\l~ I'ri,ce atp /l(l K>:hib1l 11. (o.a).

!J lieposition r!/'fr1ce al )8-31, I (19.. / I 0, Ji:.'hibir A- ( c u_)_

Q. You did not? A. That's correct.

*****

Q. Oak)'. Anyhody else that you have tall!:cd, either in preparatioo f.,r this dcpo~ition or in preparation for the affidavit, related to being an employee of l\1ichelin?

A. Not lhat l recall.

Q. Anybody from the plant in Dothan'! A. Not in preparation for this.

Q. Or fur the affidavit? A. Affidavit.

Q. {)r tl1e deposition'/ .-\. ()r lo tl1e deposition, correct.

Q. Anybody that "'orl~~ in the Chemical J,ahoralory for Michelin preparing formulation~?

A. No.

Q, An} che1oical c11ginccr, licensed chcn1ical engineer? A. Prcparatio11 for this?

Q. l•'or affidavit or depo. A. No.

Q. Okay. A11ybody tl1at is Adjustment Tire Tnspector at Michelin -- A. No.

Q. -- in pr<.'flaration !Or deposition or al'fidavit? A. No.

Q. Anybody U1at worl>s for nny of the llcsignated Return Centers l'or l\ficbelin'!

A. No.

Q. For eitl1er of th c e~ cots; affidavit or the de11osition? A. Not in preparation for this, no.

Q. Oid you speak with anybody in preparation of the all'idavit or the deposition that 1vas a tire spector or tire verifier jn the production line>'!

A. J an1 nol familiar 1vith the term "tire ~pcctor."

Q. l'hosc guy' al the Aspect Post. A. I did not

Q. Ok"-,V- (_'!a~s Sp{'l't•_•r, I 1hink that'-• tl1c tc1·n1 that yon guys use. A. Yes, yes. did not talk Wilh an1·onc else in Class Spe~>tor in preparation.

Q. Thank yon so much. Than!{ yo11 so much, Mr. Price. Anyhody in the De.1,igning Department'!

A. No.

Q. Mr. Northrup? A. No.

Q. Mr. Grucnholz'! A. No.

Q. Any of the dcsigucrs of lhis specific tir., in preparation for the depo,,ition or the affidavit, did you spcali: to any of tl1em?

A. No.

Pric"'' deposition S]Jtlal<.s l(Jr itself. llc has 110 P"'·sonal knowle<lg:e >1bout the conte11ts ol'

hi~ affidavit.

IV. Price's arl'idavit has "no prohalive val11c" and is "legaUy insufficient". Il11mphr''Y""

888 s.w. 2tl 469, 470. Price's admitted l•ick of pcrsoJW) kno1vlcdgc renders hi~ affidavit worlhle~s: Price's

affidavit hu~ ·~10 probative vall~,'" is "legally invuJid and therefore cu11not ~crvc as evide11ce in

'Ltppo1t of a claiin of"' trade sccrets 22 . T-fun11Jhre,vs, 888 S.W.2d 469, 470- 71.

V. !'rice's conclnsory affidav·it fail.~ to establish that lhe inforn1ation requested arc trade secret~.

Price's self-serving arlidavit is 3]so filled with wo1tltless C()11G1 usory allegations:

"Ao sho\\'<l above, Ml. Price Jid no[ tolk to a BJnglc (1) ror>on in 01·der t" nhLair> Lile infounat1on in hi< aflidavit:

In uddilion to a po1«m'< job title or positinn, afl'ian!s should al<n exrlain how they became fanoillar lvilh the f•cts in !he affidavit.

Vuf<,nzuu/a;: Stare & (,'(<, .'.111! Fire hi< C'o., 317 S.W.3<l 550, .\.\4 (Tex_ App. ~010)- (ca.).; 1Jepus1lion ~f kh-. J-'rice at PP- 211-3 I, I iJ9-1 l 0, Fxhibit IL

Mark, however, had the hurden to establi~h the .,eismic data i~ a trade secret.

ha~ lililed to mal•c thi~ ,,howing, simply making the (Gi(ations ornitted). l\.o[arl< conclu~ory determination that the seis1nic dllta is a tr•1dc ,,ecret.

'fX(J Prod. C'o. v. MfJ. 1\1ark, fnc, 999 S.W.2d 137, 142 (l'ex. ,-\pp. 1999). (e.a.).

TIJ\lreli1rc, lvlichclin has nol n1el its burden in establi~hing that the info1n1<1lion sought

constitutes trade secTel':

(.'oucJu,ion: Because Texw; recogni,-.cs the impo1tfmce o 1· l>tir adjudication of law,Ldls, Michelin

has the heavy and n1andatory burdeu ol' es!ablishing that t11e do<0un1ents and inli.nn1>1lio11

requested \VCl'C trade secret,, ln re (.'ontincntal, 979 8,\V, 2d 609. 612. Michelin failed to do so.

Micl1elin ha~ not established thal the docurncnts and inli.11111<1!io11 requested by Phtintiffs'

Request for .Produclio11 23 are trade secrets fL5 re(jllired hy in re C0nt7 G1<n. Tire, inc_, 079 S.Vl.2d

at 613. TI1ercl'o1·c, irrunedi11te disc1osLirc is required.

Moreovei·, Michelin's arb'lllnenl ol concealing eve1y inten1al document by ~in1ply

clain1ing "trade secre1s" h>l~ al so been soundly rejected by the 'fcXl\5 CouTl or· Ailpcals:

l.owe's ha~ cited no au1hoTHy !llat a party's (or even expert's) conclusory opinion that infor1nalion i~ a trade secret 01 ;, not used industry-Vv'ide, or a party's mere desir" (o avoid disclosing iul(,n11ation to otl1ers, i~ Sllilicicnt to establish Ll1e privilege. Nor v.·oul<I there appear to be any ratiouiilc for adopting such a po•ilion as it would sceminglv allow the privilege to exte11d to almust 11nv internal companv record~.

Witl1011t evidence establishing any of the conventional trade ~ecrel factors lvitl1 regard to the database J,owe'.1 has failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in Ol'erruling its trade secret objection lo providing deposition Le~li111011y on the creation and 11.~c of the databw;e. Accordingly. Lowe's iir.>t issllo is ovcrniled.

Jn re I.01~~'.I· ('om1;anies, Inc., 134 S_\V.3cl 876. 87'1 (Tex. App. 2004). (c.a.).

1\ccordingly, ~incc Michelin has 110( TUC( its burden in e~(ahlishing the docun1euls and

iuJ{,n11atio11 requested are Lradc secrets, Pliiintill'>; re.<.pcctfully requesl lhe Honorable l~ourt to

" ill, U2, #8-9, 11- l J, ~LI, ."/J 9-22_ #2~ -26, lf)9, ~32, ,'.'37, 11411-42, #,11-47

16

order the inunediate di:;"Jo,,1lre of the doeu1nenta(i on >tnd information req ueoled by Plaintiffs. Id.

In re c:unt'l <ien. lire, inc.

Respecll'Llll y subrnittcd,

J,i\\V Ol•I•'ICF.S OF l !!ISP. GUDIIB...<\, TTf-:

1

6225 N. 24 h Street, Suile 125 Pl1oei1ix, Arizona 85016 'felephone: (602) 381-8400 Facsimile: (602) 381"8403

By: /sl /)avid C'. !:!hG=;'~"~~-=~ Lui" P. (iucrra (Adtnitted I'ru Hae Vice) f\Z Stale flar Nn. 015768 David C. Sh.apiro (Adniitted l'ro Hae Vice) 1\Z State l.\ar No. 028056 ATTtlRNLYS I•'OR PT.ATNTJFFS

LA II' 0J'l'IC'ES 01' .IAMES 13. RAUAN 72J C'.ole1nrm Avenue c:orpus C'.llfisti, Tex>1~ 7841l 1 Telephone: (361) 884-77l!7 Foc,in1ilo: (361) 884-9144 Ja1nes R. Ragan State Bar No. 16466100

CERTIFTCA TE Cl!< SLKVl(,.~E

l hereby cc1tify Ll1al a !rue and correct ~opy oi' the foregoing do~L11ncnt has been forwaJ"<led lo all known counsel of record as set fortl1 belo1v via l:i",\1ail & ll,,5. Mail, nn this 24'1 day ofNovo;n1her, 2015:

Via li-1\lail c~ [i,S'. -~Jail /o:

Noel A. So;va~1ianos SEVASTIAN<lS & ASSOCIATF,S, r.c:. 120 So. Central Ave., Suite 130 St. Louis, MO 63105

Thon1as M. llullio11 ITI C:hri> A, Hlackcrby GLHJvfF.R BF,Alvli\N &DROWN, PJJ,(; 301 C'ongre0s Avenue, Suite 1700 ALL~tin, l'exa; 78701

Attorncy-s for Delio11J~1n1 Mi~l1elin '-'orth1\meri~u, Tn~.

f7ia ,'vfail to:

.lose Bustillo d/b/a/ Mlln<lo (~ars 6422 Duy ::ltrcct Dallas, T exus 85227 .l:'ro Per DeiionUant .loHc ll11stillo Ut1i/al M Llnclo Cars

/s/ Da"iJ c:. Shapiro

EXHIBIT A

Voneatrm Price (Jctobcr 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

:~AUSE NO. D('.-14-D'/2C>Ci

SAMUEL MEDINA and OBDULil'I IN Tl'IE DIS'l'R I CT COURT

MEDINl'I, husb'1nd und wlfe, OF DALL!\S Cfl\JNTY

5 irullvidually; NATALYE ~j)<~IJINA,

6 lndivid1l'1lly; Ni\VIL L~IH~::ON,

indivi d11ally, l34t.h ,JUDICii\L DIS'l'k I \:'J'

8 Pluintiffs,

9 v.

MIC!ll':LIN NOH.'l'H A~!ERICA, DALLAS COUN'l'Y

11 INC.; i\ND ,J(JSE: BUSTILLO

12 d/b/a MUNIJ() CARS, an in-

lJ state dAfendur;L,

14 DeiL't1da11ts.

15 VIDEO'l'Al'EfJ DE:POSITI!)N OF VANEATON PR ref:

(Tukcn by l'lainT.iils)

OctohPr 11, 2015

20 21 Keported by: Rebecca L. Arrisor,

2?. (:rnir<:: Reporter

2J Notury Publ.tc

25

;\ldcreun Reporting C-01up""Y 1-800-FOR"DEP(J \ 1m1eoton Price ()clobor 21. 2015 Greenville, SC

l'aqe ;i

APPEARANCE OF CClUN:il':L:

; r OR J:IiE PLI1Il'i:l j r·r·s:

BY: LUJS )'. GUERRA

DI'IVID C. fiHAPIRO

LI\\~ ClJ<'f'J CE:S OF LUIS I'. l~UERRA

62?.5 N. 2fiLl1 Street, S11itc 125

! Phoenix, AZ 850"16

8 (602) 381-8400

9

·10 f'OR DEFENDI'INT MICHELIN NORTH AMf:RlCA, INC.:

t J. BY: TH()MAS M. BULLION, 'III

GERMJ<:R l'LLC

301 Congicss I'lvenu<", :;uito 1700

Austin, TX 78701

15 (!,12) 472-0288

17 Also Present:

,Jack Marks, CLVS

19 20 Videolapcd deposition oi VI'INEA'l'ON PRICE, takeri

21 by t:he Plaintiffs, at Neison Mullins Riley &

2? Scarborough Ll,l', lll~ South Main :ltreel, Suite '100,

?3 Greenville, :3ollT:h Carolina, on the 21st day of

2~ Oclober, 7015, at 9:30 a.rn., before Rebecca L.

2Ci Arrison, Notary Public and CouIL Reporter.

Ai<ILTI.nn Reporting Con1pany l-300-FOR-DFPO

(JcLobor 11, 201 5

Greenville, SC

CONTEN7S

THE WITNESS: VI<.l~EA ,-(;;~ PRic~E

OY MR. GUERRA

BY MR. BUl,l,ION 133

BY MR. t;U f:RRA 137

6 M,. HULL ION 139

7 "

8 INDEX 01'' f:Xf!IBITS

'l i'l'here were 110 Exhibj_t.s marked.}

14

19

20

Alderson RepnitiTig Cornpu"y l-~011-FOR-DbPO

Vaneaton Price Oclnhcr 21 , 20 I 5 Greenville, SC

l'aqe 1

'!'HE VIDEOGMPHJ<:H.: We r1ow are on

al,, versus Micl1ul_i_11 North America, Inc., ei:-. al

Today's date is Wcd11esday, (Jctobcr 21st, ~01:,.

The time is upproxirnatRly 9:28.

Tl1is is the v_i_dco recorded

rlRpositio11 of Vaneciton Pr_i_cu, bei11g taken ul Lhe

8 offices of Nelson Mull_i_na Riley & ScarDo:roLtl]h,

9 101 South Main ST.reel _i_n Greenville, Soulh

.ID

j l I'm the camerci opcralor, Jack

Marks, Certiliccl Legal Video SpL'Cialist Jn

13 a.ssocia.tior1 with AldArson Reporting, located uL

14 11:,'., Coi1nccticut Avenu8 NorLJ-n;est, l'l'ashir1glon,

l 'i Cl. c. The court_ repo:rLOL is Febecca A:r:r_i_son, also

iii associat.ion will1 l\lcierson Reportlr1g.

W_i_ll attornAys plc<.LSe ide11ti fy

themsRlves arid the parties tl1cy represent,

19 bRqi0111ir1g w_i_tll the pcirty r10L_i_cing this

20 proc8od_i_ng.

MR. GOERM: 1.ui s Guerrct and David

Shapiro for the MccLina fan1i l y.

MR. BULl,ION: To1n Bullion for

Michelin Norll1 l\merica, Incorporated.

THr: VI 'JEOCPAPHER:

AldcTh!)ll Reporting Comp•n)'

1-800-FOR"DFP(J

Voneatnn Price (Jctober 21, 2015 Greenvillu. ~C

court report-_er please admi n; st er LJ-10 oath.

VI\NEA'l'ON PRICE,

being f~rst duly sworn, teslliied as follows:

G !<:XAMINATION

7 BY MR. CUERRA:

8 Q. Nice to see 100 again.

A. Nice to sec you.

Q. MT. Price, thro11gho1it ti1is depos i_ t. i on, 1

11 will call yo11 Mr. Price, cind you call me cinythitilJ you

want. go by Luis, but people say differenlly so it

13 doe.sn ' t rGully matter to inc. Is -chat-. okay?

14 A. That's fine.

Q. We met befoie, maybe a couple of: years ago,

16 maybe a year and a l1al£ ago in the same office,

17 iigl1t?

A. Yes.

19 u. Gul I clid not hu.vc arl opport_unity Lo talk to

20 you on Ll1e record, correcL?

A. Tl1at' s correct.

)2 Q. Yo'.l "'ork here in Green,1ille, right'?

A. I do.

Q. Yon work at the MARC Center·<

A. I do not ::a1r:rently work at t_he MARC Center

/\lder:<otl Kep01ting Con1pan;

l -800-FOR-DEP(J

\f anca(nn Price ()ctobeJ 21, 20 I 5 Greenville, SC'

Pag'°' C

l lull Li1ne, thouqh I illn t~1e.t:G 8eVCril} days a iveck, .~o

j_t '•'0Ullin' t_ be for rr,e i.lte.l·c.

3 o. 4 A. I~y office i_s ut l'elhum Roali. It's tJ1e

5 HeaUquartei~ florlh America bui_l_d;n'J Lor l~icl1e1in

6 Norll1 Arnerica.

Q. You ilre Ll1e huilcling eloco<"st Lo t_he uirporl?

Yes, sir.

(). And tl1ilt is Miclielin Norl11 America

10 A. That's rjght.

11 Q. -- hea<lguarters?

Yes, sir.

Q. You don't have Lo call ine "&i1-." Scly Luis

or yes or wlldlever you 'Har1l t:o calJ. me. will r:all

yoll sir, you cul 1 me whatevGr you want. Deal?

A. That's f.ine. J-f I say "yes, sir" --

l7 Q. Okay.

A. -- it's out of habit.

!•!R. BULLl ClN: People from Lhe

South say "yes, sir" ct1ld "yes, ma'an1" a lol.

21 BY MR. GUERRA:

22 () . So would yoci be :<:ind enougl1 to tL'll me,

23 pleus<", J-101-1 many fol ks, hoi; mclr1y employees wolll d yo·,,

/4 thirlk t:liat work al the MNA headquarters, tllL' one, l:he

2'1 huilUing whGre you work?

Alderson Report~1g CompBny 1-800-F(JR"DEPO

VaTicalon Price Octnbcr 21 , 2{) l 5 c;rccnville, SC

l'ac;e 7

I would {Je tot.ally gLtcssing at above 1,000.

Q. Above?

l'/hul about at tl1e Ml\RC Center?

4 A. Sume tYl-ie of r1Ulnbcr.

5 Q. Okay. Kow ±ur ls the MARC Cenlcr from your

6 place, Irom your o±±lec ill (;rf'envillc?

7 A. Twenty 1nilcco;.

8 Q. Tv.•Anty ulllcs.

Would you consider bolh to be in Ciccr:v·iJ l f'?

Yes.

11 Q. Okay. Mr. 1°ricc, I kind of jwupcci a little

12 bit and I assumed you l1ave be<"n depo,;cd before. lluvc

13 yon bccr1 deposed belore?

A. l have r10L.

15 o. Okay. I11 all tbf' Y"'-'L'-' that you l1uvc worked

16 al Mich<"lin, Ll1ls is yo11r l:irst deposi_tioI1?

A. Tl1ecL' s cor;rf'ct.

18 Q. Okay. am tJurc tl1at. yon Jiu.cl an 0101oo:rtur1ily

19 to spcco.k with yonr ullorney prior lo the depositio11?

A. T did.

21 Q. Okay. I'm just qoir1g Lo go over ll1;c --· l i_>::e

22 a brief oveivicw of t_he rules.

23 We are her A like lf yo\l were ir1 a -- in a

24 courtroo1n, and yo1i do understand tl1u.L 1 right"!

25 A. I do.

Alderson R"JlorLing Coinpauy 1-XIJO-l'OR-DEPO

Vaneaton l'Jicc October ). !, 20 L'i Grocnvillc, SC

P.oqc 8

1 Q. You arA uudcl oath and y<>u kr1ow that, ri<,Jht?

A. I cio.

3 Q. I'm qoir1g Lo ask you quc,;Lions, you provide

4 1ne Ll1e answf'rs lo L11e best of your knov1l edqe.

A. I will.

Q. And ii you need to Lctke a break 1or any

reason, we' 11 stop it at cu1y time.

8 A.

8 Q. Your at.torney' s en tit.·! ed lo make oh-jHctio11s.

10 If he wants you to nldke an oh-jecl.ion, he ,,,i.l.1 13a.y it

1·1 on ll1c record, arid we wi 11 "jusl give him a liltle

12 t.irnc so hA car1 put it on the .record, then I ' l l ask

Lhe next q11e'3Lion oc qi.ve tl1c answer. Okay?

A. Okay.

Q. Tliat's "hOllL .LL.

16 You are not ct regi ..stf'red -- regi st.ered

17 l'roi:el3Sional l<:ngi11ecr?

1 am r10L a licensed Professional Er1glneer.

o. Or a .registered Profess',onal E11<,Jineer.

A. I don't know the difterence.

21 Q. Okay. (;ood.

22 You ilrf' r10L a licensed Professional Engineer

7.3 in Soutll C'.arol.i11a?

'l'hat ',; correct.

2S Q. Or in l\.labamci''

Aldcr,on Reporting C,nmpany 1-SOO·FOR-DEP(J

Y aneaton Price Oolohcr 21 , 20 l 5 Greenville, SC

1 A. TJ1u L 's correct.

Q. Or in Iexcis'

l A. That's correcl.

4 Q. Iind yon havo r1ever bRen">

That's coiroct.

Q. (lkay.

·1 Professional E:r19lr1eer 2nywherc l11 the lln)ted Slctles?

A. Thal's corrRct.

9 Q. OkLI.y. Let's <:al.k d little hit abouL your

10 preparation to write your affidavit. You underst.and

11 that you're l1ere to Lulk. about that?

.I 2 A. Ye.s, l a1n.

Q. lli rl you, in rire1"larcition lo -- for yo11r

11 affidavit, die\ you have an opportunity to spuCLk witli

lei anyone in prorJaratjon of tl1uL affidavit''

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Okay. ConvCJrtJaLlons with your attorneys arc

·;fl nut Lo be discuss<ed orl the rRcnrd or with rnf1; you

19 understand that?

I do.

21 Q. All right. Bnt I cctn ask yo11 aboul

22 rneetingtJ, locati.on of 1ncclings, times o.L ineetings,

23 not tJ11rprising, 2nd things of -char: r1alure. llkay"'

A. Okay.

25 Q. [)id you l1ave an opportunity to s1ieak will1

Alde1 '"n Rcpnrling Comporry 1-800-fOR-DEPO

Vanea\on Price October~J,2015 Giccnville, SC

P.1gc 18

your attorney i_n p_revaration for yoLtr affidavit?

II. _1 di.d.

Q. ()kcty. !~ow many times?

A. r_ <ioz1' L recall specilically, b1lt proUably

:i three or four.

G ~ll1ich attorneys?

7 A. I talked witl1 i11\.ernal Michelin attornAys

B ctnd cxlernal.

o. (lkay. WoulU you be kind enough to tell HLe

10 Lhcir names·_>

A. Nicole Bunt'cn, Kate Ilclm.

12 Q. Nicole Buntin'>

1J A. B-u"·I1-t-i -n.

14 Q. Would you say ll1e namA ctqa_i_r,?

A. Bunt.in.

1"

Q. )-l11ntin, B-u·~n-e-t-i_-n?

No E:.

Q. Okay. B-u-n-t-i-11?

A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. Thank you so much, Mr. Price.

And also Kale, v1hat_'s lier last name?

Helm.

2J Q. 'J'ha11k yoi.1.

24 And lhat 'A'O\Jld b8 -- are those \.t1e extern ct l

25 attorneys or are those tlic internctl ,,,,u_ oxternal

Alderson Reporting Company l "ROO·f(JR-lJbPO

Vancalnn Price Oclobur 21, 1015 Urcenville, SC

allor11ey?

Q. 0\:'1y. So Ni col" would be attorilCY --

1 .internal atlorney, Kate would be the oxlcrna]

Ci attorney?

G A. That's corrGcl.

7 Q. Thank you so n1uch.

tlnyhody else?

In prepc~ration of tl1io; affidavit, I don't

10 Lc·call a01yor1e cl.5"e.

u Q. Yo11 said, Luis, spoke with them

three or lour times. W.iLh ))oth thro::o or four tinlo::s

13 or '"itl1 one more tha11 Lhe other?

A. I don't :cccall -Silecificully which one I

I '1 tillkcd to more oL less.

Q. IJ-Ld you ·1 assunLc lhat with Ms. Buntin,

11 yoci t.a l ked w.iLll her persor1cLlly"!

18 A. Or1 occasion, certainly, yes.

19 Q. Well, would you be kind 2I10L.!gh to spe'1k

?O J oudcr for the courl reporter? Sl1co is haviIHJ

?l dilllculty hearir10 you.

A. Certalr1ly. ·1 will Lry.

23 Q. I sometimes have Lhe same prob:;_cm.

24 llow many time,; do you think you talked to

25 Ms. Bnn1..in or J--\11ntin .i.n preparatior1 Lor your

A.lderson Repnrling Con1pany 1-81111-b'Ol~·DEPO

V•ueaton Price Octobe1- 21, 20 l 5

Page 12 ;

ail.iciavit pe:rsor1alJy?

A. Thi cc or tour.

Q. OkcLy. How lorH,J would tl1otJC take would

1 leost., le:C'" say th cit?

A fe-'li mi n1Jies to -five '"_i_nutes.

6 Q. What ciboui with Ms. llL'lm, liow ma11y ti~e-s do

7 you il1.iri_k yon ,;poke wj th her?

8 'l'hree or four.

'l \oJould that cill be teJe1ihoniL'ally'?

I do11 't recall. Oc·ca.sior1u.lly 5'he':s .i.11 Lown,

u 12 Okay.

13 ·--my recollection _i_s that would have been

14 telcf'l1onically.

1 :; Q. How long wrnild 1-:l1ose contacttJ would have

16 lctste-d with Ms. Helm oil Ll1e phone?

Probably th8 same-; a few Jn.i.nutes to i_i_ve

18 mi nut.es.

19 o. Okay. Dici you -- d_i_d you cover everybody

?O thu.L you spnke, attorney wise, concerr1ir19 your

/'I ali.i.davi t-''

A. A,; I re-cil.ll tl1L' preparation of the

23 afficla,,it, yes.

Q. Thank you so much.

25 What. ahouL other iucl_i_vidua1 s will1-'.n the

Al<lerson Reporting Con1pany l -800-FOR"DEPCJ

VancaloJt Price ()clobur 21, 1015 Greenville, SC-

l co1npctny in preparation of youL ull.iclavit 1vithin

3 A. I nay have talkccl w_i_th som'°'one in the

4 specifi_cat1ons qroup.

5 Q. Who would -Ct1ctl be?

A. I do11'L recall speci-fir:a11y who w_i_1-hir1 the

sper:ificuL.io11s group.

8 so1nc JlUilil:icrs, and I may havfl talked w.ilh so1nebody t.o

9 vul_i_datc nul'lbers a11rl sper:iticuL_i_o11s; that seems

10 reasonable, but I rlon't l1uvc a sr,ecific recolleci-:ion.

11 Q. Who would bG Lhct·L perso11 -chat. yo11 know ol?

J2 Who rlo yon know _i_11 ·chc sr,ecifi_cati ons qronp?

A. Oh, Ll1crc are several people thuL I know --

Q. Tell me thei_r namf's, pleusc.

A. __ ,, in speci -Fi c'1t:ior1s.

Carl" Wi nqate.

1/ Q. Carlo''

18 A. CarJ.u.

Q.

A. Correct.

Q. 'llho else·:

22 A. ]_ don't: reme1nboL ur1ybody else in p?.rrcic;.ilar.

23 It's ljkely Carla thul I wocild have talkerl •.o.

24 o. And whut _i_s Carla's group caJlerl?

Alrler«m RLt>orting Company 1-800-110ll-DEPO

Vancalon Price October2J,2015 (lrccnvillc, SC

Page> 14

Q. And whal does that relalu Lo?

o;F}eci.i:icacions for tirus.

~). \olheru does Carl" h'ork?

At MARC.

Q. Arid tl1e dep2rtnler1L dt MARC callccd Lhe

6 SpRcificLlLiotl Depart:me11L?

A. I t>e J i RVR tl1ul ' s correct:. I don't kno,., the

8 8xu.cl na1ne, b;it I would refer t o i l as Specifications

9 Department. --

Q. Okay.

n A. -- or Speci fi catio11e; Group.

12 Q. Tl1ank you c;o 1nucl1, M:::. J'ri <Ce.

13 I\r1ybody else Ll1at you v1oul<i l1avu spokRn

14 >1itt1ir1 Michelin <oor1curning prAparation of your

1:, ailiddvit'?

Not tl1ccL I re ca 11 .

Q. Oku.y. So (_'.arl" ir1 S~>ecs.

18 llow long have you know11 \;arla?

19 A. Pro[,a[Jl y since 2007 when I slurled \;orking

?O at MARC.

Q. Okay. All right. And sir1ce you have kr1own

22 Carla, hac; she always work in Specs, s1iecificillions?

23 A. To 1ny recollActior1.

24 () . Okay. And you called her cor1curr1.i.r1g

25 prRparill.i.on for thi.s u.ll.i.davit on thic; case, and Dn

Alderson !lepn11iTig Company l ·800"F(JR -DLPO

Voneaton Puce October21,2015 (Jrccoville, SC

1 th_i.9 .speci±ic case the tire tl1ul we're taltinq aboul

2

3 MR. BULLION: O))jec-::i on; tor1n.

4 THE: WITNESS: It i .s, and I inay

,, have cal1ed l".Ar. Sl1c 01ould have bee11 u JJOrson,

6 .i.£ I DeedArl ir1iornw.Llon on the nu1nbcr ol spec.s,

'/ that person I "'ould have qone to.

8 BY MR. c;\Je::'-:RA:

Q. So you' re not sure ii you called her"

A. I do11' t have a sr.>ec.i.llc memory of talkiillJ to

1I her.

Q. Bcit i f you d.i.d Lalk to somebocly, wOLLld that

13 l1LlvO been 0Rr"

It wou.l.d have tieen her re.l.ulcd to the

lC> r1umbers of spcc.i.ficat.i.011.s i.nvo.l.vod in thjs ilffi.davil.

16 Q. Okuy. l\nyhorly el,;o, Mr. Price?

A. No, not that I '1n

Q. Okay.

-- aware ol.

o.

21 A. I'nL in the 1.egai Deparl1nont.

Q. Logal Department.

/.1 Sow many pAOf.>18 1vork at tlie 1,,,gal

/4 Deparlmont, pl e2se?

25 '· Ilbo1lt ~ 0.

Alderson Repu11ing Cocnp"ny 1-~00-FOIZ-Dfil'O

Vancalon Price Octobeill,201.'i Greeaville, SC

Pogc 16

Q. And t_hey are wl1at are they, I n1ccccr1 _i_r1

,: yc·neral: would you g.ivo rne a sc.rrrrmcii:y oi tl1cc peo1>lt'

3 that work t_here'>

They would generally he i11 Crccccnville.

4 A.

'"

5 c~~eenvi l le.

6 Q. Ir1 Green vi 11 e.

Bltt who -- what urcc Lho_i_r -- what is tho_i__r

8 ])ackg.rour1ci; are they la1oJyc_r:s, are thRy pciral<-igaltl 1

9 '-llC Lhey secretaries?

10 A. All oi Ll1c above.

11 All ol Ll1c above.

12 A. Arid cr1gineers.

Q. Okay. Re~;i stered 011g_i_11L'crs, li_censed

A. I don't kl'ow .i.l Lho other enqineer,; L<l'.O

16 licensed.

11 Q. Any ol Lhom?

18 A. I do11't know.

Q. Any of t.hRm"!

A. I don't know ii uny of them are licer1,;cd.

Q. Whut you're saying is that Lll'-'Y inay

22 l1ave some -- tl1ey have education in engi11corir1g·;

23 A. Ye,;, ll1oy l1ave engineering c!ogroes.

24 Q. Okuy. Bu-:: you rlon't kr1ow lf a s:,_ngle one of

?'i those iud_i_v_i_duals c:hcit works '-'1-' LJ-1ere in Mfl.RC revie,;

AIJcr•on ltepo1ting Company 1-800-FOR-DFPCJ

Vaneato11 Puce Oclohcr 21, 2015 Gree11,ille, sr

1 is a l i cer1scd or regi ste:rcd cr1gine<>r ar1ywl1cre i11 t.he

2 Unit<>rl Slulcs?

A. I don't know.

4 Q. Okay. 'l'ell ir.c the i1arnf's oi Lhe enq',11eers

S i-:bu.l work with yo'-' lr1 the l,eqcil Dllpdrtment.

Mi chcif'l Wlsc~1husen cind Doug ::;J.aqh.

, . Q. You I~'-'Y l1ave to spe_ll Lhat name for

A.

o. No, the other 011c.

10 A. Good luck.

MR. BULLJ(lN; You' vc dE'f>OSf'rl hi"'

Lwice, >1onld ll1ink you won_ld knov1 how to -- ho\\'

J_ 3 to spell tl1e nam£>, 1irobably.

MR. c;OERRA: I'm sorry?

MK. BULLION: You've deposed him

twico.

:7 ~!R. GUERRA: Oh, I know, hllt the

court reporter u1cty r1ot know.

'"

MR. MULLION: W--i-.s-c-h-h-u-s-e··n.

20 MR. \~UE:RRA: I like Mr. Wlscl:husen

21 " lot.

22 BY MR. CUE:RRll:

Q. So you sciid, Luis, thcit's ll1ree eng)nf'<>rs,

?4 thrc:c: p12ople thcit L>rc train<>rl as cr19ineecs in your

?!i Legctl Departrr.f'r1t groc1p.

Al<ler"m Reporting Company 1-800-l'OR-DRPO

Vaneaton I'<ice October2J,20J5 G1eenvillc, SC

1 A. T11at' s ,-,orr<Jcl,

2 Q. how nluny attorneys?

3 A. I don't kr1ow the exc;ct r1umber cf '1ttorr1cys.

o. c;i 'Te m8 yol\r best shol.

A. '[','18 l V8.

L] • '''welvo. Inclu,-Jir1g Nicole t_hat we Lalkecl

·1 about·:

8 A. Tl1aL's correct.

Q. I11cludi nq Ms. Foster'!

10 A. Yes.

Q. She -- sl1c heads the g.loup, the legul grour>?

A. Not tl1c Legal iJAparL1ncnt.

Q. l-lnt Lhc legal qroup witl1_in ':he Legal

14 Depart.l'lent?

15 A. Product J,i.nbiliLy c;roup.

16 MR. GUE.RRA: Okuy. Wi .9chhusor1,

_i_c;11't that an Alaba!lla -fau? I thought thul his

kids went Lo Iilabama, didr1' t thAy'!

MR. IJULLION: I don' L know ·whAre

his kids go to school.

21 MR. GUERRA: We lalked a lot ol

±oolbal1. I thir1k it was Alubama. MC!yb8 I'1n

,.·rong. Maybe I'm wronq.

2~ DY MR. GUf:RR.ll.:

Q. All 1-ight. You said, r_,ui s, tl18rC' s abon":-.

Alderson lleporti11g f:ornpany 1-800-FOR-DC-PO

Vanca~in Price ()clobcr 21, 20 15 ('~ ccnvi lie, SC

Yec;h.

Q. -- givo o_r take?

I knovi LJ-1e exa,-,t. nu1nbcr oi en<J1neers, I

5 don't know Ll1c exact numl-,ers oi lawyeTs,

6 Q. So j_f vie go witt1 you£ numbers, ther1 we have

7 ?:S otl1u_r lolks. \oJho aru Ll1cse 25 ot.her ±o_l_ks?

A. There ~re pL!rcclogals, t.hAre a_ru admins.

Q.

l:Rrtair1ly Ll1ere arA secrul:a-<:ies.

11 I) • Anybudy else I 'm missir19?

12 Tl1crc are peoplA wl10 work in -- in Property

13 llcimage.

Q. Property Oa1nagc.

15 Wl1at do you call tl10.se folks?

A. Cl aimc; udjltsters

~). Clai1ns acljusters.

18 A. -- would be t_he ter1n lhat I '>101ild L1'<8.

19 don't kr1ow if that.'s their Litle.

Q. Okay. f-low lor19 have you '"orkGd ul that

21 dcpctLLment, Mr. Price, please?

22 A. fli nee 2012.

C) • 2012. Okay. Al-1 riglll.

24 Now, yo-,1 -- yon c'-111 yoltrse1 f on thal

25 affidavil_, job ti·tle, a,; Senior Technir:al Adviser,

AldcrsoJl IZeporting Company 1-800-FOR·DEPO

Vaneaton Price (Jc1ober21, 2015 Greenville, S(:

l rj_ght_.,

A. 'l'llat 's t.he tit'lC of the p0sit.i.011.

Q. That's your jul> title, rigl1L?

4 A. Yes.

5 o. I'lnd you l!uvc 11eld that potJ.i.tion .since 2012·;:

1 have.

Q. Wh'lt _i_t; tl1e -- Mr. SlctgJ-1's joh tit.le?

8 A. Ser1.i.0L Technical AUviser.

Q. Wl1'1L is Mr. Wiscl1husen' s -job L.i.Lle?

10 A. Tcc.·hnJ_cal Dircclor.

11 Q. Do yoii '"ork w_i_th Mr, Wiscl1t1ut;er1 directly?

A. I clo.

o. Would il be fair to cc1ll l1in1 yo11r buss?

A. He is not iny boss.

Q. Wl:o would J-,e your boss7

16 A. K_i_p Fostf'r.

J_ 7 Q. Ki[J f'oster.

1B Does -- W.i.tJchhusen is tl1c boss of anyone

19 wilt1in the cleµuLLment'!

A.

21 Q. Okay. 1s anyl~ody the boss <>i W.i.schhusen

22 within ll:c department?

23 A. Kip )<'oster.

Q. Kip J,'oslcr.

25 And i,; Lhat Mi SS or MLS - ?

/\Jdcr.<Oll Ropo1tiug Co1npany 1-800-FOR·DRP(J

Vaneaton Price Octohc.,- 21, 20 I 5 Greenville, SC

Page 21

1 A. M.t:o;,

Mrs. t'ostPr is u lav»yer?

A. She is.

Q. Till right. Wl1at about this lL>dy Carla

Q. Paralcgctl.

3 Ilow many para.l E'Ogals clo we l1avp lJp thco.t:L' at

A. I don't_ know Ll1c exact n11mher.

.,,' Q. (~ive me your best shot., please.

Six o::: so.

13 Q. All :::ltjlil. Te 11 me, would you be kind

14 enough to toll me, whcit_ is Ms. Foster --

15 Mrs. Foslcr's job title''

A. Director of Lillgation.

Q. D.irf'Octor oi Llligati_on.

18 And you tJald someth) ng <1boul - ·· wl-io is tl1e

19 director of products Jicihi.lity?

20 A. I didn't say cinytl1i<1g about a director 0£

2-1 products liability, J-,11t lliaL 1-iould be Kip, o;hc's head

?? of the yroup.

Q. Clkay.

A. 'l'he Lititjulion Group.

Q. 'J'ha11k you so rnnch.

A hlcT«Ht Rcporling Company 1-800-FOil-DF.PO

VancaLon Price October 2 J, 20 15 Greenville, SC

P.ogco 22

'lihat yo1i're ,;uy.ir1g .is, Luis, t_hat'" i10L a

2 L.il_l_e, director ot prouucLs liabilit.y, rignt?

3 A. .: <ion'" k11ow tr"e exact t_itle.

4 (). Okay. And Mr. \~ischhusen, you sa.ici, is a

5 Technical DirccLor of Li_tigation?

6 A. Tl1u L ' s correct.,

Q. So you are a :ienior Tccl1r1ical Adviser o±

8 Litigul.ion?

A. In the l"itigulion Group.

Q. No>1, in µreparation for t_hjs depos.ilion, did

11 you have an opporlur1.ity to meet >1ith Ll1c olher

13 A. 1 did.

Q. How many t_imes?

l5 A. 1 rer.all two Liincs.

16 Q. l'ersonal 1ncclings?

1; A. guess 1 WOllld say yes c.c tl1u.L. 1 don't '

18 kno'v ,,,ha,-_ yuu mean by "personal xnecli11gs."

Q. Ti:1dnk you. 1,i ve.

A. Yes.

Q. \'/110 'NO\Jld be Lhc individuil,ls that you would

22 l1ave met as your u.Llorneys on those 1i't8 mccti11gs,

23 please"!

24 To1n Bullion.

25 Q. AnyJ-Jody el.se'?

/\ l<lcrson Reporting Compm1y 1-800-FOR"DRP(J

VaTicaton Price Octobe1 )!, 201.\ \-rrccnvillc, SC

P.1g~ 23

At times, Nicole Hunt.in was there.

' A.

Q. Nicole, your co11eaque --

Yes.

Q. thul we talked abouL?

Al__l_ r.igl1t. \\'hen d_i_d this personal_ meeting,

6 the fi rsl or1e, took place, please?

A. Monday· a ft.err1oor1.

Q. This Monday ctfternoon, so _i_1 Loday is t.l1e

'l Llsl, would t.hilt l1avc been the LOLl1?

A. 'l'hat's <.:01·rect.

n Mk. BlJLLION:

Mk. CUERRll.: I'm sorry.

MR. BULLION: 'l'oday' s WednesrlFly.

MR. GUERRA: Oh, Ll1ank you, 'l'om.

,,, 19th.

16 DY 1'1R. c;ur:RRA:

". Vilas Ll1at the first 1nccling wit_h Mr. Bullion"!

18 Yes.

19 Q. Where dirl t.hal meeting t.'!ke place?

A. Here at. tt1ls office.

Q. Nelson ML>llins"?

22

Q. Anybody else presco11i other t_h2n you anci

24 Mr. H1illio11?

25 A. I beli_eve Kai::o I-lcolm.

Alders011 Reporting Con1pany l "~00-F(JR-UEPO

Vaneat~n l'Jicc October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

1 o. Was ulso Jive?

i\ . Yes.

Q. How long rli<i Lhat rneetiuy take plucc?

A. Rougl1ly an J1our.

Q. Ar1ybody else pre.sent or or. the pl1one 'l.t Ll1ctt

6 raeet. i nq"

A. 011 t_he 19Llc, there was no 011e else present

8 that I recall.

Q. What ctbout the second mecling, wher1 did the

10 scc:ond meeti11g take pluce, Mr. P.rlce, }Oleusc?

A. Or1 the /_Otl1.

Q. So yesterday, '1'1lesduy?

A. It did.

Q. 'llhere did C.hat scc·ond mAAti11g takA pluce?

15 A. HAre ctt this ollice.

16 Q. Whul timA was Lhat nne?

A. I belipve wc got starlcd i_n t:he 1norn_inq

18 arotinrl 11inc.

Q. llnrl las Led tint.l l?

A. Ahont lour o'clock, as I .recall.

21 o. \olho was f>TAser1L, plf>c;.se?

2? Torn Bull i.on.

0.

Danean Slurino.

Q. Tell me Ll1at aqair::, pleas2.

AldL>rson Reporting C<impony 1-800-FOR·DEPO

Voneaton Price Oct{)\lc,- 2 I, 2015 Greenville, SC

!'age 25

1 Dur1ca11 St11rino.

Q. uanea11 <

3 A. Yes.

Q. StuT'nci''

A.

Q. Would yoLL be kind eno11gl1 Lo s1)el.1 the liltiL

IldIBe, fllRFlSe'?

8 A. I'nL i1ot SUTR that I know the correct

9 spel.l.i11g, Lut I woqlrl sµcll .i.t phonet.i.ccilly

10 :i-t.-o-r-.i.-r1···0.

MR. BULLION: It.' ti S-L··u-r-i -n-o,

1.2 I tl1i:-ik.

13 BY MR. GIJf:kkA:

o. Do you · - do you d.ic\ you know Ms. SLltrino

15 prior t.o i..l1ul meet.inq''

16 A. Yes, rlirl.

Q. De? yo1i know ·,vf1cre ShR >1orks'?

~Oh8 works .i.r1 Chi.caqo .

Q. :ihe works io Chi r:aqo Lor?

20 A. I }Jcl.ieve a lciw fir111 called <J'Hcig'111.

21 Q. Called >1hat.'?

2? A. O'Hagan.

Q. O'Hagan.

All rigl1L.

A. y" s .

AlderNun Reporting Compnny 1-800-fOR-DFPO

October 21 , 20 I 5

(;rcenville, SC

~age 26

Q. In Chica.go?

A.

3 Q. Arid dld you have un occasion i:o Jncct her

4 before or1 0L~1cr J~_i chelin cc<scs·<

5 A. No, ::iot relatod lo cases.

Q. Would yo11 bo klnd eno1iqh to Lcll l'lE' who

7 inlrod;iced yo1i l'.O Ms. Sturino''

A. Nicole !3unlin.

Q. 1~ ,;ho an employee ol Michelin''

10 A. Ms. SLurino·;

11 Q.

1?. A. No, she's riot ctn employee ol Mlche1in.

·1 J f;he'" arl attorney tl1ul repres<>nts Mlcl1elin.

Q. Ms. -- vouuld you say it c1gai11, thf' r1unLc 1 so

I earl remf'rnhf'I lL?

A.

17 Q. JusL tl1e last nurnc.

18 A. Slur.i.no.

Q. Is t.hat Ms. or Mi:s. ·;

! don't know.

Q. Okay. Iill right. So other than Torn Bullion

22 and Ms. Stuilno, anyl-,ody else present?

23 A. Kale Helm.

24 Q. Kate H<>lm.

_7\nybody eltJc?

Al<lersoa Rc11orling Co1npauy 1-800-1 10ll-Dill'O

Vaneaton Price October 21, /.015 Giccnvillu, SC

A. MichFlel Wigg.ins.

Q. Michae1- Wiygins,

Q. Who i:i Mr. \~iggins''

A. He's ui1 attorney thul works j_n f'loridcc.

~)' Q11ilc Lhe powwo;,'. FO\lT cittor-IlL'yS e:nd

6 Mr, i'rice or' a meetinq ye:;Lccrday"?

MR. BULLION: (Jh-jection; ;:orm.

'I"i!E WITNE',SS: I bL'licve t.licir

Nicole Kunti11 Wilt; t11ere.

10 BY 11R. c;uv.RkA:

0. So tivc attorneys. Tl1unk you so mucl1,

12 Mr. l'ri.ce.

13 Ai1ybody e·1se tl1ul we may have 11Lie1scd out"!

A. Not t"hat I rocall.

15 Q. llny of tl1c -- youi: ot_her -- any of -- otl1or

16 co-workers that work wi_th you at Ll1c Legal

18 A. Ne.

19 Q. Thank yo\l so much.

?O Did yo\l kr1ow Mr. W_iggins prior to t"his

21 1necling?

21 A. '! did.

23 Q. Did you work '"'th Mr. 'lligg_i_11s on otl1cr

24 c·as<>s''

25 A. I have worked oi1 one case v1itl1 Mr. l~iggins,

Alderson Ilepo1ting Con1pany I -800-FCJR-UEPO

Vaneaton Puoe Octobef21,20!5 (;rccnville, ~C

1 Q. Mi. W.iggi11s also i s " ' ' '1Llorr1ey out of

3 A. Tl1a t' s C<)rrecT..

Q. Thank you so mucl1.

How were you i11L.roduced t.o Mr. Wiggins?

A. recull., Lhe same 'ii"':{; probLCbly through

'/ Ms. Buntin.

8 Q. 'l'hrougl1 your ivork'!

9 A. Tl1'1L' s correct..

lO Q. All right. .l\nytiod.y else? Did _you ever --

11 you suiJ. !lo"?

A. I didn't undersland the questior1.

Q. Anyho,.Jy o.lsc?

14 A. Anybody else?

lS Q. Present on this seconci 1neclin<J.

:16 A. No.

Q. Or on the pho11e dur.iny the .second 1neeling?

Q. 'l'hank you.

That luciy that you said, Lu.is, if 1 ivo1ild

21 have cal.1.od would be Ms. Wingate or Mrs. Winqate, she

?? WCtsn't present in ilny of tlie ntcetings"?

A.

Q. (laky. AnyboJ.y else that you have Lalked,

2Ci either i.r. pre1~aralion for tfJi s depositio11 or in

AldersOTJ RL11nrling Cornpany 1-8110-FO!l-DEPO

Vaneaton Price ()clohcr 21, 20 15 C-rrccnville, SC

1 prPparaL_i_on for thc: ctifidavit, rc::Caterl to bc.:Cn<J an

2 employee of Mi chellr1?

A. Not thul I recall.

Q. AJ'ybody from the pla.11t ir' 1Jotl1cu1?

,, Not l:1 f>repar'1tior1 for thi.s.

Q. Or lor the '1fi:.i.davit"!

A. A.:.i.i.davit.

8 Q. Or the deposition'!

9 A. Or to tt1e dcposit.ior1, correct..

10 o. Anyhorly Lhat v1orks ir1 the Chemiccll

:1 Laboratory for M.i.cheJ in pICf1:1ring fornLulations"'

0.. Any chemical cr1g.i.neer, licensed chemicLll

11 en0ineeI?

15 A. Preparation for this''

16 Q. For ai:i:.i.davit or depo.

"! 7 No.

Q. Okuy. llnyborly Ll1at is Arl"juc;Lment 'l'i re

lY Inspector Lll Michel.ir1 --

A. No.

21 Q. in picparation for Uepositio;1 or

22 af:tido.vit?

A.

Q. Anybody that "'orks for '1ny oi the J)esigr1alcd

25 Return Cenlcrs for Micl1clii1·1

Alderson Reprirling l'ocnpm1y 1-~00·FlJK-llEPO

Vonoatun Price (Jetobe~ /.l, 20 l 5 G1eenville, SC

P.ogc JC

P<. No.

Q. For eilher oi thA Av;cnts; uiiidciviL oc tl1c

3 deposiL_i_on?

A. Not ill preparat.ion for this, 110.

Q. Anybody tt1at i.s '-' LirA spcctor or verii_i_er,

G tirc veri_fj_cr at Lhe pcoduoti on 1ir1e"!

7 I didn 'L unrl.,rslanrl the w·ord.

8 (). Did you specik 1-1ith ar1ybody i11 r>rPparation oi

') Lile Flf±idavit or the dcpo.si_tiotl th'1t was a Lire

10 spector or ti_r:c veriiier in Lhe productior1 lines?

A. ara not_ ±urai]iar with tt1c t:erm "tirA

12 spec Lor."

Q. 'I·110Sf1 guys at the [l.specl Po.st.

14 I did 11ot.

Q. Okay. C.1i'lSS Spector, I tl".ir1k that's thP.

16 t·erm lhat you guys use.

A. YAs, yAs. I did riot tcilk with ur1yonA eJ.se

18 in Class Spector in prP.parcttion.

19 Q. Thank you .oio 1nuch.

20 ML. l'cicc.

Anyl~ody in tl1e ]lesigni11g Dcpart.mAr1L?

A. No.

23 Q. M:r. Nortt1iup?

Ne.

25 Q. Mr. G"rucr1hol z?

/\ ltlcr,on lteporling CornpOTI}'

1-800-F(Jll-DEPO

(Jctobcr 21, 20 15

Greenville, SC-

A. Ne. "" ' 1:

Q. of t_he de3igll2L.J ol Lhl8 2pcc1 fJ ~ tire

3 l_r1 1)reparati on for the dcrJoe;ltion or the affidavil,

4 did you specik to any ol Lhcm?

5 A.

6 Q. All Lighl. Did you hcive an opp0Llur1ity to

7 look at t_l1e Lire itsel.f, t_he 3nb-ject Ll:r.e?

A. I have.

Q. Okay. 1/hen it was here?

1

A. Ye.s.

11 Q. <Jkay. Who else looked at that tire 1vl1eu you

12 were looking al Ll1e Lire?

MR. BU'l,l,JON: Don'l unswer that.

MR. (;lJJ.:RRA: Excuse me?

MR. BULLION: I said: "llon't

answer that.. "

MR. GUERM: Rased on what?

18 MR. BULLlON: Ha3ed on IJrivilege.

MR. GUJ.:RRA: I'1n jusl askin'] who

MR. GULLION: I've mad<" my

objection or my slalcment.

23 MR. GUERRA: I'm sorry?

24 MR. BULl,ION: l made iny e;Latcment.

MR. (~UJ.:RRA: And wllal ls that.

,\l<len.nn Rcporli"g Cotnpany l -300-fOlt-IJEPO

Vaneaton Prico Octobe121,201'i Greenville, SC

F.og<0 32

1 MK. BULLION: Don't 2nswer Ll1at.

l:\aseri on"

''· GUt:RtlA:

MR. BULLION: l'rivilege.

MR. GUERR..'\.: W'1ich privilege?

MR. BULLI!)N: Work proUuct.

MR. rour~kkA: l-li1ich f>rivilegc•! He

js not. en ullorney.

8 M,. 8\JLLION: Work prodnct..

9 ''· CUE:RRA: l'lll r1ght.

I0 HY MR. CUERRI'I:

I1 Q. l'lre you goC.r1g Lo follo·.v the inslructions of

12 your attorney?

em.

14 Q. Okuy. How Jonq did yoLL yourself look '1L

A. Probably 2n l1our or two.

Q. Okay. Did you yol1rsel f unwrap il?

No, I didr1' L.

Q. L.Jid you yocirse l f video taf>o it?

20 A. I v.idcotar,ed the 1111p'1okir1g of the u11U Lho

21 rer:er-,tior1 of the evidence, I did.

Q. Okay. IJ.id you yourself took r10Los?

A. I d) d not tuko notes.

Q. Nr1w, t.ho --

1 w'111L Lo r1lease cl arii:y that.

AlderNon Rcporling lompm1y 1-~UO-FOIZ-D.FPO

(Jctobcr 11, 20 15

Greenville, SC

Q. Please.

·-- --- __ , ' ----

A. I I I HLciY. ,_ "'·'='[-' L.L<..'>C

3 in lerms of the ti TA is l1cre, wi1at camf' w.it:h it,

1 µicces and :;-iart.s, whAels 1 ior exampl R, c;n<i wl1cre it

came from, thA date Ll1ecl it was rP.r:Aivf'd. I make a

note of t_hosA thir1gs. Bllt .in t:f'rms oi Ll1c tire

7 itself, bAyo11d recording the DOI-, I didn'L make not.As

8 al1out: t:he Lire.

Q. You were not th"' perolon designatf'rl to

10 ir1sµccL Lhat tire; is tl1ul wl1at yoli'rR telling 1uc?

n. That.' s correcl.

o. So1"cbody else was, c;nd I understand

13 that your atto:rr1cy

14 MR. (;!Jl•:H.H.A: You' Lee goin'} t_o make

15 ar1 objection j_f I 2Sk t:hul 4ucstion, ri qht:''

'·C MR. BULLION: ~le' re i1ot: qoi11g Lo

l ') tc~lk aJ-JOllt: Michelin's cxr,erts.

18 MR. GUERRA: All righl. No

19 problf'Om.

So my point bciny is if I ask

quctillons about. that, you're goill'} to tell your

client: Jlon' t: ans1;cr Ll1at, woi:k product oi

LJ attorney-client pr_'_vilege'!

MR. BllLLlUN; Riqht.

25

A\dei~un Rcpurthig Cotnpany 1-800-fOR-DEPO

Vaneaton P1ice ()clubcr 21 , 201 5 Clrccnvillc, SC

1 MR. RUl,l.f(JN: It l1de; 1nore to do

>1ith th8 lact that we llaven' t ues.i.gr1ated f'Xp8rts

3 yet --

MR. ClJE:RRA: That's okay.

MR. GULLION: -- and yoll 're 110L

erotitled to know wllo Oltr experts are.

, . MR. GUERRA: I'm not goi11g to

8 fight. you or1 Ll1c{L !"::ere, for sure. I'1n not

9 waJving ur1y objecti.ons t.hat I l1uve, !)Ure

ob-jec:L.i.011 fl'Offi an arqumer1t slar1cipoint that I n1uy

1nu.ke, bllt I respRct. wl1uL you're saying and I'1n

12 r10L going to 'Naste Lime tociay ber.aqs8 o± your

lJ objections.

14 BY MR. (01JO:l!.o{A:

15 Q. So li I were to asi;c you, Mr. Price, givP rn8

16 all your r10Les of your insp8ctior1 oI the tire, you

17 ,.,ould secy, Luis, first, I llclV<e 110 r1otes oft.hat,

18 riglll?

19 'l''iat's corrccl.

20 o. And scconJ., I 'Nas 11ot inspGcllng the ti rP,

21 Light.''

A. I looked at t.he tirG when it came in.

Q. You looked at. it?

A. Yes.

Q. Hllt. you wo:r.c uot the ti re in'°pecl.o.L Jor tl1at

Alders~u Repnrting c:urr<pony 1-ROO-Fllll.-Dl!PO

Y&rlCHLOll Price ()c~>bur2L2Ul5 \-rrccnvillu. SC

inspect.i on'?

2 A. 'l'haL ''3 correct.

J o. On ur1y days i t ,;as here _i_r1 so,1tl1 Carolinu?

4 Tl1uL 's correct.

Q. And i t was -- '"here 1.Jas it locr.terl, the

6 tire?

A. lit MARC.

Q. At MARC.

\'Jithin 1vhich depart.ment at 1'1ARC?

10 '1"he L.iL.igation c;roup ha,; u room at MARC ±oi

11 that purpose.

l7 Q. VldS it in a room, like an office''

A. I v1ouldn't cor1sidc.r it an office.

Q. What. >1ould you call it"!

We would .rcie.r to it as The Ld)).

Q. 'l't1e Lub. Okay.

Tl1<.1L' s not yo\lr place ol employment, your

IR t.rciditior1ecl placf' of employ1~ccnt?

A. I work there probal-,ly a couple ol days a.

20 \o/CCk..

Q. BuL that's not wl1ul you call yo\lr

22 office''

23 A. Tl1dl 's correct.

24 Q. But you .~2i d iT. '" pdrt of thf' l.itigL>t.i.on

?:i Deparlrncnt, so occcisior1ully I go thf'l'.f'.

Alderson Reporting Cnmpa11y l "800·F(JR-DEPO

Vanoa(on Price Oc~lhcr21,2015 c;rccnville, SC

II. 'l'hcit 's correct.

Q. All right. woo Mk. GUERRl\.: Wo\lld you object to

the quesL.ion, Tom, il ~ asked hi1a how ntany people

,-ireser1L?

MR. BULLl(lN; 'llher1 he inspeclcd

it?

~!R. c;111·:kRA;

looked cit 1:l10 tire.

Mk. BULLION; No, r10.

11 BY MR. (;lJERR".:

12 Q. 'li'l1cn you .looked at t11e tire, how many [_leof>le

13 1-lere pICt!Cllt in the room?

A. To my kr1owlcdge, lust 1tLysclf.

IS o. (Jkil.y . .l\_'ld if I -- il I -- if I'111 golng t.o

16 press yo1i on your notf's, all I wi.11 fir1d .i.11 your

1·1 notes is tlie logi.st.ics oL Lhe arrival ol the t)rf',

18 ri ghi-:?

A. That's correct.

o. J will gel the videotclp.i.ng of the un[Jack.ing

21 ol Lh.o ti rf', pa.cl of yo\lr ti.le?

22 A. There .i.s a vi df'otupc of iinpack.ir1g.

2J () . J\.1ul do yoii do tlic same on tl1c packing and

24 sending .i.L out, do you

25 That's co:crecl.

A!dersou Rc11orling Con1pany 1-~0U·l•OlZ-DET'O

Vm1eotttll Price (Jctobel' 21, )0 I 'i Grecnvillu, SC

Q. Do yo11 also v.ideota1ie it?

A. I Ju.

Q. Anri you ulso writ<" notes?

u. (Jkay. Dll.ting th<" ti'"" Ll1at th<" tiic was

6 here, was tl:crc a log fnr tl1cc p<0opJe that goL to

') inS\"}f"Ct il?

8 A. Not to my knowlccdge.

o. Okay. Whilt would be -- wl1'1L would b<" your

·co rol" concerninq tJ1uL Lire·;

A. ' ,;oulJ receive t_h,, ev.iclcnce, loq thro

12 cvideno<" in, .took at th<" <"vidci1ce, anrl

13 Q. V ldco Lape.

14 A. -- viden -- w<J11, vi<Jeotap<" wl1cr1 I log it in

JS Find videotape wh<"n I pilCk it and ship .iL back out.

o. Is that u -- is that " spcccliic dRsi.qr1'1tloil

l7 io.r: the p<"rsor1 Ll1aL does thFtt?

'l'he STl\.s tha·t are '1ss.igned to thR l11dlvidual

2G Q. So tl1e ~OE"nio.r: Technical Arlviscr ass.ign<"rl to

/I the caue does t.hat?

A. That.' s correct.

23 o. All rigl1L. You are uluo not an attori1cy,

24 right'?

A. I illn llOt .

/\ ldorson lteportlllg Company 1-800-FOR·DE~O

Oclnhcr 21 _ 2015

Greenville, SC

Q. '{ou don't hav2 you c!on 't_ havo ccny law

3 A. That's r:orrecl.

Q. Jill Ti qht.

Cotil rl '"" go oll

the rer:ord?

MR. (;UERRA: Yes.

8 'l'Hf: VIDEOGM?_l-:lER: l~oing oI£ the

9 video record at. lU: 02.

10 (A re,cess was taken.)

TllE VIDEOGRAl'l-ll!:R: We. are going

12 back on the video record at 10:11.

lJ BY MR, GUf:RRA:

Q. Mi. Price, so if I -- j_f 1 go 1-,ack ccn<l ask

you il I were to press yoll and say, !icy 1

16 Mr. Pilcc, I want to suu every single r1ulc tl1at yo\l

17 took concerning youi ins1)ection ot Ll1c tire, yo11

18 wo'-!ld saj', 1,uis, I l:1ave none? Tl1<LL' s •,,rhat. you tole\

A. Tl><1L 's corrf1cr:.

21 Q. Thank you. And by "noL.f1," I 1ncar1 anything

2? thai:: you wrote rlo,;n or Lhat yon typed on your

?1 co1nputer; you rlidn' L cio any of thul, right"!

A. (Jther l.l1clr1 the informalior1 I told you al~oul

25 Ll1c receptior1.

Ai<lcn.nn Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DFJ'(l

Vru1eaton l'rico ()clobcr 21, 2015 Greenville, sc:

,, ,e ,, I

1 Q. 'i'l1a11k you so mu ell,

LJ.id you -- so would ii:: J-,e fair Lu ""Y lLdL

3 yon we:r.c -- can ass\llnC or j s it <oorrcct for my --

4 me to ao,scime thr.i-: you were r1resent 011 tl1e arrival oi

:i tl10 Li.re and on tJ1c derJart~ire oi Ll1c tire·:

I iinpackcU

Q.

A. -- 'Lhe ti~e r.nd I packed t.he ti:r.c.

Q. Ar1y other ti1ne -'-Ii bet1;e11n <:hat you were

10 1-ireseni 1-iitb the ti:r.e'.'

A. I am r:ertal11 that I 1vas i11 TJ-1e Lab at o'Ll1cr

12 t=.ntcs and the tire was in 'l'he Lab at those tintetl.

Q. At a11y other t)me tl1al you 1-lere pretJct1L with

14 Lhe tire, diU you 1>1rite aJ1y olher notes?

A.• I want to make tJurc I 1.<ndercota11U the

16 'J'leST.iO!l.

. •3 Q. Sure . You Lold me the r10Lcs that yon wrolc

18 aboul the --

A. 8ecopllon.

20 (). rcceivinq tl1e Lire, a11cl you -- I think

21 you told i~c that you w:r.0L0 no notes ol Ll1e packinq oi

?? the tire?

A. That.' S COI.lCCt.

Q. Ot.her 1-l1un that., any ull1cr not11s that you

25 ino.y ha>1e 1vrit1-cr1 about tha-;: tJubject t_i re?

,\ldcr;on H.epo!ting C~lnpaTI}'

1-800-FOR·DRP(J

Vaneaton Price Octnh.,- 21, 201 s {Jrcenville, SC

Page 40

A. When Lhc tire is rev_i_cwcci vii.th the

;: attorneys.

J Q. Okay. Okay. All r_i_ght.

4 MR. CUERM: assunte Lhat yoii

cb:j eel to my quesL_i_ons on this area?

6 MR. BUL\, I (JN: It you're goinq lo

ask ]1_i_rn for a l_i_st o-:" notes cuid discussions w.iLJ-1

expert_s or 1-uwyers, ! 'rn go_i_I1<J to obje,-,t to LJ-1at.

9 Mi<.. c;UERRA: Okay. All_ :c.igJ-1t.

JO was go.ing to ask you Ll1aL and you're golng to

11 say?

J? MR. BULL] (JN: I'in go_i_r1g to say:

Dori' t answer l:l1<cLL.

Okay.

l:r DY MR. (;IJERRA:

10 Q. Okuy. Ot.hf'r tha11 Lhose notes tl1ul yoll may

17 liave done witl1 t"he atT.oLncys, any othc:r notes t"hat

_Ill yon huve taken there?

A.

o. (Jkay. So to make sure that I am coi:cccL,

21 you have tl1u receiving and packing notes, departure

22 and p'lckir1g 11otes, and r10Lcs that you l1uv" from

23 convertiulio11s 'Hit.h attorneys or Axperl,;?

A. Correct.

?S Q. No other '10Lcs?

Alde1soa Reporting Company 1-800-i'OR-DF-PO

VancatonPnce ()ctobcr 11, 10 15 Greenville, SC

Tl1u L ' s COTrAct'

o. All righr.. Ilow rrtany paqAs do you l1ctvte uI

J nor.As illlogether':'

4 A. \~hat notes?

5 o.

I\. With regu..t:ds to the subject tire?

Q. 'l'hat' s correct..

I do11' t kllO\'I.

9 Q. C.ivc me yo1ir b<Jsl shot.

10 A. T0n.

11 Q. Ten Ilaqes.

1? Ho>1 mar1y oI those "'ou.ld Le pack1 nq u.r1d

I3 Llll]JdCkinq'?

A. I wouldri't r:onsider Lhose pciges; Lhey're

lC> entrif's i11 " log.

lG Q. I'm sorry?

17 A. I wo1ild nol cons)der those page.s; they' LC

IR er1tL.ics in a log.

o. Okay. So the -- ,;o Lhe not.<"s thill we're

20 lalkinq abouL are not_ tl1e r1otes r<"lated Lo the

21 packing ilt!d unpacki nq?

22 A. Tliat's r:oriceL.

23 o. You have Len notes, and Ll1ose notes "'ould l>e

?4 noles 0£ conversullons 'vi-c:;1 youL attorneys?

25 I\.. 'l'ha'L 's correct..

A ldcr<on Repmting Co1npany 1-800-FOR-DEP(J

Vm1entnn Price October 21 , 2D 15 C-rrocnville, SC

Page C?

Q. Ten µuges. T11ank yull so TI\UCh.

? All right. Did you ·--

MR. G1!E:RRil.: Torn, you did suy

tliat, Luis, don't wLlnt yo11 Lo -- l '1n goi11g to

instrucl him nol to unsweT questior1s that .relate

to cor1vorsatio11s witl1 attor11oys arid experls,

I r_i' ght?

8 MR. BUl,LION:

MR. (~l)J.:RRil.: So I'm o:ily askirig

oilier people prc::sent. Do you hav"' a prololeiu 1;i th

MR. DULLJON: I don't understand

what you're asklnq. Ilsk Lhe qi1eslion -- ask the

14 q\lesllon arid I •1iil

1'1 [\'{ MR. GUERRA:

Q. 'llh811 yo11 -- dJ_d you spe,-:lk wi.th unybody abont

17 thA c;ubjAr:t LirA oil1er thun thA expert:; or the

18 attorneys?

19 Not to my recollection.

20 Q. Okay. Ilnybody else, Mir:h<Jlin employee tl1at

~·1 is not an attorney or ari expert reLai.nAd ior this

A. Nol that_ I recall.

Q. Anybody uL J4ARC?

25 A. Not thuL I ,.ecall.

Alderson Reporling Cornp"ny l "RGO·~'Oll-DRl'(J

Vancalun Price ()cluber 21. 2015 C~-ccnvillc, SC

Q. Okay. A11yLody at thA heildqucu::ters'?

Not tlli.11- I .::ecaJ 1 .

3 Q. Okay. A11ybody of youi co-workers that is

4 not an attoir1oy within your Li ligation ilf1part1ne11l?

s A. Nol Lhat

6 Q. Arid you unrlf'rsti.lt1d Ll1at I'm r:alki11g afJOUt

7 the subject tire, rigl1l?

A. I do.

Q. Al.l rigl1l. I\.ny -- 2ny uny e-mails or

10 lc.xt me.s.s2qes wilh a.J1ybody t.'1,,t 1-S not an attorney

11 regarding t!1is subject tire?

12 A. Nol that recali.

Q. Did you review u11y document.s in preparation

14 ±or ll1.is derio.s;ti.on?

A. revi.ewrod nty affidavit.

Q. Anything else?

11 A. I :i.ev.icwed a /Olll <lillu book.

18 Q.

A. That's all tl1al: I recall.

Q.

A.

Q. Any videos?

A. Ne.

24 Q. Any docurnentatio<1 i.or Michel-in thill was

2'i 11,-oducrod in tJ-1is casf1, other t:l1an t.his, 1-l1cse t'>IO

Alderson Reporting c:nmpany l "~00-F(JR-DEPO

VmieatonPnce Octobe1 21, 10 L'i (Jreenoillc, SC

?.1g<' 44

1 doct1mf1nts that you jutJL referred?

A.

3 Q. Okuy. Did you revi f1W them?

A. No, I did not revi AW then>.

Q. But yoci have a copy av'1ilctblc?

A. I l1ad a copy availublu, yes.

Q. Anyth)nq el3A, Mr. Price?

8 "l"hat.'s all tl1aL I .Lecall.

Q. All rigl1L. Ar1d that would have l'""n wl1<er::?

10 When was tl1at r<evicw, these t.hinqs?

A.

Q. On your affidavit., you .rcpcaledly referrAd

.lJ Lo what [Jlai.ntiffs' rAq11estcd, ciLher referrf1d to

14 plai11ti.ffs' request o.r pla.inLi£fs' req1iRst. for

15 clocumRnt.s or pluir1Liils' request for productior1. Do

16 yo\l remember Ll1<.LL?

A. I do.

Q. Did yo\l havA an oppoLtur::iLy Lo participat.A

19 in ll1e answers to t.hosA ditJcovcry reqciests"!

20 A. At t. i.mAs I go arid look at t.hf1 t.Achnical

2l informcit..i.on '1r1d l1clµ .i_f thei:e arA quAstior1s r<egard.ir1g

)) the t.i.res, L<eclltlical informcit.ion.

13 Q. Did yoc1 do that in this spcciiic case?

A. It's very likAl.y thaL I dici. I clon' t hcivA ci

2C. tJpccific memory of t.hcit..

Alderson R.epruting Con1pany I -800-FOR·DEl'(J

Vancalon ~rice ()ctobor 21, 20 15 C'ncenvillo, 8C

Q. llkay, Did you j s t.hAre u JJCrson -- wher1

2 u disco<·ery rAquesL .like this comes irl, is thAre u

3 specific }"}Arsor1 Ll1aL is in charge oI that v1ithi.n your

4 departm2nt?

s Don't cinswer Lhctt.

6 MR, CUE:;tRA: find hy that, wllctt is

your objectinn, To11L?

MR. BUL~ION: Work pLoduct.

MR. GUEPRA: Okay.

MR. RUl,l,lON: And al5'o, .sent

we responded to your Notice, ctnd Texcis law is

very c_l_ectr, you ccin '-r: do discovery cibon-r:

discovery, and yo11' re that'.s what you're

ullcmpting t_o do.

1:; MR. GUERRA; Uiscovery about

discovAry, wl1ctl do you mean by Ll1at? just war1L

to find OLLL who is t.hA pe:rsorl Lhat <Ja'Je tl'e

18 i nfoin,aLion.

MR. GULLION: 'l'AXCIS eusc law is

very speci f_1c tl1al discovery Clboul discovery is

not permitted. We've filed a rctlponse tc> the

22 notice setling ocit t.he casetl.

2J ME. \~UERRl\_: No, I rnecin, I l1ctve

24 never seen your respontle but, yo1i know, I Lake

you:;: wosd for it, bul 1;]1en rl.i d you do _j_ t?

Alders011 Reportil1g Cnmpany I"8GO·f(JR"U!JPO

Voneaion Price October)l,2015 Greenville, SC.

MR. GULLION: YestRrrlay.

M8. JJU.L.LlON: oh, okay.

MR. BULLION: I ""' 11 ±oiward i t to

David.

MR. GU!o~RRA:

6 H1it. t.hR reu.1.i.Ly is that, you kr1ow, the affidavit.

7 is aboul Lhe cliscoVRTY rRcopor1tJCS, and that.' s wl1y,

you k;1uw, I am Rnt.it.led to ask questions aboul

.i.L, but --

MR. BULLION: Yo1i' re er1L.i.Llcd to

ask CJlJf'st..i.ontJ u.bouL the affirlav.i.t, x10 4uestion.

12 J-lut. ,.,hen you gel into t.he procetltl oi us

rRspond.i.119 Lo your rli s,-:overy Lc4uests or t.he 'Nork

!4 dor1c Lo look for rlocumer1ttJ or any of t.hat., tl1u.L' tl

1s r10L permitterl 1lnrler TcxutJ law.

MR. GUERM: -- l di,;u.grcc w.i.th

you J-,ut., you kr1ow, I -- yo\l kno,.,, you 1nake an

18 ohlRct.ion. I'm sure yo1l're goi11g lo al"Jide

19 at,ide by Lhe object:ion 0£ your attorney.

'l'Hf; WITNESS: I am.

MR. CTJERM: (lkay. I '1n nol go.i.01g

2.2 to arguR about il here, tor surR.

23 BY MR. r.;11e:kRA:

\) . Mr. Pr.i.cc, other t.han tllu c1LLorneys, ';hen a

25 l'.E'CJllest. :tci dochlilentation liku Ll1c plair.ti.ff.s dia on

Al<lLTiun 11.cpolting Con1pony 1-300-FOR"DFPO

Vaneatou P1iee October 2 l, 1015 Greenville, SC

1 this cusc cow.es into yo1o:c o1£ice, is tl1ul il Senior

2 '.l'P.chnicc1l _7\dviser or ar1ybody else tllat is not an

3 attortl'-'Y or a p2ralegul that is 2ssigr1"d to respond

4 to Lhat discovery?

l'iR. BIJl,l.l(JN: Do11't answer thul.

Okay.

oh-jec'Cion, Tom?

s MR. BIJLLION: Yes.

MR. CUERful: Okay.

1 [) HY !1R. GUE RM:

o. And do you uncierstand that my question is

12 rolatec! to nor1-logal attorneys o.i: [Jaralegal s; you

13 ur1cJerstand tl1uL, right?

14 A. I do.

15 MR. CUERM: And youi oDjcction

slands",'

MR. BlJJ,I, I (JN: Yus.

·1ou make -- okily.

MR. 1-lULLION: Everybody i11 Ll1c

20 1,eqaJ. Department thal doos tl1_i s wor'zs 1or the

2J

MR. GIJERkA: Okay.

23 MR. BIJl,'1,ION: They're a11

reprP.sentutiv"s ot la,vyers.

MR, (;\JERRA: Okay.

II IJcr.>O<l Rcpo11ing Company 1-800-FOR-DEP(J

V•ncalon Price October 2 l, 20 15 (]rcctiville, SC:

,.,. •R I

llY MR. c;Uf',kkA:

Q. Ts -- 1-S ar1ybndy -- wllcr1 a reqiiesr: 1-ikc cnis

3 comes in T.hL>\_ is non-lf'qal, no lawyers, no

4 paraJeqa1s, ctnd do'l't f've11 wo.ck in the 1egul

c; rlepart11to11L t.hat i.9 tciskod with obt.aining Lhco

6 infoi1naL.ion'!

MR. BUL1,ION: Dori' L answer t_hat.

MR. c;ur:RRA: S Li.lllC object.ion, Toin?

MR. J-\U f"LION: Yes.

MM. GUSRFA: Thank you.

11 BY MK. CUERR~:

Q.

11 pl'1ir1Li::::fs, Wf'Tf' you Ll1e [Jer.son assigr1<ed \\'it'1in

J ~ ~icholin to oht'1ir1 Ll1e in-formatio11 in respon.9e T.o

1'.:i discovery rf'quotJLS?

MR. SULL~ON: You' re talki11g

al-,oul: -- are yo1i t;1lkir1g about. '"hac -- what

urc you tal ki.nq uboul your rli.scovory request"!

MR. GUERRA: YetJ.

MR. J-\Ul.l,fON: Don't answAr tl1ul.

21 He's not go.ing to t_alk '1b~>uL a;1y of the -- ilny of

t-_he -- wl:1ett was rlone to respo11d to your discovery

23 requ<etJl_s; it's not lui.c game.

2' MR. GUERRl'I: (Jkay. I just want

Ll1c identir.y oi Ll:1e pe:rson.

Alderson Rcpnrling Cotnparry 1·800-FO!l-DEPO

Vaneaton Puce October 21, 20 L< Ureenville, sc:

1 MR. HllLLION: Okay.

2

tl1u.l?

MR. GULLION: Ye.s.

MR. GUERRll: On the CJilELC )Jasis"!

MR. BULI,l_ON: Yes.

Tflork JJLOduct,

8 at.t.orney-c_i__l_cn t riri vi 1 eqe?

9 Mk. HlJLLION: Right. And tl1e

10

MR. CUERRll: Okay. Tl1ar1k you so

much.

Can I get ynu cooinc waler·?

THE \~I 'l'Nl',SS: My bottle's down

15 there. I don't JCRRd it r_i_gl1L llOW but -- I'in

okuy.

MR. GUERRl\.: 'l'oTJ1, ""'' we yet that

v.•ater -fr;r yo11r lll'-lrl. -rha11t yo" so n1uc;h?

MR. BIJl,J,1\lN: llcrc's yollT wcttflr,

20 my man.

21 'l'HF. WITNESS: Tl1a11t yoll.

MS. CUERfu71: r;ood move.

Ar8 }99 going c.o drink _j_ L?

TI!E 'li'ITNt~SS: 1 il!TI •

MR. c~ur:kkA: We' _l__l_ stop H foe ~

Al<lel~<ln Rcpurlh1g Co1np"ny 1-~UO-l-Olt-IJEPO

Vancaton Price ()ctohcr 21 , 2015

1 second so we don' L clo a Riibi o.

'l'Ht; WI 'l'Nr.:i:i: I;n1 J__i_ne ri_ght now.

3 BY MR. c;ot~RRA:

4 Q. All rlght. llid you wriie your affidavit?

5 I dld.

6 Q. ·:Jkay. 'l'hA af±idLLviL was \Vrit_t_en by

7 yourtJolf; you typ"d il ouL?

wo1ild S'-'Y Ll1at tl1erP \;ere purls of this

Ll1at 1 did not type. J\nd I was qivci1 a framework.

10 Bllt I d-l<-J th8 work and did the 1ioi1's share of the

11 ma\.erial thdl's in i..t.

Q. Who gave you the lramework"!

A. I<ate Helm.

Q. By "framework," what do yo11 rncui1?

Well, the hoader, for exanLplc; Lhe very

16 ending; and then some of t_he fJoir1LtJ Ll1a.t neAded to }Jc

J7 covPred in c.csponse to the dic;covery that I did.

Q. D.ici you so would yoc1 be kind er1ougl1 Lo

19 tell inc v1hich is your work within th" a±iidecvit7

A. WAll, the 1najority of what's l1"ro \\'ould hA

21 directly front inu. It's -- so it'" J_i_iiiclilt to

22 se]erct. out. IL' s more along Ll1" lines of point.co tl1c1L

?3 ne8d8d to b" developed i:o wl1LLL I'm referring to LLS a

?4 frcime\\•ork.

25 Q. HO'H can "''"' -- l1ow can we figure oul what \\'as

Alderson Repoi1iTig Cnmp•ny 1-ROO-F()R-DliPO

Vanc"ton .Price Octohcr 21, 2015 f'-rrccnvi I le, SC

1 <exactly your work cu1d what v1as t_he frcHucwork?

L mean, do '"e have cu1y pJ1ys.ica.I evider1cc ol that that

3 we can qo track down?

4 No. We 'Nould ha'"'' to go llnc by line, and

the ma-jorlly of it j_.s qoinq to be my work. 'rhe

6 fra1nework ls, yo11 know, would be along t_he lir1ec; of

7 w<e 11ccd informat.ion aboul LTX tires l,'i'X M/S Llrcs

8 lrom 2001, and then I cllci the work Ctnd wrolc the

9 d.ocument in ter1n'3 ol that -farctual iniolnw.Lion.

10 (). '"ould you say that the aiildavit -- \'.'O'Jld

11 yo\l <0"111 it yol\£ o·..in oriqinal doeu1nent?

A. I would.

Q. Wlth your own orlgl11al tl1oughts?

fi.. Yes. '!'he iniorrnation in here -'-" lrom me.

Q. With your original sentence,;?

lG A.

Q. AI1d your own oriqin2l ldcas?

A. Yes, with qui.dar1ec on what _ideas needed Lo

19 be COVL'.tCd.

Q. How "'ere yoL\ provided that frillnework?

.14.s I rceull, I wa.s qiven th" bcgi11~1_i_11g.9 of

22 th'.•_.s docnmer1L, Ll1e header and the looter, and then

23 some points ln it that are reully no 1011ger here

?4 other thur1 ln the -frCtmework.

Q. So the doc11rr"'''L ls a comhination o:._ your

Alderson Reportil\!i Cnn1pany l ·ROO-F(JR-DEPO

V"ucoton Plice Ocloh~r 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

A. ~o1'tc of wfi)r,h or1 i:1ore camA fronL i~tJ. i-itel,11.

J Q. l\.n<l the docum81ll was sent. t.o you by e-mail?

4 A. l\.s I recall, yos.

o. l\.ll riqht. You l1ave never worked in Dotl1c.n?

I Jicive never had a position i11 Jlot.han.

o. Yon nE:vcr had a posil.i.on .i.n llot.han in Lhe

e filant it.self?

9 A. Coircct.

10 Q. O.c in the office?

ll A. Correct..

o. You never worked on t.he atitiombly line .i.r'

13 Doll1an?

A. 'l'hat' tJ correct..

Q. Or .i.n any other pl2nt of Mi chel.i.11?

10 A. Could yoii clar.i.ly the qi.iest.ior1?

l7 Q. You nf'tver hud a po.s1t.ion as ctssemb1y .Linc

1 fl workers?

l 9 I\.. have IiOVer bf'> en A L.iro bu~1der.

'

2u () • ·r11al' s right..

21 You've nevf'tr boon A cl.as,; c;peclo.r?

22 A. That's corrllcl.

?3 Q. You 'v"' nevc.r: been ~ r;1l'b"r Iormul at.or?

A. Tl1cit's correct.

25 Q. You'vo never )'J<'ten A lice11sed r:hemisl?

;\ldcr«Jn Repoitin.t, Coillf'any 1-800-FOR-DFP(J

Vunea(on Price Octobc1- 21 , 2015 (lrtcrJville, SC

rage s:i

A. I don't kr1ow what the Lcr.n If\eans.

Q. ('.hf'micul cngi_DRRl'..

A. I'm u. cl1cmical f'ngi11ccr.

Q.

A. I 'El a degrf'Rd cJ1c1n_i_cal enqi.ne8r.

Q. You' re no" liccr1sed as a Proicssiona l

7 J<:nqill88L?

A. That' S COLLCCt.

o. 'l'hat' S Light.

You ''ever <Jreated uoy cl1em stock lormula.s

11 £or Mi chf'liI1?

12 I did not-.

lJ Q. You hav2 never been a proJ:ctJtJional tP.ste:c C>i

_14 Michcilin' s ti res?

I :, A. don't LCcogni zp thul Lcrm.

Q. Hut you have never bccr1 one, ri.ghl? You

11 don't t.2st? You never teslcci the l,'l'X M/S f)rior to

18 its releutJitl<J to t_he 1nuLkcL?

19 A. Not in that Lire line, no.

?O Q. Okay. You've neVAl'. beo11 an adjustmenl data

/'l i11tJ[JCCtor'!

22 A. 'l'huL'" corr2ct.

23 o. You've nevP.r b8cl1 a des1 qnat8d Michelin

24 inspActoi ul the.se detJignated inspec·"ion cen-Cf'rs?

25 A. T11at' s corrac-L.

Alderson Revorling Co1npany l-~00-l•Ok-llEPO

Vancal"n Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Q. You didn' r wr: te tl18 atJpcct speci fi cationtJ?

A. That's correct.

Q. You didn'-;: wrilo Ll10 technical notes?

A. That.'s correcl.

5 ~). You didn' L ctuthor or write the tire

6 non-r.onforming µ.roccciures"?

7 A. Tl1a L ' s correct.

Q. You didn't write <>L uull:10.r Lhe genera]

g pi.i.r1c.i.plc&?

A. That's correcl.

n Q. You didn'l wi.ilc or author the ildjutJLracnt

12 clata C<>des?

n A. Tl1a L ' ti correct.

Q. You didn't S<"t. "P the udju&Lment data

1:, po.l.i.c.i.l.'tJ?

Lhat' s correct:.

Q. Yrn: dic!r1' t aull10.r tl1e O'Hner' s mar1ua.lt! lor

18 t11e !,'l'X or ar1y 0Ll10.c Mic.helin tire?

A. I';~ noL familiar 'Hi.t:h •Hl1ut docllffient you'r<"

20 refc-orr.i:1g to.

Q. The J'ass<"nqer u11d L.ight Trcick 'l'i T<" CJwner 'tl

2L 11anual of J,imited Wairc1nLy, yoti i1eve:r a\lthoi<Jd Llial?

27 A. ·1'hat' s coi:.rcct.

24 o. Oor lt1c LTX ~/::: l i 11<" or any 0Ll1c.r l.i.ne?

A. Tl1ul s correct.

1

,\l<lL"r-><>n Reporting C'orupm1y l-800-FOit-DFPO

Vm1oottH\ PJice Octohcr 21. 20 l 5 Circctovilk, SC

Q. You d_i_dn'L write or ci1ithor uny ol the

) cirl"justrce11t dala manuals ot MJ.cheli11i

A. Tl:1at' s correct..

Q. YOll clidri't ?llthor or wr_i_Lc any ot t.hf'O tire

6 _7\ - 1 'TJ1 not suie I know •,,;J-1at --

7 Q. 'l'h"' tire _i_rltJf1cctio11 pcocerlurf'Os for Lhc

8 adj1istmf'Ont dutu tldl~ples.

A. CorrccL.

Q. ·1ou didn't writ"' u11y ol Lll'-' Micl1elin t-ir"'

11 li1n_i_Lcd warranties"!

That's correct.

1J Q. Yoll didn't dccs_i_gn tl1e l.TX M/S tires?

14 A. I did J10L design the l!l'X M/S <._i_rcs, correct.

15 Q. Okay. There are people tl1u1. do Ll:1at oc dirl

I fi t.hat U'L M_i_ci1elin"I

A. Tl1ere were, Y"'". ~1- Who, •,,;ho urcc Ll1cy?

19 A. know 1.l1ccl Pau::. Northr·,ip wcis a t_i_::::c

20 desiqnf'Or on Ll1dl Lire Jine.

Q. Anybody el.se'?

A. Not tl1at comes to 1aind.

Q. But yon cire J1ot 0110 oI tl1ose fol ks, riqht?

Not. for T.nc LTX M/S tire l inR, correct.

20 Q.

Alderson "RopnTLing C:"mpony 1-800-l'OR-DlJPO

Vaneaton I'rice October 21, 201.'i Greenville, SC

1 A. 'l'hat's coirccL,

Q. You are 110L one of them, right-?

A. Tl1al' s co.:rect.

Q. M_i_cl1clln also has rchemists ll1al do chem

5 stock 101-tr.ulations anrl ,-ubl-,er forn1ulctL_i_or1s, ri'}ht"!

A. I don't kno1'1 what tl12ir b<oLckgrounds a re but

Lhcre are people t_hat woc_k lor M_i_chelin that.

8 for1nu1ate mJxes.

9 o_. You are J1ol one of them·!

A. Thal's correct.

1 j_ Q. Wl1ul do you call those folk,;?

A. Fo.:mulator.s.

Q. Do yo1J know any ol Ll>cm?

A. Not. personully.

15 Q. IJo you b1ow Lhclr names?

A. Fo:c1nu1-alors for what.·!

Q. For skim stock or for rubl~cI.

A. For 1;J1a\_ r1ibber''

Q. L'T'X M/~:; tires?

20 A. l,'l'X M/S l_i_rcs have dozens of r'Jj fferent

Q. I LLnUcrsta11d. This sub-ject tire.

2 :J A. -- that are fo,-mulated by UllfC'rent people.

I don't know the ±ointulalors in 2001.

Q. Tel 1 me the r1a1ne ol dllY formulator t.hi'it yo11

Alderson Reporting Con<pany 1-RGG·FOR-DEPCJ

Vone"ton Price October 2 I , 21! l 5 G1ecnvillc, SC

Page 57

1 kllO'N herf' t:.1iir: work,; on LTX M/:J

MlZ. l:IULl,JON: iou; rco ictlk.ing abonr_

3 the 2001 ti1ne frame or ,;hat:?

Ne. Just for the LTX

M/S line.

'l'HE WITNESS: I don't kno,; t:hco

names o-f thf' -for1nu_i_ulors that •,;-orked on tho '' 8 formulcis and tho compounds i11 r.he LTX 1-i110 --·the

9 l,'l'X M/S lino.

10 RY MR. (;UERRA:

Q. AnyLhing.

12 A. Not that. recill_i_, 110.

Q. They' rf1 stii_i_ 1nu11lLlactured today, right?

'l'hPrf1 may De u11 LTX M/.S tirf1 manu±uclurcd

15 today, bllt_ i'1n nol certain of t_hat_. Thul l_l_ne is --

16 i.s gAnArCLl_i_y 110L in prod11ct.ion toduy.

Q. Tl1c LTX M/S/'!

A. There is a l!l'X M/S2.

0

Q. Do yo11 know ur1y ol Lhe form11lators or Ll1eir

20 identi_ty·:

21 A. Not spcclllcally.

Q. Nol a single onA?

A. Nol tb_at COffiAS to mir1d Lor the l,TX M/S2

21 1ir10, no.

25 Q. or the 1.'l'X M/S Lire line'?

Alderson IZeportillg f:cm1pany J-ROO-FCiR -O!oPO

Vaneaton Price OcLobel'21,20I5 Greenville, SC

1 A. No.

? o. l\ll right. wnat aboii" r:ir" builders? TL'll

-' '1\e Ll1c name of anyor1" tl1at worked on the l,'l'X M/S

4 lir1c.

5 I\. I dor1'L know the nu1nc of the t.ire builder

G I.hat I kno'" wo.r:kcd on t.he LTX M/S Ji nA.

(). Wl1uL about. -- M.icl1clin has clu~,; spectors,

8 right''

9 A. In the planl Lhere are clutJtJ spectors, yutJ.

Q. You are r10 L one of t.'1en1 cuid you've never

ll boc11 one of thenl?

12 A. J t1avc not been il c1ctss o:pector iI1 "pla11-C..

u Arid dlcJ you know lhc name of u11y of the

14 cl ci.ss s8clors at 1Jotha11?

A. I do01' t r8cu1l the name o± a clas.s speci::or

1 fi nt Dolhan.

Q. Micheli11 also has ad·jutJLment data

13 l11spect.ors, riyht"!

A. Tl1at's cocre<ot.

20 Q. You arR not one of thRm''

;< i A. That's coircct.

Q. 'l'el l 1ne Ll1e ;1amR of any adjustment daLCL

23 ii 1spect.ors ir1 <.Lny of ·the d~os.ig11ated insp8clio11

21 ccnter.s.

A. I Uo not know a11y.

Alderson IZepo1tJng CumpaEly I -800-F(JR-OLPO

Vancolon Price Octohcr 21 , 2{) l 5 Ureeuville, SC

l'"qe 5'9 j'

Q. \Jkay. Mic:1el in al,;o has employee,; Lhat

L write and sel lortl1 rnFtn11taclur..Lng desiqn u11li desig11

3 processes, proced11res and lochniques fo:c lho L'J'X M/S

4 Ji ne; you uro not one oi Lhe1n·!

5 A. I don't think lhere are aIJy c;uch docnment,;,

fi as I ui1dcrstoorl your l(Uestion.

Q. My fau_it.

Mj r:he_iir1 has employootJ Lhat write arid set

9 raanl1far:t>irir1g anci desiqn µrocosses, pror:edurcs anct

10 techn1'q11e8 lor tbe l,'J'X M/S lir1e, right?

11 A. I a1n not '1waro of any doc11me11ls that Fire

l? speciiic to th<> L'l'X M/S li11e.

Q.

A. 'l'hose Ly[JCS of docu1nc11ls are used on ull

l.'J Lire lines.

lG Q. 'l'J1aL's righc.

17 You do i1ot kno\Y the skim cotock £or1'.lula for

1G t.hi:o tJubject t.i re, right?

That's correct.

Q. Yo11 -- bl\t ther"''° lolks within tl1u company,

:<l witl1in MicJ1ul.i.r1, that. kr1ow Lha.t, right.?

22 A.

23 licive access to thFtt.

Q. l'lnd what who \Voulrl thal be? WJ-,o would

/'i thutJu people he?

AldeJ «rn Reporting Compony 1-~00-l'OR-D"F,PO

()clobcr 2 l, 20 15

G'reenv1lle, SC

A. Pcople _i_n t_he coinrJounding plant und

?. r.ompoundCLS.

Q. Could yo11 repeat that'! I couldn't liear you.

4 I apologize.

A. sa.id people in t_he co1upounding j"l1ant or

6 ecmpocinder.s.

(l. Where _is the r:omµour1d_ir1'J plant l:icalcd?

8 A. Tl1erc are severu.1.

9 Q. Is there one 11ere in L~rRRnvillc?

A. There is r1oi..

Q. So whRrR u.rc they lor:ated, Lell me, pleu~e.

12 A. Andersor1 1 South Carolir1u..

Q. Wherc else?

Sl'-'rr, ::~outh Caro1-_ina.

19 Q. Anytl1i_119 else'>

A. Tuscaloosa, Alctbama.

Q. Any more?

Ardmore, Oklahoma; Ji'orl \'layne, ·1ndiar1a;

l~ Pict:ou, (Jntario, Canada.

20 Q. Tl1aL's it":'

2-1 l!.. That's nll i::hul I am av.'arR ol itl North

?? Americct.

o. Jlo you kI1ow the nnme oi: ur1y compnunder or

21 people thnt "'ork on the r.ompou1uling pl ?.nt tl1aL know

2Ci Llle skim stock formula for i.his subject i-:irc?

Al®"'"' Reportinf'; Couljlany 1·800-FOR-DEP(J

Vaneaton Price Ootobe1?J,2Gl5 Greenville, SC

Pcogc 61

A. I do not.

Q. Who woulc.J you qo Lo find ttoc1L informat.io11?

J How woulcl you go about _i_L?

4 I wouJ d cor1tc1cL som<>bo<iy _i_n the r.omµuLUldi ng

5 df>J}i'lrt1'\C!lL at MAX(;.

6 Q.

7 A. J.-::- deµcnJ.s 011 t.hA COHLjJOUnd.

Q. J<or 1-hi.s si)eci fie or1e.

A. Whicl1 spec1 fie 0110?

Q. Sk.i.rn stock foJ.' Lhe s1ib"jecl L_i_re.

11 A. I beli<>v<> Ll1c "11.ana<j"<>r ol Ll1at grouµ .is

12 KA l'. q1'Li.l!l .

l3 Q. Wo\ll.ct you speak -- suy i t ciqai11?

believe his na1nc is Berqm«n, _i_s thf1

15 IllLlnager of tJ1c group t.hal compounds 1-.iros like thul.

CJ. • Whal is t.hat. group called?

11 A. I C:on 't. know. It >10\lld be in t.hf1 Malcrial s

18 (:ompour!d_i_ng (~roup or Forrn\llati11g Gro\lp.

Q. Milrkir1g Lhe 'Tlilt.eriuls, Compo11r1d.i.119 or

/'0 E'or.rr.c1l.atinq C:t:oU!) at MARC?

21 A. Thu.L's correct..

22 Q. And i t '"on.l.J. -- the last 11ame is Berg1nan·1

23 A. That's correct.

24 Q. J\nd t.he l.i.r&t ncime·'

A. .It's -- I can't recull. hi.s firsl name, as I

/\ hlcT«•n Reporting Company 1-800-FO"R·DEPCJ

Vaneaton Price October 21, ?O I 5 G1eeuv11le, SC

Page: 62

1 sit l1ere.

Q. ()k'1y. Al.l. Ll.Qhl. wl1at about t.1e ruDDOr

3 fonniil i'lt:or for Lt1c Lread, 1;]10 'A'OU.l d yo11 l1ow wocild

4 yo1i qo Clbout l.i.nd.i.ng out 1;ho wo1ild know Ll1ul formula'/

A. I don't kno'H 'Hho's in compour1d.i.ng for trei'lct.

Q. l:IOV.' •Hould yoii qo Clbout ±ir1d.i.11g l1im"?

A. I would Clsk someone ell MA..11.C ir1 the

8 co1nr,ounding arei'l.

9 Q. Who wo11ld tl1L>L be?

\:ertL>.i.r1ly Borgman .i.s Ollf1 t.hi'lt. I could yo to

11 th'1r: would po.i.t1L 1ne ill tDe ri qht direct.i.u11.

12 Q. Ile .i.s the n1anFtger, t.h'1t's wt1c1L yoll guys r.Clll

13 it?

A. He is " manager .i.11 Lllc~L area.

15 Q. All rigl1t. Yuu.r work is rel;itect t.o

'.6 litiqi'ltion r1<>w'1dc1yo; w.i.Ll1in I~ichelin'' All you.r work

17 rf1li'lted to 1.i.L.i.gatior1 no'HFldr.ys as a Micl1ul.i.n

18 employcu?

A. I (!idn't. 1lndercota11d Lt1u ql,estion.

20 Q. Al) o-f yo11r work. ctS a Micf'.elin Am"J."'.loyee ir1

21 the l,egcil Dep'1rl1nur1L related to ljtiqcit.ion?

?? A. T·t1al' o; oorrect.

Q. llulp.i.119 de-fend Michel.in lil uao;ut'?

A. I'm 11ot su:re whcit you Jnuctn Dy that.

Q. !Cichelin gets '°ued aild yoc; helf' defRnct

Alderson keporting Company I "800-FOR·DF,P(J

Vaneaton Price Oct<ihor 21, 20 15 GreL-nvillc, SC

Page 63

1 Michelin'!

A. work oil Li1ese cases, yes.

3 Q. On bchctl.f of Michelin''

4 A. 'I'l1uL 's correct.

Q. Tocl.cty, on this case, you're here on J-,eha.l±

6 o± ~l.ichcl.i.11?

I am.

Q. A.~ a Miche.lir1 crnployee"!

9 A.

10 Q. Your cuL.i.re testimony or aii.iJ.uv.i.t, all of

·11 it. µrovidcJ. l1cre as a Michel.in CJinp.loyce?

A. That's co,.rect..

Q. You never used ar1 aspc·ct sriec t.o build a

14 L.i.rc?

A. don'i ui1dc.rstand the quest.ion.

16 Q. You i1cvc.r usecl al' aspect. spcc.i.f.ication of

17 Micbe.lir1 1-o build a tire"!

A. l'.n asper.t. specitical.ior1 .is not used t.o bu.i.ld

19 u L.i.1c.

20 Q. lt.'s t.o ir1spccl at the end of tl1c bLL.ild.ing

21 prOCRSS, riqhi?

2:C A. Tl1ul's correct.

Q. So it's part of it., r.i.9l1L?

It's an i nspect.ior1 ol Ll1e finish Rd t.ire.

25 Q. Yes. And a.lterL<L.i.otlS may be made, fixos inay

Alderson Repo1ting \\m1pany l ·ROO-FllR-DbPO

VarJealo<l Price Octoberll,2015

l bcc i~ctdcc, so l"~' s part of the manufact:1iring µro<e<etltl 1

J )1,'{. B!JLI,ION: Obj eccllor1; iorm.

4 TJIE WITNLSS: I l' tl usccd 111 the

,, inS}"}Rct.ion of tl1e llr1lst,cd p1-0dl\Cl.

G HY M8. GlJE8RA:

Q. Okc1y. Do you know what an as1iect.

~ spocll-'-cullo11 ls?

I clo.

10 Q. All right:. I-Jut. you never u:;ocl ll Lo -- in

1:1 the process of building u tiro?

A. I dor1't tl1ii1k LhaL's accurate.

Q. You l1uvc used lt?

A. I have, at times.

Q. In the builriing of a tire''

10 I have, at. times, applie~l '-'"P'-''-'L

·1 7 .srieci fi car.ions, read as peel tlpccillcalior1s, I've

I~ 1 ooked ac tiros.

Q. Lookccl al what?

20 J!". Looked at fini.s~1ed tires in p'lrt. oi 1ny

21 Lrai11ir1g, r_ ]1ave,

22 Q. Kiit: you have 11ever 0ulll cc Ll.rc?

?.3 A. have nol. bulll a Li.co Ll1at was intended

?4 for public sulc, LhaL's correct.

Q. Tl1aL's your bcisiness, right:! 'l'hat.'s

Aldcr.,on Reporting Con1pany l-300-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton I'nce Octobel' 21, 20 I.'i Greenville, SC

1 Michelin's business''

2 A. Tt1at 1s Michelin;s busjne~s.

Q. l\nd you have ne\'eT rlone Ll1at?

A. J have r10L built a tire Lhat was inte11ded

5 lor sale, corieeL.

Q. ·111 iaeL, you tolrl Jne yoci Dever -- you nev2i:

workerl i.n u.r1 assembly lir1e .Cor Michelir1 ever, riqht?

8 I n0ver '""orked as a t.i re builder.

9 Q. l\.t a Mi cheli11 asse!llbl y li1uc?

A. That's corrcc:t.

o. Not. in Dolhan, iiot anywl1ere·1

A. As a Lire builder, Ll1aL wa.s never 1ny role.

Q. Thal's right, as c1 Lire bui.lder; .is that.

14 acc1irnt.e?

15 A. T11at' s correel.

·1 6 o. l\gain, r10L --- let.'s rr.ake .i.L correct. Le L's

1nake .i.t acc1ii:atc. Yoti ne,Ter worked il' the M.i.cliclin

18 u:;sembly line us a tire bui..Lc\cr in ilny Miel,clin plant

l'J .ill the> llnilecl States''

20 A. Tl1at was nev8r my jol-i to be " Lire b1ii ~der

21 in a M.i.el1eliD }Jlant.

o. Is that a yes or no?

h. It's yes.

o. Yo11 e<e.t:Lai11l y rlid r10L design or build aDy

2!:i LTX M/S ,-,ire similar i-:o Ll1.i.s one'/

Al<lcrson H..eportilig C"mp"ny 1-8QQ.F(lR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October21,2015 G!-.enville, SC

Page GG

don't know Ll1at that's a,-,cnrute Lo say.

2 Wl1en J_ bf'gcin work ils a tire designer at MAr\C, l may

3 l1ave bef'n assigne<l certain l.'l'X M/S tC.res, especially

4 as -- in th" eclrly parts of mv truir1.:.11g, but 1 did

'1 not df'sigI1 Ll1c subject t_ire ir1 1-l1is case.

Q. So you designf'd ,;inlila.c or,es·!

A. I des1gnAd Miel1eli11 light tl""nck filJV tires.

Q. Is t.hcit ci ye'3, similar onec;''

9 'l'hf'y would ll<LVe been di ffArenl: ir1 Ll1eir

lD des.i g11, hnr they wol1ld havA hf'en tiics irller1cled for

ll the SUV ligl1L Lruck markAt.

Q. So J-1ave yo\l f'ver d"'3igi1cd or built ~ LTX M/S

13 tire s.:.milar to t_hi s 001"?

A. 1_ hcid resµor1'3iLiliLy for convertiI1g u design

oI an T,'l'X M/S ±ronl OE Lo replacf'mAnt. I do 11ot

16 .rememl-,er the ,;ize, and I don't thir1k iL was this

17 dimenc;ion.

Q. So yo\l know that you i1ccve done thcit b"cau'3e

19 you say you may or may J10L, but yoci know thill you

20 l1ciVC" clone t_hat?

A. :r k11ovo Ll:1ctl I convert.Rd ci tirL' early i.11 my

22 ti TA df'c;iqrl experience from the OE mctrket design to

21 thf' rf'µlaL'cffiCilt market df'siqn i.1'3 basicalJ y pcirt 0£ wy

!'4 introduL'Lior1 i11to •_he tire dcsiyn bus_iness, and i-::

I'S 'dil'3 Llil LTX M/i:i ti re.

Alderson Reporting l\1mpany I "ROO·F(lR·DliP(J

Vaneaton Price ()clohcr 21 . 20 l 5

1 Q_. Wher1 wc~s that?

A. Il would have bf'f'n J_n Lll8 2007 time frame.

3 Q. 2007?

A. Correct.

Q. Where wo>ild yo•-1 go about f_indinq your ouLpuL

6 sl1.ip, those doc\lrnents?

II. -- I dor1' L --" I doll' t_ know 1-huL Lhcre

8 would hA do<011n1cI1Ls, bc1t _i.f cr,,ated LhL'

9 Sf1Rr.ifi<oatlor1, Ll1ere W01lld a speciilcctLion.

Q. Su llO'N would yoll qo aboul f_i_nd',ng t_hat?

I WOll-1 d hFJ.Vf' to ask someone in t_he

12 spcc_i_I_i_cati_on.s gro>Jp.

Q. ~lho would you a.sk?

A. I" wou1d p.t:obal"Jly a.sk Carla.

15 Q. Car1u Wingate"/

A. Correct.

Q. ]\.__'Jd 1vl1at_ 'No11Ld we usk_ about"!

Well, I don't know exactly what she ••Ould

need to know. My lJUL'SLion to hPr won1d be: lire you

20 abl"' to search lhc spec) fi rat-\ons and I.inci a

21 .specification with

/' ?_ Q. For what"!

A. ·-·- with my na1ne or1 iL for an 1:1·x M/S tire.

Q. .Si nee then, huvc you v1orked

I don't iecctll eve-.:: working 011 ar10Ll1c£ LTX

Alde1sou Repc>TLing Compatly I "800-l•UR-lJLOPO

October21,201'i

Greenville, SC

M/f; tire.

Q. So it v1ould loe or1c·i or1et

A. I only TAr:all OtlC.

Q. II' this r:a:oe, yuu l1ave bRen de:oignated out.

Ci ui Ll1c tho\;sanrls L!r1d Ll1oc1sai1ds of ernµluyccs of

G Mlcheli.n in Soutl1 Cc~rolina to h8 tl1c guy to talk

"/ at>out s8r:ret:o, Mlcl1eli.n ser:r8t:o, rlgl1t?

8 A. Cor.r:cct.

Mk. GULLION: Obj2ct.i on; ±0.Lffi.

10 HY MR. GUERPJ\.:

u Q. Tll l. ri qht. Arid what we' r8 tulklng about is

12 uocuments t.hat. Mici1cl.L11 want..s t.o keop away fJ:"om the

13 publ'cc, correcl?

14 TJ1c,;c are doc1Jment,; ll1ul are trade secrolti,

;.s proprietury ctnd, yes, won.id cctusc l1arm t.o ~1icl1cl.Lr: if

1 r; they 1vcrc .i_n t.lie p1ihlic.

Q. Tl1ose are sµccil.ic document,; ll1uL you sp2ak

18 oi in your affiduv.il Lhat Mi'"'helin wur1ls to keRp away

19 from the public eye?

20 A. They are company trude secrets t.hat could de

/I hil.rm to M.ichelin if they were in the ·public,

/2 il.vullc1ble to ou,. compol.ilurs, that.'s coiruct.

Q. .I got your cu1swer.

21 Oio my quc,;Llon i.s: Mi.chellr> wants,

2:, .i_nte11tionally arid cautiollsly, to keep them il.'Nil.Y frc1n

/l.l<len.nn Reporting Company l-&00-FOR·DFI'O

Vaneaton Price October 21, 20\5 Ureenville, SC

thA public?

i0 iK, GULLION: OLj<eci.iu"; luLlLL.

'i'HE WITNESS: To k88p tl1c1~ away

1 Irom our compAtitoit<.

5 DY MR. GUERRA:

6 Q. Not fro11t Ll1c pc1bl ic'! care l1uvc them"!

I MR. RlJl,l.ICJN: Objcctio11.

8 THE. W 1'l'NESS: tio.

9 MY Mk. CUERRI\_:

Q. Okay. Clo i t "'"''L" Lo keer1 thAm awdy Irorr.

11 tho public, -f"Fom the co113u1ner·1

'l'hFlt' s not Ll1c ot>ject. 'l'he oLjcctive is to

13 keep them away ±Loli co1npetitors.

No, Ll1al's

YOll the fJUblic dof1.5 not sec Lhc;n, right_.,

These arA trade secrets doc1iments, Ll1cy're

17 p~opLictary doc1imAnLs, uncl thel'.'e's alw;1ys cl chance

18 Ll1al they r.oll1d louk Lo COl'lt)etitors.

19 C) • YAah, I ur1derstanrl that. Dul they ar"' not

20 wbat. you -- wl1at Mich,,lin does j_3 does not. make thcn1

/'1 Flvailablc Lo the pu1-i1ic, to LJ-1c consumPrs, righl?

MR. GULLION: Ob-jAr.tio11; Iorm.

Luis, i_-f I r:ould, i I you would let l1i1n Iinish l1i_s

answer --

Yus.

Alden.<m Rcpur!i<lg Compony l-SOO-FOR-IJEPO

Oclnhcr 21 , 2015

Greenville, ~r

1 MR.. BULLION: -- yo,1' re -·-· yo11' re

Ki11cl oi gett.inq qoi11g fasc

MR. GUERRA: YRs.

MR. BCLJ,JON: -- uncl you ha;;'e tl1ul

lendericy, so lcL him finish

No prol-,Jem.

MR.. fllJLLION: ·- j f you d0r1' L mind

8 befoie yuu ··- bRfore yuu start t_he nexl q\.,estion.

9 liR. GUERRI\: No problcr~.

10 MR. BULLION; Ttv1r1k you.

11 GY MR. GUERRA:

12 Q. Your a11,;wor 1-ias "yes," L.igl1t"?

lJ l\. You iv.ill have t_o repcLlL the questio11.

14 Q. Tl1crc are do"umenL,; Ll1at Mi "hRli11

15 intentio11dlly and purposclully keRps thc1n away from

-1 6 tbe pu~bllc eye"!

MR. P.ULl.ION: Objection; form.

THE· "L"/ 1'l'NEf;S: Michelin protccls

lY thRm ;ind kcer's thRm nway lrom anyone oultilde the

20 cornp'111y.

21 flY MR. CUERM:

Q.

h. '!'hey wou1d be out.9idR ol Micl1elin; that'"

21 correct.

Q. Includir19 the Amer.icctn consumer, righ C?

A Ide""" Repo1tiiig C-0n1pan}'

1-800-FOR-DEP(J

Vaneaton Price Octoher2J,2015 (lrc~rlvillo, SC

Page 71

1 A. Tl1d L 's correct.

Q. And you talk aL-,ollt_ -- you 1nakc u comment on

J you.t: affidavit about pcitents, righl? Do you remember

4 Lhat comment t"hat yoll rncide?

5 Not specificcilly. CoulU you refer t_o me --

6 to 1;hat 1 i ne you' re rcorcrring?

7 Q. You spccilicully talk abo11t. Michelin noL --

A.

Q. -- patenting.

A. I do.

Q. llnd the reason is is bcccluso pate>1t

12 doccirnent.s are pilblic docu1ncr1Ls, rigl1t"?

That's corrccl.

Q. So wl1ccl you' re saying is th'1t to keep Li:1crn

15 '1W'1Y ±ro1n Ll10 pc1blic eye ilnd pub] ic disclosure,

16 Micl1oli11 does not evf'n pC!tf'nt soJI'"° o1 ils t)rocesses

1'/ cend f'rocedures·r

18 5. Mi chf'lin desigr1s ils owr1 processf's cind

-1 9 procedllrf's, ;ir1d L11cy c~rc company Sf'rcrets that would

JO do 11s J1;ir1n _i_1 Ll1oy were in the public; tl1;il's

21 corrccl.

Q. llnd that wou.ld include, co1,ccr11ing the

23 documents that Wf''rf' talkir1g iibOllt here, and t.hcit's

24 wl1at ynu' rf' t'1lkir19 ubouL _i_s this aspects

25 spRci fi ccitions usod by the class spe,-,tors, riqht?

Al<lersnn Repo1ting Con1pany 1-800-F(JK-UEPO

Vancalun Price Oc!ober21,2D15 C~ccnvillc, SC

A. .ll.ny coinr)any Uocumer1t is wh2C. I wo11ld ICJlcL

2 to.

3 Q. Bul that incl11df'S thf' as1~f'cts spec.i.l.i.c,tL.i.on.s

4 used by the class spectors?

5 They are compFtny doc1L<Ler1ts, yecJ.

6 Q. 'l'hosf' Fll'.f' some ul Ll1c co1npai1y docciments

7 Michf'lin kf'f'PS Sf'CLol?

A. 'Il1ul's corrccL.

9 Q. Ok<Ly. Palcr1t non-conforminq procf'd11i<Js;

10 l:hueic ctre some of the documents that ~!iclHol.i.r1 kcc)JlJ

12 A. Thosf' 2re Mir:helin cun1pcu1y docwner1ts, yes.

n (). All riqht. Cer1erul vr.i.11c.i.ples, tbose are

15 A. Tl1usc arc company docurne11t--~, yes.

Q. lldjustn1ent data, t.hose are :io1ne ol Lhe

11 documents that yo11 olaim Miohelin keeps ,;ccret?

18 'l'hat.'s company datu, yos.

Q. All rigl1t. Adjuslmcr1t document polioies,

n A. Tl1at's correct; t.ho.se 2re oompany docu1ne11ls.

22 MR. c;Ur:kkA: We need to lJO oii Lhc

23 record, Tom, t.he tapf' is aboul LO Ve over.

24 MR. 130LLION: Okay.

Tiii!: VIDEOGRIIPHER: We're 9oi119 off

Alderson Repa1tJng Cumpany 1-~oo,f{}R -DEPO

Vaneaton Price October21,20l5 Greenville, 5f:

1 the video record of' 1ncdia numl>er 011e 2t lU:Ci2.

2 (A recess wus takell.)

3 TllE VIDEOGRAI'l-Jl-:k: 'l'his is incdia

4 numher two ol Lile video deposition. Goir1g back

5 011 tl1e video record at 11 :O.O.

MR. c;ui-.kkA: Tl1u.r1k. you.

7 BY MR. GU~RPJ\.:

Q. Thank yo1l, Mr. Price.

':J :Jome of the documcnls that Mi c:1el in war1ls lo

10 keep secret are li1c f>l:1ysical evi_dence that

Michelin slrikc Ll1at.

Somc of the phy.si c2 l evider1cc az1d docc1me11ts

13 tl1al Micl1cli11 keep.s secret and u.way iro111 the riubl i c

A. Mcin1l -fa ct 11r iI1g

16 MR. BULLION: (Jbl ect i.on.

\Jb-jectio11; lor111.

THr: W1'l'NESS: -- tipcciiicatio11s

arc trade secrets cind propriclary information;

20 that's correct.

21 BY MR. l;Ui-:kkA:

Q. And tl1osc are kerit secret and ;iway lLoln Ll1c

'?1 Jlllhllc by Michelin?

MR. 1-l\ll,l,ION: Objcclio11.

'1'1-lE WIT;./l!:SS: Absolutely. '.l'hey

Aldcr;on H.epoiting Company 1-800-FOR"DRPO

Vaneoton Price October21,20l'i C'n-eenvillc, SC

Page 74

1 are trademark -- or I'1n sorry. 'J'hey a:ro

2 proprleta:ry auc\ lrade secret. 1ntorntillior1.

3 BY Mk. l~\JERR'l.:

Q. I gol lhat.

A11cl Michelin keeps Lhilt :;ocret ar!d away from

fi tl1EJ public?

MR. GULLION: Object.ion; fo:r1n.

8 BY MR. r;;;r~kRA:

9 Q. Yes or r10?

10 A. Ye:; .

Q. All .<:lght.

A. Yes.

u Q. Mir.helin keep,; Lhctl secret and away froin

14 L1:1L' ['Ublic"!

A. Sper.ifioilllo11s are proprietil.ry ir1lo.<:mation,

16 they're trildCJ tJoo_ccts of Mir.helin, arod, yes.

17 Q. A11d Michelin 11sAs its do:;lg11ation of

18 tr ado -- Lrade secrAt_s conoCJr11lng this i pformation

19 u11U uocuments to keep tl101u away from thA public?

20 MR. BULLION: (Jb-jectior: lo Io.;::m.

Q. YCJtl or r-::o?

A. These ciocumAnt_s are trude secrets, thAy are

2d Drop:ricla1y infoi:mation, arid Lhey are desigr.il.terl as

25 ~ucl1 Lo protect them frc1~ il11yone outsirlA the co1npany,

Alderson llepruting (\>Jlljlany J-ROO-FOR-DEP(J

VoneotonPnce Oct<ihor 21, 20 15 (lrccnvillc, SC

F.;ge 75

? Q. Auel dS such, Mi ch A 11 n keeps Li1csc documenr.s

3 cine! physicul lnformati on ciwciy ±roICt Ll1c public"!

A. That's coi:re"t-

MR. GULLION: Object t.o the ±orin.

6 GY !®.. GUERRA:

~1- All riqht. Tcsllng and d<esiqn relulcd

8 docl1me11t.s r<equeslccl by us, plaint_if±s ir1 Ll1ls

SJ Q',.9"ov<ery, I~icl1clln keeps t.hAm s<ecrcl dlld away from

10 t.hA puD.llc?

MR. BULLION: Objection; form.

'l'JIE: WITNESS: Those do"umeuts uro

u trade se"r<ets, 1-l1oy'rc propi:iet.ary infor1nallor1,

14 yes --

lS BY MR. (;lJERR..ll.:

Q. A11d as such

A. and kAilt_ from tl10 JJLLbllc.

Q. I'm sorry''

A. 'l'h<ey' re kopl out of the Illlhl ic, tl1u.L' s

20 corr<ect_.

Q. A-1-1 rlght. ThR -formulas, c1skcd by

)) plai11tllls, Michelin kRRps tlco111 secret and awciy from

23 tt1e public?

MR. BULLION: (lbjecti on; J:ornt.

Tl~E WITNE:SS:

Alderson Rep<i11ing Con1pa"y l -~00-FOR-Dhl'O

Voneaton Price OcLnbcr 21, 2015 (lrc~rJVille, SC

l formulas kcrJL d\..'ay from t_he p11bllc 1 Ll1cy' re ke1't

a.way tiom ctlmost a I I internal Mlchcl111 en;ployees.

1 flY MR. CUE:RR".:

Q. l~J-1at is your J eve-1 cl tlCCUJ:ity clR;ir;ince?

A. 1 om not. ;iw;ire cl tJUch levels.

Q. You cal l iC l1cl g !1 Lenee! p rote r:t _i_ on? Wl1a L ls

Lhe level of your l1clgl1Lened r1rotActior1 socuLl~y

9 A. I dou' L knov1 v1h;it_' s mRanl. by Ll1at qlie.sti on.

Q. !lave you evAr read ur1 CLtlpcct speci -fi cr.tion?

A. I 11ave.

Q. It tAl ls you Ligl1L on there, .level o:t

u ~irotection, hAi.qt1ter1cd sccuri ty. IJo you l1u.vc Ll1at

14 wl1at is yo1ir c;lcc1rcc11ce level'!

15 A. ·To xny kr1owleclge, that ir1:to.rino.Llon is put on

-1 ti dor:1lme11Ls us tl1ey're produr:ed oulslde of the compr.ny,

17 not inLL'rnally.

Q. ?rodur:ed o•.ltsld". Okay.

\'/hat aboul Lt1e you joist tolcl Jnc, Luls,

20 I -- t.here'co pL'uple ir1 tlie compr.ny tl1uL only certain

people havco clceess to c:ertain u.r"'-'"· What are t'iose

?? areas? Go ahead, Mister --

A. I didn't_ iinderst.und your qcie.st.ion.

Q. (lh, no problem.

You -;:old Ete, Luis, in fact, there's areas o;"

Alderson RepnTLing Curnpony I "Sllll·l'Oll·DEPO

Vm1eoton Price October 21, 2015 (irccnville. SC

2 Yo1i -just iolcl ine that.

3 A. You asked m<" a quo,;Lion about t_he co1<1pound

4 for1nulus, and r .said they ctro not avciilable io most 5 p<Coplc inside the compuny.

o. But on your uilidavi t, yon spccilically

Lalked ahout cerluir1 areas. llo you rcrncn1ber that_.,

8 A. Yes.

Q. Al1 right. 'l'Pll me iho,;c areas, please.

MR. GULLION: Objection; ±o.rin.

dor1'L llD.(lerst.and whal you're askinq.

MR. GUERRl\: On his allida\..-it,

u Mr. J'rir:f' stulotl Lhat cert_a:n """''-'" oI the

14 cornpilny aru rcslricted and or1ly available t_o

15 cf'rtair1 people.

l6 M'{. GULLION: Certain areas 01-

ccrlal11 doC\lTnf'nts?

MR. GUERM: Arf'as. Areas.

THE WITNf:s:-;: So MARC is only

20 is rf'striclod to peopl f' thilt l1ecvc access to MARC,

21 and tl1cr1 wltl1in /~AR.(:, tl1cro are area.9 that arc

')') reslricled to pRople t.l1<LL l1ave acr:f'ss to Ll:1use

?3 iJLCdS.

2~ DY MR. GUERRA:

Q. 'l'hat 's 1.hc areas th cit _[ '1a '-'"king a))OUt.

Alde1~on Rcl'<>Tling Conlpany l-~00-FOll-DEPO \laueaton I'nce October~l,201-'i (ireenville, SC

Page 78

1 What are tr10,;e areas'?

A. l don't kno'H cill ol Lhosc arecis.

Q. Tell me the one,; you ki1ow, please.

A. I know 'l'he Lab where we .store -- ,; Lured t11e

5 ,;ubjecl tire, for exu1nplc, l1as limited ucccss.

Q. Anrl you huve access Co it?

l\. I do.

8 (), \\ ho el,;c has a<"'cess toil?

1

9 A. The altorneyc; and ll1e olher te<"'hnical

10 arlvicoeis -1li the gcronp.

Q. So the l.Aqill Department }"lAople l1ave access

12 lo .it?

u A. 'l'hat' s nly l\l1derstanrli nq, yu,;.

14 Okay. l\11y othecr areils Ll>aL you di sr:iis'°ed

15 _i nrcl urlect or1 Ll:c areas that you discl1ssect on your

16 ciff'id'1vil Ll1at are those areas that only li1nilud

1-7 people have acr:ess to il?

A. 'l'here ar" 0Ll1cr areas.

Q. Wo1lld you please tell m". What ace those

20 areas'?

2i A. I know therA is "'' '1.t:Ca wl1erP machine

?? rleveiopmcnt is tiAinq done; that area i.s li1nilcd.

Q. Do you have ucccss back there?

A. ·1 do not .

(). You do r10L? \'lho does huvc access to t.hat

Al<lei~<in Reporting Company l-~00-FOil-DEPO

Vaneaton P1·ice Oolohcr 21- 2015 Greenville, SC

1 area'?

A. I do not know.

J Q. For instanc8, lhc aspect specillcation that

4 'Here prodLtccd in t_hi.s cuse have Mi.cl1ellr1 .restricted

5 sectioi1.

A. see il?

o. I'm qoir1g Lo sho>1 you 0I1c t11at rloesr1' L llave

my writinq. Okay?

9 A. Oku.y.

10 Q. Do you SR<" thut?

11 A. Yes.

Q. 'llhat is thal?

A. 'l'hat is Ll1e cla.s.9i ficiltloil of th"' docuinent

cl!'; D3.

13 Q. As Michelin r8stricLcd, so IJ_'l is wl1aL?

16 A. I don't rem8mbCJL Lf,e exilct 1'1IllJUa<Je that.

17 qoes ,,,_i_Ll1 the ll1 ,-,,Jassillcati_on.

Q. Tell me a -- 9ive m8 your best shot.

A. It 'Hould be a docume11t Lhat 'vo11l cl nol be

20 2110,;ed ontsidc Ll1e comp211y.

21 Q. Thul's all'!

22 A. People t-_hat l1ud access to it would not. h8

~-' allowed Lo tak"' it outside the cornpar1y; in ot.her

?4 woids, they >1ould oi1ly be able to use it at thei_r

2'.J !-'lace of work.

Al<ler,nn Reporting Compauy l-&00-fCIR-DFl'O

V;n>eat<m Price Oc!nhcr 21. 2015 (irccnville, SC:

Q. ~:)o it',; Lhc level of rcslriction''

A. That· s co::::rect.

Q. And ll1aL's your level of clAara11c" too, IJ:-l''

1 Yoc1 got c;ccess to D3 docu1nc1,Ls7

·:r11".cc is r.ot ar1 ussigned levul of cl11?.rc;r1cu

G tha7' I '1n '-'~'are of. It 1''0Llld dRpend url Lhe jr:ih ac Ll10

7 time, lhc need.9 r:if tl1LLL job.

fl access Lo D3 docu1nu11Ls.

g Q. Yoll woulcl?

Which a.cc:as of t.>1e corrq::,any don't you have

11 access at MARC?

12 A. Wull, I have g_'_vcn yo11 an exuilLJJle of one

13 that I k11uw of.

o. Okay.

1s A. I dr:in' l l1LLVe a er.Ass Lu Lile -- tr:i tl1"

16 computers thul l1ouse the for1nulati.on informctlion, for

l/ cxarnplA.

18 Q. And they are located at?

19 A. lit MARC.

o. A. I dor1' L knov1 1-lhere Ll1c computers c1rc

22 located.

23 o. 24 A. I don't J;cnov' wl1at ciepFLrtme11L tl1ey'rf1 .in.

25 Q. Okay. Who would know tl1'1l?

Alde1soll Rcpnrling Corupan.y l -81111·F0ll-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 2 I, 20 I 5 Greenville, SC

Page B~

l'l. ~ don't know who '"onld ki101-1 that..

Q. Ho'-1 would you go abonl l.inding out'' Wi1cJ

3 would '/011 ask?

A. I wouldr1't know wl1cro to be9in willl that

Ci partir:ulai questior.

6 Q. So llO'H do you kr10~· that the cLnn~>uters i'lre

6 A. ~iel l, I kI1uw that the i:oLinulators work ul

g MARC, and if I huU a rruf'sti.011 ubou·:: a form11lu und I

lU were to oall '-' lor1uuJat.or, l.J1cy ;;oulrl access Lh0

11 information LJ-1rough the coELIJUter.

12 Q. Ai1d you >1oulc! go lo Bergman''

13 A. For thf' co1npound that >le discL\Ssecl, I would.

o. What Clboul lor formulatior1,;?

lS f'r1T th" lorml1Jat.ion ol Ll1at compound Ll1at 111e

l6 d.iscus.serl earliL'r, thFit's cor.t:cct.

Q. !"rorn the form11luliotl of the -- ol Lhe trf'ctrl,

18 thP rubbcL comr1ou11d or Ll1c E:kim stock, Lhat ';01ild bG

19 KRrqITiilll?

A. Not. eU oI those rliff0rcul COnlilOll nrl s , !10 .

Q. f'or tl1c LC'X M/S.

22 A. H WOUl(lD' t he spcc_ific ho e tiic line.

Q. Sc llO'H 'HOll l rl yoll go abo\lt, oth;cr than

24 Berqman, Lo finrl o>Jt'?

2 :; A. I don 't know. I kno'" becclusc of thf' skirn

Alderson Rcpnrling Coinpauy l -~110-FOll-DEPO

VnneatoTI Price ()ctobcr 21, 20 15 c;rccnvHle, SC

l'a'1~ H?

stock quest.ion lt1al yo11 cisked me about tl1ul Bergmcin

/ it; Lhe person lJlctL l woulo L>'3k.

Q. Whai other formulu do you know out of MAKC?

A. I don't il.nothcr name of '-' lor1nulFJ.i::or --

Q. YctJ.

A. -- cloesn't coinc to mind.

7 Q. Not il. .~ir1glc

llnrl in "'J1ccL t:\m<> period, for what --

Q. kiqht llOW.

A. don't know ot L>11other for1~ululor's nil.me

11 right now.

Q. Wl10 runs the Formulatior1 Department''

.

1J A. I don't know.

14 Q. Wl10 is tl1c Manag<>r ol Lhe J<'ormulillioil

15 D8purL1nent'!

A. 1 'ion' t k'lOW wl10 lnctnage.s the Fo_r:mcilati on

l'/ Depart_ment.

rn Q. Wl10 is direclor of t_he Formulation

'0 A. don' L kr1ow the a11c;wcr to that.

Q. {Jkay. HOV.' \'lonld you go ilbo11t lir1ciin<J out'?

22 Who won.id you ask"!

A. I could ask l•!i. Bergman, µcrhaps hf' would

24 know.

25 Q. ll.11 ri qht. Okay. Ti.le adjust.ment

Alde1~<>n Rcpurtit1g Company 1-~0U-J·'OR-DF.PO

VaneatnTI Price (Jctober 21, 20 15 lircenville, SC

proce.ssc,,o, lt'.s a type of li1formation and pl1ysi1~al

) evidenr,e Lhat l~icl1clin keeps se<C'reL?

MS. BULLION: Object.ior1; form.

'l'HE WITNr:ss: That ir1ior1'.lat.io11 is

co11£identiul anrl trade s2<C'rCl, l"lroprietary

ii1Iormatior1, that's correcl.

7 HY MR. GU\.:kRA:

8 Q. JutJt a ye:o or no. That's information that

~ Michelin kceri.s secrets, iigl1t, sir?

A. It is.

n Q. _7\ll rigl1t. Tire arl-j11:0Lmeo1t a11u_lys_i_s, that's

12 inforiuation tlictl Mi<C'hclln keep,; secr8t?

ll A. 'l'hul is proprietary dnd t.retdc se<~ret

14 iulormati.or1, yes.

Q. Y<eS OT 110, . SlT.

.

Mk. DULLI(lN: OJ-Jjec:tio11; form.

17 BY Mk. CUERFA:

Q. 'l'hat tir2 adjustmf1nt cct1alysis is infor1nation

0

19 t.hal Michfllin ke8p:o tJecret? Yes or r10, si r '

20 A. I'1n sorry, would you repeal the question''

\) ' Tire adjustment c1nalysis _i_nformal.i.on and

/'2 physi.<C'ul evid8r1ec ls i11lormat.i.or1 a11d phy:oical

23 evider1cc thci-c_ Mlcl1elin k.ee1-is ,;ecret'?

MR. BUl,l,ION: (lh-jecL_;_on.

Alde1son Reporting CoJlljlany I "~00-FOR"DEl'(J

October 2 I , 20 1S

G1eeuv1lle, SC

GY MR. GUERRA:

Q. Ye.s or no, '31.L"I

3 A. 'l'hcit 's tLudc secret and 1~ropr_i_cLary and,

4 yes, ,,,e keep it secret.

5 o. Ye,;, s_i_.c. I got. it, I gol your Sf>ee,-,h. And

6 yo1i ,-,cin kccµ doing j_t, cind tl1al's fi:le, but f Wilill LO

T:ell you, Lhat I'm l will play tl-:ti s tcipe to Ll1c

,Jury. You under.stcind tl1ul? I 'n1 a.ski ng you lor a

s.intple answer, yes oL 110. You undersT:ar1d Ll1at,

10 .c.ight"!

11 A. I c!o.

12 Q. All r.ight.

n MR. BULLION: Your qiiestior1s cc.re

cLr<j L\l~Cll tat i ve . Wher1 you say ".secret," ii..' s

l'.) a.cgu.inentat.ive, arid he can -- he's enl_i_Llcd to

answer it the wuy he v.•ants to.

11 MR. (;IJf•:kkA: I,; Ll1al your

Mk. GULLION: Tryinq to help you

ouL.

MR. GOERR.11.: dor1' L yollr ' IiCCd

22 l1e·'P·

23 MR. HUJ,LION: You don't"!

24 ~R. (;UE:RRA: 1 do11' t neAd your

?5 help, )Jut you cire ent_i_Llcd co make nt-'j ectio11s.

.4,lderson R.eportin)'; Company 1-800-FOR-DHP()

V'neatcrn Price Octohcr 21 , 2015 (lrccnville, SC

MR. BUld,fON: I have heeI1.

MR. (~lJEkkA:

proper ohj<0cllor1.

MR.. BULLION:

!J DY l~R. (;UERRA:

G Q. \\1110 1-ioulrl h"' 1.hc tire arJ-juslnLCilt analysis

'I IleTson l:l1uL you wouid ,;peak t.o i± you r::eed2rl to

8 obtai11 .i11£ormat.io11 u)Jout it_·,

A. W.i.th r8<Ji.lLdS to"!

Q. 'l'1'Te a.•Jjustment, tir'-' ddjustmer1t LOOdes, t-Lre

11 For wl1at ~ime period"!

u Q. Ai1alysi s, m;irkcl resParch, LOhan0e.s on tl1c

14 d2siqn, who wo1ild you yo talk to lo.r the l,'l'X M/S?

15 A. FoT the L.irc macl2 in 2001, -foT 2xu11Lplc?

Q. f'oT exun1ple.

lo'robably Tom Gr11cr1l1olz.

() . OkLly. Anrl after 2001, who would yo>J talk

19 to·:

I don't -- I 'Hould qo tulk. to 'l'om CLucnhoJ.t;c

/I i± I l1ad fjllP.S<.ions a))O\lt. that.

Q. IJoes he st.i.11 work lor th2 co11tpur1y?

13 A. Ile does not. woik; he i.s retired.

Q. So tell m2 a guy that works lor the r:ompur1y

25 that you '"'ould 90 talk Lo.

Alderson Repnrling Compony 1·800-FO!l-DEPO v,neaton Price (}clobcr 21, 20 15 Greenvill~. SC

A. I do11't h~ve u r1a1ne o-f a persor1 that wo11lcl

/ qo tulk ·co today.

o. How wo'lld you

'l'"hat I k11ow 1 I would

o. How would you go fjnd oul about it''

A. [f I needed to know Ll1aL, J '"ould go Lo tl1at_

cJer>art.ment u11ct ask.

8 Q. A11cl that rlf1pail1uc11t is'!

A. QTB.

Q. l\nd i-1ho wou1d be thf1 persur1 Lhat you would

11 tulk. with at. QTG?

I dor1' L k.nov1 i-.•ho' s tl1oro r1ow.

u () ; Wl10 wuulcl you ask .Lor? Who wo11ld you know

14 that. wa,; Ll1ore before?

l5 A. I knew 'l'om Gruonholt7. '.ii'hf1n lie was tl1erf1.

o. Would y<>u go abo11t anrl ask J-1ow wo1ilrl you

17 go dbout -- who would you ask tor ut QTfl, evf1n il YOll

dor1't kno,; a nuine? t:an spcuk. with'!

A. It Uer,ends on ,-_he ql1estion that I 1o1anted an

20 answ8r Lo, and l 'm not clear what. -- wl1uL I'm

/I hypoll10Llcally 'ooki11g for.

Q. Ti re ac!juslmcnt anFJ.lysis, Lire adjustrne11L

23 chctnges, tire adjustment trims.

24 A. [ dor1' L know i-.•hat ti.cc adjustrn8nt. cl1cLt1ges

2'J are.

/\lder.,on Reporting C-ompany l-800·FOR-DEPO

Vancalon Price (Jctober 21, 20 15 Greenville, SC

Png~ 8I

Q. Forget thil.t. one. So Ll10 other two.

know of ir1 Li1<e

' 3 Q'TB depactrr1f'nt: that --

4 Q. Who wo1l1d you '1tik Io.r?

5 Is thf'Tf' a -job >:itle? You havf1 hf'f'n workir1g with the

6 company

7 A. I would ask for -- I would utik for who

8 ma11'1ged Lhat departm8nt:.

Q. l\.nd w"ho is th,;\. lC\CLt1ccgor?

don'-;: know who Cllrrei1tly manaqf's --

11 (>.

12 A. I wou1ct go to t11at rlf1part.mf'r1t CLI1d etsk.

Q. So il10 only person t.hi:!t you, under oath, and

1d you uve11 Lhough you havf1 hf'Bil worki11g 1;it'1 thf'

15 con1par1y for -- l8t: mf' ch8ek l1oro. Even thouqh you

lG l1ave bee11 1>1orki.nq witl1 Lhc compa11y si11ce t.he ycur oI

17 2000 and -- 1999, ti.i.11co 1999, c."hf' only pertior1 Ll"1at

19 dRpart1nenl .i.s Tom ror11enholt.z thut tiLOpf>ed wockinq

20 there ti.i.X years ago'?

He's t.he one thul I would go t.o if I l1ud· a

22 question al.,out: t.irati Lhat 'Here mr.rle in the -- iii Ll1c

23 LTX M/S, which ic; what yoll a.~l;ed mf1.

?4 Q. AGk you nowaday.s, too.

A. I clon' t kno1; ".-1ho' s there Laday.

AIJcr,on ReporLing Company 1-800-FOR·DRPO

October 21, 2015

(Jreenville, SC

Q. ·fc;.;Lc.rday, a year ago, Lwo years aqo,

anybody c;lo;c in

A. Wl1er1 l e1as a tire dcsig11er at MARC, I would

'1 go Lo Larry Mimms, and ii" is retii:ed; he is r10 longer

Q. Whe<t' co l1is r1ame·1

7 A. Le<rry Miffilns.

8 Q. _7\nybody else? So1nc;body that work:<

'} for thco cornpa!lY, because they clo o;lill have peoµlo

JO thal 1oJork. ln the 'l'i re Adjusl1ncr1t Department, iigl1L?

n A. There cire cerlulnly peorile in that arc;a.

12 don't know t.he na11Lc oi the £)er.son in tl1al ccrca.

1J Q. Not a si119le one·!

14 Nol Lhat I can rPcall as I o;ll l1ere.

1s Q. l~ilh al.l yo1lr non-.lii.igullon experience wlll1

lfi tl1e cornµcLny, you ccin't sti.l.l Lc·ll 1ne a sinq.Le "''"'

l'I rigl1L?

18 1'1R. BULL lON: Ob-jeci.lon; form.

19 THE Wl 'l'N\<:SS: ThaL's correct.

?O J--\Y Mk. CUBRRA:

?L Q. _7\r1d now wit.h the logal experience within Llic

22 co1npdny, you cannot te.ll inc also any ot.her na1nc Lhan

23 To1n Gue11J-Joltz ana Larry Mirnws, both of thco1n [Jr.Lor

24 CQ[)loyees, not current errp.loyees?

25 A. T·o ar1swcr your C[\Jf'st.ion --

Alde10«in R~pnrling Con1pany l-~00-FOR-IlEPO

Vaneaton Price Ocluber 21, 20 15

l1R. BULl,iON: Objection; ionn.

-- th"' quc>JL_i_u,, Ll1uL

3 you usked rne about, that's corre'"'t, I don't- kno1./

4 wl10 _i_s in t_hul role.

5 l-ll' MR. GUERRA:

6 Q. Ctsk2d you in 2001, 1 Ctsked you sinc2 2001

No oth"'r J><1mes·1

I gctve yo1i Lhc ones that I ca11 recall, ye.9.

I'1R. BUl.l.ICJN: Objection; form.

10 BY MR. C'UERRI\:

11 Q. No nth8I 1:ames, rigl1L?

1?. A.

Q. Now, Jnanufil'"'tuL_i_r1g anrl inspection processes

ld cu1d pro'"'eduLCS, this _i_s also infoLruatj_on thaj_

15 Michelin keeps .secrol and away lrom the public, yes

lG oc no, ti_i_r?

17 MR. KU.!:,LION: (lh-jecl:_i_or1; fnrm.

18 'l'HJ-', WITNES:O~:

I~ trade s<Ccrct anrl pLo[Jrietar;r u11U we rlo k<Ccfi it

2[) SAOret.

21 BY MR.. C;UERRI\:

Q. SecrAt ur1d a.way fro"' Lhe puhlic?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. 'l'i re p_r:oduct.i on information _i_s aJ .so

75 inlormation and pl1y.<Jicu_l_ evidence 1-l1a.t Mi'"'hel_i_r1 keeps

Alderson Rep<niing Co1npany l -800-F(JR-DLl'O

Vanou(o!l Price Ocrober21,2015 Greenville, sr

Page 90

1 ~ccc::et and away from tile JJU.blic7

l'lR. BULLIOi~: (1bjActior1; .Lo.cru.

3 'l'hat ir1loc::mation is

4 t.radA sAci0l i.ll1d pror>riet~r-,,,, arid we do keep it

5 ao1ay ±ronL Lhc public, yAs.

6 HY MR. CUE:RR-'\:

7 Q. Keep it SRC!"Rt. arid awccy Irom the puhlic,

e co.rc::ccL, sir?

~lR. BULLION: (Jblf'ctiou; loc::rn.

10 Tl{E WITNJ-:oo: \o/f' ,Jo kccfi .i.t away

11 from the public, yes.

·1? PY Ml!.. CUERPA:

Q. All right. And I'"' juo;L goii1g down yo11i

u.ll.i.dcLV.i.t.

h.

10 Q. c:onc:eir1.i.r1g our specific: rf'q11eslc; 1 MNJ\ (lesi gn

·1 R i nformat.i.on Lhat M.i chRl in keeps c;ccrct and Fi.Way fro1~

1g t.he public?

That i nforn>u.L.i.on --

21 MR. BULLitlN:

22 THE W['l'NJ-:SS: -- is L.t:ade secret.

23 anc prop.t:.i.clary ai1d WR do keep .i.L out of p1lbl i c,

yes .

Alderson llepmting C:on1pany 1-BOO"FOR-DEP(J

Vaneaton Price (}clobcr 21. 2015

GY MR. GUER!\A;

secret. and awily iron1 the

3 public, right.?

MR. fl\Ji,LION: Objection; -for1n.

5 BY MR, (~lJERRA;

6 Q. Co.Lrcct"!

A. Yes.

Q. _7\ll. ri qht.. Now, you are not tl1L' autl10.r of

9 llHc polici.es c:oncoi11.i.119 trade s"'cret .i.11ior1nati on

10 w.i.ti1in Mi c:he.lir1?

11 A. That'" correct.

12 Q. So1nebody else is?

·1 3 A. I a1n not aware ol ct singular pol.icy.

Q. Not si nq11l'1r [Jol.icy. J'olicieti, ull the

15 [Jol.ic.ies rel ate~l to Lrade secr,,t.s. Tl1crc has to be

.lG o;ome creat.or, ,;01n'-' author of i.t., i.i.gl1t?

A.

18 Q. '!'lie question is; ilow would you qo abouL

19 fjndi11g Lt1at person, oi Ll1os12 ['ersons or Lt1aL

20 con~n.i.Ltee OT who they are, tl1ei r .i.der1t.i.Ly?

MR. BUJ,l,JON: Objl.'ct.i.on; form.

22 THE Wl'.l'NE:SS: I do11't ;rf'al.ly k'lOW

23 []o,; <:o a!ltlWCr that C{""'stion \"Jecause yo1i' re --

24 you' LC! not te] l i nq me ubout a speci f.i.c document;

you' re talking about ull comriany con±id0ntial

Alderson R.eportili.g rnmpany 1-800-F(JR-DEPO

Vanoalon Price Octobe1 21,21!15 (lrccnville, SC

2 !3Y MR. GlJf,J\kA:

Q. 'l'ra<ic -- tradR sRcicL poli_cif's. Not the

docu1Tient.s. The pol i ci f'S about v1hat i.s trctde seer Rt

Ci and what i:; i1ot.

6 A. I'rn not aware oi wi10 'A'Dll1<1 l1'1vC writtf'n tt1c

7 policy, j__( Of'e RxisttJ.

8 Q. Certainly riot yo11''

9 1'. 'l'hi'lt' s correct.

Q. And ccrlainly i t ' s uol w.i.11y nil.J.y. It ha:o

11 Lo ))e .9omf' kir1<l of framRwork, right_·>

MR. BULLION: Ob-jccL.ion; form.

13 BY MR. COERRli:

Q. Or yo11 guy,; keep all sec_rcL, all in±o_rn1ation

IS sec_rct? 'l'hRre t1us to be so11<E-l lran1ework, rigl1L?

MR.. kUI,LION: ObjRctior1; form.

11 BY ?1R. (~\JSRRA:

18 Q. Tu rJec.i dR w'.1ui.. is trarlR sec_rcl and whc;t itJ

19 not, rigl1t'?

A. J'm not tJure that I'm uIHlcrstanciing your

21 <]lLCStiOll.

22 Q. But let me make il clear for yoL\. It' .s

okay. The.IC has to be tJomc kind of policy at

24 ~!ichelir1 Ll1at decides ;.•hat docurr,entc; d.CC to be

25 will be classified Utl trade Sf'creltJ and kRRJJ secicL

A.lderson Rc'Pnrling Con1pany 1-SOO·FOll-Dill'O

Vaneaton Price October 21, ?015 (;rccnville, ~C

1 as oppos8d <:o ones tl1at "'" not, correct'!

~ A. 'l'hc:r0 would be " policy i:hai: would de±ir1c

) how u11cl I should -- I do11' L llke the word dellne

because I ha·1en't .9een the Uocument but 1-l1ul v1ould

S descrlDc whicl1 t.ypes ol ciocu1nents, for exullLJJlc, would

6 be DJ, as yoii pointcod Lo one 1)rAviously.

Q. And '"hich document.9 '"ould be Lrade secrflt.

8 A. 'i'hcit's correct.

9 Q. You u.<:e not thA ciuthoi ol those rJol i_cies?

10 A. Right, 1 am not.

Q. Okay. And how woltld you 'JO Clbo10t g<eltlo1g

l2 tl1os<e documents cind Lulkl11g to thA 1~ersor1 Ll1at

13 uulliored thAm or urc rcsponsibl8 ±or Ll1<e,n?

I dor1' L krlOW.

l'J (). llow would you go about llt1dlng out'!

16 A. I'1n r1ot s\lr8 ho'" I would go aho1lt f'indl11g

17 ollt. I woulci a.sk the L>Llorneys _if they kI1<ew who

18 auil10.t:cd tl1os8 ,-Jocu1n<er1Ls.

Q. Arid by "attorneys," you mea11·!

20 A. 'l'he lolks tl1at I work "lll1 in t11e ;,eqal

Q. Such a.s·!

A. llny of t_he ul 1-orr1cys in t.hA Legal

2~ Depurlment.

25 Q. Ni,-,ole?

Al<le1~nnReporting Co1npany 1-800-FOlt-DEPO

Y aneato11 P11ce October 21, 2015 lln:cnville, SC

1 A. [ihe COLLld be one, VAS.

Q. ls Li1dl Mrs. K\Jnti.n>

A. Yes.

4 Q. Okdy. apoloqizo. Mrs. Bunt.in \vould be

S one o± Ll1c people t.hCLt. you would talk t.o">

A. That I would usk, but don't. -- I don't

'/ k11ow who \\'Ould k11ov.'.

Q. Ms. Ji'oslccr?

9 A.

10 Q. Okcty. _7\ll ri qht. Acljust1nent processes ccr1<l

i I analysis, Ll1at's informutio11 Lhat Micheli.n koccps

1/' sec.eel cind away from tl1c IJUblic"!

MR. BULLION: Oh-jecl.i.cn; form.

THE WI'I'Nf::o:-;: Thctl information is

lo trade secrol dnd p.rOJl1""ietary cu1d, yes, we do k80l)

16 it. awuy 1rom the pllh1i.c.

17 KY MR. CUERRll.:

Q. Keeri it sec:rol u11d away from thc pu\-Jlic,

19 ccor.r:cct?

MR. RlJl,l,ION: Objcctio11; form.

21 BY MR. l~UERRA:

2? Q. c,_u::rect?

A. Yes.

Q. '.'1aDufa,-,,t.urir1g ecnd insr>ect:i.on µioccsses and

25 procedures, that's .i.r1iormat_ion that Mict1clin keeps

Alderson RepnTLing Co1npony 1-80\1-l'Oll-DEPO \'ancalo<l Price October ~ J, 10 L'i c;rccnville_ SC

P1g<' 95

1 secret a01rl ctway lrom the puhlic?

MR. HU l,Ll\JN: UbJect1 on; :tor1n.

l THJ-: \'.'"CTNSSS: That i nfor1~ulion is

4 trade sccret, proprietary, and '"e rlo kecp it

5 nway.

6 HY MR. C0ERIU\.:

7 Q. M~ch<"l in kuc~'" it secrPt: ilr1d uway from the

8 pc.bl.ic, corrE"ct''

9 A. '!'hat's currect.

MR.. HIJLLION: Object.ion; ±u_rnt.

11 BY ?'-1R.. C:lJCRRA:

l? Q. Arlci you 1Jnderslcu1d tl1is is sr~ecilically

i _1 relLllcd to reqll<"sts 011 lhis cas<""! You ur1derstanrl

1~ th'1L, rig0t"!

Nn, I Uor1't underst:ctnd yuur stat<"ment:.

lG o. It's f)dragraph 4 :J o:t yuur --

17 A. Tl1dl 's corrE"ct:.

Q. affidavit''

And t_hat parugLaph reads -- spocifj ca 11 V

20 rclates to plai11tiiis' requ<"st, ycs.

21 43 docs Lefer to plair1Liifs' reqii<"st ±or

22 manufact11ii11g specj fi ccttio11, Lliat' s correct.

23 Q. You did write tl1al?

A. I ciid.

Q. All ri qht. You did -,;evi<"w il?

Alderson Repnrling Contpany 1-~111!-FOR-Dfil'O

Vaneaton Price ()cloh~r 21, 2U l 5 (jreenville, SC:

1 I clic!.

2 Q. You did say this: I11ioLmctLlor:: tbat "'" h"v"

3 here is i_nformati_on tloill Mlcliclln ir1tentionall\',

4 caut]ollsly, in a prenLcdllctLcd Jnanner, keep secret '111d

5 away from the pu}_,_i__i_c?

MR. BULJ,ION: {Jb-j2r:tion; lu.r1n.

'L'he iulorntallor1 is

L.rcldc secret, pro1iri2tary, arid wo do k.0ep it out.

~ of the public, yes.

10 BY MR. (;ur:RRA:

11 Q. And you do koeµ ll c~way from t.he publi<o

1? int.2ntionally, Ligl1L?

1-3 MR. BUl_,l.l{JN; (Jh-jectio11; lo.rrn.

11 DY ~lR. GUERM:

Q. Thought out., p,-2merlitatcd?

lG A. Me personall.y?

Q. You are the lctce ol tl1e comriany on this.

I~ You are the secrols man here.

MR. RUl.l.l(JN: (Jhjectlor1; form.

'l'Hf: \\ll'l'Nf:SS: Tl1eso documents are

ccn'lpany trade secret clocwnc11LtJ, they' re

22 riroririet.ary, and 1;e keep Ll1em out oft.hf' public,

?3 yf's.

/'4 flY MR. CUERR.'l.:

2S Q. i'.nu you unde_rstand t.hCLt. plaintills -- you

Aldc'T<on Rcpordng Co1npany 1-800-1,0k-DEPO

Oci'1bci- 2 l, 211 l 5

c;rccnville, SC-

l'aae 97

1 ur1derstancl thul plaintiffs -- yolt read the dj_scovery

1 .re,1uests, you J1ave been involved in r_h1s liLj_garion,

3 right'!

4 A. I "''r, fami l i Ctr wj_LJ:1 some of tl1e dj_scovery

5 rRqllests, Ll1at's r:orrecl'.

6 Q. YOll know -- sorry.

_7\nd yo11 kr1ow t)1at t_hose lolks are -j11st

8 lolks, right, -jusl common folk?

oon' L kno,,· t_o '"ho1n you' re referring.

o. My '-:lients, .Sam ur1d Obdulia, rigl1L; just

12 A. Okay.

o. Right''

I don' L kr1ow them.

Q. !Jo you kr1ow that they work for a co111f1ctitor·2

No, I don't- know t-hdL.

Q. All right. Ilus dl1yl"Jody t_old you tl1at t_hey

18 are workj_ng for a co1rrpctito~·;

No, no 011c's told me thul.

o. ,Jnst common fo1k, and 1-J-1at's common lolk

21 Ll:at is askir1g Ior these docllffients, not contpctitors.

22 find yoq guytJ intent.ionally, Michelin i11Lc11tionally

23 keeps ,;_ll this inforrr•,;_Lj_o11 from thesCJ lolks, rjght'>

MR. BULL I <JN: Objoctio11; form.

THE Wl'l'Nf:SS:

Alde1son RL11onitlg Compillly 1-800-FOIZ-DEPO

Voneaton Pricu October21,20l5 Greenville, SC

P~ge ~&

proprietary, trade ~ocrct and, yes, we keep them

/' oul of t11e 101ihlic.

3 DY MR. GUERR~:

Q. Not only the public. Yo11r ilrsl ·-- your

Ilrst si:-.ory ,.,as ll's because of our co1npeti.tion. I ' nL

G tel)inq you, wc'.cc no comi"let.it.2.on. My peO}"lle are

just. corunon lolk. 'Tbe lady 1-hul I Lepresent. is

8 quad:rap..Loglc. \~e are sayir1g, we need t.hese documer1ts

t.D p:rovc our ca:;2. And yol\' .ce sayi nq, on }.>cl1alf of

10 MiL:hc·lin, here> t.oduy und iD your aftiauvlL, we wi 11

11 r10L <Jive t.hAse docu.ffLcnts that I am er1un1c.cating h2r2

12 becausR t.h2y urc secret nnd we> kcoo]J Lhem awny front

13 t:0e public, r·lgl1t?

Mk. G!JLLION: Object.ion; iDLlll.

Ir, HY l1R. GUERM:

.16 Q. Right''

I'm '°ayl11g Lhat thRsR dDcwnL'r1Ls are tradR

18 secl'.Pt., proprlclary, and thRy urc noL out in t.hR

19 public, tl1'1l s correct..

1

Q. Not even t.o your 0llents, l,1Ji s, rigl1L?

MR. BULLION: <Jblectlon; form.

22 3Y !'JR. rouE~RkA:

Q. Not. ever1 Lo your clients, rlght? 'l'hat.'s

24 \\'t:at yon' re 1-olllng me"i

25 I )Jell eve th~t. we l1uvc l urned over many

Aldc"o" Repruting Company l -800-FOR-DFP(J

Vancaluto Price (Jc Luber 21, 201 5 C'ticenvillc, SC

l clocuments relatec! to Lhc subje;~t tire, und that's

Q. I get ii:. ':'ou are awal'.8 tt1ul many oti-:Ar

J document.s thut I l1ave asked and I've been fighting .i.n

4 couo:t for, you ftave not. t.urn2d U1''i.ly, right"!

5 I'nL aware of t.hat, yctJ.

6 Q. Arid you kno>1 tl1at I represent. peoplu Lt1at

are r10L co:cnpetit.<"JTS. You know that.

MR. BULLION: (Jh-ject.i.or1; form.

TEE WITNF.:o:o:

11 BY '1R.. \~UERRA:

12 Q. I d.i.dn' t ask yo11 tor Lhat.

·1 3 A. trade secret --

Q. You kno'v t.ha;-: tl1c pcor,le that.

15 I rcr,resent ai:e no'" co1npet.itors of M.i.cl1cl.i.n, right.''

MP.. R\Jl,l,JON: Objection; form

l '/ 'J'Hf: "'' ! 'l'NE:SS:

18 docu1ncr1Ls have of gettir1g out i.nc.o the public

coL\ld be a risk to Ll1c company, ye'°, tJir.

20 IlY MR. GUERRA:

Q. <Jka y. Tt1aL's not whCLt I ae;kcd.

you: IJ8 yo•.1 kr1ow that thA people Lt1at J repr2sent

23 a:re not co1npoL.i.tors of Micl1el.i.r1, yes or no''

24 Mk. IlULLION: Obj2,-,tjor1; .torm.

TliE WITNESI:~: I don't kr1ow Lhe ir

Alderson ReportJ~g Company l ·ROO-FCJR-lJlJPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2!115 Greenville, sr

Page _oo

1 _role.

2 GY MR. GUERRA:

Q. You neveL l1card, noborly has eveL told you

4 t11at they al'.e co1npel.itors, ri qht?

5 A. No one's over told me tl1L>L.

6 Q. Nobocly told yoll thal'. ll1oy work for a

7 compe-r.iloL Lire man1,factuLeL, rigl1t"i:

A. Correct, no ono'e; Lold me that.

o. Nobody -- nobody told yo1J thac_ tl1cy ever

10 worked for a rlealoi 1 d t·ire cleal"'r n1u.11uldc·turer or a

11 tire decilership, _rigl1t?

12 No or1c l1as ever told inc lhat, that.'s

13 correct.

Q. In your ciff.irla-i,•il, you say "'""'" ilr1d Ly

J:, "we," you understan<i tl1ctl I am talkinq abouL

16 Michelin, right?

11 A. I c!o.

18 (). Arid by "\;e," yo" 11nde.re;Lar1ci that out of tho

19 tho11sar1ds oI employees thu.i: Micl1elin·has in its

)0 con;pctI1y, Lhey rli rln ' t dcisigndte you for anyll1ing l>ut

±or lo ta] k cihont the secrets of Michelirl. Yoc1

22 understanrl that?

MR. r,u1,1,roN: Objcctio11; fo:rm.

24 THI": 'II I TNSSS: I unde:rst.cinrl T.hat I

wrole dil affi.davi t :::egaLcling I~ichel in' s trade

Alderton Kepo11ing C-01np"'1}'

l -800-FOR-r:iEP(J

Vancalull Price (}cLohcr 21 , 2D l 5 c~-CL"TlVi Ile, SC

1 secret, propriolclry infol.'Jf,ation.

2 BY ~lR. c;ur:RRA:

3 C) • 'l'hey co1~c to you -- they ccuno to yo\l to c:sk

4 you t_o write Ll1ctL affidcivit, cor.t:L'CL?

6 Q. You are the chosor1 one, ri_ght, to >:Lllk about

7 the socrcls?

To write tlLls a££ida,1it, r was LlGk.od to clo 9 LhciL; that.'s corrccl.

(). NoJ-,ody "lo;o i11 the compu11y; you, you,

~1 Mr. l'rice.

A. Tl1c~L' s correct:.

Q. fill r_i ght. And Ll1cr1 you go on, and you

14 whuI1 I reaci t.his ai':ticluvlt, I get. the iin[Jrossion that_

1 !) ihls is done int<0nilonally; am ~nco:crccL?

MR. RUl,l,JCJN: Objcctlon; form.

1 '.' THr: \<\ 1'l'NESS:

1 The writinq o±

18 -r:hc~ --

10 HY MR. GUERP.l\:

Q. The keeping

-- a±±idavlt was intentior1<-1lly

Q. The k.coping the doc11no8r1Lo; secret, that' co the

23 gi_st of your aifidavi t.

24 Mk. GULLION: Objection; ±011n.

Alderson ReportJug Cnmpany I ·800-F(JR -DEPO

Vancalnn Price October 21. 2015 Greenville, SC

Paqe 111/

l l-lY JvjR. l~UE:RR.'l.:

Q. 'l'J1i_s 1-S do11e intentjonal-iy. i'1icne1ir1 doc,;

3 LILlc; or1 purpose, rig11t'!

Those document_.9 are trade c;ccrcls, Ll1ey're

5 ~>roprletary, and t.hRy're not out i11 Ll1c [JUblic.

6 Q. Ai1d it_' s d<,ne i11tc11tior1ully and

7 Tl1;it' c; Jny 4ucslion, sir; ye.s or no''

MR. BULLION: Object.ion; form.

THE WITNt~SS:

10 D'f MR. CUERPJ\.:

n Q. llll rigbt. And it_' s dor1e ir1 il Lhouyht---out

12 n1ar1ner and i_n a prAmedit:ated 1'\ilr1I1ccr.

13 MR. DULLION: Objection; form.

14 1-lY MR. (;)JJ.;kkA:

I :, Q. Rigl1L?

A. Tl1<erc ls a pol icy ahout: how t:o usc;igr1 Lrddcc

11 scccrcL status to docum<"nt:s, yes.

18 Q. e clo t_hat_ \\1 '"'"Y t:loo11gl1I: olLL, anci we say, we,

19 Michelin say, these docuinci1Ls we're goiD'J to kRep

/0 hicld"'n ilnd ilWilY lLOfiJ Lhc public?

MR. BULT,J(lN: I Jon' t_ ilnSW8l. Dor1' L

22 u11swcr any nore rrue.stions about 1-11.is. Yoll have

23 asked th'c.s at -!ea.~t 20 t:i1nes, ur1cl .iL's beyonci

24 hara.s.si ng. H"'' s not: goir1g Lo answer any more

25 rrue.st.ions about: thul:.

Alderson Rf'po1ting Coinpan;

J-800·F(JR"DEP(J

\lanuulon Price OcLoher 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

MR. GUERSA: Ilc1rassi nq, lhat' s

s1lcl1 '-' stronq wor<l, ·rom.

3 MR. BIJl,l,[ON: It seem,; Lo be

4 harussing to inc, it's --

MR. l.lJERRA: No, it's r1ot -- 110,

6 _i_L's not l1arassiDg.

MK. GULLION:

morA qucc;Lions.

MR. GUE',l\HA: We're here an<l we're

relL1xCd. 'ile'rc Lalkinq ;:ibouL -- you're smilinq.

11 THE Wl'~NESS: I'm on camera.

12 MR. l.lJERRA: 'l'l1ank yOLl, b\lddy.

Tl1ank yo11 Lor yo\l hel]J, Tom.

MR. GULLI(lN: IL wasn't really i.11

15 an etio.t:t to help you. I 'n1 juc;t tired oi ... - I'm

'6 tir8d of 1 i steni11g to the sillnC q11estions over and

over anrl over ugain, and your -- and your t_one

18 clnd -- I -jusL think you've beat tl1c dead hoic;o

complAtely.

MR. GUERRA: Cou>C on, you' LC

callir1y Mr. l'riee a dead horse? c:ome on, tl1a;::'s

22 uniuir anri maybe rude. I wOllld say ll1at 's rnde,

23 'i'om. Hut. I'1n just going dow11 his allidavit.

don't know l1ow mar:y tintcs he ,.,rote it. I'm jusl

re a di nq tl1c cli ffAre11L paragrapl1s. If you tl1_i_1:k

II IJcr;on lteporlJTig Company 1-8DO·FClR·[)hl'0

Vaneutou Price October 21, )0 I 5 Ureo"ville_ SC

1 that' :o too Jnuch, maybA yo11 sl1ould ;1ave wi:ittor1

2 lAss, OI tic SllOUJd havA Wr1-LL<en less.

MR. BULLION: J\.sk him about l:1is

ailidcLvit.

,, MR. GUERm\.: L'm aski11g. Tl1is _i .s

o;Lraight O\lt of l1io; difidavit. Thul WdS

I c!ou' L have miich

morf1 to go, uud you'rf' \_f1lling inc Lhat he can't

ans',;er -Lhoe;c <1uestions.

10 RY MK. CUE:RRA:

Q. ll.ll right., Be -Lllul as i t may, let',; Lalk

I/ aboul Lhe intentional ilclions of Miche.lii1 Lo protect.

13 ile; secrets.

You silid ur1 oiqht-foot higl1 Cyclone t.opped

lS with barbed w.irc Ience. 'l'hat'" OliC of thR stAps tl1i1L

16 Michelir1 tc1kcs activAly to kocp Lhe secrAts awily lrom

-1 7 the public?

Therf1 is il s0<eur.ity fencA cirour1d Ll1<0 M!\l{C

19 cu.Inpus, t.l-iat's corLOcL.

Q. No, IlO. You say it's to protect thf1

21 secrf1Cy.

A. That's C01'.1'.f1Ct.

Q. i\nd tl1is is -- Ll:1is is your \;ord,;, Light?

A.

Q. .l didn't 1ndk.O t11is llp, right?

Alderson l<qinrling Cocnpuny l -~00-l'OH.-OEPO

Vaneaton T'rice October2l,)0J'i (;reenville, SC

1 Tl1i1L's correct_.

Q. I l1ad no involvemenl on youJ: att1dilvit,

3 riqht?

A. Tl1at's rc<-,rrect.

Q. It 'A'as you ilI>d your attorney, ij_gl1L, that

6 w.rolc the affi_clavil?

I 'Nroto LJ:1j_s document.

8 Q. It wu.tJ yocJ and M)c.J-,elir1's attorneys that

9 Cilme "P .,,j_Ll1 L!le affidavit, rj_gl1L?

'0 A. I wrote t.he affidu.vj_L_

tl Q. You told me pu.Ll. You can tell Jn'-' what Kate

12 did, but riart., fra1n"'"o.rk., right'!

I told you tJpecific pctrt:o tl1ul sl1e wrote.

14 She wrot_e thco l1cacler at the top ol Lhe documenr:, tl1co

1') foot.er at Ll1c bottom of the doca1nc11t anrl, yc;s, tl1oro

lfi ""''° soinc Iramework infor1na·"ion t!1at 'Nent illong ·~ilh

J7 it.

18 Q. In fact, you said tl1ere watJ 1norc stuff,

19 right? You :oaid Ll1cLe was more tJtui.1 Lhan just. -;:he;

20 footer and tl1c other.

A. I tJaid ther2 v,•as ±ri.lmcwork tor the documcnL,

)) that'" L'orrect.

23 Q. Bcit you said, I can't give you Ll1c pJ-~ys~ca]_

21 evidence of whctt tJl1c gave me, riqht?

A. 'l'he pl1y,;icc~l evidef'ce ico l1crc irl the

AldeT«m RLt><>rti<lg Co1npany 1-8UO-J<'OR-DET'O

Van~aton Price OctobL"r 21, 201 5 Ureenville, SC.

""'qe 106

affidavit.. Tl1co;c v1ei:e t.he u.i.c<lS that were .i.dent.i.fi f'd

2 as beinq detu..i.lecJ inforrr.utior 1 .

3 Q. 1'Jo 1 rro. Kf'fore yOll wrote it., I want to see

4 thf' fru1nuwork.

5 A. I don't. have ihat document..

o. I <Jet i.e.

7 Now· -- LLLL 1-ihat I'm su.y.i.I1g is that. you l1aci.

8 Lhe opport.unity unci the a''ai.lub.i.lity of Micl1c.l.ir1

9 Legal IJ2part11Lct1L c·oricRrning your affida'Jil, r.i.ght?

10 You had tl1c o~>port\Jn1't.y Lo La.::k to the1n c1r1ytime you

11 w;int.ed u.bout it.'?

1? A. Cert;iin.ly.

! .1 Q. A11rl you d.i.d have the oppo.i.·LLUlity ;ind you d.i.d

1~ speak wit.h che1n ubout it..

.l':J A. Yes .

Q. A_l_l .right. And 1-lien you hc;d the oppol'."tuni ty

17 t.o pre~1u.rc for this deposltion c;hont Ll1is affi d;ivi t,

·1 e riql1L?

y f's .

Q. An~1 you talkf'd t.o your attorneys, you Lalked

1.l to Nicolf', Light"/

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. You t.al ked to I<ate Hf'lm?

A. Yes.

o. You talked to the .lady irom Ch'·""'.'!"''

Alderson Reporting Compau~ l -~00-l'OR-D"F.l'O

Vaneaton I'rice (Jctober 21, 2015 {lr~cnville_ SC

1 A.

2 Q. You Lalkrod to the qentlc,~all from f'loridil?

3 A. I dld.

Q. Yoll talked to Mr. Bull_i_or1'?

A. I clid.

Q. You had a nteullng that lasted <1r1 cr1Llre day

uLout it, riqht, lio1n 11l11e to four?

8 A. ·1-he H\eellr1g was thil.t lonq.

9 With five FJ.ttorr1oytJ.

10 A. Tl1'1L' s correr:t.

Q. From Michel.in, rlgl1L?

A. Correct..

Q. 1_ certair1ly l1ctcl nothing to do wlll1 yocir

14 affidavit_, right?

Thu<_',__; correct.

16 Q. O.r Lhey, right_.,

A. Except that it'c; wrlLLen _in r8sponse Lo yuur

18 dlc;covery request.

Q. But I clld.n't. So I cl1ose tl1e

20 v1ords t_hat you [JUL in the affi.davil, I chose the

21 information Lo J-Je put on th8 allldavit"!

A. NA.

?_3 Q. I chose how you wrote it"!

A. No, it's based or" youc dis<.overy request.

Q. Yeah, h11t iL l1as riothinq to do wlLJ-1 me,

Aldersan Reporting Cunipany 1-&UO-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton P1ice October 21, 2015 (ircctiville, SC

1 right:: [ had 110 itlput on t_h., way you wrote th'1t.

2 ThaL's correct..

3 Q. OLl10.r folks rlirl. You dllci Michelin ±olkc,

4 rlid, 2-iljlil?

A. I v1rote the docwncnt.

Q. \~ith t.hA frunLcwork, _;:ight?

A. 'l'hat's COLL<eCt.

8 Q. Anrl tl1cr1 you seek ~rlvice l.rom tl1ose

10 A. I dldr1't cl1Ftr'1cterlzc lL that WFty.

Q. You didn't''

A. T11ey were involved in t-h"' procetJtJ. i talker!

13 wlll1 tJ1em.

Q. q"'t ll.

l'J But you haci thP opportunlLy and thP

16 avcii 1cibillty of all these folks Lo talk t_o aboul your

17 cifficlavll, ri'}ht:!

1B A. I'm not_ sure wl1lch fol ks and al: wl1at ti111e

lY you're referring to 11ow.

A. :;ince you wrote the a±±idavlt, si.n,~e before

21 you wrote tl10 affidavit_ up to Loday.

A. Okay. Tho.5"' pA<,plo wo.ren't aJ l iuvolvcd in

?3 writir1g Lhe affidcivit, r10.

Q. 'l'hey were lnl'olved Jn writir1g tl1e

25 ulllclavit anrl prepaLlr1g for the depo,;llio11s about thA

Alderson Repncling: Cornpony 1-800-b'Oll-DEPO

VaueatJ>n Price October 2 l, 2!115 Greenville, S(:

ai1-_;_davi t, rigl1L?

Mk. IlULLION: ()bJCCt to for1n.

'l'HS WITNEs:-:: ~ don't t.hink. they

1 Wf'rf' '111 111vol'lf'<i .i.n preparing me for tl1e

6 BY Mk. CUERRI\:

7 Q. l\nd for JJLaparinq .tor the df'pos.i.l.i.or1

8 conecr11in~1 t.he uLiiclav)t.'?

dor1'L bel)f've Lhey Wf're ull in•·olved .in

10 prc1)ac1'ng Inc Lor t.hf' deposition or Lhe af.fiduv.iL.

u () . Ok.cty. All r.i.gl"1t. Ancl yoL, a] so h'1d Ll:e

l:< oriportun.iLy in prepuring your ull.i.davit to Lalk to

13 the ±oin1ulators ur1d the compou11ders 2nd Llic c.l ciss

14 speeLors ar>d tl1e desjgni.ng uL the tire, you had thLtL

1S op~'ortunJ'ty i l you wcinted Lo"?

A. It I needf'd to Lor tl1e i11lormatinn tl1uL I

17 fJUt in che affj davit, had t.he O]JpOrtllnit.y.

Q. But yon d.iUn' t. '!'hose folks you d.i.dn't t.alk

19 f.O.

20 A. I didIJ' t need to Lo J1avf' th8 .i.nforrnat.i.on

?I tl1cLL I nf'f'<led Lor thf' '1lL.i.davit.

C) • S.i..r:, ju.st answer my qnesL.i.on. Ynu U.iUn't

2J sf,eak to uny single worker in dcs.i.gn, build, class

24 spec, ir1spector, tl1.i.s suh"ject L.i.re for your

LCi aff-iduv.i.t, riqht?

Alder<nn Reporting C-0mp:my 1-800·FOR-DEP(J

Vone"ton I'ricc Octohcr 21, 20 15 C'n-ccnvillu, SC

rage l~J

1 MR. BUJ,l,'l(JN: Object.ion; ior1n.

2 THE Wl 'l'Ne::J~;: l t 1-ia.5 not necessary

J Lliat I speak Lo any of t.f1osc rieople to prepare

Lhls affidavll.

,, BY MR. r;ur:RRA:

Q. Yes or no, di.cl you speak wit.Ii a11y of t.hein?

MR. [lULLillN: OIJjcction; forJIL.

TI!E WITNr:sfl: IL \\;as not. necessary

OJ arid I did not..

10 KY MR. GUEREA;

o. Yo1i did not.,

h. 'l'hat. 's correct..

1 :J Q. I dor1't know your couch and your e1ords, jlLSt

yes you did or no ·you J_;_dn' t. It yoll cli.d, I. would.

1 i ke to ki1ov1. 'l'hat.'s all my q118sllon is.

16 MR. J-llJl,1,ION: Object.io11; iorm.

·17 KY MR. GUE:RkA:

Q. I f you don't., iusl say, 1,11is, I di.dn't..

MR. BU'.::,LI()N: Objection; for1n.

10 B" MR. CUER!IB:

21 Q. You didn'i, ri0l1t'?

MR. BULLION: ObjRct.ior1; form.

THf: WITNESS: 'l'hat.'s correct.

?4 rri MR. c;Uf',RRA:

Q. You Lalked t.o u.Ltorneys, right?

Aldors011 RepoitjTig Curnpany 1-800·F(JR-lJIJl-'0

Vancalon Price Or.robei· 21, /.0 15 (irccnvillc, 8C

I did,

MR. HUl,l,f()N: ObJectJ..on; t<>r1n.

3 BY MR. (;\;J.;RRA:

4 You got tl'e framewo:ck from attorneys?

5 MR. BULLION: Ohj2r:tior1; io.c1n.

'l'liE: WITNESS: I did.

7 HY MR. GUERRA:

o. All rigJ-1t. Now let's go bLLck to the

~ Lhought-oiit., p:cu1nccl.Lta.ted ar:tior1s Ldke11 bj' Mir:he1i11

10 tc, r'roter:t its scc.·rets.

11 Mk. BULLIClN: OtljE'CLion; lorm.

12 l-lY MR. CLTE:RRl1:

Q. In addition to ~he Cyclone :te11cc, you say

11 tl1orc _i_s a limited ucccss t11rnst.ilo '-u1cl badge r2adei;

15 .Ls Ll1a.t corr2ct'>

'l'hat's correct.

17 u. To kucp the secrels )Jrotected"!

18 A. Thdt' s correct.

o. l\.11 right.

20 A. l111rl to co11L.col access to Ll10 facility.

21 o. No, no, no, no, no, 110, Lhat's nnt whul you

22 saicl. You su.Lcl on yo\lr parLLg.Cctph 47, ·the '°tcp that

23 MNA has in place to protecl Lhe secrecy ot .Lls

24 confi.denl_i_al design and Ucvcloprnent.al inio.c1nation

?5 .include, not _limited, not acce.ss to tho laci~i.ty, to

Alderson RepOTting ()lfnpany 1-~GO-F(Jfl.-DliPO

VancalotL Price Oclubcr 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

!'"''~ - l;;

1 keep t_he ~ccrecy, righl, sir; thul's what. you wrote''

Ai1d that.' s Ll1c proces,; Dy whi r.h we k.ee1-i -r:he

J ser.recy it> limiting ClCCe.ss througl1 this tuii1stile,

4 for excunple.

s Q. I 'rn -j11st reading wl1LLL you '"rote,>. You dor1' L

like what yo11 wroLe, t_hat'" no prohle1n, but ilTI\

7 rcuding e1hat you wrot.e, right'/

MR. BULLION: OIJjoction; iorm.

TIJE WITNr:~s: Yes.

10 BY MR. COERJU\.:

11 Q.

12 and bctdge reader, riqht.''

J3 'l'hat'" correr.t.

o. All right. Arid did you wrile thR pol.icy

15 c.·011cerninq Lhc turnstile and the badge readei-?

A. Ne. I wroLc _r10 pol icy witl1 reqar<l,; to the

l'I t11rn,;tilc or t_he bctdge reader.

18 Q. '•~ho wrolc that. policy'/

I dor1. t kJ<OW.

Q. Did yo1.1 tFJ.lk Lo him'.'

A. }! (J •

Q. llll right. Did you Lo.lk -- did yOLl ordf'L

23 the ±cor1cc, thA Cyclone ff'nc:c?

24 A.

Q. Who ordered thai?

Al<krson ltepo1t1Tig Cornp011y 1-800-FCJR-lJhl'O

Vatieaton Price October2l,2GJ'i Greenville, SC:

1 A. I do not know.

2 Q. D.id you t.alk Lu l1im, to t.l1u person that

3 ordered .i.L?

A. I di.d not Lctlk to anyo11u about orderi11g the

:, Cycluno fence.

Q. lli d you Lalk to anyboUy that set. ll1c f'Ol icy

7 Loward tha-,: ,;µcL·.i.fic eiqht-looL h1gh Cyclo110 fenc"' to

8 kee1i t.he e>ecrcts out.?

9 A. I cl.id not. t.alk Lo anyone abouL orderinq 1-l1c

10 eOqht.-looL high (:yclor1c fenc·e.

o. To kee1~ tl1c secrets in. I apoloqi.ze. No

I2 doubL, you underc;Lood t~lf> quec;L.i.cn.

13 II. 'l'o li1n.i.L t]1e accec;c; Lo the facil.i.Ly, yes.

Q. No. To kePp the ""cret.s in. Ycu said to

l'J protect iic; secrecy, righl? ThP Cyclon" fence is Lo

16 prot.ecl Lho secrecy, r.ight"!

MR. BUI.I.ION: OlJject1on; ±orin.

THE \~ I 'J'NE:SS: It is.

19 GY MR. <OIJb:RRA:

Tl1c1L's what. you wrote.

21 Tho security gctlo's manned Monday thro11gl1

22 J<'rlciay, 6:30 to:,:()() (J.111., p2trol.1.cd by Sf>Cllrity al

?'3 all. other l101irs, 1;cckend.s and hol_;_Uays.

llici you Lalk to t.ho:;c Iolk.s"!

J have at times tal.kcd to Ileoplco in

A l<lLTh<Ml Report~ Company l ·800-FOR-Df":l'l)

Vaneaton Price October 21, ?O 15 Greenville, SC

1 secur_i_Ly, yes.

Q. For this affiduv_i_L?

3 No, I did 110L,

4 Q. All riql1t, For this deposition?

A. No, I d_i_d tlOt,

6 Q. All r_i_gl1L, For the qoJy Lhill wrote tl1e

7 policy u.Loul Lile Il\anned qates f:roin Monday tl1ro11qh

8 Fri~lily?

A. No, I'm not awuic oi a11y s11cl1 --

10 Q.

11 A. I don't kr1ow who that person wou1cl be.

12 o. All r_i_gl:1L. Who is the person Ll1ctt wrote t.hf'

·1 3 pol icy aboul vcr1dors not a 11 owed on Lhc MNll i)remi ses?

A. I do not know.

l'.) Q. Did you spR"tk will1 l1im?

l c1irl not.

11 llirl you look at tl1e pol 'cy''

18 I did r10L.

·1 9 Q. Oicay.

A. I am 11ot ?.'4?.rf' tt1ul Lhcrc is a policy other

21 Ll1ur1 security q\lidelinCJs.

22 Q. p, J J riqhi:. llecvc you seen t.hose?

23 A. I have 11ot.

24 (l. CertuiI1 arcaE: of the MARC cullLJJUS are

7.5 accessibico only to !~ARC: personnu1 w.iLl1 l1eightened

/\ ldcT«>n Reporting Compony 1-800-POR-OF.PO

October?l,1010

security uccoss. Do you have th2t heighte11od

) securily ucccss?

A. I Lh.ir1k that \olOllld depen<i O!l Ll10 dl"Cd. }\nd

1 I tlLCI1L.ioneci one ea--:-lier, for exurnµlo 1 Tt10 Lab v1here

'J we had the subje,-,t. t.i :::e ir1 tl1.is cecso stored, J had

G access to; most. would nol.

7 Q. '.'ell me -- Lcll n1c ···-two questions. Firsl,

8 ;1hat. are the oll1or a.:oas, since you say severul, wl1uL

~ are tl1e 0Ll1ci a.teas that are only accessiblu Lo

10 cerla.i.11 JJCOple?

Every bui 'ding has ])i.ldgu c1cccss control.

Q. You say certain uroc1s. Nol every building.

1J You say ,-,p,-t.ain areus ol Lhc Mi\RC campus arA

l4 ac,-,pssihl.e ouly Lo MARC personnel with hei.ght.en

SACurity i.lCCCSS. Who are those certain areus? Nol

16 every bu.ild.ir19, cert.a j n areas.

A. I mentio11Prl the urea where n1cict1.ir10

18 development is done.

19 (). What elsco?

A. I dor1'L know tt1e other areas. There uro

21 more, l~ul I dor1't kno\; th<"m.

22 Q. Tc·ll me t11eir names.

2J A. I don't know their r1u1ncs.

Q. \'Jho ;1ou'.d know Ll1ul?

ZS A. I don't kno1;.

Alde1s011 Reporting C:oJTljlany l -81111·F(JR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price OcUlber21,2U15 C~=nvillc, st:

::'o.qe 110

1 Q. Is t.heie a Iacility manaqer?

2 I am curla.in that t.hATA is arid I am certaJn

J that they would kr1ow.

4 Q. Wl1u ls it?

5 A. I do not knov1.

Q. How would you go aDOllL fii1ding out.?

I'm not. sure. I wol;ld ask the at.torr1ccys if

~ Lhcy kr1ew \\'ho the lacc.illty lllanager Js.

9 Q. <Jh, t.l1e aLLorr1eys that. are your co··workers"!

10

ll Q. Okay. What aho1lt. t.l1e pccrsor111el with

1? heiqhto11cd secliri.ty ar:cBss, doccs everybody that wor·ks

13 ,;ith you have hRiqht.er1ed scccurity acc:Rss?

h. The -folks Ll1cLL work with me ir1 Jny grou1) have

l!J access to t_hat luD, Lile att.orneys i:lnd Ll1cc 0Ll1er

16 technic:al pBoplcc.

Q. I'rn just llsing yo1ir words. Paragr2ph 1·1,

.18 the subsccllon d, yoll 11,;e il1c words "liei qhtened

1g secur.ily acce.ss," and Ll1cil's wJ-1y I am nsing il1aL.

10 YoL\ understand Lhai, rlght, J~r. Pric:8°'

21 A. I do uuctcrs'cand,

22 () . So 1;)10 --- does Pverybody Lhctt works ,.,ith

yo\l I rnuctr1, let'.s start :;1nall. The t'vo other

/.4 -folk,; Lt1dl are the 'l'ec:hnical Acivise.'C ancl the

2S T·eclu1lcal Director ovcor L.iligation, do they have

A lderson Repo1tlll.![ Cnn1pany I "ROO-F(JR-DEPO

Voneoton Price Octohc1- 21, 20 15 ('~-ccnvillc, SC

1 heighter12d security access·:

2 A. I'm not fanLi.liar with Ll1c term "he1-ghtened

J sec:11riLy access" 8XeC[Jt that certain area,; ure only

4 ac:c8s'.lible to c8rLc:in p'1ople, that contexL Lhey have

h8igl1lened sf1curity access. I don't kr1ow every arcou

fl thuL hast.hat, arid I rlon'L know evflry f'Crson that l1as

7 access t_o those differe11L areas.

(). I'1n not askir1g for 8V8ry pcrson.

9 asking ior Lhe peoplc lhat. work witll yo1i. Gccause

10 you say certa1'n ar·cas of t.hE cd1!Lp -- of the c:a1'1pus

1-1 ?.re only accf1ssiblc to MARC fJCrsor-.nPl wiLl1 heiglr::Elnecl

security acce,;,;. You 11nd2iuLand that I am reading

"!3 exactly -..1hat you wrot.e, Light?

A. I do.

Q. A11d you undcro;ta11rl th8 qucsti_ons tl1aL I am

16 a.sking is relilt8d Lo that, rigl1L?

17 A. T ;ind8r'.lla11d that you asked me 1-Jho aJ 1 hCtd

·1e hccigJ-1tened security acce,;s.

o. Nol all, j1ist ll1c peo1ile tl1uL work witl1 }'OU,

LO ri,Jbt.·: Tl1cre's t_hous<-u1cis of employces, ilnrl I'1n not

21 asking -- you \lnrleisLa.n<:! th?.t, riyl1t"?

22 A. I do now.

23 o. Oh. I Lhocight I 1nuclc i t clear Lhat l WilS

?4 tul.k.ing aho11t Lne folks tl1aL work •1itt1 you.

?0> ~',o Lcil me abouL Lbe guy -- Lile people tl1cLL

Ak!crson Ilepo1-tiTig Com pony l -800-F(JR-[)LPO

Vaneoton Price October21, 2015 (;reenville, SC

~.-,gco 118

1 work wj_Lh you, Wl10 -- wh<' l1Ltti height.er1cd seciirity

? CiCCCtlS othRr tl1a1l yoursRli?

J I\.. 'l'o wl1L>L area'?

4 Q. 'ro Llicse Cf1rtaj_11 areas thal you talk l1cre on

5 your affidavit.

I uon't know what areas each inrlivj_dual has

a CCR SS Cc.

8 Q. Qo you kr1ow if they l1a './E' access Co any arucl

9 of all, t'1e peoplc tl1at work 1vit"h you?

". A, 1 n1cnti 011Rd "'-':r.-lier, the people t.hal \./Ork

11 wj_Lh me have aeces.s t.o Tl1c I.ah wheic we st.or"'d Ll1e

L2 tJubjec-,t. t.iie.

13 Q. Wl1at ahout Ll1e other L>rcas'?

14 "fa_. I don't. kr1ow Whi'it other arf1as LJ1cy may havc

15 access to.

J6 Q. And olher than Tho Lab t.hat you ;1hat.'' You

17 SLtj_d ThA Lab lhat '"hat?

A. Wl1ere "'"' stoLeci th"' subject tire.

Q. T11e I.ah tl1ut were -- Lhe suh"jecl c1rea.

20 yoll hc1ve accf1ss L'-' a11y other areas of MARC wi t.h

21 re,;lr.icterl access?

". have accAss lo othRr hui1dj_ngs at. t1ARC

)J Lliat hilve security hudgc, scannir1g security.

Nut securil.y scan. I' Jn just readiIHJ your

worrl.s. I 1nean, it doesn't '38Cl1L tl1at _you kllO'N the

Alde1sun Reporting Company l -~00-FOR-DFPCJ

Vane"ton Prioo (Jctober 21, 20 I 5 (lnoonville, SC

PncJ" l~9

1 infor11,u.L_i_o11 th'1t. you wrot.e, because wha\_ I'1n a.9king

2 is : Do YOll h'1ve u.eces.9 co a11y otlier areas of 1'1ARC

3 only ctcces.sihle Lo personnul with heigl1Lened security

access? Yo1i t.olU l'le 'l'he Lub.

:, tl1is height.enoU sec11rity access at. Ml\..!\C. th'1t. you have

6 u.ecess to?

MR. BlJJ,i,l\lN: Objec-i::i.on; lorm.

8 THE \•/I 'l'NESS: Every bu_i_"-d.ing t.hal

9 ha,; d badqe rcclUer t.o ill.low a 1ierso11 .in has

10 l1eightened ,;ccurJ.ty.

·11 KY MR. GllJ<~RRA:

Q. fio wl1at are t.l1oo;c bui ldir1goJ?

11 bu.i. l rli ng wl1cre t.he dosigners work..

What's tilcll ca11ed?

16 I don't k.noi; t.he r1an1e of the liuildi nq.

1. 7 ilo yolL k.nov1 t.he r1ame of t.110 dcopart.mer1L?

'l'iic Design.

1~ T_i_re Desi.qr1.

What else? Wl1at othor areas or buildinqs?

21 Not"hinq Lhat's co1ni11g to mind.

22 Q. Not. a s_i_ngle one?

21

'?4 correct..

Ok<ly. <Jo tl10 only area,; that _you k11ow of is

Alderson Revorlh1g Compm1y l -~00-FOll-IJEI'O

Vaoeaton Price Ociober2L2015 Greenville, SC

1 The J.ab·! y,,u call it "real~?"

2 A. Tl1ul'scorr<ect.

J Q. Is there any 0Ll1e.r tlame ·than LL>b?

4 A. Nol that. I '1n L>wa.re of.

5 Q. Lab dRpart.ntorlL, lab blli ldi11lJ, la))Orilt.ory?

A. We refAr to .i_t as 'l'he Lab.

Q. Okay. Tl1L>nk yoii.

8 Yon ,;u.y also C.hat l.fNA vo11dors si.qn

~ contidAnt.ialily agreements bclore they aic IJrovided

access t.o docuuent.s. Who a.re thesf' vendors that

11 yon'rA lc1lk.ing abollt.?

A. _7\ny VAndor ol MNll would hu.vc to sign a

I3 co11l.i_dc11t.i.al j t.y '1lJiccment.

Q. ·1"h"t.' c; l].tCat, but. I wu.r1L tl1e.se V8r1dol·s that.

you' re t.ci.lkiiilJ about.

16 A. I'm talki nq aboul anyl,ody that p.rol'ide.s

17 prodncts and servicfl:o Lo M.i_chelin t.hal would come 011

1R the ±ac.i_lity gro11nd:o.

o. get. il. What's their 11ames"! Anyo11c.

A. don' l have " .o;pecil.i_c r1ame.

A sj_r1gle one''

22 A. Ar1y contract.or do.i_119 v1ork at. tl1c faci l i t.y.

23 Q.

A. I don't. have Ll1e 11am" 0£ u. contract.or ir<

AlderS<m RL"!'Orling Cornpm1y l -80U-l<OIZ-DRPO

Vaneaton Price ()clobor 21. 20 15 Greenville, Sr

Q. Anyone? You wrote _i_L.

A. I d.id.

Q. Arid I'm j\lst. a:ik..ing for ide11t.iLy.

MR. DULL ION: Ob"jecL_i_on; for1n.

5 I clon' t know 1.l1c

6 ideul.ity ci.9 I :i.i.L l1ere.

7 SY MR. GUERJ<.A;

o. (lkay.

_7\ • And I 1-1oulcl like Lo corTe,-,t. t.l1'1L a11sv1eT --

Q. Yes, pleasR.

u Because have escorted exter11al attorneys.

12 'l'hey woul.d be conside:i:cci vendors.

o. Okay. Suell as?

A. '.:\1ich a,; To1n Bullion.

I :, Q. Okay.

Other attorneys Ll1ccL repTRsenL Michelin.

Q. Sucl"1 as·:

A. I havR Rseorlod Marvin QuuLLlebil\JIB.

o. A. ha't8 escorted E<i Slewart.

Q. '//ho else?

22 A. I don't recall ar1y othRrc; as I sit here.

23 Q. To wherR?

24 A. To ThR l,ah.

Q. ~/here else?

Aldersnn Rc11orling Company 1-800-l•Oll-D"F.PO

Vanculo<l .Price OctJJber?. I, 20 I'i G1eeavJ Ile, S(;

Thcit' s the 0111-y location,

2 Q. 1A1 hen ha,1e you clone that"!

J A. V.'hen it WLt'3 necessai:y in the ca'3c of

4 l',t;gat.ion.

5 Q. Whe11 WctS ti1at"!

6 A. 1'lo11cicty morning.

Q. Okay. ?01:,, OctobeL 19Ll1?

A. That's COTC8C'[.

Q. All riqh:c_. Wl1cn else?

10 A. I don't LCL'ctll speci. fi c dates.

11 Q. 'lilho dicl you escoi:t on (JotobeI 19, 201 s·:

A. E:ci Slew art.

Q. \\1ho?

A.

Q. Who else''

A. He had an usslstant ·with him. A1-c_ I know,

het: name is TcLcsa. That's all kno•1.

Q. Wl10 ct.CC those fol ks''

A. TJ-1ey're attorneys tl1al rep.resent Michelin.

20 Q. Both"!

_7\ • Yes.

22 Q. All righl. \\1ho else·: Who els<0 in Lhe year

23 of ?01 ~,7

A. I don't rememh<"T speoiJ:icctlly.

?:, Q. Wl1cn did you E"scort Mr. Bullion to t.hP -- to

Alderson Ke porting; Company 1-800-FOR-DFPCl

Vaneaton Price OclohL"r 21, 201 S Ureenville, SC

1 Ll1c fac_i l i ty?

A. r do11' L recall a spccitic date tl1aL l

3 escorted hi1n.

4 Q. TlLLS year, ?Ul!:J?

5 A. I'L may ha''" Deen.

6 Q. 2014"!

A. It may have been.

o. /.01 :-J ')

It. ,-uay l1ave l";een.

10 o. 2012?

11 IL 1na.y hcove boor1.

12 Q. 2o:c1·1

A. No.

o. 'llere you -- becci1ise you wcre not working

15 Ll1cre.

A. Ir1 Ll1at group, tl1aL' s correct.

11 Q. All ri.ght. All right. All riyJ-1t. Anot.hf'Or

18 typ"' oi ir1formciti.cr1 Ll1at MichA1in takes activA cotcps

19 to kcC{J it hidd"''' a1Hl secrRt fronL Lhc· puh1ic al

/'fl quul.i.ty ass1ir'1IlcC! processes, rigJ-1t?

Mk. BULLION: ObjRr:t.ior1; IoTirL.

'l'HE WITNESS: 'l'hat.':; correct;

2J those document.s arc trade sf1cret u!1d proprietary.

24 BY MR. GUERRA:

25 Q. l\nd t.ho:oe <.L.LC somA of tl1c Uocumen-:Cs thal

Alderson Rcporti11g Co1npm1y 1-~00-J·'Oll-IJEPO

Vaneaton I'rice (Jotober 21, 20 J 'i (lrc{'.tiville, SC

1 Michel.in .intentior1i.1lly anrl cL>ullously kee]JS a\'.·ay ur1d

2 S8CICl?

J I~R. BULLION: (Jh-jeellon; for1~.

4 BY t®.. sur:RkA:

,, Q. Riql1L?

A. Those documer1Ls are trade sec.c:et. and

pror1rietary and \'.'e kccf> them oul of the public, Y"'"· 8 Q. l\r1d secrel 1 rigl-Jt?

8 A. They urc, ye-s.

10 Q. KeRp lho1n secret urtd a';ay frorn Lhe- p1ihlie,

11 oorre;ct"!

A. They are trade sec·ret, yes.

Arid Mi_chelir1 keeps then> tJOcret and away from

14 t]lE' p11bl_i_e; 1 COr1'.8el?

A. That 's eorre<Jt.

16 MR. BULLION: Oh-jeellon to -forrn.

MR. CUERM: All rlyht. Lel IllC

,,0 take, il that's okay, Tom, car: I take five

m.i n11tcs?

l~R. H\JLLION: Ye-ah, S'-1LC. It's

21 a1most 01oon. !\re we qo_i_r1g to t_ake u ltinch hreak 1

or what_ arc y'all rloir1g?

MR. GUERRA: No, I'm going Lo be

donR.

MR. BUl,1,rnN: Oh, yo1l ilIO?

Alde1~ou Rcpurlhig C'ompouy l-~00-FOR-IJFJ'O

Va11calun Price Octoher21,2015 Green;·illc, SC

Page

MK. GUERRA:

·TJIE VIDS()(OkAPIIE:R: We' re lJ01-ng off

3 the v.i.d00 :record dt 11::,o.

4 (A recL'SB \Vas takci1. I

THE \/I IJF~OCRI~PHER: C'oi11lJ bac·k on

6 Lho vidPo roco.rd at. 12 o'clock.

7 l-JY MR. rour~RRA:

Q. Mr. lo'r_i_'-''-'r I think

you' re qoir1g Lo rncike l:.ir1cl1. Yo11' 11 be --

A. Sou;1ds qood. 1 'm hungry.

11 Q. Thc'lt' s goocl. What: clw 2ow reconmen<l? Where

12 de WW l]O?

-13 MI~. klJLLION: 'l'wo Cl1cl s.

ms. S!IAPIRO: 'l'huL 1 s what :111dy

said.

18 Ii yo11 want -- if

you Wdllt a ha1nbury0r, yo11 go acro.9.s tl1c road t-_o

18

-1 9 MR. (;lJERRA: COrill?

2n 'l'f-IE WITNE.SS: (;rill ~larks.

P!R. SHTIPIR<J: Judy said Noc;c D.i.ve

23 THE Wl'l'NESS: Rea 11 y? Ev0rybody' s

24 er1L.i.tled t_o 1-l1clr 01iinio11.

25 MR. GUERRA: Ri qht.. So you said

Al<IL'Thnn Rcpo1ting Company 1-800-FOR-Df-:P()

Vfllle,.ton Pi ice ()clubor 21, 2015 c;rccnville, SC.

l ihis one cind ihat onA''

? MR. ~iHAP .lHO: xe~h.

Ml\. C;UERRA: First o-f a1-l,

are WA on Lhe record?

'l'HE VIDEoc;RAl'HER: Yes.

6 BY MP.. l~lJERRA:

Q. All right.. Thank you loc:: cominq today.

8 was " µ1-casu:re t.a1-k.ii1g to you. I lcopA I ticated Y'"'

9 poliiely and kindly and tt:cit you app:rAciuLe thi .'J

11} co11ve.rsatJon thuL we hcid; is that coriec;L?

_/\ . 't'hose are your words, cind I'1n happy t.o be

lie.re le help lo ecy wuy 1 can.

(J • Ai1d 1 t:reatrocl you IlOl itely d?d ki n(i.ly?

A. Yoe did.

15 Ill 1 rigl1L. H you will look yol1r

16 Q.

p«rugraph :,7, Mr. PricA, ol your "'

affidavit.

Ye,,;, sir.

Q. 1'1,;L want to know if I read -- if

'N]1at f 'n1 going to rsud is correci. Tl1i s i:; wl1at you

20 \>/:rote 011 the firsl line: 'l'he divulgence ol MNI'l's

21 prop:cictacy mar1ulacturinq arid qualit.y processes t.o

// the public or Lo a comr>stilor wo\lld cc1use an

?.3 ur1uccer1tab1-co high risk ol .LrrepFJ.:rablc l::arm ilnd

Tl1uL's your sentence, rigl1l?

A. Tl1at' s corrcocl.

Alderson 'Rcporli11g Co1npony l-~00-FOR-DEPO

Vanealun Price ()clobcr 2 l, 2015 GreL>nvillc_ SC

l'c\!j9 l / I

Q. llnd my poinl _i_o;, you have b8<eil Lelling Lu:'_s

2 a!Jou~ COFL))etitor, bltl lhe ceal ity io; Lhat MNA,

3 M.ichelin, k""'P" Ll1c infoTmati on tl1L1L 1;e re'Jliest8d

1 .ir1tentiona1Jy sc<e.rct from the public itself, and yol1

Ci wrote t_hat ir1 yollr affidavit.

G I d.id.

7 Q. Tl1ank yo\l.

Now, concer;1i11lJ all riqht. You say

9 her<e -- you tnld TI\8 bclore, Luis, I r1cvcr had a

10 [Jos_i_L_i_on, ;in employ1ncnt po.sit.ion al Lhe Dothan 1~lL1r1L

11 in lllab;o,ma, c;r1~-L Lhat' s correct?

A. T·l1,;L 1 s correct..

u Q. All ri']ht. \'ou said MN!\' s hi;i ldir1g

14 llTocedurcs employ that Ll1c Dothan plant would

1 'i develop, in an exter1~.ivc amount n-f ti1'lC at tremf1ndon'°

lfi "xpcnse. What aic Ll1ose f'Toc,,dui"'° Ll1at yoii'rf1

l'I Lctlking about l1crc?

A. Ar1y ]J.tOcecl\lTes involved ill t.hf1 manuluclurc

19 of the ti1-c, the q\lality pLoccso: t.hcit "'" iollow in

20 the plc1r1L, v1ould he ir1clu<led in those docu1nents.

·Q. Tell mf1 wl1L1L Lhey are. Tell. inc the name,;.

h. don't k110'N the c;i-oeci±ic nameE: of the

L3 documents.

C) • Tell mo any names oi Ll1e document,; oi Ll1_i_s

LS builciing JJrocedure.s docu11tor1Ls, any one o± tl1csc

Alderson Repo1ting Company 1-800"FOR-DFPlJ

Vone,1ton Pric~ October 21, 20\5 C-rrccnvillu, ~C

docu1nor1L f'lans.

A. TherA are Ll1ousanrls of tt1em.

o. l~o ahAild, Lell IBA thA or1es you kno;,'.

A. '<'hf're '-11--c tire h10ildir1g work instI'.lclions

:, Ior "''ork}olace Lire builrlinq, cu1d therf' aie illso other

6 t>l1ildinqs tl1ccl they wo11l<l UtJe at thAi.r µotJL

8 Q. Tell me -- tell ine tiJA naII1c,; of alJ t.he 0110,;

9 yon k.i10·11.

l rlon't k110'N- tile names ol the ctoc11menL~·.

11 Tl 1ey woul ct be rolated t.o the quulity contro-1

12 s tanda rcls a11d JJ;'.OCeCu res th" l they' rA fo-1.lowlng.

13 Q. Ilow big arA they?

14 A. I don't knnw Ll10 exact. size ol the

-1 5 doc11n1cr1Ls.

o. A. ctor1' L lUlO'tl hnw rnar1y pages.

o. flow Jlictny i_nchf's ;_,, !Height for tl1i,; tire

19 bu',1cling procedures that you're .spP.aki11g of on

20 paraqLupl1 58?

A. It would be hundreds and l1undred.s, -\_f no1-

/'2 tl1ousands of pagctJ of documAnttJ ln tota1.

13 Q. (Jkay. You tolcl mA 011e na1ne of onG document.

Tell Tf,P. other 11ames that YOLL know. You tli.lld that

20 ~here "'eie LJ10ll8arid.s. Tell me any otl:ei 11ante that.

Alderson lZeport:Jng Company l -800-FCJR-UlPO

VaTicalur> Price Octohcr 1 l, 20 15 c;rcenville, SC-

1 you kno'H of Lhis \-Juildi nq proccUures.

,Just Lho tire louildiuy procedures.

(). \\Thul are you talki11g

Tl1c:tc would also De second stugc tire

:, building p.roce<:!ures arid Ll10 --

G Q. Wl1at eJ se?

7 A. ..- q;iality L>nd f!l'.'Ocess documents thai:: go

Q.

l {) A. 1'he c1uality and proc·o.sS' doc,,m.onLs that go

11 along wiLh Ll1ose.

12 Q. SlLCh as?

13 A. I clon't. kr1ow Ll1e namAs o± Lhe doc-,\Jments,

14 h11t

LS Q. More spcc.i.:Cic. l~or" spccifir.s, plcctso,

16 ubout th" nL>1ncs of tllis tire buildinq proccUure.

I clon' t k110,., t:hc Jlctlneo: of tl1u Uocu1nent.s.

18 'fh<"TA woulc\ be clor.nmenls Lhat t.otal 'A'llat toiPrancus,

J9 thAre would bA docu1uu11Ls that. qavc Ll1em th<" recipe

/0 fcir L11e SpAr.i.fic Li.::c tb<"y WAl.C )JU.i:ldi ng, tl10

21 co1npo:1ent. part,; a11d

22 Q. Wl1ul else"?

23 A. -- and the ,-Jimfl11ti.i.011s n-f tr.oso parts.

24 Q. What el so'' Wl1uL otller documu11ts"? Yo11 '°'1id

2 ') thousc\Ilcls. .l mean, you have T:old inc maybe -fi.ve.

Alderson l<cpurling Cotnpony 1-RIJIJ-l•Ok-DEPO

Vancalon Price (Jclobcr 21, 20 15 GrcL"Tlvillo, SC

1 TL'll lne, Ill Pase.

A. Well, CJvcry tire 1o1ou1d huvc tl1at. t.11ey

3 fJuild '.-1ould huvc cilfferent. docu1no11Ls. So hy the

4 voJ ume of tho different. ti.re spcclficat1 ons t.l1oy' .re

5 bu11 ding, Ll1c.re v1oul d hfl dillc.rcnt documents

6 associulcd wltf: those t.iros. There is all ol Lhe

7 inspocllor1 c!ocumflnt.s

o. Such as?

A. W" rfl±er Lu t11e asp8ct. speclilcations, for

10 cxamplR.

11 Wl1ul_ else"?

12 A. Tl1L' procerl;ires thul Lh<ey foll ow --

! .1 Q. S:.icJ-1 as·:

A. --- \;hen they l11spect the tircos.

don't know Lhe name of th" lnsriection

lG !'.JrocedurPs ;-:hul Lhcy follow.

11 Q. Who \o/Oltld kno1o1 t.hat_?

18 A. Someone at. t.he plur1L would kno'" tho 11ames of

1Cl t.hos0 uocume!'ts.

Q. J\l l right.. Wl1dt else, Mr. PJ.lco? You sa;d

Ll1ousands of docwCLc11ts. Yn\l gave nLo maybe sRven now.

Tt1ose seven T8prescr1L thousands o±

23 Just the il.'ipBct sp<ecs alonR wouJ.<i l~c

24 h1inrlr8ds.

Q. How many ci.specl s[Jccs·:

Alderson Repon::ing Cnmpany i -800·F(JR-DE~O

V•ncalun Price October ) J, 20 I 5 ('-rrccnvHlc_ SC

ll. I don't know how many uspect. specs thf're

2 "re.

(l. You don't know"?

A. Not ctn exuct '1\lmher, !lO. I kno'I; there would

'J l>e hnnclreds.

Q. I know. I don't ,.·ork for Michelin. You

7 don' L knovr!

8 ll. T ~1on't kno'" Ll1<0 ex;ict r1umber ot i.1'3[>ect

9 specs, no.

0. Okay. \'/hul else'.' What abrn1L lhese recipes

11 that. yolL're talkir1g abont., 1;hat do they look like?

12 A. They would be tl1e local tire builrli.r1g

13 specilicati on:i.

Q. fl.n<i what do tl1cy look like? llescribe them

15 tor ne physi'--:al 1y, pJ.case.

A. Tl1cy >1ould l1ave the component varts that i.l.Ce

l'I pi.;t in Ll1e tirR arid their svcc_i_ficatio11 measure1n<ents,

for E'xcunple. A.!1J. I don't k 11ow what '111 other

1'.l infor1nation would be in those docu1~cr1ts.

20 Q. Whill are these recipe" called''

A. Local specilicat ions.

Q. You rRfE'r Lo th Rm "" recipes. Wl1y is tl1u.L?

2J It'.s anolher tf'rm lor thf' co1npo11e11T:, the

24 ]1st'_nlJ of the component parts t-_hat go int.o tl1c tire.

25 Q. How woulcl you dcscri.l-,e thc:1n accurately?

/\ ltlcr,on kepo1tjng Company 1-800"F(JR-Ohl'O

Vaneaton Price October ~ J, 20 L'i Greenville, SC

~~g~ 132

1 \oan!:ed lo ask them for docwncr1ts accurately, l1ow

? ";onld you -- how v1ould you describe t.hAm"!

A. The local t.ir8 bu_i_lding spA,-,iticutlo11s.

Q. Or the local Llrc bcii1dinq rAcipo?

I don't. kr1ow j_£ they would uc;c Lhat term,

Q. WhArA have yoc1 heard t.hut Lcrtn?

A. ·1t_',; u Lcrm that's 1lsed w_i_Ll1_i_r1 Michf'lin wl1cu

8 it's wh8r1 you' re ci i sc1i.ssiillJ u list of product,;

9 that. qo l11Lo a componf'nt puLl.

Q. Okay. Anyt.hi11g else that Y"" wa11t lo add

IJ tl1al I l1aven't- asKed you that yo1i t:hi11k ls llllf>Ortant_

12 ior rr.e to know?

A. Not. thul co1nes to mind.

14 () . Anyll1_i_ng else t_hat: I huvcn't asked you Lhul

15 yo11 hAliuv" lt's i_mport_ant. loL lhe Jury?

! fi 1-18. DULL ION: 01-,j Pct: ion; lo rm.

Till!: \\1 ITNES~O: :.ot. t.hul comes to

mind.

19 Il was a plAasure

20 SAAing you agairi, Mr. Price. I hope you huvu '-'

21 wondcLlltl lunch,

TllE WITNESS: 'l'h;ink you.

l1R. GUERRA: Anrl t.l1u.L you have a

great W"""-

THE ~I I_ 'l'NJ-:ss: Tl1Llnk you.

Alrle'"'n RL"POrling Corupauy 1-8UO-l10Il-DEPO

Oclohc-r 21, 2015

G1eenv1lle, SC

MR. CUERRZ\: J hope tl1uL I v1il'

,;cc you soon. Okuy?

Tl!E VI DEO(~RAl'HER: Tli.i.s then

completAs our v.i.dcotape --

5 Ol1, 110.

G TEf: v I JJf':ocRAPI~ER: 1 'rn sorry.

I MR. (;lJERRA: Bold on " :oecoild.

8 Tl1o;~u.,;?

MR. BULLION: I want l.o ask yo\l

1O ju.st a few· queslio11.s, VaTJ.dj'.

11 EXIIMJNA'l'l\lN

12 BY I~R. J--llJl,l,JON:

Q. Onco .i.s: Mr. c;11Arra a,;kcd you sornA quu,;L.i.ons

abo1it you_;: job within the Lutjul Depart.ment. I just

J5 '"""" to u,;k y·ou a coup.i.u lollow-ups on tl1al.

Do you "'ork lo.<: and at t.he dir·cclion of

17 luwycrs for Mi ch~Jli11 Nortl> America?

18 A. I do.

l':J Q. Arid do you sRrve as a rcpresent."lt.ive ol Ll"1c

20 i n-hou:o8 lctwycrs and sorr1el.i.1n<et' tl":e o\ltside lccwycrs

?1 for M.i.ch<eli11 in terms ol your job as il S<er1.i.or

23 I c] O •

MR. GUhRRA: I'in sorry, 'l'om, wl1at

did you suy? Can yoll -- cuu you repec;t rhat

;\ldcrNon Rcpolting Con1p•ny 1-800-FOR"DRP(J

Vaneaton Price October2J,2015 G1•cnvi I lo. ~C

"P,og~ us

1 quc;,; Lj_on?

' don'l wa~t him ,,0 unswer, hut Celll

2 JOO i)e kind enough lo te 11 1ne ctgain f

3 MR. BU I ,I, I CN: Just th~t l1e ,;crves

dS a i:epreser1L:.itive for tl1c ldv1yers, boll1 lhe

,, j_nterna l lilwycrs and the outside l '"-"YBLS.

Clkay.

BY Mf{. KlJLLION:

8 Q.

9 l'1R. GUEHRA: C'111 ine Luis, Ill'1Il.

10 MR. Blll.l,,'ON: Woll, I think lL's

inore a}"l}"lTOpLj_ctLc I ccnl l yolL Mr. c;uerra wl1c11 I'm

reterri.nq Lo you on the record, J-,ut

MR. CUERRI\: Call rue Luls or

14 anytl1lr1g close to ll.

15 BY MR. BULLION:

16 Q. MiStf'T ML. l~uerrct a,;kcd yoci " whole Duncl1

·17 o:t qucstio11.9 aboul Micl1elin kcc:1Jlng ciocc!lmenl,; hidden

18 und secret froin the riiiblic. Do you reme1nbcr

lY yenerally tl1ul set:iPs oi qlLcstions'?

A. I do.

21 Q. What war1l yoll to do i,;, wj_th TRgard to Ll1E•

2?. type,; 0£ things tl1al dre rf'fRricd Lo in your

?J ctilldavit, i nior1necllon nbo11t ~!lcl1eli n's processes and

?4 VLlrlotis rloccnn\ot1Ls, if yon would, just explLl.i.n wJ-1y i t

25 .i.s tl1at ir',; l1nr>or-::ant: tor Mlcl1elin t.o kc:C[J -::110,se,

t\ldcr;on llep01ting l.<1mp•ny 1-800"FOR-DE~O

Vaneaton Pnce (Jclobcr 11, 1015 G1eenville, Sl:

1 t11f' trade sc·cret and the propriet.ary _i_r1I,:>rmation tl1i1L

2 yo1i re±c.rr.:od to, coniidcntiaJ,

3 A. My i:espon,;e Lo that woulc1 b<e tJ1at thf' t.i.r<e

4 indLtillry is RxtrenL<J1y competitive, and tiie comp'1ny

'i lli.\~ _i_nvestRd h11I1d_r<eds of mil liot1il of dollars, we

6 .i.r1vest h;indredc; oI ::tli] lions o:t. dollar.s in ::cc;earch

ctr:ci developnlc11L eve:ry year, ilnd the ',nfor1ni1Llon that

8 we df'vf11op over time could_n't be known by our

9 co-:npetitoLS witho1it th<Jill Uoing T.hR SilIUC work. Anc!

10 t.h'1t'c; why it's imporlant that th<0 L:onLpany kAep

i I t.hoc;c -- that. inio:cnt'1Llon and thoil<e documf'nts secret.

12 Q. And Mr. Guerra t_rjed Lo make that po_i_nL

13 Ll1at, 'dell, l1is Iolks ~ren't .i.11 the Ci re buc;i11ess,

Lhey'rR i11sl regular folks. Do yo1J re1nc1nber that_·;

A. I do.

16 Q. Is -- '"hat -- _i_,1 t11e -- ir1 Lcrms of

·17 cor1ilclential hnsincili1 informatio11 oc_· tradR sRcroL

'18 inlor1nation, or1cc Lhe cat is ouL of thR 1-,aq, ls

lY Lhere -- is il possihlR to pLll the ,-,at J-,ilck ln tbe

2G bag·;

21 MR. GUERRA: Jt' ,; Lllways possible.

Il it's a cFtt, you can do it.

THE wI 'l'Nr:ss; Once that_

l11formation _i_c; out, it ca1u1ot be rPtriRvcod.

25

;\ldcr«JO Rcpo1tin.[o, Company 1-800-FOR"DEP(J

Vaneaton rrice ()clobcr 21, 2015 Greenville, S(;

1 BY Mk. GULLION:

2 Q. Arid and tl1e -- one ot tJ1e -- one of the

3 reasor1s Lhat yo\l Ctll dcsi9nate doc1mturils as

4 con±idcnllal Mnrl cerlul11 tradR secrcl protection .'._or

:, docwnc11ts thilt arc: -- that arR elliicr sought or

6 µroduced in discovery in lCtws-.liL have to do will1 tJ-1i13

7 cu11cept t_hat clocument.s may qui_ leaked or thu cat

8 1nigl1t get ou'L of tl1e haq u1id you might_ nol )JC able to

9 ri11t. it buck, fair"!

10 A. Tl1at '13 ,-,ertai111y a consi deralion, yes.

Q. Now, with LUSJJCCt to your ullldavit, it'c;

1/' obviOL\&ly very del:uilcci; it.'s 11 JJdges Jonq, arid

LLtt certainly riot all of tl1u1n. But in ternts of the

l'J factual asserllons th?.t arc lr~~·ludRd wilt1ln your

16 a-f-fidavlL, do you hCtvR support -for Racli and every one

17 of t!iosc?

MO. c;uF.RkA: E'or1n. Vorm.

J_ 9 THE WI 'L'NSSS: Yes.

oo. t':\JE:RRZl: Aoo 1 eaai11g .

'I' fl!!: WITNESS: 00.

22 Ff Mk. GULLION:

23 o. find i -f hR wctnlcci to take you thro\lqh

?'• you c{bout r:h?.t, lie certainly •,iould be entitlcod Lo do

Ald<:T<on Rcporlillg Compauy 1-~00-POR-DRPC}

Vaneaton Price ()c~lbcr 21, 2015 G1ecnvillc, SC

L'c.qe 137

l lL today·;

A. Yes, he woulcl.

3 MR. BUJ,l,ION: Okuy. That's all I

have. Thur1k you.

5 r:XAM I NATION

6 J-\Y 1111.. CUE:RRli:

Q. Do yo11 have any ]Jl1yslca::. evi rl8nce lr1 Ll1ls

8 rcoporL 0£ your af:fidavll Ll1at i;oulcl qo w_i_Ll1 yollr

9 uli_i_davit that you brought her<" t.oday wlllc you'?

10 A. I do not.

11 Q. All :i:.igl1L. l\nd Y"" undoislanc! by "physical

12 evidAnce," I incan documentatioi1 cis opposed to t_,;_lk? ,, A. I do.

Q. l\nd yon have r1oi10, right"?

15 A. That.'s coriucl.

16 Q. All righl:. Now, thR ·pojnt Ll1cLL is made is

11 that thR T8'1SOfl lor the SRC:TRCY is, c~S YOll Si'lY on

18 pagR l S, µarcc0raph 57, thcit would be a di rRct

financiul Ll1reat to MNA. Do you see thcit?

A. Yes, I rlo.

Q. You 'Nrote tJ1,;_L, right"!

d.i.d.

23 .,". And tl1ul' s tl1e r8ason wl1y; Lhc secret.s

24 represAnt i.u1d _i_niormati on kep;_ oul would ])e a dirccl

25 fincinci,;__;_ threat to MNA.

A IJcrson H.epo1ting C-01Tipany 1-800-FOR-DEP(J

Vaneaton Price October 21, 70 JS Urccnville, SC

?cog~ 1 38

1 A. That's correct.

2 Q. To Micheli11.

3 A. That's correct.

Q. Vi nanci a 1 rea3011,;.

A. 'l~at's correcL.

MR. GUERM: 'l'hcink you

J-Iold on 011e second.

8 I'm sorry, .s2y that aqciin?

9 Hey, 'l'nm, r:cin I tak" a onL'-1ninuLc

10 break'?

MR. BULLION: Surc.

MR. GUERR'I,,: J\r1d it WOll 't take ffif>

1nuch lor1guL.

THE \iIDE(l(~RAl'Kf:R: (;oi.nq oft tl12

video record at 12: 13,

16 (A rec<"ss 1vas taken.)

THE VIDEOCRAI'I!ER: We are back on

18 the recorc! at 11:11:1':o.

19 BY MR. CUERRA:

Q. Do you know the tei:rn free7_inq the kicker?

21 cLidn't mean to <JO back, h1Jt: I was -- David wu,;

22 tellin<J me .sornPt.hinq and w" -- we l1ad Lo Lalk. about

?l it.

?4 Yo11 didn't bring a single piece of phy.sical

25 evidence wii::l1 you Lodcty i11 SU[JfJOrt or a.s a be<.si .9 or

Alderson Repo1iing <:on1pany l ·~00-FCJR-Dl::PO

Vanca!ou Price llctobcr 21, 2015 (ln:unvillo, SC

1 Iounc!atior. to you_r aifidavit_, rigl1L?

2 A. (Jnly Ll1c alticJav1t_ it.sell.

J (). No pl1ysical evidence'?

4 A. Tl1aL's correct.

5 Mk. CUE:RRA: Thank you so Jnuch.

fi EXAMINZ\TION

7 BY ~!R. BULLION:

Q. Did th8 r10L<e -· you c;ciw the NoLice of yollr

~ <lCf>OS.i_tion to co1nc l1cre, Vandy?

10 did.

11 Q, Did il -- did i-:: hu.vc ct request thcit you

J? produce uny documents ac tl1L' Li1ne of t_he depo~ilion?

A. It did not.

MR. BULLION: '!'hat'" ull.

Thur1k you.

lG THE VI IJf:DCRAPl!E:R: Thi_s t_hen

r.omr~le l:c,; our vi cleotaped dcposi t i on. WA' >Te UGCd

1J two HL<edia, and it_ lu,;1-cci approximiltely two l1ol1rs

ur1d lG minutAs. We're 9oing off tl1e video record

dt 12:16.

(Tl1L' depos_i_tion r.or1cludL'd at

12:1G p.m.)

2J

? 'i

Alderson R.eport:Jng Cnmpany 1-800-FCJR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price Octohc1- 21 , 2111 5 ('-rrcc'Tlvillc, SC

l'aae 140

1 Notice llate: Nove1ril:JeL 4, 2015

L Depos1t1on IJate: UcLober 21, ?Ci-1'.1

3 Depone11t; Vaneuion Price

4 Ca.5e Name: Mect_i_na and Obdllla v. Michelin

:, North Aine:cicu, Inc.

l'aqe:L_i_uc ~:\honld Reucl

10

16

17 ------

22

23

)!)

Alderson H.eporting CompaTiy l -800"l'OR-DEP(J

Vanoa!on Price October 21, 20 15 (lrL"{O<lVille, SC

Fag~ 141

1 \:ER1'IFIC1\.TE (Jf' ;J-'.PONENT

J I l1erehy cerl_i_iy that have Load and examincoU Lhe

4 "foreqoing LLcinscririt, and tt1c same i_,s a truu ctnci

5 arruratu re-cord of· t_he tcsl_i__mony gi,,en by inc.

6 Any aUdiLions or rorrecL_i_ons that. feel. a.re

necco;sa.ry, ,,·ill at Lach on a separate sl1eet of

8 l-"-'PUL to thA oriqir1ul tran.script.

10

11 Sigr1ature of D<epor1cr1L

1 ?.

1J I hereby certify th'1l Llic ind.ivirl1lai rc~i.t:csenti.ng

l~ hiIHsclf/hec.sRlf to bu Lhe above-na1ncU _i_11divirl1Jal,

il[Jpoared bf'fore I'1C this

16 2015, a11ri Rxeculcd the above cc.t:Lificatf' in my

17 presAnrA.

18

NO'l',".RY PUBLIC IN ANil \<'(Jk

23 County Narr.e

?.', MY COMMISSION J<,Xl'll-i.ES:

Alderson Repoi1iTig c:urnpany l -~00-FC)R-DlJPO

Ootober21,2015

Greenville, SC

:l'l'AT!C (JE' SOUTH Cl\l\(lL I NA

) \:OUNTY OF SPl\RTl\NBURC;

3 Rf:l'CJRTICR'S CERTIFIC;A'l'F,

I, Rebecca 1,. Arrisou, a Notary 1'1ihlic 1-11 c1.11d for

5 Ll1c State of ~.;outh Ca:rol.ina, do hArAhy cerliiy that

6 Lhere came hAfo:re rue on the ?1st rlay oi Oclober, ?01 :,,

'! tl1e 1)erson he:rci1Wciore namArl, wl10 W'1'3 by me dlil y

8 .s,>1orn to tesliiy to the truth a11d 110Ll1ing b;_it the

g t..rllth oi h.iu kno•1led<JA concei11ir1g Ll1e mattRrs in

10 contiovcrsy in this r,ause; Ll1aL the wit.nAss wa,; Ll1cre

11 uµo11 cxafftinecl \lnrler oall1 1 Ll1e exarninFtt.i.on rccluccd to

11 Ly_µcwrit)ng under n'y direction, Ftnrl the dcpositio11 i.s

13 a true ~ecorrl oi Ll1c Lest.imony q.i.ve11 by lhc witne.~s.

14 furtl1eL ccrlify thilt '1TI\ 11cilhcr attorney Gr

15 counsel ±or, nor relatArl to or cinployed by, ciny

16 attoir1cy o.r: co11nsel e::nploycd by Lhe part..ies herrolo or

17 ±ir1ctr1cially i.ntf1rested ir1 Ll1c acti.on.

IN 1~·1 ·1-Nr::i:l WIIICREOF, I have 11ereto sci rny hand,

19 Lhis ?f!th rlay oi Oclober, ?OI:,.

20

).) Rebecca 1,. Arri,;011, ""!otary Putl1ic

l~y (_'.ornrn'·ssion !Cxpircs: 4/10/?Dl I

Alde1son Reporting Cncnpany 1-8110-FOll-DflPO

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY 10/19/2015 5:30:19 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK

2

claiming that it objects. Therefore, Plaintiffs have no choice but to request the Honorable

Court's assistance in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF LUIS P. GUERRA, LLC

6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Telephone: (602) 381-8400 Facsimile: (602) 381-8403

By: Isl Luis P. Guerra Luis P. Guerra (Admitted Pro Hae Vice) AZ State Bar No. 015768 David C. Shapiro (Admitted Pro Hae Vice) AZ State Bar No. 028056 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINITFFS

LAW OFFICES OF JAMES B. RAGAN 723 Coleman A venue Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: (361) 884-7787 Facsimile: (361) 884-9144 James B. Ragan State Bar No. 16466100

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Counsel for movant has repeatedly wrote and called Defendant Michelin's counsel. All to no avail. Counsel for Michelin will not respond or answer Plaintiffs' counsel's phone calls or letters. Thus, despite best efforts the counsel have not been able to resolve those matters presented.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and con-ect copy of the foregoing document has been forwarded to all known counsel ofrecord as set forth below via E-Mail & U.S. Mail, on this 19th day of October, 2015.

Thomas M. Bullion III Chris A. Blackerby GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, PLLC 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700

Austin, Texas 78701 Attorneys for Defendant Michelin North America, Inc.

Jose Bustillo d/b/a/ Mundo Cars 6422 Day Street Dallas, Texas 85227 Pro Per Defendant Jose Bustillo d/b/a/ Mundo Cars

/s/ David C. Shapiro David C. Shapiro

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY 10/30/2015 12:18:31 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK to plaintiffs' discovery requests. However, under Texas law, it is well established that

"discovery about discovery" is prohibited because it violates the work product privilege. In re

Exxon Corp., 208 S.W.3d 70 (Tex. App. '_ Beaumont 2006, orig. proceeding); In re Boxer

Property Management Corporation, 2009 WL 4250123 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2009,

orig. proceeding); In re Arpin America Moving Systems, LLC, 416 S. W.3d 927 (Tex. App. -

Dallas 2013, orig. proceeding). This question was squarely addressed by the Beaumont Court of

Appeals:

the plaintiffs seek to depose an Exxon representative for the purpose of inquiring specifically into the process by which Exxon's representative responded to the requests for production. This subject necessarily and almost exclusively concerns the 'mental impressions developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for a party or a party's representatives' and consists of the 'attorney's representative's mental impressions, opinions, conclusions, or legal theories' subject to protection as work product and core work product.

In re Exxon Corp., 208 S.W.3d at 75. The Houston Court of Appeals reached the same

conclusion when considering a request to depose a corporate representative with knowledge of

"who searched for documents related to roof vents and roof hatches . . . which buildings were

searched; and the manner in which the search was conducted." In re Boxer, 2009 WL 4250123 at

* 1. Citing Exxon, the court concluded that "it is beyond dispute that the requested deposition

will explore attorney work product in connection with relators' efforts to respond to the Wells

plaintiffs' discovery requests." Id. at *6. 1 Consequently, the Houston Court of Appeals ordered

the trial court to vacate its order compelling the deposition of the relators' corporate

representative.

1 The court further noted that "bare assertions that an opponent is hiding documents" do not justify deposing a corporate representative about whether a diligent search was conducted. Id. at *7.

2

4543932

Because Texas courts have clearly and consistently prohibited "discovery about

discovery," plaintiffs are not entitled to depose any MNA employee or representative about the

efforts that were made to respond to their discovery requests in this case.

II.

NEWLY ENACTED §41.0115 OF TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE ESTABLISHES PROCEDURE FOR DISCOVERY OF NET WORTH INFORMATION -

COURT SHOULD DELAY RULING UNTIL SUPREME COURT DETERMINES APPLICABILITY OF NEW LAW IN IN RE ROBINSON

A. Motion to Delay Ruling on Discovery of Net Worth Information

By enacting section 41.0115 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, the Texas

legislature amended the law regarding the pre-trial discovery of net worth information. Exh. A

(CPRC §41.0115). By its terms, section 41.0115 applies to all cases that were filed on or after

September 1, 2015. Exh. B (Senate Bill 735) While this case was filed prior to September 1,

2015, the Texas Supreme Court is currently considering whether section 41.0115 (the

codification of Senate Bill 735) should be applied to cases, like this one, that were filed prior to

the law's effective date. Exh. C (Jn re Robinson, 2015 WL 5102928, Petition for Writ of

Mandamus). The parties have already submitted briefing on this issue and the matter was

submitted for the Supreme Court's consideration on October 13, 2015. Exh. D (Docket Sheet).

The Supreme Court will almost certainly issue a ruling in In re Robinson during the pendency of

this lawsuit, most likely before the end of the year. MNA requests that this Court delay its ruling

on plaintiffs' motion to compel the deposition of a representative of MNA regarding its financial

status until the Texas Supreme Court has issued its ruling in the In re Robinson matter.

B. Texas Legislature Recently Altered Standard for Discovery of Net Worth Information.

Since the Texas Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lunsford v. Morris in 1988, some

Texas courts have permitted the discovery of a party's net worth based on nothing more than an

3

4543932 allegation that punitive damages were appropriate. 746 S.W.2d 471. Here there is only a bare

allegation of punitive damages and there are no facts to support such an award. Indeed, the facts

developed in discovery demonstrate that the conduct of a third party may be responsible for the

accident, not the conduct of MNA. Because there are numerous legislative actions and court

opinions limiting the recovery of exemplary damages since Lunsford was issued, this Court

should not allow discovery of punitive damages at all unless and until facts are developed to

support them.

Trial courts have struggled with the proper procedures for managing the discovery of a

party's net worth in cases involving allegations of punitive damages. To clarify this issue, the

Texas legislature added section 41.0115 to the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code,

announcing a clear and concise procedure for courts to follow when a party's net worth is at

issue. MNA contends that the procedure announced in section 41.0115 should govern plaintiffs'

request for MNA's financial information in this case. Subsections (a) and (b) of section 41.0115

require that, to obtain net worth information, a party must obtain a written order from the trial

court finding that he has demonstrated a "substantial likelihood of success" on the merits of a

claim for punitive damages after a hearing on the issue:

(a) On the motion of a party and after notice and a hearing, a trial court may authorize discovery of evidence of a defendant's net worth if the court finds in a written order that the claimant has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for exemplary damages. Evidence submitted by a paiiy to the court in support of or in opposition to a motion made under this subsection may be in the form of an affidavit or a response to discovery.

(b) If a trial court authorizes discovery under Subsection (a), the court's order may only authorize use of the least burdensome method available to obtain the net worth evidence.

TEX. C1v. P. & REM. CODE §41.0115. Even when a plaintiff successfully shows a "substantial

likelihood of success" on a punitive damages claim, the court may only authorize the "least

4

4543932 burdensome method available" to obtain the net worth evidence. Id. Thus, if a party can

produce documents that demonstrate its net worth once a plaintiff has made the requisite

showing, it is highly unlikely that compelling the deposition of a representative with knowledge

of a corporation's net worth would be found the "least burdensome method available" to

demonstrate net worth.

If the Supreme Court determines that section 41. 0115 is applicable to cases, like this one,

that were filed prior to September 1, 2015, plaintiffs' demand for the deposition of a

representative of MNA to testify regarding its financial condition is premature. Plaintiffs have

not followed the procedure established in section 41.0115 for obtaining discovery regarding

MNA's net worth or even attempted to demonstrate a "substantial likelihood of success" on their

claim for punitive damages against MNA. Even if the plaintiffs could make such a showing,

which is denied, demanding the deposition of a representative of MNA on its financial status

would not be the least burdensome method of obtaining MNA's net worth.

III.

DISCOVERY OF NET WORTH AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED AT THIS POINT EVEN IF NEWLY ENACTED §41.0115 OF TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE

Even if the Supreme Court finds that section 41.0115 is not applicable to cases filed prior

to September 1, 2015, plaintiffs should not be permitted to obtain discovery regarding MNA's

net worth or financial condition at this juncture. The Texas Supreme Court established a

bifurcated procedure for trials involving claims for exemplary damages due to the "very real

potential" that evidence of a defendant's wealth will prejudice the jury's determination of other

disputed issues in tort cases. Transp. Inc. Co. v. Mariel, 879 S.W.2d 10, 30 (Tex. 1990). The

Texas Legislature later codified that procedure in Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section

41.009. Under the bifurcated procedure, evidence or mention of a defendant's net worth is

5

4543932 completely inadmissible during the first phase of a bifurcated trial. In fact, evidence of a

defendant's net worth is only admissible in the second phase of a bifurcated trial following a

unanimous finding of liability for exemplary damages, by clear and convincing evidence. TEX.

Clv. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 41.003; 41.009 (emphasis added).

As a result of these challenging evidentiary hurdles, the majority of cases involving

punitive damages do not make it to the second phase of trial. See In re Jacobs, 300 S.W.3d 35,

50 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, orig. proceeding) (Sullivan, J., concurring). In such

cases, information concerning a defendant's net worth is absolutely inadmissible and the

discovery of such information is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Moreover, "trial courts should be mindful of protecting sensitive information and utilize

the least intrusive means necessary to facilitate discovery." Jacobs, 300 S.W.3d at 46, citing In

re Weekly Homes, L.P., 295 S.W.3d 309, 321 (Tex. 2009). That includes ensuring the correct

timing, as well as the correct scope, of discovery. The discovery of net worth information

subjects defendants, like MNA, to extreme risk of prejudice, as well as unnecessary violations of

privacy through disclosure of highly sensitive, confidential financial information. The disclosure

of such information will result in a grave risk to MNA and endanger MNA's ability to remain

financially competitive in a highly competitive business environment. The Court should engage

in a proper balancing of the burdens and benefits of discovery, particularly as colored by the

importance of the privacy interests at stake, and prohibit discovery of MNA's net worth unless

and until it is determined that MNA is liable to plaintiffs for punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, defendant Michelin North America, Inc.

prays that this Court deny plaintiffs' motion to compel the depositions of representatives of

6

4543932

MNA regarding (1) MNA's discovery responses and (2) MNA's financial condition. In the

alternative, MNA requests that this Court delay its ruling on the motion to compel the deposition

of a representative of MNA regarding its financial condition until the Texas Supreme Court has

issued its ruling in In re Robinson.

Respectfully submitted,

GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, P.L.L.C. 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 472-0288 Telephone (512) 472-0721 Facsimile

By: Isl Thomas M. Bullion III Thomas M. Bullion III State Bar No. 03331005 tbu llion@germer.com Chris A. Blackerby State Bar No. 00787091 cb lackerby@genner-austin.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

7

4543932

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been forwarded to all known counsel ofrecord as set forth below on this 30th day of October, 2015.

Luis P. Guerra Via £-Service and Facsimile David C. Shapiro Luis P. Guerra, L.L.C. 6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85016

James B. Ragan Via E-Service and Facsimile Law Offices of James B. Ragan 723 Coleman Ave. Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

Noel Sevastianos Via E-Service and Facsimile Sevastianos & Associates, PC 120 S. Central Avenue, Suite 130 St. Louis, Missouri 63105

Jose Bustillo d/b/a Mundo Cars Via Regular Mail 6422 Day Street Dallas, Texas 75227

Isl Thomas M. Bullion III Thomas M. Bullion III/Chris A. Blackerby

8

4543932 § 41.0115. Discovery of Evidence of Net Worth for ... , TX CIV PRAG & REM ...

!Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated !Civil Practice and Remedies Code (Refs & Annos)

ITitle 2. Trial, Judgment, and Aooeal ISubtitle C. Judgments IChapter 41. Damages (Refs & Annos)

V.T.C.A., Civil Practice & Remedies Code§ 41.0115 § 4i.0115. Discovery of Evidence of Net Worth for Exemplary Damages Claim

Effective: September 1, 2015

Currentness

(a) On the motion of a party and after notice and a hearing, a trial court may authorize discovery of evidence of a defendant's net worth if the court finds in a written order that the claimant has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for exemplary damages. Evidence submitted by a party to the court in support of or in opposition to a motion made under this subsection may be in the form of an affidavit or a response to discovery.

(b) Ifa trial court authorizes discovery under Subsection (a), the court's order may only authorize use of the least burdensome method available to obtain the net worth evidence.

(c) When reviewing an order authorizing or denying discovery of net worth evidence under this section, the reviewing court may consider only the evidence submitted by the parties to the trial court in support of or in opposition to the motion described by Subsection (a).

(d) If a party requests net worth discovery under this section, the court shall presume that the requesting party has had adequate time for the discovery of facts relating to exemplary damages for purposes of allowing the party from whom net worth discovery is sought to move for summary judgment on the requesting party's claim for exemplary damages under Rule l 66a(i), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Credits

Added by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., ch. 1159 (S.B. 735), § 2, eff. Sept. l, 2015.

V. T. C. A., Civil Practice & Remedies Code§ 41.0115, TX CIV PRAC & REM§ 41.0115 Current through the end of the ~Ol~Regular Session of the 84th Le_gjslattg"e End of Dol'UOH'lll ·' ::OJ:' l'h«mson Fcu1,:1, N« clrurn lc> 111iginal ll 'I (i1wnnmcnt W111ks .

,, •t · Nel<t 01 § 41.0115. Disc;overy of Evidence of Net Worth for... , TX CIV PRAC & REM ...

\f.'cstl" : ..Next © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2

DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE OF THE NET WORTH OF A ... , 2015 Tex. Sess. Law ...

2015 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 1159 (S.B. 735) (VERNON'S)

VERNON'S TEXAS SESSION LAW SERVICE 2015

Eighty-Fourth Legislature, 20 l 5 Regular Session

Additions are indicated by Text; deletions by ~.

Vetoes are indicated by --+too-;

stricken material by Text .

CHAPTER 1159 S.B. No . 735

DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE OF THE NET WORTH OF A DEFENDANT IN CONNECTION WITH A CLAIM FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

AN ACT

relating to discovery of evidence of the net worth of a defendant in connection with a claim for exemplary damages .

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas:

SECTION 1. Section 41.00 I, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended by adding Subdivision (7-a) to read as follows :

«TX CIV PRAC & REM§ 41.001 »

(7-a) "Net worth" means the total assets of a person minus the total liabilities of the person on a date determined appropriate by the trial court.

SECTION 2. Chapter 41, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended by adding Section 41.0115 to read as follows:

«TX CIV PRAC & REM§ 41 .0115 »

Sec. 41.0115. DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE OF NET WORTH FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES CLAIM. (a) On the motion of a party and after notice and a hearing, a trial court may authorize discovery of evidence of a defendant's net worth if the court finds in a written order that the claimant has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for exemplary damages. Evidence submitted by a party to the court in support of or in opposition to a motion made under this subsection may be in the form of an affidavit or a response to discovery.

(b) If a trial court authorizes discovery under Subsection (a), the court's order may only authorize use of the least burdensome method available to obtain the net worth evidence.

(c) When reviewing an order authorizing or denying discovery of net worth evidence under this section, the reviewing court may consider only the evidence submitted by the parties to the trial court in support of or in opposition to the motion described by Subsection (a).

(d) If a party requests net worth discovery under this section, the court shall presume that the requesting party has

,: ~. I Nex.t «"J 20 15 I hrJm ·on Reulers. No cla1n to ongmal U.,.... Governm nl Works. EXHIBIT

DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE OF THE NET WORTH OF A... , 2015 Tex. Sess. Law ...

had adequate time for the discovery of facts relating to exemplary damages for purposes of allowing the party from whom net worth discovery is sought to move for summary judgment on the requesting party's claim for exemplary damages under Rule 166a(i), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

«Note: TX CIV PRAC & REM§ 41.001 »

SECTION 3. The change in law made by this Act applies only to an action filed on or after the effective date of this Act.

SECTION 4. This Act takes effect September 1, 2015 .

Passed the Senate on April 28, 2015: Yeas 20, Nays 11; the Senate concurred in House amendment on May 28, 2015: Yeas 23, Nays 8; passed the House, with amendment, on May 22, 2015: Yeas 93, Nays 44, one present not voting.

Approved June 19, 2015. Effective Se tember 1, 2015~·-------- Entl or Document ~c 2tJl 5 Thorn,1111 Rt'.ulcrs No claim to ori ginal LIS Government Wrnks.

VlestlawNext © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2

In re ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., Relater., 2015 WL 5102928 (2015)

2015 WL 5102928 (Tex.) (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing)

Supreme Court of Texas.

In re ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., Relator.

No. 15-0604. August 12, 2015.

Original Proceeding from the nth Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas Cause No. 2014-34635 Emergency Reelief Requested oral argument requested

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Coats & Evans, P.C., George Andrew Coats, State Bar No. 00783846, E-mail: coats @texasaviationlaw.com, Gary Linn Evans, State Bar No. 00795338, E-mail: evans @texasaviationlaw.com, Carrie M. McKerley, State Bar No. 24056625, Email: mckerley@texasaviationlaw.com, P.O. Box 130246, The Woodlands, Texas 77393-0246, Telephone: (281) 367-7732, Facsimile: (281) 367-8003.

*iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PAR TIES AND COUNSEL .......................................................................................................... . ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................... . iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................................................ .. v

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..................................................................................................................................... viii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .......................................................................................................................... . x

ISSUES PRESENTED .................................................................................................................................................... . xi

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................................................ .

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................... 3

ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................................................... .. 5

I. RESPONDENT'S ERRONEOUS MISAPPLICATION OF THE LAWS GOVERNING NET 5 WORTH DISCOVERY CONSTITUTES A CLEAR ABUSE OF DISCRETION ................................. ..

A. ST AND ARD OF REVIEW FOR ABUSE OF DISCRETION .................................................................. .. 5

B. THE LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDED A CLEAR AND CONCISE PROCEDURE FOR 6 NET WORTH DISCOVERY IN TEXAS . ............................................................................................................. ..

a. Senate Bill 735 answers the judicial pleas for clarification of procedure regarding the 6 discoverability of a party's net worth information in cases involving exemplary damages

b. Texas Law regarding exemplary damages has changed substantially, and the courts need clear 8 guidance from this Court on the procedures for addressing net worth discovery .................................. ~ .. •••••••-~ ...ii

EXHIBIT

.: rt Next UI I ,, Rt I

c_,

In re ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., Relator., 2015 WL 5102928 (2015)

C. EVEN APPL YING THE EXISTING PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICES & 11 REMEDIES CODE, NET WORTH DISCOVRY IS IMPROPER ABSENT A FINDING OF LIABILITY FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ..................................................................................................... .

*iv a. The Pre-Trial Discovery of Net Worth Evidence Exceeds the Scope of Permissible 12 Discovery in Bifurcated Trials .................................................................................................................................... ..

II. RELATOR HAS NO ADQUA TE REMEDY BY APPEAL ....................................................................... . 15

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR ADEQUACY OF APPELLATE REMEDY .................................. .. 15

B. RESPONDENT'S ABUSE OF DISCRETION CANNOT BE REMEDIED BY APPEAL ............ . 16

PRAYER ............................................................................................................................................................................. .. 19

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................................................................... .. 20

TEX. R. APP. PROC. 52.3j CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................... .. 22

TEX. R. APP. PROC. 9.4(i)(l) CERTIFICATION .............................................................................................. . 22

APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................................................................... . 23

*v INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases.

Al Parker Buick Co. v. Touchy, 788 S.W.2d 129 (Tex. App. - Houston 14 [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ) ........................................................................................... .

Aramark Uniform Services, Inc. v. Tyson, 40 Tex. Sup. J. 84 (November 10 15, 1996) ......................................................................................................................... .

Aramark Uniform Servs., Inc. v. Tyson, 40 Tex. Sup. J. 131 (December 10 13, 1996) ........................................................................................................................ ..

DeAtley v. Rodriguez, 246 S.W.3d 848 (Tex. App. - Dallas 2008, no 9 pet.) ................................................................................................................................... .

Huie v. DeShazo, 922 S.W.2d 920 (Tex. 1996) ................................................ . 6

In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) 13, 17, 18 (per curiam) .................................................................................................................... .

In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas 290 S. W .3d 204 (Tex. 2009) 6 (orig. proceeding) ......................................................................................................... .

In re CSX Corp., 124 S. W .3d 149 (Tex. 2003) ................................................ .. 13

In re Dana Corp., 138 S.W.3d 298 (Tex. 2004) ............................................... . 17

In re Deere & Co., 299 S.W.3d 819 (Tex. 2009 .............................................. .. 17

\Vestlav~Next © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2

In re ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., Relater., 2015 WL 5102928 (2015)

In re Essex Ins., 450 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. 2014) .................................................. .. 5, 15, 16

Jn re Graco Children's Prods., Inc., 210 S. W.3d 598 (Tex. 2006) (per 17, 18 curiam) ............................................................................................................................. .

In re Jacobs, 300 S.W.3d 35 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, 9,11,14 pet. denied) (orig. proceedings) .............................................................................. .

In re Jerry's Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 977 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. 1998) ............ .. 9

*vi In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 257 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. 2008) ............... .. 16, 17

In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 1999) ................................. . 15, 16, 17

In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. 2011) ........................................................... . 16

In re Waste Mgmt. of Tex., Inc., 392 S.W.3d 861 (Tex. App. - 17 Texarkana 2013, no pet.) (orig. proceeding) ..................................................... ..

Lunsfordv. Morris 746 S.W.2d 471(Tex.1988) (orig. proceeding) ........ .. 6, 8, 14

Perry Home Contractors, Inc. v. Patterson, 39 Tex. Sup. J. 237 10 (February 9, 1996) ...................................................................................................... ..

Perry Home Contractors, Inc. v. Patterson, 40 Tex. Sup. J. 398 (March 10 6, 1997) ............................................................................................................................ .

Transp. Inc. Co. v. Mariel, 879 S. W.2d 10 (Tex. 1990) ................................. . 11

Volkswagen, A.G. v. Valdez, 909 S.W.2d 900 (Tex. 1995) ........................... . 16

Walkerv. Packer, 827 S.W.2d833 (Tex. 1992) .............................................. .. 5,15,16,17

Wal-Mart Stores v. Alexander, 868 S.W.2d 322 (Tex. 1993) 13

Statutes

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code§§ 41.001-.013 8, 9, 14

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.001 ............................................................... .. 9

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code§ 41.002 ................................................................ . 9

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.005 ............................................................... .. 9

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code§ 41.003 ................................................................ . 9,11,14

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.007 ................................................................ . 9

*vii Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code§ 41.008 ...................................................... .. 9

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.009 ............................................................... .. 11, 12

VVestlawNext © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3

In re ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., Relater., 2015 WL 5102928 (2015)

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem . Code Section 41.0115 7

Rules .

Tex R. Civ P. 192 cmt. l 13

Tex. R. Civ. P. 292 ..................................................................................................... .. 9

*ii IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

RELATOR: Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.

RELATOR'S COUNSEL: COATS & EVANS, P.C. George Andrew Coats State Bar No . 00783846 E-mail : coats@texasaviationlaw.com Gary Linn Evans State Bar No . 00795338 E-mail : evans@texasaviationlaw.com Carrie M. McKerley State Bar No . 24056625 Email: mckerley@texasaviationlaw.com P.O. Box 130246 The Woodlands, Texas 77393-0246 Telephone: (281) 367-7732 Facsimile: {281) 367-8003

RESPONDENT: Honorable Mike D. Miller 11th Judicial District Court Harris County Civil Courthouse 20 I Caroline, 9th Floor Houston, Texas 77002

REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST: Nathan S. Ates, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates and Nathan M. Ates

REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST'S COUNSEL: STEVENSON & MURRAY Mark T. Murray State Bar No. 14724810 E-mail : mmurray@johnstevensonlaw.com 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 750 Houston, Texas 77046 Telephone: 713-622-3223 Facsimile: 713-622-3224

*viii STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of the Underlying Proceedings:

This case arises out of a helicopter accident which took place on September 10, 2012. Plaintiff Nathan S. Ates, is the representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, who died as a result of the accident. Co-Plaintiffs Sonia Ates, and Nathan M. Ates (all plaintiffs referred to herein collectively as "Ates" ) are heirs of the Decedent. The helicopter was owned by Helicopter Services, Inc., and piloted by Christopher Yeager ("Yeager"). Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. ("Robinson") is the manufacturer of the helicopter, a 2007 Robinson R22 Beta II helicopter (the "Aircraft"). Plaintiffs and Real Party in Interest bring the current suit for damages arising out of the Accident, in several capacities. Ates sued Relator, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc ., as the manufacturer of the Aircraft, Helicopter Services, Inc., as the owner of the Aircraft and the pilot's employer, as well as the estate of the pilot, Christopher Yeager.

Respondent:

Respondent, Judge Mike D. Miller, ("Respondent") is the presiding judge of the 11th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.

Actions from Which Realtor Seeks Relief:

Based on Ates' claims for exemplary damages against Robinson, Ates seeks discovery of Robinson's net worth . Robinson objected to such discovery based on *ix its "good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law." Ates filed a Motion to Compel Discovery which was granted by the trial court. Robinson then filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Limited Emergency Stay, both of which were denied by the trial court. This petition for writ of mandamus follows.

\' ·1 Next ') 0·1511"n1·c>nR 11ler~ Noclaunl1JCHig1nallJ.(' GavtrrirnentWorks

In re ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., Relator., 2015 WL 5102928 (2015)

*x STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Supreme Court of Texas has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus. Tex. Const. art. 5, § 6; Tex. Gov't Code § 22.00l(c).

*~~SUESPRESENTED

I. Did Respondent commit an abuse of discretion by misapplying applicable law and ordering the discovery of information relating to Relator's net worth without a finding of liability for exemplary damages?

2. Does Respondent's order requiring discovery of information relating to Relator's net worth constitute an error for which there is no adequate remedy at law?

*1 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Helicopter Services, Inc. is the owner of that certain 2007 Robinson R22 Beta Helicopter, Registration Number N28 I RG. Christopher Yeager ("Yeager") was an employee of Helicopter Services. On or about September 10, 2012, Yeager and Joyce A. Ates ("Decedent") were aboard the Aircraft departing from Baytown Airport. Approximately two hours in to the flight, the Aircraft crashed. Yeager and Decedent died as a result of the injuries suffered in the Accident. (App. 5; ROl40).

Plaintiffs and Real Party in Interest, Nathan S. Ates, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce A. Ates, Deceased; Sonia Ates and Nathan M. Ates (collectively "Ates" and/or Plaintiffs) bring the current suit against Relator, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., as the manufacturer of the Aircraft, Helicopter Services, Inc., as the owner of the Aircraft and the pilot's employer, as well as the estate of the pilot, Christopher Yeager. (ROOOl-0054; R0200-0228).

Ates' Original Petition includes claims against Robinson alleging negligence in the design and manufacture of the Aircraft and defective design of the Aircraft. Ates also includes a vague claim of "intentional" conduct and "willful, wonton and malicious activities" by Robinson. However, Ates fails to provide any factual support for their claims. (ROOO 1-0054; R0200-0228).

In connection with their Original Petition, Ates served Requests for Production of Documents, seeking the production of evidence to establish *2 Robinson's net worth. (ROOOl-0054). Due to the highly sensitive nature of the requested information, combined with the extreme risk of unfair prejudice, Robinson objected. (App. 5; R0140-0199; App. 6; R0246-0257). Ates filed a motion to compel Robinson's net worth, to which Robinson responded with this "good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law." (App. 4; R0095-0136; App. 5; R0140-0199; App. 6; R0246-0257).

Plaintiffs' motion was heard on May 11, 2015. On June 19, 2015, the Governor signed Senate Bill 735 into law, which addresses net worth discovery. (App. 8).

Robinson filed a Supplemental Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel on June 26, 2015. (App. 6; R0246-0257). However, the trial court had previously entered an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion, requiring Robinson to "provide documents sufficient to establish the current net worth of Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc." on June 24, 2015. (App. l; R0244-0245).

On July 2, 2015, Robinson filed a Motion for Reconsideration based on the recent enactment of SB735. (App. 2; R0258-0270). On July 7, 2015, the trial court denied Robinson's Motion and ordered the requested documents produced by 5:00 p.m. on July 8, 2015. (App. 3; R0271). Robinson's petition for writ of mandamus was filed in the Court of Appeals on July 8, 2015, and was subsequently denied on August 4, 2015. (App. 11). This petition for writ of mandamus follows.

*3 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The existing case law setting the standards for discovery ofa defendant's net worth is based on this Court's 1988 opinion in Lunsford v. Morris. There have been substantial changes to exemplary damages law in the intervening years, both as a result

In re ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., Relator., 2015 WL 5102928 (2015)

of this Court's subsequent opinions and as a result sweeping limitations on exemplary damage claims as passed by the Texas Legislature. Defendants such as Robinson should not be required to disclose its net worth based on a few conclusory, factually devoid assertions in Ates' petition, which includes vague and factually unsupported claims of "intentional" conduct and "wilful, wonton and malicious activities" by Robinson but does not allege any particular design defect or act of negligence. Without more, the discovery of Robinson's sensitive and confidential financial information should not be permitted. For cases pre-dating the effective date of SB735, this Court can give direction and guidance to trial courts by adopting the procedures of SB735 as the proper procedure for managing net worth discovery.

For years, Texas courts have recognized the lack of guidance and constancy in case law and statutes regarding the discovery of net worth evidence. The Legislature has repeatedly acted to tightly restrict the ability of litigants to seek and recover exemplary damages in the years following the decision in Lunsford. *4 However, the procedures of Texas courts have not evolved to keep up with these legislative changes.

SB735 provides clarity and guidance for handling net worth discovery. SB735 requires a party seeking net worth discovery to first obtain an order from the trial court finding that there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for exemplary damages. The provisions of SB735 are not effective until September 1, 2015 and are not binding on the present case, leaving cases pre-dating SB735 with no guidance on net worth discovery. The current procedures are do not reflect the changes made by the Legislature and need to be revisited.

Thus, while there is now clarity and direction in cases filed after September 1, 2015, it falls to this Court to clarify when and how net worth discovery should be permitted in cases filed prior to September 1, 2015. Even applying the existing laws, the discovery of a defendant's net worth is improper absent a finding of liability for exemplary damages in a bifurcated trial. Otherwise, the discovery order exceeds the scope of permissible discovery as set out in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and violates the limitations on the availability of exemplary damages, as set out in Chapter 41.

Robinson respectfully urges this Court to apply the procedures adopted in SB735 for cases filed before SB735 becomes effective. The Legislature has clearly indicated what it considers to be the proper procedures involving net worth *5 discovery. Accordingly, Robinson respectfully requests that the trial court be required to hold a "gatekeeper" hearing, after an adequate time for discovery has passed, as envisioned by SB735 to determine whether Plaintiffs can demonstrate that there is a substantial likelihood that they will succeed on the merits of their claim for exemplary damages.

Alternatively, Robinson requests that this Court order the trial court to conduct discovery within the limitations of the existing provisions of Chapter 41 and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Only upon a finding of liability during phase one of a bifurcated trial does evidence of a defendant's net worth become relevant and admissible and therefore that is the only circumstance in which disclosure of a defendant's net worth should be compelled.

ARGUMENT

II. RESPONDENT'S ERRONEOUS MISAPPLICATION OF THE LAWS GOVERNING NET WORTH DISCOVERY CONSTITUTES A CLEAR ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

A. STAND ARD OF REVIEW FOR ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner or without reference to guiding rules and principles. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992). When determining legal principles, a trial court has no discretion to misinterpret or misapply the law. Id. at 840. Thus, a clear failure to analyze or correctly apply the law constitutes an abuse of discretion. Id.; see e.g., *6 In re Essex Ins., 450 S.W.3d 524, 525-26 (Tex. 2014). A trial court's erroneous legal conclusion is an abuse of discretion, even if the law is unsettled. Huie v. DeShazo, 922 S. W.2d 920, 927-28 (Tex. 1996). Under certain circumstances, a trial court's action can constitute an abuse of discretion even though it is consistent with existing jurisprudence, but where the action conflicts with what the current law ought to be. In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of las Colinas, 290 S.W.3d 204, 213 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding).

Nx N< ', • r' < 11 ,, , / r• , • 1 vc.•v . .

In re ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., Relater., 2015 WL 5102928 (2015)

B. THE LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDED A CLEAR AND CONCISE PROCEDURE FOR NET WORTH DISCOVERY IN TEXAS.

a. Senate Bill 735 answers the judicial pleas for clarification of procedure regarding the discoverability of a party's net worth in cases involving exemplary damages.

Since this Court's 1988 holding in Lunsford v. Morris, (746 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. 1988) (orig. proceeding)), trial courts have struggled with the proper procedures for managing the discovery of a party's net worth in cases involving exemplary damages. This is particularly true in light of the extensive changes made by the Legislature in the years since Lunsford. The procedures employed by the courts have not evolved to reflect the legislative changes. The Legislature has responded to the judicial pleas for clarification by setting out a clear and concise procedure for the courts to follow in cases where a party's net worth is in issue by enacting Senate Bill 735. However, for cases pre-dating the effective date of *7 SB735, the struggle remains. It is within the authority of this Court to clarify the procedures for cases pre-dating SB735, including the present case. There should be but one consistent procedure for addressing net worth discovery in all cases, present and future.

SB735 requires parties seeking net worth discovery to obtain a written order from the trial court finding, "the claimant has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for exemplary damages." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Section 41.0115. (App. 8). SB735 also provides said hearing should only be held after an adequate time for the discovery of facts relating to exemplary damages has been made. (App. 8).

Given the recognized need to clarify the appropriate procedures for discovery of net worth evidence, and the dramatic changes in punitive damages law over the last thirty years, Robinson respectfully urges this Court to provide the much needed guidance to the lower courts and adopt the procedures of SB735 for the discovery of a defendant's net worth, even in cases pre-dating SB735. More specifically, Robinson respectfully requests that the trial court be required to hold a "gatekeeper" hearing, as envisioned by SB735 to determine whether Plaintiffs can demonstrate that there is a substantial likelihood that they will succeed on the merits of their claim for exemplary damages against Robinson.

*8 b. Texas Law regarding exemplary damages has changed substantially, and the courts need clear guidance from this Court on the procedures for addressing net worth discovery.

In 1988, this Court held that a defendant's net worth is relevant in a suit involving exemplary damages. Lumford, 746 S.W.2d at 473. As a result, parties may discover and offer evidence of a defendant's net worth in cases where exemplary damages may be awarded. Id. In 1995, the Legislature passed sweeping tort reform to the substantive and procedural law governing exemplary damages. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code§§ 41.001-.013. Chapter 41 was significantly rewritten to provide defendants dramatic protection from exemplary-damage awards. Such changes include: •Exemplary damages were limited to assessing damages with the purpose of punishing the defendant.

• Chapter 41 's coverage was expanded to apply to all but a very few types of tort actions.

• A plaintiffs burden of proof for exemplary damages was elevated to clear and convincing evidence.

• With few limitations, a defendant could no longer be exposed to exemplary damages because of another person's criminal act.

•The Legislature lowered the existing cap on exemplary damages.

• Upon a defendant' s motion, the trial court had to bifurcate the jury's determination of the amount of exemplary damages, and evidence of a *9 defendant' s net worth could not be admitted during the liability phase of the trial. Id.

\\ ' [, ' Next If:) 2015 rI 1orn ·,.,n Reutl:'!rS. Ne c1a11n to ono1m~I U Gover nmenl Wori\s. (

In re ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., Relater., 2015 WL 5102928 (2015)

These substantive and procedural amendments changed the legal landscape on two levels. First, they further limited the amount of exemplary damages that could be assessed. See id. § 1 secs. 41.007, 41.008. Second, and more significantly, these revisions dramatically lessened the chances of any exemplary-damage recovery by a claimant. See id. § I §§ 41.001(5), 41.002, 41.003(b), 41.005 .

In 2003, the Legislature further eroded a plaintiffs ability to recover exemplary damages. Now, unlike the general rule permitting a civil verdict upon the vote of only ten jurors, an award of exemplary damages requires a unanimous verdict as to liability for, and the amount of, such damages. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code§ 4 l .003(d); Tex. R. Civ. P. 292; DeAtley v. Rodriguez, 246 S.W.3d 848, 850 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.).

The current procedures are "decades-old [and] do not reflect the changes made by the Legislature and, in light of the evolution of Texas law, and needs to be revisited." See In re Jacobs, 300 S.W.3d 35, 50 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (orig. proceeding) (Sullivan, J., concurring). In 1998, Justice Gonzalez recognized the difficulty which resulted from the lack of direction regarding discovery of net worth information. "These issues are significant and demand the Court's attention." In re Jerry 's Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 977 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex. 1998) (Gonzalez, J., dissenting).

*10 This Court was willing to address these issues previously. Id. This Court granted petitions for writ of mandamus in Aramark Uniform Services, Inc. v. Tyson, 40 Tex. Sup. J. 84 (November 15, 1996), and Perry Home Contractors, Inc. v. Patterson, 39 Tex. Sup. J. 237 (February 9, 1996), to determine whether a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to exemplary damages before discovering evidence of a defendant's net worth. However, this Court was unable to clarify net worth discovery because each of those cases were settled. Perry Home Contractors, Inc. v. Patterson, 40 Tex. Sup. J. 398 (March 6, 1997); Aramark Uniform Servs., Inc. v. Tyson, 40 Tex. Sup. J. 131 (December 13, 1996). In the years since, the need to address these issues has grown due to the statutory changes in punitive damages made by the Legislature.

Undeniably, the Legislature has repeatedly acted to tightly restrict the ability of litigants to seek and recover exemplary damages . Robinson respectfully requests this Court harmonize net worth discovery in cases pre-dating SB735 with the changes made to punitive damages law following Lunsford.

In light of the legislative changes limiting the availability of exemplary damages, similarly limiting net worth discovery to cases where a finding of liability has actually been made, both plaintiffs and defendants can be protected and neither party is unfairly prejudiced by an unrestricted requirement to disclose sensitive, yet completely irrelevant information. Discovery of Robinson's net *11 worth, as well as that of similarly situated defendants, should only be permitted following a finding by the trial court that there is a substantial likelihood of success on a plaintiffs claim for exemplary damages, as set out in SB735.

C. EVEN APPLYING THE EXISTING PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICES & REMEDIES CODE, NET WORTH DISCOVERY IS IMPROPER ABSENT A FINDING OF LIABILITY FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.

This Court established a bifurcated procedure for trials involving claims for exemplary damages due to the "very real potential" that evidence of a defendant's wealth will prejudice the jury's determination of other disputed issues in tort cases. Transp. Inc. Co. v. Morie!, 879 S. W.2d 10, 30 (Tex. 1990). That procedure was later codified by the Legislature. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.009. Under the bifurcated procedure, evidence or mention of a defendant's net worth is completely inadmissible during the first phase of a bifurcated trial. In fact, evidence of a defendant's net worth is only admissible in the second phase of a bifurcated trial following a unanimous finding of liability for exemplary damages, by clear and convincing evidence. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem . Code§§ 41.003; 41 .009 [emphasis added] .

As a result of these difficult evidentiary hurdles, most cases involving exemplary damages never make it to the second phase of trial. See In re Jacobs, 300 S.W.3d at 50 (Sullivan, J., concurring). In such cases, information concerning *12 a defendant's net worth is absolutely inadmissible and the discovery thereof is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, the discovery of net worth information subjects defendants, such as Robinson, to extreme risk of prejudice, as well as unnecessary violations of privacy through disclosure of highly sensitive, confidential financial information. The disclosure of such information will most likely result in a grave risk to Robinson and

'//;o· tlii:.Nex:t © 2015 l homson Reuters. No ciairn to or1g1nal US. Government Works. 8

In re ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., Relater., 2015 WL 5102928 (2015)

endanger Robinson's ability to remain financially compet1t1ve in a highly competitive business environment. Thus, information concerning Robinson's net worth should not be discoverable unless and until the jury finds that Robinson is liable to Ates for exemplary damages.

a. The Pre-Trial Discovery of Net Worth Evidence Exceeds the Scope of Permissible Discovery in Bifurcated Trials.

In the first phase of a bifurcated trial, the trier of fact shall determine: ( 1) liability for compensatory and exemplary damages; and (2) the amount of compensatory damages. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.009. If liability for exemplary damages is established during the first phase of a bifurcated trial, the trier of fact shall, in the second phase, determine the amount of exemplary damages to be awarded, if any. Id. The second phase is only necessary after the fact finder has found, by unanimous verdict, that a defendant is liable for exemplary damages. Due to the extremely prejudicial impact, a party cannot even mention a defendant's net worth in the first phase of a bifurcated trial. *13 Consequently, the discovery of Robinson's net worth is absolutely irrelevant and inadmissible in the first phase of trial. If, and only if, a jury determines Robinson is liable for exemplary damages can evidence of Robinson ' s net worth be introduced during the second phase. Robinson should not be required to produce evidence of its net worth unless and until the jury returns such a verdict.

While the scope of discovery is quite broad, it is nevertheless confined by the subject matter of the case and reasonable expectations ofobtaining information that will aid resolution of the dispute. Tex R. Civ P. 192 cmt. 1; Jn re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex. 2003). Therefore, discovery requests must be reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to the proceedings. In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The disclosure of Robinson's net worth is relevant only to the amount of exemplary damages that may be awarded. See Wal-Mart Stores v. Alexander, 868 S.W.2d 322. 329 {Tex. 1993) (Gonzalez, J., concurring). More importantly, in bifurcated trials, that information is not relevant during the first phase because the fact finder cannot determine the amount of exemplary damages to be awarded. Evidence of a defendant's net worth is only admissible, and therefore, only relevant, in the second phase following the highly unlikely finding ofliability for exemplary damages.

*14 To establish a defendant's liability for exemplary damages, a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence each element of its exemplary damages claim. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code§ 41.003(b). This is a higher burden of proof than that required for mere negligence and the recovery of compensatory damages. See Al Parker Buick Co. v. Touchy, 788 S.W.2d 129, 130 {Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ). Additionally, exemplary damages may only be awarded if the jury was unanimous in regard to finding liability for and the amount of exemplary damages. Id. at§ 41.003(d). Thus, the question is not if this evidence is relevant, but when it is relevant. Lunsford, 746 S. W.2d at 4 74 (Gonzalez, J., dissenting). In most cases, the answer to that question is never.

The Legislative changes made following Lunsford reduced the amount of exemplary damages that could be awarded, but more significantly, dramatically reduced the chances of any exemplary damage recovery. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 41.001, et seq.; In re Jacobs, 300 S. W .3d at 50. As a result, discovery of a defendant's net worth is both irrelevant and inadmissible in most cases. The disclosure of a defendant's sensitive and confidential financial information is unwarranted and unnecessary unless and until a finding of liability for exemplary damages has been made. Consequently, the pre-trial discovery of such information exceeds the scope of discovery permitted under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and should not be allowed. Thus, Robinson should not be *15 compelled to disclose confidential financial information unless and until a unanimous finding of liability for exemplary damages has been made by the jury during the trial of this cause.

If, and only if, the jury determines that a defendant is liable for exemplary damages, should a defendant be compelled to disclose its net worth. That disclosure may be made by either providing bottom-line number of a defendant's total net worth, or by only producing evidence necessary to demonstrate its ability to satisfy an award up the maximum amount of exemplary damages that may be awarded pursuant to Chapter 41.

II. RELATOR HAS NO ADQUATE REMEDY BY APPEAL.

,\'c;,,.t!,-:·/,Next <D ?015 lhornson Reuters. No claim to ongmal U.S. Government Worl~s. 9

In re ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., Relater., 2015 WL 5102928 (2015)

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR ADEQUACY OF APPELLATE REMEDY.

The second requirement for mandamus is lack of an adequate remedy by appeal. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839-40. The adequacy inquiry "is simply a proxy for the careful balance of jurisprudential considerations that determine when appellate courts will use original mandamus proceedings to review the action of lower courts." In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 1999). Determining whether an appellate remedy is adequate involves balancing "practical and prudential" considerations, such as the impairment of important substantive and procedural rights, the opportunity to give direction and guidance on the law that would otherwise be lost, and the waste of judicial resources on a *16 proceeding. See In re Essex, 450 S.W.3d at 528; Tn re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 136.

A party has no adequate remedy by appeal to challenge a discovery dispute if the appellate court will not be able to cure the trial court's error. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 843; see, e.g., Volkswagen, A.G. v. Valdez, 909 S.W.2d 900, 903 (Tex. 1995). Additionally, a party has no adequate remedy by appeal when the trial court's refusal to grant the remedy renders the subject matter of the appeal illusory. See e.g., In re ATU Ins., 148 S.W.3d 109, 115-17 (Tex. 2004); In re Dickason, 987 S.W.2d 570, 571 (Tex. 1998).

Further, mandamus is an "extraordinary remedy, not issued as a matter of right, but at the discretion of the court." In re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 138. "Mandamus review of significant rulings in exceptional cases may be essential to preserve important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss ... " Id. at 136. Additionally, mandamus is a proper vehicle for courts to correct blatant injustice that otherwise would elude review by the appellate courts. See Jn re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 138; In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 374 (Tex. 2011).

B. RESPONDENT'S ABUSE OF DISCRETION CANNOT BE REMEDIED BY APPEAL.

Mandamus review is generally a matter within this Court's discretion. In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 257 S.W.3d 458, 461 (Tex. 2008). Mandamus relief is frequently issued when "the very act of proceeding to trial - regardless of the * 17 outcome - would defeat the substantive right involved." Id. at 465; In re Waste Mgmt. of Tex., Inc., 392 S.W.3d 861, 867 (Tex. App. - Texarkana 2013, no pet.) (orig. proceeding). Generally, the scope of discovery is within the trial court's discretion, but the trial court must make an effort to impose reasonable discovery limits. In re Graco Children's Prods., Inc., 210 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam). An order that compels overly broad discovery is an abuse of discretion for which mandamus is the proper remedy. Id.; Jn re Deere & Co., 299 S.W.3d 819, 820 (Tex. 2009).

Mandamus relief is available when the trial court compels production beyond the permissible bounds of discovery. See Jn re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S. W.2d at 714. Intrusive discovery measures - such as the unproven right to discovery of net worth information - require, at a minimum, that the benefits of the discovery measure outweigh the burden imposed upon the discovered party. See In re Prudential, 148 S. W .3d at 135-36. "If an appellate court cannot remedy a trial court's discovery error, then an adequate appellate remedy does not exist." In re Dana Corp., 138 S.W .3d 298, 301 (Tex. 2004). After a private document, such as that demonstrating Robinson's net worth, has been produced, inspected, and examined, a holding that the court had erroneously issued the order would be of small comfort to a relator in protecting its privacy. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 843.

*18 In the present case, the unnecessary discovery of Robinson's net worth constitutes an invasion of privacy and subjects Robinson to the potential for unfair prejudice and abuse. Once the information is disclosed, the damage to Robinson cannot be undone. The benefits to unlimited discovery of such information do not outweigh the risks and burdens imposed upon Robinson, or other similarly situated defendants. It will be impossible to undo the harm to Robinson once the documents are disclosed. Conversely, following the procedures clearly set out in SB735 in cases pre-dating its effective date, raises no risk of prejudice or harm to Ates, or other plaintiffs seeking exemplary damages.

An order may constitute an abuse of discretion if it compels discovery of matters not relevant to the subject matter of the action. In re Graco, 210 S.W.3d at 600; In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d at 713. Discovery of a defendant's net worth information is not relevant to the present case unless and until the trial court, following an evidentiary hearing, determines that there is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of their claim for exemplary damages . Robinson urges this Court to adopt the requirements of the recently enacted SB735 in cases pre-dating the effective date of SB735.

'1'.t"' I " Next \C120 15 Thorn on Reuters No claim Lo original U.S Gow::1 rm1ent Works. 10

In re ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., Relater., 2015 WL 5102928 (2015)

Delaying the production of Robinson's net worth information until a finding of a substantial likelihood of success is made will have no effect on the pre-trial proceedings in the present case, nor those involving similarly situated defendants.

*19 The premature disclosure of Robinson's net worth information would cause irreparable and irreversible injury to Robinson. Once Robinson's net worth information is disclosed, the harm and prejudice resulting from that disclosure cannot be undone. Conversely, there will be no harm or prejudice of any kind to Plaintiffs if the net worth information is not provided absent a finding of likelihood of success.

Robinson is not publicly-traded and has always been a closely-held corporation. (App. 5; R0140-0199, Exhibit "A"). Robinson has always treated such financial information as carefully guarded trade-secrets. Id. The disclosure of Robinson' s financial information would gravely impair and endanger Robinson's ability to remain competitive in a highly regulated and competitive business environment. Id. As a result, Robinson is entitled to the mandamus relief requested.

PRAYER

For the foregoing reasons, Relator, Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. respectfully requests that this Court grant Robinson's petition for writ of mandamus and order Respondent to vacate its order granting Real Parties in Interest's motion to compel the discovery of Robinson's net worth. Robinson further requests that this Court direct the trial court to hold a "gatekeeper" hearing to determine whether Plaintiffs can demonstrate that there is a substantial *20 likelihood that they will succeed on the merits of their claim for exemplary damages against Robinson, or alternatively, defer the discovery of net worth evidence until the conclusion of the first phase of bifurcated trial, and then only in the event the first phase jury's verdict would permit a second phase of trial. Robinson further requests any and all other relief, in law or in equity, to which it is justly entitled. None of the reliefrequested by Robinson will result in prejudice to any party in any respect.

Appendix not available. Eull of Document .,. 2015 J'hr1111s1n1 J{cutt:r:;, No claim to r>riginal U.S. Government Works .

4 1 I l

IN RE ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., 15-0604 (2015)

TO ORDER COPIES OF ANY DOCUMENTS LISTED BELOW, CALL WESTLAW COURTEXPRESS

1-877-DOC-RETR (1-877-362-7387) (Additional Charges Apply)

This docket is current through 10/18/2015

Current Date: 10/26/2015 Source: SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS, TEXAS CASE INFORMATION Case Title: IN RE ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC.

Court: SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

Case Number: 15-0604

Case Type: APPEALS

Case Subtype: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Key Nature of Suit: CIVIL PROCEDURE; PETITION (100.55)

Date Filed: 08/12/2015

LOWER COURT INFORMATION Trial Court: 11TH DISTRICT COURT

Trial Court County: HARRIS

Trial Court Judge: MICHAEL DAVID MILLER

Trial Court Case Number: 2014-34635

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION !ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC. Type: RELATOR

Attorney: CARRIE M. MCKERLEY

Attorney: GARY L. EVANS

Attorney: GEORGE ANDREW COATS

!NATHAN S. ATES Type: REAL PARTY IN INTEREST

Attorney: MARKT. MURRAY

Attorney: DARRIN M. WALKER

EXHIBIT

Nex

., I' ' <. •v 11 n ·11 Vt,rl~s

IN RE ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., 15-0604 (2015)

CALENDAR INFORMATION (2) Date/Time: Description: Location: Judge:

: 10/13/2015 Event: WORK-UP BY STAFF I REVIEW BY JUSTICES; UNDER REVIEW

08/28/2015 Event: STAY ISSUED.; STAY ORDER ISSUED

APPEALS INFORMATION (1) Appeal Date: Description: Disposition Information:

COURT OF APPEALS CASE Disposition/Result: DENIED NUMBER: 01-15-00594-CV; COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT: 1ST COURT OF APPEALS; JUSTICE: PER CURIAM Additional Info Relating to Appeal: OPINION CITE:_ SW3D _ , 08-04-15

DOCKET PROCEEDINGS (11) Date: Entry#: Description: Date Docketed: Party:

10/13/2015 Docket Entry: CASE Send Runner to Court FORWARDED TO COURT

10/06/2015 Document Description: REAL Send Runner to Court PARTIES IN INTEREST Docket Entry: RESPONSE TO PETITION Remarks: RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, FILED ON BEHALF OF NATHAN ATES, ET AL.

09/02/2015 Document Description: REAL Send Runner to Court PARTIES IN INTEREST Docket Entry: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE DISPOSED Disposition: FILING GRANTED Remarks: UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO PETITION, FILED ON BEHALF OF NATHAN ATES, ET AL. HAS BEEN GRANTED. RESPONSE

'/'/estt.:iwNext © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No ciaim to original U S. Government Works.

IN RE ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., 15-0604 (2015)

IS DUE OCTOBER 8, 2015. FURTHER REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR THIS FILING WILL BE DISFAVORED.

09/02/2015 Document Description: REAL Send Runner to Court PARTIES IN INTEREST Docket Entry: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE Remarks: UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO PETITION, FILED ON BEHALF OF NATHAN ATES, ET AL.

09/02/2015 Document Description: REAL Send Runner to Court PARTIES IN INTEREST Docket Entry: LETTER FILED Remarks: REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST'S NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL COUNSEL, FILED ON BEHALF OF NATHAN ATES, ET AL.

08/28/2015 Document Description: Send Runner to Court REFERS TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Docket Entry: SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS REQUESTED RESPONSE Remarks: REQUESTED RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DUE NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 8, 2015.

08/28/2015 Document Description: Send Runner to Court REFERS TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Docket Entry: STAY ORDER ISSUED

08/28/2015 Docket Entry: MOTION TO Send Runner to Court STAY DISPOSED Disposition: FILING GRANTED Remarks: MOTION FOR LIMITED EMERGENCY STAY GRANTED

08/12/2015 Document Description: Send Runner to Court RELATOR Docket Entry: CASE RECORD FILED Remarks: MANDAMUS RECORD FILED ON BEHALF OF ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC.

08/12/2015 Document Description: Send Runner to Court RELATOR Docket Entry: MOTION TO STAY FILED Remarks: MOTION TO STAY

',\!A' ,tL01 .·1Next \£1 2015 Tt1omson Reuter·s . No claim to original U S. Government Works.

0 1 ')

._)

IN RE ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., 15-0604 (2015)

FILED ON BEHALF OF ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC.

08/12/2015 Document Description: Send Runner to Court RELATOR Docket Entry: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Remarks: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS FILED ON BEHALF OF ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC .

TO ORDER COPIES OF ANY DOCUMENTS LISTED ABOVE, CALL WESTLAW COURTEXPRESS

1-877-DOC-RETR (1-877-362-7387) (Additional Charges Apply)

End of Document © 2015 Thomson Reuters No claim to original US Government Works

V'/estlihvNext © 2015 Thomson Reuters No claim to original U S Government Works 4

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY 11/2/2015 3:05:06 PM

FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK

CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA and OBDULIA § IN THE DISTRICT COURT MEDINA, husband and wife, § OF DALLAS COUNTY individually; NATAL YE MEDINA, § individually; NAVIL GIBSON, § individually; § §

PLAINTIFFS, § § 134rn JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. § § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; § AND JOSE BUSTILLO d/b/a MUNDO § (Oral Argument Requested) CARS, an in state defendant, § §

DEFENDANTS, §

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITIONS OF MICHELIN'S EMPLOYEES MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT:

1) RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

2) FINANCIAL INFORMATION & NET WORTH

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE DALE TILLERY:

I. Michelin's reliance on In re Exxon Corp:., 208 S.W.3d 70, 76 (Tex. App. 2006) is a nonstarter : the witness compelled to testify in Exxon was an attorney.

Michelin should re-read Plaintiffs' Motion. Plaintiffs have no interest in deposing any

lawyers or attorneys of record. Michelin's justification for not producing an employee most

knowledgeable about its responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production is In re Exxon Corp.,

208 S.W.3d 70, 76 (Tex. App. 2006). Exxon has nothing to do with the present circumstances.

In Exxon, the plaintiffs sought to depose "one of Exxon's attorneys":

It cannot reasonably be argued in this Court that the anticipated deponent is not one of Exxon's attorneys. During the June hearing, plaintiffs' counsel informed the trial court that he suspected the knowledgeable representative was

2

indeed an Exxon lawyer and Exxon confirmed with the trial court that counsel responded to the requests for production.

Id. (e.a.).

While the trial court compelled the discovery deposition of the attorney involved in the litigation, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed, holding that "[c]ompelling an attorney of record involved in the litigation of the case ... implicates work product concerns and is inappropriate":

Compelling an attorney of record involved in the litigation of the case to testify concerning the suit's subject matter generally implicates work product concerns and is inappropriate under most circumstances.

*****

This inquiry is designed to inquire into mental processes of counsel and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Id. (e.a.).

Again, here, Plaintiffs have no interest in deposing any lawyers, attorneys of record and

discovering the mental processes of counsel concerning this issue. What Plaintiffs want and are

entitled to depose is the Michelin employee or employees - not lawyer or attorney - most

knowledgeable about Michelin's responsive documents to Plaintiffs' Request for Production.

Such folks include but are not limited to the tire builders, tire designers, tire verifiers,

classspectors, return center personnel, tire adjustment data employees, etc., etc. For example, in

response to Plaintiffs' Request for all aspect specifications, Michelin claimed that only nine (9)

aspect specifications apply to the components and conditions at issue. Only a Michelin

employee who uses the aspect specifications daily within a Michelin production plant- not an

attorney - can determine which aspect specifications correspond to specific conditions.

Therefore, Plaintiffs' Motion should be granted.

II. In cases like this where "punitive or exemplary damages may be awarded, parties may discover and offer evidence of a defendant's net worth." Lunsford v. Morris, 746 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tex. 1988). (e.a.).

To date, there is overwhelming evidence of manufacturing and design defects in the

subject tire- all known to Michelin before, during and after the tire was manufactured. Michelin

provides no evidence disputing such. See Plaintiff's Original Petition and Objection to

Michelin's Renewed Designation re: Adrian and Maria Rico. Therefore, this case reeks of

punitive damages.

Still, Michelin's reliance on Section 41.0115 of the Texas Civil Practice & Civil

Remedies Code is misleading. As Michelin concedes, said statute does not apply to cases

that were filed prior to September 1, 2015. On the contrary, binding Texas law requires and

authorizes discovery of a defendant like Michelin's net worth when a plaintiff, like here, seeks

punitive damages:

The Texas Supreme Court has held that in cases in which punitive or exemplary damages may be awarded, parties may discover and offer evidence of a defendant's net worth. [Citation omitted].

The court declared a defendant's net worth to be "relevant" in a suit involving exemplary damages. Id. Miller seeks punitive damages, which are recoverable for a willful breach of a fiduciary duty . . . Thus, documents showing the net wo1ih of Gann and Perdue are relevant and discoverable.

Miller v. O'Neill, 775 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex. App. 1989). (e.a.).

Michelin's only argument is to have this Court "delay" its ruling and discovery and

consequently continue trial, which would directly violate an express order of this Court:

Judge want to let you all know that ... there will be no more continuances.

E-Mail from Francine Ly, Judge Dale Tillery's 1341'1 Court Coordinator, Exhibit A. (e.a.).

Conclusion: Pursuant to binding Texas precedent, Plaintiffs are entitled to: 1) depose Michelin's

employee or employees - not lawyers or attorneys - about Michelin's responses to Plaintiffs'

Request for Production and 2) conduct discovery about Michelin's net worth including the

deposition of its employee most knowledgeable about these matters.

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF LUIS P. GUERRA, LLC

6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Telephone: (602) 381-8400 Facsimile: (602) 381-8403

By: Isl David C. Shapiro Luis P. Guen-a (Admitted Pro Hae Vice) AZ State Bar No. 015768 David C. Shapiro (Admitted Pro Hae Vice) AZ State Bar No. 028056 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

LAW OFFICES OF JAMES B. RAGAN 723 Coleman A venue Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: (361) 884-7787 Facsimile: (361) 884-9144 James B. Ragan State Bar No. 16466100

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and con-ect copy of the foregoing document has been forwarded to all lmown counsel of record as set forth below via E-Mail & U.S. Mail, on this 2nd day of November, 2015:

Via E-Mail & US. Mail to:

Noel A. Sevastianos SEVASTIANOS & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 120 So. Central Ave., Suite 130 St. Louis, MO 63105

Thomas M. Bullion III Chris A. Blackerby GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, PLLC 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 Attorneys for Defendant Michelin North America, Inc.

Via Mail to:

Jose Bustillo dlblal Mundo Cars 6422 Day Street Dallas, Texas 85227 Pro Per Defendant Jose Bustillo d/bla/ Mundo Cars

Isl David C. Shapiro

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY 10/19/2015 5:28:20 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK

2

hereto as Exhibit B. Michelin has failed to respond. All of it in direct violation of this

Honorable Court's direct order of October 5, 2015.

Therefore, we reluctantly are forced to file this Motion seeking the Court's assistance,

and respectfully request that the Court grant the aforementioned prayer for relief.

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF LUIS P. GUERRA, LLC

6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Telephone: (602) 381-8400 Facsimile: (602) 381-8403

By: Isl Luis P. Guerra Luis P. Guerra (Admitted Pro Hae Vice) AZ State Bar No. 015768 David C. Shapiro (Admitted Pro Hae Vice) AZ State Bar No. 028056 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINITFFS

LAW OFFICES OF JAMES B. RAGAN 723 Coleman Avenue Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: (361) 884-7787 Facsimile: (361) 884-9144 James B. Ragan State Bar No. 16466100

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Counsel for movant has repeatedly wrote and called Defendant Michelin's counsel. All to no avail. Counsel for Michelin will not respond or answer Plaintiffs' counsel's phone calls or letters. Thus, despite best efforts the counsel have not been able to resolve those matters presented.

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-Mail & U.S. Mail, on this 19th day of October, 2015.

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY 10/30/2015 4:03:50 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK procedures and documents used to train tire builders at the Dothan, Alabama plant that MNA was

able to locate that relate to the components and conditions at issue in this case. See Exhibit A.

Further in a letter dated October 26, 2015, MNA again identified those Bates numbers and

explained that they were the oldest available tire building procedures and documents used to

train tire builders at Dothan that MNA was able to locate that relate to the components and

conditions at issue in this case. See Exhibit B.

Simply put, plaintiffs have and have had the information since September 18, 2015.

Their motion is moot and should be denied.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, defendant Michelin North America, Inc.

prays that this Court deny Plaintiffs' Short Motion to Compel Michelin to Comply with the

Honorable Court's Order of October 5, 2105 Concerning Bates Stamp Range of Documents as

moot.

Respectfully submitted,

GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, P.L.L.C . 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 4 72-0288 Telephone (512)472-0721 Facsimile

By: /s/ Thomas M. Bullion III Thomas M. Bullion III State Bar No. 03331005 tbullion@germer.com Chris A. Blackerby State Bar No. 00787091 cblackerby@germer-austin.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

2

4544503

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been forwarded to all known counsel ofrecord as set forth below on this 30th day of October, 2015.

Luis P. Guerra Via £-Service and Facsimile David C. Shapiro Luis P. Guerra, L.L.C. 6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Jam es B. Ragan Via E-Service and Facsimile Law Offices of James B. Ragan 723 Coleman Ave. Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

Noel Sevastianos Via E-Service and Facsimile Sevastianos & Associates, PC 120 S. Central Avenue, Suite 130 St. Louis, Missouri 63105

Jose Bustillo d/b/a Mundo Cars Via Regular Mail 6422 Day Street Dallas, Texas 75227

Isl Thomas M. Bullion III Thomas M. Bullion III/Chris A. Blackerby

3

4544503

CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA AND OBDULIA ) IN THE DISTIUCT COURT OF MEDINA, HUSBAND AND WIFE, ) INDIVIDUALLY; NAT AL YE MEDINA, ) INDIVIDUALLY; NA VIL GIBSON, ) INDIVIDUALLY, )

)

PLAINTIFFS, )

) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS vs. )

)

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; AND ) JOSE BUSTILLO D/B/A MUNDO CARS, AN ) IN STATE DEFENDANT, )

)

DEFENDANTS. ) 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA. INC.'S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

TO: Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney of record, Luis P. Guerra, LLC, 6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125, Phoenix, Arizona 85016.

COMES NOW Michelin North America, Inc. ("MNA"), defendant in the above-styled

and numbered cause, and submits these, its third supplemental responses and objections to

Plaintiffs First Set of Request for Production.

Respectfully submitted,

GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, PLLC 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 472-0288 Telephone (512) 472-0721 Facsimile

EXHIBIT

I fr

/) /2 ~· /JA

'?fh,.,;t. fl"""'' ~ ~ ~~~ oo

(A, t-

By:_ _ _ _ _____,,"'°---------

Thomas M. Bullion III tbullion@germer-austin.com State Bar No. 03331005 Chris A. Blackerby cblackerby@germer-austin.com State Bar No. 00787091

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been forwarded to all known counsel ofrecord as set forth below on this 18th day of September, 2015.

Luis P. Guerra Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested David C. Shapiro & Electronic Mail Luis P. Guerra, L.L.C. 6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125 Phoenix, AZ 85016

James B. Ragan Via Regular Mail Law Offices of James B. Ragan 723 Coleman Ave. Corpus Christi, TX 78401

Noel Sevastianos Via Regular Mail Sevastianos & Associates, PC 120 S. Central Avenue, Suite 130 St. Louis, Missouri 63105

Jose Bustillo d/b/a Mundo Cars Via Regular Mail 6422 Day Street Dallas, Texas 85227 Pro Se

2

4540175 of similar Michelin North America tires that contain nylon cap plies from the date the similar tire was first manufacture to the present or end of production.

RESPONSE:

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request for tires in the relevant scope. No tires in the relevant scope were manufactured

with nylon cap plies. MNA objects to this request as being vague and ambiguous in its use of the

term "nylon cap pules" and "similar tires," as those tem1s are undefined.

To the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA further

objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that

arc neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the

tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action.

THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:

After a reasonable and diligent search, MNA has not located any documents responsive

to this request for tires in the expanded scope. No tires in the expanded scope were

manufactured with nylon cap plies. MNA objects to this request as being vague and ambiguous

in its use of the term "nylon cap pules" and "similar tires," as those terms arc undefined.

To the extent this request seeks documents outside the expanded scope, MNA further

objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that

are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the

tire, plant, and time period relevant to this action.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:

Identify and produce any and all documents, relating to the building, tire builder training, testing, and inspection of passenger and light truck tires at the Dothan, Alabama plant where the

23

4540175 subject tire was manufactured. This request includes, but is not limited to standard practice binders, tire building mmrnals, tire builder training manuals, equipment manuals, and/or other materials and videotapes used to train tire builders. This request also includes documents, photographs, and charts used to illustrate defects, or potential defects, in tires and/or problems or potential problems in the tire building process.

RESPONSE:

MNA objects to this request because plaintiffs have not identified the specific design or

manufacturing process that produced the defect alleged to be present in the tire in question.

Accordingly, this request is nothing more than an impermissible "fishing expedition" for

information generally related to every aspect of MNA's design and manufacturing process,

whether or not related to plaintiffs' claims in this case. If plaintiffs will identify the components

and processes at issue in this case, MNA will search for and produce documents responsive to

this request for those components and processes during the relevant scope, if they exist.

To the extent this request seeks documents outside the relevant scope, MNA further

objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents that

are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have failed to limit the scope of this request to the

tire and time period relevant to this action.

MNA further objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek information that

constitutes commercially sensitive, confidential business infonnation of MNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret protection for such information.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response. Subject to the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, MNA produces MNA-MEDINA-0001287 -

MNA-MEDINA-0001312 and MNA-MEDINA-0001815 - MNA-MEDINA-0001820 for the

relevant scope or the oldest available for the components and processes identified by plaintiffs.

24

4540175

MNA has located no additional responsive documents for the relevant scope for the components

and processes identified by plaintiffs.

THIRD SUPPLEMENT AL RESPONSE:

MNA incorporates its objections above in its original response. Subject to the

confidentiality protective order entered in this case, on September 11, 2015 MNA produced

MNA-MEDINA-0003362 - MNA-MEDINA0003515, the oldest documents available for the

expanded scope for the components and processes identified by plaintiffs. MNA has located no

additional responsive documents for the expanded scope for the components and processes

identified by plaintiffs.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:

Identify and produce any audits, reports, examinations, investigations, studies, or reviews, including any work papers, whether created within or outside Michelin North America, in any manner related to the return, failure, performance, durability, and life expectancy, design, or quality of the subject tire and model tires.

RESPONSE:

MNA produces claims fom1s for the model of the tire in question manufactured at Dothan

during the relevant scope as MNA-MEDINA-0000011 - MNA-MEDINA-0000130, MNA-

MEDINA-0000260 - MNA-MEDINA-0000563, and MNA-MEDINA-0000231. Upon entry of

an appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will search for and produce claim forms for

the tires common green to the tire in question manufactured at Dothan during the relevant scope.

Also upon entry of an appropriate confidentiality protective order, MNA will produce a list of

adjustment codes. To the extent plaintiffs identify codes relevant to the condition of the tire in

question and plaintiffs' claims in this matter, MNA will produce documents reflecting the

number of tires in the relevant scope returned with those conditions, if any.

25

4540175

AUSTIN BEAUMONT HOUSTON

WWW germer.com

THOMAS M. BULLION DI

PARTNER

Direct Dial: 512.482.3535 tbullion@germer.com

October 26, 2015

VIA FACSIMILE & ELECTRONIC MAIL

Luis P. Guerra David C. Shapiro Luis P. Guerra, L.L.C. 6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125 Phoenix, AZ 85016

Re: Cause No. DC-14-07255; Samuel Medina, et al. v. Michelin North America, Inc., and Jose Bustillo dlb/a Mundo Cars,· In the 134th District Court of Dallas County, Texas.

Dear Counsel:

In response to plaintiffs' request for production 19, Michelin North America, Inc.

produced MNA-MEDINA-0003362-3315, which are the oldest tire building materials and work procedures it was able to locate for the components and processes identified. Tire builders were trained on all of these documents and procedures.

Your very trul Y. ·

~~ IX ·MMtlllt · Thomas M. Bullion III

TMB:lq

GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN PLLC 301 CONGRESS AVE, SUITE 1700 AUSTIN, TX 78701 EXHIBIT PHONE: 512.472.0288 • FAX: 512.472,0721 4543939

B

GERMER_ AUSTIN BEAUMONT HOUSTON

www.germer.com

ATTORNEY S AT LAW THOMAS M. BULLION Ill PARTNER

Direct Dial: 512.482.3535 tbullion@germer.com

October 30, 2015

VIA FACSIMILE & ELECTRONIC MAIL

Luis P. Guerra David C. Shapiro Luis P. Guerra, L.L.C. 6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125 Phoenix, AZ 85016

Re: Cause No. DC-14-07255; Samuel Medina, et al. v. Michelin North America, Inc., and Jose Bustillo d/b/a Mundo Cars; In the 1341h District Court of Dallas County, Texas.

Dear Counsel:

I am writing to let you know that there was a typographical error in my letter of October 26. The correct Bates number reference should be MNA-MEDINA-003362-3515, not 3315. The correct Bates numbers were included in our supplemental discovery responses and our response to plaintiffs' motion for sanctions.

:;;;;Yiu. ~· Thomas M. Bullion III

TMB:lq

GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN PLLC 301 CONGRESS AVE, SUITE 1700 AUSTIN, TX 78701 PHONE: 512.472.0288 • FAX: 512.472.0721 4544516

Thomas M. Bullion III Chris A. Blackerby GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, PLLC 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 Attorneys for Defendant Michelin North America, Inc.

Jose Bustillo d/bla/ Mundo Cars 6422 Day Street Dallas, Texas 85227 Pro Per Defendant Jose Bustillo d/bla/ Mundo Cars

Isl David C. Shapiro David C. Shapiro

EXHIBIT A

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5, 2015

1 REPORTER'S RECORD VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUMES

2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255 3 SAMUEL MEDINA AND OBDULIA IN THE DISTRICT COURT MEDINA, HUSBAND AND WIFE, 4 INDIVIDUALLY; NATALYE MEDINA INDIVIDUALLY; NAVIL GIBSON, 5 INDIVIDUALLY, . 6 Plaintiff(s), 7 vs. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 8 MICHELIN, NORTH AMERICA, INC. ;

AND JOSE BUSTILLO D/B/A MUNDO 9 CARS, AN IN STATE DEFENDANT, 10 Defendant(s). 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 11 12 13 14 SHORT MOTION TO STRIKE MICHELIN'S CLAIMS OF TIRE ABUSE HEARING

15 16 17 18 on the 5th day of October, 2015, the following 19 proceedings came on to be held in the above-titled and 20 numbered cause before the Honorable Dale B. Tillery, 21 Judge Presiding, held in Dallas, Dallas county, Texas. 22 Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype 23 machine. 24 25

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To strike Hearing

October S, 2015

1 specifically. Without an order from the court we 2 produced 3,000 approximately more pages of documents 3 since that hearing. We've referenced in our responses 4 what we produced and they can go -- if they're wi 11 i ng to 5 read it' they can go and find the documents we have 6 produced. we have produced our builder. We've build 7 machine setup type documents and tire builder training 8 documents . 9 THE COURT: You said you got no tire 10 builder training. 11 MR. BULLION: Your Honor -- 12 THE COURT: Here is the way we are going 13 to handle that. You know what you sent them. Bates 14 stamped - - 15 MR. BULLION: Yes, Your Honor. It's set 16 out in our response -- 17 THE COURT: Listen. Do me a little favor 18 all right. Humor me. send them the Bates Stamp range 19 where you say ti re training. 20 MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, Your Honor, tire 21 training. 22 THE COURT: Tire training information 23 exist. 24 MR. BULLION: That is set in out in our 25 response to the motion for sanctions as well, but I will

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

Motion To Strike Hearing

October 5~ 2015

1 send it again. 2 THE COURT: And just send a letter 3 pursuant to my instruction to you that specifically 4 addresses here are the Bates number ranges for the tire 5 installation training or what is it tire 6 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, when some of 7 THE COURT: what is it that you want? 8 MR. SHAPIRO: We want the orientation 9 documents. 10 THE COURT: No. No. You started off with 11 tire training information. 12 MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. 13 THE COURT: That's what I want you to 14 Bates Stamp range. 15 MR. BULLION: Just backing up just 16 briefly, Your Honor. We produced a lot of documents. We 17 produced them even before we supplemented our discovery 18 responses -- 19 THE COURT: If they're Bates stamped just 20 te 11 them ranges. 21 MR. BULLION: I am. 22 THE COURT: And then you're going to look 23 at that and if none of that is tire training information, 24 bring it to me. If it's not tire training information, I 25 guess you overlooked and it's going to be a problem. It

VIELICA DOBBINS, CSR, RPR

EXHIBITB

LAW OFFICES

LIDS P. GUERRA, L.L.C.

6225 North 24th Street, Suite 125 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016

LUIS P. GUERRA* DAVID C. SHAPIRO Telephone (602) 381-8400 *J\fARTJNDALE-HUBBELL AV RATED Telecopier (602) 381-8403 WWW.LPGUERRA.COM

October 8, 2014

Via Email and U.S. Mail Chris Blackerby Germer Beaman & Brown PLLC 301 Congress Ave, Ste. 1700 Austin, TX 78701

Re: Medina v. Michelin, et al

Dear Chris

It was nice to see you in Dallas on Monday. Hope your trip back was pleasant.

Documents provided by Michelin to date with Bates Nos. MNA-MEDINA3380-3386 and MNA-MEDINA1313-1365, 1530-1814, 3516-3615, 3819-4513 are indecipherable and thus useless without the code key. Please provide such code key and also identify what each and every acronym means. Since we will be using these documents in the upcoming depositions, we need this information immediately.

In addition, on Monday the Judge ordered Michelin to produce the range of bates numbers that contain the tire building training documents Michelin allegedly produced. We have yet to receive such.

Very truly yours,

LPG/DCS/pm

LAW OFFICES

LUIS P. GUERRA, L.L.C.

6225 North z4t1t Street, Suite 125 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016

LUISP. GUERRA* DAVID C. SHAPIRO Telephone (602) 381-8400 •M'.ARTINDA!.E--HUBBELL AV RATED Telecopier (602) 381-8403 WWW.LPGUERRA.COM

October 13, 2015

Via Email and U.S. Mail Chris Blackerby Germer Beaman & Brown PLLC 301 Congress Ave, Ste. 1700 Austin, TX 78701

Re: Medina v. Michelin, et al

Dear Chris:

We have not heard from you concerning our letter of last week about the code key/acronym definitions for the documents provided by Michelin to date with Bates Nos. MNA-MEDINA3380-3386 and MNA-MEDINA1313-1365, 1530-1814, 3516- 3615, 3819-4513. Again, please provide such code key and acronym definitions. As we told you last week, since we will be using these documents in the upcoming depositions, we need this information immediately.

Moreover; last ·Monday, the Court ordered Michelin to produce the range of bates numbers that contain the tire building training documents Michelin allegedly produced. Over a week has gone by, and Michelin still has not provided this information. Again, please provide it.

If we do not receive this requested information by the end of the week, Michelin will force us to contact the Court and seek its assistance.

We sincerely hope that we do not have to resort to this.

Very truly yours,

LUIS P. GUERRA, L.L.C.

~ Luis P. Guerra

sw~

David C. Shapiro

LPG/DCS/pm

LAW OFFICES

LUIS P. GUERRA, L.L.C.

6225 North 24th Street, Suite 125 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016

LUIS P. GUERRA* DAVID C. SHAPIRO Telephone (602) 381-8400 •MARTINDALE-HUBBELL AV RATED Telecopier (602) 381-8403 WWW.LPGUERRA.COM

October 15, 2015

Via Email and U.S. Mail Chris Blackerby Germer Beaman & Brown PLLC 301 Congress Ave, Ste. 1700 Austin, TX 78701

Re: Medina v. Michelin, et al

Dear Chris:

As you lmow, back on October 5, 2015, the Honorable Court ordered Michelin to send a letter specifically enumerating the Bates Number ranges for the tire training . documents Michelin purportedly produced. It has now been almost two (2) weeks. Again, please provide it. Failure to do so will result in court intervention.

Very truly yours,

LPG/DCS/pm

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY

11/18/2015 3:31:34 PM

FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK

NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA AND OBDULIA § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MEDINA, HUSBAND AND WIFE, § INDIVIDUALLY; NATALYE MEDINA, § INDIVIDUALLY; NAVIN GIBSON, § INDIVIDUALLY, § §

Plaintiffs, §

§

VS. § §

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC. AND § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS JOSE BUSTILLO D/B/A MUNDO CARS, § AN IN STATE DEFENDANT, § §

Defendants. § 134th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, RECONSIDERATION, AND FOR STAY

Defendant Michelin North America, Inc. (“MNA”) files this Motion for Clarification,

Reconsideration, and for Stay, and respectfully shows as follows:

I.

Background and Procedural History

This products liability case is based on a single vehicle accident which occurred on

September 3, 2012 when the left rear tire on a 2000 Expedition driven by Adrian Rico failed. He

lost control of the vehicle, it rolled over, and the plaintiff occupants were injured. Mr. Rico had

purchased the Expedition approximately two months before the accident and had not checked or

changed the tires. In fact, the vehicle had mis-matched tires of varying sizes, some of which were

passenger tires, and one was a light truck tire. The tire at issue is a passenger tire, a P255/70R 16

LTX M/S manufactured at MNA’s Dothan, Alabama plant during the 31st week of 2001. At the

time of the accident, it was over eleven years old and should not have been in service.

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND FOR STAY – PAGE 1

Plaintiffs moved to compel certain documents from MNA and multiple oral hearings

were held on September 8, October 5, and November 3, 2015 on the following motions, among

others:

• Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion to Compel Michelin to Respond to Discovery and Identification of Withheld Michelin Documents, and

• Plaintiffs’ Short Motion to Compel Michelin’s Employee Most Knowledgeable about: 1) Michelin’s Discovery Reponses and 2) Financial Information of Michelin North America (MNA).

In an Order dated November 11, 2015, this Court signed plaintiffs’ proposed order on

their Motion to Compel Michelin to Respond to Discovery, and required that confidential, trade

secret aspect specifications be produced on or before November 24, 2015. The Court also

expanded the scope of discovery to dissimilar tires from the tire at issue. The Court has not yet

signed an order on the second motion listed above regarding “discovery on discovery” or on

MNA’s financial information. Although certain rulings were made from the bench at the

November 3 hearing, the hearing transcript has not yet been provided by the court reporter.

II.

MNA’s Aspect Specifications are Trade Secret

The November 11 Order compels MNA to produce “the oldest version of all aspect

specifications.” The Order is expansive in that it is not limited to the Dothan plant, where the

tire at issue was manufactured, nor is it related to plaintiffs’ specific defect theories. The aspect

specifications regarding the tire defects that plaintiffs allege in this case have been voluntarily

produced by MNA in an attempt at compromise, but plaintiffs insist that they need all of such

proprietary documents, even on unrelated defects. All such aspect specifications were proven up

as trade secret in the Affidavit of Vaneaton Price where he testified:

Certain of Plaintiffs’ requests seek MNA’s design and manufacturing specifications, specification changes, testing and design related documents, research and development, tire adjustment processes and analysis, internal

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND FOR STAY – PAGE 2 research and studies, proprietary manufacturing and inspection processes and procedures, and tire production information. All such documents are highly protected trade secrets of MNA.

(V. Price Aff., ¶ 43, emphasis added) Additionally, Mr. Price testified by affidavit that

“Plaintiffs have also requested information and documents relating to MNA’s manufacturing and

quality procedures,” and he described the trade secret nature of such documents, the steps taken

by MNA to protect their secrecy, and the competitive disadvantage to MNA from disclosure. Id.

at ¶¶ 55-60.

This affidavit testimony encompasses the “aspect specifications” ordered to be produced

in the November 11 Order. They fall within “MNA’s proprietary inspection processes and

procedures” and “quality procedures” referenced in the affidavit quoted above. To explain

further, “aspect specifications” are procedures by which MNA classpectors inspect finished tires

pursuant to certain quality assurance protocols to look for certain characteristics in the tires after

they have been cured. Thus, they are part of the proprietary quality assurance systems and

processes developed by MNA. There are hundreds of aspect specifications. MNA has clarified

this point in the Supplemental Affidavit of Vaneaton Price attached hereto as Exhibit A. The

November 11 Order requires such production of these confidential trade secrets of MNA.

This Court allowed plaintiffs to depose Mr. Price about his affidavit and his deposition

was recently taken. He explained that MNA’s aspect specifications are marked “D3” indicating

confidential documents within MNA that are not allowed outside the company. (Depo. at 79-80)

Plaintiffs counsel repeatedly chastised Mr. Price for MNA’s “thought-out, premeditated actions

to protect its secrets” and for “keeping information secret and away from the public,” including

plaintiffs who their counsel described as “just common folk, and that’s common folk that is

asking for these documents, not competitors. And you guys intentionally, Michelin intentionally

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND FOR STAY – PAGE 3 keeps all this information from these folks, right?” (Depo. at 97) Mr. Price explained that trade

secret documents are proprietary and not disclosed to the public. Id. at 98.

Because aspect specifications were proven to be MNA’s highly protected trade secrets,

the burden then shifted to plaintiffs to show that such documents were “necessary for a fair

adjudication of their case” under In re Continental General Tire, 979 S.W.2d 609 (Tex. 1998)

and In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 106 S.W.3d 730 (2003). Plaintiffs provided no such proof

whatsoever. In a case from the Dallas Court of Appeals in 2010, In re Goodyear Tire and

Rubber Co., 392 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2010, orig. proc.), the Court granted

mandamus and protected as trade secrets Goodyear’s quality control information and quality

assurance systems.

Consequently, MNA seeks reconsideration of the ruling requiring production of all aspect

specifications, even those unrelated to plaintiffs’ specific defect theories. MNA also respectfully

requests a stay of the November 24 production date for aspect specifications so that it may

pursue mandamus on production of these trade secret documents.

III.

Scope of Production Expanded to Non-Similar Tires

Additionally, the November 11 Order set the initial scope for discovery as the three

common green tires of the tire at issue manufactured at the Dothan plant for 5 years, from 1998-

2003. MNA has already provided documents to plaintiffs under this agreed upon scope, which

are substantially similar tires. Dissatisfied, plaintiffs sought an even broader scope in their

proposed order ultimately signed by this Court. By the November 11 Order, the scope has now

been expanded to tire sizes and configurations which are different designs from the tire in

question in this case, other than sharing the same brand name “LTX M/S.”

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND FOR STAY – PAGE 4

MNA has already responded to a host of document requests related to the tire in question

and all substantially similar tires. Yet the scope now expansively encompasses all documents

related to three additional size LTX M/S tires – the 235, 245, and 265 LTX M/S – plus all size

255 tires, without regard to rim diameter, section width, load range, components, number of

plies, types of plies, speed ratings, tread depth, or original equipment versus replacement tire

program. MNA explained that “LTX M/S” is simply a marketing label, and not a designation by

which substantial similarity can be defined. (Price Aff. at ¶17) Including various sizes of tires

as substantially similar ignores critical differences which make the tire at issue different from

other tires. (Id. at §20-27) The type and size of many individual components vary

significantly, including different thicknesses of shoulder areas of the tread, tread widths,

different top and bottom belt widths, belt gauges, tread compounds, other rubber formulas

and many other items. Id. Further, the November 11 Order requires the scope for these four tire

sizes to include all MNA manufacturing plants, not just the Dothan plant where the tire at issue

was manufactured.

Texas law does not permit discovery regarding products that the plaintiff did not use.

The Texas Supreme Court has granted mandamus relief to several product-liability defendants

“when a discovery order covered products the plaintiff never used.” In re Graco Children’s

Prods., Inc., 210 S.W.3d 598, 600-01 (Tex. 2006) (holding alleged defect in harness clip of

baby’s car seat did not support production of other allegedly defective products that did not

include harnesses) (citing In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998)

(holding that discovery order that included all respiratory products manufactured by defendant

was too broad because it included respiratory equipment plaintiffs never alleged they used);

Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1995)

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND FOR STAY – PAGE 5

Courts in Texas and across the country have defined the appropriate scope of discovery

in products liability cases to relate to the specific product at issue, or substantially similar

products. “Substantially similar” means of a similar design to the product at issue. A federal

regulation defines substantial similarity for tires sold outside the United States compared to

tires sold in the United States as: “the same size, speed rating, load index, load range, number

of plies and belts, and similar ply and belt construction and materials, placement of

components, and component materials, irrespective of plant of manufacture or tire line.” 49

CFR 579.4 (d)(3).

In tire litigation, courts have limited the scope of discovery to tires made from the same

specification, at the same plant, and in the same time period as the tire at issue:

• Johnson v. Hankook Tire Mfg. Co., No. 2:09CV113-MPM-DAS, 2011 WL 39042 (N.D.

Miss. Jan. 5, 2011). Plaintiff argued “that ‘similar tires’ would be tires that utilize the same skim stock, wedge material, inner liner, and/or (AO) package as the accident tire,” while Hankook argued that only tires sharing a common green were similar tires. Id. at *2. The court observed that 49 C.F.R. § 579.4 defines green tires as “tires that are produced to the same internal specification but that have, or may have, different external characteristics and may be sold under different tire line names.” Id. Noting that “how a particular component performs in a tire is totally dependent upon all of the other components in a tire and how they work together per their specifications,” the court concluded that “[c]omparing tires that do not share common green internal specifications as defined by the CFR is, therefore, useless to the trier of fact.” Id. The court thus limited Plaintiff’s discovery requests to “the subject model and size tire and any tire that shares a common green internal specification as opposed to any tire that might share a generic component.” Id.

• Alvarez v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 75 So. 3d 789 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011) (en banc).

Cooper argued that differences in the processing and specifications made only tires with the same or related Green Tire Specification (“GTS”) relevant. Id. at 791. The court found: “Looking to other courts, we find that in similar discovery disputes most courts have limited production to the GTS numbers which correspond to the tire which was the subject of the suit.” Id. at 795.

• Hajek v. Kumho Tire Co., No. 4:08CV3157, 2010 WL 503044, at *7-8 (D. Neb. Feb. 8, 2010) (denying motion to compel because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that discovery targeted information regarding similar tires manufactured within relevant time period).

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND FOR STAY – PAGE 6 • Murphy v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., No. 5:08cv40/RS/EMT, 2008 WL 5273548, at *6 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2008) (limiting scope of discovery to materials relating to tires manufactured from same specification, at same plant, and within one year of subject tire).

• Bradley v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., No. 4:03CV94LR, 2006 WL 3360926, at *3 (S.D.

Miss. Nov. 20, 2006) (limiting scope of discovery to materials relating to tires made from same specification as subject tire during same time period as subject tire).

• Gonzales v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. CV 05-941 BB/LFG, 2006 WL 7290047, at *15-17 (D.N.M. Mar. 10, 2006) (limiting discovery to “the subject tire and all other Goodyear tires made from the same green tire, and with the same tread pattern, as the subject tire”);

• Barcenas v. Ford Motor Co., No. C 03-04644RMWE, 2004 WL 2827249, at *7 (N.D.

Cal. Dec. 9, 2004) (denying motion to compel production of documents relating to tire not substantially similar to subject tire);

As pointed out in MNA’s Response to plaintiffs’ motion to compel, Hajek, 2010 WL

503044, has similar arguments as those made by plaintiffs here. They moved to compel

Kumho Tire to produce certain documents regarding “the entire ‘Kumho Road Venture line

of tires.’” Id. at *3. The district court found the requests overly broad. “There are many

recognized causes for tread separation,” the court reasoned, including “poor tire maintenance

and motorist negligence.” Id. at *7. And “nothing indicating a common component of all

‘Kumho Road Venture line of tires’ caused the accident tire to fail.” Id. The court explained:

Collecting volumes of information regarding all Kumho tires, without any threshold evidentiary showing of how those tires are similar to the accident tire for the purposes of this litigation, or that the information requested has any relationship to the underlying cause of the alleged tread separation at issue, is unduly burdensome and not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant information.

Id. at *8 (citations omitted).

The same is true here. MNA has shown that the different sizes of LTX M/S tires have

nothing in common with the tire at issue. Without any showing whatsoever of substantial

similarity, this Court’s November 11 Order is overbroad and MNA seeks reconsideration to

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND FOR STAY – PAGE 7 limit the scope to the tire in question and 3 common green tires. Only tires manufactured to

the same overall design specification are sufficiently similar to be capable of any

meaningful comparison. Tires made to different designs are simply different products.

Also significant is the fact that the newly expanded scope applies to all of plaintiffs’

requests for documents, which now include additional trade secret documents, including training

materials, adjustment data, testing and design documents, specifications and changes, internal

research and studies, manufacturing and inspection processes and procedures, among others. See

Chart of Trade Secret Requested Production at Ex. B hereto. MNA proved the trade secret

nature of such documents and it has not been refuted. Thus, it is error to order disclosure of

trade secrets under the authority presented above.

IV.

Compound (Skim Stock) Formulas

The November 11 Order recites that “Michelin is allowed to respond” to Plaintiffs’ Legal

Authority Requiring Production of Belt Skim Stock filed on September 11, 2015. Yet MNA

already filed its response on the belt skim stock argument on September 24, 2015. MNA

requests that the Order be modified to delete the “allowed to respond” language and also seeks a

ruling denying plaintiffs’ request for MNA’s trade secret compound formula.

V.

Rulings at November 3, 2015 Hearing

Finally, as noted, the November 3, 2015 hearing has not been transcribed, nor has an

Order been entered. Given the short time frame imposed in the Order to produce trade secret

aspect specifications by November 24, 2015 (the week of Thanksgiving), MNA seeks a stay of

November 11 Order pending this Court finalizing its rulings on the November 3 hearing and the

court reporter’s preparation of the November 3 transcript, and until final resolution on mandamus

of the rulings to the Dallas Court of Appeals or the Texas Supreme Court.

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND FOR STAY – PAGE 8

VI.

CONCLUSION & PRAYER

Wherefore, MNA prays that this Court grant this Motion for Clarification,

Reconsideration, and for Stay, and for such other relief to which it may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1900 Austin, Texas 78701-4238 (512) 469-6114 (512) 482-5028 Facsimile

By: /s/ Debora B. Alsup Debora B. Alsup State Bar No. 02006200 debora.alsup@tklaw.com

GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN PLLC 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 472-0288 (512) 472-0721 Facsimile

By: /s/ Thomas M. Bullion III Thomas M. Bullion III State Bar No. 03331005 tbullion@germer.com Chris A. Blackerby State Bar No. 00787091 cblackerby@germer-austin.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND FOR STAY – PAGE 9

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that on the 18th day of November, 2015, I called the office of Luis P. Guerra,

counsel for Plaintiffs, and was advised that he will not return to the office until later this week. I

also contacted him by email and did not have a reply at the time of filing this motion. MNA

assumes that he is opposed to this motion.

/s/ Debora B. Alsup

Debora B. Alsup

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, facsimile, e-mail, or

U.S. Mail on this 18th day of November, 2015.

Via E-Service and Facsimile Via E-Service and Facsimile Luis P. Guerra James B. Ragan David C. Shapiro Law Offices of James B. Ragan Luis P. Guerra, L.L.C. 723 Coleman Ave. 6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Via E-Service and Facsimile Via Regular Mail Noel Sevastianos Jose Bustillo d/b/a Mundo Cars Sevastianos & Associates, PC 6422 Day Street 120 S. Central Avenue, Suite 130 Dallas, Texas 75227 St. Louis, Missouri 63105

/s/ Debora B. Alsup

Debora B. Alsup

16369926.3

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND FOR STAY – PAGE 10

EXHIBIT A

CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA and OBDULIA § MEDINA, husband and wife, individually; § NATALYE MEDINA, individually; NAVIL § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

GIBSON, individually, § §

Plaintiffs, . § §

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

VS. § §

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC. and § JOSE BUSTILLO d/b/a MUNDO CARS, an in § 134111 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

state defendant, § §

Defendants.

SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF VANEATON PRICE, III

Having first been duly sworn, I, Vaneaton Price, III, an employee of Defendant Michelin

North America, Inc. ("MNA"), competently testify as follows:

I. This affidavit is based on my personal knowledge and my review of information

available to me in my role at MNA. I am over 18 years of age, of sound mind, and

competent to execute this Affidavit. This supplements my Affidavit filed September 1,

2105.

2. I have never been convicted of a felony or a crime of moral turpitude.

3. I am a Senior Technical Advisor employed by MNA. I was employed with Michelin

Americas Research and Development Corporation ("MARC"), which merged with and

became a division of MNA on January 1, 2008, from January 2007 to December 2011.

Since May 1999, I have been employed by MNA. During my employment with MNA and MARC, I have become familiar with the tires that are designed by MARC and

manufactured by MNA, as well as the design and manufacturing procedures used.

4. I am familiar with the process by which tire specifications are developed, with the

composition and dimensions of certain tires MNA has designed and manufactured during

my employment, with MNA manufacturing processes, equipment, and quality assurance

procedures, and with the efforts that MNA makes to protect its proprietary and trade

secret information.

5. Certain of Plaintiffs' requests seek MNA's design and manufacturing specifications,

specification changes, testing and design-related documents, research and development,

tire adjustment processes and analysis, intemal research and studies, propriety

manufacturing and inspection processes and procedures, and tire production information.

Plaintiffs also request all of MNA's Aspect Specifications which are used to inspect a

finished tire following quality assurance protocols to look for certain characteristics in the

tire after it is manufactured. There are hundreds of aspect specifications. They are part of

an extensive quality assurance process developed internally by MNA based on years of

experience and extensive testing and analysis. All such documents are highly protected

trade secrets of MNA and kept secret by MNA under the steps outlined in my September

1, 2015 affidavit.

6. Tire builder and other employees in MNA's manufacturing plants receive extensive

training to perform their jobs. They are trained on the processes and procedures and

MNA's quality standards. These training programs are developed intemally at MNA and

are based on the equipment and procedures in each individual plant at a given time.

These training materials contain the confidential manufacturing and quality procedures

SUPPLEJ\IENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF VANEATON PHICE, III-PAGE 2 all of which are trade secrets and kept secret by MNA under the steps outlined in my

September 1, 2015 affidavit.

FURTHER, AFFIANT SAITH NAUGHT.

Dated this I i?day of November, 2015.

SWORN to and subscribed before me

this \,{~y of f\()V<QVI\~\ , 2015.

cM<llu· Q. ~c~ Notary Public for South Carolina My Commission Expires: 11 / 113 /d()..2._s

506333 00001916390933.I

Sl!PPLEJ\IENTAL AFFIDA \'IT OF VANEATON PRICE, Ill - PAGE 3

EXHIBIT B

Exhibit B: Chart of Trade Secret Requested Production

RFP# Category Trade Secret Documents Requested Trade Secret Proof from Price Affidavit

RFP 2 Aspect Aspect Specifications Aff. ¶¶43, 55-60 Specifications

Supp. Aff. ¶5

RFP 8 Discount Tire claims and code sheets Aff. ¶¶20-24 for Michelin LTX M/S tires [Work- Product Privilege]

RFP 9 Adjustment Data Documents related to adjustment data, Aff. ¶¶41, 44-47 and specification changes, material changes Specifications and processing changes

RFP 11 Adjustment data Documents related to incident reports, Aff. ¶¶35-36, 41-42 accident reports, product liability reports, correspondence, and photographs [Work-Product Privilege]

RFP 12 Adjustment data Documents related to adjustment data Aff. ¶¶35-36, 41-42 for Michelin LTX M/S tires

RFP 13 Adjustment Data Documents related to property damage Aff. ¶¶35-36, 41-42 claims including incident reports and accident reports [Work-Product Privilege]

RFP 15 Adjustment Data Documents containing internal Aff. ¶¶35-36, 41-42 and Analysis recommendations, determinations, or guidelines regarding frequency of loss adjustment

RFP 19 Manufacturing Documents in any way related to the Aff. ¶¶41, 43-47, 56-61 Process entire manufacturing process (building, tire building training, testing, and inspection) of passenger and light truck tires at the Dothan plant

RFP 20 Adjustment Data Reports and other documents reflecting Aff. ¶¶35-36, 41-42 and Analysis return, failure, performance, durability, and life expectancy, design, or quality of subject tire and model tires

RFP# Category Trade Secret Documents Requested Trade Secret Proof from Price Affidavit

RFP 21 Tire Builder All training documents provided to tire Supp. Aff. ¶6 Training building employees at Dothan Materials

RFP 22 Tire Builder All training materials provided to Supp. Aff. ¶6 Training employees building Michelin LTX M/S Materials tires

RFP 24 Testing All documents related to testing of steel Aff. ¶¶41, 43-44, 61 belted radial tires with same belt skim stock code as subject tire at Dothan plant

RFP 25 Testing All documents related to under- Aff. ¶¶41, 43-44, 61 inflation testing that led to tread separation

RFP 26 Internal Analysis All documents relating to rim groove Aff. ¶¶41, 43-44, 61 analysis in which the profile was generated by under-inflation and led to tread belt separation

RFP 29 Design and All documents related to the use, Aff. ¶¶41, 43-44, 61 Manufacturing potential use, and application of nylon overlays, belt edge strips, belt edge wraps

RFP 32 Testing, Internal All documents relating to testing and Aff. ¶¶41, 43-44, 61 Research and recommendations regarding tire aging Studies

RFP 37 Formula and Listing of ingredients of subject tire’s Aff. ¶¶49-54 Ingredients inner liner

RFP 40 Testing All specific regulatory compliance test Aff. ¶¶41, 43-44, 60-61 results for subject tire and its common greens

RFP 41 Adjustment and Adjustment and claim data after each Aff. ¶¶35-36, 41-42, 44 claim data change to design occurring after the manufacture date of the subject tire and its common greens

RFP# Category Trade Secret Documents Requested Trade Secret Proof from Price Affidavit

RFP 42 Aspect All aspect specifications Aff. ¶¶43, 55-60 specifications

Supp. Aff. ¶5

RFP 44 Trade Secret All discovery produced in Velo Aff. ¶¶41, 43-47, 55-60 Documents from Another Case

RFP 45 Prior Testimony All depositions with certain Michelin Aff. ¶¶41, 43-47, 55-60 employees

RFP 46 Processes and Quality control/work procedures Aff. ¶¶43, 55-60 Procedures

Supp. Aff. ¶5

RFP 47 Technical Michelin Technical Notes Aff. ¶¶41, 43-47, 55-60 materials

NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA AND OBDULIA § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MEDINA, HUSBAND AND WIFE, § INDIVIDUALLY; NATALYE MEDINA, § INDIVIDUALLY; NAVIN GIBSON, § INDIVIDUALLY, § §

Plaintiffs, §

§

VS. § §

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC. AND § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS JOSE BUSTILLO D/B/A MUNDO CARS, § AN IN STATE DEFENDANT, § §

Defendants. § 134th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER ON STAY

By Order dated November 11, 2015 the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion to

Compel Michelin to Respond to Discovery and Identification of Withheld Michelin Documents

and ordered that Michelin North America, Inc. (“MNA”) produce aspect specifications on or

before November 24, 2015.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that a stay of the November 24 deadline is hereby in all

things GRANTED for the purpose of allowing this court to consider MNA’s Motion for

Clarification, Reconsideration, and Stay, and to permit MNA to pursue a writ of mandamus in

the Texas intermediate appellate court or the Texas Supreme Court of the November 11 Order

and any rulings from a hearing on November 3. The stay shall remain in effect until the court of

appeals or the Texas Supreme Court resolves the mandamus petition and issues any mandate.

SIGNED this the ____ day of ______________, 2015.

___________________________________

Judge Dale Tillery, Presiding Judge 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

ORDER ON STAY – SOLO PAGE

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY 12/2/2015 4:57:51 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK

CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA and OBDULIA § IN THE DISTRICT COURT MEDINA, husband and wife, § OF DALLAS COUNTY individually; NATAL YE MEDINA, § individually; NAVIL GIBSON, § individually; § §

PLAINTIFFS, § § 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT VS. § § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; § AND JOSE BUSTILLO d/b/a MUNDO § (Oral Argument Requested) CARS, an in state defendant, § §

DEFENDANTS, §

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Summary of Argument 1

II. Texas Discovery Standard 2

III. Introduction 3

IV. Plaintiffs' Discovery Requests and Michelin's baseless claim of trade secrets" 6

V. The September 8, 2015 Hearing 7

VI. Price's Deposition 9

VII. Price's affidavit has "no probative value" and is "legally insufficient". Humphreys, 888 S.W. 2d 469, 470 19

VIII. The Court ordered scope includes only tires that are .100% discoverable 19

IX. The Court's severe narrowing of discovery destroys Michelin's argument that the November 11, 2015 Order is "overbroad" 21

X. The requested documents are common to all tire lines as admitted by Price 22

XI. Case law and arguments used by Michelin were rejected by the Texas Courts. In re Exmark Mfg. Co., Inc., 299 S.W.3d at 527 22

XII. Michelin has already agreed to produce the documents 23

Conclusion 23

CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA and OBDULIA § IN THE DISTRICT COURT MEDINA, husband and wife, § OF DALLAS COUNTY individually; NATAL YE MEDINA, § individually; NAVIL GIBSON, § individually; § §

PLAINTIFFS, § § 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. § § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; § AND JOSE BUSTILLO d/b/a MUNDO § (Oral Argument Requested) CARS, an in state defendant, § §

DEFENDANTS, §

RESPONSE TO MICHELIN'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, RECONSIDERATION, AND FOR STAY1 BASED ON BINDING TEXAS LAW

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE DALE TILLERY:

This Response contains binding Texas law holding that Michelin did not even come close

to meet its heavy burden of establishing trade secrets concerning the information and documents

requested since April of 2015. Therefore, Michelin's Motion should be denied.

I. Summary of Argument.

1. The information Plaintiffs have requested is discoverable. Tex. R. Civ. P. 1.

Tex.R. Civ. P. 192.3(a); In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex.2003) (orig. proceeding); In re Exmark Mfg. Co., Inc., 299 S.W.3d 519, 525-526 (Tex. App. 2009).

2. Michelin has not established that the requested information constitutes trade secrets and therefore is not entitled to obstruct discovery. In re Cont'! Gen. Tire, Inc., 979 S.W.2d 609, 613 (Tex. 1998); Axelson, Inc. v. Mcilhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 555 (Tex. 1990); State v. Lowry, 802 S.W.2d 669, 671 (Tex. 1991); United States v.

1 Yet another law firm. Yet another attorney. Yet another motion for clarification. Yet another motion to stay. Yet another motion for reconsideration. With this new attorney, Michelin has now working this case about ten separate lawyers and has filed multiple motions about the same exact discovery delaying and stonewalling its production for more than eight months.

Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682, 78 S. Ct. 983, 986-87, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1077 (1958); Humphreys v. Caldwell, 888 S.W.2d 469, 470-71(Tex.1994).

3. The Court's September 8, 2015 Ruling severely narrowed and correctly ordered the production of information since:

a. Michelin did not establish that the information requested constitutes trade secrets. Id.

b. "[E]vidence of incidents involving other products besides the exact model at issue [are] ... discoverable." In re Exmark Mfg. Co., Inc., 299 S.W.3d 519, 528 (Tex. App. 2009)

4. Michelin already agreed to produce the requested information.

II. Texas Discovery Standard.

The Supreme Court of Texas holds that the purpose of discovery is "to seek truth, so that

disputes may be decided by those facts that are revealed, rather than concealed." Axelson, Inc,

798 S.W.2d at 555. Therefore, "[d]iscovery is ... the linchpin of the search for truth. State, 802

S.W.2d at 671. Discovery also makes trial a "fair contest with the issues and facts disclosed to

the fullest practicable extent." United States v, 356 U.S. at 682, 78 S. Ct. 983, 986-87.

Consequently, only under rare and "narrow circumstances is it appropriate to obstruct the search

for truth by denying discovery":

Only in certain narrow circumstances is it appropriate to obstruct the search for truth by denying discovery. Very limited exceptions to the strongly prefened policy of openness are recognized in our state procedural rules and statutes.

State, 802 S.W.2d at 671. See Tex.R.Civ.Evid. 501; Tex.R.Civ.P. 166b(3).

Thus, "the burden is on the party seeking to avoid discovery to plead the basis for

exemption or immunity and to produce evidence supporting that claim" by providing evidence -

not legally insufficient conclusory allegations, without personal knowledge - to the trial court to

establish the claimed privilege:

The burden is on the party seeking to avoid discovery to plead the basis for exemption or immunity and to produce evidence supporting that claim. [citation omitted].

This means a party should provide evidence to the trial court in the form of affidavits or testimony to establish the claimed privilege.

State, 802 S.W.2d at 671. (e.a.).

That was Michelin's burden, and it failed to meet it. The sworn admissions made by its

affiant Price at his deposition revealed his lack of personal knowledge of the contents in his

affidavit. Hence, such affidavit in support of the alleged "privilege" is wmihless because it is

"legally invalid and therefore cannot serve as evidence in support of a claim of'' trade secrets.

Humphreys, 888 S.W.2d at 470-71. Moreover, Michelin's argument of concealing every internal

document by simply claiming "trade secrets" has also been soundly rejected:

Lowe's has cited no authority that a party's (or even expert's) conclusory opinion that information is a trade secret or is not used industry-wide, or a party's mere desire to avoid disclosing information to others, is sufficient to establish the privilege. Nor would there appear to be any rationale for adopting such a position as it would seemingly allow the privilege to extend to almost any internal company records.

Without evidence establishing any of the conventional trade secret factors with regard to the database, Lowe's has failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in overruling its trade secret objection to providing deposition testimony on the creation and use of the database. Accordingly, Lowe's first issue is ove1rnled.

In re Lowe's Companies, Inc., 134 S.W.3d 876, 879 (Tex. App. 2004). (e.a.).

For this reason, Michelin's Motion should be denied and immediate disclosure is

required.

III. Introduction.

The 2012 Labor Day weekend was great for the Medina family. Unfo1iunately, in the

blink of an eye, the Medina's life changed forever. Suddenly and without warning, on

September 3, 2012, their vehicle's left rear tire 2 -the defective Michelin LTX M/S tire3 - failed,

causing the vehicle to uncontrollably veer to the left and roll over and over and over into the

2 Michelin's reference to the fact that other tire brands were on the vehicle is a red-herring. While this fact is true, only the Michelin tire failed. 3 Michelin's claim that the tire "should not have been in service" is a fraudulent argument. Michelin's litigation team has gone to the ends of the Earth to claim that there is no danger such tread belt separation caused by "old" tires:

Q. Is that Technical Bulletin a warning? A. No.

******

Q. Would you be the person, ... - at Michelin ... most knowledgeable about this Technical Bulletin that is not a warning?

A. Yes.

******

Q. When you were careful - I said, "this is a warning" - I kind of made that statement, you corrected me: Luis, this is not a warning, correct?

A. Yes- A. -- that's correct.

Q. And you say it's not a warning because? A. It's not a warning. It's a communications piece.

******

Q. So - so this document would not warn anybody of anything? A. That was not the intent of the document, !!Q.

Q. So you agree with me, right, would not warn anyone of anything because it is not a warning, correct?

A. That's a logical statement, I guess.

******

Q. Okay. So this Technical Bulletin is not a warning of any danger? A. Correct.

******

Q. Of course. This Technical Bulletin is not a warning of any hazard? A. Correct.

Q. Is not a warning that as tires grow older, they are more likely to lead to treat belt separation?

A. That is correct. It does not warn against that.

Q. It's not a warning concerning tire aging and tread belt detachment? A. No. It is not a warning.

Q. It is not a warning to the effect that if you don't do what it says, a tire may fall apart?

A. No. It is not a warning.

******

Q. Since your Technical Bulletin is not a warning, you warn no one of anything? A. This document warns no one of anything.

Deposition ofWischhusen at pp. 15, 18, 23-24, 25-26, 29, 38. (emphasis added)

ditch median. When the collision finally came to an end, Obdulia - a wife and mother - was a

quadriplegic.

Terrifyingly, Obdulia is not Michelin's only victim. The following defective LTX MIS tire

manufactured at Michelin's Dothan plant have killed, paralyzed, or maimed people across the

country:

TIRE TYPE PLANT MANUFACTURE DATE

1. Michelin LTX P265/70Rl 7 Dothan, Alabama 3ih week, 1997

2. Michelin LTX P235/70R16 Dothan, Alabama 1st week, 1999

3. Michelin LTX P265/70R16 Dothan, Alabama 2nd week, 1999

4. Michelin LTX P265/70Rl 7 Dothan, Alabama 12th week, 2000

5. Michelin LTX P265/70Rl 74 Dothan, Alabama 28th week, 2001

6. Michelin LTX P255/70/Rl65 Dothan, Alabama 31st week, 2001

7. Michelin LTX P265/70Rl 6 Dothan, Alabama 4th week, 2002

8. Michelin LTX P265/70Rl 7 Dothan, Alabama 6th week, 2002

9. Michelin LTX LT245/75R16 Dothan, Alabama 4 7th week, 2002

10. Michelin LTX P265/70Rl 6 Dothan, Alabama 6th week, 2003

11. Michelin LTX P265/70Rl 7 Dothan, Alabama 8th week, 2006

12. Michelin LTX LT265/70Rl 6 Dothan, Alabama 16th week, 2006

13. Michelin LTX LT245/75R16 Dothan, Alabama 34th week, 2006

14. Michelin LTX LT265/75R16 Dothan, Alabama 51 st week, 2006

4 This is the Velo tire that caused Sandra Velo to become a quadriplegic -just like Obdulia.

5 This is the subject tire.

Not surprisingly, by baselessly claiming "trade secrets," Michelin's awful litigation

strategy has enabled them to conceal their defective and shoddy tire design, manufacturing and

inspection practices. It should not be allowed.

IV. Plaintiffs' Discovery Requests and Michelin's baseless claim of trade secrets."

Back in April, Plaintiffs propounded discovery requests to Michelin to produce evidence

concerning the design, manufacture and inspection of the subject LTX MIS tire for the duration

of its production. See Amended Motion to Compel dated August 25 at pp. 6-10. With a few

exceptions, Michelin refused disclosure by wholesale claiming "trade secrets" in response to

more than twenty-five (25) of Plaintiffs' requests for production. However, Michelin provided

no evidence 6 supporting its objection to producing the requested documents about the design,

testing, manufacture, building, and inspection of the subject LTX MIS. Id. Despite repeated

assurances 7 that the requested documentation would be produced once Plaintiffs executed

6 As Plaintiffs' counsel pointed out to the Co mt, Michelin got Plaintiffs' requests in April and did not provide fil!Y evidence establishing that the information constituted trade secrets:

MR. GUERRA: Your Honor, we got this request in April. No affidavit in May, June, July until we file the motion to compel no affidavit still. Now we got this affidavit.

September 8, 2015 Transcriptfi,om Plaintiffi' Motion to Compel Hearing at 27:13-16. 7 Defense counsel repeatedly promised that if Plaintiffs just signed Michelin's Protective Order, they would get the remaining documents:

Your email is correct that MNA anticipates being able to make its supplemental production within 10-14 days of the protective order being entered.

E-Mail fi·om Nelson Mullins, counsel for MNA, May 28, 2015, Exhibit C to Plaintiffi' August 25, 2015 Amended Motion to Compel.

[W]e will move forward with the agreed protective order and with our supplemental production, which we would anticipate making within 10-14 days of entry of the protective order.

E-Mailfi,om Nelson Mullins, counsel for MNA, May 29, 2015, Exhibit D to Plaintiffi' August 25, 2015 Amended Motion to Compel.

Michelin's Protective Order, they never came. So, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel on

August 25, 2015. See Amended Motion to Compel dated August 25, 2015.

V. The September 8, 2015 Hearing.

At the September 8, 2015 concerning Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, to justify its

absconding of evidence, Michelin relied exclusively on the affidavit of Vaneaton Price - an

affidavit8 which Michelin knew did not pass muster. In Texas, to testify about privileged

information the affiant must have personal knowledge of it. Humphreys, 888 S.W.2d 469, 470.

Price does not have personal knowledge:

So, at this hearing, Plaintiffs' counsel informed the Honorable Court that Michelin's

affiant Price was unqualified to testify about the contents of his affidavit. As explained, Price

works in Michelin's legal department. He is not a tire builder, or a tire manufacturer, or a tire

designer, or a tire project manager, or a tire manufacturer, or a skim stock compounder, or a tire

inspector, or an adjustment inspector, and therefore did not have personal knowledge or

competence to testify that the infmmation requested constituted trade secrets:

He works on the litigation Defendant sic [department] of Michelin . . . And going back to the affidavit ... [he's] not a tire builder, not a tire manufacturer . . . not a tire designer; didn't design this tire; was not a project manager; didn't work on the plant.

September 8, 2015 Transcript from Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Hearing at 30:23 - 32:2. (e.a.).

We are working on the production and still anticipate malting it within 10-14 days of entry of the protective order as originally estimated.

E-Mailfiwn Nelson Mullins, counsel for MNA, June 4, 2015, Exhibit E to Plaintiffs' August 25, 2015 Amended Motion to Compel.

8 Strangely, Michelin used Mr. Price's affidavit as both a sword and a shield. Michelin used the affidavit to prevent disclosure of discoverable evidence but then refused to allow Plaintiffs' to cross-examine him about the affidavit and his personal knowledge of the contents of such affidavit. The Honorable Court ovenuled Michelin's objection and ordered Mr. Price's deposition, which was conducted on October 22, 2015.

Accordingly, there was never a finding by the Court that Michelin established trade

secrets.

a. The Court's Ruling severely narrowed the discovery allowed.

Since by law Plaintiffs are entitled to conduct discovery about 1) "evidence of incidents

involving other products besides the exact model at issue" In re Exmark Mfg. Co., Inc., 299

S.W.3d at 528 and also 2) the multitude of components and conditions the parties have alleged

are at issue (Plaintiffs: over-age rnbber stock, liner pattern marks, thin inner liner, premature

oxidation on the belt skin, improper splicing of belts, improper spacing and placement of the

steel cords and belts, improper inspection and/or repair of the tire at the factory, lack of nylon

overlay/nylon cap ply or safety, air migration through the inner liner, aging of the tire and its

components, trapped air or steam inside the tire components, aging and/or contamination of pre-

cured rnbber and rnbber coated tire components, and misplacement of the steel belts;

Defendants: overdeflection, underinflation, impact damage), the Honorable Court:

1. Severely narrowed9 the scope of discovery requested by Plaintiffs (Transcript at 42:10-

12; 45:5-6). .

First, the Court nalTowed the other tire widths to only 235, 245 and 265 - far from what Plaintiffs requested. Second, the Court nalTowed the scope to make sure that such tires were the same type of tire - P-Metric tires as opposed to also light trnck tires (Transcript at 45:8-12). Third, the Court drastically reduced the time scope from Plaintiffs' request (tires made from the start of the manufacture of the LTX MIS to the end of production) to a very nalTOW scope of production: "six months before and the year after." (Transcript at 58: 12-13). Therefore, if any party should be complaining about the scope of production, it should be Plaintiffs.

2. Ordered production of "the oldest version" of its Aspect Specifications 10 . (Transcript at 59:11).

9 Therefore, if any party should be complaining about the scope of production, it should be Plaintiffs.

VI. Price's deposition

The Court's ruling was crystal clear 11 . Still, Michelin sat and never produced the

documents in compliance with its strategy of delay and stonewalling. So, Plaintiffs deposed

Price to further expose Michelin's fictitious claim of trade secrets. Aware of Price's

shortcomings, but still using him as a sword to claim "trade secrets,'' Michelin tried to shield his

cross-examination and refused to produce Price for deposition. More delay. More stonewalling.

So, Plaintiffs were forced to file a Motion to Compel - which was granted.

Deeply worried about Price's lack of personal knowledge about his affidavit's contents,

Michelin contacted and retained an army of attorneys from across the country to prepare him for

deposition: 1) Kate Helm, (from Atlanta, Georgia); 2) Michael Wiggins, (from Orlando, Florida);

3) Danean Sturino, (from Chicago, Illinois); 4) Tom Bullion, (from Austin, Texas); and 5) Nicole

Buntin, (from Greenville, South Carolina). 12 These attorneys spent a minimum of seven (7)

hours and some up to several days preparing the unqualified Price for his deposition. It did not

help Michelin. Thus, it 1s no surprise that Michelin - m its Motion for

Reconsideration/Clarification/Stay - omitted the hundreds of admissions that Price made under

oath that exposed his lack of personal knowledge about the contents of his affidavit:

10 Aspect Specifications/Aspect Specification Repertoire/Aspect Specification Annexes - are the actual manufacturing/quality control information/laser photographs that the tire inspectors use when they are looking for defects/anomalies/abnormal conditions (blisters, abnormal coloring, molding, cord/cable placement, improper creases, folds, and openings, mold or curing issues, foreign material found in the tire and other various conditions) found after the tire is manufactured but before it leaves the factory for distribution. The aspect specifications also provide a decision tree on what the inspector/verifier should do when a specific defect is found (repair, scrap, etc.).

Thus, these documents are necessary for Plaintiffs to prove their case so they can show that the defects/conditions/components alleged by Plaintiffs or the conditions that Michelin claim were caused by the tire's wear and tear left the factory that way.

11 Michelin claims the Court did not rule until November 11. Wrong. The Court ordered production of all of these documents back on September 8, 2015. Michelin sat on this for months and on the eve of its deadline to produce the documents, seeks reconsideration and a stay. It should not be permitted.

12 Deposition ofMr. Price at pp. 22-27, Exhibit A.

1. Price works in the legai'department defending Michelin 13 :

Q. What is your department called? A. I'm in the Legal Department.

*****

Q. All of your work as a Michelin employee in the Legal Department related to litigation?

A. That's correct.

Q. Helping defend Michelin in cases? A. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Q. Michelin gets sued and you help defend Michelin? A. I work on these cases, .Y!:§..

2. Yet, Price has no personal knowledge of a single (1) Michelin's trade secret policy 14 :

Q. All right. Now, you are not the author of the policies concerning trade secret information within Michelin?

A. That's correct. Q. Somebody else is? A. I am not aware of a singular policy.

3. Price's Affidavit was made up by Michelin's legal team: Price and Kate Helm Michelin's National Discovery Counsel 15 :

Q. All right. Did you write your affidavit? A. I did. Q. Okay. The affidavit was written by yourself; you typed it out? A. I would say that there were parts of this that I did not type. And I was given a framework. But I did the work and did the lion's share of the material that's in it.

Q. Who gave you the framework? A. Kate Helm.

*****

Q. So the document is a combination of your work and Ms. Helms'

work?

A. Some of which on here came from Ms. Helm.

13 Deposition ofMr. Price at pp. 15:20-21, 62-63, Exhibit A. (e.a.).

14 Deposition oflltfr. Price at p. 91, Exhibit A. (e.a.).

15 Deposition ofPrice at pp. 50-52, Exhibit A.

4. Price never worked at Dothan where the subject tire was manufactured 16 :

Q. All right. You have never worked in Dothan? A. I have never had a position in Dothan.

Q. You never had a position in Dothan in the plant itself? A. Correct.

Q. Or in the office? A. Correct. Q. You never worked on the assembly line in Dothan? A. That's correct.

5. Price never worked as or has been a tire builder, or a tire inspector, or a Licensed Professional Engineer, or a skim stock compounder or a formulator for Michelin 17 :

Q. You never had a position as assembly line workers? A. I have never been a tire builder. Q. That's right. You've never been a class spector? A. That's correct.

Q. You've never been a rubber formulator? A. That's correct.

******

Q. You're not licensed as a Professional Engineer? A. That's correct. Q. That's right. You never created any chem stock formulas for Michelin?

A. I did not.

6. Price has never been an adjustment data inspector 18 :

Q. But you have never been one, right? You don't test? You never tested the L TX MIS prior to its releasing to the market?

A. Not in that tire line, no. Q. Okay. You've never been an adjustment data inspector? A. That's correct.

Q. You've never been a designated Michelin inspector at these designated inspection centers?

16 Deposition ofMr. Price at p. 52, Exhibit A. (e.a.).

17 Deposition of Mr. Price at pp. 52-53, Exhibit A. (e.a.).

18 Deposition ofMr. Price at p. 53, Exhibit A. (e.a.).

A. That's correct.

7. Price did not author any aspect specifications, technical notes, general principles, tire non-conforming procedures, tire inspection procedures, or adjustment data policies 19 :

Q. You didn't write the aspect specifications? A. That's correct.

*****

Q. How many aspect specs? A. I don't know how many aspect specs there are. Q. You don't know? A. Not an exact number, no. I know there would be hundreds.

Q. I know. I don't work for Michelin. You don't know? A. I don't know the exact number of aspect specs, no.

*****

Q. You didn't write the technical notes? A. That's correct.

Q. You didn't author or write the tire non-conforming procedures? A. That's correct. Q. You didn't write or author the general principles? A. That's correct.

Q. You didn't write or author the adjustment data codes? A. That's correct.

Q. You didn't set up the adjustment data policies? A. That's correct.

****

Q. For the LTX MIS line or any other line? A. That's correct. Q. You didn't write or author any of the adjustment data manuals of Michelin?

A. That's correct.

Q. You didn't author or write any of the tire inspection procedures? A. I'm not sure I know what - Q. The tire inspection procedures for the adjustment data samples. A. Correct.

Q. You didn't write any of the Michelin tire limited warranties? A. That's correct.

19 Deposinon ofMr. Price at pp. 53-54, 130-131, Exhibit A. (e.a.).

8. Price has no personal knowledge of the name or identify of a single skim stock formulator, tire builders, tire manufacturer inspectors or tire adjustment inspectors20 :

Q. Michelin also has tire builders, right? A. That's correct.

Q. You are not one of them, right? A. That's correct. Q. Michelin also has chemists that do chem stock formulations and rubber formulations, right?

A. I don't know what their backgrounds are but there are people that work for Michelin that formulate mixes.

Q. You are not one of them? A. That's correct. Q. What do you call those folks? A. Formulators.

Q. Do you know any of them? A. Not personally. Q. Do you know their names? A. Formulators for what?

Q. For skim stock or for rubber. A. For what rubber? Q. LTX MIS tires? A. LTX MIS tires have dozens of different rubber components --

Q. I understand. This subject tire. A. -- that are formulated by different people. I don't know the formulators in 2001.

Q. Tell me the name of any formulator that you know here that works onLTXM/S--

A. I don't know the names of the formulators that worked on the formulas and the compounds in the L TX line - the L TX MIS line.

Q. Anything. A. Not that I recall, no.

*****

Q. Do you know any of the formulators or their identity? A. Not specifically.

Q. Not a single one? A. Not that comes to mind for the LTX M/S2 line, no. Q. Or the LTX MIS tire line?

20 Deposition of Mr. Price, pp. 53- 58, 82, Exhibit A. (e.a.).

A. No.

*****

Q. Who runs the Formulation Department? A. I don't know. Q. Who is the Manager of the Formulation Department? A. I don't know who manages the Formulation Department.

Q. Who is director of the Formulation Department? A. I don't know the answer to that.

*****

Q. All right. What about tire builders? Tell me the name of anyone that worked on the L TX MIS line.

A. I don't know the name of the tire builder that I know worked on the L TX MIS line.

Q. What about -- Michelin has class spectors, right? A. In the plant there are class spectors, yes.

Q. You are not one of them and you've never been one of them? A. I have not been a class spector in a plant. Q. And did you know the name of any of the class sectors at Dothan? A. I don't recall the name of a class spector at Dothan.

Q. Michelin also has adjustment data inspectors, right? A. That's correct. Q. You are not one of them? A. That's correct.

Q. Tell me the name of any adjustment data inspectors in any of the designated inspection centers.

A. I do not know any.

9. Price has no personal lmowledge of the skim stock formula or even the identities of the formulators who worked on the subject skim stock formula 21 :

Q. That's right. You do not know the skim stock formula for this subject tire, right?

A. That's correct. Q. You -- but there's folks within the company, within Michelin, that know that, right?

A. There would be people in the company that have access to that.

Q. And what -- who would that be? Who would those people be? A. People in the compounding plant and compounders.

21 Deposition of Mr. Price at pp. 59-61, Exhibit A. (e.a.).

*****

Q. Do you know the name of any compounder or people that work on the compounding plant that know the skim stock formula for this subject tire?

A. I do not.

10. Price never built a tire for public sale or ever worked on a Michelin assembly line22 :

Q. But you have never built a tire? A. I have not built a tire that was intended for public sale, that's correct.

Q. That's your business, right? That's Michelin's business? A. That is Michelin's business.

Q. And you have never done that? A. I have not built a tire that was intended for sale, correct. Q. In fact, you told me you never -- you never worked in an assembly line for Michelin ever, right?

A. I never worked as a tire builder.

Q. At a Michelin assembly line? A. That's correct.

*****

Q. Again, not -- let's make it correct. Let's make it accurate. You never worked in the Michelin assembly line as a tire builder in any Michelin plant in the United States?

A. That was never my job to be a tire builder in a Michelin plant. Q. Is that a yes or no? A. It's yes.

11. Price has no personal knowledge about the turnstile, badge reader, "Cyclone fence"

or vendors 23 :

Q. And what you say is that access turnstile and badge reader, right? A. That's correct. Q. All right. And did you write the policy concerning the turnstile and the badge reader?

A. No. I wrote no policy with regards to the turnstile or the badge reader.

Q. Who wrote that policy? A. I don't know. Q. Did you talk to him?

22 Depositfon of Mr. Price at pp. 64-65, Exhibit A. (e.a.).

23 Deposition ofMr. Price, pp. 112-114, Exhibit A. (e.a.).

A. No.

Q. All right. Did you talk -- did you order the fence, the Cyclone fence?

A. No. Q. Who ordered that? A. I do not know.

Q. Did you talk to him, to the person that ordered it? A. I did not talk to anyone about ordering the Cyclone fence. Q. Did you talk to anybody that set the policy toward that specific eight-foot high Cyclone fence to keep the secrets out?

A. I did not talk to anyone about ordering the eight-foot high Cyclone fence.

******

Q. All right. Who is the person that wrote the policy about vendors not allowed on the MNA premises?

A. I do not know. Q. Did you speak with him? A. I did not.

Q. Did you look at the policy? A. I did not. Q. Okay. A. I am not aware that there is a policy other than security guidelines.

Q. All right. Have you seen those? A. I have not.

12. Price has no personal knowledge of any of the outside vendors (except attorneys)

entering Michelin24 :

Q. Okay. Thank you. You say also that MNA vendors sign confidentiality agreements before they are provided access to documents. Who are these vendors that you're talking about?

A. Any vendor of MNA would have to sign a confidentiality agreement.

Q. That's great, but I want these vendors that you're talking about.

Vendors, what are the names?

A. I'm talking about anybody that provides products and services to Michelin that would come on the facility grounds.

Q. I get it. What's their names? Anyone. A. I don't have a specific name.

24 Deposition ofMr. Price at p. 120, Exhibit A. (e.a.).

Q. A single one? A. Any contractor doing work at the facility.

Q. Such as? A. I don't have the name of a contractor in mind.

******

Q. Today, on this case, you're here on behalf of Michelin? A. lam.

Q. As a Michelin employee? A. That's correct.

13. Price did not talk to a single (1) Michelin tire builder, manufacturer, inspector, designer, compounder, formulator, or plant worker to draft his Affidavit25 :

Q. Sir, just answer my question. You didn't speak to any single worker in design, build, class spec, inspector, this subject tire for your affidavit, right?

A. It was not necessary that I speak to any of those people to prepare this affidavit.

Q. Yes or no, did you speak with any of them? A. It was not necessary and I did not. Q. You did not? A. That's correct.

*****

Q. Oaky. Anybody else that you have talked, either in preparation for this deposition or in preparation for the affidavit, related to being an employee of Michelin?

A. Not that I recall. Q. Anybody from the plant in Dothan? A. Not in preparation for this.

Q. Or for the affidavit? A. Affidavit. Q. Or the deposition? A. Or to the deposition, correct.

Q. Anybody that works in the Chemical Laboratory for Michelin preparing formulations?

A. No. Q. Any chemical engineer, licensed chemical engineer? A. Preparation for this?

Q. For affidavit or depo.

25 Deposition of Price at 28-31, 109-110, Exhibit A. (e.a.).

A. No. Q. Okay. Anybody that is Adjustment Tire Inspector at Michelin -- A. No.

Q. -- in preparation for deposition or affidavit? A. No. Q. Anybody that works for any of the Designated Return Centers for Michelin?

A. No.

Q. For either of the events; affidavit or the deposition? A. Not in preparation for this, no.

*****

Q. Did you speak with anybody in preparation of the affidavit or the deposition that was a tire spector or tire verifier in the production lines?

A. I am not familiar with the term "tire spector." Q. Those guys at the Aspect Post. A. I did not.

Q. Okay. Class Spector, I think that's the term that you guys use. A. Yes, yes. I did not talk with anyone else in Class Spector in preparation.

*****

Q. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Mr. Price. Anybody in the Designing Department?

A. No.

Q. Mr. Northrup? A. No. Q. Mr. Gruenholz? A. No.

Q. Any of the designers of this specific tire in preparation for the deposition or the affidavit, did you speak to any of them?

A. No.

Price's sworn admissions speak for themselves. He has no personal knowledge about the

contents of his affidavit.

VII. Price's affidavit has "no probative value" and is "legally insufficient". Humphreys, 888 s.w. 2d 469, 470.

Price's admitted lack of personal knowledge renders his affidavit worthless: Price's

affidavit has "no probative value," is "legally invalid and therefore cannot serve as evidence in

support of a claim of' trade secrets26 . Humphreys, 888 S.W.2d 469, 470-71. Price's self-serving

affidavit is also filled with worthless conclusory allegations:

Mark, however, had the burden to establish the seismic data is a trade secret. (citations omitted). Mark has failed to make this showing, simply making the conclusory determination that the seismic data is a trade secret.

TXO Prod. Co. v. MD. Mark, Inc., 999 S.W.2d 137, 142 (Tex. App. 1999). (e.a.).

Therefore, Michelin has not met its burden in establishing that the information sought

constitutes trade secrets, requiring denial of Michelin's Motion.

VIII. The Court ordered scope includes only tires that are 100% discoverable.

The Court correctly found that by precluding Plaintiffs from conducting discovery on

other models, it would effectively bar Plaintiffs from proving several of its claims including but

not limited to knowledge that Michelin was aware of tread separation problem, safer alternative

design, failure to respond to known defect, inadequate recalls, feasibility of alternative designs,

etc., etc.:

Indeed, because product liability claimants must prove a safer "alternative" design, see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann.§ 82.005, it would be absurd to limit discovery to the specific model at issue because that would necessarily preclude discovery on alternative designs.

In re ExmarkMfg. Co., Inc., 299 S.W.3d at 529 (Tex. App. 2009). (e.a.). 26 As shown above, Mr. Price did not talk to a single (1) person in order to obtain the information in his affidavit:

In addition to a person's job title or position, affiants should also explain how they became familiar with the facts in the affidavit.

Valenzuela v. State & Cty. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 317 S.W.3d 550, 554 (Tex. App. 2010). (e.a.).; Deposition of Mr. Price at pp. 28-31, 109-110, Exhibit A.

As our Court of Appeals noted in Exmark, "decisions from courts around the nation

reject the notion that discovery in a strict product liability case is uniformly limited to the

specific product at issue":

In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180, 1191 (10th Cir.2009) (holding that discovery on other tires was not overbroad where plaintiffs alleged that defendant was aware of tread separation problem);

Brownlow v. General Motors Corp., No. 3:05CV-414-R, 2007 WL 2712925, at *5, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67973, at *15 (W.D.Ky.2007) (order) ("Information concerning prior models of GM U-Vans would remain relevant to issues of defect, notice of defect and GM's possible failure to respond to an alleged defect; whereas, discovery of information related to later models would remain relevant to reasonable alternative designs and their perf01mance.");

Mann ex rel. Akst v. Cooper Tire Co., 33 A.D.3d 24, 816 N.Y.S.2d 45, 55 (2006) (holding that scope of discovery in tread separation case should include "documents relating generally to the tread separation defect or problem" because otherwise the defendant would not produce "documents probative on the issues of notice, defectiveness and dangerousness");

Cardenas v. Dore! Juvenile Group, Inc., 230 F.R.D. 611, 614-16 (D.Kan.2005) (granting plaintiffs motion to compel the production of information concerning the defendant manufacturer's European version of a child car seat in a lawsuit involving a child car seat manufactured by the same parent corporation in the United States where the discovery was relevant to the feasibility of a safer alternative design);

Herman v. Andrews, 50 S.W.3d 836, 844 (Mo.App. E.D.2001) (holding that plaintiffs' request for substantially similar product types was not overbroad, unduly burdensome or oppressive);

Preston v. Montana Eighteenth Judicial Dist. Court, Gallatin County, 282 Mont. 200, 936 P.2d 814, 818-20 (1997) (allowing discovery of injuries caused by similar products and discovery about various product models as relevant to whether the design was umeasonably dangerous and whether the defendant was aware of the danger and a viable alternative design);

Calo v. Ahearn, 135 A.D.2d 458, 522 N.Y.S.2d 555, 556 (1987) ("Although the vehicle type of the automobile involved in the accident was the subject of the recall campaign, it is undisputed that the Ahearn vehicle was not among those listed in the recall. However, it was within the legitimate scope of discovery to attempt to dete1mine if the recall campaign erroneously omitted vehicles with the same or similar steering defects.");

Culligan v. Yamaha Motor Corp., USA, 110 F.R.D. 122, 124-25 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (holding that information about post-manufacture testing was relevant and discoverable in ATV rollover case even though it dealt with models other than the ATV model at issue in order to show feasibility of alternative designs).

In re Exmark Mfg. Co., Inc., 299 S.W.3d at 529 (Tex. App. 2009). (e.a.).

Michelin claims that it "has shown that the different sizes of LTX MIS tires have nothing

in common with the tire at issue." Wrong. Not only has Exmarkrejected this argument, but as

demonstrated above, Michelin did not establish or "show" anything. Rather, Price's lack of

personal knowledge renders Michelin's argument that "the different sizes of LTX M/S tires have

nothing in common with the tire at issue" worthless. Again, Price's affidavit has "no probative

value," is "legally invalid and therefore cannot serve as evidence in suppmi of a claim of' trade

secrets27 • Humphreys, 888 S.W.2d 469, 470-71.

IX. The Court's severe narrowing of discovery destroys Michelin's argument that the November 11, 2015 Order is "overbroad."

Moreover, even if we were to accept this argument, to accommodate Michelin's request

that the discovery order be narrower, the Court has already significantly and severely reduced

Plaintiffs' requested discovery and its scope. First, the Comi narrowed the other tire widths to

only 235, 245 and 265 - far from what Plaintiffs requested. Second, the Court narrowed the

scope to make sure that such tires were the same type of tire -P-Metric tires as opposed to also

light truck tires (Transcript at 45:8-12). Third, the Court also drastically reduced the time

scope from Plaintiffs' request (tires made from the start of the manufacture of the LTX MIS to

27 As shown above, Mr. Price did not talk to a single (1) person in order to obtain the information in his affidavit:

In addition to a person's job title or position, affiants should also explain how they became familiar with the facts in the affidavit.

Valenzuela v. State & Cty. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 317 S.W.3d 550, 554 (Tex. App. 2010). (e.a.).; Deposition of Mr. Price at pp. 28-31, 109-110, Exhibit A.

the end of production) to a very narrow scope of production: "six months before and the year

after." (Transcript at 58:12-13).

Therefore, the only pmiy that could complain about the severely reduced discovery and

nanow scope are the Plaintiffs.

X. The requested documents are common to all tire lines as admitted by Price.

As admitted by Price, the documents requested by Plaintiffs (i.e. manufacturing and

inspection documents) are used across all tire lines as

Q. Michelin has employees that write and set manufacturing and design processes, procedures and techniques for the L TX MIS line, right?

A. I am not aware of any documents that are specific to the LTX MIS line.

Q. And that is because? A. Those types of documents are used on all tire lines.

Deposition ofPrice at p. 58, Exhibit A. (e.a.).

Thus, in trying to improperly nanow the scope even more, Michelin misled the Court

when it stated that the documents sought by Plaintiffs are only used on the subject P255/70R 16

LTX M/S tire. At best, this is a misrepresentation. At worst, it is a ...

XI. Case law and arguments used by Michelin were rejected by the Texas Courts. In re Exmark Mfg. Co., Inc., 299 S.W.3d at 527.

To support its Motion, Michelin cited In re Graco Children's Prods., 210 S.W.3d 598,

600-01 (Tex.2006) (orig. proceeding), In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 714 (Tex.1998)

and Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex.1995). The Texas Court of Appeals

soundly distinguished Graco 28, American Optical and Texaco, holding that that discovery of

safer alternative designs - an alleged defect pled by Plaintiffs was required:

28 Unlike here and in In re Exmark, the courts in In re Graco, In re American Optical Corp. or in Texaco did not discuss the discovery about "safer alternative design".

Exmark's argument misconstrues the scope of allowable discovery under the rules pertaining to discovery and Texas Supreme Court precedent regarding the discovery of safer alternative designs.

*****

We conclude that the discovery order at issue here was reasonably tailored to the relevant product defect and was not impe1missibly overbroad. [citation omitted].

*****

The order at issue is saliently different from the discovery orders that were reversed by the supreme court insofar as, in the instant case, there is a connection between the alleged defect and the discovery ordered.

The order compels discovery of documents that are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding whether Exmark knew about the necessity for, or defects in, its rollover protective systems.

In re ExmarkMfg. Co., Inc., 299 S.W.3d at 527, 530. (e.a.).

Finally, Michelin's reliance on In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (1998)

supports Plaintiffs since that case dealt with a discovery order that required production of nearly

all its documents regarding its products for a fifty-year (50) period. Here, as shown above, the

Court severely and nairnwly reduced the discovery scope (including time) in this case, requiring

denial of Michelin's motion.

XII. Michelin has already agreed to produce the documents.

Plaintiffs are shocked by Michelin's Motion. In open Comi, Michelin repeatedly agreed

to produce the documents contained in the Court's November 11, 2015 Order.

• On September 8, 2015, counsel for Michelin "agreed to produce the oldest available copies of the general principles, technical notes and not tire marks, informed procedures (phonetic), [Mr. Bullion stated "Tire Non-Conforming Procedures]". Michelin's counsel did not place any limitations, restrictions, conditions or qualifiers on its production of these documents. September8, 2015 Transcriptat45:21-23. (e.a.).

• On November 3, 2015, counsel for Michelin agreed to the production:

What I would like to say on the record if possibly, Your Honor, is once we get a ruling on that on that motion to compel then we will be in a position to produce the additional documents and they can ask all of these witnesses whatever questions they want to ask them with regard to all

24

of the documents we produced. So that is what I would like to make sure it's clear on the record.

November 3, 2015 Transcript at 17:4-11. (e.a.).

• On November 3, 2015, counsel for Michelin yet again agreed to the production:

This tire was built in 2001 and Your Honor you wanted us to produce the oldest version of all of the aspect specifications . . . So once you enter your written order, then we'll produce the oldest version.

November 3, 2015 Transcript at 24:13-22. (e.a.).

Over and over again, Michelin judicially admitted on the record that it would produce the

documents ordered by the Court:

In Texas a patiy may use a fonnal judicial admission made by a party opponent as a substitute for evidence ... [citation omitted]

The source of a judicial admission may be facts alleged in a pleading, an agreed upon statement of fact, a stipulation, or a formal declaration made in open court by a party or counsel . . . It is binding on the declarant and he cannot introduce evidence to contradict it.

Smith v. Altman, 26 S.W.3d 705, 708-09 (Tex. App. 2000). (e.a.).

Conclusion: Michelin's time is up. Plaintiffs have been waiting since April for the documents.

Then, the Court ordered their production back on September 829 , 2015. Michelin repeatedly

agreed to produce the documents on the record. Then, they sat on it for months and at the

eleventh hour and on the eve of its deadline to produce the documents, seek reconsideration and

a stay. It should not be permitted.

In addition, the Cami severely and significantly narrowed the discovery allowed.

Finally, Michelin has failed to establish that the documents and information requested by

29 Michelin claims the Court did not rule until November 11. Wrong. The Court ordered production of all of these documents back on September 8, 2015.

Plaintiffs' Request for Production30 are trade secrets as required by In re Cont'! Gen. Tire, Inc.,

979 S.W.2d at 613. Therefore, based upon binding Texas law, immediate disclosure is required.

Tex. R. Civ. P. 1; Tex.R. Civ. P. 192.3(a); Tex.R.Civ.Evid. 501; Tex.R.Civ.P. 166b(3); In re

CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 152; In re Exmark Mfg. Co., Inc., 299 S.W.3d at 525-526; Axelson,

Inc., 798 S.W.2d at 555; Lowry, 802 S.W.2d at 671; United States, 356 U.S. at 682; Humphreys,

888 S.W.2d at 470-71; In re Cont'! Gen. Tire, Inc., 979 S.W.2d 609, 613

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF LUIS P. GUERRA, LLC 6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Telephone: (602) 381-8400 Facsimile: (602) 381-8403

By: /s/ David C. Shapiro Luis P. Guerra (Admitted Pro Hae Vice) AZ State Bar No. 015768 David C. Shapiro (Admitted Pro Hae Vice) AZ State Bar No. 028056 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

LAW OFFICES OF JAMES B. RAGAN 723 Coleman Avenue Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: (361) 884-7787

30 #1, #2, #8-9, 11-13, #15, #19-22, #24-26, #29, #32, #37, #40-42, #44-47 31 Michelin's citation to Cont'! and In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. is unavailing. In both those cases, the plaintiffs conceded and stipulated that the requested information constituted trade secrets. In re Cont'! Gen. Tire, Inc., 979 S.W.2d at 615; In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 106 S.W.3d 730, 732 (Tex. 2003).

Meanwhile, In re Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 392 S.W.3d 687, 693 (Tex. App. 2010) is also inapplicable. Unlike Michelin who presented Price who had no personal knowledge of the contents of his affidavit, to prove that the requested documents constituted trade secrets, "Goodyear presented the affidavit testimony of Richard Olsen, an engineer who worked at Goodyear for over forty years in various capacities involving the design, manufacture, testing, and analysis of tires, and James M. O'Neil, Goodyear's Director IT Security and Controls." Id. Thus, Goodyear hmis - not helps - Michelin.

Facsimile: (361) 884-9144 James B. Ragan State Bar No. 16466100

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-Mail & U.S. Mail, on this 2nd day of December, 2015:

Via E-Service, E-Mail & US. Mail to:

Noel A. Sevastianos SEVASTIANOS & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 120 So. Central Ave., Suite 130 St. Louis, MO 63105

Thomas M. Bullion III Chris A. Blackerby GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, PLLC 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 Attorneys for Defendant Michelin North America, Inc.

Debora B. Alsup THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1900 Austin, Texas 78701 Attorneys for Defendant Michelin North America, Inc.

Via Mail to:

Jose Bustillo d/b/a/ Mundo Cars 6422 Day Street Dallas, Texas 85227 Pro Per Defendant Jose Bustillo d/b/a/ Mundo Cars

/s/ David C. Shapiro

EXHIBIT A

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 1

1 CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255

2

3 SAMUEL MEDINA and OBDULIA IN THE DISTRICT COURT

4 MEDINA, husband and wife, OF DALLAS COUNTY

5 individually; NATALYE MEDINA,

6 individually; NAVIL GIBSON,

7 individually, 134th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

8 Plaintiffs,

9 v. 10 MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, DALLAS COUNTY

11 INC.; AND JOSE BUSTILLO

12 d/b/a MUNDO CARS, an in-

13 state defendant,

14 Defendants.

15

16 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF VANEATON PRICE

17 (Taken by Plaintiffs)

18 October 21, 2015

19

20

21 Reported by: Rebecca L. Arrison

22 Court Reporter

23 Notary Public

24

25

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 2 Page 4 1 APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL: 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We now are on 2 FOR TIIE PLAINTIFFS: 2 the record in the matter of Samuel Obdulia, et 3 BY: LUIS P. GUERRA 3 al., versus Michelin North America, Inc., et al. 4 DAYID C. SHAPIRO 4 Today's date is Wednesday, October 21st, 2015. 5 LAW OFFICES OF LUIS P. GUERRA 5 The time is approximately 9:28. 6 6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125 6 This is the video recorded 7 Phoenix, AZ 85016 7 deposition of Vaneaton Price, being taken at the 8 (602) 381-8400 8 offices of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, 9 9 I 04 South Main Street in Greenville, South 10 FOR DEFENDANT MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.: 10 Carolina. 11 BY: THOMAS M. BULLION, Ill 11 I'm the camera operator, Jack 12 GERMERPLLC 12 Marks, Certified Legal Video Specialist in 13 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 13 association with Alderson Reporting, located at 14 Austin, TX 78701 14 1155 Connecticut Avenue Northwest, Washington, 15 (512) 472-0288 15 D.C. The court reporter is Rebecca Arrison, also 16 16 in association with Alderson Reporting. 17 Also Present: 17 Will attorneys please identify 18 Jack Marks, CLVS 18 themselves and the parties they represent, 19 19 beginning with the party noticing this 20 Videotaped deposition of VANEATON PRICE, taken 20 proceeding. 21 by the PlaintiffS, at Nelson Mullins Riley & 21 MR. GUERRA: Luis Guerra and David 22 Scarborough LLP, 104 South Main Street, Suite 900, 22 Shapiro for the Medina family. 23 Greenville, South Carolina, on the 21st day of 23 MR. BULLION: Tom Bullion for 24 October, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., before Rebecca L. 24 Michelin North America, Incorporated. 25 Arrison, Notary Public and Court Reporter. 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: And will the

Page 3 Page 5 1 CONTENTS 1 court reporter please administer the oath. 2 TIIEWITNESS: VANEATONPRICE EXAMINATION 2 3 BY MR. GUERRA 5 3 VANEATON PRICE, 4 BY MR. BULLION 133 4 being first duly sworn, testified as follows: 5 BY MR. GUERRA 137 5 6 BY MR. BULLION 139 6 EXAMINATION 7 7 BY MR. GUERRA: 8 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 8 Q. Nice to see you again. 9 (There were no Exhibits marked.) 9 A. Nice to see you. 10 10 Q. Mr. Price, throughout this deposition, I 11 11 will call you Mr. Price, and you call me anything you 12 12 want. I go by Luis, but people say differently so it 13 13 doesn't really matter to me. Is that okay? 14 14 A. That's fine. 15 15 Q. We met before, maybe a couple of years ago, 16 16 maybe a year and a half ago in the same office, 17 17 right? 18 18 A. Yes. 19 19 Q. But I did not have an opportunity to talk to 20 20 you on the record, correct? 21 21 A. That's c01Tect. 22 22 Q. You work here in Greenville, right? 23 23 A. I do. 24 24 Q. You work at the MARC Center? 25 25 A. I do not currently work at the MARC Center

2 (Pages 2 to 5)

Alderson Repmting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 6 Page 8 1 full time, though I am there several days a week, so 1 Q. You are under oath and you know that, right? 2 it wouldu't be unusual for me to be there. 2 A. I do. 3 Q. Where is your office? 3 Q. I'm going to ask you questions, you provide 4 A. My office is at Pelham Road. It's the 4 me the answers to the best of your knowledge. 5 Headquarters North America building for Michelin 5 A. I will. 6 North America. 6 Q. And if you need to take a break for any 7 Q. You are the building closest to the airport? 7 reason, we'll stop it at any time. 8 A. Yes, sir. 8 A. Okay. 9 Q. And that is Michelin North America -- 9 Q. Your attorney's entitled to make objections.

10 A. That's right. 10 Ifhe wants you to make an objection, he will say it 11 Q. -- headquarters? 11 on the record, and we will just give him a little 12 A. Yes, sir. 12 time so he can put it on the record, then I'll ask 13 Q. You don't have to call me "sir." Say Luis 13 the next question or give the answer. Okay? 14 or yes or whatever you want to call me. I will call 14 A. Okay. 15 you sir, you call me whatever you want. Deal? 15 Q. That's about it. 16 A. Tiiat's fine. Ifl say "yes, sir" -- 16 You are not a registered -- registered 17 Q. Okay. 17 Professional Engineer? 18 A. -- it's out of habit. 18 A. I am not a licensed Professional Engineer. 19 MR. BULLION: People from the 19 Q. Or a registered Professional Engineer. 20 South say "yes, sir" and "yes, ma'am" a lot. 20 A. I don't know the difference. 21 BY MR. GUERRA: 21 Q. Okay. Good. 22 Q. So would you be kind enough to tell me, 22 You are not a licensed Professional Engineer 23 please, how many folks, how many employees would you 23 in South Carolina? 24 think that work at the MNA headquarters, the one, the 24 A. That's correct. 25 building where you work? 25 Q. Or in Alabama?

Page 7 Page 9 1 A. I would be totally guessing at above 1,000. 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. Above? 2 Q. Or in Texas? 3 What about at the MARC Center? 3 A. That's correct. 4 A. Same type of number. 4 Q. And you have never been? 5 Q. Okay. How far is the MARC Center from your 5 A. That's correct. 6 place, from your office in Greenville? 6 Q. Okay. You're not a licensed or registered 7 A. Twenty miles. 7 Professional Engineer anywhere in the United States? 8 Q. Twenty miles. 8 A. That's correct. 9 Would you consider both to be in Greenville? 9 Q. Okay. Let's talk a little bit about your 10 A. Yes. 10 preparation to write your affidavit. You understand 11 Q. Okay. Mr. Price, I kind of jumped a little 11 that you're here to talk about that? 12 bit and I assumed you have been deposed before. Have 12 A. Yes, I am. 13 you been deposed before? 13 Q. Did you, in preparation to -- for your 14 A. I have not. 14 affidavit, did you have an opportunity to speak with 15 Q. Okay. In all the years that you have worked 15 anyone in preparation of that affidavit? 16 at Michelin, this is your first deposition? 16 A. Yes. 17 A. That's correct. 17 Q. Okay. Conversations with your attorneys are 18 Q. Okay. I am sure that you had an opportunity 18 not to be discussed on the record or with me; you 19 to speak with your attorney prior to the deposition? 19 understand that? 20 A. I did. 20 A. Ido. 21 Q. Okay. I'm just going to go over the -- like 21 Q. All right. But I cah ask you about 22 a brief overview of the rules. 22 meetings, location of meetings, times of meetings, 23 We are here like if you were in a -- in a 23 not surprising, and things of that nature. Okay? 24 courtroom, and you do understand that, right? 24 A. Okay. 25 A. I do. 25 Q. Did you have an opp01tunity to speak with

'

3 (Pages 6 to 9)

Alderson Repmting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 10 Page 12 1 your attorney in preparation for your affidavit? 1 affidavit personally? 2 A. I did. 2 A. 1bree or four. 3 Q. Okay. How many times? 3 Q. Okay. How long would those take -- would 4 A. I don't recall specifically, but probably 4 last, let's say that? 5 three or four. 5 A. A few minutes to five minutes. 6 Q. Which attorneys? 6 Q. What about with Ms. Helm, how many times do 7 A. I talked with internal Michelin attorneys 7 you think you spoke with her? 8 and external. 8 A. 1bree or four. 9 Q. Okay. Would you be kind enough to tell me 9 Q. Would that all be telephonically? 10 their names? 10 A. I don't recall. Occasionally she's in town, 11 A. Nicole Buntin, Kate Helm. 11 but-- 12 Q. Nicole Buntin? 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. B-u-n+i-n. 13 A. -- my recollection is that would have been 14 Q. Would you say the name again? 14 telephonically. 15 A. Buntin. 15 Q. How long would those contacts would have 16 Q. Buntin, B-u-n-e-t-i-n? 16 lasted with Ms. Helm on the phone? 17 A. NoE. 17 A. Probably the same; a few minutes to five 18 Q. Okay. B-u-n-t-i-n? 18 minutes. 19 A. Yes, sir. 19 Q. Okay. Did you -- did you cover everybody 20 Q. Thank you so much, Mr. Price. 20 that you spoke, attorney wise, concerning your 21 And also Kate, what's her last name? 21 affidavit? 22 A. Helm. 22 A. As I recall the preparation of the 23 Q. Thank you. 23 affidavit, yes. 24 And that would be -- are those the external 24 Q. Thank you so much. 25 attorneys or are those the internal and external 25 What about other individuals within the

Page 11 Page 13 1 attorney? 1 company in preparation of your affidavit within 2 A. Internal and external. 2 Michelin? 3 Q. Okay. So Nicole would be attorney -- 3 A. I may have talked with someone in the 4 internal attorney, Kate would be the external 4 specifications group. 5 attorney? 5 Q. Who would that be? 6 A. That's c01Tect. 6 A. I don't recall specifically who within the 7 Q. Thank you so much. 7 specifications group. I just koow that I gathered 8 Anybody else? 8 some numbers, and I may have talked with somebody to 9 A. In preparation of this affidavit, I don't 9 validate numbers and specifications; that seems 10 recall anyone else. 10 reasonable, but I don't have a specific recollection. 11 Q. Okay. You said, Luis, I spoke with them 11 Q. Who would be that person that you koow of? 12 three or four times. With both three or four times 12 Who do you koow in the specifications group? 13 or with one more than the other? 13 A. Oh, there are several people that I koow -- 14 A. I don't recall specifically which one I 14 Q. Tell me their names, please. 15 talked to more or less. 15 A -- in specifications. 16 Q. Did you -- I assume that with Ms. Buntin, 16 Carla Wingate. 17 you talked with her personally? 17 Q. Carlo? 18 A. On occasion, cetiainly, yes. 18 A Carla. 19 Q. Well, would you be kind enough to speak 19 Q. Wingate? 20 louder for the comi repmier? She is having 20 A. Correct. 21 difficulty hearing you. 21 Q. Who else? 22 A. Ce1iainly. I will try. 22 A I don't remember anybody else in particular. 23 Q. I sometimes have the same problem. 23 It's likely Carla that I would have talked to. 24 How many times do you think you talked to 24 Q. And what is Carla's group called? 25 Ms. Buntin or Buntin in preparation for your 25 A Specifications.

4 (Pages 10 to 13)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 14 Page 16 1 Q. And what does that relate to? 1 Q. And they are -- what are they, I mean in 2 A. Specifications for tires. 2 general? Would you give me a summary of the people 3 Q. Where does Carla work? 3 that work there? 4 A. At MARC. 4 A. They would generally be in Greenville. In 5 Q. And the department at MARC called the 5 Greenville. 6 Specification Department? 6 Q. In Greenville. 7 A. I believe that's con-ect. I don't know the 7 But who -- what are their -- what is their 8 exact name, but I would refer to it as Specifications 8 background; are they lawyers, are they paralegals, 9 Department -- 9 are they secretaries? 10 Q. Okay. 10 A. All of the above. 11 A. -- or Specifications Group. 11 Q. All of the above. 12 Q. Thank you so much, Mr. Price. 12 A. And engineers. 13 Anybody else that you would have spoken 13 Q. Okay. Registered engineers, licensed 14 within Michelin concerning preparation of your 14 engineers? 15 affidavit? 15 A. I don't know if the other engineers are 16 A. Not that I recall. 16 licensed. 17 Q. Okay. So Carla in Specs. 17 Q. Anyofthem? 18 How long have you known Carla? 18 A. I don't know. 19 A. Probably since 2007 when I started working 19 Q. Any of them? 20 at MARC. 20 A. I don't know if any of them are licensed. 21 Q. Okay. All right. And since you have known 21 Q. Okay. What you're saying is that they may 22 Carla, has she always work in Specs, Specifications? 22 have some -- they have education in engineering? 23 A. To my recollection. 23 A. Yes, they have engineering degrees. 24 Q. Okay. And you called her concerning 24 Q. Okay. But you don't know if a single one of 25 preparation for this affidavit on this case, and on 25 those individuals that works up there in MARC review

Page 15 Page 17 1 this specific case the tire that we're talking about 1 is a licensed or registered engineer anywhere in the 2 is an LTX MIS is that right? 2 United States? 3 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 3 A. I don't know. 4 THE WITNESS: It is, and I may 4 Q. Okay. Tell me the names of the engineers 5 have called her. She would have been a person, 5 that work with you in the Legal Department. 6 if I needed information on the number of specs, 6 A. Michael Wischhusen and Doug Slagh. 7 that person I would have gone to. 7 Q. You may have to spell that name for -- 8 BY MR. GUERRA: 8 A. S-1-a-g-h. 9 Q. So you're not sure if you called her? 9 Q. No, the other one. 10 A. I don't have a specific memory of talking to 10 A. Good luck. 11 her. 11 MR. BULLION: You've deposed him 12 Q. But if you did talk to somebody, would that 12 twice, I would think you would know how to -- how 13 have been her? 13 to spell the name, probably. 14 A. It would have been her related to the 14 MR. GUERRA: I'm sorry? 15 numbers of specifications involved in this affidavit. 15 MR. BULLION: You've deposed him 16 Q. Okay. Anybody else, Mr. Price? 16 twice. 17 A. No, not that I'm -- 17 MR. GUERRA: Oh, I know, but the 18 Q. Okay. 18 coutt repmter may not know. 19 A. -- aware of. 19 MR. BULLION: W-i-s-c-h-h-u-s-e-n. 20 Q. What is your department called? 20 MR. GUERRA: I like Mr. Wischhusen 21 A. I'm in the Legal Depaiiment. 21 a lot. 22 Q. Legal Department. 22 BY MR. GUERRA: 23 How many people work at the Legal 23 Q. So you said, Luis, that's three engineers, 24 Department, please? 24 three people that are trained as engineers in your 25 A. About40. 25 Legal Depaitment group.

5 (Pages 14 to 17)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 18 Page 20 1 A. That's correct. 1 right? 2 Q. The rest of them -- how many attorneys? 2 A. That's the title of the position. 3 A. I don't know the exact number of attorneys. 3 Q. That's your job title, right? 4 Q. Give me your best shot. 4 A. Yes. 5 A. Twelve. 5 Q. And you have held that position since 2012? 6 Q. Twelve. Including Nicole that we talked 6 A. Ihave. 7 about? 7 Q. What is the -- Mr. Slagh's job title? 8 A. That's c01Tect. 8 A. Senior Technical Adviser. 9 Q. Including Ms. Foster? 9 Q. What is Mr. Wischhusen's job title? 10 A. Yes. 10 A. Technical Director. 11 Q. She -- she heads the group, the legal group? 11 Q. Do you work with Mr. Wischhusen directly? 12 A. Not the Legal Department. 12 A. I do. 13 Q. But the legal group within the Legal 13 Q. Would it be fair to call him your boss? 14 Department? 14 A. He is not my boss. 15 A. Product Liability Group. 15 Q. Who would be your boss? 16 MR. GUERRA: Okay. Wischhusen, 16 A. Kip Foster. 17 isn't that an Alabama fan? I thought that his 17 Q. Kip Foster. 18 kids went to Alabama, didn't they? 18 Does -- Wischhusen is the boss of anyone 19 MR. BULLION: I don't know where 19 within the department? 20 his kids go to school. 20 A. No. 21 MR. GUERRA: We talked a lot of 21 Q. Okay. Is anybody the boss of Wischhusen 22 football. I think it was Alabama. Maybe I'm 22 within the department? 23 wrong. Maybe I'm wrong. 23 A. Kip Foster. 24 BY MR. GUERRA: 24 Q. Kip Foster. 25 Q. All right. You said, Luis, there's about 25 And is that Miss or Mrs.?

Page 19 Page 21 1 three engineers, about 12 lawyers -- 1 A. Mrs. 2 A. Yeah. 2 Q. Mrs. Foster is a lawyer? 3 Q. -- give or take? 3 A. She is. 4 A. I know the exact number of engineers, I 4 Q. All right. What about this lady Carla 5 don't know the exact numbers oflawyers. 5 McMahan? 6 Q. So if we go with your numbers, then we have 6 A. She's a paralegal. 7 25 other folks. Who are these 25 other folks? 7 Q. Paralegal. 8 A. There are paralegals, there are admins. 8 How many paralegals do we have up there at 9 Q. Who else; secretaries? 9 your Legal Department, please? 10 A. Certainly there are secretaries. 10 A. I don't know the exact number. 11 Q. Anybody else I'm missing? 11 Q. Give me your best shot, please. 12 A. There are people who work in -- in Property 12 A. Six or so. 13 Damage. 13 Q. All right. Tell me, would you be kind 14 Q. Property Damage. 14 enough to tell me, what is Ms. Foster -- 15 What do you call those folks? 15 Mrs. Foster's job title? 16 A. Claims adjusters -- 16 A. Director of Litigation. 17 Q. Claims adjusters. 17 Q. Director of Litigation. 18 A. -- would be the term that I would use. I 18 And you said something about -- who is the 19 don't know if that's their title. 19 director of products liability? 20 Q. Okay. How long have you worked at that 20 A. I didn't say anything about a director of 21 department, Mr. Price, please? 21 products liability, but that would be Kip, she's head 22 A. Since 2012. 22 of the group. 23 Q. 2012. Okay. All right. 23 Q. Okay. 24 Now, you -- you call yourself on that 24 A. The Litigation Group. 25 affidavit, job title, as Senior Technical Adviser, 25 Q. Thank you so much.

6 (Pages 18 to 21)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 22 Page 24 1 What you're saying is, Luis, that's not a 1 Q. Was also live? 2 title, director of products liability, right? 2 A. Yes. 3 A. I don't know the exact title. 3 Q. How long did that meeting take place? 4 Q. Okay. And Mr. Wischhusen, you said, is a 4 A. Roughly an hour. 5 Technical Director of Litigation? 5 Q. Anybody else present or on the phone at that 6 A. That's correct. 6 meeting? 7 Q. So you are a Senior Technical Adviser of 7 A. On the 19th, there was no one else present 8 Litigation? 8 that I recall. 9 A. In the Litigation Group. 9 Q. What about the second meeting, when did the 10 Q. Now, in preparation for this deposition, did 10 second meeting take place, Mr. Price, please? 11 you have an opportunity to meet with the other 11 A. On the 20th. 12 attorneys? 12 Q. So yesterday, Tuesday? 13 A. I did. 13 A. Itdid. 14 Q. How many times? 14 Q. Where did that second meeting take place? 15 A. I recall two times. 15 A. Here at this office. 16 Q. Personal meetings? 16 Q. What time was that one? 17 A. I guess I would say yes to that. I don't 17 A. I believe we got started in the morning 18 know what you mean by "personal meetings." 18 around nine. 19 Q. Thank you. Live. 19 Q. And lasted until? 20 A. Yes. 20 A. About four o'clock, as I recall. 21 Q. Who would be the individuals that you would 21 Q. Who was present, please? 22 have met as your attorneys on those live meetings, 22 A. Tom Bullion. 23 please? 23 Q. Anybody else? 24 A. Tom Bullion. 24 A. Danean Sturino. 25 Q. Anybody else? 25 Q. Tell me that again, please.

Page 23 Page 25 1 A. At times, Nicole Buntin was there. 1 A. Danean Sturino. 2 Q. Nicole, your colleague -- 2 Q. Danean? 3 A. Yes. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. -- that we talked about? 4 Q. Sturina? 5 All right. When did this personal meeting, 5 A. Sturino. 6 the first one, took place, please? 6 Q. Would you be kind enough to spell the last 7 A. Monday afternoon. 7 name, please? 8 Q. This Monday afternoon, so if today is the 8 A. I'm not sure that I know the correct 9 21st, would that have been the 20th? 9 spelling, but I would spell it phonetically 10 A. That's correct. 10 S-t-o-r-i-n-o. 11 MR. BULLION: 19th, I believe. 11 MR. BULLION: It's S+u-r-i-n-o, 12 MR. GUERRA: I'm sony. 12 I think. 13 MR. BULLION: Today's Wednesday. 13 BY MR. GUERRA: 14 MR. GUERRA: Oh, thank you, Tom. 14 Q. Do you -- do you -- did you know Ms. Sturino 15 19th. 15 prior to that meeting? 16 BY MR. GUERRA: 16 A. Yes, I did. 17 Q. Was that the first meeting with Mr. Bullion? 17 Q. Do you know where she works? 18 A. Yes. 18 A. She works in Chicago. 19 Q. Where did that meeting take place? 19 Q. She works in Chicago for? 20 A. Here at this office. 20 A. I believe a law finn called O'Hagan. 21 Q. Nelson Mullins? 21 Q. Called what? 22 A. Yes. 22 A. O'Hagan. 23 Q. Anybody else present other than you and 23 Q. O'Hagan. 24 Mr. Bullion? 24 All right. Is she a lawyer? 25 A. I believe Kate Helm. 25 A. Yes.

r >'

7 (Pages 22 to 25)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 26 Page 28 1 Q. In Chicago? 1 Q. Mr. Wiggins also is an attorney out of 2 A. Yes. 2 Florida that defends Michelin on cases? 3 Q. And did you have an occasion to meet her 3 A That's correct. 4 before on other Michelin cases? 4 Q. Thank you so much. 5 A. No, not related to cases. 5 How were you introduced to Mr. Wiggins? 6 Q. Would you be kind enough to tell me who 6 A As I recall, the same way; probably through 7 introduced you to Ms. Sturino? 7 Ms. Buntin. 8 A. Nicole Buntin. 8 Q. Through your work? 9 Q. Is she an employee of Michelin? 9 A That's correct. 10 A. Ms. Sturino? 10 Q. All right. Anybody else? Did you ever -- 11 Q. Yeah. 11 you said no? 12 A. No, she's not an employee of Michelin. 12 A I didn't understand the question. 13 She's an attorney that represents Michelin. 13 Q. Anybody else? 14 Q. Ms. -- would you say it again, the name, so 14 A Anybody else? 15 I can remember it? 15 Q. Present on this second meeting. 16 A. Danean. 16 A No. 17 Q. Just the last name. 17 Q. Or on the phone during the second meeting? 18 A. Sturino. 18 A No. 19 Q. Is that Ms. or Mrs.? 19 Q. Thank you. 20 A. I don't know. 20 That lady that you said, Luis, if I would 21 Q. Okay. All right. So other than Tom Bullion 21 have called would be Ms. Wingate or Mrs. Wingate, she 22 and Ms. Sturino, anybody else present? 22 wasn't present in any of the meetings? 23 A. Kate Helm. 23 A No. 24 Q. Kate Helm. 24 Q. Oaky. Anybody else that you have talked, 25 Anybody else? 25 either in preparation for this deposition or in

Page 27 Page 29 1 A. Michael Wiggins. 1 preparation for the affidavit, related to being an 2 Q. Michael Wiggins. 2 employee of Michelin? 3 Q. Wbo is Mr. Wiggins? 3 A. Not that I recall. 4 A. He's an attorney that works in Florida. 4 Q. Anybody from the plant in Dothan? 5 Q. Quite the powwow. Wow. Four attorneys and 5 A. Not in preparation for this. 6 Mr. Price on a meeting yesterday? 6 Q. Or for the affidavit? 7 MR. BULLION: Objection; f01m. 7 A. Affidavit. 8 THE WITNESS: I believe that 8 Q. Or the deposition? 9 Nicole Buntin was there. 9 A Or to the deposition, correct. 10 BY MR. GUERRA: 10 Q. Anybody that works in the Chemical 11 Q. So five attorneys. Thank you so much, 11 Laboratory for Michelin preparing formulations? 12 Mr. Price. 12 A. No. 13 Anybody else that we may have missed out? 13 Q. Any chemical engineer, licensed chemical 14 A. Not that I recall. 14 engineer? 15 Q. Any of the --your other -- any of -- other 15 A. Preparation for this? 16 co-workers that work with you at the Legal 16 Q. For affidavit or depo. 17 Department? 17 A No. 18 A. No. 18 Q. Okay. Anybody that is Adjustment Tire 19 Q. Thank you so much. 19 Inspector at Michelin -- 20 Did you know Mr. Wiggins prior to this 20 A. No. 21 meeting? 21 Q. -- in preparation for deposition or 22 A. I did. 22 affidavit? 23 Q. Did you work with Mr. Wiggins on other 23 A No. 24 cases? 24 Q. Anybody that works for any of the Designated 25 A. I have worked on one case with Mr. Wiggins. 25 Return Centers for Michelin?

8 (Pages 26 to 29)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 30 Page 32 1 A. No. 1 MR. BULLION: Don't answer that. 2 Q. For either of the events; affidavit or the 2 MR. GUERRA: Based on? 3 deposition? 3 MR. BULLION: Privilege. 4 A. Not in preparation for this, no. 4 MR. GUERRA: Which privilege? 5 Q. Anybody that is a tire spector or verifier, 5 MR. BULLION: Work product. 6 tire verifier at the production line? 6 MR. GUERRA: Which privilege? He 7 A. I didn't understand the word. 7 is not an attorney. 8 Q. Did you speak with anybody in preparation of 8 MR. BULLION: Work product. 9 the affidavit or the deposition that was a tire 9 MR. GUERRA: All right. 10 spector or tire verifier in the production lines? 10 BY MR. GUERRA: 11 A. I am not familiar with the term "tire 11 Q. Are you going to follow the instructions of 12 spector. 11 12 your attorney? 13 Q. Those guys at the Aspect Post. 13 A. lam. 14 A. I did not. 14 Q. Okay. How long did you yourselflook at 15 Q. Okay. Class Spector, I think that's the 15 that tire? 16 term that you guys use. 16 A. Probably an hour or two. 17 A. Yes, yes. I did not talk with anyone else 17 Q. Okay. Did you yourself unwrap it? 18 in Class Spector in preparation. 18 A. No, I didn't. 19 Q. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, 19 Q. Did you yourself videotape it? 20 Mr. Price. 20 A. I videotaped the unpacking of the -- and the 21 Anybody in the Designing Department? 21 reception of the evidence, I did. 22 A. No. 22 Q. Okay. Did you yourself took notes? 23 Q. Mr. Northrup? 23 A. I did not take notes. 24 A. No. 24 Q. Now, the -- 25 Q. Mr. Gruenholz? 25 A. I want to please clarify that.

Page 31 Page 33 1 A. No. 1 Q. Please. 2 Q. Any of the designers of this specific tire 2 A. If! may. I make notes related to reception 3 in preparation for the deposition or the affidavit, 3 in terms of the tire is here, what came with it, 4 did you speak to any of them? 4 pieces and parts, wheels, for example, and where it 5 A. No. 5 came from, the date that it was received. I make a 6 Q. All right. Did you have an opportunity to 6 note of those things. But in terms of the tire 7 look at the tire itself, the subject tire? 7 itself, beyond recording the DOT, I didn't make notes 8 A. Ihave. 8 about the tire. 9 Q. Okay. When it was here? 9 Q. You were not the person designated to 10 A. Yes. 10 inspect that tire; is that what you're telling me? 11 Q. Okay. Who else looked at that tire when you 11 A. That's con-ect. 12 were looking at the tire? 12 Q. Okay. Somebody else was, and I understand 13 MR. BULLION: Don't answer that. 13 that your attorney -- 14 MR. GUERRA: Excuse me? 14 MR. GUERRA: You're going to make 15 MR. BULLION: I said: "Don't 15 an objection if! ask that question, right? 16 answer that." 16 MR. BULLION: We're not going to 17 MR. GUERRA: Based on what? 17 talk about Michelin's experts. 18 MR. BULLION: Based on privilege. 18 MR. GUERRA: All right. No 19 MR. GUERRA: I'm just asking who 19 problem. 20 was present. 20 So my point being is if! ask 21 MR. BULLION: I've made my 21 questions about that, you're going to tell your 22 objection or my statement. 22 client: Don't answer that, work product or 23 MR. GUERRA: I'm sorry? 23 attorney-client privilege? 24 MR. BULLION: I made my statement. 24 MR. BULLION: Right. 25 MR. GUERRA: And what is that. 25 MR. GUERRA: Okay.

9 (Pages 30 to 33)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 34 Page 36 1 MR. BULLION: It has more to do 1 A. That's correct. 2 with the fact that we haven't designated experts 2 Q. All right. Who -- 3 yet-- 3 MR. GUERRA: Would you object to 4 MR. GUERRA: That's okay. 4 the question, Tom, if I asked him how many people 5 MR. BULLION: -- and you're not 5 present? 6 entitled to know who our experts are. 6 MR. BULLION: When he inspected 7 MR. GUERRA: I'm not going to 7 it? 8 fight you on that here, for sure. I'm not 8 MR. GUERRA: When he -- when he 9 waiving any objections that I have, pure 9 looked at the tire. 10 objection from an argument standpoint that I may 10 MR. BULLION: No, no. 11 make, but I respect what you're saying and I'm 11 BY MR. GUERRA: 12 not going to waste time today because of your 12 Q. When you looked at the tire, how many people 13 objections. 13 were present in the room? 14 BY MR. GUERRA: 14 A. To my knowledge, just myself. 15 Q. So ifl were to ask you, Mr. Price, give me 15 Q. Okay. And ifl -- ifl -- ifl'm going to 16 all your notes of your inspection of the tire, you 16 press you on your notes, all I will find in your 17 would say, Luis, first, I have no notes of that, 17 notes is the logistics of the arrival of the tire, 18 right? 18 right? 19 A. That's correct. 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. And second, I was not inspecting the tire, 20 Q. I will get the videotaping of the unpacking 21 right? 21 of the tire, part of your file? 22 A. I looked at the tire when it came in. 22 A. There is a videotape of unpacking. 23 Q. You looked at it? 23 Q. And do you do the same on the packing and 24 A. Yes. 24 sending it out, do you -- 25 Q. But you were not the tire inspector for that 25 A. That's correct.

Page 35 Page 37 1 inspection? 1 Q. Do you also videotape it? 2 A. That's correct. 2 A. I do. 3 Q. On any days it was here in South Carolina? 3 Q. And you also write notes? 4 A. That's correct. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And it was -- where was it located, the 5 Q. Okay. During the time that the tire was 6 tire? 6 here, was there a log for the people that got to 7 A. AtMARC. 7 inspect it? 8 Q. AtMARC. 8 A. Not to my knowledge. 9 Within which department at MARC? 9 Q. Okay. What would be -- what would be your 10 A. The Litigation Group has a room at MARC for 10 role concerning that tire? 11 that purpose. 11 A. I would receive the evidence, log the 12 Q. Was it in a room, like an office? 12 evidence in, look at the evidence, and -- 13 A. I wouldn't consider it an office. 13 Q. Videotape. 14 Q. What would you call it? 14 A. -- video -- well, videotape when I log it in 15 A. We would refer to it as The Lab. 15 and videotape when I pack it and ship it back out. 16 Q. The Lab. Okay. 16 Q. Is that a -- is that a specific designation 17 That's not your place of employment, your 17 for the person that does that? 18 traditional place of employment? 18 A. The STAs that are assigned to the individual 19 A. I work there probably a couple of days a 19 case would do that. 20 week. 20 Q. So the Senior Technical Adviser assigned to 21 Q. Okay. But that's not what you call your 21 the case does that? 22 office? 22 A. That's correct. 23 A. That's correct. 23 Q. All right. You are also not an attorney, 24 Q. But you said it's part of the Litigation 24 right? 25 Depaiiment, so occasionally I go there. 25 A. I am not.

10 (Pages 34 to 37)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 38 Page 40 1 Q. You don't have -- you don't have any law 1 A. When the tire is reviewed with the 2 degree? 2 attorneys. 3 A. That's correct. 3 Q. Okay. Okay. All right. 4 Q. All right. 4 MR. GUERRA: I assume that you 5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Could we go off 5 object to my questions on this area? 6 the record? 6 MR. BULLION: If you're going to 7 MR. GUERRA: Yes. 7 ask him for a list of notes and discussions with 8 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the 8 experts or lawyers, I'm going to object to that. 9 video record at 10:02. 9 MR. GUERRA: Okay. All right. I 10 (A recess was taken.) 10 was going to ask you that and you're going to 11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going 11 say? 12 back on the video record at 10: 11. 12 MR. BULLION: I'm going to say: 13 BY MR. GUERRA: 13 Don't answer that. 14 Q. Mr. Price, so ifl -- ifl go back and ask 14 MR. GUERRA: Okay. 15 you -- ifl were to press you and say, Hey, 15 BY MR. GUERRA: 16 Mr. Price, I want to see every single note that you 16 Q. Okay. Other than those notes that you may 17 took concerning yom inspection of the tire, you 17 have done with the attorneys, any other notes that 18 would say, Luis, I have none? That's what you told 18 you have taken there? 19 me, right? 19 A. No. 20 A. That's correct. 20 Q. Okay. So to make sure that I am correct, 21 Q. Thank you. And by "note," I mean anything 21 you have the receiving and packing notes, departure 22 that you wrote down or that you typed on your 22 and packing notes, and notes that you have from 23 computer; you didn't do any of that, right? 23 conversations with attorneys or experts? 24 A. Other than the information I told you about 24 A. Correct. 25 the reception. 25 Q. No other notes?

Page 39 Page 41 1 Q. Thank you so much. 1 A. That's correct. 2 Did you -- so would it be fair to say that 2 Q. All right. How many pages do you have of 3 you were -- can I assume or is it correct for my -- 3 notes altogether? 4 me to assume that you were present on the arrival of 4 A. What notes? 5 the tire and on the departure of the tire? 5 Q. All of them. 6 A. I unpacked -- 6 A. With regards to the subject tire? 7 Q. Subject tire. 7 Q. That's correct. 8 A. -- the tire and I packed the tire. 8 A. I don't know. 9 Q. Any other time in between that you were 9 Q. Give me your best shot. 10 present with the tire? 10 A. Ten. 11 A. I am cettain that I was in The Lab at other 11 Q. Ten pages. 12 times and the tire was in The Lab at those times. 12 How many of those would be packing and 13 Q. At any other time that you were present with 13 unpacking? 14 the tire, did you write any other notes? 14 A. I wouldn't consider those pages; they're 15 A. I want to make sure I understand the 15 entries in a log. 16 question. 16 Q. I'm sorry? 17 Q. Sure. You told me the notes that you wrote 17 A. I would not consider those pages; they're 18 about the -- 18 entries in a log. 19 A. Reception. 19 Q. Okay. So the -- so the notes that we're 20 Q. -- receiving the tire, and you -- I think 20 talking about are not the notes related to the 21 you told me that you wrote no notes of the packing of 21 packing and unpacking? 22 the tire? 22 A. That's correct. 23 A. That's correct. 23 Q. You have ten notes, and those notes would be 24 Q. Other than that, any other notes that you 24 notes of conversations with your attorneys? 25 may have written about that subject tire? 25 A. That's correct.

11 (Pages 38 to 41)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 42 Page 44 1 Q. Ten pages. Thank you so much. 1 documents that you just referred? 2 All right. Did you -- 2 A. I referred to the discovery requests. 3 MR. GUERRA: Tom, you did say 3 Q. Okay. Did you review them? 4 that, Luis, I don't want you to -- I'm going to 4 A. No, I did not review them. 5 instruct him not to answer questions that relate 5 Q. But you have a copy available? 6 to conversations with attorneys and expetis, 6 A. I had a copy available, yes. 7 right? 7 Q. Anything else, Mr. Price? 8 MR. BULLION: Right. 8 A. That's all that I recall. 9 MR. GUERRA: So I'm only asking 9 Q. All right. And that would have been when? 10 other people present. Do you have a problem with 10 When was that review, these things? 11 that? 11 A. In the past two days. 12 MR. BULLION: I don't understand 12 Q. On your affidavit, you repeatedly referred 13 what you're asking. Ask the question -- ask the 13 to what plaintiffs' requested, either referred to 14 question and I will -- 14 plaintiffs' request or plaintiffs' request for 15 BY MR. GUERRA: 15 documents or plaintiffs' request for production. Do 16 Q. When you -- did you speak with anybody about 16 you remember that? 17 the subject tire other than the experts or the 17 A. I do. 18 attorneys? 18 Q. Did you have an opportunity to participate 19 A. Not to my recollection. 19 in the answers to those discovery requests? 20 Q. Okay. Anybody else, Michelin employee that 20 A. At times I go and look at the technical 21 is not an attorney or an expert retained for this 21 information and help ifthere are questions regarding 22 case? 22 the tires, technical information. 23 A. Not that I recall. 23 Q. Did you do that in this specific case? 24 Q. Anybody at MARC? 24 A. It's very likely that I did. I don't have a 25 A. Not that I recall. 25 specific memory of that.

Page 43 Page 45 1 Q. Okay. Anybody at the headquarters? 1 Q. Okay. Did you -- is there a person -- when 2 A. Not that I recall. 2 a discovery request like this comes in, is there a 3 Q. Okay. Anybody of your co-workers that is 3 specific person that is in charge of that within your 4 not an attorney within your Litigation Department? 4 department? 5 A. Not that I recall. 5 MR. BULLION: Don't answer that. 6 Q. And you understand that I'm talking about 6 MR. GUERRA: And by that, what is 7 the subject tire, right? 7 your objection, Tom? 8 A. I do. 8 MR. BULLION: Work product. 9 Q. All right. Any -- any -- any e-mails or 9 MR. GUERRA: Okay. 10 text messages with anybody that is not an attorney 10 MR. BULLION: And also, I sent-- 11 regarding this subject tire? 11 we responded to your Notice, and Texas law is 12 A. Not that I recall. 12 very clear, you can't do discovery about 13 Q. Did you review any documents in preparation 13 discovery, and you're -- that's what you're 14 for this deposition? 14 attempting to do. 15 A. I reviewed my affidavit. 15 MR. GUERRA: Discovery about 16 Q. Anything else? 16 discovery, what do you mean by that? I just want 17 A. I reviewed a 200 I data book. 17 to find out who is the person that gave the 18 Q. Anything else? 18 information. 19 A. That's all that I recall. 19 MR. BULLION: Texas case law is 20 Q. Any photographs? 20 very specific that discovery about discovery is 21 A. No. 21 not permitted. We've filed a response to the 22 Q. Any videos? 22 notice setting out the cases. 23 A. No. 23 MR. GUERRA: No, I mean, I have 24 Q. Any documentation for Michelin that was 24 never seen your response but, you know, I take 25 produced in this case, other than this, these two 25 your word for it, but -- when did you do it?

' -- < " ' . "- ____ _::- _- __, __ ,._ - .. . ... . ·... -

12 (Pages 42 to 45)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 46 Page 48 1 MR. BULLION: Yesterday. 1 BY MR. GUERRA: 2 MR. BULLION: Oh, okay. 2 Q. Is -- is anybody -- when a request like this 3 MR. BULLION: I will forward it to 3 comes in that is non-legal, no lawyers, no 4 David. 4 paralegals, and don't even work in the legal 5 MR. GUERRA: Thank you so much. 5 department that is tasked with obtaining the 6 But the reality is that, you know, the affidavit 6 information? 7 is about the discove1y responses, and that's why, 7 MR. BULLION: Don't answer that. 8 you know, I am entitled to ask questions about 8 MR. GUERRA: Same objection, Tom? 9 it, but -- 9 MR. BULLION: Yes. 10 MR. BULLION: You're entitled to 10 MR. GUERRA: Thank you. 11 ask questions about the affidavit, no question. 11 BY MR. GUERRA: 12 But when you get into the process of us 12 Q. Concerning this specific request made by 13 responding to your discovery requests or the work 13 plaintiffs, were you the person assigned within 14 done to look for documents or any of that, that's 14 Michelin to obtain the information in response to 15 not permitted under Texas law. 15 discovery requests? 16 MR. GUERRA: I -- I disagree with 16 MR. BULLION: You're talking 17 you but, you know, I -- you know, you make an 17 about -- are you talking about what -- what -- 18 objection. I'm sure you're going to abide -- 18 are you talking about your discovery request? 19 abide by the objection of your attorney. 19 MR. GUERRA: Yes. 20 THE WITNESS: I am. 20 MR. BULLION: Don't answer that. 21 MR. GUERRA: Okay. I'm not going 21 He's not going to talk about any of the -- any of 22 to argue about it here, for sure. 22 the -- what was done to respond to your discovery 23 BY MR. GUERRA: 23 requests; it's not fair game. 24 Q. Mr. Price, other than the attorneys, when a 24 MR. GUERRA: Okay. I just want 25 request for documentation like the plaintiffs did on 25 the identity of the person.

Page 47 Page 49 1 this case comes into your office, is that a Senior 1 MR. BULLION: Okay. 2 Technical Adviser or anybody else that is not an 2 MR. GUERRA: And you object to 3 attorney or a paralegal that is assigned to respond 3 that? 4 to that discovery? 4 MR. BULLION: Yes. 5 MR. BULLION: Don't answer that. 5 MR. GUERRA: On the same basis? 6 MR. GUERRA: Okay. Same 6 MR. BULLION: Yes. 7 objection, Tom? 7 MR. GUERRA: Work product, 8 MR. BULLION: Yes. 8 attorney-client privilege? 9 MR. GUERRA: Okay. 9 MR. BULLION: Right. And the 10 BY MR. GUERRA: 10 cases cited in our response. 11 Q. And do you understand that my question is 11 MR. GUERRA: Okay. Thank you so 12 related to non-legal attorneys or paralegals; you 12 much. 13 understand that, right? 13 Can I get you some water? 14 A. I do. 14 THE WITNESS: My bottle's down 15 MR. GUERRA: And your objection 15 there. I don't need it right now but -- I'm 16 stands? 16 okay. 17 MR. BULLION: Yes. 17 MR. GUERRA: Tom, can we get that 18 MR. GUERRA: You make -- okay. 18 water for your man. Thank you so much? 19 MR. BULLION: Eve1ybody in the 19 MR. BULLION: Here's your water, 20 Legal Department that does this works for the 20 my man. 21 lawyers. 21 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 22 MR. GUERRA: Okay. 22 MR. GUERRA: Good move. 23 MR. BULLION: They're all 23 Are you going to drink it? 24 representatives of lawyers. 24 THE WITNESS: I am. 25 MR. GUERRA: Okay. 25 MR. GUERRA: We'll stop it for a

13 (Pages 46 to 49)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 50 Page 52 1 second so we don't do a Rubio. 1 work and Ms. Helms' work? 2 THE WITNESS: I'm fine right now. 2 A. Some of which on here came from Ms. Helm. 3 BY MR. GUERRA: 3 Q. And the document was sent to you by e-mail? 4 Q. All right. Did you write your affidavit? 4 A. As I recall, yes. 5 A. I did. 5 Q. All right. You have never worked in Dothan? 6 Q. Okay. The affidavit was written by 6 A. I have never had a position in Dothan. 7 yourself; you typed it out? 7 Q. You never had a position in Dothan in the 8 A. I would say that there were parts of this 8 plant itself? 9 that I did not type. And I was given a framework. 9 A. Correct. 10 But I did the work and did the lion's share of the 10 Q. Or in the office? 11 material that's in it. 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. Who gave you the framework? 12 Q. You never worked on the assembly line in 13 A. Kate Helm. 13 Dothan? 14 Q. By "framework," what do you mean? 14 A. That's correct. 15 A. Well, the header, for example; the very 15 Q. Or in any other plant of Michelin? 16 ending; and then some of the points that needed to be 16 A. Could you clarify the question? 17 covered in response to the discovery that I did. 17 Q. You never had a position as assembly line 18 Q. Did you -- so would you be kind enough to 18 workers? 19 tell me which is your work within the affidavit? 19 A. I have never been a tire builder. 20 A. Well, the majority of what's here would be 20 Q. That's right. 21 directly from me. It's -- so it's difficult to 21 You've never been a class spector? 22 select out. It's more along the lines of points that 22 A. That's correct. 23 needed to be developed is what I'm referring to as a 23 Q. You've never been a rubber formulator? 24 framework. 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. How can we -- how can we figure out what was 25 Q. You've never been a licensed chemist?

Page 51 Page 53 1 exactly your work and what was the framework? I 1 A. I don't know what the term means. 2 mean, do we have any physical evidence of that that 2 Q. Chemical engineer. 3 we can go track down? 3 A. I'm a chemical engineer. 4 A. No. We would have to go line by line, and 4 Q. Licensed chemical engineer? 5 the majority of it is going to be my work. The 5 A. I'm a degreed chemical engineer. 6 framework is, you know, would be along the lines of 6 Q. You're not licensed as a Professional 7 we need infotmation about LTX tires LTX MIS tires 7 Engineer? 8 from 2001, and then I did the work and wrote the 8 A. That's correct. 9 document in terms of that factual information. 9 Q. That's right. 10 Q. Would you say that the affidavit -- would 10 You never created any chem stock formulas 11 you call it your own original document? 11 for Michelin? 12 A. I would. 12 A. I did not. 13 Q. With your own original thoughts? 13 Q. You have never been a professional tester of 14 A. Yes. The inf01mation in here is from me. 14 Michelin's tires? 15 Q. With your original sentences? 15 A. I don't recognize that term. 16 A. Yes. 16 Q. But you have never been one, right? You 17 Q. And your own original ideas? 17 don't test? You never tested the LTX MIS prior to 18 A. Yes, with guidance on what ideas needed to 18 its releasing to the market? 19 be covered. 19 A. Not in that tire line, no. 20 Q. How were you provided that framework? 20 Q. Okay. You've never been an adjustment data 21 A. As I recall, I was given the beginnings of 21 inspector? 22 this document, the header and the footer, and then 22 A. That's correct. 23 some points in it that are really no longer here 23 Q. You've never been a designated Michelin 24 other than in the framework. 24 inspector at these designated inspection centers? 25 Q. So the document is a combination of your 25 A. That's correct.

14 (Pages 50 to 53)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 54 Page 56 1 Q. You didn't write the aspect specifications? 1 A. That's correct. 2 A. That's correct. 2 Q. You are not one of them, right? 3 Q. You didn't write the technieal notes? 3 A. That's correct. 4 A. That's correct. 4 Q. Michelin also has chemists that do chem 5 Q. You didn't author or write the tire 5 stock formulations and rubber formulations, right? 6 non-conforming procedures? 6 A. I don't know what their backgrounds are but 7 A. That's correct. 7 there are people that work for Michelin that 8 Q. You didn't write or author the general 8 formulate mixes. 9 principles? 9 Q. You are not one of them? 10 A. That's correct. 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. You didn't write or author the adjustment 11 Q. What do you call those folks? 12 data codes? 12 A. Formulators. 13 A. That's correct. 13 Q. Do you know any of them? 14 Q. You didn't set up the adjustment data 14 A. Not personally. 15 policies? 15 Q. Do you know their names? 16 A. That's correct. 16 A. Fotmulators for what? 17 Q. You didn't author the owner's manuals for 17 Q. For skim stock or for rubber. 18 the LTX or any other Michelin tire? 18 A. For what rubber? 19 A. I'm not familiar with what document you're 19 Q. LTX MIS tires? 20 referring to. 20 A. L TX MIS tires have dozens of different 21 Q. The Passenger and Light Truck Tire Owner's 21 rubber components -- 22 Manual of Limited Warranty, you never authored that? 22 Q. I understand. This subject tire. 23 A. That's correct. 23 A. -- that are formulated by different people. 24 Q. For the LTX MIS line or any other line? 24 I don't know the formulators in 2001. 25 A. That's correct. 25 Q. Tell me the name of any formulator that you

Page 55 Page 57 1 Q. You didn't write or author any of the 1 know here that works on LTX MIS -- 2 adjustment data manuals of Michelin? 2 MR. BULLION: You're talking about 3 A. That's correct. 3 the 2001 time frame or what? 4 Q. You didn't author or write any of the tire 4 MR. GUERRA: No. JustfortheLTX 5 inspection procedures? 5 MIS line. 6 A. I'm not sure I know what -- 6 TIIE WI1NESS: I don't know the 7 Q. The tire inspection procedures forthe 7 names of the formulators that worked on the 8 adjustment data samples. 8 formulas and the compounds in the LTX line -- the 9 A. Correct. 9 LTXMIS line. 10 Q. You didn't write any of the Michelin tire 10 BY MR. GUERRA: 11 limited warranties? 11 Q. Anything. 12 A. That's correct. 12 A. Not that I recall, no. 13 Q. You didn't design the LTX MIS tires? 13 Q. They're still manufactured today, right? 14 A. I did not design the LTX MIS tires, correct. 14 A. There may be an LTX MIS tire manufactured 15 Q. Okay. There are people that do that or did 15 today, but I'm not ce1iain of that. That line is -- 16 that at Michelin? 16 is generally not in production today. 17 A. There were, yes. 17 Q. TheLTXMIS2? 18 Q. Who, who are they? 18 A. There is a LTX MIS2. 19 A. I know that Paul Northrup was a tire 19 Q. Do you know any of the formulators or their 20 designer on that tire line. 20 identity? 21 Q. Anybody else? 21 A. Not specifically. 22 A. Not that comes to mind. 22 Q. Not a single one? 23 Q. But you are not one of those folks, right? 23 A. Not that comes to mind for the LTX MIS2 24 A. Not for the LTX MIS tire line, cotTect. 24 line, no. 25 Q. Michelin also has tire builders, right? 25 Q. Or the LTX MIS tire line?

15 (Pages 54 to 57)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 58 Page 60 1 A. No. 1 A. People in the compounding plant and 2 Q. All right. What about tire builders? Tell 2 compounders. 3 me the name of anyone that worked on the LTX MIS 3 Q. Could you repeat that? I couldn't hear you. 4 line. 4 I apologize. 5 A. I don't know the name of the tire builder 5 A. I said people in the compounding plant or 6 that I know worked on the LTX MIS line. 6 compounders. 7 Q. What about-- Michelin has class spectors, 7 Q. Where is the compounding plant located? 8 right? 8 A. There are several. 9 A. In the plant there are class spectors, yes. 9 Q. Is there one here in Greenville? 1O Q. You are not one of them and you've never 10 A. There is not. 11 been one of them? 11 Q. So where are they located, tell me, please. 12 A. I have not been a class spector in a plant. 12 A. Anderson, South Carolina. 13 Q. Anddid you know the name of any of the 13 Q. Where else? 14 class sectors at Dothan? 14 A. Starr, South Carolina. 15 A. I don't recall the name of a class spector 15 Q. Anything else? 16 at Dothan. 16 A. Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 17 Q. Michelin also has adjustment data 17 Q. Anymore? 18 inspectors, right? 18 A. Ardmore, Oklahoma; Fort Wayne, Indiana; 19 A. That's correct. 19 Pictou, Ontario, Canada. 2O Q. You are not one of them? 20 Q. That's it? 21 A. That's correct. 21 A. That's all that I am aware of in North 22 Q. Tell me the name of any adjustment data 22 America. 23 inspectors in any of the designated inspection 23 Q. Do you know the name of any compounder or 24 centers. 24 people that work on the compounding plant that know 25 A. I do not know any. 25 the skim stock fo1mula for this subject tire?

Page 59 Page 61 1 Q. Okay. Michelin also has employees that 1 A. I do not. 2 write and set forth manufacturing design and design 2 Q. Who would you go to find that information? 3 processes, procedures and techniques for the LTX MIS 3 How would you go about it? 4 line; you are not one of them? 4 A. I would contact somebody in the compounding 5 A. I don't think there are any such documents, 5 department at MARC. 6 as I understood your question. 6 Q. Who would that be? 7 Q. Myfault. 7 A. It depends on the compound. 8 Michelin has employees that write and set 8 Q. For this specific one. 9 manufacturing and design processes, procedures and 9 A. Which specific one? 10 techniques for the LTX MIS line, right? 10 Q. Skim stock for the subject tire. 11 A. I am not aware of any documents that are 11 A. I believe the manager of that group is 12 specific to the LTX MIS line. 12 Bergman. 13 Q. And that is because? 13 Q. Would you speak-- say it again? 14 A. Those types of documents are used on all 14 A. I believe his name is Bergman, is the 15 tire lines. 15 manager of the group that compounds tires like that. 16 Q. That's right. 16 Q. What is that group called? 17 You do not know the skim stock formula for 17 A. I don't know. It would be in the Materials 18 this subject tire, right? 18 Compounding Group or Formulating Group. 19 A. That's correct. 19 Q. Marking the materials, Compounding or 20 Q. You -- but there's folks within the company, 20 Formulating Group at MARC? 21 within Michelin, that know that, right? 21 A. That's correct. 22 A. There would be people in the company that 22 Q. And it would -- the last name is Bergman? 23 have access to that. 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. And what -- who would that be? Who would 24 Q. And the first name? 25 those people be? 25 A. It's -- I can't recall his first name, as I

16 (Pages 58 to 61)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 62 Page 64 1 sit here. 1 be made, so it's part of the manufacturing process, 2 Q. Okay. All right. What about the rubber 2 right? 3 formulator for the tread, who would you -- how would 3 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 4 you go about finding out who would know that formula? 4 TIIE WITNESS: It's used in the 5 A I don't know who's in compounding for tread. 5 inspection of the finished product. 6 Q. How would you go about finding him? 6 BYMR. GUERRA: 7 A I would ask someone at MARC in the 7 Q. Okay. Do you know what an aspect 8 compounding area. 8 specification is? 9 Q. Who would that be? 9 A. I do. 10 A Certainly Bergman is one that I could go to 10 Q. All right. But you never used it to -- in 11 that would point me in the right direction. 11 the process of building a tire? 12 Q. He is the manager, that's what you guys call 12 A. I don't think that's accurate. 13 it? 13 Q. You have used it? 14 A He is a manager in that area. 14 A. I have, at times. 15 Q. All right. Your work is related to 15 Q. In the building of a tire? 16 litigation nowadays within Michelin? All your work 16 A. I have, at times, applied aspect 17 related to litigation nowadays as a Michelin 17 specifications, read aspect specifications, I've 18 employee? 18 looked at tires. 19 A I didn't understand the question. 19 Q. Looked at what? 20 Q. All of your work as a Michelin employee in 20 A. Looked at finished tires in part of my 21 the Legal Department related to litigation? 21 training, I have. 22 A That's correct. 22 Q. But you have never built a tire? 23 Q. Helping defend Michelin in cases? 23 A. I have not built a tire that was intended 24 A I'm not sure what you mean by that. 24 for public sale, that's c01Tect. 25 Q. Michelin gets sued and you help defend 25 Q. That's your business, right? That's

Page 63 Page 65 1 Michelin? 1 Michelin's business? 2 A. I work on these cases, yes. 2 A. That is Michelin's business. 3 Q. On behalf of Michelin? 3 Q. And you have never done that? 4 A. That's correct. 4 A. I have not built a tire that was intended 5 Q. Today, on this case, you're here on behalf 5 for sale, correct. 6 of Michelin? 6 Q. In fact, you told me you never -- you never 7 A. lam. 7 worked in an assembly line for Michelin ever, right? 8 Q. As a Michelin employee? 8 A. I never worked as a tire builder. 9 A. That's correct. 9 Q. At a Michelin assembly line? 10 Q. Your entire testimony or affidavit, all of 10 A. That's correct. 11 it provided here as a Michelin employee? 11 Q. Not in Dothan, not anywhere? 12 A. That's correct. 12 A. As a tire builder, that was never my role. 13 Q. You never used an aspect spec to build a 13 Q. That's right, as a tire builder; is that 14 tire? 14 accurate? 15 A. I don't understand the question. 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. You never used an aspect specification of 16 Q. Again, not -- let's make it correct. Let's 17 Michelin to build a tire? 17 make it accurate. You never worked in the Michelin 18 A. An aspect specification is not used to build 18 assembly line as a tire builder in any Michelin plant 19 a tire. 19 in the United States? 20 Q. It's to inspect at the end of the building 20 A. That was never my job to be a tire builder 21 process, right? 21 in a Michelin plant. 22 A. That's correct. 22 Q. ls that a yes or no? 23 Q. So it's part of it, right? 23 A. It's yes. 24 A. It's an inspection of the finished tire. 24 Q. You cetiainly did not design or build any 25 Q. Yes. And alterations may be made, fixes may 25 LTX M/S tire similar to this one?

17 (Pages 62 to 65)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 66 Page 68 1 A. I don't know that that's accurate to say. 1 MIS tire. 2 When I began work as a tire designer at MARC, I may 2 Q. So it would be one? One? 3 have been assigned certain LTX MIS tires, especially 3 A. I only recall one. 4 as -- in the early parts of my training, but I did 4 Q. In this case, you have been designated out 5 not design the subject tire in this case. 5 of the thousands and thousands of employees of 6 Q. So you designed similar ones? 6 Michelin in South Carolina to be the guy to talk 7 A. I designed Michelin light truck SUV tires. 7 about secrets, Michelin secrets, right? 8 Q. Is that a yes, similar ones? 8 A. Correct. 9 A. They would have been different in their 9 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 10 design, but they would have been tires intended for 10 BY MR. GUERRA: 11 the SUV light truck market. 11 Q. All right. And what we're talking about is 12 Q. So have you ever designed or built a LTX M/S 12 documents that Michelin wants to keep away from the 13 tire similar to this one? 13 public, correct? 14 A. I had responsibility for converting a design 14 A. These are documents that are trade secrets, 15 of an LTX MIS from OE to replacement. I do not 15 proprietary and, yes, would cause harm to Michelin if 16 remember the size, and I don't think it was this 16 they were in the public. 17 dimension. 17 Q. Those are specific documents that you speak 18 Q. So you know that you have done that because 18 of in your affidavit that Michelin wants to keep away 19 you say you may or may not, but you know that you 19 from the public eye? 20 have done that? 20 A. They are company trade secrets that could do 21 A. I know that I converted a tire early in my 21 harm to Michelin if they were in the public, 22 tire design experience from the OE market design to 22 available to our competitors, that's correct. 23 the replacement market design as basically part of my 23 Q. I got your answer. Do you say your peace? 24 introduction into the tire design business, and it 24 So my question is: Michelin wants, 25 was an LTX MIS tire. 25 intentionally and cautiously, to keep them away from

Page 67 Page 69 1 Q. When was that? 1 the public? 2 A. It would have been in the 2007 time frame. 2 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 3 Q. 2007? 3 THE WITNESS: To keep them away 4 A. Correct. 4 from our competitors. 5 Q. Where would you go about finding your output 5 BY MR. GUERRA: 6 ship, those documents? 6 Q. Not from the public? I can have them? 7 A. I -- I don't -- I don't know that there 7 MR. BULLION: Objection. 8 would be documents, but ifI created the 8 THE WITNESS: No. 9 specification, there would a specification. 9 BY MR. GUERRA: 10 Q. So how would you go about finding that? 10 Q. Okay. So it wants to keep them away from 11 A. I would have to ask someone in the 11 the public, from the consumer? 12 specifications group. 12 A. That's not the object. The objective is to 13 Q. Who would you ask? 13 keep them away from competitors. 14 A. I would probably ask Carla. 14 Q. No, that's -- that -- the result is that 15 Q. Carla Wingate? 15 you -- the public does not see them, right? 16 A. Con-ect. 16 A. These are trade secrets documents, they're 17 Q. And what would we ask about? 17 proprietaty documents, and there's always a chance 18 A. Well, I don't know exactly what she would 18 that they could leak to competitors. 19 need to know. My question to her would be: Are you 19 Q. Yeah, I understand that. But they are not 20 able to search the specifications and find a 20 what you -- what Michelin does is does not make them 21 specification with -- 21 available to the public, to the consumers, right? 22 Q. Forwhat? 22 MR. BULLION: Objection; fotm. 23 A. -- with my name on it for an LTX M/S tire. 23 Luis, if I could, if you would let him finish his 24 Q. Since then, have you worked-- 24 answer -- 25 A. I don't recall ever working on another LTX 25 MR. GUERRA: Yes.

> --

18 (Pages 66 to 69)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 70 Page 72 1 MR. BULLION: --you're -- you're 1 A. Any company document is what I would refer 2 kind of getting going fast -- 2 to. 3 MR. GUERRA: Yes. 3 Q. But that includes the aspects specifications 4 MR. BULLION: -- and you have that 4 used by the class spectors? 5 tendency, so let him finish -- 5 A. They are company documents, yes. 6 MR. GUERRA: No problem. 6 Q. Those are some of the company documents 7 MR. BULLION: -- if you don't mind 7 Michelin keeps secret? 8 before you -- before you start the next question. 8 A. That's correct. 9 MR. GUERRA: No problem. 9 Q. Okay. Patent non-conforming procedures; 10 MR. BULLION: Thank you. 10 those are some of the documents that Michelin keeps 11 BY MR. GUERRA: 11 secret. 12 Q. Your answer was "yes," right? 12 A. Those ru·e Michelin company documents, yes. 13 A. You will have to repeat the question. 13 Q. All right. General principles, those are 14 Q. There are documents that Michelin 14 some of the documents that Michelin keeps secret? 15 intentionally and purposefully keeps them away from 15 A. Those are company documents, yes. 16 the public eye? 16 Q. Adjustment data, those are some of the 17 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 17 documents that you claim Michelin keeps secret? 18 TIIB WITNESS: Michelin protects 18 A. That's company data, yes. 19 them and keeps them away from anyone outside the 19 Q. All right. Adjustment document policies, 20 company. 20 right? 21 BY MR. GUERRA: 21 A. That's correct; those are company documents. 22 Q. Including the public? 22 MR. GUERRA: We need to go off the 23 A. They would be outside of Michelin; that's 23 record, Tom, the tape is about to be over. 24 correct. 24 MR. BULLION: Okay. 25 Q. Including the American consumer, right? 25 TIIB VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off

Page 71 Page 73 1 A. That's correct. 1 the video record of media number one at 10:52. 2 Q. And you talk about-- you make a comment on 2 (A recess was taken.) 3 your affidavit about patents, right? Do you remember 3 TIIB VIDEOGRAPHER: This is media 4 that comment that you made? 4 number two of the video deposition. Going back 5 A. Not specifically. Could you refer to me -- 5 on the video record at 11 :03. 6 to what line you're referring? 6 MR. GUERRA: Thank you. 7 Q. You specifically talk about Michelin not -- 7 BY MR. GUERRA: 8 A. Yes. 8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Price. 9 Q. -- patenting. 9 Some of the documents that Michelin wants to 10 A. Ido. 10 keep secret are the physical evidence that 11 Q. And the reason is is because patent 11 Michelin -- strike that. 12 documents are public documents, right? 12 Some of the physical evidence and documents 13 A. That's conect. 13 that Michelin keeps secret and away from the public 14 Q. So what you're saying is that to keep them 14 includes manufacturing specifications? 15 away from the public eye and public disclosure, 15 A. Manufacturing -- 16 Michelin does not even patent some of its processes 16 MR. BULLION: Objection. 17 and procedures? 17 Objection; fotm. 18 A. Michelin designs its own processes and 18 TIIB WITNESS: -- specifications 19 procedures, and they are company secrets that would 19 are trade secrets and proprietary information; 20 do us hatm if they were in the public; that's 20 that's correct. 21 correct. 21 BY MR. GUERRA: 22 Q. And that would include, concerning the 22 Q. And those ru·e kept secret and away from the 23 documents that we're talking about here, and that's 23 public by Michelin? 24 what you're talking about is this aspects 24 MR. BULLION: Objection. 25 specifications used by the class spectors, right? 25 TIIB WITNESS: Absolutely. They .· . . · ..

19 (Pages 70 to 73)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 74 Page 76 1 are trademark-- or I'm sorry. They are 1 formulas kept away from the public, they're kept 2 proprietary and trade secret information. 2 away from almost all internal Michelin employees. 3 BY MR. GUERRA: 3 BY MR.· GUERRA: 4 Q. I got that. 4 Q. What is your level of security clearance? 5 And Michelin keeps that secret and away from 5 A I am not aware of such levels. 6 the public? 6 Q. You call it heightened protection? What is 7 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 7 the level of your heightened protection security 8 BY MR. GUERRA: 8 clearance? 9 Q. Yes or no? 9 A I don't know what's meant by that question. 10 A. Yes. 10 Q. Have you ever read an aspect specification? 11 Q. All right. Specification changes -- 11 A. Ihave. 12 A. Yes. 12 Q. It tells you right on there, level of 13 Q. -- Michelin keeps that secret and away from 13 protection, heightened security. Do you have that -- 14 the public? 14 what is your clearance level? 15 A. Specifications are proprietary information, 15 A To my knowledge, that information is put on 16 they're trade secrets of Michelin, and, yes. 16 documents as they're produced outside of~e company, 17 Q. And Michelin uses its designation of 17 not internally. 18 trade -- trade secrets concerning this information 18 Q. Produced outside. Okay. 19 and documents to keep them away from the public? 19 What about the -- you just told me, Luis, 20 MR. BULLION: Objection to form. 20 I -- there's people in the company that only certain 21 BYMR. GUERRA: 21 people have access to certain areas. What are those 22 Q. Yes or no? 22 areas? Go ahead, Mister -- 23 A. These documents are trade secrets, they are 23 A I didn't understand your question. 24 proprietary information, and they are designated as 24 Q. Oh, no problem. 25 such to protect them from anyone outside the company, 25 You told me, Luis, in fact, there's areas of

Page 75 Page 77 1 competitors. 1 the company that only certain people has access to. 2 Q. And as such, Michelin keeps these documents 2 You just told me that. 3 and physical information away from the public? 3 A. You asked me a question about the compound 4 A. That's correct 4 fo1mulas, and I said they are not available to most 5 MR. BULLION: Object to the form. 5 people inside the company. 6 BY MR. GUERRA: 6 Q. But on your affidavit, you specifically 7 Q. All right. Testing and design related 7 talked about certain areas. Do you remember that? 8 documents requested by us, plaintiffs in this 8 A. Yes. 9 discovery, Michelin keeps them secret and away from 9 Q. All right. Tell me those areas, please. 10 the public? 10 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. I 11 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 11 don't understand what you're asking. 12 THE WITNESS: Those documents are 12 MR. GUERRA: In his affidavit, 13 trade secrets, they're proprietary information, 13 Mr. Price states that certain areas of the 14 yes -- 14 company are restricted and only available to 15 BY MR. GUERRA: 15 certain people. 16 Q. And as such -- 16 MR. BULLION: Certain areas or 17 A -- and kept from the public. 17 certain documents? 18 Q. I'm sorry? 18 MR. GUERRA: Areas. Areas. 19 A. They're kept out of the public, that's 19 THE WITNESS: So MARC is only -- 20 correct. 20 is restricted to people that have access to MARC, 21 Q. All right. The formulas, asked by 21 and then within MARC, there are areas that are 22 plaintiffs, Michelin keeps them secret and away from 22 restricted to people that have access to those 23 the public? 23 areas. 24 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 24 BY MR. GUERRA: 25 THE WITNESS: Not only are 25 Q. That's the areas that I'm asking about.

20 (Pages 74 to 77)

Alderson Repmting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 78 Page 80 1 What are those areas? 1 Q. So it's the level ofrestriction? 2 A. I don't know all of those areas. 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. Tell me the ones you know, please. 3 Q. And that's your level of clearance too, D3? 4 A. I know The Lab where we store -- stored the 4 You got access to D3 documents? 5 subject tire, for example, has limited access. 5 A. There is not an assigned level of clearance 6 Q. And you have access to it? 6 that I'm aware of. It would depend on the job at the 7 A. I do. 7 time, the needs of that job. Certainly I would have 8 Q. Who else has access to it? 8 access to D3 documents. 9 A. The attorneys and the other technical 9 Q. You would? 10 advisers in the group. 10 Which areas of the company don't you have 11 Q. So the Legal Department people have access 11 access at MARC? 12 to it? 12 A. Well, I have given you an example of one 13 A. That's my understanding, yes. 13 that I know of. 14 Q. Okay. Any other areas that you discussed 14 Q. Okay. 15 included on the areas that you discussed on your 15 A. I don't have access to the -- to the 16 affidavit that are those areas that only limited 16 computers that house the formulation information, for 17 people have access to it? 17 example. 18 A. There are other areas. 18 Q. And they are located at? 19 Q. Would you please tell me. What are those 19 A. AtMARC. 20 areas? 20 Q. Where? 21 A. I know there is an area where machine 21 A. I don't know where the computers are 22 development is being done; that area is limited. 22 located. 23 Q. Do you have access back there? 23 Q. What department? 24 A. I do not. 24 A. I don't know what department they're in. 25 Q. You do not? Who does have access to that 25 Q. Okay. Who would know that?

Page 79 Page 81 1 area? 1 A. I don't know who would know that. 2 A. I do not know. 2 Q. How would you go about finding out? Who 3 Q. For instance, the aspect specification that 3 would you ask? 4 were produced in this case have Michelin restricted 4 A. I wouldn't know where to begin with that 5 section. 5 particular question. 6 A. May I see it? 6 Q. So how do you know that the computers are 7 Q. I'm going to show you one that doesn't have 7 even at MARC? 8 my writing. Okay? 8 A. Well, I know that the formulators work at 9 A. Okay. 9 MARC, and ifI had a question about a fotmula and I 10 Q. Do you see that? 10 were to call a formulator, they would access the 11 A. Yes. 11 inf01mation through the computer. 12 Q. What is that? 12 Q. And you would go to Bergman? 13 A. That is the classification of the document 13 A. For the compound that we discussed, I would. 14 asD3. 14 Q. What about for formulations? 15 Q. As Michelin restricted, so D3 is what? 15 A. For the formulation of that compound that we 16 A. I don't remember the exact language that 16 discussed earlier, that's correct. 17 goes with the D3 classification. 17 Q. From the formulation of the -- of the tread, 18 Q. Tell me a -- give me your best shot. 18 the rubber compound or the skim stock, that would be 19 A. It would be a document that would not be 19 Bergman? 20 allowed outside the company. 20 A. Not all of those different compounds, no. 21 Q. That's all? 21 Q. FortheLTXM/S. 22 A. People that had access to it would not be 22 A. It wouldn't be specific to a tire line. 23 allowed to take it outside the company; in other 23 Q. So how would you go about, other than 24 words, they would only be able to use it at their 24 Bergman, to find out? 25 place of work. 25 A. I don't know. I know because of the skim

21 (Pages 78 to 81)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 82 Page 84 1 stock question that you asked me about that Bergman 1 BY MR. GUERRA: 2 is the person that I would ask. 2 Q. Yes or no, sir? 3 Q. What other formula do you know out of MARC? 3 A. That's trade secret and proprietary and, 4 A I don't -- another name of a formulator -- 4 yes, we keep it secret. 5 Q. Yes. 5 Q. Yes, sir. I got it, I got your speech. And 6 A -- doesn't come to mind. 6 you can keep doing it, and that's fine, but I want to 7 Q. Not a single -- 7 tell you, that I'm -- I will play this tape to the 8 A And in what time period, for what -- 8 Jury. You understand that? I'm asking you for a 9 Q. Right now. 9 simple answer, yes or no. You understand that, 10 A I don't know of another formulator's name 10 right? 11 right now. 11 A. I do. 12 Q. Who runs the Formulation Department? 12 Q. All right. 13 A I don't know. 13 MR. BULLION: Your questions are 14 Q. Who is the Manager of the Formulation 14 argumentative. When you say "secret," it's 15 Department? 15 argumentative, and he can -- he's entitled to 16 A I don't know who manages the Formulation 16 answer it the way he wants to. 17 Department. 17 MR. GUERRA: Is that your 18 Q. Who is director of the Formulation 18 objection? 19 Department? 19 MR. BULLION: Ttying to help you 20 A I don't know the answer to that. 2.0 out. 21 Q. Okay. How would you go about finding out? 21 MR GUERRA: I don't need your 22 Who would you ask? 22 help. 23 A I could ask Mr. Bergman, perhaps he would 23 MR. BULLION: You don't? 24 know. 24 MR. GUERRA: I don't need your 25 Q. All right. Okay. Tire adjustment 25 help, but you are entitled to make objections.

Page 83 Page 85 1 processes, it's a type of information and physical 1 MR. BULLION: I have been. 2 evidence that Michelin keeps secret? 2 MR. GUERRA: But that's not a 3 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 3 proper objection. 4 THE WITNESS: That information is 4 MR. BULLION: Okay. 5 confidential and trade secret, proprietary 5 BY MR. GUERRA: 6 information, that's correct. 6 Q. Who would be the tire adjustment analysis 7 BY MR. GUERRA: 7 person that you would speak to if you needed to 8 Q. Just a yes or no. That's information that 8 obtain information about it? 9 Michelin keeps secrets, right, sir? 9 A. With regards to? 10 A. It is. 10 Q. Tire adjustment, tire adjustment codes, tire 11 Q. All right. Tire adjustment analysis, that's 11 adjustments. 12 infotmation that Michelin keeps secret? 12 A. For what time period? 13 A. That is proprietary and trade secret 13 Q. Analysis, market research, changes on the 14 information, yes. 14 design, who would you go talk to for the LTX MIS? 15 Q. Yes or no, sir? 15 A. For the tire made in 2001, for example? 16 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 16 Q. For example. 17 BY MR. GUERRA: 17 A. Probably Tom Gruenholz. 18 Q. That tire adjustment analysis is information 18 Q. Okay. And after 2001, who would you talk 19 that Michelin keeps secret? Yes or no, sir? 19 to? 20 A. I'm sony, would you repeat the question? 20 A. I don't -- I would go talk to Tom Gruenholtz 21 Q. Tire adjustment analysis information and 21 if I had questions about that. 22 physical evidence is information and physical 22 Q. Does he still work for the company? 23 evidence that Michelin keeps secret? 23 A. He does not work; he is retired. 24 MR. BULLION: Objection. 24 Q. So tell me a guy that works for the company 25 25 that you would go talk to.

22 (Pages 82 to 85)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 86 Page 88 1 A. I don't have a name of a person that I would 1 Q. Yesterday, a year ago, two years ago, 2 go talk to today. 2 anybody else in -- 3 Q. How would you -- 3 A. When I was a tire designer at MARC, I would 4 A. That I know, I would -- 4 go to Larry Mimms, and he is retired; he is no longer 5 Q. How would you go find out about it? 5 with the company. 6 A. If I needed to know that, I would go to that 6 Q. What's his name? 7 department and ask. 7 A. Larry Mimms. 8 Q. And that department is? 8 Q. Okay. Anybody else? Somebody that works 9 A. QTB. 9 for the company, because they do still have people 10 Q. And who would be the person that you would 10 that work in the Tire Adjustment Department, right? 11 talk with at QTB? 11 A. There are certainly people in that area. I 12 A. I don't know who's there now. 12 don't know the name of the person in that area. 13 Q. Who would you ask for? Who would you know 13 Q. Not a single one? 14 that was there before? 14 A. Not that I can recall as I sit here. 15 A. I knew Tom Gruenholtz when he was there. 15 Q. With all your non-litigation experience with 16 Q. Would you go about and ask -- how would you 16 the company, you can't still tell me a single one, 17 go about -- who would you ask for at QTB, even if you 17 right? 18 don't know a name? Can I speak with? 18 MR. BULLION: Objection; fonn. 19 A. It depends on the question that I wanted an 19 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 20 answer to, and I'm not clear what -- what I'm 20 BY MR. GUERRA: 21 hypothetically looking for. 21 Q. And now with the legal experience within the 22 Q. Tire adjustment analysis, tire adjustment 22 company, you cannot tell me also any other name than 23 changes, tire adjustment trims. 23 Tom Guenholtz and Larry Mimms, both of them prior 24 A. I don't know what tire adjustment changes 24 employees, not current employees? 25 are. 25 A. To answer your question --

Page 87 Page 89 1 Q. Forget that one. So the other two. 1 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 2 A. There is not a person that I know of in the 2 THE WITNESS: -- the question that 3 QTB department that -- 3 you asked me about, that's correct, I don't know 4 Q. I understand that. Who would you ask for? 4 who is in that role. 5 Is there a job title? You have been working with the 5 BY MR. GUERRA: 6 company-- 6 Q. I asked you in 2001, I asked you since 2001 7 A. I would ask for -- I would ask for who 7 up to today. No other names? 8 managed that department. 8 A. I gave you the ones that I can recall, yes. 9 Q. And who is that manager? 9 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 10 A. I don't know who currently manages -- 10 BY MR. GUERRA: 11 Q. How would you find out who is the manager? 11 Q. No othernames, right? 12 A. I would go to that department and ask. 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. So the only person that you, under oath, and 13 Q. Now, manufacturing and inspection processes 14 you even though you have been working with the 14 and procedures, this is also information that 15 company for -- let me check here. Even though you 15 Michelin keeps secret and away from the public, yes 16 have been working with the company since the year of 16 or no, sir? 17 2000 and-- 1999, since 1999, the only person that 17 MR. BULLION: Objection; fonn. 18 you could.tell me the name in the adjustment 18 THE WITNESS: That information is 19 department is Tom Gruenholtz that stopped working 19 trade secret and proprietary and we do keep it 20 there six years ago? 20 secret. 21 A. He's the one that I would go to if I had a 21 BY MR. GUERRA: 22 question about tires that were made in the -- in the 22 Q. Secret and away from the public? 23 LTX MIS, which is what you asked me. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Ask you nowadays, too. 24 Q. Tire production information is also 25 A. I don't know who's there today. 25 infonnation and physical evidence that Michelin keeps

23 (Pages 86 to 89)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 90 Page 92 1 secret and away from the public? 1 documents and trade secrets? 2 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 2 BY MR. GUERRA: 3 THE WITNESS: That infotmation is 3 Q. Trade -- trade secret policies. Not the 4 trade secret and proprietary, and we do keep it 4 documents. The policies about what is trade secret 5 away from the public, yes. 5 and what is not. 6 BY MR. GUERRA: 6 A. I'm not aware of who would have written the 7 Q. Keep it secret and away from the public, 7 policy, if one exists. 8 con-ect, sir? 8 Q. Certainly not you? 9 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 9 A. That's con-ect. 10 THE WITNESS: We do keep it away 10 Q. And certainly it's not willy nilly. It has 11 from the public, yes. 11 to be some kind of framework, right? 12 BY MR. GUERRA: 12 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 13 Q. All right. And I'm just going down your 13 BY MR. GUERRA: 14 affidavit. You see that, right? 14 Q. Or you guys keep all secret, all information 15 A. I understand. 15 secret? There has to be some framework, right? 16 Q. Concerning our specific requests, MNA design 16 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 17 and manufacturer specification, manufacturers, that's 17 BY MR. GUERRA: 18 information that Michelin ~eeps secret and away from 18 Q. To decide what is trade secret and what is 19 the public? 19 not, right? 20 A. That information -- 20 A. I'm not sure that I'm understanding your 21 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 21 question. 22 THE WITNESS: -- is trade secret 22 Q. But let me make it clear for you. It's 23 and proprietary and we do keep it out of public, 23 okay. There has to be some kind of policy at 24 yes. 24 Michelin that decides what documents are to be -- 25 25 will be classified as trade secrets and keep secret

Page 91 Page 93 1 BY MR. GUERRA: 1 as opposed to ones that are not, con-ect? 2 Q. Keep it away, secret and away from the 2 A There would be a policy that would define 3 public, right? 3 how -- and I should -- I don't like the word define 4 MR. BULLION: Objection; fotm. 4 because I haven't seen the document -- but that would 5 BY MR. GUERRA: 5 describe which types of documents, for example, would 6 Q. Correct? 6 be D3, as you pointed to one previously. 7 A. Yes. 7 Q. And which documents would be trade secret. 8 Q. All right. Now, you are not the author of 8 A That's con-ect. 9 the policies concerning trade secret information 9 Q. You are not the author of those policies? 10 within Michelin? 10 A Right, I am not. 11 A. That's correct. 11 Q. Okay. And how would you go about getting 12 Q. Somebody else is? 12 those documents and talking to the person that 13 A. I am not aware of a singular policy. 13 authored them or are responsible for them? 14 Q. Not singular policy. Policies, all the 14 A I don't know. 15 policies related to trade secrets. There has to be 15 Q. How would you go about fmding out? 16 some creator, some author of it, right? 16 A I'm not sure how I would go about fmding 17 A. So what is the question, please? 17 out. I would ask the attorneys if they knew who 18 Q. The question is: How would you go about 18 authored those documents. 19 finding that person, or those persons or that 19 Q. Okay. And by "attorneys," you mean? 20 committee or who they are, their identity? 20 A The folks that I work with in the Legal 21 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 21 Department. 22 THE WITNESS: I don't really know 22 Q. Suchas? 23 how to answer that question because you're -- 23 A Any of the attorneys in the Legal 24 you're not telling me about a specific document; 24 Department. 25 you're talking about all company confidential 25 Q. Nicole?

24 (Pages 90 to 93)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 94 Page 96 1 A She could be one, yes. 1 A. I did. 2 Q. Is that Mrs. Buntin? 2 Q. You did say this: Information that we have 3 A Yes. 3 here is infotmation that Michelin intentionally, 4 Q. Okay. I apologize. Mrs. Buntin would be 4 cautiously, in a premeditated manner, keep secret and 5 one of the people that you would talk to? 5 away from the public? 6 A That I would ask, but I don't -- I don't 6 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 7 know who would know. 7 THE WI1NESS: The information is 8 Q. Ms. Foster? 8 trade secret, proprietary, and we do keep it out 9 A Perhaps. 9 of the public, yes. 10 Q. Okay. All right. Adjustment processes and 10 BY MR. GUERRA: 11 analysis, that's information that Michelin keeps 11 Q. And you do keep it away from the public 12 secret and away from the public? 12 intentionally, right? 13 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 13 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 14 TIIE WITNESS: That infmmation is 14 BY MR. GUERRA: 15 trade secret and proprietary and, yes, we do keep 15 Q. Thought out, premeditated? 16 it away from the public. 16 A. Me personally? 17 BY MR. GUERRA: 17 Q. You are the face of the company on this. 18 Q. Keep it secret and away from the public, 18 You are the secrets man here. 19 correct? 19 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 20 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 20 THE WI1NESS: These documents are 21 BY MR. GUERRA: 21 company trade secret documents, they're 22 Q. Correct? 22 proprietary, and we keep them out of the public, 23 A Yes. 23 yes. 24 Q. Manufacturing and inspection processes and 24 BY MR. GUERRA: 25 procedures, that's information that Michelin keeps 25 Q. And you understand that plaintiffs -- you

Page 95 Page 97 1 secret and away from the public? 1 understand that plaintiffs -- you read the discovery 2 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 2 requests, you have been involved in this litigation, 3 THE WITNESS: That information is 3 right? 4 trade secret, proprietary, and we do keep it 4 A. I am familiar with some of the discovery 5 away. 5 requests, that's conect. 6 BY MR. GUERRA: 6 Q. You know -- sony. 7 Q. Michelin keeps it secret and away from the 7 And you know that those folks are just 8 public, co!Tect? 8 folks, right, just common folk? 9 A That's correct. 9 A. I don't know to whom you're refening. 10 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 10 Q. My clients, Sam and Obdulia, right; just 11 BY MR. GUERRA: 11 folks? 12 Q. And you understand this is specifically 12 A. Okay. 13 related to requests on this case? You understand 13 Q. Right? 14 that, right? 14 A. I don't know them. 15 A No, I don't understand your statement. 15 Q. Do you know that they work for a competitor? 16 Q. It's paragraph 43 of your -- 16 A. No, I don't know that. 17 A That's correct. 17 Q. All right. Has anybody told you that they 18 Q. -- affidavit? 18 are working for a competitor? 19 And that paragraph reads -- specifically 19 A. No, no one's told me that. 20 relates to plaintiffs' request, yes. 20 Q. Just common folk, and that's common folk 21 A 43 does refer to plaintiffs' request for 21 that is asking for these documents, not competitors. 22 manufacturing specification, that's correct. 22 And you guys intentionally, Michelin intentionally 23 Q. You did write that? 23 keeps all this information from these folks, right? 24 A I did. 24 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 25 Q. All right. You did review it? 25 THE WI1NESS: These documents are

25 (Pages 94 to 97)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 98 Page 100 1 proprietary, trade secret and, yes, we keep them 1 role. 2 out of the public. 2 BY MR. GUERRA: 3 BYMR. GUERRA: 3 Q. You never heard, nobody has ever told you 4 Q. Not only the public. Your first -- your 4 that they are competitors, right? 5 first story was it's because of our competition. I'm 5 A. No one's ever told me that. 6 telling you, we're no competition. My people are 6 Q. Nobody told you that they work for a 7 just common folk. The lady that I represent is 7 competitor tire manufacturer, right? 8 quadraplegic. We are saying, we need these documents 8 A. Correct, no one's told me that. 9 to prove our case. And you're saying, on behalf of 9 Q. Nobody -- nobody told you that they ever 10 Michelin, here today and in your affidavit, we will 10 worked for a dealer, a tire dealer manufacturer or a 11 not give these documents that I am enumerating here 11 tire dealership, right? 12 because they are secret and we keep them away from 12 A. No one has ever told me that, that's 13 the public, right? 13 correct. 14 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 14 Q. In your affidavit, you say "we," and by 15 BY MR. GUERRA: 15 "we," you understand that I am talking about 16 Q. Right? 16 Michelin, right? 17 A. I'm saying that these documents are trade 17 A. I do. 18 secret, proprietary, and they are not out in the 18 Q. And by "we," you understand that out of the 19 public, that's correct. 19 thousands of employees that Michelin has in its 20 Q. ·Not even to your clients, Luis, right? 20 company, they didn't designate you for anything but 21 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 21 for to talk about the secrets of Michelin. You 22 BYMR. GUERRA: 22 understand that? 23 Q. Not even to your clients, right? That's 23 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 24 what you're telling me? 24 THE WITNESS: I understand that I 25 A. I believe that we have turned over many 25 wrote an affidavit regarding Michelin's trade

Page 99 Page 101 1 documents related to the subject tire, and that's -- 1 secret, proprietaty infmmation. 2 Q. I get it. You are aware that many other 2 BY MR. GUERRA: 3 documents that I have asked and I've been fighting in 3 Q. They come to you -- they came to you to ask 4 court for, you have not turned away, right? 4 you to write that affidavit, correct? 5 A. I'm aware of that, yes. 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. And you know that I represent people that 6 Q. You are the chosen one, right, to talk about 7 are not competitors. You know that. 7 the secrets? 8 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 8 A. To write this affidavit, I was asked to do 9 THE WITNESS: These documents are 9 that; that's correct. 10 proprietary -- 10 Q. Nobody else in the company; you, you, 11 BY MR. GUERRA: 11 Mr. Price. 12 Q. I didn't ask you for that. 12 A. That's correct. 13 A. -- trade secret -- 13 Q. All right. And then you go on, and you -- 14 Q. I asked you: You know that the people that 14 when I read this affidavit, I get the impression that 15 I represent are not competitors of Michelin, right? 15 this is done intentionally; am I incorrect? 16 MR. BULLION: Objection; form 16 MR. BULLION: Objection; fmm. 17 THE WITNESS: Any chance those 17 THE WITNESS: The writing of 18 documents have of getting out into the public 18 the -- 19 could be a risk to the company, yes, sir. 19 BY MR. GUERRA: 20 BY MR. GUERRA: 20 Q. The keeping -- 21 Q. Okay. That's not what I asked. I asked 21 A. -- affidavit was intentionally -- 22 you: Do you know that the people that I represent 22 Q. The keeping the documents secret, that's the 23 are not competitors of Michelin, yes or no? 23 gist of your affidavit. 24 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 24 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 25 THE WITNESS: I don't know their 25

26 (Pages 98 to 101)

Alderson Rep01ting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 102 Page 104 1 BY MR. GUERRA: 1 that's too much, maybe you should have written 2 Q. This is done intentionally. Michelin does 2 less, or he should have written less. 3 this on purpose, right? 3 MR. BULLION: Ask him about his 4 A. Those documents are trade secrets, they're 4 affidavit. 5 proprietary, and they're not out in the public. 5 MR. GUERRA: I'm asking. This is 6 Q. And it's done intentionally and 6 straight out of his affidavit. That was 7 purposefully. That's my question, sir; yes or no? 7 paragraph 41, paragraph 43. I don't have much 8 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 8 more to go, and you're telling me that he can't 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 9 answer those questions. 10 BY MR. GUERRA: 10 BY MR. GUERRA: 11 Q. All right. And it's done in a thought-out 11 Q. All right. Be that as it may, let's talk 12 manner and in a premeditated manner. 12 about the intentional actions of Michelin to protect 13 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 13 its secrets. 14 BY MR. GUERRA: 14 You said an eight-foot high Cyclone topped 15 Q. Right? 15 with barbed wire fence. That's one of the steps that 16 A. There is a policy about how to assign trade 16 Michelin takes actively to keep the secrets away from 17 secret status to documents, yes. 17 the public? 18 Q. We do that way thought out, and we say, we, 18 A. There is a security fence around the MARC 19 Michelin say, these documents we're going to keep 19 campus, that's correct. 20 hidden and away from the public? 20 Q. No, no. You say it's to protect the 21 MR. BULLION: Don't answer. Don't 21 secrecy. 22 answer any more questions about this. You have 22 A. That's correct. 23 asked this at least 20 times, and it's beyond 23 Q. And this is -- this is your words, right? 24 harassing. He's not going to answer any more 24 A. It is. 25 questions about that. 25 Q. I didn't make this up, right?

Page 103 Page 105 1 MR. GUERRA: Harassing, that's 1 A. That's colTect. 2 such a strong word, Tom. 2 Q. I had no involvement on your affidavit, 3 MR. BULLION: It seems to be 3 right? 4 harassing to me, it's -- 4 A. That's colTect. 5 MR. GUERRA: No, it's not -- no, 5 Q. It was you and your attorney, right, that 6 it's not harassing. 6 wrote the affidavit? 7 MR. BULLION: Don't answer any 7 A. I wrote this document. 8 more questions. 8 Q. It was you and Michelin's attorneys that 9 MR. GUERRA: We're here and we're 9 came up with the affidavit, right? 10 relaxed. We're talking about -- you're smiling. 10 A. I wrote the affidavit. 11 THE WITNESS: I'm on camera. 11 Q. You told me part. You can tell me what Kate 12 MR. GUERRA: Thank you, buddy. 12 did, but part, framework, right? 13 Thank you for you help, Tom. 13 A. I told you specific parts that she wrote. 14 MR. BULLION: It wasn't really in 14 She wrote the header at the top of the document, the 15 an effmt to help you. I'm just tired of -- I'm 15 footer at the bottom of the document and, yes, there 16 tired of listening to the same questions over and 16 was some framework information that went along with 17 over and over again, and your -- and your tone 17 it. 18 and -- I just think you've beat the dead horse 18 Q. In fact, you said there was more stuff, 19 completely. 19 right? You said there was more stuff than just the 20 MR. GUERRA: Come on, you're 20 footer and the other. 21 calling Mr. Price a dead horse? Come on, that's 21 A. I said there was framework for the document, 22 unfair and maybe rude. I would say that's rude, 22 that's correct. 23 Tom. But I'm just going down his affidavit. I 23 Q. But you said, I can't give you the physical 24 don't know how many times he wrote it. I'm just 24 evidence of what she gave me, right? 25 reading the different paragraphs. If you think 25 A. The physical evidence is here in the

27 (Pages 102 to 105)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 106 Page 108 1 affidavit. These were the areas that were identified 1 right? I had no input on the way you wrote that. 2 as being detailed information. 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. No, no. Before you wrote it, I want to see 3 Q. Other folks did. You and Michelin folks 4 the framework. 4 did, right? 5 A. I don't have that document. 5 A. I wrote the document. 6 Q. I get it. 6 Q. With the framework, right? 7 Now -- but what I'm saying is that you had 7 A. That's correct. 8 the opportunity and the availability of Michelin 8 Q. And then you seek advice from those 9 Legal Department concerning your affidavit, right? 9 attorneys, right? 10 You had the opportunity to talk to them anytime you 10 A. I didn't characterize it that way. 11 wanted about it? 11 Q. You didn't? 12 A. Certainly. 12 A. They were involved in the process. I talked 13 Q. And you did have the opportunity and you did 13 with them. 14 speak with them about it. 14 Q. Igetit. 15 A. Yes. 15 But you had the opportunity and the 16 Q. All right. And then you had the opportunity 16 availability of all these folks to talk to about your 17 to prepare for this deposition about this affidavit, 17 affidavit, right? 18 right? 18 A. I'm not sure which folks and at what time 19 A. Yes. 19 you're referring to now. 20 Q. And you talked to your attorneys, you talked 20 A. Since you wrote the affidavit, since before 21 to Nicole, right? 21 you wrote the affidavit up to today. 22 A. Yes. 22 A. Okay. Those people weren't all involved in 23 Q. You talked to Kate Helm? 23 writing the affidavit, no. 24 A. Yes. 24 Q. No. They were involved in writing the 25 Q. You talked to the lady from Chicago? 25 affidavit and preparing for the depositions about the

Page 107 Page 109 1 A. Yes. 1 affidavit, right? 2 Q. You talked to the gentleman from Florida? 2 MR. BULLION: Object to form. 3 A. I did. 3 THE WITNESS: I don't think they 4 Q. You talked to Mr. Bullion? 4 were all involved in preparing me for the 5 A. I did. 5 affidavit. 6 Q. You had a meeting that lasted an entire day 6 BY MR. GUERRA: 7 about it, right, from nine to four? 7 Q. And for preparing for the deposition 8 A. The meeting was that long. 8 concerning the affidavit? 9 Q. Okay. With five attorneys. 9 A. I don't believe they were all involved in 10 A. That's cotTect. 10 preparing me for the deposition or the affidavit. 11 Q. From Michelin, right? 11 Q. Okay. All right. And you also had the 12 A. Correct. 12 opportunity in preparing your affidavit to talk to 13 Q. I ce1iainly had nothing to do with your 13 the formulators and the compounders and the class 14 affidavit, right? 14 spectors and the designing of the tire, you had that 15 A. That's correct. 15 opportunity if you wanted to? 16 Q. Or they, right? 16 A. If I needed to for the information that I 17 A. Except that it's written in response to your 17 put in the affidavit, I had the opportunity. 18 discovery request. 18 Q. But you didn't. Those folks you didn't talk 19 Q. No. But I didn't. No. So I chose the 19 to. 20 words that you put in the affidavit, I chose the 20 A. I didn't need to to have the information 21 information to be put on the affidavit? 21 that I needed for the affidavit. 22 A. No. 22 Q. Sir, just answer my question. You didn't 23 Q. I chose how you wrote it? 23 speak to any single worker in design, build, class 24 A. No, it's based on your discovery request. 24 spec, inspector, this subject tire for your 25 Q. Yeah, but it has nothing to do with me, 25 affidavit, right?

,' '- -- '._-_-- -: .. ..

.

28 (Pages 106 to 109)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 110 Page 112 1 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 1 keep the secrecy, right, sir; that's what you wrote? 2 THE WITNESS: It was not necessary 2 A. And that's the process by which we keep the 3 that I speak to any of those people to prepare 3 secrecy is limiting access through this turnstile, 4 this affidavit. 4 for example. 5 BY MR. GUERRA: 5 Q. I'm just reading what you wrote. You don't 6 Q. Yes or no, did you speak with any of them? 6 like what you wrote, that's no problem, but I am 7 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 7 reading what you wrote, right? 8 THE WITNESS: It was not necessary 8 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 9 and I did not. 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 BY MR. GUERRA: 10 BY MR. GUERRA: 11 Q. You did not? 11 Q. And what you say is that access turnstile 12 A. That's correct. 12 and badge reader, right? 13 Q. I don't know your couch and your words, just 13 A. That's correct. 14 yes you did or no you didn't. If you did, I would 14 Q. All right. And did you write the policy 15 like to know. That's all my question is. 15 concerning the turnstile and the badge reader? 16 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 16 A. No. I wrote no policy with regards to the 17 BY MR. GUERRA: 17 turnstile or the badge reader. 18 Q. If you don't, just say, Luis, I didn't. 18 Q. Who wrote that policy? 19 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 19 A. I don't know. 20 BY MR. GUERRA: 20 Q. Did you talk to him? 21 Q. You didn't, right? 21 A. No. 22 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 22 Q. All right. Did you talk -- did you order 23 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 23 the fence, the Cyclone fence? 24 BY MR. GUERRA: 24 A. No. 25 Q. You talked to attorneys, right? 25 Q. Who ordered that?

Page 111 Page 113 1 A. I did. 1 A. I do not know. 2 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 2 Q. Did you talk to him, to the person that 3 BY MR. GUERRA: 3 ordered it? 4 Q. You got the framework from attorneys? 4 A. I did not talk to anyone about ordering the 5 MR. BULLION: Objection; fmm. 5 Cyclone fence. 6 THE WITNESS: I did. 6 Q. Did you talk to anybody that set the policy 7 BY MR. GUERRA: 7 toward that specific eight-foot high Cyclone fence to 8 Q. All right. Now let's go back to the 8 keep the secrets out? 9 thought-out, premeditated actions taken by Michelin 9 A. I did not talk to anyone about ordering the 10 to protect its secrets. 10 eight-foot high Cyclone fence. 11 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 11 Q. To keep the secrets in. I apologize. No 12 BY MR. GUERRA: 12 doubt, you understood the question. 13 Q. In addition to the Cyclone fence, you say 13 A. To limit the access to the facility, yes. 14 there is a limited access turnstile and badge reader; 14 Q. No. To keep the secrets in. You said to 15 is that correct? 15 protect its secrecy, right? The Cyclone fence is to 16 A. That's correct. 16 protect the secrecy, right? 17 Q. To keep the secrets protected? 17 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 18 A. That's correct. 18 THE WITNESS: It is. 19 Q. All right. 19 BY MR. GUERRA: 20 A. And to control access to the facility. 20 Q. That's what you wrote. 21 Q. No, no, no, no, no, no, that's not what you 21 The security gate's manned Monday through 22 said. You said on your paragraph 47, the step that 22 Friday, 6:30 to 5:00 p.m., patrolled by security at 23 MNA has in place to protect the secrecy of its 23 all other hours, weekends and holidays. 24 confidential design and developmental information 24 Did you talk to those folks? 25 include, not limited, not access to the facility, to 25 A. I have at times talked to people in

29 (Pages 110 to 113)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 114 Page 116 1 security, yes. 1 Q. Is there a facility manager? 2 Q. For this affidavit? 2 A. I am certain that there is and I am certain 3 A. No, I did not. 3 that they would know. 4 Q. All right. For this deposition? 4 Q. Whoisit? 5 A. No, I did not. 5 A. I do not know. 6 Q. All right. For the guy that wrote the 6 Q. How would you go about finding out? 7 policy about the manned gates from Monday through 7 A. I'm not sure. I would ask the attorneys if 8 Friday? 8 they knew who the facility manager is. 9 A. No, I'm not aware of any such -- 9 Q. Oh, the attorneys that are your co-workers? 10 Q. Who is that person? 10 A. Yes. 11 A. I don't know who that person would be. 11 Q. Okay. What about the personnel with 12 Q. All right. Who is the person that wrote the 12 heightened security access, does everybody that works 13 policy about vendors not allowed on the MNA premises? 13 with you have heightened security access? 14 A. I do not know. 14 A. The folks that work with me in my group have 15 Q. Did you speak with him? 15 access to that lab, the attorneys and the other 16 A. Ididnot. 16 technical people. 17 Q. Did you look at the policy? 17 Q. I'm just using your words. Paragraph 47, 18 A. I did not. 18 the subsection J, you use the words "heightened 19 Q. Okay. 19 security access," and that's why I am using that. 20 A. I am not aware that there is a policy other 20 You understand that, right, Mr. Price? 21 than security guidelines. 21 A. I do understand. 22 Q. All right. Have you seen those? 22 Q. So who -- does everybody that works with 23 A. I have not. 23 you -- I mean, let's start small. The two other 24 Q. Certain areas of the MARC campus are 24 folks that are the Technical Adviser and the 25 accessible only to MARC personnel with heightened 25 Technical Director over Litigation, do they have

Page 115 Page 117 1 security access. Do you have that heightened 1 heightened security access? 2 security access? 2 A. I'm not familiar with the term "heightened 3 A. I think that would depend on the area. And 3 security access" except that certain areas are only 4 I mentioned one earlier, for example, The Lab where 4 accessible to certain people, that context they have 5 we had the subject tire in this case stored, I had 5 heightened security access. I don't know every area 6 access to; most would not. 6 that has that, and I don't know every person that has 7 Q. Tell me -- tell me -- two questions. First, 7 access to those different areas. 8 what are the other areas, since you say several, what 8 Q. I'm not asking for every person. I'm just 9 are the other areas that are only accessible to 9 asking for the people that work with you. Because 10 certain people? 10 you say certain areas of the camp -- of the campus 11 A. Every building has badge access control. 11 are only accessible to MARC personnel with heightened 12 Q. You say certain areas. Not every building. 12 security access. You understand that I am reading 13 You say certain areas of the MARC campus are 13 exactly what you wrote, right? 14 accessible only to MARC personnel with heighten 14 A. I do. 15 security access. Who are those certain areas? Not 15 Q. And you understand the questions that I am 16 every building, certain areas. 16 asking is related to that, right? 17 A. I mentioned the area where machine 17 A. I understand that you asked me who all had 18 development is done. 18 heightened security access. 19 Q. What else? 19 Q. Not all, just the people that work with you, 20 A. I don't know the other areas. There are 20 right? There's thousands of employees, and I'm not 21 more, but I don't know them. 21 asking -- you understand that, right? 22 Q. Tell me their names. 22 A. I do now. 23 A. I don't know their names. 23 Q. Oh. I thought I made it clear that I was 24 Q. Who would know that? 24 talking about the folks that work with you. 25 A. I don't know. 25 So tell me about the guy -- the people that

0

30 (Pages 114 to 117)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 118 Page 120 1 work with you. Who -- who has heightened security 1 The Lab? You call it "Lab?" 2 access other than yourself? 2 A. That's correct. 3 A. To what area? 3 Q. Is there any other name than Lab? 4 Q. To these certain areas that you talk here on 4 A. Not that I'm aware of. 5 your affidavit. 5 Q. Lab department, lab building, laboratory? 6 A. I don't know what areas each individual has 6 A. We refer to it as The Lab. 7 access to. 7 Q. Okay. Thank you. 8 Q. Do you know if they have access to any area 8 You say also that MNA vendors sign 9 at all, the people that work with you? 9 confidentiality agreements before they are provided 10 A. As I mentioned earlier, the people that work 10 access to documents. Who are these vendors that 11 with me have access to The Lab where we stored the 11 you're talking about? 12 subject tire. 12 A. Any vendor ofMNA would have to sign a 13 Q. What about the other areas? 13 confidentiality agreement. 14 A. I don't know what other areas they may have 14 Q. That's great, but I want these vendors that 15 access to. 15 you're talking about. Vendors, what are the names? 16 Q. And other than The Lab that you what? You 16 A. I'm talking about anybody that provides 17 said The Lab that what? 17 products and services to Michelin that would come on 18 A. Where we stored the subject tire. 18 the facility grounds. 19 Q. The Lab that were -- the subject area. Do 19 Q. I get it. What's their names? Anyone. 20 you have access to any other areas of MARC with 20 A. I don't have a specific name. 21 restricted access? 21 Q. A single one? 22 A. I have access to other buildings at MARC 22 A. Any contractor doing work at the facility. 23 that have security badge, scanning security. 23 Q. Such as? 24 Q. Not security scan. I'm just reading your 24 A. I don't have the name of a contractor in 25 words. I mean, it doesn't seem that you know the 25 mind.

Page 119 Page 121 1 information that you wrote, because what I'm asking 1 Q. Anyone? You wrote it. 2 is: Do you have access to any other areas of MARC 2 A. I did. 3 only accessible to personnel with heightened security 3 Q. And I'm just asking for identity. 4 access? You told me The Lab. Any other areas with 4 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 5 this heightened security access at MARC that you have 5 Tiffi WITNESS: I don't know the 6 access to? 6 identity as I sit here. 7 MR. BUILION: Objection; form. 7 BY MR. GUERRA: 8 THE WITNESS: Every building that 8 Q. Okay. 9 has a badge reader to allow a person in has 9 A. And I would like to cotTect that answer -- 10 heightened security. 10 Q. Yes, please. 11 BY MR. GUERRA: 11 A. Because I have escorted external attorneys. 12 Q. So what are those buildings? 12 They would be considered vendors. 13 A. Another one that I have access to is a 13 Q. Okay. Such as? 14 building where the designers work. 14 A. Such as Tom Bullion. 15 Q. What's that called? 15 Q. Okay. Who else? 16 A. I don't know the name of the building. 16 A. Other attorneys that represent Michelin. 17 Q. Do you know the name of the department? 17 Q. Such as? 18 A. Tire Design. 18 A. I have escorted Marvin Quattlebaum. 19 Q. Tire Design. 19 Q. What else? Who else? 20 What else? What other areas or buildings? 20 A. I have escorted Ed Stewart. 21 A. Nothing that's coming to mind. 21 Q. Who else? 22 Q. Not a single one? 22 A. I don't recall any others as I sit here. 23 A. Not that I enter with a badge acces~, that's 23 Q. Towhere? 24 correct. 24 A. To The Lab. 25 Q. Okay. So the only areas that you know of is 25 Q. Where else?

31 (Pages 118 to 121)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 122 Page 124 1 A. That's the only location. 1 Michelin intentionally and cautiously keeps away and 2 Q. When have you done that? 2 secret? 3 A. When it was necessary in the case of 3 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 4 litigation. 4 BY MR. GUERRA: 5 Q. When was that? 5 Q. Right? 6 A. Monday morning. 6 A. Those documents are trade secret and 7 Q. Okay. 2015, October 19th? 7 proprietary and we keep them out of the public, yes. 8 A. That's correct. 8 Q. And secret, right? 9 Q. All right. When else? 9 A. They are, yes. 10 A. I don't recall specific dates. 10 Q. Keep them secret and away from the public, 11 Q. Who did you escort on October 19, 2015? 11 c01Tect? 12 A. Ed Stewart. 12 A. They are trade secret, yes. 13 Q. Who? 13 Q. And Michelin keeps them secret and away from 14 A. Ed Stewart. 14 the public, c01Tect? 15 Q. Who else? 15 A. That's correct. 16 A. He had an assistant with him. All I know, 16 MR. BULLION: Objection to form. 17 her name is Teresa. That's all I know. 17 MR. GUERRA: All right. Let me 18 Q. Who are those folks? 18 take, if that's okay, Tom, can I take five 19 A. They're attorneys that represent Michelin. 19 minutes? 20 Q. Both? 20 MR. BULLION: Yeah, sure. It's 21 A. Yes. 21 almost noon. Are we going to take a lunch break, 22 Q. All right. Who else? Who else in the year 22 or what are y'all doing? 23 of2015? 23 MR. GUERRA: No, I'm going to be 24 A. I don't remember specifically. 24 done. 25 Q. When did you escort Mr. Bullion to the -- to 25 MR. BULLION: Oh, you are?

Page 123 Page 125 1 the facility? 1 MR. GUERRA: Yeah. 2 A. I don't recall a specific date that I 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off 3 escorted him. 3 the video record at 11 :50. 4 Q. This year, 2015? 4 (A recess was taken.) 5 A. It may have been. 5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on 6 Q. 2014? 6 the video record at 12 o'clock. 7 A. It may have been. 7 BY MR. GUERRA: 8 Q. 2013? 8 Q. Thank you so much. Mr. Price, I think 9 A. It may have been. 9 you're going to make lunch. You'll be -- 10 Q. 2012? 10 A. Sounds good. I'm hungry. 11 A. It may have been. 11 Q. That's good. What do you recommend? Where 12 Q. 2011? 12 do we go? 13 A. No. 13 MR. BULLION: Two Chefs. 14 Q. Were you -- because you were not working 14 MR. SHAPIRO: That's what Judy 15 there. 15 said. 16 A. In that group, that's correct. 16 THE WITNESS: If you want -- if 17 Q. All right. All right. All right. Another 17 you want a hamburger, you go across the road to 18 type of information that Michelin takes active steps 18 Grill Marks. 19 to keep it hidden and secret from the public at 19 MR. GUERRA: Grill? 20 quality assurance processes, right? 20 THE WITNESS: Grill Marks. 21 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 21 MR. SHAPIRO: Judy said Nose Dive 22 THE WITNESS: That's correct; 22 had the best burger. 23 those documents are trade secret and proprietary. 23 THE WITNESS: Really? Everybody's 24 BY MR. GUERRA: 24 entitled to their opinion. 25 Q. And those are some of the documents that 25 MR. GUERRA: Right. So you said

32 (Pages 122 to 125)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 126 Page 128 1 this one and that one? 1 document plans. 2 MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. 2 A. There are thousands of them. 3 MR. GUERRA: Okay. First of all, 3 Q. Go ahead, tell me the ones you know. 4 are we on the record? 4 A. There are tire building work instructions 5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Yes. 5 for workplace tire building, and there are also other 6 BY MR. GUERRA: 6 buildings that they would use at their post 7 Q. All right. Thank you for coming today. It 7 associated with tire building. 8 was a pleasure talking to you. I hope I treated you 8 Q. Tell me -- tell me the names of all the ones 9 politely and kindly and that you appreciate this 9 you know. 10 conversation that we had; is that correct? 10 A. I don't know the names of the documents. 11 A. Those are your words, and I'm happy to be 11 They would be related to the quality control 12 here to help in any way I can. 12 standards and procedures that they're following. 13 Q. And I treated you politely and kindly? 13 Q. How big are they? 14 A. You did. 14 A. I don't know the exact size of the 15 Q. All right. If you will look at your 15 documents. 16 paragraph 57, Mr. Price, of your affidavit. 16 Q. How many pages? 17 A. Yes, sir. 17 A. I don't know how many pages. 18 Q. Just -- I just want to know ifl read -- if 18 Q. How many inches in height for this tire 19 what I'm going to read is correct. This is what you 19 building procedures that you're speaking of on 20 wrote on the first line: The divulgence ofMNA's 20 paragraph 58? 21 proprietary manufacturing and quality processes to 21 A. It would be hundreds and hundreds, if not 22 the public or to a competitor would cause an 22 thousands of pages of documents in total. 23 unacceptable high risk of irreparable harm and 23 Q. Okay. You told me one name of one document. 24 injury. That's your sentence, right? 24 Tell me other names that you know. You said that 25 A. That's correct. 25 there were thousands. Tell me any other name that

Page 127 Page 129 1 Q. And my point is, you have been telling Luis 1 you know of this building procedures. 2 about competitor, but the reality is that MNA, 2 A. Just the tire building procedures. 3 Michelin, keeps the information that we requested 3 Q. What are you talking-- 4 intentionally secret from the public itself, and you 4 A. There would also be second stage tire 5 wrote that in your affidavit. 5 building procedures and the -- 6 A. Idid. 6 Q. Whatelse? 7 Q. Thank you. 7 A. -- quality and process documents that go 8 Now, concerning -- all right. You say 8 along with those. 9 here -- you told me before, Luis, I never had a 9 Q. I'm sorry? 10 position, an employment position at the Dothan plant 10 A. The quality and process documents that go 11 in Alabama, and that's correct? 11 along with those. 12 A. That's correct. 12 Q. Such as? 13 Q. All right. You said MNA's building 13 A. I don't know the names of the documents, 14 procedures employ that the Dothan plant would 14 but-- 15 develop, in an extensive amount of time at tremendous 15 Q. More specific. More specifics, please, 16 expense. What are those procedures that you're 16 about the names of this tire building procedure. 17 talking about here? 17 A. I don't know the names of the documents. 18 A. Any procedures involved in the manufacture 18 There would be documents that total what tolerances, 19 of the tire, the quality process that we follow in 19 there would be documents that gave them the recipe 20 the plant, would be included in those documents. 20 for the specific tire they were building, the 21 Q. Tell me what they are. Tell me the names. 21 component patis and -- 22 A. I don't know the specific names of the 22 Q. Whatelse? 23 documents. 23 A. -- and the dimensions of those parts. 24 Q. Tell me any names of the documents of this 24 Q. What else? What other documents? You said 25 building procedures documents, any one of these 25 thousands. I mean, you have told me maybe five.

33 (Pages 126 to 129)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 130 Page 132 1 Tell me, please. 1 I wanted to ask them for documents accurately, how 2 A. Well, every tire would have -- that they 2 would you -- how would you describe them? 3 build would have different documents. So by the 3 A. The local tire building specifications. 4 volume of the different tire specifications they're 4 Q. Or the local tire building recipe? 5 building, there would be different documents 5 A. I don't know if they would use that term. 6 associated with those tires. There is all of the 6 Q. Where have you heard that term? 7 inspection documents -- 7 A. It's a term that's used within Michelin when 8 Q. Such as? 8 it's -- when you're discussing a list of products 9 A. We refer to the aspect specifications, for 9 that go into a component part. 10 example. 10 Q. Okay. Anything else that you want to add 11 Q. What else? 11 that I haven't asked you that you think is important 12 A. The procedures that they follow -- 12 for me to know? 13 Q. Such as? 13 A. Not that comes to mind. 14 A. -- when they inspect the tires. 14 Q. Anything else that I haven't asked you that 15 I don't know the name of the inspection 15 you believe it's important for the Jury? 16 procedures that they follow. 16 MR. BULLION: Objection; form. 17 Q. Who would know that? 17 THE WITNESS: Not that comes to 18 A. Someone at the plant would know the names of 18 mind. 19 those documents. 19 MR. GUERRA: It was a pleasure 20 Q. All right. What else, Mr. Price? You said 20 seeing you again, Mr. Price. I hope you have a 21 thousands of documents. You gave me maybe seven now. 21 wonderful lunch. 22 A. No. Those seven represent thousands of 22 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 23 documents. Just the aspect specs alone would be 23 MR. GUERRA: And that you have a 24 hundreds. 24 great week. 25 Q. How many aspect specs? 25 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

Page 131 Page 133 1 A. I don't know how many aspect specs there 1 MR. GUERRA: I hope that I will 2 are. 2 see you soon. Okay? 3 Q. You don't know? 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This then 4 A. Not an exact number, no. I know there would 4 completes our videotape -- 5 be hundreds. 5 MR. GUERRA: Oh, no. 6 Q. I know. I don't work for Michelin. You 6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: I'm sorry. 7 don't know? 7 MR. GUERRA: Hold on a second. 8 A. I don't know the exact number of aspect 8 Thomas? 9 specs, no. 9 MR. BULLION: I want to ask you 10 Q. Okay. What else? What about these recipes 10 just a few questions, Vandy. 11 that you're talking about, what do they look like? 11 EXAMINATION 12 A. They would be the local tire building 12 BY MR. BULLION: 13 specifications. 13 Q. One is: Mr. Gueffa asked you some questions 14 Q. And what do they look like? Describe them 14 about your job within the Legal Department. I just 15 for me physically, please. 15 want to ask you a couple follow-ups on that. 16 A. They would have the component patis that are 16 Do you work for and at the direction of 17 put in the tire and their specification measurements, 17 lawyers for Michelin North America? 18 for exatnple. And I don't know what all other 18 A. Ido. 19 information would be in those documents. 19 Q. And do you serve as a representative of the 20 Q. What are these recipes called? 20 in-house lawyers and sometimes the outside lawyers 21 A. Local specifications. 21 for Michelin in terms of your job as a Senior 22 Q. You refer to them as recipes. Why is that? 22 Technical Advisor? 23 A. It's another term for the component, the 23 A. Ido. 24 listing of the component parts that go into the tire. 24 MR. GUERRA: I'm sorry, Tom, what 25 Q. How would you describe them accurately? If 25 did you say? Can you -- can you repeat that

34 (Pages 130 to 133)

Alderson Repmting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 134 Page 136 1 question? I don't want him to answer, but can 1 BY MR. BULLION: 2 you be kind enough to tell me again? 2 Q. And -- and the -- one of the -- one of the 3 MR. BULLION: Just that he serves 3 reasons that you all designate documents as 4 as a representative for the lawyers, both the 4 confidential and certain trade secret protection for 5 internal lawyers and the outside lawyers. 5 documents that are -- that are either sought or 6 MR. GUERRA: Okay. 6 produced in discovery in lawsuit have to do with this 7 BY MR. BULLION: 7 concept that documents may get leaked or the cat 8 Q. Mr. Guerra asked you -- 8 might get out of the bag and you might not be able to 9 MR. GUERRA: Call me Luis, man. 9 put it back, fair? 10 MR. BULLION: Well, I think it's 10 A That's certainly a consideration, yes. 11 more appropriate I call you Mr. Guerra when I'm 11 Q. Now, with respect to your affidavit, it's 12 referring to you on the record, but -- 12 obviously very detailed; it's 17 pages long, and 13 MR. GUERRA: Call me Luis or 13 Mr. Guerra has asked you about some of the paragraphs 14 anything close to it. 14 but certainly not all of them. But in terms of the 15 BY MR. BULLION: 15 factual assertions that are included within your 16 Q. Mister -- Mr. Guerra asked you a whole bunch 16 affidavit, do you have support for each and every one 17 of questions about Michelin keeping documents hidden 17 of those? 18 and secret from the public. Do you remember 18 MR. GUERRA: Form. Form. 19 generally that series of questions? 19 THE WITNESS: Yes. 20 A I do. 20 MR. GUERRA: And leading. 21 Q. What I want you to do is, with regard to the 21 THE WITNESS: I do. 22 types of things that are referred to in your 22 BY MR. BULLION: 23 affidavit, information about Michelin's processes and 23 Q. And ifhe wanted to take you through 24 various documents, if you would, just explain why it 24 paragraph by paragraph through this affidavit and ask 25 is that it's important for Michelin to keep those, 25 you about that, he certainly would be entitled to do

Page 135 Page 137 1 the trade secret and the proprietary information that 1 it today? 2 you refe1red to, confidential. 2 A. Yes, he would. 3 A. My response to that would be that the tire 3 MR. BULLION: Okay. That's all I 4 indushy is extremely competitive, and the company 4 have. Thank you. 5 has invested hundreds of millions of dollars, we 5 EXAMINATION 6 invest hundreds of millions of dollars in research 6 BY MR. GUERRA: 7 and development every year, and the information that 7 Q. Do you have any physical evidence in this 8 we develop over time couldn't be known by our 8 report of your affidavit that would go with your 9 competitors without them doing the same work. And 9 affidavit that you brought here today with you? 10 that's why it's important that the company keep 10 A. I do not. 11 those -- that information and those documents secret. 11 Q. All right. And you understand by "physical 12 Q. And Mr. Guerra tried to make that point 12 evidence," I mean documentation as opposed to talk? 13 that, well, his folks aren't in the tire business, 13 A. I do. 14 they're just regular folks. Do you remember that? 14 Q. And you have none, right? 15 A. I do. 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. Is -- what-- in the -- in te1ms of 16 Q. All right. Now, the point that is made is 17 confidential business information or trade secret 17 that the reason for the secrecy is, as you say on 18 infmmation, once the cat is out of the bag, is 18 page 15, paragraph 57, that would be a direct 19 there -- is it possible to put the cat back in the 19 financial threat to MNA. Do you see that? 20 bag? 20 A Yes, Ido. 21 MR. GUERRA: It's always possible. 21 Q. You wrote that, right? 22 If it's a cat, you can do it. 22 A. I did. 23 THE WITNESS: Once that 23 Q. And that's the reason why; the secrets 24 information is out, it cannot be retrieved. 24 represent and information kept out would be a direct 25 25 financial threat to MNA.

35 (Pages 134 to 137)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 138 Page 140 1 A. That's correct. 1 Notice Date: November 4, 2015 2 Q. To Michelin. 2 Deposition Date: October 21, 2015 3 A. That's correct. 3 Deponent: Vaneaton Price 4 Q. Financial reasons. 4 Case Name: Medina and Obdula v. Michelin 5 A. That's correct. 5 North America, Inc. 6 MR. GUERRA: All right. Thank you 6 Page:Line Now Reads Should Read 7 so much. Hold on one second. 7 8 I'm sorry, say that again? 8 9 Hey, Tom, can I take a one-minute 9 10 break? 10 11 MR. BULLION: Sure. 11 12 MR. GUERRA: And it won't take me 12 13 much longer. 13 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the 14 15 video record at 12: 13. 15 16 (A recess was taken.) 16 17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on 17 18 the record at 12:14:45. 18 19 BY MR. GUERRA: 19 20 Q. Do you know the term freezing the kicker? I 20 21 didn't mean to go back, but I was -- David was 21 22 telling me something and we -- we had to talk about 22 23 it. 23 24 You didn't bring a single piece of physical 24 25 evidence with you today in support or as a basis or 25

Page 139 Page 141 1 foundation to your affidavit, right? 1 CERTIFICATE OF DEPONENT 2 A. Only the affidavit itself. 2 3 Q. No physical evidence? 3 I hereby certify that I have read and examined the 4 A. That's correct. 4 foregoing transcript, and the same is a true and 5 MR. GUERRA: Thank you so much. 5 accurate record of the testimony given by me. 6 EXAMINATION 6 Any additions or corrections that I feel are 7 BY MR. BULLION: 7 necessary, I will attach on a separate sheet of 8 Q. Did the note -- you saw the Notice of your 8 paper to the original transcript. 9 deposition to come here, Vandy? 9 10 A. I did. 10 11 Q. Did it -- did it have a request that you 11 Signature of Deponent 12 produce any documents at the time of the deposition? 12 13 A. It did not. 13 I hereby certify that the individual representing 14 MR. BULLION: That's all. 14 himself/herself to be the above-named individual, 15 MR. GUERRA: Thank you. 15 appeared before me this _ _ day of , 16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This then 16 2015, and executed the above certificate in my 17 completes our videotaped deposition. We've used 17 presence. 18 two media, and it lasted approximately two hours 18 19 and 16 minutes. We're going off the video record 19 20 at 12:16. 20 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR 21 (The deposition concluded at 21 22 12:16 p.m.) 22 23 23 County Name 24 24 25 25 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:

'· . . - . . .,' ,_ .' . · . . .

36 (Pages 138 to 141)

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Vaneaton Price October 21, 2015 Greenville, SC

Page 142

1 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 2 COUNTY OF SPARTANBURG 3 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 4 I, Rebecca L. Arrison, a Notary Public in and for 5 the State of South Carolina, do hereby certify that 6 there came before me on the 21st day of October, 2015, 7 the person hereinbefore named, who was by me duly 8 sworn to testify to the truth and nothing but the 9 truth of his knowledge concerning the matters in 10 controversy in this cause; that the witness was there 11 upon examined under oath, the examination reduced to 12 typewriting under my direction, and the deposition is 13 a trne record of the testimony given by the witness. 14 I further certify that I am neither attorney or 15 counsel for, nor related to or employed by, any 16 attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto or 17 financially interested in the action. 18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereto set my hand, 19 this 28th day of October, 2015. 20 21 22 23 Rebecca L. Arrison, Notary Public 24 My Commission Expires: 4/30/2017 25

-· -·- - - - - - -

37 (Page 142)

Alderson Repmting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY

11/30/2015 11:15:57 AM

FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK

NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA AND OBDULIA ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MEDINA, HUSBAND AND WIFE, ) INDIVIDUALLY; NATALYE MEDINA, ) INDIVIDUALLY; NAVIL GIBSON, ) INDIVIDUALLY, )

)

PLAINTIFFS, )

) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS VS. )

)

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; AND ) JOSE BUSTILLO D/B/A MUNDO CARS, AN ) IN STATE DEFENDANT, )

)

DEFENDANTS. ) 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION FOR BIFURCATED TRIAL

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW Michelin North America, Inc. (“MNA”), one of the defendants in the

above-styled and numbered cause, and respectfully requests the Court to bifurcate the

determination of the amount of punitive damages, if any, from all remaining issues in the trial of

this case. As grounds for this motion, MNA shows the Court as follows:

I.

Plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages from MNA in this case. A trial court, if

presented with a timely motion, shall bifurcate the determination of the amount of punitive

damages from the remaining issues. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 41.009. This Court

should bifurcate the determination of the amount of punitive damages, if any, to avoid prejudice,

further convenience, and promote the ends of justice.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, defendant Michelin North America, Inc.

prays that this Court enter an order bifurcating the determination of the amount of punitive

damages from all remaining issues and grant MNA such further relief to which it may be justly

entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, P.L.L.C. 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 472-0288 Telephone (512) 472-0721 Facsimile

By: /s/ Thomas M. Bullion III Thomas M. Bullion III State Bar No. 03331005 tbullion@germer.com Chris A. Blackerby State Bar No. 00787091 cblackerby@germer-austin.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

2

4547317

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 on this 30th day of November, 2015.

Luis P. Guerra Via E-Service and Facsimile David C. Shapiro Luis P. Guerra, L.L.C. 6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125 Phoenix, Arizona 85016

James B. Ragan Via E-Service and Facsimile Law Offices of James B. Ragan 723 Coleman Ave. Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

Noel Sevastianos Via E-Service and Facsimile Sevastianos & Associates, PC 120 S. Central Avenue, Suite 130 St. Louis, Missouri 63105

Jose Bustillo d/b/a Mundo Cars Via Regular Mail 6422 Day Street Dallas, Texas 75227

/s/ Thomas M. Bullion III Thomas M. Bullion III/Chris A. Blackerby

3

4547317

NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA AND OBDULIA ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MEDINA, HUSBAND AND WIFE, ) INDIVIDUALLY; NATALYE MEDINA, ) INDIVIDUALLY; NAVIL GIBSON, ) INDIVIDUALLY, )

)

PLAINTIFFS, )

) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS VS. )

)

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; AND ) JOSE BUSTILLO D/B/A MUNDO CARS, AN ) IN STATE DEFENDANT, )

)

DEFENDANTS. ) 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION FOR BIFURCATED TRIAL

On this day came to be considered Defendant Michelin North America, Inc.’s (“MNA”)

Motion for Bifurcated Trial. The Court is of the opinion that said motion is well taken and should

therefore be GRANTED in its entirety.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendant Michelin North America, Inc.’s Motion

for Bifurcated Trial is granted in its entirety, and that the determination of the amount of punitive

damages is bifurcated from all remaining issues in the trial of this case.

SIGNED this ______ day of __________________, 2015.

___________________________________

JUDGE PRESIDING

4

4547317

FILED

DALLAS COUNTY

11/30/2015 3:16:26 PM

FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK

NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA AND OBDULIA § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MEDINA, HUSBAND AND WIFE, § INDIVIDUALLY; NATALYE MEDINA, § INDIVIDUALLY; NAVIN GIBSON, § INDIVIDUALLY, § §

Plaintiffs, §

§

VS. § §

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC. AND § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS JOSE BUSTILLO D/B/A MUNDO CARS, § AN IN STATE DEFENDANT, § §

Defendants. § 134th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND SUPPLEMENT TO MICHELIN’S RESPONSE OPPOSING DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Defendant Michelin North America, Inc. (“MNA”) files this Motion for Stay of

Disclosure of Financial Information ordered to be produced under the Order re: November 3,

2015 Hearing, and Supplement to Response Opposing Disclosure of Financial Information, and

respectfully shows as follows:

I. Introduction

On November 21, 2015, this Court signed an order entitled “ORDER re: November 3,

2015 Hearing” (“Nov. 21 Order”) requiring MNA to “produce a Corporate Representative to

testify about the financial condition, wealth, assets, and financial statements of Michelin North

America, Inc.” MNA files this Supplement to its October 30, 2015 Response to Plaintiffs’ Short

Motion re: Michelin Employee with Most Knowledge about Financial Information, and objects

to such required disclosure as this information is highly confidential, trade secret information, as

evidenced by the affidavit of Marcel Chabot (attached as Exhibit A).

MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION – PAGE 1

After the hearing, a deposition notice was issued by Plaintiffs for a Corporate

Representative to testify about “the financial condition, wealth, assets, and financial statements

of Michelin North America, Inc. (attached as Exhibit B). A “request for production” was

included with the deposition notice seeking “Financial statements of Defendant Michelin North

America, Inc. from 1998 to 2014,” thus seeking an incredibly expansive production of fourteen

years of financial statements. Such information is clearly sought as a litigation strategy for

purposes of harassment and should not be allowed by this Court.

At the November 3, 2015 hearing, this Court orally ordered that the deposition on MNA’s

financials be taken, but “if [MNA] choses to seek the writ of mandamus, I will stay the discovery

on the net worth while you do that.” (Hearing at 32). Consequently, MNA requests a stay of the

Nov. 21 Order regarding MNA’s financial information, and also requests this Court to defer

discovery on MNA’s net worth until the second phase of the bifurcated trial.

II. MNA’s Financial Information is Highly Confidential, Trade Secret, and Unnecessary to Plaintiffs’ Case at this Juncture.

MNA demonstrated in its Response filed on October 30, 2015 that its financial

information is highly sensitive and confidential, and “disclosure of such information will result

in a grave risk to MNA and endanger MNA’s ability to remain financially competitive in a

highly competitive business environment.” Response at 6. This position is supported by the

affidavit of Marcel Chabot, which further states that MNA is not a publicly-traded company, and

therefore MNA does not make public SEC disclosures regarding its net worth, financial

condition, nor does MNA publish its financial statements. Aff. ¶ 3. MNA is a subsidiary of its

ultimate parent company, Compagnie Generale Des Establissements Michelin (“CGEM”), a

French corporation that is publicly traded on the Paris Stock Exchange. For accounting purposes,

MNA’s financial position is fully consolidated with CGEM’s financial position, and CGEM’s

MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION – PAGE 2 public filings reflect an overall picture of the Michelin Group of companies, and do not reflect

information on MNA’s specific financial information. Id. Therefore, MNA’s financial

information is not known outside of those individuals at MNA or within the Michelin Group who

have a business need to know, and it cannot easily be obtained. Id.

Mr. Charbot’s affidavit also proves that MNA “considers its financial information highly

confidential and vitally sensitive, and treats this information as a carefully guarded trade secret.”

Id. ¶ 4. MNA takes extreme care to protect its financial information from disclosure. Id. ¶ 6. If

disclosed, such information could seriously endanger MNA’s ability to remain financially

competitive in the highly competitive tire industry. Id. ¶ 7.

Texas law recognizes financial information trade secret under the Texas Uniform Trade

Secrets Act:

“Trade Secret” means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, financial data, or list of actual or potential customer or suppliers that:

(A) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

(B) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.002(6) (emphasis added).

The financial data requested by Plaintiffs clearly meets this statutory definition of

protected trade secrets. 1 MNA’s financial information, including its “financial condition, wealth,

1 MNA’s financial information also meets the factors for trade secret under the Restatement of Torts § 757: (1) the extent to which the information is known outside of the owner’s business; (2) the extent to which the information is known by employees and others involved in the business; (3) the extent of measures taken by the owner to guard the information’s secrecy; (4) the value of the information to the owner and the owner’s competitors; (5) the amount of effort or money expended by the owner in developing the information; and (6) the ease or difficulty with which the information could properly be acquired or duplicated by others. The Affidavit of Marcel Charbot proves all of these factors. See Aff. ¶¶ 3-7.

MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION – PAGE 3 assets, and financial statements” required to be disclosed under the Nov. 21 Order, has great

economic value in not being known because otherwise competitors could use this information to

infer, calculate, estimate, and deduce highly confidential information about MNA’s corporate

strategies, financial condition, research and development capabilities and options, and other such

vital aspects of its corporate objectives, plans, governance, and management. Aff. ¶ 5.

Competitors could then use this information to develop a competitive edge against MNA and

gravely impair MNA’s ability to remain competitive. Id. MNA takes “extreme care” and makes

“stringent efforts” to protect its financial information in order to remain financially competitive

in a highly competitive business environment. Aff. ¶¶ 6, 7. Its financial information is stored on

a secured database and only MNA personnel with heightened security access are permitted to

obtain it, and only on a need to know basis. Aff. ¶ 7. Employees who work with this information

sign strict confidentiality agreements. Id.

In short, MNA’s private financial information is a closely guarded trade secret of MNA,

and qualifies as a trade secret under Texas law.

III. This Court Should Defer Discovery of Highly Confidential and Trade Secret Financial Information until there is Proof of Necessity for Such Information.

MNA has filed a motion to bifurcate the trial under § 41.009 of the Texas Civil Practices

& Remedies Code. This Court should defer discovery of financial information until the second

phase of a bifurcated trial for two reasons. First, highly confidential financial information is not

relevant until the second phase of a bifurcated trial. Second, MNA’s financial information is

trade secret, and, as such, Plaintiffs had the burden to demonstrate that it is necessary for a fair

adjudication of the case. There is no such proof. Indeed, financial information cannot be

necessary at this point in the litigation, because there is only a mere allegation of punitive

damages, and no evidence to support liability for punitive damages. Deferring discovery of net

MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION – PAGE 4 worth or other financial information until the second phase of the bifurcated trial would be a

proper exercise of “the [trial court’s] necessary management tools to control the sequence,

timing, and scope of discovery to minimize burden, maximize efficiency, and protect privacy

rights.” In re Jacobs, 300 S.W.3d 35, 52 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, orig. proc.)

(Sullivan, J., concurring).

Net worth discovery serves little practical purpose in most cases, given the statutory

limitations on exemplary damages. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.4 sets out a benefit-to-

burden analysis and provides that discovery should be limited when “the burden or expense of

the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the

amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the

litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues.” Because the

financial information Plaintiffs seek is highly confidential, intrudes on MNA’s substantial

privacy rights, and is trade secret, discovery of this information should be deferred to the second

phase of the bifurcated trial, if it becomes relevant and necessary. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE § 41.009.

Finally, Texas Rule of Evidence 507 imposes a “heightened burden for obtaining trade

secret information.” Mere relevance is not sufficient. See Continental General Tire, 979 S.W.2d

610-13 (Tex. 1998). After the party resisting discovery establishes that the information is a trade

secret, the burden shifts to the requesting party to establish that the information is “necessary for

a fair adjudication of tis claims.” Id. In each case, a court must conduct a balancing, weighing the

degree of the requesting party’s need for the information with the potential harm of disclosure.

The Court further clarified the burden of proof in In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 106 S.W.3d

730, 732-33 (Tex. 2003), by requiring the requesting party to “demonstrate with specificity,” by

MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION – PAGE 5 competent evidence, the necessity of the trade secret information. As stated, there is simply no

necessity for such information at this point in the litigation – net worth evidence is inadmissible

and irrelevant in the first phase of a bifurcated trial. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 41.011(b).

Plaintiffs have not, and cannot show necessity. Therefore, This Court should protect MNA’s

trade secret financial information, and only order its disclosure if it becomes necessary for a fair

adjudication of this case. There is no prejudice to Plaintiffs if discovery of financial information

is deferred until the second phase of the bifurcated trial, if it becomes relevant and necessary at

that point.

IV. Conclusion and Prayer

Wherefore, MNA prays that this Court disallow discovery of MNA’s financial

information. Alternatively MNA seeks a stay of such financial discovery for the issue to be

considered on mandamus at the Dallas Court of Appeals, or Texas Supreme Court, and for such

other relief to which it may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1900 Austin, Texas 78701-4238 (512) 469-6114 (512) 482-5028 Facsimile

By: /s/ Debora B. Alsup Debora B. Alsup State Bar No. 02006200 debora.alsup@tklaw.com

GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN PLLC 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 472-0288 (512) 472-0721 Facsimile

MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION – PAGE 6

By: /s/ Thomas M. Bullion III Thomas M. Bullion III State Bar No. 03331005 tbullion@germer.com Chris A. Blackerby State Bar No. 00787091 cblackerby@germer-austin.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

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, facsimile, e-mail, or

U.S. Mail on this 30th day of November, 2015.

Via E-Service and Facsimile Via E-Service and Facsimile Luis P. Guerra James B. Ragan David C. Shapiro Law Offices of James B. Ragan Luis P. Guerra, L.L.C. 723 Coleman Ave. 6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Via E-Service and Facsimile Via Regular Mail Noel Sevastianos Jose Bustillo d/b/a Mundo Cars Sevastianos & Associates, PC 6422 Day Street 120 S. Central Avenue, Suite 130 Dallas, Texas 75227 St. Louis, Missouri 63105

/s/ Debora B. Alsup

Debora B. Alsup

506333 000019 16416988.3

MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION – PAGE 7

EXHIBIT A

NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA AND OBDULIA § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MEDINA, HUSBAND AND WIFE, § INDIVIDUALLY; NATALYE MEDINA, § INDIVIDUALLY; NAVIN GIBSON, § INDIVIDUALLY, § §

Plaintiffs, § §

vs. § §

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC. AND § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS JOSE BUSTILLO D/B/A MUNDO CARS, § AN IN STA TE DEFENDANT, § §

111

Defendants. § 134 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

AFFIDAVIT OF MARCEL CHABOT

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

COUNTY OF GREENVILLE

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Marcel Chabot, who is an

employee of Defendant Michelin North America, Inc. ("MNA"), who being by me duly sworn

on oath deposes and says:

1. My name is Marcel Chabot and I am the Controller at MNA. I have personal

knowledge of the facts set forth herein and if called upon, could and would,

competently testify to them. I am over 18 years of age, of sound mind, and

competent to execute this Affidavit.

2. I have reviewed the Order re: November 3, 2015 hearing in this case that orders

MNA to "produce a corporate representative to testify about the financial

condition, wealth, assets, and financial statements of Defendant Michelin North

America, Inc."

AFFIDAVIT OF MARC:F.L CHABOT-PAGE I 3. MNA is not a publicly-traded company. Consequently it does not make public

disclosures concerning its net worth, financial condition, or financial statements.

Additionally, MNA is indirectly owned by a public French holding company,

Compagnie Generale Des Etablissements Michelin ("CGEM"). For accounting

purposes, lv!NA's financial position is fully consolidated with CGEM's financial

position, and CGEM's public filings reflect an overall picture of the Michelin

Group, and do not reflect information on MNA's specific financial position.

Consequently, MNA's financial information is not known outside of those

individuals at MNA or within the Michelin Group who have a business need to

know, and it cannot easily be obtained.

4. MNA considers its financial information highly confidential and vitally sensitive,

and treats this information as a carefully guarded trade secret.

5. Disclosure of MNA's financial information could seriously endanger MNA's

ability to remain financially competitive in the tire industry, which is a highly

competitive business environment. Financial information, including evidence of

net worth, can allow competitors to infer, calculate, estimate, and deduce highly

confidential information about MNA's corporate strategies, research and

development capabilities and options, and other vital aspects of its corporate

objectives, plans, financial position, governance, and management. Competitors

could then use this information to develop a competitive advantage against MNA

and impair MNA's ability to maintain its competitive position in the market.

6. MNA takes extreme care to protect its financial information from being disclosed.

MNA has a competitive advantage by not having such information available in

AFFIDAVIT OF MARCEL CHABOT~ PAGE 2

Via £-Service and Facsi111ile Via £-Service and Facsi111ile Luis P. Guerra James B. Ragan David C. Shapiro Law Offices of James B. Ragan Luis P. Guerra, L.L.C. 723 Coleman Ave. 6225 N. 24th Street, Suite 125 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Via £-Service and Facsi111ile Via Regular Metil Noel Sevastianos Jose Bustillo d/b/a Mundo Cars Sevastianos & Associates, PC 6422 Day Street 120 S. Central Avenue, Suite 130 Dallas, Texas 7 5227 St. Louis, Missouri 63105

/s/ Debora B. Alsup

Debora B. Alsup

16418695.I

AFFIDAVIT OF MARCEL CHABOT- PAGE 4

EXHIBIT B 1:32 PM FAX 6023818403+ LUIS P GUERRA LL<; Ii!] 0004/0010

CAUSE NO. DC-14-07255 •

SAMUEL MEDINA and OBDULIA § IN nm DISTRICT COURT MEDINA, husband and wifo, § OF DAOC.,LAS COUNTY individually; NATAL YE MEDINA, § individually; NAVIL GIBSON, § individually; PLAlNTIFFS, § § 13411l lODIClAL DISTRICT vs. § §

MICHELIN NORTH AMERJCA, INC.; § AND JOSE BUSTILLO d/b/a MUNDO § DALL.j\S COUNTY, TEXAS CARS, an in state defendant, §

DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFFS' NOTICR OF INTENT TO TAKE THE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF TIIE CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE FOR DEFENDANT MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA:, INC.

TO: Michelin North America, lnc. c/o GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, P.L.L.C., 301 Congre~s Avenue, Suite 1700, Austin, Texas 78701, (512) 472-0288.

Please take notice that pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs

will take the oral and videotaped deposition of the Corporate Representative of Michelin

North America, Inc., as to .all matters known to Michelin North America, J.nc. relating to

financial condition, wealth, assets, and financial statements of Defendant Michelin North

America, Inc.

The deposition will beginning on a date, time and place to be decided. The

deposition will take place before a certified court reporter and videographcr. The

deposition will continue until completed, and when taken may be used as evidence in the

above-reforenced civil action.

A reasonable time before the above noticed d<o'Position, Michelin North America,

· Inc. will designate one or more individuals to testify about financial condition, wealth, 1:32 PM FAX 6023818403+ LUIS P GUERRA LLC 141 0005/0010

assets, and financial statements of Ddendant Michelin North America, Inc. pursuant to

• Rult: 199.2(b)(l), Tex. R. Civ. P.

Michelin North America, Inc. is hereby requested to produce a copy of the

documents and things described on Exhibit A attached hereto at least seven (7) days prior

to the deposition.

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF LUIS P. GUERRA 6225 N. 24th Street, Suite l 25 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Telephone: (602) 381-8400 Facsimile: (602) 381-8403

By: Isl David<;. Shapiro Luis P. Guerra (Admitted Pro Hae Vice) AZ State Bar No. 015768 David C. Shapiro (Admitted Pro Hae Vice) AZ State Bar No. 028056 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAIN"ITPFS

LAW 0FFJCllS OF JAMES B. RAGAN 723 Coleman A venue · Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: (361) 884-7787 Facsimile: (361) 884-9144 James B. Raga11 State Bar No. 16466100

SEVASTIANOS & AS SOCIATES, PC 120 S. Central Ave., #130 St. Louis, Missouri 105 Telephone: (314) 725-7577 Facsimile: (314) 862-8050 Noel Sevastianos (Pro Ilac Vice) State Bar No. 45970

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

. I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregomg document has been forww-dcd to all known counsel of record as set forth bc:!ow on this 12u' day of . November, 2015. · f:32 PM FAX 6023818403+ LUIS P GUERRA LLC li!i 0006/0010

' Via E-Mail, Facsimile & U.S. Mail to: • Thomas M. Bullion III • Chris A. Blackerby 1 GERMER BRAMAN & BROWN, PLLC 30 I Congress Avenue, Suite J700 Austin, Texas 78701 , Attomeys for Defendant Michelin North J\mcrica, Inc.

, Via {LS. Mail only to: • Jose Bustillo d/b/a/ Mundo Cars : 6422 Day Street ' Dallas, Texas 85227 : Pro Per Defendant Jose Bustillo d/b/a/ Mundo Cars

/s/ David C. Sha11\IQ David C. Shapiro ~:32 PM FAX 6023818403+ LUIS P GUERRA LLC li!i 000710010

EXHIBIT A

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

1. Financial statements of Dcfondant Michelin North America, Inc. from 1998 to

2014.

NO. DC-14-07255

SAMUEL MEDINA AND OBDULIA § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MEDINA, HUSBAND AND WIFE, § INDIVIDUALLY; NATALYE MEDINA, § INDIVIDUALLY; NAVIN GIBSON, § INDIVIDUALLY, § §

Plaintiffs, §

§

VS. § §

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC. AND § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS JOSE BUSTILLO D/B/A MUNDO CARS, § AN IN STATE DEFENDANT, § §

Defendants. § 134th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER ON STAY OF DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION

By Order dated November 21, 2015 the Court ordered that a corporate representative of

Michelin North America, Inc. (“MNA”) testify about MNA’s “financial condition, wealth,

assets, and financial statements.”

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that a stay of November 21 Order regarding financial

information is hereby in all things GRANTED to permit MNA to pursue a writ of mandamus to a

Texas intermediate appellate court or to the Texas Supreme Court. The stay shall remain in effect

until the court of appeals or the Texas Supreme Court resolves the mandamus petition and issues

any mandate.

SIGNED this the ____ day of ______________, 2015.

___________________________________

Judge Dale Tillery, Presiding Judge 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

ORDER ON STAY OF DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION – SOLO PAGE