in Re Michelin North America, Inc.

Opinion

ACCEPTED 14-15-00578-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/22/2015 3:45:09 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK

NUMBER 14-15-00578-CV

FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS FOR THE FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT7/22/2015 HOUSTON 3:45:09 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk

In re MICHELIN N. AM., INC., Relator

Original Proceeding from the 152nd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, Honorable Robert Schaffer; Trial Court Cause No. 2014-57952

SUPPLEMENTAL MANDAMUS RECORD

Tim Riley Michael Bourland State Bar No. 16931300 State Bar No. 24009912 RILEY LAW FIRM WITT, MCGREGOR & BOURLAND, PLLC The Civil Justice Center 8004 Woodway Drive, Suite 400 112 East 4th Street Waco, Texas 76712 Houston, Texas 77007 Telephone: (254) 751-9133 Telephone: (713) 646-1000 Facsimile: (254) 751-9134 Facsimile: (800) 637-1955 mbourland@wmbwaco.com tdr@txtrial.com John Gsanger State Bar No. 00786662 Scott Marshall State Bar No. 24077207 THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM 802 N. Carancahua St., Suite 1400 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: (361) 698-7600 Facsimile: (361) 698-7614 jgsanger@edwardsfirm.com smarshall@edwardsfirm.com

ORAL ARGUMENT WOULD NOT Attorneys for Robert Coleman, et al., LIKELY BENEFIT THE COURT Real Parties in Interest INDEX TO SUPPLEMENTAL MANDAMUS RECORD

1. SuppR 001-035 Original Petition in Intervention of Robert Coleman and Kimberly Coleman for Blayne Cook and Cameron Cook, 12-19-14

2. SuppR 036-126 Intervenors’ Response to Michelin’s Motion to Inspect the Failed Tire by Unknown Persons According to an Undisclosed Protocol and Request that Michelin Preserve and Document Evidence, 12-24-14

3. SuppR 127-181 Intervenors’ Opposition to Defendant Michelin’s Motion for Continuance of Hearing on Motion to Preserve Evidence, 1-23-15

4. SuppR 182-185 Bench Brief on Burden Shifting to Party Seeking Discovery if Resisting Party Proves Trade Secrecy (The Burden Never Shifted But Was Nevertheless Met), 3-16-15

5. SuppR 186-242 Michelin North America, Inc.’s Responses and Objections to Intervening Coleman’s First Requests for Admission, Interrogatory, and Requests for Production to Defendant, Michelin North America, Inc., 1-16-15

1 Respectfully submitted,

THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM

BY: /s/ John Blaise Gsanger John Blaise Gsanger State Bar No. 00786662 Scott Marshall State Bar No. 24077207 802 N. Carancahua St., Suite 1400 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: (361) 698-7600 Facsimile: (361) 698-7614

Tim Riley State Bar No. 16931300 Riley Law Firm The Civil Justice Center 112 East 4th Street Houston, Texas 77007 Telephone: (713) 646-1000 Facsimile: (800) 637-1955

Michael Bourland State Bar No. 24009912 Witt, McGregor & Bourland, PLLC 8004 Woodway Drive, Suite 400 Waco, Texas 76712 Telephone: (254) 751-9133 Facsimile: (254) 751-9134

ATTORNEYS FOR REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST

2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been forwarded to all known counsel of record as set forth below via e- service and/or facsimile or e-mail on this 22nd day of July 2015.

BY: /s/ John Blaise Gsanger John Blaise Gsanger State Bar No. 00786662

Via Facsimile: (512) 472-0721 Thomas M. Bullion III Chris A. Blackerby GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, LLP 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 Email: tbullion@germer-austin.com; cblackerby@germer-austin.com

Via facsimile: (864) 232-2925 Giles M. Schanen, Jr. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP 104 South Main Street, 9th Floor Greenville, SC 29601 Email: giles.schanen@nelsonmullins.com

Via Facsimile: (512) 482-5028 Debora B. Alsup THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP 98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1900 Austin, TX 78701-4238 Email: debora.alsup@tklaw.com

Via Facsimile: (713) 523-4159 Robert E. Ammons Bennett A. Midlo THE AMMONS LAW FIRM, LLP 3700 Montrose Boulevard Houston, Texas 77006 Email: rob@ammonslaw.com; bennett@ammonslaw.com

3 12/19/2014 3:55:08 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 3553800 By: Wanda McCullough Filed: 12/19/2014 3:55:08 PM

NO. 2014-57952

KOLLYE KILPATRICK, Individually as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Heir at Law and Representative of the § Estate of BEVERLY ANN KILPATRICK, § Deceased; ERIC KILPATRICK; and § KAREN KILPATRICK § Plaintiffs, § § AND § § ROBERT DWAYNE COLEMAN, § Individually, and KIMBERLY COLEMAN § as Next Friend of BLAYNE MICHAEL § COOK and CAMERON BAILEY COOK, § minors, § Intervening Cross-Claimant and Plaintiffs, § § VS. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., BF § GOODRICH in its assumed or common § name, and ROBERT DWAYNE § COLEMAN § Defendants. § 152nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORIGINAL PETITION IN INTERVENTION OF ROBERT COLEMAN AND KIMBERLY COLEMAN FOR BLAYNE COOK AND CAMERON COOK

COME NOW Intervenors, Robert Coleman individually and Kim Coleman for Blayne

and Cameron Cook, minors, intervening in their capacity as claimants against Michelin North

America, Inc. and BF Goodrich in its assumed or common name, and file their Original Petition

in Intervention of Robert Coleman and Kimberly Coleman for Blayne Cook and Cameron Cook

in this case, and for cause of action would show the Court the following:

A. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN — LEVEL THREE

Discovery in this case is requested to be conducted under a Level 3 discovery control

plan pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 190.4.

SuppR 001 B. PARTIES — PLAINTIFFS AND CROSS-CLAIMANTS

Intervening Cross-Claimant Robert Coleman is an individual who is a resident of Spring,

Harris County, Texas.

Intervening Plaintiff Kim Coleman as Next Friend of Blayne Michael Cook and Cameron

Bailey Cook is an individual who is the wife of Robert Coleman and mother of Blayne Michael

Cook and Cameron Bailey Cook and is a resident of Spring, Harris County, Texas.

Intervening Plaintiff Blayne Cook is an individual who is the minor child of Robert and

Kim Coleman and who is represented by his parents as his next friends and who is a resident of

Spring, Harris County, Texas.

Intervening Plaintiff Cameron Cook is an individual who is the minor child of Robert and

Kim Coleman and who is represented by his parents as his next friends and who is a resident of

Robert Coleman, Kim Coleman, Blayne Cook, and Cameron Cook are referred to

collectively as “the Coleman family.”

Plaintiff Kollye Kilpatrick, Individually as Heir at Law and Representative of the Estate

of Beverly Ann Kilpatrick, Deceased, is an individual who is a resident of Texas.

Plaintiff Eric Kilpatrick is an individual who is a resident of Texas.

Plaintiff Karen Kilpatrick is an individual who is a resident of Texas.

C. PARTIES — DEFENDANTS

Defendant Michelin North America, Inc. (“Michelin”) is a foreign corporation existing

under the laws of New York with its principal place of business in South Carolina, and does

business throughout the United States, including the State of Texas, for profit. Michelin has

already been served and has filed an answer in this cause of action and has not contested

jurisdiction.

Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 2

SuppR 002 Defendant BF Goodrich in its assumed or common name is sued under Rule 28 of the

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and includes suit against any and all partnerships, unincorporated

associations, private corporations, and individuals doing business under the assumed name “BF

Goodrich” which is hereby sued in its partnership, assumed or common name in connection with

researching, developing, designing, making, inspecting, selling, marketing, warranting, or any

combination of these activities in connection with tires with the lettering “BF Goodrich” on the

tire’s sidewall. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 28. Service on Michelin North America, Inc. constitutes

service on BF Goodrich in its assumed or common name.

BF Goodrich in its assumed or common name is referred to collectively with Michelin

North America, Inc. as “Michelin.”

Defendant Robert Coleman is an individual who is a resident of Spring, Harris County,

Texas, who has been sued by Plaintiffs Kollye Kilpatrick, Individually as Heir at Law and

Representative of the Estate of Beverly Ann Kilpatrick, Deceased, Eric Kilpatrick, and Karen

Kilpatrick. Intervenors assert no claim against Defendant Robert Coleman, who has answered

without contesting jurisdiction or venue.

D. THE ORIGINAL CIVIL ACTION (NO. 2014-57952)

On October 3, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a petition suing Defendant Michelin for negligence

and strict products liability and suing Defendant Robert Coleman for negligence. On November

14, 2014, Defendant Robert Coleman filed his answer. On December 8, 2014, Michelin filed its

answer.

E. VENUE AND JURISDICTION

The sale and warranting of the product at issue occurred in Harris County, Texas, and the

sale and warranting of the product at issue is a substantial part of the events giving rise to the

Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 3

SuppR 003 product liability and breach of warranty claims set forth below.

Venue is proper in Harris County, Texas, pursuant to section 15.002(a)(1) and (2) of the

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because (1) a substantial part of the events giving rise

to the claims occurred in Harris County and (2) Defendant Robert Coleman is a natural person

who resided in Harris County at the time the cause of action accrued.

Harris County is the proper venue chosen and most convenient for Kollye Kilpatrick, the

Estate of Beverly Ann Kilpatrick, Eric Kilpatrick, Karen Kilpatrick, Robert Coleman, Kim

Coleman, Blayne Cook, and Cameron Cook and maintaining venue in Harris County will cause

Michelin no hardship.

The venue facts alleged in Michelin’s motion to transfer venue contained within its

original answer are specifically denied as factually incorrect because the statement “MNA denies

that defendant Robert Dwayne Coleman is a resident of Harris County” cannot be based on the

best of Michelin’s or its counsel’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable

inquiry as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13.

This Court has jurisdiction over this civil action because the amount in controversy in this

civil action exceeds the minimum jurisdictional amount for this Court.

This Court has jurisdiction over the parties to this civil action because Defendant

Michelin has purposefully availed itself of the privileges and benefits of doing business in Texas

and because all parties have appeared without questioning jurisdiction.

The Coleman family has not pleaded any causes of action that raise a federal question.

Texas resident Defendant Robert Coleman is jurisdictionally non-diverse from Texas

resident Plaintiffs Kollye Kilpatrick, Eric Kilpatrick, Karen Kilpatrick, and the Estate of Beverly

Ann Kilpatrick, Deceased, who was driving the other vehicle involved in the crash at issue.

Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 4

SuppR 004 This civil action is not removable to federal court, and the improper removal of this case

should be remedied by sanctions and a remand with an award of all costs, expenses, and fees

including, but not limited to, attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

F. FACTS AND CLAIMS

On August 24, 2014, Robert Coleman was driving his 2001 Ford F-250 pickup eastbound

on Highway 36 (also known as Highway 190) near County Road 112.

Mr. Coleman was traveling within the speed limit and within his lane and was wearing

his seatbelt.

Blayne and Cameron Cook as well as Mathew Plum were passengers in the pickup and

they were also wearing their seatbelts.

The tread peeled off the left front tire mounted on Mr. Coleman’s pickup, which was an

LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tire (DOT BFW802110611).

The failed BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tire suffered rapid air loss resulting from

tread belt separation while Mr. Coleman was still traveling in his lane.

As a result of this tread separation of the BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tire, the

pickup went out of control and crossed into oncoming traffic in the westbound lane where it

collided with the 2013 Ford Explorer driven by Beverly Dykes Kilpatrick.

The failed tire is not slick and had ample unused tread depth remaining at the time of the

crash, and the Texas Peace Officer’s Crash Report identified the “defective or slick” tire as a

contributing cause of this crash:

Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 5

SuppR 005 See Ex. A (with code sheet).

Mr. Coleman, Blayne Cook, and Cameron Cook were all seriously injured as a result of

the tire-failure-induced crash.

In the time before, during, and after the crash, Mr. Coleman exercised due care and, and

he was properly and carefully using the pickup for the foreseen purpose and in the intended

manner for which it was designed and sold.

In the time before, during, and after the crash, Mr. Coleman exercised due care and was

properly and carefully using the failed BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tire (DOT

BFW802110611) for the foreseen purposes and in the intended manner for which it was designed

and marketed.

Prior to the crash, the failed tire was in substantially the same condition as it was when

manufactured and sold by Michelin except that the defects inherent in the tire had progressed in a

foreseeable manner during the foreseeable use of the tire.

All tires legally made and sold in the United States with the lettering “BF Goodrich

Rugged Terrain T/A” on the sidewall were placed into the stream of commerce by Michelin.

All tires legally sold in the United States with DOT number BFW802110611 were

placed into the stream of commerce by Michelin.

All tires legally sold in the United States with DOT number BFW802110611 were

researched, developed, designed, manufactured, inspected, marketed, sold, distributed, tested,

and warranted by Michelin.

All tires legally sold in the United States with DOT number BFW802110611 were

made at Michelin’s Fort Wayne, Indiana tire plant.

Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 6

SuppR 006 For all tires legally sold in the United States with DOT number BFW802110611, the

culmination of the manufacturing processes by curing the tire was completed in the first week of

February of 2011.

The designation “LT” in the size LT265/75R16 associated with the BF Goodrich Rugged

Terrain T/A LRE tire bearing DOT BFW802110611 indicates that the tire was foreseeably used

on a light truck such as Mr. Coleman used the tire.

The designation “Rugged Terrain” in the LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain

T/A LRE tire bearing DOT BFW802110611 indicates that the tire was foreseeably used on

rugged terrain such as Mr. Coleman used the tire.

The designation “T/A” in the LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tire

bearing DOT BFW802110611 indicates that the tire was foreseeably used for in situations where

a traction advantage was required such as Mr. Coleman used the tire.

The designation “LRE” in the LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tire

bearing DOT BFW802110611 indicates that the tire was foreseeably used for tasks requiring a

heavy load range rating of E such as Mr. Coleman used the tire.

The failed tire was researched, developed, designed, manufactured, tested, inspected,

marketed, sold, distributed, warranted, monitored, analyzed, and comparatively evaluated by

Michelin.

Michelin, as a part of its business, is engaged in the researching, developing, designing,

manufacturing, inspecting, marketing, selling, distributing, testing, warranting, and in-field

monitoring of tires for use on passenger cars and light trucks in a manner that included placing

such tires in the course of commerce by transactions that are essentially commercial in character.

Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 7

SuppR 007 When the failed tire at issue was researched and developed, when it was designed, when

it was manufactured, and when it was marketed and sold, part of Michelin’s business included

the researching, developing, designing, manufacturing, inspecting, marketing, selling,

distributing, testing, warranting, and in-field monitoring of LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged

Terrain T/A LRE tires in a manner that included placing such tires in the course of commerce by

transactions that are essentially commercial in character.

For valuable consideration, Michelin sold the subject tire which was on the Coleman

family’s vehicle at the time of the crash made the basis of this Petition.

Because of its defective nature, the failed tire was unfit and unreasonably dangerous as

used in a foreseeable manner, and Michelin knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should

have known, that the subject tire was unreasonably dangerous in this manner and unfit for its

warranted purposes.

In accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety

Act, Michelin has been required to identify defects which relate to motor vehicle safety in

hundreds of thousands of BF Goodrich brand tires pursuant to numerous recalls, including

NHTSA Recall Number 12T-019. See Ex. B.

Based on such prior recalls of BF Goodrich tires, Michelin has objective and subjective

knowledge that drivers who “experience tread loss and/or rapid air loss resulting from tread belt

separation” experience foreseen driving conditions that “increase the risk of a vehicle crash”

because a defect that manifests in a tread separation is “a defect which relates to motor vehicle

safety.” See Ex. B.

Michelin’s objective and subjective knowledge of these extreme risks specifically

concerns 16 inch radial light truck load range E T/A BF Goodrich tires. See Ex. B.

Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 8

SuppR 008 The failed BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tire (DOT BFW802110611) which resulted

in the crash is a 16 inch radial light truck load range E T/A BF Goodrich tire.

Michelin’s design and manufacture of the failed tire reflects a disregard of its objective

and subjective knowledge of these extreme risks applicable to 16 inch radial light truck load

range E T/A BF Goodrich tires.

Michelin undertook to perform the post-sale monitoring and analyzing of early warning

data (including warranty returns, property damage claims, law suits and other early warning

data) in connection with all sizes of the BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tire line, and Michelin

knew that such monitoring and analysis were necessary for the driving public’s safety and the

driving public and the U.S. Government were relying on Michelin’s performance of that

monitoring and analysis.

Michelin undertook to perform the post-sale monitoring and analyzing and comparative

evaluation of early warning data (including warranty returns, property damage claims, lawsuits

and other early warning data) in connection with the various 265/75R16 size tire lines it makes,

and Michelin knew that such monitoring, analysis, and evaluation were necessary for the driving

public’s safety and the driving public and the U.S. Government were relying on Michelin’s

performance of that monitoring, analysis, and comparative evaluation.

The failed tire was in an unfit and defective and unreasonably dangerous condition in

that:

(a) The failed tire was not adequately designed to prevent tread separation despite the fact that such safer designs were technologically feasible at the time the subject tire was made, in use within the industry, and employed by other tire manufacturers as well as Michelin. (b) The failed tire was not reasonably durable for its intended and foreseen uses. (c) The failed tire’s components were defectively and inadequately researched, developed, designed, manufactured, and selected without regard to providing adequate strength to prevent a tread separation in foreseeable conditions.

Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 9

SuppR 009 (d) The nylon reinforcement in the failed tire was not designed to adequately reinforce the belt package even though such improved reinforcement technology such as double wrapped nylon and nylon-aramid filament at zero degrees was feasible, used in the industry, and employed by other tire makers and by Michelin. (e) The failed tire and its component parts were defective due to Michelin’s failure to test or adequately test the tire and its parts to ensure they were reasonably safe and suitable for their intended purpose and use. (f) The failed tire and its component parts were defective due to the susceptibility of the internal rubber to oxidation at a level accelerated beyond reasonable expectations for a tire less than four years old at the time of its failure. (g) The failed tire was defective in its rubber bonding as indicated by voids built into the tire during the assembly process and observable in the separated surfaces in the tire’s failure zone. (h) The failed tire was defective in its rubber bonding as indicated by processing marks built into the tire during the assembly process and observable in the separated surfaces in the tire’s failure zone. (i) The failed tire was defective in its rubber bonding as indicated by bare wires uncoated by rubber as observable in the separated surfaces in the tire’s failure zone. (j) The failed tire was defective in its assembly as shown by the careless placement and splicing of its components.

At the time Michelin researched, developed, designed, manufactured, inspected or failed

to inspect, marketed, sold, distributed, tested or failed to test, warranted, and performed in-field

monitoring of the BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tire line, it had a duty to exercise reasonable

care in order to provide a safe product and to research, develop, design, manufacture, inspect,

market, sell, distribute, test, warrant, and monitor the product so as not to subject users of the

BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tires, including the Coleman family, to an unreasonable risk of

injury or harm. Michelin breached these duties.

Michelin negligently researched, developed, designed, manufactured, inspected or failed

to inspect, marketed, sold, distributed, tested or failed to test, warranted, and performed in-field

monitoring of the BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tire line. This negligent conduct of Michelin

was a proximate cause of the injuries and damages sustained by the Coleman family.

Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 10

SuppR 010 At the time it designed and manufactured the failed tire and its components, Michelin had

a duty to carefully staff the tire design, manufacturing, and quality control positions and had a

duty to carefully train its employees involved in the tire design and manufacturing processes,

including the quality control processes at the Fort Wayne plant where the tire was manufactured.

Michelin breached these duties.

The failed tire was cured during the first week of February in 2011 and assembled as

much as a week prior to that and the components were created up to a week or more prior to

assembly so the components and assembled pre-cured tire were exposed to the environment

within the Fort Wayne plant during the last week of January and the first week of February of

2011.

It snowed and rained in Fort Wayne, Indiana during the last week of January of 2011 and

during the first week of February of 2011.

In 2011, the tire building room at Michelin’s Fort Wayne, Indiana tire plant was covered

by a large flat roof that leaked when it rained and when the roof had melting snow on it.

Rainwater droplets (and droplets formed by condensation and melting snow droplets and

droplets of perspiration from tire builders) on the pre-cured tire components lead to trapped air or

steam pockets built into a tire and result in voids or processing marks visible in separated

surfaces of a failed tire.

Air or steam trapped in between rubber or rubber-coated tire components creates a void

and promotes separation of those components.

A prudent tire company’s internal standards would forbid trapped air and trapped

moisture built into tires and yet Michelin is aware of manufacturing practices applicable at its

Fort Wayne tire plant which have resulted in building tires with trapped air or moisture or both.

Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 11

SuppR 011 Michelin’s employees and ex-employees working in the tire building and tire inspection

rooms at Michelin’s Fort Wayne, Indiana plant in 2011 have knowledge of relevant facts in so

far as they eyewitnessed roof leaks, puddled water, and the use of plastic sheeting to divert leaks

on and near tire building operations as well as other negligent manufacturing practices.

When pre-cured rubber and rubber-coated tire components are not used promptly in the

tire building process, they lose some of their tack and it is more difficult to stitch down those

components without trapping air in between the tire components.

A prudent tire company’s internal standards restrict the use of rubber and rubber-coated

components that have lost some of their tack and the use of solvents to restore the tackiness of

pre-cured rubber and rubber-coated tire components that were not used promptly in the tire

building process and yet Michelin is aware of manufacturing practices applicable at its Fort

Wayne tire plant which have resulted in the use of solvents in an attempt to restore the

diminished tackiness of pre-cured rubber and rubber-coated tire components that were not used

promptly in the tire building process.

Michelin’s employees and ex-employees working in the tire building and tire component

preparation rooms at Michelin’s Fort Wayne, Indiana plant in 2011 have knowledge of relevant

facts in so far as they eyewitnessed the use of rubber and rubber-coated components that lost

some of their tack and the use of solvents in an attempt to restore that tack as well as other

negligent manufacturing practices.

The misplacement and improper splicing of the steel belts and the rubber and rubber-

coated components surrounding the steel belts in the assembly of a tire promote trapped air and

increases strain at the belt edges and these factors result in belt edge separation.

Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 12

SuppR 012 A prudent tire company must vigilantly enforce internal standards to avoid misplacement

and improper splicing of the steel belts and the rubber and rubber-coated components

surrounding the steel belts in the assembly of a tire and yet Michelin is aware of manufacturing

practices applicable at its Fort Wayne tire plant which have resulted in the lax enforcement of

standards to avoid misplacement and improper splicing of the steel belts and the rubber and

rubber-coated components surrounding the steel belts.

Michelin’s employees and ex-employees working in the tire building and tire component

preparation rooms at Michelin’s Fort Wayne, Indiana plant in 2011 have knowledge of relevant

facts in so far as they eyewitnessed the lax enforcement of standards to avoid misplacement and

improper splicing of the steel belts and the rubber and rubber-coated components surrounding

the steel belts.

The quality control inspection process in the final finish department is the tire company’s

principle opportunity to identify defects in cured tires and to scrap or repair those defective tires

before they reach the consumer in a defective condition such as the Coleman family’s tire.

A prudent tire company must vigilantly enforce internal standards within its final finish

room to ensure that all defects are identified so that defective tires do not reach the public yet

Michelin is aware of practices applicable at its Fort Wayne tire plant which have resulted in the

lax enforcement of standards and falsification of inspections and sexual misconduct at the

workplace affecting the final finish inspection process.

Michelin’s employees and ex-employees working in the final finish room at Michelin’s

Fort Wayne, Indiana plant in 2011 have knowledge of relevant facts in so far as they

eyewitnessed the lax enforcement of standards and falsification of inspections and on-the-job

sexual misconduct affecting the final finish inspection process.

Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 13

SuppR 013 In connection with Michelin’s tire manufacturing practices, the failed tire at issue

neglects to meet standards which Michelin has recognized as reflecting the standard of care:

(a) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, the internal standards which Michelin has recognized as appropriate standards to assess tires and tire building practices apply across different passenger tire and light truck tire lines and across different passenger tire and light truck tire sizes and across different tire plants and across time periods spanning the past decade or more. (b) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has documented a Bad Habits List of manufacturing issues which sets forth some of the standards which Michelin has recognized. (c) The manufacturing practices described on Michelin’s Bad Habits List are bad practices regardless of the location of the tire plant where those practices occurred and when those practices occurred. (d) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has possession of documents, testimony, and information which confirm that its practices have included the stacking of rubber components on the unclean floor where those components were subject to contamination. (e) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has Decision Tree documents which set forth some of the standards which Michelin has recognized. (f) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has Aspect Classification documents which set forth some of the standards which Michelin has recognized. (g) Michelin’s Decision Tree and Aspect Classification documents have annexes, glossaries, illustrations, photographs, and attachments with additional information and caveats pertaining to the standards which Michelin has recognized in the past. (h) The manufacturing practices addressed in Michelin’s Decision Tree and Aspect Classification documents and their annexes set forth standards for the assessment of conditions in cured tires and those standards – which have been recognized by Michelin – are suitable to assess tires regardless of where and when they were made. (i) Michelin’s Decision Tree and Aspect Classification documents and their annexes set forth numerous standards which tire inspectors must check when inspecting cured tires, and Michelin negligently understaffed the Fort Wayne tire plant by hiring an insufficient number of tire inspectors and classifiers for the number of tires produced given the breadth of the conditions to be inspected according to the Decision Tree and Aspect Classification documents. (j) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has possession of documents, testimony, and information which confirm that its practices have included having a quality inspection process that failed to prevent air, moisture, and other foreign objects from being cured into tires. (k) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has possession of documents, testimony, and information which confirm that its practices have included paying tire building employees on a bonus incentive system based on

Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 14

SuppR 014 quantity in production that discouraged the scrapping of bad tires and out-of- specification tire components and undermined the production of safe tires. (l) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has a Product Standards and Guidelines Manual for Required Tire Dimensional Tolerances which sets forth standards which Michelin has recognized. (m) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has work procedures for tire builders which set forth standards which Michelin has recognized. (n) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has training materials including videotapes and tests for tire builders which set forth standards which Michelin has recognized. (o) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has work procedures for tire inspectors which set forth standards which Michelin has recognized. (p) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has training materials including videotapes and tests for tire inspectors which set forth standards which Michelin has recognized. (q) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has reaction limits which set forth some of the standards which Michelin has recognized. (r) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has product tolerance limits which set forth some of the standards which Michelin has recognized. (s) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has possession of documents, testimony, and information which confirm that its practices have included using awls and hot-knives to deflate blisters in tires caused by trapped air and steam. (t) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has possession of documents, testimony, and information which confirm that its practices have included the use of rejected materials to build tires despite the fact that those components had been scrapped. (u) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has possession of documents, testimony, and information which confirm that Michelin hired and trained the tire designers, tire component fabricators, the tire builders, the tire inspectors, and the tire classifiers who participated in making the Coleman family’s tire, and Michelin performed these tasks negligently and this negligence was a proximate cause of the damages set forth in this petition. (v) In connection with Michelin’s manufacturing practices, Michelin has possession of documents, testimony, and information which confirm that Michelin inadequately staffed the quality control operations at its Fort Wayne, Indiana plant and assigned too many quality assurance tasks for each of the limited number of quality control personnel and permitted falsification of inspections as well as on- the-job sexual misconduct to interfere with the inspection process.

Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 15

SuppR 015 In connection with Michelin’s tire design practices, tire design revision practices, and tire

failure analysis practices, the failed tire at issue reflects that its design and its as-sold condition

made it susceptible to the exact foreseeable failure mode that caused the catastrophic crash:

(a) Michelin has possession of documents, testimony, and information which confirm that it has established a link between certain cured tire defects and their probable causes. (b) Michelin has possession of documents, testimony, and information which confirm that is has established a link between nonconformance to standards and tread separations. (c) In connection with Michelin’s tire design practices, Michelin has work procedures for tire and tire component designers which set forth standards which Michelin has recognized as means to reduce the risk of tread separations. (d) In connection with Michelin’s tire design practices, Michelin has training materials including videotapes and tests for tire and tire component designers which set forth standards which Michelin has recognized as means to reduce the risk of tread separations. (e) In connection with Michelin’s tire design processes, tire re-design and design revision processes, and tire design performance evaluation processes, Michelin performs Failure Modes and Effects Analysis which address tread separation and other failure modes and assess the comparative risk of tread separations. (f) In connection with Michelin’s tire design processes, tire re-design and design revision processes, and tire design performance evaluation processes, Michelin runs tire endurance tests and tread separation is not the typical failure mode for such test tires regardless of load or inflation pressure. (g) In connection with Michelin’s tire design processes, tire re-design and design revision processes, and tire design performance evaluation processes, Michelin runs tests with over deflected tires and tread separation is not the typical failure mode for such test tires. (h) In connection with Michelin’s design, manufacturing, and warranty practices, Michelin has adjustment documents with tire condition descriptions, condition lists, condition codes, and condition pictures and illustrations, and which set forth warranty standards which Michelin has recognized and which the failed tire does not meet. (i) In connection with Michelin’s design, manufacturing, and warranty practices, Michelin has work procedures for tire adjustment center personnel which set forth standards which Michelin has recognized and which the failed tire does not meet. (j) In connection with Michelin’s design, manufacturing, and warranty practices, Michelin has training materials including videotapes and tests for tire adjustment center personnel which set forth standards which Michelin has recognized and which the failed tire does not meet. (k) In connection with Michelin’s tire design processes, tire re-design and design revision processes, and tire design performance evaluation processes, Michelin

Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 16

SuppR 016 maintains and analyzes warranty return adjustment data which Michelin or the government or both use to assess the risk of catastrophic tread separations. (l) In connection with Michelin’s tire design processes, tire re-design and design revision processes, and tire design performance evaluation processes, Michelin uses warranty return adjustment data and graphs to chart and compare tire models against other tire models which Michelin or the government or both use to assess the risk of catastrophic tread separations. (m) In connection with Michelin’s tire design processes, tire re-design and design revision processes, and tire design performance evaluation processes, Michelin uses warranty return adjustment data and graphs to chart and compare tire plants against other tire plants which Michelin or the government or both use to assess the risk of catastrophic tread separations. (n) In connection with Michelin’s knowledge of the link between its manufacturing practices and designs and tire tread separations, Michelin has a tire adjustment claims procedure and replacement policy administration guidelines which set forth standards that the failed tire did not meet.

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

manufacturing the subject tire in such a manner that it failed to meet Michelin’s own

recognized standards and was defective and was unfit for its ordinary uses and was outside of

warranted standards.

Michelin is and was aware prior to the design, prior to the manufacture, prior to

the sale, and prior to the failure of the subject tire of the magnitude of the risk posed by the tread

peeling off of its tires.

Michelin’s awareness of this risk and awareness of the magnitude and nature of this risk

is confirmed by Michelin’s knowledge of prior property damage claims and injury claims and

death claims from the tread separation of light truck tires made by Michelin.

The documents and testimony produced in prior litigation asserting fatalities and

catastrophic injuries associated with the tread separations of BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A

tires confirm Michelin’s liability and the nature of its tortious conduct.

There are no applicable mandatory safety standards regarding the risk of tread

separations, and the regulations regarding tires are inadequate to protect the public from

Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 17

SuppR 017 unreasonable risks of injury, and one reason for the inadequacy of these regulations is Michelin’s

lack of candor in connection with the government’s determination of the adequacy of tire

regulations.

Prior to filing this petition, the Coleman family met all conditions precedent. See, e.g.

Ex. C.

G. DAMAGES

As a direct and proximate result of Michelin’s wrongful misconduct, the Coleman

family has sustained damages in the past which will continue into the future, including (a)

physical pain; (b) mental anguish; (c) disfigurement; (d) the loss of the enjoyment of life; (e)

physical impairment; (e) lost earnings and earning capacity; (f) medical care costs; (g) the loss of

parental consortium; (h) the loss of household services; and (i) and the anguish suffered by one

family member who is a bystander witness to the catastrophic injury of another family member.

Accordingly, the Coleman family maintains this civil action against Michelin for each of the

foregoing elements of damages in a just and reasonable amount, and in addition, the Coleman

family ask for judgment against Michelin for exemplary damages, warranty damages, court

costs, and for pre-judgment and post judgment interest as authorized by law.

The Coleman family’s damages are significant and continue to grow and, given the jury’s

latitude in assessing both actual and exemplary damages, the evidence will support an actual and

exemplary damage award in excess of $1,000,000, and the Coleman family seeks the jury’s full

award within the jurisdiction of the Court regardless of whether if it exceeds $1,000,000.

JURY DEMAND

The Coleman family demands a trial by jury for all issues so triable.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Coleman family prays that Michelin

answer the claims set forth above accordingly to law, that this cause be set for trial before a jury,

Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 18

SuppR 018 and that the Coleman family recover judgment from the Michelin for the actual, compensatory,

special, and exemplary damages in such a manner as the evidence may show and the jury may

determine to be proper, together with the costs of suit, prejudgment interest, post judgment

interest, and such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may, in law or in equity, show

themselves justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM 802 N. Carancahua, Suite 1400 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone No. (361) 698-7600 Facsimile No. (361) 698-7614

RILEY LAW FIRM Timothy D. Riley The Civil Justice Center 112 East 4th Street Houston, Texas 77007-2502

By: /s/ John Blaise Gsanger John Blaise Gsanger State Bar No. 00786662 jgsanger@edwardsfirm.com Gary Scott Marshall State Bar No. 24077207 smarshall@edwardsfirm.com Timothy D. Riley State Bar No. 24077207 tdr@txtrial.com

ATTORNEYS FOR THE COLEMAN FAMILY

Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 19

SuppR 019 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was forwarded to the following counsel in the manner indicated on the 19th day of December, 2014.

Via electronic Service And Via Facsimile: (512) 472-0721 Thomas M. Bullion III Germer Beaman & Brown, L.L.P. 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701

Via Electronic Service And Facsimile: (713) 523-4159 Robert E. Ammons The Ammons Law Firm, LLP 3700 Montrose Boulevard Houston, Texas 77006

Via Electronic Service And Facsimile: (800) 637-1955 Timothy D. Riley The Civil Justice Center 112 East 4th Street Houston, Texas 77007-2502

Via Electronic Service And Facsimile: (254) 751-9133 Michael Bourland Witt, McGregor & Bourland, P.L.LC. 8004 Woodway Drive, Suite 400 Waco, Texas 76712-3648

/s/ John Blaise Gsanger Counsel for Plaintiffs

Coleman Orig. Pet. Intervention in Cause No. 2014-57952 20

SuppR 020 Texas Department of Transportation 125 EAST 11^" STREET | AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701-24831 (512) 463-87001 WWW.TXDOT.GOV

Wed, 10Sep 2014

STATE OF TEXAS

This is to certify that I, Debra Vermillion, am employed by the Texas Department of Transportation (Department); that I am the Custodian of Motor Vehicle Crash Records for such Department: that the attached is a true and correct copy of the peace officer's report filed with the Department referred to in the attached request with the crash date of Sun. 24 Aug 2014 , which occurred in Milam County; that the investigations of motor vehicle crashes by peace officers are authorized by law; that this Texas Peace Officer's Crash Report is required by law to be completed and filed with this Department; that this report sets forth matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, or factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law.

A

Debra Vermillion, Director Crash Data and Analysis Section P. O. Box 149349 Austin, Texas 78714 (512)486-5780

OUR GOALS MAINTAIN A SAFE SYSTEM • ADDRESS CONGESTION • CONNECT TEXAS COMMUNITIES • BEST IN CLASS STATE AGENCY An Equal Opportunity Employer

SuppR 021 Law Enforcement and TxDOT Use ONLY Total Total 0fatal |T]cmv •schoolbus •railroad •mab •supplement DsSoolzone Num. Units 1 1 Num. 1 3 1 Prsns. 1 TxDOT 14005009.1 1 5 1 Crash ID /2014351453 Texas Peace Officer's Crash Report (Fcmi CR-31/1/2010) Ma!) to; T^casDepaitmentcfTianspcrtation, Crash Records, P.O. Box 149349, Austin,TX 76714. Questions? Call (512) 486-5780 Refor to Attached Code Sheet for Numbered Fields PageL_±_Jofi_Lj

*Ciash Date . . ♦Crash Time Case Local (MM/DD/YYYY) 1 0 18 1/ 2 , 4 , /, 2 , 0 , 1 , 4 , f24HRMM) , 1 11 1 1 15 , ID Use

County ★City 1—1 Outside Name MiLftM Name EJ City Limit In your opinion, did thiscrash result In atleast [UYes Latitude Longitude $1,000 damageto any one person's property? CIno (decimaldegrees) | 3 | 0 | , | 8 | 7 | 7 | 2 | 7 | (decimal dmrees) |0|9|7|,|1|3|9|9|5| ROAD ON WHICH CRASH OCCURRED ★1 Rdwy. ★Hwy. 2 Rdwy. Block 3 Street ★Street 4 Street Svs. tJS Num. 190 Part 1 Num. Prefix Name Suffix

1—1 Crash Occurred ona Private Drive or 1—1 Toil Road/ Speed Const0 Yes Workers ^Yes Street '—' Road/Private Property/Fafking Lot ^ Toil Lane Limit 7Q Zone Qno Present Uno Dose. {7, of Buckholts INTEI^ECTINQ ROAD. OR IF CRASH NOTAT INTERSECTION. NEAREST INTERSECTINQ ROAD OR REFERENCE MARKER At DYes 1 Rdwy. Hwy. 2 Rdwy. Block 3 Street Street 4 Street Int. [x]no Sys. CR Num. 112 Part Num. Prefix Name Suffix

Distance from Int • ft 3 Dir. from InL Refsrence Street RRX or Ref. Marker 0.2 Bmi or Ref. Marker w Marker Desc. Num. I I ' I I I I

Unit 5 Unit 1—1 Parked iHltand LP LP VIN, 1 I F I T iNiWi2 I w I .g lO I u iP I r |2 I |1 ||B C|B |S |0| a ||8 0|:|9 > |6 | 0 ||3 Num. 1 Desc. 1 l—'Vehicle '—'Run State TX Num.CTS7466 Pol., Fire, EMS on Veh. 6 Veh. Veh. Veh. 7 Body I I Emergency (Explain in Year 2 I 0 J_o_L Color btiK Make fobd Model F250 Style PK Narrative Itracked) BDUID DL/ID DL/ID 9DL 10CDL 11 DL DOB Type 1 state TX Num. 09243216 Class C End. 96 Rest 96 (MM/DD/YYYY) L 0,2,<1,8,/l,9,7 |7 Address (Street

Cat25Dnjegorgy Restr. 18 Eject 17 Ethnicity Posi

DrSpec. DrResult Seattio13n

c Person

Helmet Name: First Last Mir> 1S.

AlSpec. tddle

Airt>ag

Result 0

ug 23 ug 24 Num.

Q-Entfor CO

e. 22 DrPrfirst Unit Perthis line or >—

Age on imvseonerarr y

Ale. CO

20 15

19 1Rober C2996 97 N 1Dwayne A w 3ole7 6man,t

Bailey C239CaM 1B wNot ApplAland ook, m7c3eoholo-incable rResul Drug only eare portsed Mat423Pfor AlDrPer97 91w M Cilum,vfehrr7s5/ewePonrdimary Unit each 426MiBlC97 9N 1w Book, achaell75ne S Owner Owner/Lessee • Lessee Name& Address Coleman, Robert Dtrayne, 19707 Centerlake LN Spring, TX 77379 ProofOf [x Yes n Expired 26 Fin. Rn. Resp. Fin. Resp. Fin. Resp.(^ No •Exempt Resp. Type 2 Name st»te Fsumt Num. 1662817D2053D002 Fin. Resp. 27 Vehicle 27 Vehicle Vehicle Qves Phone Num. (800) 782-8332 Damage Rating 1 j 1 I^ I l"i 6 I Damage Rating 2 5|"|R|B|0i"|3| Inventoried Q No Towed Towed By Damon's Wrecker Service 2104 W. 4th St., Camaron, IX 76520 Unit 5 Unit 1—(Parked r-| Hit and LP LP VIN. Num.2 Desc. 6 l-J Vehicle '—'Run State TX Num.206663H J I I I i I I L J I I I I I L

Veh. 6 Veh. Veh. Veh. 7 Body ^ Pol..Fire,EMS on I I Emergency (Explain in Year 2 I 0 I 1 I 0 I Color blk Make HtRlBMADB VBHICLB Model dhknokn Style Ti Narrativeifchecked) 8 DL/ID DL/ID DL/ID 9DL 10CDL 11 DL DOB Uffie State Num. Class End. Rest. fMM/DD/YYYY) L J 1^ I J I I L Address (Street CItv. State. ZIPt CatDreugorg 25y ISeve^

Eject 17

d fName:LastMiFirstddle Posi Seattio13n

njury 14

DrSpec. 24Dnj Person

Helmet Sex 16

Sol. 21 AlSpec. Alrtaag

Result

Result Num.

ug 23 e. 22 Ale. 20 19

g

nn Owner Owner/Lessee • Lessee Name &Address Anzaldua, Aaron L, 4826 Landon LN Baytown, TX 77523 Proof of E Yes •Expired 26 Rn Rn. Resp. Rn. Resp. Fin. Resp^ No •Exempt Resp. Type 2 Name state Farm Num. 1662817D2053D002 Fin. Resp. 27 Vehicle 27 Vehicle Vehicle QYes Phone Num. <800)782-83 amaae Ratlno 1 DaJDSge Ratlngi2 Inventoried!^ No J I Towed By Damon's WXecker Service 2104 W. 4th St., Cameron, TX 76520 SuppR 022 Law Enforcement and TxDOT Use ONLY. FormCR-3 1/1/2010 Case ID TxDOT Crash ID 14005009.1/2014351453 PflBfli 2 ipfi 4 I Unit Prsn. Tateo?DeaSP Time of Death Taken To Taken By Num. Num. (MM/DD/YYYY) (24HRMM)

Scott 6 White Hospital, Tenple, TX amerlcan Medical Response

Scott a White Hospital, Tenple, IX ftmerlcan Medical Response

Scott & White Hospital, Temple, TX ftmorican Medical Response

Scott & White Hospital. Temple, TX PHI Air Med

Unit Prsn. Charge Citation/Reference Num. Num. Num.

Damaged Property Other Than Vehides Owner's Name Owner's Address

Unit 28Veh. 29 Carrier Carrier Num. 1 010.001^ LBS. CAPACITY Oper. 5 ID Type 96 ID Num.

Carrier's Carrier's Corp. Name Robert PwaTyne Coleman Primary Addr. 19707 Centerlake UT Spring, IX 77379 30Rdwy. 31 Veh. lijRGVW HazMat ClYes 32 KazMat HazMat 32 HazMat HazMat Access 3 Type 7 nGWVRi I 7 I 6 |0 |0 I Released |~]no Class Num^ | IDNum. I I I L J I I I Class Num^ | ID Num. I i_ J I L J I

33 Cargo Unit Srgvw 34Trtr. Unit RGVW 34Trlr. Trailer 1 Trailer 2 Body Style Num. •gwvr l I ^ I » I " I Type Num. GWVR t I I J I I Type Sequence Total Total 35Seq. 1 35Seq.2 35Seq. 3 35Seq.4 Of Events 13 Num. Axles Num. Tires CO 36 CcnWbutIng Factors (Investigator's Opinion) 37 Vehicle Defects flnvestlgator's Opinion) Environmental and Roadway Conditions Unit Num. Contributing May Have Contrib. Contributing May Have Contrib. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Weather Light Entering Roadway Roadway Surfece Traffic 12 Cond. Cond. Roads Type /Uignment Condition Control

1 1 97 1 5 1 12

Investigator's Narrative Opinion of What Happened Held Diagram - Not to Scale (Attach Additional Sheets if Necessanr) Onlt 1 was traveling BB on PS 190 towing Unit 2, an enpty 16 foot flatbed trailer. Unit 3 was traveling RB on US 190 ^proachlng Unit 1. US 190 was under construction at the time of tihe crash but the constinictlon ccnpany was not working on that day. The driver of Unit 1 stated his left front tire blew out and I t caused his vehicle to cross Into the VJB lane. He continued to say since he did not have control of the vehicle as It went Into the WB lane he did the only thing he could do which was to s^ly the brsikes as hard as he could. The WB lane did not have an inproved shoulder as the BB lane did but It was just as wide. Judging from the area of Inpact the driver of Unit 3 Construction barre s attenpted to avoid the collision. The collision occurred In the Unl 3 \ NB lane near the WB bar ditch behind the construction barrels narking the nB lane. Unit 1 struck Unit 3's LP with Its PL. Pnlt 3 spun around and came to rest In the WB bar ditch facing after strllclng a tree with Its LP. Unit 1 came to rest facing HW In the WB bar ditch with Unit 2 resting against Its RBQ. Bvldence on scene Indicated Unit I ' s l e f t front t i r e sustained a blowout while s t i l l In his lane. Mzirks l e f t behind from the left front tire showed the tire was wdi^llng prior to crossing Into the MB lane. Bvldence showed the rim of the left front tire was digging Into the pavmnent In the WB lane prior to Unit 1 striking Unit 3.

Time Notified How Time Arrived Report Date (24HRMM) l1 1^ |2 |3 I Notified Dispatched (24HR:MM) \-Ll 1 'I 5 ^ " I (MM/DD/YYYY) 0 I 8 |/, 2 I 5 |/, 2 I 0 I 1 , 4 Invest. Qyos Investigator ID Comp.[x]No Name (Print( il Bosque, Brnes^ <4 mm Num. 9545 ORi Num.1 I I I I I opMnJrom Custddia I I Hi ' DBPARTMBWT OP PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE OF TEXAS ct/ |H|P|6|A|0|6 SuppR 023 Law Enforcement andTxDOT Use ONLY Ar^riv/c ITotal [Total TxDOT 14005009.1 0FATAL 0CMV nSCHOOLBUS nRAILROAD OmAB QSUPPLEMENT N^i I I3 | , _5j Crash ID /2014351453 Texas Peace Officer's Crash Report (Form CR-31/1/2010) Mailto: TexasDepartmentofTranspoftation, Crash Records, P.O. Box 149349, Austin, TX78714. Questions? Call (512)486-5780 Refer b Attached Code Sheet for Numbered Fields j^^^Ttrnmawmen *=These fields are required on all additional sheets submitted for this crash (ex.: additional vehicles, occupants. Injured, etc.). ★Crash Date . . ★Crash Time (MM/DD/YYYY) |0|8|/2|4|/|2|0|1|4| (24HRMM) , 1 i 1 i 1 i5 , ★County ★City § Name mhjuii Name City Limit

^ In your opinion, did this crash result in at least [DYes Latitude Longitude § $1,000 damage toany one person's property? • No (dedmai degrees) t3|0|.|8|7|7|2|7i (decimal degrees) i0 i 1 I 3 I 9 I 9 I 5 :i ROAD ONWHICH CRASH OCCURRED a ★! Rdwy. ★Hwy. 2 Rdwy. Block 3 Street ★Street 4Sb^t 9o Sys. OS Num. 190 Part 1 Num. Prefix Name Suffix

2^ I—I Crash Occurred on aPrivate Drive or 11—| I I Toll Road/ |Speed ConstS Yes Workers D Yes Street g '—' Road/Private Property/Parking Lot Toll Lane Limit 70 Zone Qno Present [T|no Desc. w. of Buckholts S INTERSECTING ROAD. OR IF CRASH NOT AT INTERSECTION. NEAREST INTERSECTING ROAD OR REFERENCE MARKER ill ^ 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 9 At DYss 1Rdwy. Hwy. 2 Rdwy. 3 Street 4 Street Int. [xJno ISys. CR Num.112 Part Prefix SufRx

Distance from Int. Q FT 3 Dir. from int. Reference or Ref. Marker 0.2 Ml F^sf' Marker vi Marker

Parked 1—[Hitand LP LP Vehicle M Run Sts TX State Num.BFN0694 F|M|5|K[7|D|8 , 6 | B | 2 ,6 |2 ,7 |5 Pol., Fire, EMS on Veh. 7 Body I I Emergent (Explain I Make FORD Style sv Nanative if checked] DL/ID DUD 10CDL 11 DL State TX Num. 07084677 End. 96 Rest. A Address (Street, Cltv.State.ZIP] 22004 Laneview RD Henpstead, TX 77445

oe E• 0- i «g. CO81 1 Name: Last First Middle Enter Driver or Primary Person for this Unit on first line mi 5 CO 'S J •5 <0 ii A !di CV CO S 0^ CM CO (N K

.Ipatrlek, Beverly Dykes K 62 , B 2 1 1 5 97 N 96 97 97 15 Ethnicty Not Applicable - Alcohol and Drug Results are only reported

17Eject. for Driver/Primary Person for each Unit.

18Restr Fin. RespQ No • Exempt Resp. Type 2 Fin. Resp. 27 Vehlde 27 Vehicle Vehicle HYes Phone Num. (800)435-7764 DamageRating 1,1,0;", , I | p , • , 6 , DamageRating 2 P I" I 1 I Invenbned Q No Towred Towed Bv CSW Wrecker Service To 1506 N. Travis, Cameron, TX 76520 IHit and LP> LP 'Run Sta ate Num. IVeh. Pol., Fire, EMS on I I Emergency (^piain in Model Narrative if cmecked) 10CDL End. Address (Street CItv. State. ZIP]

TS Name: Last First Middle 9 o> 0

Enter Driver or Primary Person fcH* this Unit on first line 0 1 uT & a E a JL (0 t- CO ?! ^ I

Not Applicable - Alcohol and Drug Results are only reported for Driver/Primary Person for each Unit.

HH Owner Owner/Lessee I ILessee Name &Address Proof of CHYes Q Expired 26 Fin. Fin. Resp. Fin. Resp. Fin. RespQ No Q Exempt Resp. Type ' Name Num.

Fin. Resp. Vehicle QYes Phone Num. — j "1 1 InventariedQNo Towed Py 1 SuppR 024 Law Enforcement and TxDOT Use ONLY. FonnCR-3 1/1/2010 Case ID TxDOT Crash ID 140OSOO9.1/20143514S3 Paaei 4 ipfi 4 Unit Prsn. Date of Death Time of Death Taken To Taken By Num. Num. (MM/DD/YYYY) (24HRMM)

Oreen-Patterson Funeral Hams Oreen-Patterson Funeral Home 0 I 8 2 I 4 2 I 0 I 1 I 4 1 I 2 I 3 I 5 & is

Damaged Property Other Than Vehicles Owner's Name Owner's /Address

Unit 28Veh. 29 Carrier Carrier Num. • 10,001. IBS. • 8* CAPACITY Oper. ID Type ID Num. Carrier's Carrier's Corp. Name Primary Addr. 30 Rdwy. 31 Veh. •rgvw KazMat IZlYes 32HazMat HazMat 32 HazMat HazMat Access Type riGVWRi I I I I I Released Qno Class Num^ | ID Num. I I 11 |_ J L Class Num^ | ID Num. I I 11 |_ J L

33 Cargo Unit •rgvw 34Trtr. Unit RGVW 34Trir. Trailer 1 Trailer 2 Body Style Num. •gvwr I I I I I I Type Num. GVWR I L J I I Type Sequence Total Total 35Seq.1 35Seq.2 35 Seq. 3 35Seq.4 Of Events Num. Axles Num. Tires CO 36 ConWbutlng Factors (Investigator's Opinion) 37 Vehicle Defects finvestlflator's Opinion) Environmental and Roadway Conditions Unit Num. Contributing May Have Contrib. Contributing May Have Contrib. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Weather Light Entering Roadway Roadway Surfoce Traffic Cond. Cond. Roads Type Alignment Condition Control

Investigator's Narrative Opinion of What Happened Reid Diagram - Not to Scale (Attach Additional Sheets if Necessary)

Time Notified How Time Arrived Report Date (24HRMM1 lA 1 I 2 Notifled Dispatched (24HR:MM) 1-L 1 I 5 I 0 I (MMlDDlYYVy) , 0 I 8 |/, 2 I 5 |/, 2 I 0 I 1 I 4 Invest. nVes Investigator Comp.0No Name (PnnteqjiiBd Boscjue, Ernes^p >

|1. Roadway System 4. Street Suffix IH = Interstate AL = Altemate 1 s: Main/Proper Lane Direction from Int. or RD - Road EXPY = Expressway US = US Highway SP = Spur 2 = Service/Frontage Road Ref. Marker ST = Street CT = Court SH = State Highway OR = County Road 3 = Entrance/On Ramp N = North DR = Drive CIR - Circle FM = Farm to Market PR = Park Road 4 s Exit/Off Ramp AVE = Avenue PL = Place NE = Northeast RR = Ranch Road PV = Private Road 5 = Connector/Flyover BLVD = Boulevard PARK = Park E = East RM = Ranch to Market RC = Recreational Road 98 ssOther (Explain In Narrative) PKWY = Parkway CV = Cove SE - Southeast Bl = Business Interstate >-R = Local Road/Street (Street. Road. Ave., S = South LN = Lane BU = Business US Blvd., PI., Tri., Beach, Alley, Boat Ramp, etc.) SW = Southwest FWY = Freeway BS = Business State W= West HWY = Highway BF = Business FM NW = Northwest WAY = Way SL - State Loop TRL = Trail TL = Toil Road LOOP = Loop

S. Unit Description 7. Body Style 1 = Motor Vehicle BGE = Beige ONG = Orange P2 = Passenger Car, 2-Door PC = Police Car/Truck 2 = Train BLK: : Black PNK = Pink P4 = Passenger Car, 4-Door PM = Police Motorcycle 1 = Driver License 3 = Pedaicycllst BLU == Blue PLE = Purple PK = Pickup TL = Trailer. Semi-Trailer, or Pole Trailer 2 = Commercial Driver Lie. 4 = Pedestrian BRZ = Bronze RED = Red AM = Ambulance TR = Truck 3 = Occupational 5 - Motorized BRO = Brown SIL = Silver BU = Bus TT = Truck Tractor 4 = ID Card Conveyance CAM = Camouflage TAN = Tan SB = Yellow School Bus VN = Van 5 = Unlicensed 6 = Towed/Trailer CPR = Copper TEA = Teal (green) FE = Farm Equipment 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative) 98 = Other 7 = Non-Contact OLD = Gold TRQ = Turquoise (blue) FT = Fire Truck 99 = Unknown 99 = Unknown 98 = Other (Explain in GRY = Gray WHi = White MC = Motorcycle Narrative) GRN = Green YEL = Yellow SV = Sport UtilityVehicle MAR B Maroon 98 B Other (Explain in MUL = Multicolored Narrative) 99 = Unknown

10. Commercial Driver 11. Driver License Restrictions License Endorsements A = With Corrective Lenses L = Vehicle w/o Air Brakes - Applies to T = Automatic Transmission A - Class A H = Hazardous Materials B = LOFS Age 21 or Over Vehicles Requiring CDL U = Applicable Prosthetic Devices AM = Class A and M N = Tank Vehicles C = Daytime Only M = CDL Intrastate Commerce Only V - Applicable Vehicle Devices B = Class B P = Passengers D = Not to Exceed 45 MPH N = ignition Interlock Required W = Power Steering E = No Expressway Driving 0 - Occ./Essent. Need DL-No CMV- X - Vehicle Not to Exceed Class C BM = Class B and M S = School Bus F = Must Hold Valid Learner Lie. to MM/DD/YY See Court Order Y = Valid TX Vision or Limb Waiver C = Class C T = Double/Triple Trailer CM s Class C and M X = Tank Vehicle with G = TRC 545.424 Applies until MM/DD/YY P = Stated on License Req'd. M = Class M HazMat H = Vehicle Not to Exceed 26,000 lbs GVWR Q = LOFS 21 or Over Vehicle Above Z = Valid Fed. Vision or Limb Vt^iver 5 = Unlicensed 5 = Unlicensed I s Motorcycle Not to Exceed 250 CC Class B Req'd. J = Licensed Motorcycle Operator Age 21 R = LOFS 21 or Over Vehicle Above 5 = Unlicensed 98 - Other/Out of State 98 = Nona or Over in Sight Class C 96 - None 99 = Unknown 98 = Other/Out of State K = Moped S - Outside Rear View Mirror or 98 = Other/Out of State 99 = Unknown HearingAid 99 = Unknown 15. Etfinicltv 16-Sex 17. Ejgcted 1 = Driver 1 = Front Left 10 ssCargo Area A = incapacitating injury W = White 1 s: Male 1 =No 2 = Passenger/Occupant 2 = Front Center 11 = Outside Vehicle B = Non-Incapacitating B = Black 2 = Female 2 = Yes 3 = Pedaicycllst 3 = Front Right 13 = Other In Vehicle Injury H = Hispanic 99 = Unknown 3 = Yes, Partial 4 = Pedestrian 4 - Second Seat Left 14 s: Passenger in Bus C = Possible Injury A = Asian 97 = Not 5 = Driver of Motorcycle Type Vehicle 5 = Second Seat Center 16 = Pedestrian, Pedaicyclist, K = Killed I s: Amer. Indian/ Applicable 6 = Passenger/Occupant on Motorcycle Type 6 - Second Seat Right or Motorized Conveyance N = Not Injured Alaskan Native 99 = Unknown Vehicle 7 = Third Seat Left 98 = Other (Explain in 99 = Unknown 98 s: Other 98 - Other (Explain In Narrative) 8 = Third Seat Center Narrative) 99 = Unknown 99 = Unknown 9 = Third Seat Right 99 = Unknown 19. Alrbaa 1 = Shoulderand LapBelt 7 = Child BoosterSeat 1 ss Not Deployed 27. Vehicle Damage Rating 2 s:Shoulder BeltOnly 96 = None 2 ss Deployed, Front in most cases, enter in the format 3 s= Lap BeitOnly 97 = NotApplicable 3 ssDeployed, Side XX-ABC-Y, where 4 s:Child SeaL Fadng Forward 98 = Other(Explain in 4 = Deployed, Rear XX is the Direction of Force (1-12). 5 = Child Seat Facing Rear Narrative) 5 ss Deployed, Multiple ABC is the Damage Description 2- or 3- 6 s: Child SeaL Unknown 99 ssUnknown 97 s: Not Applicable letter code), 99 ss Unknown and Y is the Damage Severity (0-7). 20. Helmut Use 22. Alcohol Specimen Tvoe In special cases, use: LFQ 3 RFQ 1 ss Not Worn 1 ss Breath VB-1 ss vehicle burned, NOT due to 2 = Worn, Damaged 2 ss Blood collision 3 ssWorn, Not Damaged 3 ss Urine VB-7 ss vehicle catches fire due to the LD 4 = Wom, Unk. Damage 4 ss Refused collision 97 - Not Applicable 96 = None TP-0 sstop damage only 99 = Unknown if Wom 98 ss Other (Explain in Narrative) VX-0 ss undercarriage damage only MC-1 ss motorcycle, moped, scooter. LP 23. Drug Specimen Type 25. DruaCateooiv etc. 2 s: Blood 2 ssCNS Depressants NA ss Not Applicable (Farm Tractor, 3 ss Urine 3 ss CNS Stimulants etc.) 4 ss Refused 4 ssHallucinogens L&T 96 ss None 6 ss Narcotic Analgesics 98 ssOther (Explain In Narrative) 7 ss Inhalants 8 ss Cannabis LBQ M 3 RBO 24. Drug Test Result 10 ss Disassociathre Anesthetics 1 ss Positive 11 ss Multiple Drugs (Explain in Narrative) 2 ss Negative 97 ss Not Applicable 97 ss Not Applicable 98 ss Other Drugs (Explain In Narrative) 99 s: Unknown 99 s: Unknown 26. Financial ResDonslbliltv Tvoe 1 ss Liability insurance Policy 5 ss Certificate of Depositwith Comptroller 2 ss Proofof Liability Insurance 9 ss Certificate of Depositwith County Judge 3 ss Insurance Binder 7 s= Certificate of Self-Insurance 4 =

SuppR 026 Texas Peace Officer's Crash Report - Code Sheet Page 2 of 2 Numbered Fields on the CR-3 Refer to the Numbered Lists on this Code Sheet Each list includes the codes that may be entered on Law Enforcement and TxDOT Use ONLY. tfiefonTum^hedesaTgtioi^|feaclvcede^ FormCR-3CS 1/1/2010 28. Vehicle Onaration 30. Roadway Access 32. Hazardous Material Class Number 1 = Interstate Commerce 1 = US DOT 1 = Full Access Control 1 = Passenger Car 1 = Explosives 2 - Intrastate Commerce 2 = TxDOT 2 - Partial Access Control 2 = Light Truck 2 = Gases 3 = Not in Commerce 3 = ICC/MC 3 = No Access Control 3 = Bus (9-15) 3 = Flammable Liquids 4 = Government 86 = None 4 = Bus (>15) 4 = Flammable Solids 5 = Personal 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative) 5 ss Single Unit Truck 2 Axles 6 Tires 5 = Oxidizers and Organic Peroxides 6 = Single Unit Truck 3 or More Axles 6 s: Toxic Materials and Infectious Substances 7 = Truck Trailer 7 = Radioactive Materials 8 = Truck Tractor (Bobtail) 8 = Corrosive Materials 9 = Tractor/Semi Trailer 9 = Miscellaneous Dangerous Goods 10 = Tractor/Double Trailer 11 = Tractor/Triple Trailer 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative) 99 = Unknown Heavy Truck

33. Cargo Body Style 1 = Bus (9-15) 8 = Auto Transporter 15 = Vehicle Towing Another 1 = Full Trailer 2 = Bus (>15) 9 = Garbage Refuse Vehicle 2 = Semi-Trailer 3 = Van/Enclosed Box 10 = Grain Chips Gravel 97 = Not Applicable 3 = Pole Trailer 4 = Cargo Tank 11= Pole 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative) 5 = Flatbed 13 = Intermodal 6 = Dump 14 = Logging 7 = Concrete Mixer

35. Sequence of Events 1 = Non-Collision: Ran Off Road 9 = Non-Collision: Equipment Failure 17 = Collision Involving Animal 2 = Non-Collision: Jackknife 10 = Non-Collision; Other 18 = Collision Involving Fixed Object 3 = Non-Collision: Overturn Rollover 11= Non-Collision: Unknown 19 = Coliision With Work Zone Maintenance Equipment 4 = Non-Collision: Downhill Runaway 12 = Collision Involving Pedestrian 20 = Coilision With Other Movable Object 5 = Non-Collision: Cargo Loss Or Shift 13 = Collision Involving Motor Vehicle in Transport 21 = Collision With Unknown Movable Object 6 = Non-Collision; Explosion Or Fire 14 = Collision Involving Parked Motor Vehicle 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative) 7 = Non-Collision: Separation of Units 15 = Collision Involving Train 8 = Non-Collision: Cross Median/Centerline 16 = Coliision Involving Pedalcycle

36. Factors and Conditions 1 = Animal on Road - Domestic 33 = Failed to Yield ROW - Open Intersection 56 = Parked without Lights 2 = Animal on Road - Wild 34 = Failed to Yield ROW - Private Drive 57 = Passed in No Passing Lane 3 = Backed without Safety 35 = Failed to Yield ROW - Stop Sign 58 = Passed on Right Shoulder 4 = Changed Lane when Unsafe 36 = Failed to Yield ROW-To Pedestrian 59 = Pedestrian FTYROWto Vehicle 14 = Disabled in Traffic Lane 37 = Failed to Yield ROW - Tuming Left 60 = Unsafe Speed 15 = Disregard Stop and Go Signal 38 = Failed to Yield ROW- Tum on Red 61 = Speeding - (Over Limit) 16 = Disregard Stop Sign or Light 39 = Failed to Yield ROW- Yield Sign 62 = Taking Medication (Explain in Narrative) 17 = Disregard Turn Marks at Intersection 40 = Fatigued or Asleep 63 = Turned Improperly - Cut Comer on Left 18 = Disregard Waming Sign at Construction 41 = Faulty Evasive Action 64 = Turned Improperly - Wide Right 19 = Distraction in Vehicle 42 = Fire in Vehicle 65 = Tumed Improperly - Wrong Lane 20 = Driver Inattention 43 = Fleeing or Evading Police 66 = Tumed when Unsafe 21 = Drove Without Headlights 44 = Followed Too Closely 67 = Under Influence - Alcohol 22 = Failed to Control Speed 45 = Had Been Drinking 68 = Under Influence - Drug 23 = Failed to Drive in Single Lane 46 = Handicapped Driver (Explain in Narrative) 69 = Wrong Side - Approach or Intersection 24 = Failed to Give Half of Roadway 47 = III (Explain in Narrative) 70 = Wfong Side - Not Passing 25 = Failed to Heed Waming Sign 48 = Impaired Visibility (Explain in Narrative) 71 = Wrong Way - One Way Road 26 = Failed to Pass to Left Safely 49 = Improper Start from Parked Position 72 = Cell/Mobile Phone Use 27 = Failed to Pass to Right Safely 50 = Load Not Secured 73 = Road Rage 28 = Failed to Signal or Gave Wrong Signal 51 = Opened Door Into Traffic Lane 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative) 29 = Failed to Stop at Proper Place 52 = Oversized Vehicle or Load 30 = Failed to Stop for School Bus 53 = Overtake and Pass Insufficient Clearance 31 = Failed to Stop for Train 54 = Parked and Failed to Set Brakes 32 = Failed to Yield ROW - Emergency Vehicle 55 = Parked in Traffic Lane

38. Weather Condition 39. Lfnht Condition 5 = Defective or No Headlamps 1 = Clear 1 = Daylight 2 = Three Entering Roads - T 6 = Defective or No Stop Lamps 2 = Cloudy 2 = Dark. Not Lighted 3 = Three Entering Roads - Y 7 = Defective or No Tail Lamps 3 = Rain 3 = Dark, Lighted 4 = Four Entering Roads 8 = Defective or No Tum Signal Lamps 4 = Sleet/Hail 4 = Dark, Unknown Lighting 5 = Five Entering Roads 9 = Defective or No Trailer Brakes 5 = Snow 5 = Dawn 6 = Six Entering Roads 10 = Defective or No Vehicle Brakes 6 = Fog 6 = Dusk 7 = Traffic Circle 11 = Defective Steering Mechanism 7 = Blowing Sand/Snow 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative) 8 = Cloverleaf 12 = Defective or Slick Tires 8 = Severe Crosswinds 99 = Unknown 97 = Not Applicable 13 = Defective Trailer Hitch 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative) 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative) 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative) 99 = Unknown

41. Roadway Tvoe 42. Roadway Alignment 11 = Center Stripe/Divider 1 = Two-Way, Not Divided 1 = Straight, Level 1 = Dry 2 = Inoperative (Explain in Narrative) 12 = No Passing Zone 2 = Two-Way, Divided, Unprotected 2 = Straight, Grade 2 = Wet 3 = Officer 13 = RR Gate/Signal Median 3 = Straight Hillcrest 3 = Standing Water 4 = Flagman 15 = Crosswalk 3 = Two-Way, Divided, Protected 4 = Curve, Level 4 = Snow 5 = Signal Light le = Bike Lane Median 5 = Curve, Grade 5 = Slush 6 = Flashing Red Light 17 s Marked Lanes 4 = One-Way 6 = Cun/e, Hillcrest 6 = Ice 7 = FlashingYellow Light 18 = Signal Light With Red Light 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative) 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative) 7 = Sand, Mud, Dirt 8 = Stop Sign Running Camera 99 = Unknown 98 = Other (Explain in Narrative) 9 = Yield Sign 95 = None 99 = Unknown 10 = Wbming Sign 93 = Other(Explain in Narrative)

SuppR 027 NHTSA Recall Number 12T-019

Date: July 26, 2012

Subject: SAFETY RECALL NOTICE

Dear BFGoodrich Tire Owner,

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

BFGoodrich®, a brand owned and operated by Michelin North America , Inc., has decided that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in certain BFGoodrich Commercial T/A ® AlS brand replacement tires and they are included in a recall of approximately 800,000 tires from the U.S. market. These tires are typical ly found on commercial light trucks and full size heavy duty vans .

You are receiving this letter because our records indicate that you may have purchased one or more of the recalled tires. It is possible that anyone of the tires being recalled may experience tread loss and/or rapid air loss resulting from tread belt separation . This condition may increase the risk of a vehicle crash.

The following list provides the product descriptions, DOT (Department of Transportation) sequence identifiers and DOT production periods of the recalled tires. This DOT information is molded into the sidewall of each tire. The four dashes at the end of the DOT sequence correspond to the DOT date code that is a 2-digit week and 2-digit year of production, which are given in the DOT production period information. For example , "4305" refers to the 43" week of the year 2005.

DOT production Tire description DOT sequence periods (inclusive)

LT235/85 R16 120Q LRE BFGoodrich Commercial TIA AIS BFOR J D11 --- - 1310 t02912

LT245/75 R16 120Q LRE BE11 JD11 ---- 1310 to 0312 BFGoodrich Commercial TlA AIS BF11 JD11 ---- 1311 to 5211

Tires matching these descriptions and DOT sequence identifiers, but produced outside of the identified DOT production time periods, are not part of this recall. To determine if you have received tires that are included in this recall , please check the DOT information found on the sidewall of the tire as explained on page 4 of this letter.

It is important that all recalled tires be removed from service as soon as possible. The removed tires will be replaced with a similar product at no cost to you.

SuppR 028 To return and replace recalled tires without charge , please visit your BFGoodrich retailer who will assist you . To locate a BFGoodrich retailer, please visit the online dealer locator at www.bfgoodrichtires.com . There is also detailed information about this recall available at:

www.bfgoodrichtires.com/voluntarvsafetyrecall.

If you still have questions after visiting the website and your BFGoodrich retailer, please contact BFGoodrich Consumer Care at 1-800-637-5527 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday-Friday, and between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on Saturday.

If your servicing BFGoodrich retailer fails or is unable to provide the service as described above without charge , you may submit a complaint to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington , DC 20590 or call the toll-free Auto Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY 1-800-424-9153) ; or go to www.safercar.gov.

Commitment to safety , quality and respect for the customer are our highest priorities . Please accept our sincerest apology for any inconvenience that replacing these tires may cause you.

Sin cerely ,

Mike Wischhusen Technical Director

SuppR 029 Reimbursement to Consumers for Affected Tire Replacements Prior to Recall

If you have already paid to have your tires replaced due to the condition associated with this recall, you may be eligible to receive reimbursement.

Requests for reimbursement may include parts, labor, fees and taxes . Reimbursement may be limited to the amount the replacement would have cost if completed by an authorized BFGoodrich retailer. The documentation described below must be presented to the BFGoodrich Consumer Care department for review.

Original or clear copy of all receipts , invoices and/or repair orders that show:

• The name and address of the person who paid for the replacement

• The model name and size of the tire that was replaced along with the DOT codes

• What problem occurred , when the tire was replaced , and who replaced it

• The total cost of the replacement that is being claimed

• Proof of payment (copy of front and back of cancelled check, or copy of credit card receipt)

This documentation should be mailed to the following address :

BFGoodrich Consumer Care Department P.O. Box 19001 Greenville, SC 29602

If your claim is deemed to be valid , reimbursement will be made by check from Michelin North America . Should your claim be denied, you will receive a letter from Michelin North America within 60 days of receipt giving the reason(s) for denial.

SuppR 030 READING DOT TIRE SIDEWALL MARKINGS DOT tire sidewall markings serve as the tire's fingerprint and signify compliance with U.S. Department of Transportation Minimum Performance Standards. The DOT markings can be found on the sidewall just above the wheel flange.

To find out if a tire is affected by the recall:

1. Determine if it is one of the following products:

DOT production Tire description DOT sequence periods (inclusive)

LT235/85 R16120Q LRE BFGoodrich Commercial TIA AlS BFOR JOll -- - - 1310 to 2912

LT245175 R16 120Q LRE BEll JOll ---- 1310 to 0312 BFGoodrich Commercial TlA AlS BFll JOll - - - - 1311 to 5211

If it is not one of these products the tire is not part of the recall. If it is one of these products , check the DOT information to determine if the tire is affected by the recall as follows.

2. The following illustrations show the DOT information on a sample of the affected tires. If you have any questions concerning the tire's DOT information, please contact BFGoodrich Consumer Care at 1-800-637-5527 .

BFGoodrich Commercial TIA AlS LT235185 R16 1200 LRE

DOT sequence begins with BFOR JD1

and ends with a date code (2-digit week and 2-digit year) between 1310 and 2912 inclusive.

SuppR 031 SuppR 032 SuppR 033 SuppR 034 SuppR 035 SuppR 036 SuppR 037 SuppR 038 SuppR 039 SuppR 040 SuppR 041 SuppR 042 SuppR 043 SuppR 044 SuppR 045 SuppR 046 SuppR 047 SuppR 048 SuppR 049 SuppR 050 SuppR 051 SuppR 052 SuppR 053 SuppR 054 SuppR 055 SuppR 056 SuppR 057 SuppR 058 SuppR 059 SuppR 060 SuppR 061 SuppR 062 SuppR 063 SuppR 064 SuppR 065 SuppR 066 SuppR 067 SuppR 068 SuppR 069 SuppR 070 SuppR 071 SuppR 072 SuppR 073 SuppR 074 SuppR 075 SuppR 076 SuppR 077 SuppR 078 SuppR 079 SuppR 080 SuppR 081 SuppR 082 SuppR 083 SuppR 084 SuppR 085 SuppR 086 SuppR 087 SuppR 088 SuppR 089 SuppR 090 SuppR 091 SuppR 092 SuppR 093 SuppR 094 SuppR 095 SuppR 096 SuppR 097 SuppR 098 SuppR 099 SuppR 100 SuppR 101 SuppR 102 SuppR 103 SuppR 104 SuppR 105 SuppR 106 SuppR 107 SuppR 108 SuppR 109 SuppR 110 SuppR 111 SuppR 112 SuppR 113 SuppR 114 SuppR 115 SuppR 116 SuppR 117 SuppR 118 SuppR 119 SuppR 120 SuppR 121 SuppR 122 SuppR 123 SuppR 124 SuppR 125 SuppR 126 1/23/2015 3:17:55 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 3882995 By: SALENE SMITH Filed: 1/23/2015 3:17:55 PM

KOLLYE KILPATRICK, et al., § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiffs, § § AND § § ROBERT DWAYNE COLEMAN, et al., § Intervening Cross-Claimant and Plaintiffs, § § VS. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § MICHELIN NORTH AM., INC., et al., § Defendants. § 152nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT

INTERVENORS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MICHELIN’S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON MOTION TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COME NOW Intervenors, Robert Coleman and his sons Blayne Cook and Cameron

Cook, minors, by and through their mother and next friend Kim Coleman (collectively “the

Coleman family”) and file their opposition to the motion for continuance of hearing filed by

Michelin North America, Inc. (hereafter “Michelin”), and would show the Court as follows:

I. Summary

For months, Michelin has been aware of the Coleman family’s request to preserve the

evidence (the two specifically identified tire building machines used to build the failed tire at

issue) and to allow access to those two machines. See, e.g., Ex. 1 – 6.

In fact, on January 2, 2015, at the last hearing in this case, the Coleman family raised its

concern about Michelin’s unwillingness to preserve the evidence the family has asked Michelin

to preserve, and the Court asked us to come back at another time to address that issue.

SuppR 127 Now that the parties have re-set that matter for consideration on January 30, Michelin

wishes to postpone that hearing despite the fact that all parties will be appearing before the Court

on another matter (the hearing on Kilpatrick’s Motion to Compel is set for January 30). When

Michelin asked for additional time to respond to the Coleman family’s motion, the Coleman

family offered Michelin additional time to respond to the motion and also offered to postpone the

hearing on the motion to compel if Michelin would agree to preserve the evidence:

If you will agree to my request for preservation of evidence (i.e., if you will videotape the machines and processes I have requested to observe for in camera tender to the trial court), I can agree to postpone the hearing on the motion to compel.

Alternatively, if you would rather just have an extra four days to respond to the motion to compel (i.e., if you want to serve your affidavits three days before the hearing instead of the seven days required by Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.4(a)), I can agree to that if you will serve those affidavits by email so that they are received by me at least 72 hours before the hearing.

For months, you have been aware of both my discovery request and also my request for the preservation of evidence, and yet you have not even agreed to preserve the evidence let alone provided any response to my request for a protocol to observe the two tires building machines at issue. Under these circumstances, we cannot agree to put off the hearing unless you will agree to preserve the evidence as requested above.

Ex. 6. Michelin rejected these offers to provide Michelin with extra time to respond to the

discovery matter which Michelin has known about for several months, and Michelin will not

even agree to preserve the evidence which has been requested.

II. Chronology of Requests for Preservation of Evidence and Access to that Evidence

On September 15, 2014, the Coleman family first informed Michelin of their request to

observe the specific tire building machines used to build the failed subject tire at Michelin’s Fort

Wayne, Indiana plant:

… I agree that your client should have the same access to original evidence in my clients’ possession (such as the tire) as my client has access to original evidence in

SuppR 128 your client’s possession (such as the tire building and tire inspecting rooms at the Fort Wayne plant and the tire building machines at that plant used to build LT 265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A’s in February of 2011 at the Fort Wayne plant).

See Ex. 1. Again, on December 10, 2014, the Coleman family requested to observe this original

evidence in Michelin’s possession, and invited Michelin to propose a protocol to govern this

process:

As I mentioned back in September, I wish to inspect (1) the tire inspection room and the final finish tire inspection process at the Ford Wayne tire plant where the tire was made as well as (2) the tire building machines which were used to assemble the innerliner and the steel belts with their nylon reinforcement into the failed Coleman tire bearing DOT No. BFW802110611. Please send me a proposed protocol for the inspection of the final finish inspection room, the final finish inspection process, and two tire building machines (the first stage machine used to assemble the innerliner and the second stage machine used to assemble the belt package).

See Ex. 2.

On December 19, 2014, the Coleman family formally requested to observe the specific

tire building machines at issue:

Robert Coleman proposes that the observation should include the machine or machines used to place the innerliner on the tire building drum and to assemble the belts and nylon reinforcement into the pre-cured tire (sometimes referred to as first and second stage tire building machines) on which LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires were built in the 6th week of 2011 at Michelin’s Fort Wayne plant … and the scope of the observation should not include any sampling or destructive testing and should include nothing more than a visual observation – including recording by videotape – and be limited to one hour of observation and videotaping the machines while they are in use.

See Ex. 3. On December 19, the Coleman family also served Michelin with Requests for

Admission regarding the tire building machines at issue; Michelin confirmed that it was in

possession of the specified machines:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 82: Admit Michelin currently has possession of the first stage tire building machines used to build LT265/75R16 BF

SuppR 129 Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT BFW802110611 at the Fort Wayne plant in the sixth week of 2011.

RESPONSE:

Admitted. … REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 83: Admit Michelin currently has possession of the second stage tire building machines used to build LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT BFW802110611 at the Fort Wayne plant in the sixth week of 2011.

Admitted.

See Ex. 4.

On December 24, 2014, in response to Michelin’s motion to compel production of the

failed tire, the Coleman family once again notified Michelin of their request that Michelin

preserve the tire building machine evidence at issue so that it might be observed at a later date:

By this specific request, the Coleman family is not seeking production of documentation about the current status of first and second stage tire building machines used to assemble LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires were built in the 6th week of 2011 at Michelin’s Fort Wayne plant; the Coleman family is just seeking to have Michelin document and preserve that evidence.

See Ex. 5. This issue regarding the specified tire building machines was briefly discussed at the

January 2, 2015 hearing on Michelin’s motion to compel.

Four months have passed since the Coleman family provided Michelin with notice of

their intent to observe specific tire building machines.1 In those four months, Michelin has

refused to discuss a protocol for preservation or observation of this critical evidence.

1Michelin’s motion for continuance mischaracterizes the discovery dispute at issue by stating that “intervenors are actually seeking … an inspection of the Fort Wayne plant.” To the contrary, the Coleman family only seeks one hour of limited observation of two machines at the plant, but Michelin’s attempt to mischaracterize the dispute is immaterial to the motion for continuance so it will be more fully addressed as part of the discovery response. 4

SuppR 130 III. Michelin Rejected Compromises Proposed by the Coleman Family

The Coleman family offered to continue the hearing on their motion to compel access to

the tire building machines if Michelin would agree to videotape the specifically-identified

machines and processes at issue:

If you will agree to my request for preservation of evidence (i.e., if you will videotape the machines and processes I have requested to observe for in camera tender to the trial court), I can agree to postpone the hearing on the motion to compel. Alternatively, if you would rather just have an extra four days to respond to the motion to compel (i.e., if you want to serve your affidavits three days before the hearing instead of the seven days required by Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.4(a)), I can agree to that if you will serve those affidavits by email so that they are received by me at least 72 hours before the hearing. For months, you have been aware of both my discovery request and also my request for the preservation of evidence, and yet you have not even agreed to preserve the evidence let alone provided any response to my request for a protocol to observe the two tires building machines at issue. Under these circumstances, we cannot agree to put off the hearing unless you will agree to preserve the evidence as requested above.

See Ex. 6. Michelin did not agree to videographically preserve the evidence, and Michelin

rejected the Coleman family’s offer to extend Michelin’s deadline to serve a responsive affidavit.

The Coleman family again offered to postpone the hearing on their motion to compel if

Michelin would merely agree to the request for preservation of evidence:

I am willing to offer you two options to accommodate your request for additional time to respond to the motion to compel: 1. If you want an extra four days to respond to the motion to compel (i.e., if you want to serve your affidavits three days before the hearing instead of the seven days required by Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.4(a)), I can agree to that if you will serve those affidavits by email so that they are received by me at least 72 hours before the hearing. 2. If you will agree to my request for preservation of evidence (i.e., if you will videotape the machines and processes I have requested to observe for in camera tender to the trial court), I can agree to postpone the hearing on the motion to compel. This is far more consideration than you offered me when you scheduled your motion to compel on January 2 after I specifically told that I was unavailable.

SuppR 131 See Ex. 7. Michelin again refused. Furthermore, Michelin again rejected the Coleman family’s

proposed extension of time during which Michelin is allowed to serve its affidavit in response to

the motion to compel. Because Michelin rejected the Coleman family’s efforts to compromise,

the Coleman family must oppose continuation of the hearing.

IV. Continuation Would Frustrate Judicial Economy and Waste Parties’ Resources

The Court has already set Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Michelin North

America, Inc. to Comply with Rule 194 for hearing on January 30, 2014 – the same day on

which the hearing on the Coleman family’s motion to preserve is also set. Continuation of the

hearing on the Coleman family’s motion to a separate date would unnecessarily burden the

Court, would frustrate judicial economy, and would waste the parties’ resources because separate

hearings would necessitate additional travel for the parties’ counsel.

V. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief

The Coleman family requests that this Court deny Michelin’s motion for continuance of

the hearing on the Coleman family’s motion to compel access to specifically-identified tire

building machine, or, in the alternative, motion for entry of an order preserving this evidence.

___/s/John Blaise Gsanger________ John Blaise Gsanger TX #00786662 THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM 802 N. Carancahua, Suite 1400 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: (361) 698-7600 Facsimile: (361) 698-7614 jgsanger@edwardsfirm.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

SuppR 132 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The parties have conferred regarding continuation and have been unable to reach an agreement.

___/s/John Blaise Gsanger________ JOHN BLAISE GSANGER

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was forwarded to the following counsel in the manner indicated on the 23rd day of January, 2015.

Facsimile: (512) 472-0721 Thomas M. Bullion III GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, L.L.P. 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701

Facsimile: (713) 523-4159 Robert E. Ammons THE AMMONS LAW FIRM, LLP 3700 Montrose Boulevard Houston, Texas 77006

Facsimile: (800) 637-1955 Timothy D. Riley THE CIVIL JUSTICE CENTER 112 East 4th Street Houston, Texas 77007-2502

Facsimile: (254) 751-9133 Michael Bourland WITT, MCGREGOR & BOURLAND, P.L.LC. 8004 Woodway Drive, Suite 400 Waco, Texas 76712-3648

___/s/John Blaise Gsanger________ Counsel for Plaintiffs

SuppR 133 THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM ATTORNEYS AT LAW P, 0, BOX 480

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78403-0480 {361) 698-7600

.JOHN BLAISE. GSANGER FROST BANK PLAZA' . BOARD CERTIFIED SUITE 1400 78470 CIVIL APPELLATE LAW TEXAS BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION September 15, 2014 FAX: (361) 698-7614

Tom Bullion Via Facsimile: 512/472-0721 GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, LLP 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, TX 78701 Email: tbullion@germer~austin.com

Re: Date of Crash: August24, 2014 Yom Product: LT 265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A DOT No: BFW802110611

Dear Tom:

I am writing to you in your capacity as cotmsel for Michelin North America, Inc.

I am investigating a potential claim on behalf of Robert Coleman and his wife, Kim. Mr. Coleman was involved in an August 24, 2014 crash that resulted from the failure of a BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tire made in February of 2011 by Michelin in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Mr. Coleman was driving on Texas State Highway 36 when the tread separated from his left front tire, precipitating the crash. I will forward the Texas Peace Officer's crash report for yom reference when I receive it.

As prui of my investigation, I intend to examine the subject tire. To facilitate this examination, I will dismount the failed tire from the wheel rim. I intend to videotape this process. You and any other representatives from Michelin are welcome to attend. As you can see from the attached photo, the front of the F~250 is displaced to the left. I will also fold back or remove the bumper sufficiently to bring the vehicle into my evidence warehouse. Likewise, this process will be videotaped regardless of whether or not your client or its representative are present.

If you, Michelin, or any affiliated companies wish to have a representative present during this dismounting or bumper displacement, please contact me by 12:00 noon on September 18, 2014. If I have not heard from you or another representative of your client by that time, I will proceed to dismount the tire from the wheel and displace the bumper. Please feel free to contact me either to arrange for viewing of the dismounting or bumper displacement or if you have any questions.

This letter also provides notice of breach of warranty and DTP A claims as well as claims for negligence in the tire manufacturing and design process, negligence in the post~sale duties Michelin undertook, and strict products liability. This letter also intended gives notice of anticipated litigation so that Michelin will preserve all evidence relevant to this matter, including

EXHIBIT

i l SuppR 134 Tom Bullion GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, LLP September 15, 2014 Page -2-

-but certainly not limited to -the tire building machines used to build 16 inch light truck tires at the Fort Wayne plant in 2011, contact information for the tire builders and tire inspectors working at the Fort Wayne plant in February of 2011, the trial testimony and depositions and other witness statements of those who have knowledge of the conditions at the Fort Wayne plant, documentation ofroof leaks and repairs at the Fort Wayne plant during 2011, documentation of insect and animal infestation at the Fort Wayne plant in 2011, the training and work procedure materials and videotapes for tire builders and tire inspectors working at the Fort Wayne plant in 2011, the training and work procedure materials for Michelin personnel who reviewed tires made in 2011 and returned under warranty, information about property damage claims and injury or death claims involving 16 inch light ti:uclc tires, information Michelin repotied to any government agency about 16 inch light truck tires, documentation of Michelin's destruction of the Light Truck Task Force documents at a time when light truck claims against Michelin were pending, marketing literatme for 16 inch light truck tires sold by Michelin, the complete reaction limits and tolerances and complete tire building manual and aspect classifications and decision trees applicable to BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tires made at the Fort Wayne plant, the specifications for 265/75R16 tires made by Michelin in 2011 and the alternative design specifications for other tires made by Michelin in 2011 with additional durability-enhancing or tread-separation reducing design featmes which were omitted from the LT 265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A's design.

Best regards,

P.S. I am happy to have you inspect the tire as often as you wish and for as long as you wish provided that this original evidence remains in my custody while your client inspects it pursuant to Rule 196.3(b) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. From past experience, I know you would prefer to take custody of the tire to have it inspected at an unknown location by unidentified persons according to an undisclosed protocoL I cannot agree to that, but I agree that your client should have the same access to original evidence in my clients' possession (such as the tire) as my client has access to original evidence in your client's possession (such as the tire building and tire inspecting rooms at the Fort Wayne plant and the tire building machines at that plant used to build LT 265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A's in February of2011 at the Fort Wayne plant).

SuppR 135 Tom Bullion GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, LLP September 15, 2014 Page -2-

cc: Giles M. Schanen Via Facsimile: 864/250-2375 NELSON MULLINS RJLEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP Poinsett Plaza 104 South Main Street, Greenville, SC 29601 Email: giles.schanen@,nelsonmullins.com

SuppR 136 SuppR 137 THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM ATTORNEYS AT LAW P, 0, BOX 4BO

Co:RPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78403-0480 (361) 69B-7600

.JOHN BLAISE GSANGER FROST BANK PLAZA BOARD CERTIFIED SUITE 14-00 78470 CIVIL APPELLATE LAW TEXAS SOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION FAX: (361) 698-7614

December 10, 2014

VIA FACSIMILE: (512) 472-0721 GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, LLP 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, TX 78701 Email: tbu ll iQ!l((i1germgr-au_stin.com

Re: Cause No. 2014-57952; Kollye Kilpatrick, Individually as Heir at Law and Representative of the Estate of Beverly Ann Kilpatrick, deceased; Eric Kilpatrick,· and Karen Kilpatrick v. Michelin North America, Inc. and Robert Dwayne Coleman; In the 152nd Judicial District, Harris County, Texas.

Dear Kathy:

Michael Bourland and Tim Riley forwarded a copy of your December 9 letter about inspecting the failed Coleman tire to me.

As I mentioned in my prior correspondence with Tom Bullion (attached), I have been investigating the August 24 crash resulting from the failure of the LT265/75RI6 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/Atire bearing DOT No. BFW802110611.

I understand that your client will want to inspect the original tire evidence rather than a mere copy or photographs of the tire. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.3(b). I am happy to produce the original tire as it is kept in the ordinary course of business for inspection either at my office or at my warehouse. Moreover, I am happy for you, Mr. Bullion, your client, and your client's representatives to inspect the tire as often as you want and for as many different inspections as you may want, but preservation of this key piece of evidence in my clients' possession custody and control is of paramount importance. Accordingly, please see the attached inspection protocol previously agreed in this matter. If this protocol is acceptable, please ask Mr. Bullion to sign the agreement below Rob Ammons' signature.

As I mentioned back in September, I wish to inspect (1) the tire inspection room and the final finish tire inspection process at the Ford Wayne tire plant where the tire was made as well as (2) the tire building machines which were used to assemble the irmerliner and the steel belts with their nylon reinforcement into the failed Coleman tire bearing DOT No. BFW802110611. Please send me a proposed protocol for the inspection of the final finish inspection room, the final finish inspection process, and two tire building machines (the first stage machine used to assemble the im1erliner and the second stage machine used to assemble the belt package).

SuppR 138 Tom Bullion GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, LLP December 10, 2014 Page -2-

cc:

VIA FACSIMILE: (800) 637-1955 Tim Riley Riley Law Firm The Civil Justice Center 112 East 4 1h Street Houston, Texas 77007

VIA FACSIMILE: (254) 751-9134 Michael Bourland Witt, McGregor & Bourland, PLLC 8004 Woodway Drive, Suite 400 Waco, Texas 76712

VIA FACSIMILE: (713) 523-4159 Rob Ammons Bennett Midlo The Ammons Law Firm 3700 Montrose Blvd. Houston, Texas 77006

SuppR 139 THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM ATTORNEYS AT LAw P. O, SOX 480

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78403·04$0 (3611 698-7600

JOHN BLAISE GSANGER FROST SANK PLAZA: . BOARD CERTIFIED SUITE 1400 7B470 CIVIl APPELLATE LAW TEXAS BQARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION September 15, 2014 FAX! (3€{1) 698~7614

Tom Bullion Via Facsimile: 5121472-0721 GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, LLP 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, TX 78701 Email: tbullion@ge.rmer-austin.com

Re: Date of Crash: August 24, 2014 Your Product: LT 265/75Rl6 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A DOTNo: BFW802110611

I am writing to you in your capacity as co1msel for Michelin North America, Inc.

I am investigating a potential claim on behalf of Robert Coleman and his wife, Kim. Mr. Coleman was involved in an August 24, 2014 crash that resulted from the failure of a BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tire made in February of 2011 by Michelin in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Mr. Coleman was dtiving on Texas State Highway 36 when the tread separated from his left front tire, precipitating the crash. I will forward the Texas Peace Officer's crash report for your reference when I receive it.

As pmt of my investigation, I intend to examine the subject tire. To facilitate this examination, I will dismount the failed tire from the wheel riin. I intend to videotape this process. You and any other representatives from Michelin are welcome to attend. As you can see from the attached photo, the front of the F-250 is displaced to the left. I will also fold back or remove the bumper sufficiently to bring the vehicle into my evidence warehouse. Likewise, this process will be videotaped regardless of whether or not your client or its representative are present.

If you, Michelin, or any affiliated companies wish to have a represet1tative present durin:g this dismotmting or bumper displacement, please contact me by 12:00 noon on Septembet 18, 2014. If I have not heard from you or m1other representative of your client by that time, I will proceed to dismount the tire from the wheel and displace the bumper. Please feel free to contact me either to anange for viewing of the dismounting or bumper displacement or if you have any questions.

This letter also provides notice of breach of warranty and DTP A claims as well as claims for negligence in the tire manufacturing and design process, negligence in the post-sale duties Michelin 1.mde1took, and strict products liability. This letter also intended gives notice of anticipated litigation so that Michelin will preserve all evidence relevant to this matter, including

SuppR 140 Tom Bullion GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, LLP September 15,2014 Page -2-

-but certainly not limited to- the tire building machines used to build 16 i1ich.light truck tires at the Fort Wayne plant in 2011, co11tact information for the tire builders and tire inspectors worldng at the Fort Wayne plant in February of 2011, the trial testimony and depositions and other witness statements of those who have knowledge of the conditions at the Fort Wayne plant, documentation of roof leaks and repairs at the F01t Wayne plant during 2011, documentation of insect and animal infestation at the Fmt Wayne plant in 2011, the training and work procedure materials and videotapes for tire builders and tire inspectors working at the Fort Wayne plant in 2011, the training and work procedure materials for Michelin personnel who reviewed tires made in 2011 and returned lmder warranty, information about property damage claims and injury or death claims involving 16 inch light truck tires, information Michelin reported to any government agency about 16 inch light truck tires, documentation of Michelin's destruction of the Light Truck Task Force documents at a time when light truck claims against Michelin were pending, marketing literature for 16 inch light truck tires sold by Michelin, the complete reaction limits and tolerances and complete tire building manual and aspect classifications and decision trees applicable to BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A tires made at the Fott Wayne plant, the specifications for 265/75R16 tires made by Michelin in 2011 and the alternative design specifications fot other tires made by Michelin in 2011 with additional durability-enhancing or tread-separation reducing design features which were omitted from the LT 265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A's design.

P.S. I am happy to have you inspect the tire as often as you wish and for as long as you wish provided that this original evidence remains in my custody while your client inspects it pursuant to Rule 196.3(b) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. From past experience, I lmow you would prefer to take custody of the tire to have it inspected at an unlmown location by llnidentified persons according to an undisclosed protocol. I cannot agree to that, but I agree that your client should have the same access to original evidence i11my clients' possession (such as the tire) as my client has access to original evidence in your client's possession (such as the tire building and tire inspecting rooms at the Fott Wayne plant and the tire building machines at that plant used to build LT 265/75R16 BF GoodtichRugged Terrain T/A's in February of2011 at the F01t Wayne plant).

SuppR 141 Tom Bullion GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, LLP September 15, 2014 Page -2-

cc: Giles M. Schanen Via Facsimile: 864/250-2375 NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP Poinsett Plaza 104 South Main Street, Greenville, SC 29601 Email: giles.schanen@nelsonmullins.com

SuppR 142 SuppR 143 SEP. 9. 2014 10: 50AM N0.0301 P. 1

T:a:E EDWARDS LAW FIRM · .h?:TOBNI:oli'G AT 'W.W P• Ot LlQX •·•HtQ CoJU'\l'$ CHXXII7'~, TEX/1.$ ?'B403•0.(1.aO (3Eill

Rob AI1trll.OllS Bennett Midlo The Amm.ons taw Finn 3100 Montrose Blvd. Houston, Texas 77006

RB: Kilpatrick/ Coleman v. MNA Inspection protocol re~ 2001 Ford F-250; #1FTNW20F2l:SB58963 Date of Crash: August 24, 2014

Dear Mr. Ammo.ns: As we have discussed, 1he failed tire is a key component of the evidenCE: in this case and maintaining the integrity of this evidence is of utmost importance. We have disc11$Sed your proposed inspection protocol in detait an(! agreed that a representative of Robllrt Coleman may be present at the inspection and may photograph or 'Videotape 1he tire d.uring inspection and further agreed that it Is a visual and photogr~tphic inspection only ape;{ the only tools eligible to 'be used on the tire include a tire orayon or pen, a tread depth gauge,· a durometer, and a. laser profiler (oth

1. You will take extraordinary care to preserve the tire and any tire pieces and wheel in their current condition. 2, Yo\1 will not conduct destructive testing of the tire or tire pie~ or wheel.

3. You will not WI!Sh the tite or use any solvents on the tire or tire pieces (1he only potentiAl exception to this rule would be mthe event of future dismounting or re-mounting of the tire which you are not permitted to perform at this time and - if it is agretld at any point in the future -your dismount or re- mount will be pursulll.lt to paragraph ll, below).

4. You will not remove sample$ from the tire or tire pieces.

5, You will not attempt to re-inflate or otherwise pressurize the tire or apy pllrt of the tire with air, oxygen, nitrogen, or any ~ther gas (if you. want to leak test any portion of the tire1 you will need to let me know in advance and videotape that process after getting my wdtten approval of the procedure to be use

6. You will not alter the tire or me pieces (only tire pen or crayon marks for measurements purposes are B.Oceptable).

7. You will not use metal tools or other hard objects on tbe tire or tire pieces (only a tread depth gauge or durometer or laser pro£iler are aooeptable and those tools may only be used in the presence of the representatiVf;l of Robert Coleman or while befug videotaped with the videotapes disolosed to Robert Coleman's representative within 7 days),

SEP 0 9 2014

SuppR 144 SEP. 9. 2(114 !0:51AM NO. 0301 P. 2

8. 1 on will !lOt use a tire spr~ader or other tools to spread or putt apart any part of the tiN (if you W~lJlt to use a. tire spreader you must get my advance wd~ten approval of the spreadel' you lnteXld to use and any such spt'eader may only be used in the presenc~: of the repres0ntative of Robert Coleman OJ' while being videotaped with the vide(Jtapos disolosed to Robe•t Coleman's representative within 7 days).

9. You will not conduct sheaNgraphy on the tire (if you wm1t to $hearog1'aph the tire, you will ileed to obtain my advance written approv11l of the fMillty and methods to be used atl.d such methods may only be used h1 the presence of the representative of Robert Coleman or while behlg videotaped with the videotape.s disclosed to Robert Coleman's representative ·within 7 days),

l 0. You will not Hay on the ti.re or tire pie~ces (if you W1li

11, You will not attllmpt to dismount or re-mount the tire (if you want to dismount ot· re-mount the tire, you will need to discuss the proposed protocol wlth me first, you will need to obtain my written approval h1 advance, and you will need to videoiape the process and such processes IU!\Y only be \ised in the prese!tce of the representati'i'e of Robert Colen1ru1 ot while being videotaped with the videotapes dlsc).osed to Robert Coleman's repl'esentative within 7 days).

12, You wUl n:ot peel back laminated structures on the tire or tire pieces (if ;you have nny questlons, call me first be.fore proceeding aud must not proceed witho\\t advance writt~tt approval).

13. You wlll.not probe the tire or tire pieces with ·pointed instruments (this is not to preclude measurements of the tread depth).

l4. You wlll not ship the tire with Styrofomn pellrl\tts or other $tyrofoanl or plastic packing filler (lnd '..Vill not ship the tire with eny tire pieces stored ln the tire cavity.

15. If tlte tire and tire pieces Ot' whet>lr1m leave my possession by written agreement, you and your client will be responsible for the tire illld tire pieces and >>'heel rim from the time they leave my possession until they are received by my oft)ce upon its Mum from )'ou or your cli~r1t

Tbi$ protocol is intended to ·!lugmcnt ourpriot agt·eement about the evidc.ncl:l in t.Qiii ca.$el and it is not lntend~d that thel'e should be any conflict bmveen this a~reement and that prior 11greement, Any such confliot (lf 011e eXJ.sts) should be resolved by deferring to the prior agteernent. Please retum a. signed copy of tb.is agt·eement to my office.

Bast l'egardsl

SuppR 145 NO. 2014~57952

KOLLYE KILPATRICK, Individually as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Heir at Law and Representative of the § Estate ofBEVERLY ANN KILPATRICK, § Deceased; ERIC KILPATRICK; and § KAREN KILPATRICK § Plaintiffs, § § AND § § ROBERT DWAYNE COLEMAN, § Individually, and KIMBERLY COLEMAN § as Next Friend ofBLA YNE MICHAEL § COOK and CAMERON BAILEY COOK, § mmors, § Intervening Plaintiffs and Cross-Claimant, § § vs. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., BF § GOODRICH in its assumed or common § name, and ROBERT DWAYNE § COLEMAN § Defendants. § 152nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT

INTERVENING COLEMANS' REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE, FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, INTERROGATORY, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT, MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TO: Defendant, MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., by and through its attorney Thomas M Bullion III, Germer Beaman & Brown, L.L.P. 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701

COME NOW Intervening Cross-Claimant and Plaintiffs, Robert Dwayne Coleman

Individually and Kim Coleman as Next Friend of Blayne Michael Cook and Cameron Bailey

Cook, minors, (hereinafter, "The Coleman Family") in the above-styled and numbered cause and

file the following Request for Disclosure, First Requests for Admissions, Intenogatory, and

Requests for Production to Defendant Michelin North America, Inc., under the provisions of

SuppR 146 Rules 194, 196, 197, and 198, TEx. R. CIV. P., and require that answers to the same be filed no

later than thirty (30) days after the date of service hereof.

Please Note:

Failing to fully respond, giving incomplete or false answers, or abusing the discovery

process in any manner may result in the imposition of discovery sanctions against you, including,

but not limited to, a default judgment, an order disallowing further discovery, taking facts as

established, precluding the introduction of evidence, treating such abuses as contempt of court,

and requiring the payment of the Hall family's expenses and attorney's fees. See TEx.R.Crv.P.

215.

The undersigned attorney, as one of the attorneys of record for the Plaintiffs, certifies that

true and correct copies of the attached document have been forwarded to the registered agent

listed above.

THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM 802 N. Carancahua, Suite 1400 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone No. (361) 698~7600 Facsimile No. (361) 698-7614

By: Is/ John Blaise Gsanger John Blaise Gsanger State Bar No. 00786662 jgsanger@edwardsfim1.com Gary Scott Marshall State Bar No'. 24077207 smarshall@edwardsfirm.com ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENING PLAINTIFFS

ColemanFirstRFD, RFA, Interrogatories, andRFP to Defendant, Michelin 2

SuppR 147 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and conect copy of the above and foregoing document was forwarded to the following counsel in the manner indicated on the 19th day of December, 2014.

Facsimile: (512) 472-0721 Thomas M. Bullion III Germer Beaman & Brown, L.L.P. 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701

Facsimile: (713) 523-4159 Robert E. Ammons The Ammons Law Finn, LLP 3700 Montrose Boulevard Houston, Texas 77006

Facsimile: (800) 637-1955 Timothy D. Riley The Civil Justice Center 112 East 4th Street Houston, Texas 77007-2502

Facsimile: (254) 751-9133 Michael Bourland Witt, McGregor & Bourland, P .L.LC. 8004 Woodway Drive, Suite 400 Waco, Texas 76712-3648

Coleman First RFD, RFA, Interrogatories, and RFP to Defendant, Michelin 3

SuppR 148 responsibilities included tire building or tire inspecting, (f) the falsification of inspections on inspection documentation, (g) allegations of insufficient time for employees to perform quality tire building or quality tire inspecting, (h) the use of out of specification tire components in the tire assembly processes, (i) the use of rubber or rubber-coated tire components which had lost some of their tackiness before being implemented in the tire assembly process, G) the use of solvent in an attempt to restore tackiness to rubber or rubber-coated tire components which had lost some of their tackiness before being implemented in the tire assembly process, (k) trapped air in tires during the tire assembly or curing or inspection processes, (1) trapped moisture in tires during the tire assembly or curing or inspection processes, (m) voids in tires during the tire assembly or curing or inspection processes, (n) blows in tires during the tire assembly or curing or inspection processes, (o) separations between components in tires during the tire assembly or curing or inspection processes, (p) contamination in tires during the tire assembly or curing or inspection processes, (q) misplacement of tire components as noticed in the tire assembly or curing or inspection processes, (r) improper splicing of tire components as noticed in the tire assembly or curing or inspection processes, and (s) the failure of the cured tire inspection process to detect defects before tires were sold to customers.

REQUEST FOR ENTRY UPON LAND: Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196.7, Robert Coleman requests to enter upon property; specifically, entry upon Michelin's tire plant in Woodbum, Indiana (located near Fort Wayne, Indiana; this plant is hereafter referr-ed to as the "Fort Wayne plant"). In order to obtain substantive evidence of the manufacturing processes most similar to the first and second stage tire manufacturing processes used to assemble the failed LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tire at issue and to obtain substantive evidence of the proposed safer altemative design, Robert Coleman requests to visually inspect and video graphically document the tire building machines at the plant subject to the following protocol and limitations:

Robert Coleman requests one hour of limited access to particular tire buildh1g machines at Continental's Mt. Vernon, Illinois facility at a mutually agreed time and date within 60 days from the date of this request. Robert Coleman requests that his only representatives allowed to attend the observation should be his attomeys, his tire failure analysis experts, and a videographer selected by Robert Coleman. Robeti Coleman proposes that all who attend the observation should sign whatever confidentiality requirements that Michelin should request provided that such confidentiality is consistent with Texas law and the infonnation obtained can be had and videographically recorded for use in this case by Robert Coleman's counsel and his tire failure analysis expetis. Robert Coleman proposes that each side should bear its own costs. Robert Coleman proposes that the observation should include the machine or machines used to place the innerliner on the tire building drum and to assemble the belts and nylon reinforcement into the pre-cured tire (sometimes referred to as first and second stage tire building machines) on which LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terr-ain T/A LRE tires were built in the 6th week of 2011 at Michelin's Fort Wayne plant (or, in the altemative, observation of the most similar tire building machines to be identified by Michelin if the specific tire building machines on which LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires were built in the 6th week of 2011 cannot be identified). Robert Coleman proposes that the observation should include visually inspecting and videotaping the machines while they are in use building light truck car tires, and the scope of the observation should not include any sampling or destructive testing and should

Coleman First RFD, RFA, Interrogatories, and RFP to Defendant, Michelin 20

SuppR 149 include nothing more than a visual observation - including recording by videotape - and be limited to one hour of observation and videotaping the machines while they are in use. Robert Coleman proposes that the observation should include:

(a) 15 minutes of observation of the first stage tire building process conducted in a manner as near as is practical to the first stage tire building processes implemented in building LT265/75Rl6 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires built in the 6th week of2011 at Michelin's Fort Wayne plant,

(b) 15 minutes of observation of the second stage tire building process conducted in a manner as near as is practical to the second stage tire building processes implemented in LT265/75Rl6 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires built in the 6th week of2011 at Michelin's Fort Wayne plant,

(c) 15 minutes of observation of the second stage tire building process where ajointless nylon strip spirally wound over the belts in at least two layers and covering a greater portion of the belt package as compared to the portion of the belt package covered by nylon in the LT265/75Rl6 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires built in the 6th week of 2011 is being applied to a light truck car tire as similar as practical to LT265/75Rl6 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires built in the 6th week of2011 at Michelin's Fort Wayne plant, and

(d) 15 minutes of observation of the second stage tire building process where Filament at Zero is being applied to a light truck tire car tire as similar as practical to a LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires were built in the 6th week of2011.

Robert Coleman proposes that the videotaping should occur while these machines are in normal use. Robert Coleman proposes that his counsel, his tire failure experts, and his videographer who would attend the observation should be identified within seven days of when the inspection protocol is agreed or ordered by the court and should present photographic identification in the form of a driver's license or similar government issues identification before entering the plant, and that all such attendees should wear visitor badges the entire time they are in the plant (ifMichelin requests), should be accompanied and escmied by Michelin's personnel at all times they are in the plant (if Michelin requests), should wear hardhats and safety glasses and ear protection and steel toed boots during the observation (if Michelin requests), should not interrupt or interfere with the equipment or the normal operations of the plant or plant employees, and should not attempt to speak with any plant personnel except for their escorts. Robert Coleman proposes that his representatives should not be allowed to videotape any other area of the plant except the tire building machines being observed and should not bring recording or photographing or videotaping devices other than the videographer's equipment to the observation. Robert Coleman proposes that Michelin should be allowed to take whatever steps it deems appropriate to limit access so that access includes only access to the particular machines and processes to be videotaped as set out above. Robeti Coleman proposes that Michelin should be allowed to conduct its own videotaping of the inspection. Robert Coleman proposes that Michelin should be allowed to all videotapes should be copied and provided to the other side within 10 days after the observation of the tire building machines. Robert Coleman proposes that

Coleman First RFD, RFA, Interrogatories, and RFP to Defendant, Michelin 21

SuppR 150 the videotapes as well as any documentation of the equipment and processes recorded during the inspection should be governed by whatever confidentiality requirements that Michelin should request provided that such confidentiality is consistent with Texas law and the information obtained can be had and videographically recorded for use in this case by Robert Coleman's counsel and his tire failure analysis expetis.

In the alternative, if Michelin would prefer, Robert Coleman would agree to protocols based on the attached order. See Exhibit A and Exhibit B. If Michelin refuses to allow the entry upon land as requested above, Robert Coleman requests that Michelin preserve and document the evidence by videotaping the same machines and the same processes without Robert Coleman or his representatives being present and fmiher requests that Michelin file such videotapes under seal with the trial court as pennitted pursuant Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a.

Coleman First RFD, RFA, Interrogatories, and RFP to Defendant, Michelin 22

SuppR 151 IN THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT SEDGWICK COUNTY, KANSAS ' • • ' ' '' ' ' t FiLED • . ... ~· I I ~: •'t _, ___ CIVIL COURT DEPARTMENT 2012 ocr -LJ p 3• Sb

LORENA HERNANDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ) . '.: ·. :;, :'.' ..':';1: DIS rRIC T ·~ .. • • ··,,1 ,:•.':·L DISTRICT AS NEXT FRIEND OF ERIKA DELGADILLO HERNANDEZ, A MINOR ) ) • ' I ', \ .• ... NTY. /'i,'INSAS

.... _,..._, __ ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case No. 11 CV 3904 COOPER TIRE AND RUBBER CO., MARY ) BELLE HERNANDEZ, AND HERIBERTO ) GOMEZ 0/B/A GOMEZ CUSTOM WHEELS ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION REQUESTING INSPECTION OF THE TIRE BUILDING MACHINES

After considering Plaintiffs' Motion Regarding The Tire, ·The Tire Building

Machines, And The Identity Of The Tire Workers, and Defendant's Response, this Court

ORDERS that the request to inspect tire building machines is GRANTED as follows:

Plaintiffs shall be provided one hour of limited access to particular tire building

machines at Cooper's Texarkana, Arkansas facility at a mutually agreed time and date or

beginning at 9:00 a.m. 60 days from the date of this Order if a mutually agreed upon time

and date within the next 60 days cannot be agreed upon in writing by the Plaintiffs'

counsel and Cooper's counsel. Plaintiffs' representatives allowed to attend the inspection

are limited to Plaintiffs' attorneys (limited to Plaintiffs' counsel as of July 19, 2012),

Plaintiffs' experts (tire failure experts only), and a photographer-videographer selected by

Plaintiffs' counsel, and ali such Plaintiffs' representatives shall sign the protective order

in this case before the inspection begins. Each side will bear its own costs.

1 EXHIBIT

~~ OCT 8 2012

SuppR 152 Inspection of the machines is limited to one hour. The inspection will include

videotape for 30 minutes ofthe operation of first and second stage tire building machines

on which 31 x 10.5Rl5 LT Cooper Discoverer tires were built in February of 2004 (or.

the most similar first and second stage tire building machine to be identified by Cooper if

the specific first and second stage tire building machines on which 31 x 10 .5R15 LT

Cooper Discoverer tires were built in February of 2004 cannot be identified). Cooper

shall that the discretion to select the tire which is being videotaped while being build and

shall exercise that discretion to minimize the differences in the tire building process of

the tire being videotaped and the tire building processes used to make 31 x 10.5R15 L T

Cooper Discoverer tires in February of2004. The inspection will include videotape for 15

minutes of the tire building machines assembling nylon belt reinforcement (or SNOW)

into 15 inch tires and videotape for 15 minutes of the tire building machines assembling

belt edge gum strips (or BEGS) into 15 inch tires (with the machines to be selected by

Cooper). The videotaping will occur while these machines are in normal use. Plaintiffs'

attorneys, Plaintiffs' experts, and the photographer~videographer shall identifY

themselves before entering the plant, shall wear visitor badges the entire time they are in

the plant (if Cooper requests), shall be accompanied and escorted by Cooper's personnel

at all times they are in the plant, shaH wear hardhats and safety glasses and ear protection

and steel toed boots during the inspection, shall not interrupt or interfere with the

equipment or the normal operations of the plant or plant employees, and shall not attempt

to speak with any plant personnel except for their escorts. Plaintiffs' attorneys, Plaintiffs'

SuppR 153 experts, arid the photographer-videographer shall not be allowed to videotape or

photograph any other area of the plant except the tire building machines being inspection

and shall not bring recording or photographing or videotaping devices other than the

videographer' s equipment to the inspection.

Cooper may take whatever steps it deems appropriate to limit access so that access

includes only access to the particular machines and processes to be videotaped as set out ·.: .:: above. Cooper is also free to conduct its own videotaping and photographing of the

inspection. All videotapes and photographs will be copied and provided to the other side

within 10 days after the inspection of the tire building machines. The videotapes and !·.;

photographs as well as any documentation of the equipment and processes recorded

during the inspection will be governed by the protective order in this case.

Signed this _ _ day of August 2012.

I'L{{i~/t JUDGE PRESIDING

SuppR 154 ~~···~ ELECTRONICALLY PIL.ED ");\iJ,\' 1/21/2014 3;23 :PM ,. 03-CV-2011-900647.00 ·•11·;,/ CIRCUIT C01JRT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA TIFFANY B. MCCORD, CLERK IN THE CIRCUIT COURT JN AND FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA

DEAN LILJEBERG and SHERRY § LILJEBERG~ ' § § Plaintiffs, § § . v. § 03-CV-2011-900647.00 § CONTINENTAL TIRE TI:IE § AMERICAS, LLC; et al.; § § Defendants: §

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION REQUESTJNG INSPECTION o;.r.THE TIRE BU:~LDING MACHINE&

After considering Flaintiff.'3' Motion To Compel Access To Tire Building

Machines~ and Defendant's Response, this Court ORDERS that-the request to inspect tire

building machines is GRANTED as follows:

Plaintiffs shall be provided one hour of limited access to particular tire building

machines at Continenta.l1 s Mt. Vernon, :r11inois facility at a mutually agreed time and date

or beginning at.9:00 a.m. 60 days from the date of this Order if a mutually agreed upon

thne and date within the next 60 days cannot be agreed upon in writing by the Plaintiffs'

counsel and Continental's counsel. Plaintiffs' repres~ntatives allowed to attend the

inspection are limited to Plaintiffs' attorneys, Plaintiffs' tire failure experts, and a

photographer~videographer selected by Plaintiffs' counsel, and all such Plaintiffs'

representatives shall sign the protective order in this case before the mspection begins.

Each side will bear its own costs.

EXHIBIT 1 &l, ~ J!l- R ...,.

SuppR 155 'I" •

Inspection of the machines is limited to one hour. The inspection will include the

machine or machines used to place the innerliner on the tire ~uilding drum and to

assemble the belts into the pre-cured tire (sometimes ref~'t.red to as first and second stage

tire building machines) on which P265170Rl7 ContiTrac SUV tires were built in the 17~

week of 2006 at Continental's Mount Vernon, Illinois tire plant (or, in the alternative,

inspection of the most similar tire building machines to be identified by Cofi:tinental if the

specific tire building machines on which P265/70R17 ContiTrac SUV tires were built in

the 17th week of 2006 cannot be identified). The inspection will include visually

inspecting and videotaping the machines while they are in use building passenger car

tires, and the scope of the inspection shall not include any sampling or destructive testing

and shall include nothing more than a visual inspection -. including recording by

videotape - and be limited to one hour of inspection and videotaping the machines while

they are in use. The inspection will include (a.) 15 minutes of observation of the first

stage tire building process conducted in a manner as ne.ar as is practical to the first stage

tire building processes implemented in building P265170R17 ContiTrac SUV tires were

built in the 17th week of2006 at Continental's Mount Vernon tire plru1t, (b) 15 minutes

of observation of the second stage tire building process conducted in a manner as near as

.is practical to the second stage tire buildi11g processes implemented in building

P265170R17 ContiT:tac SUV tires were built in the 17th week of 2006 at Coni:inental's

Mount Ve:rnQn tire plant, (c) 15 minutes of observation of the second stage tire building

process where a jointless nylon strip spirally wound over the belts is being applied to a

SuppR 156 r· '

passenger car tire as similar as practical to a P265/70R17 ContiTrac SUV tires, and (d) 15

minutes of observation of the second stage tire building process where a wider nylon c~p

(either :full~crown~width or in stdps wider than those ·used in P265/70R17 ContiTrac SUV

tires made in the 17th week of 2006 at Continental's Motint Vernon tire plant) is being ·

applied to a passenger car tire as similar as practical to a P265/70R17 CotltiTrac SUV

tires. The videotaping will occur while these machines are in nonnal use.

Plaintiflll attorneys, Plaintiffs' experts) and the photographer-videographer shall

identify themselves before entering the plant, shall wear visitor badges the enth·e time

they are in the plant (if Continental requests), shall be accompanied and escorted by

Continental's personnel at ,all times they are in the plant (if Continental requests), shall

wear hardhats and safety glasses and ear protection and steel toed boots duririg the

inspection (provided at Plaintiffs' expense}, shall not interrupt or· interfere with the'

equipment or the normal. operations of the phmt or plant employees, and shall not attempt

to speak ·with any plant persmmel except for their escorts. Plaintiffs' attorneys, Plaintiffs'

experts, and .the photographer.videographer shall not be allowed to videotape or

photograph any other area of the plant except the tire building machines being inspection

and shall not bring recording or phqtographlng ·or videotaping devices other than the ' .

v.ideographer' s equipment to the inspection.

Continental may take whatever steps it deems appropriate to limit access so that

access includ.es only access to the particular machines and processes to be videotaped as

set out above. Continental is also free to conduct its own videotaping and photographing

SuppR 157 of the inspection. All videotapes and photographs will be copied and provided to

the other side within 10 days after the inspection of the tire building machines.

The videotapes. and photographs as well as any docwnentation of the equipment

and processes recorded during the inspection will be governed by the protective ·

order in this case.

This Order will be stayed for 30 days to allow Continental to initiate any

appeal it may desire.

'2014.

SuppR 158 ALL-SEASON TIRE BENEFITS OF MICHELIN" LATITUDE" TOUR HP TIRES:

7 WEAR LIFE • Better Handling in Rain arid Snow than Leading ~ FUELEFFICIENCY Competitors. 1 2-D Active Sipes .:IJ ) OFF·ROAD help deliver better handling in rain Tread Block 2-D Active Sipes and snow by locking together for • • • • • • • • •(1@)0 .-BRAKING with Normal Sipes greater rigidity.

·······~ 2 COMFORT • High-Speed Confidence.2 2 Experience a stable feel and crisp steering at high speeds thanks to precisely placed polyester 2 and aramid/nylon filaments (FAZ Technology'") p; under the tread. Aramid is the material that makes .bulletproof vests bulletproof. FAZ Technology'"

i • Fuel-Efficient to Reduce Harmful Emissions. Reduce fuel consumption thanks to a combination of a fuel-efficient tire shape and tread 2 compounds that reduce unnecessary friction when the tire rolls. 2

Popular Replacement Market Fitments: Porsche Cayenne • Volkswagen Touareg • Me.rcedes M-Ciass • Acura MDX

See pages 10-11 for details. 'lf;MZdl/#!/,'1 p;

1 Based on third-party snow traction and wet braking test results versus Bridgestone• Dueler" Hll Alenza'' tires, Pi Continental' 4x4 Contact" tires and Pirelli' Scorpion STR" tires. 2 Exceeding the safe, legal speed limit Is neither recommended nor endorsed. 2

;i

25'

SuppR 159 SuppR 160 SuppR 161 SuppR 162 SuppR 163 SuppR 164 SuppR 165 SuppR 166 SuppR 167 SuppR 168 SuppR 169 SuppR 170 SuppR 171 SuppR 172 SuppR 173 SuppR 174 SuppR 175 SuppR 176 SuppR 177 SuppR 178 SuppR 179 SuppR 180 SuppR 181 NO. 2014-57952

KOLLYE KILPATRICK, et al., § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiffs, § § AND § § ROBERT COLEMAN, et al., § Intervenors, § § VS. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § MICHELIN N. AM., INC., et al, § Defendants. § 152nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BENCH BRIEF ON BURDEN SHIFTING TO PARTY SEEKING DISCOVERY IF RESISTING PARTY PROVES TRADE SECRECY (THE BURDEN NEVER SHIFTED BUT WAS NEVERTHELESS MET)

COME NOW Intervenors, Robert Coleman and his sons Blayne Cook

and Cameron Cook, minors, by and through their mother and next friend

Kim Coleman (collectively “the Coleman family”) in the above-captioned

cause and file Bench Brief on Burden Shifting to Party Seeking Discovery If

Resisting Party Proves Trade Secrecy (The Burden Never Shifted But Was

Nevertheless Met):

Michelin failed to prove that one hour of access to the tire building

machines would violate any trade secrecy privilege. If – but only if –

Michelin had met this burden, the Coleman family would need to show that

SuppR 182 the discovery requested was reasonably necessary for a fair adjudication of

this case:

“[W]hen trade secret privilege is asserted as the basis for resisting production, the trial court must determine [(1)] whether the requested production constitutes a trade secret; [(2)] if so, the court must require the party seeking production to show reasonable necessity for the requested materials.” In re Bass, 113 S.W.3d 735, 738 (Tex. 2003). … Once trade secret status has been established, the burden shifts to [the party seeking the discovery] to establish that the information is “necessary or essential to the fair adjudication of the case, weighing the requesting party's need for the information against the potential of harm to the resisting party from disclosure.” Bridgestone/Firestone, 106 S.W.3d at 732. We have not “state[d] conclusively what would or would not be considered necessary for a fair adjudication, indicating instead that the application of the test would depend on the circumstances presented.” Id. “[T]he degree to which information is necessary in a case depends on the nature of the information and the context of the case.” Id.

In re Union Pac. R.R. Co., 294 S.W.3d 589, 591-92 (Tex. 2009) (orig.

proceeding).

The Texas Supreme Court has expressly rejected the idea that the

burden to show reasonable necessity for the requested materials means

showing “the requesting party cannot prevail without” that discovery. In re

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 106 S.W.3d 730, 732 (Tex. 2003). Instead, a

party the “reasonable necessity” burden is met where it is “possible for a

party to prevail without access to trade secret information and yet be unfair 2

SuppR 183 to put him to much weaker proof without the information.” Id. The

“requesting party must describe with particularity how the protected

information is required to reach conclusions in the case.” John Paul

Mitchell Sys. v. Randalls Food Markets, Inc., 17 S.W.3d 721, 739 (Tex.

App. - Austin 2000, pet. denied). The Coleman family met this burden with

the affidavits of Troy Cottles, Dennis Carlson, John Daws, and the

deposition testimony of Joe Grant. Based on this evidence, the “trial

court's role [is] to weigh the degree of the requesting party's need for the

information against the potential harm of disclosure to the resisting party.”

Id. at 738.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Coleman family

respectfully requests that the Court overrule Michelin’s objections and

claims of privilege and grant the motion to compel.

/s/John Blaise Gsanger John Blaise Gsanger TX #00786662 THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM 802 N. Carancahua, Suite 1400 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: (361) 698-7600 Facsimile: (361) 698-7614 jgsanger@edwardsfirm.com

SuppR 184 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was forwarded to the following counsel in attendance by hand delivery on16th day of March, 2015.

Thomas M. Bullion III Timothy D. Riley Chris A. Blackerby THE CIVIL JUSTICE CENTER GERMER BEAMAN & BROWN, LLP 112 East 4th Street 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Houston, Texas 77007-2502 Austin, Texas 78701 Michael Bourland Giles M. Schanen, Jr. WITT, MCGREGOR & BOURLAND, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & P.L.LC. SCARBOROUGH, LLP 8004 Woodway Drive, Suite 400 104 South Main Street, 9th Floor Waco, Texas 76712-3648 Greenville, SC 29601

Robert E. Ammons Bennett A. Midlo THE AMMONS LAW FIRM, LLP 3700 Montrose Boulevard /s/John Blaise Gsanger Houston, Texas 77006 Counsel for Intervenors

SuppR 185 CAUSE NO. NO. 2014-57952 2014-57952

KOLLYE KILPATRICK,INDIVIDUALLY, KOLLYE KILPATRICK, INDIVIDUALLY, ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF AS HEIR AT LAW AND REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE)) OF THE ESTATE OF BEVERLY ANN ) KILPATRICK, DECEASED; ERIC ) KILPATRICK; AND KAREN KILPATRICK; AND KARENKILPATRICK, KILPATRICK, ) ) PLAINTIFFS, ) ) AND ) ) ROBERT DWAYNE COLEMAN, ) INDIVIDUALLY, AND KIMBERLY ) COLEMAN AS NEXT FRIEND OF B M C ) HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS AND C B C, MINORS ) )) INTERVENING CROSS-CLAIMANT CROSS-CLAIMANT ) AND PLAINTIFFS ) )) VS. )) )) MICHELIN NORTHAMERICA, MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA,INC. INC. AND ) AND ROBERT DWAYNE COLEMAN, ROBERTDWAYNECOLEMAN, )) )) DEFENDANTS. )) 152ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT )) MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, AMERICA, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENING COLEMANS' FIRST FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, INTERROGATORY, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT, MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TO: Intervening Colemans', by Intervening Colemans', by and through their counsel counsel of of record, record, John John Blaise Blaise Gsanger, Gsanger, Gary Scott Marshall, Marshall, The Edwards Edwards Law Firm, 802 N. Carancahua, Carancahua, Suite Suite 1400, 1400, Corpus Corpus Christi, Texas 78401.

COMES NOW Michelin COMES NOW Michelin North America, Inc. ("MNA"), defendant in the above-styled America, Inc. above-styled

and numbered cause, cause, and submits these, its responses responses and objections objections to Intervening Colemans'

First Requests for Admission, Interrogatory, and Requests for Production to Defendant, Michelin

North America, Inc.

SuppR 186 Respectfully submitted,

GERMER BEAMAN & & BROWN, PLLC 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 472-0288 Telephone (512) 472-0721 472-0721 Facsimile . By: Thomas M. Bullion III P State Bar No. No. 03331005 Chris A. Blackerby State Bar No. No. 00787091

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

4517897 2

SuppR 187 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby hereby certify certify that that aa true true and and correct correct copy copy of ofthe theforegoing foregoing document document has has been been forwarded to all known counsel of of record as set forth below on this 16th day of of January, 2015.

John Gsanger Via Certified Mail, Mail, Return Receipt Requested The Edwards Law Firm 802 N. Carancahua, Ste. 1400 Frost Bank Plaza Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

Robert E. Ammons Via Regular Mail Jacquelyn W. Blott The Ammons Law Firm, Finn, LLP 3700 Montrose Boulevard Houston, Texas 77006 Houston, Texas

Michael E. Bourland Via Regular Mail Witt, McGregor & & Bourland, PLLC 8004 Woodway Drive, Suite 400 Waco, Texas 76712

Timothy D. "Tim" Riley Via Regular Mail Riley Law Firm Finn The Civil Justice Center 112 East 4th Street Houston, Texas 77007 e... Wf Thomas M. Bullion II/Chris A. Blackerby

4517897 3

SuppR 188 INTRODUCTION

The tire at issue in this case is a LT265/75R16 BFGoodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tire

bearing DOT number BFW802110611 BFW802110611 (the (the "tire "tire in in question"). question"). The The tire in in question question was designed

by MNA and manufactured by MNA manufactured by MNA during the 6th week during the week of of 2011 2011 at at its its Fort Fort Wayne, Wayne, Indiana Indiana

plant. plant. MNA's MNA'sresponses responses are are limited limited to to information information concerning the tire in concerning the in question question and tires

manufactured to the manufactured to the specification specification in in place place for for the the tire tire in question question by MNA at its Fort Fort Wayne, Wayne,

Indiana plant during the six months during the before and the six months after the date of months before of manufacture of

the tire in question. question. There There are are no no tires tires common common green green to the tire in question.

TRADE SECRETS OBJECTION

MNA objects objects to many many of of the the discovery discovery requests requests because because they they seek seek information information and/or and/or

documents that are documents that are of of aa confidential, confidential, proprietary proprietary or or commercially commercially sensitive sensitive nature nature to MNA, MNA,

exempt from discovery under notions of constitutional privacy and/or that may be covered by or

be the the subject subject of ofexpress express or orimplied impliedconfidentiality, confidentiality, secrecy secrecy or or nonpublication nonpublication agreements agreements or

understandings. understandings. To To the the extent extent necessary, necessary, MNA objects objects to the discovery discovery requests requests in that they

seek the discovery discovery of of trade trade secret secret information information and and documents, documents, including including confidential confidential research,

development and technical technical information. information. MNA MNA states states that that information information and documents responsive

to some of of the discovery requests may have been withheld because these discovery requests seek

privileged information and privileged information and privileged privileged documents documentsthat that constitute constitutethe the trade trade secrets secrets of MNA. MNA.

Disclosure of these Disclosure of these trade trade secrets secrets would would result result in in substantial substantial prejudice and harm prejudice and harm to MNA. MNA.

Therefore, MNA contends Therefore, MNA contends itit is is essential to MNA's operations essential to operations that its its work work and and documents documents

remain confidential.

Texas law protects protects the the disclosure disclosure ofMNA's of MNA's trade trade secrets. secrets. A trade secret secret may consist of

any trade formula, pattern, device formula, pattern, device or or compilation of information compilation of information that that isis used used in in one's business business

and gives one an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.

4517897 4

SuppR 189 Computer Assoc. Int'l, Inc. Inc. v. v. Altai, Altai, Inc., 918 918 S.W.2d S.W.2d 453, 453 (Tex. 1996) 453,453 1996) (citing Hyde Corp. v.

Huffines, 314 S.W.2d 763, 776 (1958)).

MNA's MNA's confidential confidential policies, policies, research, research, development development and and technical technical information information are are

valuable and crucial valuable and crucial trade trade secrets secrets of MNA MNA that that give give it an an advantage advantage over its competitors competitors in a

highly highly competitive and secretive competitive and secretive industry. industry. Moreover, Moreover, MNA MNA makes makes reasonable reasonable efforts efforts to

maintain the secrecy maintain the secrecy of this information, the information information, the is of substantial information is value to MNA, substantial value MNA, the

information would be very valuable to MNA's competitors, competitors, and and the information derives its value

by virtue of the effort of its creation and lack of dissemination. dissemination. Accordingly Accordingly MNA believes such

information constitutes a trade secret and should be protected from disclosure.

Unless Unless otherwise stated in otherwise stated in its its responses, responses, MNA MNA is is not notwithholding withholding any any privileged privileged

documents/information withinthe documents/information within therelevant relevantscope. scope. However, to the extent However, to extent intervenors intervenors do not

agree agree with with the the scope scope of of MNA's MNA's discovery discovery responses, MNA reserves responses, MNA reserves the the right right to to have have its

objections to scope objections to ruled upon scope ruled upon prior prior to expanding the scope expanding the scope of its responses responses and its search search for

responsive and/or privileged documents/information.

Subject to the foregoing, MNA hereby answers the individual requests as follows: follows:

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 1:1: Admit Admit Michelin Michelin has has no no knowledge, knowledge, information, information, or belief formed fonned after reasonable inquiry to dispute that on August 24, 2014, Robert Coleman was reasonable inquiry driving his 2001 Ford F-250 pickup eastbound on Highway 36 near County Road 112.

MNA MNA admits admits that the Texas Texas Department Department of Public Public Safety Safety Fatality Fatality Report Report states states that that

Robert Coleman was driving the Ford F-250 and was traveling eastbound on US-190 at the time

of of the accident.

4517897 5

SuppR 190 REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.2:2: Admit Admit Michelin Michelin has has no no knowledge, knowledge, information, information, or belief formed formed after reasonable inquiry to reasonable inquiry to dispute dispute that that Robert Robert Coleman is a resident of Coleman is of Spring, Spring, Texas, in Harris County.

Despite a reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to

enable MNA to admit or deny this request.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.3:3: Admit Admit Michelin Michelin has has no no knowledge, knowledge, information, information, or belief formed after reasonable inquiry inquiry to to dispute that Robert Coleman was was a resident of Spring, Texas, in Harris County on August 24, 2014.

Despite a reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.4:4: Admit Admit Michelin Michelin has no no knowledge, knowledge, info! nation, or information, belief formed formed after reasonable inquiry to reasonable inquiry to dispute dispute that Mr. Coleman Coleman was traveling traveling within the speed limit and within his lane when the tread detached from his detached from his left front front tire on August August 24, 2014.

Subject to and Subject to and without without waiving waiving the following following objections, MNA states objections, MNA states that that despite despite a

reasonable inquiry, inquiry, the information information known known or easily obtainable obtainable is insufficient to enable MNA to

admit or deny admit or deny this this request. request. MNA MNA further further objects to this objects to this request on the request on the grounds grounds that that it

impermissibly calls for impermissibly calls for the the premature disclosure of expert premature disclosure opinions and expert opinions and materials. materials. Discovery Discovery

regarding testifying experts regarding testifying experts isis limited limited to to aa request request for for disclosure disclosure and and depositions. depositions. Tex. R. Civ. Civ.

Proc. 195.1.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.5:5: Admit Admit Michelin Michelin has has no no knowledge, knowledge, information, information, or belief formed after reasonable inquiry to reasonable inquiry to dispute dispute that Mr. Mr. Coleman was was wearing wearing his seatbelt at the time of of the crash he experienced on August 24, 2014.

Subject to and Subject to and without without waiving waiving the following following objections, MNA states objections, MNA states that that despite despite a

reasonable inquiry, inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable MNA to

4517897 6

SuppR 191 admit or deny admit or deny this this request. request. MNA MNA further further objects to this objects to this request request on on the the grounds grounds that that it

impermissibly impermissibly calls calls for for the premature disclosure of expert premature disclosure expert opinions opinions and materials. materials. Discovery Discovery

regarding testifying regarding testifying experts experts is is limited limited to to a request request for for disclosure disclosure and and depositions. Civ. depositions. Tex. R. Civ.

REQUEST FOR REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 6:6: Admit Admit Michelin Michelin has has no no knowledge, knowledge, information, information, or belief formed after reasonable reasonable inquiry to dispute that Blayne Cook, Cook, a passenger in the pickup at of the crash, was wearing his seatbelt the time of seatbelt at the time of of the crash crash he experienced experienced on August 24, 2014. 24,2014.

Subject to and Subject to and without without waiving waiving the following following objections, MNA states objections, MNA states that that despite despite a

reasonable inquiry, inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable MNA to

admit or deny admit or deny this this request. request. MNA MNA further further objects to this objects to this request request on on the the grounds grounds that that it

impermissibly calls for impermissibly calls for the the premature premature disclosure disclosure of expert expert opinions opinions and materials. materials. Discovery Discovery

regarding testifying experts regarding testifying experts isis limited limited to to a request request for for disclosure disclosure and and depositions. depositions. Tex. R. Civ. Civ.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 7:7: Admit Admit Michelin Michelin has has no no knowledge, knowledge, information, information, or belief belief formed after reasonable inquiry to dispute that Cameron Cook, a passenger in the pickup at the time of of the crash, was wearing his seatbelt at the time of of the crash crash he experienced experienced on August 24, 2014.

Subject to and Subject to and without without waiving waiving the following foilowing objections, MNA states objections, MNA states that that despite despite a

reasonable inquiry, the infotiiiation information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable MNA to

admit or admit deny this or deny this request. request. MNA MNA further further objects objects to this request to this request on on the the grounds grounds that that it

impermissibly calls impermissibly calls for for the premature disclosure the premature disclosure of expert expert opinions opinions and materials. materials. Discovery Discovery

regarding testifying experts regarding testifying experts isis limited limited to to a request request for for disclosure disclosure and and depositions. depositions. Tex. R. Civ. Civ.

4517897 7

SuppR 192 REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 8:8: Admit Admit Michelin Michelin has has no no knowledge, knowledge, information, information, or belief belief formed after reasonable inquiry to dispute that Matthew Plum, a passenger in the pickup at the time of of the crash, crash, was wearing his seatbelt seatbelt at the time of of the crash he experienced on August 24, 2014. 24,2014.

Subject to and Subject to and without without waiving waiving the following following objections, MNA states objections, MNA states that that despite despite a

reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable MNA to

admit or deny admit or deny this this request. request. MNA MNA further further objects to this objects to this request on the grounds request on grounds that that it

impermissibly calls for impermissibly calls for the the premature premature disclosure disclosure of expert expert opinions and materials. opinions and materials. Discovery Discovery

regarding testifying experts regarding testifying experts isis limited limited to to aa request request for for disclosure disclosure and and depositions. depositions. Tex. R. Civ. Civ.

Proc. 195.1. 195 .1.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 9: 9: Admit Admit that all all tires sold sold in the United United States States with DOT number BFW802110611 were placed in the stream of commerce by Michelin.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 10: 10: Admit Admit that that all all tires tires sold sold in the United States with DOT number BFW802110611 BFW80211 0611 were designed by Michelin.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO.NO. 11: 11: Admit Admit that that all all tires tires sold sold in in the United States States with DOT number BFW802110611 BFW802110611 were made at Michelin's Fort Wayne tire plant.

4517897 8

SuppR 193 REQUEST REQUEST FORFORADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO.12:12: Admit NO. Admit that that the the designation "LT" in designation "LT" in the the size size LT265/75R16 associated with LT265/75R16 associated with the the BF BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A T/A LRE LRE tire bearing bearing DOT DOT BFW802110611 indicates that the tire was foreseeably used on a light truck.

MNA denies this request as written. written. MNA MNA admits admits that that if if aa tire size size begins with "LT" it is

a light-truck metric size. size. MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request as as being vague and and ambiguous in its use of

the tem_ term "was foreseeably used".

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 13: 13: Admit Admit that that the the designation designation "Rugged Terrain" Terrain" in the LT265/75R16 LT265/7 5R16 BF BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain Goodrich Rugged TIA LRE Terrain T/A LRE tire tire bearing bearing DOT DOTBFW802110611 BFW80211 0611 indicates that the tire was foreseeably used on rugged terrain.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 14: 14: Admit Admit that the designation "T/A" in the LT265/75R16 LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tire bearing DOT BFW802110611 BFW802110611 indicates that the tire was foreseeably used for in situations where a traction advantage was required.

Denied. MNA MNAobjects objects to to this this request request as as being being vague vague and and ambiguous ambiguous in its use of the term

"situations where a traction advantage was required".

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FORADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO.NO. 15:15: Admit that the Admit that the designation "LRE" in designation "LRE" in the the LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tire bearing LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tire bearing DOT BFW802110611 DOT BFW802110611 indicates that the tire was foreseeably used for tasks requiring a heavy load range rating of of E.

Denied. MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request as as being being vague vague and and ambiguous ambiguous in its use of of the term

"was foreseeably used".

4517897 9

SuppR 194 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 16: 16: Admit Admit that that in in accordance accordance with the requirements of of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Michelin has identified defects defects which relate to motor vehicle safety pursuant to NHTSA Recall Number 12T-019.

MNA objects MNA objects to because it is overly to this request because overly broad broad and and seeks seeks documents documents that are are

relevant to neither relevant neither to the matter of this subject matter the subject this case case nor nor reasonably reasonably calculated calculated to to lead lead to the to the

discovery of discovery of admissible admissibleevidence. evidence. The The tire question was tire in question was not at at issue issue in in NHTSA NHTSA Recall Recall

Number 12T-019.

REQUEST FOR REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 17: Admit that 17: Admit that drivers drivers who who experience experience tread loss and/or and/or rapid air loss loss resulting from tread belt separation" experience foreseen driving conditions that resulting from tread belt separation" experience foreseen driving conditions of a vehicle crash. increase the risk of

Despite a reasonable inquiry, the information infoimation known or easily obtainable is insufficient to

enable MNA to to admit or deny deny this this request request at at this this time. time. The The issue issue regarding the increased risk of

a vehicle crash in this case is whether the alleged tread loss alleged tread loss and/or and/or rapid rapid air air loss loss in in the the tire tire in

question question should have caused should have caused a vehicle crash, crash, which MNA denies, denies, not whether whether aa hypothetical hypothetical

tread loss and/or rapid air loss increases the risk of a vehicle crash in the abstract.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 18: 18: Admit Admit that that aa defect defect that manifests in a tread separation is a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety.

Denied.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 19: 19: Admit Admit Michelin Michelin has has no no knowledge, knowledge, information, information, or belief formed formed after reasonable inquiry after reasonable inquiry to to dispute dispute that that the the failed failed tire tire was was cured during during the first week of of February in 2011.

MNA admits MNA admits only only that that the tire in question the tire question was was cured cured during the 6th week during the week of of 2011. 2011.

Despite a reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to enable

MNA to further admit or deny this request at this time.

4517897 10

SuppR 195 REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.20: 20: Admit Admit Michelin Michelin has has no no knowledge, knowledge, infonjiation, information, or belief formed after reasonable inquiry to dispute that the failed tire was assembled as a green tire as much as a week prior to the first week of of February in 2011.

Despite a reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to

enable MNA to admit or deny this request at this time.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 21: 21: Admit Admit Michelin Michelin has has no no knowledge, knowledge, information, information, or belief formed formed after after reasonable inquiry to reasonable inquiry to dispute dispute that that the the components components ofof the the failed failed tire were were created up to a week or more prior to assembly.

Despite a reasonable inquiry, the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 22: 22: Admit Admit Michelin Michelin has has no no knowledge, knowledge, information, information, or belief formed reasonable inquiry formed after reasonable inquiry to to dispute dispute that that it snowed in Fort Wayne, Wayne, Indiana Indiana during the period beginning the last week of January of 2011 beginning with the 2011 and running through through the the end of the first week of of February of 2011. of2011.

MNA admits that it does not have or maintain information indicating that it did or did not

snow in Fort Wayne, Indiana during the last week of January of2011 of 2011 through the end of the first

week of of February 2011.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 23: 23: Admit Admit Michelin Michelin hashas no no knowledge, knowledge, information, information, or belief formed after reasonable inquiry to dispute that it rained in Fort Wayne, Indiana during the belieftormed period beginning beginning with the the last week of January January of 2011 2011 and running through thethe end of the first week ofof February of 2011. of2011.

MNA admits that it does not have or maintain information indicating that it did or did not

rain in Fort Wayne, Indiana during the last week of January of2011 of 2011 through the end of the first ofthe

4517897 11

SuppR 196 REQUEST REQUEST FORFOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.24: 24: Admit that the tire building room room at Michelin's Fort Wayne, Indiana tire plant is covered by a large flat roof.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 25: 25: Admit Admit Michelin Michelin has has no no knowledge, knowledge, information, information, or belief formed formed after reasonable inquiry after reasonable inquiry to to dispute dispute that that the the roof on the Fort Wayne Wayne plant plant leaked leaked when it rained in 2011.

MNA admits that at some point during 2011 2011 the roof of the Fort Wayne plant leaked and

was repaired. MNA MN Afurther further admits admits that that itit does does not not have have or or maintain maintain information to determine the

dates within the the relevant relevant scope scope that that itit rained rained in in Fort Fort Wayne, Wayne, Indiana. Indiana. To the extent extent this request request

seeks information outside the information outside the relevant relevant scope, scope, MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request because because it is overly overly

broad broad and and seeks seeks information that isis neither information that neither relevant relevant to to the the subject matter of this subject matter this case case nor nor

reasonably calculated to to lead to the discovery discovery of admissible admissible evidence. evidence. Intervenors have failed to

limit the scope of of this request to the time period relevant to this action.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 26: 26: Admit Admit Michelin Michelin has has no no knowledge, knowledge, information, information, or belief formed formed after reasonable inquiry after reasonable inquiry to to dispute dispute that that the the roof on the Fort Wayne Wayne plant leaked leaked when it had melting snow on it in 2011.

MNA admits that at some point during 2011 2011 the roof of the Fort Wayne plant leaked and

was repaired. MNA MNA further further admits admits that that itit does does not not have have or or maintain information to determine the

dates within the relevant scope scope that that it snowed snowed in in Fort Fort Wayne, Wayne, Indiana. Indiana. To the extent this request

seeks information outside the information outside the relevant relevant scope, scope, MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request because because it is overly overly

broad broad and and seeks seeks information that is information that is neither relevant to neither relevant to the the subject matter of this subject matter this case case nor nor

reasonably calculated to to lead to to the discovery discovery of admissible admissible evidence. evidence. Intervenors have failed to

limit the scope of of this request to the time period relevant to this action.

4517897 12

SuppR 197 REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.27: 27: Admit Admit that that according according to information information in Michelin's possession, Michelin's employees possession, Michelin's employeesand and ex-employees ex-employeesworking workingininthe the tire tire building building and and tire inspection rooms at Michelin's Fort Fort Wayne plant in 2011 eye-witnessed roof leaks. roofleaks.

Denied as stated. stated. MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request as as improper improper because because it asks asks MNA to admit

or deny deny intervenors' intervenors' characterization of deposition characterization of testimony contained deposition testimony contained in in a document document that that

speaks for itself. speaks for itself. MNA MNA further further objects to this request objects to request because because itit is overly overly broad broad and not not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions

concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.28: 28: Admit Admit that that according according to information information in Michelin's possession, Michelin's employees possession, Michelin's employeesand and ex-employees ex-employeesworking workingininthe the tire tire building and tire building and inspection rooms at Michelin's Fort Wayne plant in 2011 eye-witnessed puddled water.

Denied as stated. stated. MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request as as improper improper because because it asks MNA to admit

or deny deny intervenors' intervenors' characterization of deposition characterization of testimony contained deposition testimony contained in in a document document that

speaks for itself. speaks for itself. MNA MNA further further objects to this objects to this request request because because itit is overly overly broad broad and not not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions

concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.29: 29: Admit Admit that that according according to information information in Michelin's possession, Michelin's employees possession, Michelin's employeesandand ex-employees ex-employeesworking workingininthe the tire tire building building and and tire tire inspection rooms at inspection rooms at Michelin's Michelin's Fort Fort Wayne plant in 2011 Wayne plant 2011 eye-witnessed eye-witnessed thethe use use of of plastic plastic sheeting to divert leaks.

Denied as stated. stated. MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request as as improper improper because it asks MNA to admit

or deny deny intervenors' intervenors' characterization of deposition characterization of testimony contained deposition testimony contained in in a document document that

speaks for itself. speaks for itself. MNA MNA further further objects to this request objects to request because because itit is overly overly broad broad and and not not

4517897 13

SuppR 198 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions

concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 30: 30: Admit that according to Michelin's employees employees and ex- employees working in the tire building and tire component preparation preparation rooms rooms at at Michelin's Fort Wayne plant in 2011 2011 eye-witnessed the use of of rubber and rubber-coated components that had lost some of of their tack prior to their use in the assembly of of a green tire.

Denied as stated. stated. MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request as as improper improper because it asks MNA to admit

or deny deny intervenors' intervenors' characterization of deposition characterization of testimony contained deposition testimony contained in in a document document that that

speaks for itself. speaks for itself. MNA MNA further further objects to this objects to this request request because because itit is overly overly broad broad and and not not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions

concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 31: 31: Admit Admit that according to Michelin's employees and ex- employees working in the tire building and tire component preparation rooms rooms at Michelin's Fort Wayne plant in 2011 eye-witnessed the use of of solvents in an attempt to restore the tack of of rubber and rubber-coated components.

Denied as stated. stated. MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request as as improper improper because it asks MNA to admit

or deny deny intervenors' intervenors' characterization of deposition characterization of testimony contained deposition testimony contained in in a document document that that

speaks for itself. speaks for itself. MNA MNA further further objects to this request objects to request because because itit is overly overly broad broad and not not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions

concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.

4517897 14

SuppR 199 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 32: 32: Admit Admit that according to Michelin's employees employees and ex- employees working working in the tire building and and tire component preparation preparation rooms rooms at at Michelin's Michelin's Fort Wayne plant in 2011 eye-witnessed the lax enforcement of of standards to avoid misplacement and improper splicing of of the steel belts.

Denied as stated. MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request as as improper improper because because it asks asks MNA to admit

or deny deny intervenors' intervenors' characterization of deposition characterization of testimony contained deposition testimony contained in in a document document that that

speaks for itself. speaks for itself. MNA MNA further further objects to this request objects to request because because itit is overly overly broad broad and not not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions

concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 33: 33: Admit that according to Michelin's employees employees and ex- employees working in the tire employees working tire building and tire component preparation preparation rooms rooms at at Michelin's Fort Wayne plant in 2011 2011 eye-witnessed the lax enforcement of standards to avoid misplacement and improper splicing of of rubber and rubber-coated components surround the steel belts.

Denied as stated. stated. MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request as as improper improper because it asks MNA to admit

or deny deny intervenors' intervenors' characterization of deposition characterization of testimony contained deposition testimony contained in in a document document that that

speaks for itself. speaks for itself MNA MNA further further objects objects to this this request request because because it is is overly overly broad broad and and not not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions

concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.34:34: Admit Admit that that the the quality quality control control inspection inspection process process in the final finish department is Michelin's principal opportunity to identify defects in cured tires in order to scrap or repair those defective tires before they reach the consumer.

4517897 15

SuppR 200 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 35: 35: Admit Admit that according to Michelin's employees employees and ex- employees working in the final finish room at Michelin's Fort Wayne, Indiana plant in 2011 2011 eye- witnessed the lax enforcement of of standards.

Denied as stated. stated. MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request as as improper improper because it asks MNA to admit

or deny deny intervenors' intervenors' characterization of deposition characterization of testimony contained deposition testimony contained in in a document document that

speaks for itself. speaks for itself. MNA MNA further further objects to this request objects to request because because itit is overly overly broad broad and and not not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions

concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 36: 36: Admit that according to Michelin's employees employees and ex- employees working in the final finish room at Michelin's Fort Wayne, Indiana plant in 2011 2011 eye- witnessed falsification of of inspections.

Denied as stated. stated. MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request as as improper improper because it asks MNA to admit

or deny deny intervenors' intervenors' characterization of deposition characterization of testimony contained deposition testimony contained in in a document document that that

speaks for itself. speaks for itself. MNA MNA further further objects to this request objects to request because because itit is overly overly broad broad and and not not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions

concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 37: 37: Admit Admit that according to Michelin's employees and ex- employees working in the final finish room at Michelin's Fort Wayne, Indiana plant in 2011 eye- witnessed on-the-job sexual misconduct.

Denied as stated. MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request as as improper improper because it asks MNA to admit

or deny deny intervenors' intervenors' characterization characterization of deposition testimony contained deposition testimony contained in in a document document that that

speaks for itself. speaks for itself. MNA MNA further further objects to this objects to this request request because because itit is overly overly broad broad and and not not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions

concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.

4517897 16

SuppR 201 REQUEST REQUEST FORFOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.38:38: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin has hasAspect AspectClassification Classification documents which set forth some of of the standards which Michelin has recognized.

Admitted. Admitted. MNA MNA objects objects to to the the extent extent this this request request seeks seeks or or attempts attempts to seek seek trade secret,

proprietary, proprietary, or otherwise commercially confidential otherwise commercially confidential business businessinformation informationof ofMNA. MNA. Pursuant to

Rule Rule 507 507 of of the the Texas Texas Rules Rules of ofEvidence, Evidence, MNA MNA asserts asserts trade trade secret secret protection protection for for such such

information. information. MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request because because itit seeks seeks information information that is neither relevant to

the subject matter of this case case nor nor reasonably reasonably calculated calculated to lead to the the discovery discovery of of admissible admissible

evidence. evidence. MNA MNA objects objects to this this request request as as being overly broad. broad. Intervenors Intervenors have have failed failed to limit

the scope of of this request to the time period relevant to this action.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.39:39: Admit Admit that thatMichelin's Michelin'sAspect AspectClassification Classification documents documents have annexes, glossaries, illustrations, photographs, photographs, and attachments with additional additional information and caveats pertaining to the standards which Michelin has recognized in the past.

MNA MNA objects to the extent objects to extent this this request request seeks seeks or or attempts attempts to to seek seek information information that that

constitutes commercially commercially sensitive, sensitive, confidential confidential business business information information of of MNA. MNA. Pursuant to Rule

507 of of the Texas Texas Rules Rules of of Evidence, Evidence, MNA MNA asserts asserts trade trade secret secret protection protection for for such such information. information.

MNA objects to this request request as as being being overly overly broad. broad. Intervenors Intervenors have failed to limit the scope of

this request to the time period relevant to this action.

REQUEST REQUEST FORFOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.40: 40: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin has aa Product Product Standards Standards and and Guidelines Manual for Guidelines Manual for Required Required Tire Dimensional Tolerances which Dimensional Tolerances which sets sets forth the the standards standards which Michelin has recognized.

4517897 17

SuppR 202 REQUEST ADMISSIONS NO. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 41: 41: Admit Admit that Michelin Michelin has work procedures for the tire builders which set forth standards which Michelin has recognized.

MNA MNA admits admits it has work procedures procedures for for tire tire builders. builders. MNA MNA objects objects to the extent extent this

request request seeks seeks or or attempts attempts to to seek seektrade tradesecret, secret,proprietary, proprietary, ororotherwise otherwisecommercially commercially

confidential businessinformation confidential business informationofofMNA. MNA. Pursuant Pursuanttoto Rule Rule 507 507 of of the the Texas Texas Rules Rules of

Evidence, MNA asserts Evidence, MNA asserts trade trade secret secret protection protectionfor for such such information. infoiiiiation. MNA MNA objects to this objects to this

request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculatedtoto lead reasonably calculated lead to to the the discovery of admissible discovery of admissible evidence. evidence. MNA MNA objects to this objects to

request as being request as being overly overly broad. broad. Intervenors Intervenors have failed failed to limit the scope scope of of this request to the

time period relevant to this action.

REQUEST ADMISSIONS NO. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 42: 42: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin hashas training training materials materials including videotapes and tests videotapes and tests for for the the tire tire builders builders which which set set forth forth standards standards which which Michelin Michelin has has recognized.

MNA admits has training admits it has materials for training materials for tire tire builders. builders. MNA MNA objects objects to the extent extent this

request request seeks seeks or or attempts attempts to to seek seektrade tradesecret, secret,proprietary, proprietary, ororotherwise otherwisecommercially commercially

confidential businessinformation confidential business informationofofMNA. MNA. Pursuant Pursuanttoto Rule Rule 507 507 of of the the Texas Texas Rules Rules of

Evidence, MNA asserts Evidence, MNA asserts trade trade secret secret protection protectionfor for such such information. information. MNA MNA objects to this objects to

request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculatedtoto lead reasonably calculated lead to to the the discovery of admissible discovery of admissible evidence. evidence. MNA MNA objects to this objects to

request as being request as being overly overly broad. broad. Intervenors Intervenors have failed failed to limit the scope scope of of this request to the

4517897 18

SuppR 203 REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.43: 43: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin has has work work procedures procedures for for tire inspectors which set forth standards which Michelin has recognized.

MNA admits procedures for admits it has work procedures for tire tire inspectors. inspectors. MNA objects to the extent this

request request seeks seeks or or attempts attempts to to seek seektrade tradesecret, secret,proprietary, proprietary, ororotherwise otherwisecommercially commercially

confidential businessinformation confidential business informationofofMNA. MNA. Pursuant Pursuanttoto Rule Rule 507 507 of of the the Texas Texas Rules Rules of

Evidence, MNA asserts Evidence, MNA asserts trade trade secret secret protection protectionfor for such such information. information. MNA MNA objects to this objects to

request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculatedtoto lead reasonably calculated lead to to the the discovery of admissible discovery of admissible evidence. evidence. MNA objects to this objects to

request as being request as being overly overly broad. broad. Intervenors Intervenors have failed failed to limit the scope of of this request to the

REQUEST ADMISSIONS NO. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 44: 44: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin has has training training materials materials including videotapes and tests for tire inspectors which set forth standards which Michelin has recognized.

MNA admits training materials admits it has training materials for for tire tire inspectors. inspectors. MNA MNA objects to the extent this

request request seeks seeks or or attempts attempts to to seek seektrade tradesecret, secret,proprietary, proprietary, ororotherwise otherwisecommercially commercially

confidential businessinformation confidential business informationofofMNA. MNA. Pursuant Pursuanttoto Rule Rule 507 507 of of the the Texas Texas Rules Rules of

Evidence, MNA asserts Evidence, MNA asserts trade trade secret secret protection protectionfor for such such information. information. MNA MNA objects to this objects to

request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of of this case nor

reasonably calculatedtoto lead reasonably calculated lead to to the the discovery of admissible discovery of admissible evidence. evidence. MNA objects objects to this

request request as being overly broad. being overly broad. Intervenors Intervenors have failed to limit the scope scope of of this request to the

time period relevant to this action. aCtion.

4517897 19

SuppR 204 REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.45: 45: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin has reaction reaction limits which set forth some of of the standards which Michelin has recognized.

MNA admits admits it has green tire reaction limits in place at the Fort Fort Wayne, Wayne, Indiana Indiana plant.

MNA MNA objects to this objects to this request as being request as being vague vague and and ambiguous. ambiguous. MNA MNA objects objects to the extent extent this

request request seeks seeks or or attempts attempts to to seek seektrade tradesecret, secret,proprietary, proprietary, ororotherwise otherwisecommercially commercially

confidential businessinformation confidential business informationofofMNA. MNA. Pursuant Pursuanttoto Rule Rule 507 507 of of the the Texas Texas Rules Rules of

Evidence, MNA asserts Evidence, MNA asserts trade trade secret secret protection protectionfor for such such information. information. MNA MNA objects to this objects to

request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculatedtoto lead reasonably calculated lead to to the the discovery of admissible discovery of admissible evidence. evidence. MNA MNA objects to this objects to

request as being request as overly broad. being overly broad. Intervenors Intervenors have failed failed to limit the scope of this request to the

plant, time period, components, and processes relevant to this action.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.46: 46: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin has has product product tolerance tolerance limits limits which set forth some of of the standards which Michelin has recognized.

MNA admits it has tolerances tolerances in in place place at at the the Fort Fort Wayne, Wayne, Indiana Indiana plant. plant. MNA objects to

this request request as being being vague and ambiguous. vague and ambiguous. MNA MNA objects objects to the the extent extent this this request request seeks seeks or

attempts attempts to seek seek trade trade secret, secret, proprietary, proprietary, or orotherwise otherwisecommercially commercially confidential confidential business business

information of MNA. MNA. Pursuant Pursuant to to Rule Rule 507 507 of of the the Texas Texas Rules Rules of of Evidence, Evidence, MNA l\1NA asserts trade

secret protection for such information. information. MNA MNA objects objects to this request request because it seeks information

that is neither neither relevant to the subject subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to to lead to the

discovery of admissible discovery of evidence. MNA admissible evidence. MNA objects to this objects to this request request as as being being overly overly broad. broad.

Intervenors have failed Intervenors have failed to limit the scope of of this request request to the the plant, plant, time time period, period, components, components,

and process relevant to this action.

4517897 20

SuppR 205 REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 47: 47: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin has has possession possession of of documents, documents, testimony, and infornration information which assert that quality control personnel falsified inspections at the Fort Wayne plant in 2011.

Denied as stated. stated. MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request as as improper improper because it asks MNA to admit

or deny deny intervenors' intervenors' characterization of deposition characterization of testimony contained deposition testimony contained in in a document document that

speaks for itself. speaks for itself. MNA MNA further further objects to this request objects to request because because itit is overly overly broad broad and not not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions

concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.48: 48: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin has has possession possession of ofdocuments, documents, testimony, and information which confirm on-the-job sexual misconduct at the Fort Wayne plant in 2011.

MNA objects to MNA objects to this this request as improper request as becauseitit asks improper because asks MNA MNA to to admit admit or or deny deny

intervenors' characterization of intervenors' characterization of deposition deposition testimony testimony contained containedin in aa document that speaks document that speaks for

itself. itself. MNA MNA further further objects objects to this this request request because because it is is overly overly broad broad and and not notreasonably reasonably

calculated to lead calculated to lead to to the the discovery discovery of ofadmissible admissible evidence evidence because because itit seeks seeks admissions admissions

concerning depositiontestimony concerning deposition testimonyfrom froma acase case that that involves involves aa tire tire outside outside the the relevant relevant

scope. scope. Furthermore, Furthermore, MNA MNA objects objects to this this request request to the the extent extent itit seeks seeks admission admission of the the

existence of of information protected by the attorney-client attomey-client and/or attorney work product privileges.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 49: 49: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin has has possession possession of ofdocuments, documents, testimony, and information which confirm that it has established a link between certain cured tire defects and their probable causes.

Denied as stated. stated. MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request as as improper improper because it asks MNA to admit

or deny deny intervenors' intervenors' characterization of deposition characterization of testimony contained deposition testimony contained in in a document document that that

speaks for itself. speaks for itself. MNA MNA further further objects to this objects to this request request because because itit is overly overly broad broad and and not not

4517897 21

SuppR 206 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions

concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant scope.

MNA objects to this objects to this request request as as being being vague vague and and ambiguous. ambiguous. MNA MNA objects to the extent

this this request request seeks seeks or or attempts attempts to to seek seektrade tradesecret, secret,proprietary, proprietary, ororotherwise otherwise commercially commercially

confidential businessinformation confidential business informationofofMNA. MNA. Pursuant Pursuanttoto Rule Rule 507 507 of of the the Texas Texas Rules Rules of

Evidence, MNA asserts Evidence, MNA asserts trade trade secret secret protection protectionfor for such such information. information. MNA MNA objects to this objects to

request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculatedtoto lead reasonably calculated lead to to the the discovery discovery of of admissible admissible evidence. evidence. MNA MNA objects to this objects to

request as being request as being overly overly broad. broad. Intervenors Intervenors have failed failed to limit the scope of this request to the

plant, time period, components, and process relevant to this action.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.50: 50: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin has has possession possession of of documents, documents, testimony, and information which confirm that is has established a link between nonconformance to standards and tread separations.

Denied as stated. stated. MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request as as improper improper because it asks MNA to admit

or deny deny intervenors' intervenors' characterization of deposition characterization of testimony contained deposition testimony contained in in a document document that

speaks for itself. speaks for itself. MNA MNA further further objects to this request objects to request because because itit is overly overly broad broad and not not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it seeks admissions

concerning deposition testimony from a case that involves a tire outside the relevant reievant scope.

objects to MNA objects to this request request as as being being vague vague and and ambiguous. ambiguous. MNA MNA objects objects to the extent

this this request request seeks seeks or or attempts attempts to to seek seektrade tradesecret, secret,proprietary, proprietary, ororotherwise otherwise commercially commercially

confidential businessinformation confidential business informationofofMNA. MNA. Pursuant Pursuanttoto Rule Rule 507 507 of of the the Texas Texas Rules Rules of

Evidence, MNA asserts Evidence, MNA asserts trade trade secret secret protection protectionfor forsuch such information. information. MNA MNA objects to this objects to

request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculatedtoto lead reasonably calculated lead to to the the discovery of admissible discovery of admissible evidence. evidence. MNA MNA objects to this objects to

4517897 22

SuppR 207 request as being request as being overly overly broad. broad. Intervenors Intervenors have failed to limit the scope scope of of this request request to the

plant, time period, components, and process relevant to this action.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 51: 51: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin has work procedures for tire and tire component designers which set forth standards which Michelin has recognized.

MNA admits admits it has work procedures procedures for for tire tire designers. designers. MNA MNA objects objects to the extent extent this

request request seeks seeks or or attempts attempts to to seek seektrade tradesecret, secret,proprietary, proprietary, ororotherwise otherwisecommercially commercially

confidential businessinformation confidential business informationofofMNA. MNA. Pursuant Pursuanttoto Rule Rule 507 507 of the the Texas Texas Rules Rules of

Evidence, MNA asserts Evidence, MNA asserts trade trade secret secret protection protectionfor for such such information. information. MNA MNA objects to this objects to

request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor ofthis

reasonably calculatedtoto lead reasonably calculated lead to to the the discovery of admissible discovery of admissible evidence. evidence. MNA objects to this objects to

request as being request as being overly overly broad. broad. Intervenors Intervenors have failed failed to limit the scope scope of of this request request to the

REQUEST ADMISSIONS NO. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 52: 52: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin has has training training materials materials including including videotapes for tire and tire component videotapes for component designers designers which set forth standards standards which Michelin has recognized.

MNA admits admits it has training training materials materials for for tire tire designers. designers. MNA objects objects to the extent extent this

request request seeks seeks or attempts attempts to to seek seektrade tradesecret, secret,proprietary, proprietary, ororotherwise otherwisecommercially commercially

confidential businessinformation confidential business informationofofMNA. MNA. Pursuant Pursuanttoto Rule Rule 507 507 of the the Texas Texas Rules Rules of

Evidence, MNA asserts Evidence, MNA asserts trade trade secret secret protection protectionfor for such such information. information. MNA MNA objects to this objects to

request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of of this case nor

reasonably calculated reasonably calculatedtoto lead lead to to the the discovery of admissible discovery of admissible evidence. evidence. MNA objects to this objects to

request as being request as being overly overly broad. broad. Intervenors Intervenors have failed failed to limit the scope scope of of this request request to the

4517897 23

SuppR 208 REQUEST ADMISSIONS NO. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 53: 53: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin hashas training training materials materials including including tests tests for for tire tire and and tire tirecomponent component designers designers which which set set forth forth standards standards which which Michelin Michelin has recognized.

MNA admits admits it has training materials for training materials for tire tire designers. designers. MNA MNA objects to the extent this

request request seeks seeks or or attempts attempts to to seek seektrade tradesecret, secret,proprietary, proprietary, ororotherwise otherwisecommercially commercially

confidential businessinformation confidential business informationofofMNA. MNA. Pursuant Pursuanttoto Rule Rule 507 507 of of the the Texas Texas Rules Rules of

Evidence, MNA asserts Evidence, MNA asserts trade trade secret secret protection protection for for such such info' nation. MNA information. MNA objects objects to this this

request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculatedtoto lead reasonably calculated lead to to the the discovery discovery of of admissible admissible evidence. evidence. MNA MNA objects to this objects to

request as being request as being overly overly broad. broad. Intervenors Intervenors have failed to limit the scope scope of this request to the

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 54: 54: Admit Admit that Michelin perfoi ns Failure Modes Analysis performs which address tread separation.

MNA MNA admits admits that from from time to time time itit conducts conducts Failure Failure Modes Modes and and Effects Effects Analysis. Analysis.

MNA MNA objects to the extent objects to extent this request request seeks seeks or attempts attempts to to seek seek trade trade secret, secret, proprietary, proprietary, or

otherwise commercially commercially confidential confidential business business information information of of MNA. MNA. Pursuant to Rule 507 of of the

Texas Rules of Evidence, Texas Rules MNA asserts Evidence, MNA asserts trade trade secret secret protection protection for for such such information. information. MNA MNA

objects to this request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of

this this case case nor nor reasonably calculated to reasonably calculated to lead lead to to the discovery discovery of admissible evidence. MNA admissible evidence. MNA

objects to this request objects to as being request as being overly overly broad. broad. Intervenors Intervenors have failed failed to limit the scope of this

request to the time period relevant to this action.

4517897 24

SuppR 209 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 55: 55: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin perfoiiiis performs Failure Effects Analysis which address tread separation.

MNA MNA admits admits that from time to to time time ititconducts conducts Failure Failure Modes Modes and and Effects Effects Analysis. Analysis.

MNA MNA objects to the extent objects to extent this this request request seeks seeks or or attempts attempts to to seek seek trade trade secret, secret, proprietary, proprietary, or

commercially confidential otherwise commercially confidential business business information information ofMNA. of MNA. Pursuant to Rule 507 of of the

Texas Texas Rules Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts Evidence, MNA asserts trade trade secret protection for secret protection for such such information. information. MNA MNA

objects to this request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of

this this case case nor nor reasonably reasonably calculated to lead calculated to lead to to the discovery discovery of admissible evidence. MNA admissible evidence. MNA

objects to this request objects to as being request as being overly overly broad. broad. Intervenors Intervenors have failed to limit the scope scope of this

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.56:56: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin runs runs tire tire endurance endurance tests and and tread separation is not the typical failure mode for such test.

MNA MNA admits admits it conducts tests of tires, conducts tests tires, including endurancetests. including endurance tests. MNA MNA objects objects to the

extent this request seeks or attempts to seek seek trade secret, secret, proprietary, or otherwise otherwise commercially commercially

confidential businessinformation confidential business informationofofMNA. MNA. Pursuant Pursuanttoto Rule Rule 507 507 of of the the Texas Texas Rules Rules of

Evidence, MNA asserts Evidence, MNA asserts trade trade secret secret protection protection for for such such information. information. MNA MNA admits admits itit conducts conducts

testing of tires. MNA MNAobjects objects to to this this request request because because itit seeks seeks infoiniation information that that is is neither neither relevant

to the subject matter of of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery discovery of of admissible

evidence. evidence. MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request as as being being overly broad. broad. Intervenors Intervenors have have failed failed to limit

the scope of of this request to the time period relevant to this action.

4517897 25

SuppR 210 REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.57: 57: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin runs runs tire tire endurance endurance tests and and tread separation is the typical failure mode for such test.

MNA MNA admits admits it conducts tests of tires, conducts tests tires, including including endurance endurancetests. tests. MNA objects objects to this

request as being request as being vague vague and and ambiguous. ambiguous. MNA MNA objects objects to this this request request because because it it seeks seeks

information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of of this case nor reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible admissible evidence. evidence. MNA MNA objects objects to to this request as being overly broad.

Intervenors have failed to limit the scope of of this request to the time period relevant to this action.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.58: 58: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin runs runs tests tests with with over over deflected deflected tires and tread separation is not the typical failure mode for such test tires.

MNA admits itit conducts MNA admits testingof conducts testing of tires, tires, and and from from time time to to time time tests tests tires tires in in an an

overdeflected condition. MNA overdeflected condition. MNA objects objects to the the extent extent this this request request seeks seeks or attempts attempts to seek seek trade

secret, secret, proprietary, proprietary, or otherwise otherwise commercially commercially confidential confidential business business information information of MNA. MNA.

Pursuant to Rule 507 of Pursuant to of the Texas Texas Rules Rules of ofEvidence, Evidence, MNA MNA asserts asserts trade secret secret protection protection for

such such information. information. MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request because because itit seeks seeks information information that is is neither neither

relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably relevant to reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery calculated to discovery of

admissible evidence. evidence. MNA MNA objects objects to this request as being overly broad. broad. Intervenors Intervenors have failed

to limit the scope of of this request to the time period relevant to this action.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 59: 59: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin runs runs tests tests with with over over deflected deflected tires and tread separation is the typical failure mode for such test tires.

MNA admits itit conducts MNA admits testingof conducts testing of tires, tires, and and from from time time to to time time tests tests tires tires in in an an

overdeflected condition. MNA overdeflected condition. MNA objects to this objects to this request as being request as being vague vague and and ambiguous. ambiguous. MNA MNA

objects to this request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of

4517897 26

SuppR 211 this this case case nor nor reasonably calculated to reasonably calculated to lead lead to to the discovery discovery of admissible evidence. MNA admissible evidence. MNA

objects to this request objects to as being request as being overly overly broad. broad. Intervenors Intervenors have failed failed to limit the scope of this

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 60: 60: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin has has adjustment adjustment documents documents with tire tire condition condition descriptions, condition lists, descriptions, condition lists, condition codes, and condition codes, and condition condition pictures pictures and and illustrations.

MNA admits admits that it that it has has such such documents documents applicable applicable to tires in the the relevant relevant scope. scope.

MNA MNA objects to the extent objects to extent this request request seeks seeks or or attempts attempts to seek seek trade trade secret, secret, proprietary, proprietary, or

otherwise commercially commercially confidential confidential business business information information ofMNA. of MNA. Pursuant to Rule 507 of of the

Texas Texas Rules Rules of Evidence, MNA asserts Evidence, MNA asserts trade trade secret secret protection protection for for such such information. information. MNA MNA

objects to this request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of

this this case case nor nor reasonably reasonably calculated to lead calculated to lead to to the discovery discovery of admissible evidence. MNA admissible evidence. MNA

objects to this request objects to as being request as being overly overly broad. broad. Intervenors Intervenors have failed to limit the scope scope of this

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.61:61: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin has work work procedures procedures for tire adjustment center personnel which set forth standards which Michelin has recognized.

MNA MNA admits that it has work admits that work procedures for tire adjustment procedures for center personnel. adjustment center personnel. MNA MNA

objects to the extent this request seeks or attempts to seek seek trade secret, secret, proprietary, proprietary, or otherwise otherwise

commercially confidentialbusiness commercially confidential businessinformation informationofofMNA. MNA. Pursuant Pursuant to to Rule Rule 507 507 of the Texas Texas

Rules Rules of Evidence, asserts trade Evidence, MNA asserts trade secret secret protection protection for for such such information. information. MNA MNA objects to

this request because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case

nor reasonably calculated to reasonably calculated to lead lead to to the the discovery discovery of of admissible admissible evidence. evidence. MNA objects to this

4517897 27

SuppR 212 request as being request as being overly overly broad. broad. Intervenors Intervenors have failed failed to limit the scope of this request request to the

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 62: 62: Admit Admit that that on on or or before September 16, 2014, Michelin 16,2014, became became aware aware of the potential potential for litigation litigation concerning concerning an August August 24, 24, 2014, crash reported to involve involve an an LT265/75R16 LT265/75R16 BF BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A T/A LRE LRE tire tire bearing bearing DOT DOT No. No. BFW802110611 BFW802110611 mounted on Robert Coleman's pickup.

MNA MNA states that it received states that received notice notice of the the accident accident on on or or before before September September 16, 16, 2014 2014

and reasonably reasonably anticipated anticipated litigation litigation on on that date.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.63: 63: Admit Admit that that by by September September 16, 16, 2014, 2014, Michelin Michelin could could reasonably foresee litigation reasonably foresee litigation concerning an LT265/75R16 concerning an LT265/75R16 BF BF Goodrich Goodrich Rugged Rugged Terrain Terrain T/A LRE tire bearing DOT BFW802110611 mounted on Robert BFW802110611 mounted Robert Coleman's pickup which crashed on August 24, 2014. 24,2014.

MNA MNA states that it received states that received notice notice of the the accident accident on on or or before before September September 16, 16, 2014 2014

and reasonably reasonably anticipated anticipated litigation litigation on that date.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 64: 64: Admit Admit that that on on or or before September September 16, 2014, Michelin 16,2014, became became aware aware of Robert Coleman's Coleman's notice notice of of anticipated anticipated litigation litigation and and request request that that Michelin Michelin preserve the tire building machines used to build 16 inch light truck tires at the Fort Wayne plant in 2011 for evidentiary purposes in that anticipated litigation.

MNA denies denies this request request as written. written. MNA MNA acknowledges acknowledges that, on or or around around September September

16, 16, 2014, 2014, itit received received aa letter letter from from Coleman's Coleman's counsel counsel providing notice of aa potential providing notice potential claim claim

involving the tire involving the tire in question. question. However, However, due due to the the refusal refusal of ofcounsel counsel for for plaintiffs plaintiffs and/or and/or

intervenors to provide intervenors to provide the tire in in question question to to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under reasonable reasonable conditions, conditions,

MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the

tire in question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to to identifying identifying the tire building machines used to machines used to build build the the tire tire in

4517897 28

SuppR 213 question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the

tire building machines.

MNA MNA objects objects to this this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that produced thethedefect defect alleged alleged to tobebepresent presentinin the the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an an impermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

for information generally related to generally related to every aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further further objects to this request because it is

overly broad and seeks information information that that is neither relevant relevant to to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 65: 65: Admit Admit that Michelin Michelin has made no efforts efforts to preserve preserve the condition of tire building machines machines used used to to build 16 inch light truck tires at the Fort Wayne plant in 2011 in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014.

MNA denies this request denies this request as as written. written. MNA MNA acknowledges acknowledges that, on on or or around around September September

16, 16, 2014, 2014, itit received received aa letter letter from from Coleman's Coleman's counsel counsel providing notice of aa potential providing notice potential claim claim

involving the tire involving the tire in question. question. However, However, due due to the the refusal refusal of ofcounsel counsel for for plaintiffs plaintiffs and/or and/or

intervenors to provide intervenors to provide the tire in question question to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under reasonable reasonable conditions, conditions,

MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the

tire in question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to identifying identifying the tire building machines used building machines used to to build build the the tire tire in

question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the

MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that produced thethedefect defect alleged alleged to tobebepresent presentinin the the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an an impermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

for information generally related to generally related to every aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

4517897 29

SuppR 214 not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further further objects to this request because it is

overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant relevant to to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of of admissible evidence.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.66: 66: Admit Admit that Michelin Michelin has altered altered the tire tire building building machines used to build 16 inch light truck tires at the Fort Wayne plant in 2011 2011 in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014.

MNA denies this request as written. denies this written. MNA MNA acknowledges acknowledges that, on or or around around September September

16, 2014, 2014, itit received received aa letter letter from from Coleman's Coleman's counsel counsel providing notice of aa potential providing notice potential claim claim

involving the tire involving the tire in question. question. However, However, due due to to the the refusal refusal of ofcounsel counsel for for plaintiffs plaintiffs and/or and/or

intervenors to provide intervenors to provide the tire in in question question to to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under reasonable reasonable conditions, conditions,

MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the

tire in question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to to identifying identifying the tire building machines used to machines used to build build the the tire tire in

question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the

MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that produced thethedefect defect alleged alleged to tobebepresent presentinin the the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an an impermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

for information generally related to every aspect generally related aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further further objects to this request because because it is

overly broad and seeks information infounation that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of of admissible evidence.

4517897 30

SuppR 215 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 67: 67: Admit Admit that Michelin Michelin has made no efforts to document document alterations to the tire building machines machines used to to build 16 inch light truck tires at the Fort Wayne plant in 2011 2011 in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014.

MNA denies this request denies this request as as written. written. MNA MNA acknowledges acknowledges that, on on or or around around September September

16, 2014, 2014, itit received received aa letter letter from from Coleman's Coleman's counsel counsel providing notice of aa potential providing notice potential claim claim

involving the tire involving the tire in question. question. However, However, due due to the the refusal refusal of ofcounsel counsel for for plaintiffs plaintiffs and/or and/or

intervenors to provide intervenors to provide the tire in question question to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under reasonable reasonable conditions, conditions,

MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the

tire in question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to identifying identifying the tire building machines used building machines used to to build build the the tire in

question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the

MNA MNA objects to this objects to this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that produced thethedefect defect alleged alleged to tobebepresent presentininthe the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an an impermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

for information generally related to generally related to every aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further further objects to this request because because it is

overly broad and seeks information information that that is is neither relevant relevant to to the the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of of admissible evidence.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 68: 68: Admit Admit that Michelin Michelin has made no efforts efforts to preserve preserve the condition of of tire building machines used to build LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT BFW802110611 BFW802110611 at the Fort Wayne Wayne plant in the sixth week of 2011 of2011 in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014.

MNA denies this request request as written. written. MNA MNA acknowledges acknowledges that, on on or or around around September September

16, 2014, 2014, itit received received aa letter letter from from Coleman's Coleman's counsel counsel providing notice of aa potential providing notice potential claim claim

4517897 31

SuppR 216 involving the tire involving the tire in question. question. However, However, due due to to the the refusal refusal of ofcounsel counsel for for plaintiffs plaintiffs and/or and/or

intervenors to provide intervenors to provide the tire in in question question to to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under reasonable reasonable conditions, conditions,

MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the

tire in question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to to identifying identifying the tire building machines used building machines used to to build build the the tire in

question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the

MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that produced thethedefect defect alleged alleged to tobebepresent presentinin the the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an an impermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

for information generally generally related to every aspect aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in this intervenors' claims this case. case. MNA MNA further further objects to this request request because it is

overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant relevant to to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of of admissible evidence.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.69: 69: Admit Admit that Michelin Michelin has altered altered the tire tire building building machines used to build LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT BFW802110611 BFW802110611 at at the the Fort Fort Wayne Wayne plant plant in in the the sixth week week of 2011 2011 in the time that has has passed passed since September 16, 2014.

MNA denies denies this request as written. written. MNA MNA acknowledges acknowledges that, on on or or around around September September

16, 2014, 2014, itit received received aa letter letter from from Coleman's Coleman's counsel counsel providing notice of aa potential providing notice potential claim claim

involving the tire involving the tire in question. question. However, However, due due to to the the refusal refusal of ofcounsel counsel for for plaintiffs plaintiffs and/or and/or

intervenors to provide intervenors to provide the tire in in question question to to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under reasonable reasonable conditions, conditions,

MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the

tire in question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to to identifying identifying the tire building machines used to machines used to build build the the tire in

4517897 32

SuppR 217 question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the

MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that produced thethedefect defectalleged alleged to tobebepresent presentinin the the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an animpermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

for information generally related to every aspect generally related aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further further objects objects to this request because it is

overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of of admissible evidence.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 70: 70: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin has made made no efforts to document alterations to the tire alterations to tire building building machines machines used used to to build buildLT265/75R16 LT265/75Rl6 BFBF Goodrich Goodrich Rugged Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT BFW802110611 T/ALRE BFW802110611 at the Fort Wayne plant in the sixth week of 2011 in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014. of2011

MNA denies this request request as written. written. MNA MNA acknowledges acknowledges that, that, on on or or around around September September

16, 16, 2014, 2014, itit received received aa letter letter from from Coleman's Coleman's counsel counsel providing providing notice notice of aa potential potential claim claim

involving the tire involving the tire in question. question. However, However, due to to the the refusal refusal of ofcounsel counsel for for plaintiffs plaintiffs and/or and/or

intervenors to provide intervenors to provide the tire in question question to to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under reasonable reasonable conditions, conditions,

MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the

tire in question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to identifying identifying the tire building building machines used to machines used to build build the the tire tire in

question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the

MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that produced thethedefect defectalleged alleged to tobebepresent presentinin the the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an an impermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

4517897 33

SuppR 218 for information generally generally related to every every aspect aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further further objects to this request because because it is

overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of of admissible evidence.

REQUEST ADMISSIONS NO. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 71: 71: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin has made no efforts efforts to preserve preserve the condition of the first ofthe first stage stage tire tire building building machines machines used to build build LT265/75R16 LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A Rugged Terrain T/A LRE LRE tires bearing bearing DOT DOT BFW802110611 BFW802110611 at at the the Fort Fort Wayne plant in the Wayne plant sixth week of 2011 in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014. of2011

MNA denies denies this request as written. written. MNA MNA acknowledges acknowledges that, on on or or around around September September

16, 16, 2014, 2014, itit received received aa letter letter from from Coleman's Coleman's counsel counsel providing providing notice notice of aa potential potential claim claim

involving the tire involving the tire in question. question. However, However, due due to the the refusal refusal of ofcounsel counsel for for plaintiffs plaintiffs and/or and/or

intervenors to provide intervenors to provide the tire in in question question to to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under reasonable reasonable conditions, conditions,

MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the

tire in question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to to identifying identifying the tire building machines used to machines used to build build the the tire in

question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the

MNA MNA objects objects to this this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that producedthethedefect defectalleged alleged to tobebepresent presentinin the the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an an impermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

for information generally generally related to every aspect aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further further objects objects to this request because because it is

overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of of admissible evidence.

REQUEST REQUEST FORFOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.72: 72: Admit Admit that Michelin Michelin has altered altered the first stage tire building machines used building machines used to build build LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich LT265/75R16 BF Rugged Terrain Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A T/A LRE LRE tires

4517897 34

SuppR 219 bearing DOT BFW802110611 2011 in the time that BFW80211 0611 at the Fort Wayne plant in the sixth week of 2011 has passed since September 16, 2014.

MNA denies denies this request as written. written. MNA MNA acknowledges acknowledges that, on or or around around September September

16, 2014, 2014, itit received received aa letter letter from from Coleman's Coleman's counsel counsel providing notice of aa potential providing notice potential claim claim

involving the tire involving the tire in question. question. However, However, due to to the the refusal refusal of ofcounsel counsel for for plaintiffs plaintiffs and/or and/or

intervenors to provide intervenors to provide the tire in question question to to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under reasonable reasonable conditions, conditions,

MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the

tire in question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to to identifying identifying the tire building building machines used to machines used to build build the the tire tire in

question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the

MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that produced thethedefect defectalleged alleged to tobebepresent presentininthe the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an an impermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

for information generally related to every aspect generally related aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further further objects objects to this request because because it is

overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of of admissible evidence.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 73: 73: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin has made no efforts to document alterations to the first alterations to first stage stage tire tire building building machines machines used used to to build build LT265/75R16 LT265/75R16 BF BF Goodrich Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A Rugged Terrain T/A LRE LRE tires tires bearing bearing DOT DOT BFW802110611 BFW802110611 atat the the Fort Fort Wayne Wayne plant plant in the sixth week of 2011 in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014. of2011

MNA denies denies this this request as written. written. MNA MNA acknowledges acknowledges that, on or or around around September September

16, 2014, 2014, itit received received aa letter letter from from Coleman's Coleman's counsel counsel providing providing notice notice of aa potential potential claim claim

involving the tire involving the tire in question. question. However, However, due to to the the refusal refusal of ofcounsel counsel for for plaintiffs plaintiffs and/or and/or

4517897 35

SuppR 220 intervenors to provide intervenors to provide the tire in question question to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under reasonable reasonable conditions, conditions,

MNA was until recently unable to deteiiiiine determine which tire building machines were used to build the

tire in question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to to identifying the tire building identifying the machines used building machines used to to build build the the tire tire in

question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the

MNA MNA objects to this objects to this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that produced thethe defect defect alleged alleged to tobebepresent presentininthe the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an an impermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

for information generally related to generally related to every aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA further objects to this request because because it is

overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant relevant to to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

REQUEST ADMISSIONS NO. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 74: 74: Admit Admit that no no representative representative of of Robert Coleman was present when Michelin altered the first stage tire building machines used to build LT265/75R16 LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT BFW802110611 BFW802110611 at the Fort Wayne plant in the sixth week of 2011 in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014. of2011

MNA denies this request denies this request as as written. written. MNA MNA acknowledges acknowledges that, on or or around around September September

16, 16, 2014, 2014, itit received received aa letter letter from from Coleman's Coleman's counsel counsel providing notice of aa potential providing notice potential claim claim

involving the tire involving the tire in question. question. However, However, due due to the the refusal refusal of ofcounsel counsel for for plaintiffs plaintiffs and/or and/or

intervenors to provide intervenors to provide the tire in question question to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under reasonable reasonable conditions, conditions,

MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the

tire in question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to to identifying identifying the tire building machines used building machines used to to build build the the tire tire in

question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the

4517897 36

SuppR 221 MNA MNA objects to this objects to this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that produced thethedefect defect alleged alleged to tobebepresent presentininthe the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an an impermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

for information generally related to generally related to every aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further further objects to this request because it is

overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant relevant to to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 75: 75: Admit Admit that, in the time from from September September 16 of 2014 to of2014 the present, present, the first first stage stage tire tire building building machines machines used used to to build buildLT265/75R16 LT265/75R16 BF BF Goodrich Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A Rugged Terrain T/A LRE LRE tires bearing bearing DOT DOT BFW802110611 BFW802110611 at at the the Fort Fort Wayne plant in the Wayne plant sixth sixth week week of 2011 2011 have have been been altered altered by aa person person oror persons persons whose whose identity identity has has not been been disclosed to Robert Coleman.

MNA denies request as written. denies this request written. MNA MNA acknowledges acknowledges that, on on or or around around September September

16, 16, 2014, 2014, itit received received aa letter letter from from Coleman's Coleman's counsel counsel providing notice of aa potential providing notice potential claim claim

involving the tire involving the tire in question. question. However, However, due due to the the refusal refusal of ofcounsel counsel for for plaintiffs plaintiffs and/or and/or

intervenors to provide intervenors to provide the tire in in question question to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under reasonable reasonable conditions, conditions,

MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the - tire in question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to to identifying identifying the tire building machines used to machines used to build build the the tire tire in

question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the

MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that produced thethedefect defectalleged alleged to tobebepresent presentinin the the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an an impermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

for information generally related to every aspect generally related aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further further objects to this request because because it is

4517897 37

SuppR 222 overly broad and seeks information that is neither neither relevant relevant to to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO. 76: 76: Admit Admit that Michelin Michelin has made no efforts efforts to preserve preserve the the condition condition of the the second second stage stage tire tire building building machines machines used used to to build buildLT265/75R16 LT265/75R16 BF BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT BFW802110611 BFW802110611 at the Fort Wayne plant in the sixth week of 2011 in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014. of2011

MNA denies request as written. denies this request written. MNA MNA acknowledges acknowledges that, on on or or around around September September

16, 2014, 2014, itit received received aa letter letter from from Coleman's Coleman's counsel counsel providing providing notice notice of aa potential potential claim claim

involving the tire involving the tire in question. question. However, However, due due to the the refusal refusal of ofcounsel counsel for for plaintiffs plaintiffs and/or and/or

intervenors to provide intervenors to provide the tire in question question to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under reasonable reasonable conditions, conditions,

MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the

tire in question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to identifying the tire building identifying the machines used building machines used to to build build the the tire tire in

question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the

MNA MNA objects to this objects to this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that produced thethe defect defect alleged alleged to tobebepresent presentininthe the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this request is nothing nothing more than an an impeunissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

for information generally related to every aspect of generally related of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further objects to this request because because it is

overly broad and seeks information information that that is neither relevant to to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

4517897 38

SuppR 223 REQUEST ADMISSIONSNO. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 77: 77: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin has altered altered the second second stage tire building machines used building machines used to to build build LT265/75R16 LT265/75R16 BFBF Goodrich Rugged Terrain Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A T/A LRE tires bearing DOT BFW802110611 BFW802110611 at the Fort Wayne plant in the sixth week of 2011 in the time that of2011 has passed since September 16, 2014.

MNA denies this request denies this request as written. written. MNA MNA acknowledges acknowledges that, on on or or around around September September

16, 16, 2014, 2014, itit received received aa letter letter from from Coleman's Coleman's counsel counsel providing providing notice notice of aa potential potential claim claim

involving the tire involving the tire in question. question. However, However, due due to to the the refusal refusal of ofcounsel counsel for for plaintiffs plaintiffs and/or and/or

intervenors to provide the tire in question intervenors to question to to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under reasonable reasonable conditions, conditions,

MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the

tire in question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to to identifying identifying the tire building building machines used to machines used to build build the the tire tire in

question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the

MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that produced thethedefect defect alleged alleged to tobebepresent presentinin the the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an an impermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

for information generally related to every aspect generally related aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further further objects to this request because because it is

overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of of admissible evidence.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 78: 78: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin has made no efforts efforts to document alterations alterations to the second second stage stage tire building building machines machines used to build build LT265/75R16 LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A Rugged Terrain T/A LRE LRE tires tires bearing bearing DOT BFW802110611 BFW802110611 at at the the Fort Fort Wayne plant in the Wayne plant sixth week of 2011 in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014. of2011

MNA denies denies this this request request as written. written. MNA MNA acknowledges acknowledges that, on on or or around around September September

16, 16, 2014, 2014, itit received received aa letter letter from from Coleman's Coleman's counsel counsel providing providing notice notice of aa potential potential claim claim

4517897 39

SuppR 224 involving the tire involving the tire in question. question. However, However, due due to the the refusal refusal of ofcounsel counsel for for plaintiffs plaintiffs and/or and/or

intervenors to provide intervenors to provide the tire in question question to to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under reasonable reasonable conditions, conditions,

MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the

tire in question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to identifying identifying the tire building machines used building machines used to to build build the the tire tire in

question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the

MNA MNA objects objects to this this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that produced thethedefect defect alleged alleged to tobebepresent presentinin the the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an an impermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

for information generally related to every aspect generally related aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

not related to to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further further objects to this request because because it is

overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of of admissible evidence.

REQUEST ADMISSIONS NO. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 79: 79: Admit Admit that that no no representative representative of of Robert Robert Coleman Coleman was present when Michelin present when altered the Michelin altered the second second stage stage tire tire building building machines used to machines used to build build LT265/75R16 LT265/75Rl6 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT BFW802110611 BFW802110611 at the Fort Wayne plant in the sixth week of 2011 in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014. of2011

MNA denies this request denies this request as written. written. MNA MNA acknowledges acknowledges that, on on or or around around September September

16, 16, 2014, 2014, itit received received aa letter letter from from Coleman's Coleman's counsel counsel providing notice of aa potential providing notice potential claim claim

involving the tire involving the tire in question. question. However, However, due to to the the refusal refusal of ofcounsel counsel for for plaintiffs plaintiffs and/or and/or

intervenors to provide intervenors to provide the tire in question question to to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under reasonable reasonable conditions, conditions,

MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the

tire in question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to to identifying identifying the tire building machines used to machines used to build build the the tire in

4517897 40

SuppR 225 question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the

MNA MNA objects objects to this this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that produced thethedefect defect alleged alleged to tobebepresent presentininthe the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this request request is nothing more than nothing more than an an impermissible impel' iissible "fishing expedition"

for information generally related to every aspect of generally related of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further objects to this request because it is

overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant relevant to to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 80: 80: Admit Admit that that no no representative representative of of Robert Robert Coleman Coleman was invited invited to attend when Michelin altered the second altered the second stage stage tire building machines used to build machines used LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT 13FW802110611 at the Fort Wayne plant in the sixth week of 2011 in the time that has passed since September 16, 2014. of2011

Admitted. Admitted. MNA MNA acknowledges that, on or around acknowledges that, around September September 16, 16, 2014, 2014, it received received a

letter letter from from Coleman's counsel providing Coleman's counsel providingnotice noticeof of aa potential claim involving potential claim the tire involving the tire in

question. question. However, However, due due to to the the refusal refusal of ofcounsel counsel for for plaintiffs plaintiffs and/or and/or intervenors intervenors to provide the

tire in question question to to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under reasonable reasonable conditions, conditions, MNA was until until recently recently

unable to determine unable to whichtire determine which tire building buildingmachines machineswere wereused usedtoto build build the the tire tire in in

question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to to identifying identifying the tire building machines used to build the tire in question, question,

MNA has taken appropriate MNA has steps to appropriate steps to document the condition document the condition of, of, and and any any changes to, the tire changes to,

building machines.

MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that produced thethedefect defect alleged alleged to tobebepresent presentininthe the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an an impermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

4517897 41

SuppR 226 for information generally related to every generally related every aspect aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further further objects objects to this request because because it is

overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of of admissible evidence.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 81: 81: Admit Admit that, that, in in the time from from September September 16 of 2014 to of2014 the present, the second second stage stage tire building building machines machines used to to build build LT265/75R16 LT265/75R16 BFBF Goodrich Goodrich Rugged Rugged Terrain Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT 13FW802110611 13FW802110611 at at the the Fort Wayne Wayne plant plant in the sixth sixth week week of 2011 2011 have have been been altered altered by aa person person oror persons persons whose whose identity identity has has not not been been disclosed to Robert Coleman Coleman.

MNA denies this request denies this request as written. written. MNA MNA acknowledges acknowledges that, on on or or around around September September

16, 2014, 2014, itit received received aa letter letter from from Coleman's Coleman's counsel counsel providing notice of aa potential providing notice potential claim claim

involving the tire involving the tire in question. question. However, However, due to to the the refusal refusal of ofcounsel counsel for for plaintiffs plaintiffs and/or and/or

intervenors intervenors to provide the tire in question question to to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under reasonable reasonable conditions, conditions,

MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the

tire in question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to identifying identifying the tire building building machines used to machines used to build build the the tire tire in

question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the

MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that produced thethedefect defectalleged alleged to tobebepresent presentinin the the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an animpermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

for information generally generally related to every aspect aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further further objects objects to this request because it is

overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of of admissible evidence.

4517897 42

SuppR 227 REQUEST ADMISSIONSNO. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 82: 82: Admit Admit Michelin Michelin currently currently has possession of the first stage tire building machines used to build LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT BFW802110611 BFW80211 0611 at the Fort Wayne plant in the sixth week of of 2011.

Admitted. Admitted. MNA MNA objects objects to this this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the

specific manufacturingprocess specific manufacturing processthat thatproduced producedthe thedefect defectalleged allegedtotobe be present present in in the the tire tire in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an an impermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

for information generally related to every aspect of generally related of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further further objects to this request because because it is

overly broad and seeks information information that that is neither relevant to to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of of admissible evidence.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 83: 83: Admit Admit Michelin Michelin currently currently has possession of of the second stage tire building machines used to build LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT BEWS02110611 BFWS0211 0611 at the Fort Wayne plant in the sixth week of of 2011.

Admitted. Admitted. MNA MNA objects objects to this this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the

specific manufacturingprocess specific manufacturing processthat thatproduced producedthe thedefect defectalleged allegedtotobe be present presentin in the the tire tire in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an an impermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

for information generally related to generally related to every aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further further objects to this request because because it is

overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

4517897 43

SuppR 228 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 84: 84: Admit Admit that, that, during during time period from February 2011 2011 to the present, persons who are not employees of of Michelin North America, America, Inc. have had access to Michelin's Fort Fort Wayne Wayne plant which which provided provided those persons an opportunity to see the first stage opportunity to tire building machines used to build LT265/75R16 LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT BFW802110611. BFW80211 0611.

MNA denies denies this this request request as written. written. MNA MNA acknowledges acknowledges that, on on or or around around September September

16, 2014, 2014, itit received received aa letter letter from from Coleman's Coleman's counsel counsel providing notice of aa potential providing notice potential claim claim

involving the tire involving the tire in question. question. However, However, due to to the the refusal refusal of ofcounsel counsel for for plaintiffs plaintiffs and/or and/or

intervenors intervenors to provide provide the tire in in question question to to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under reasonable reasonable conditions, conditions,

MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the

tire in question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to to identifying identifying the tire building machines used building machines used to to build build the the tire tire in

question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the

MNA MNA objects to this objects to this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that produced thethedefect defect alleged alleged to tobebepresent presentinin the the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an an impermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

for information generally generally related to every every aspect aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further further objects to this request because because it is

overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant relevant to to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of of admissible evidence.

4517897 44

SuppR 229 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO.NO. 85: 85: Admit Admit that, that, during during time period from from February 2011 2011 to the present, persons who are not employees of of Michelin North America, Inc. have had access to Michelin's Fort Wayne Wayne plant which provided those persons provided those persons an opportunity to see the second opportunity to second stage tire building machines used to build LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT BFW802110611. BFW80211 0611.

MNA denies this request denies this request as as written. written. MNA MNA acknowledges acknowledges that, on on or or around around September September

16, 16, 2014, 2014, itit received received aa letter letter from from Coleman's Coleman's counsel counsel providing notice of aa potential providing notice potential claim claim

involving the tire involving the tire in question. question. However, However, due due to the the refusal refusal of ofcounsel counsel for for plaintiffs plaintiffs and/or and/or

intervenors to provide intervenors to provide the tire in question question to to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under reasonable reasonable conditions, conditions,

MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the

tire in question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to identifying identifying the tire building machines used building machines used to to build build the the tire tire in

question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the

MNA MNA objects to this objects to this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that produced thethe defect defect alleged alleged to tobebepresent presentininthe the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an an impermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

for for info' nation generally information related to generally related to every aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further objects to this request because because it is

overly broad and seeks information information that that is neither relevant relevant to to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of of admissible evidence.

4517897 45

SuppR 230 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 86: 86: Admit Admit that, that, during during time period from February 2011 2011 to the present, persons who are not employees ofof Michelin North America, Inc. have had access to America, Inc. Michelin's Michelin's Fort Fort Wayne Wayne plant which provided those persons an opportunity to to see the final finish inspection process on inspection process on the same inspection inspection line as used used toto inspect inspect LT265/75R16 LT265/75R16 BFBF Goodrich Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires bearing DOT BFW802110611.

MNA denies this request as written. denies this written. MNA MNA acknowledges acknowledges that, on on or or around around September September

16, 2014, 2014, itit received received aa letter letter from from Coleman's Coleman's counsel counsel providing notice of aa potential providing notice potential claim claim

involving the tire involving the tire in question. question. However, However, due due to the the refusal refusal of ofcounsel counsel for for plaintiffs plaintiffs and/or and/or

intervenors to provide intervenors to provide the tire in question question to to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under reasonable reasonable conditions, conditions,

MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the

tire in question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to to identifying identifying the tire building machines used building machines used to to build build the the tire tire in

question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the

MNA MNA objects to this objects to this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that produced thethedefect defect alleged alleged to tobebepresent presentininthe the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an an impermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

for information generally related to every aspect generally related aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further objects to this request because because it is

overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant relevant to to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of of admissible evidence.

4517897 46

SuppR 231 REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONSNO. NO.87: 87: Admit Admit that that in in September September of of 2014 2014 Robert Robert Coleman Coleman proposed proposed toto Michelin an agreement Michelin an agreement by by which which Michelin's Michelin's access access to to the the LT265/75R16 LT265/75R16 BF BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A T/A LRE LRE tire tire bearing bearing DOT DOT BFW802110611 BFW802110611 mounted mounted on Robert Robert Coleman's pickup at the time ofof the crash crash should should be comparable comparable to Robert Coleman's access to Michelin's tire building building machines machines used to build build LT LT 265/75R16 265/75R16 BF BF Goodrich Goodrich Rugged Rugged Terrain Terrain T/A tires in February of 2001 of2001 at Michelin's Fort Wayne plant.

MNA denies request as written. denies this request written. MNA MNA acknowledges acknowledges that, on on or or around around September September

16, 16, 2014, 2014, itit received received aa letter letter from from Coleman's Coleman's counsel counsel providing providing notice notice of aa potential potential claim claim

involving the tire involving the tire in question. question. However, However, due due to the the refusal refusal of ofcounsel counsel for for plaintiffs plaintiffs and/or and/or

intervenors to provide intervenors to provide the the tire in question question to to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under reasonable reasonable conditions, conditions,

MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines were used to build the

tire in question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to identifying identifying the tire building building machines used to machines used to build build the the tire tire in

question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and any changes to, the

MNA MNA objects to this objects to this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that produced thethedefect defect alleged alleged to tobebepresent presentininthe the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an an impermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

for information generally related to generally related to every aspect aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further further objects to this request because because it is

overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant relevant to to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of of admissible evidence.

4517897 47

SuppR 232 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMISSIONS NO. NO. 88: 88: Admit Admit that that Michelin Michelin refuses to allow Robert Coleman to inspect inspect the the first first and and second second stage stage tire tire building building machines machines used used to to build build LT265/75R16 LT265/75R16 BF BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tire bearing DOT BFW802110611BFW802110611 in the sixth week of 2001 of2001 at Michelin's Michelin's Fort Fort Wayne Wayne plant plant regardless regardless of the confidentiality ofthe confidentiality and regardless ofof the limitations on access that Robert Coleman will agree to.

MNA objects to any inspection objects to inspection of any portion of the Fort Wayne Wayne plant by counsel counsel for

intervenors, based upon intervenors, based upon grounds grounds set set forth forth in response response to intervenors' intervenors' Request Request for Entry Upon

Land, below. below. Furthermore, Furthermore, MNA MNA denies this request as written. written. MNA MNA acknowledges acknowledges that, on or

around around September 16, 2014, September 16, 2014, it received received a letter from from Coleman's Coleman's counsel providing notice counsel providing notice of a

potential claim involving potential claim involvingthe thetire tire in in question. question. However, due to However, due to the refusal refusal of of counsel counsel for for

plaintiffs and/or intervenors plaintiffs and/or intervenorstoto provide provide the the tire tire in question question to MNA MNA for for inspection inspection under under

reasonable conditions, MNA was until recently unable to determine which tire building machines

were used to build the tire in question. question. Subsequent Subsequent to to identifying identifying the tire building machines used

to build the tire in question, question, MNA has taken appropriate steps to document the condition of, and

any changes to, the tire building machines.

MNA MNA objects objects to to this this request request because because intervenors intervenors have have not not identified identified the the specific specific

manufacturing process manufacturing process thatproduced that produced thethedefect defect alleged alleged to tobebepresent presentininthe the tire tire in in

question. question. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this request request is is nothing nothing more more than than an an impermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition"

for information generally related to every aspect generally related aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing manufacturing process, whether or

not related to intervenors' claims in intervenors' claims in this this case. case. MNA MNA further further objects to this request because it is

overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to to the subject matter of this case nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of of admissible evidence.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY

INTERROGATORY INTERROGATORY NO. NO.1:1: Please identify any Please identify any entity entity which which may may bebe designated designated asas "a responsible third party" responsible third party" as as that that term term is used in section section 33.004 33.004 of the Texas Texas Civil Civil Practice Practice and Remedies Code by Remedies Code by listing listing (a) (a) the the entities' entities' name name or names, names, (b) (b) the the entities' entities' addresses addresses and and

4517897 48

SuppR 233 telephone numbers numbers and other contact information, information, (c) (c) the the entities' registered agents for for service if any, any, (d) (d) the county county of the entities' entities' principal principal office in this office in this state state if any, any, (e) the states states that the entities are believed entities are believed to to be be "citizens" "citizens" of as that word is used used in in 28 28 United United States States Code Code section section 1332, (f) the duties which such entities are believed to have breached, (g) any acts and omissions and product defects defects which are believed to have breached breached those duties, and (h) (h) the the contentions contentions about about the entities entities which would confirm confirm that the designation designation of those entities entities as aa responsible responsible third third party party would would not be be groundless groundless to to the the best bestofofthe thedesignating designating counsel's counsel's "knowledge, "knowledge, information, and belief formed information, and formed after after reasonable reasonable inquiry" inquiry" asas that that phrase phrase is is used in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13.

Subject to and without waiving the following objections, MNA states that discovery is in

its preliminary stages and it will supplement this response in accordance with the Texas Rules of

Civil Civil Procedure. Procedure. In In addition, addition, MNA refers to its its response response to requests requests for disclosure and list of disclosure and

persons with knowledge of of relevant facts, and any supplements thereto.

RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR PRODUCTION PRODUCTIONNO. NO.1:1: Please Please produce produce allall written written oror otherwise otherwise recorded recorded statements statements (this includes includes audio-recordings, audio-recordings, video-recordings, video-recordings, written statements, statements, electronic electronic communications, complaints,affidavits, communications, complaints, affidavits,depositions, depositions,and andother other testimony testimony as as well well as another another "witness statement" as "witness statement" as that that term term is used in in Texas Texas Rule Rule ofof Civil Civil Procedure Procedure 192.3(h)) 192.3(h)) of any any Michelin employee or Michelin employee or ex-employee ex-employeeoror agentsagentsor or ex-agent ex-agentwho who worked workedfor for or or on on behalf of Michelin at the Fort Wayne plant in 2011 which address any of of the following issues: (a) leaks in the roof roof over the rooms where tire building or tire inspection occurred, (b) puddles on the floor in the rooms where tire building or tire inspection occurred, (c) the use of of plastic sheeting to divert leaks in the roof roof over the rooms where tire building or tire inspection occurred, (d) allegations of sexual misconduct alleged to involve personnel whose job responsibilities included tire building or tire tire inspecting, inspecting, (e) (e) sexual sexual harassment harassment or or discrimination discrimination claims claims of personnel personnel whose whose job responsibilities included tire responsibilities included tire building building or or tire tire inspecting, inspecting, (f) (f) the falsification falsification of inspections inspections on inspection documentation, documentation, (g) (g) allegations allegations of insufficient insufficient timetime for employees to perform quality tire building or quality tire inspecting, inspecting, (h) the use of of out out of of specification specification tire components components in the tire assembly processes, processes, (i)(i) the use of of rubber rubber or or rubber-coated rubber-coated tire components components which had lost some some of their tackiness tackiness before being implemented before being implemented in in the the tire tire assembly process, (j) assembly process, (j) the the use use of solvent in an attempt attempt to restore tackiness to rubber rubber or or rubber-coated rubber-coated tire components components which had lost some of of their their tackiness before being implemented in the tire assembly assembly process, (k) trapped air in tires tires during during the the tire tire assembly assembly or or curing curing or or inspection inspection processes, processes, (1)(1) trapped trapped moisture moisture in tires during the tire assembly or curing or inspection processes, (m) voids in tires during the tire assembly or curing or inspection processes, processes, (n) blows in tires during the tire assembly or curing or inspection processes, (o) (o) separations between components components in tires during the tire assembly or curing curing or inspection processes, processes, (p) (p) contamination contamination in in tires tires during during the the tire assembly assembly or curing or inspection processes, ((q) inspection processes, misplacementof q) misplacement of tire tire components components as as noticed noticed inin the the tire assembly assembly or curing curing or inspection inspection processes, processes, (r) (r) improper improper splicing splicing of of tire tire components components as as noticed noticed in in the tire

4517897 49

SuppR 234 assembly or curing or inspection processes, and (s) the failure of of the cured tire inspection process to detect defects before tires were sold to customers.

MNA objects to MNA objects to this this request request because because have have not notidentified identified the the specific specific design design or or

manufacturing processthat manufacturing process that produced producedthe the defect defect alleged allegedtoto be be present present in in the tire in in question. question.

Accordingly, this request Accordingly, this request is is nothing nothing more more than than an animpermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition" for for

information generally related information generally related to to every every aspect aspect of of MNA's MNA's design design and and manufacturing manufacturing process, process,

whether or not related related to to claims claims in in this case.

MNA objects to this request objects to request because it is is overly overly broad, broad, unduly unduly burdensome, burdensome, and seeks seeks

documents that are neither relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to

lead lead to the discovery discovery of admissible evidence. MNA admissible evidence. MNA further further objects objects to the the extent extent this this request request

seeks seeks or attempts attempts to to seek seekinformation informationthat thatconstitutes constitutescommercially commercially sensitive, sensitive, confidential confidential

business informationof business information of MNA. MNA. Pursuant Pursuant to Rule Rule 507 507 of of the the Texas Texas Rules Rules of ofEvidence, Evidence, MNA MNA

asserts trade secret protection for such information.

REQUEST REQUEST FOR FOR ENTRY ENTRY UPON UPON LAND: LAND: Pursuant Pursuant to Texas Texas Rule Rule ofof Civil Civil Procedure Procedure 196.7, 196.7, Robert Coleman requests requests to enter upon property; property; specifically, specifically, entry entry upon upon Michelin's Michelin's tire plant in Woodburn, Indiana (located Woodburn, Indiana (located near near Fort Fort Wayne, Wayne, Indiana; Indiana; this this plant plant is hereafter referred to hereafter referred to as the "Fort Wayne Wayne plant"). plant"). InIn order order to to obtain obtainsubstantive substantive evidence evidence ofofthe themanufacturing manufacturing processes processes most similar similar to the the first first and and second second stage stage tire tire manufacturing manufacturing processes processes used to assemble assemble the failed failed LT265/75R16 LT265/75R16 BF BF Goodrich GoodrichRugged RuggedTerrain TerrainT/AT/ALRELREtiretireatat issue issue and and to obtain obtain substantive evidence of substantive evidence of the proposed proposed safer safer alternative alternative design, design, Robert Robert Coleman Coleman requests requests to visually inspect and videographically document the tire building machines at the plant subject to the following protocol and limitations:

Robert Coleman requests requests one hour of limited access to particular tire building building machines machines at Continental's Mt. Mt. Vernon, Vernon, Illinois facility facility at a mutually agreed time and date within 60 days from the date ofof this this request. request. Robert Robert Coleman Coleman requests requests that his his only only representatives representatives allowed allowed to attend the observation attend the should be observation should be his his attorneys, his tire attorneys, his tire failure failure analysis analysis experts, and a experts, and videographer selected by videographer selected by Robert Robert Coleman. Coleman. Robert Robert Coleman Coleman proposes proposes that that all all who who attend the observation should sign whatever observation should whatever confidentiality confidentiality requirements requirements thatthat Michelin Michelin should should request request provided that such confidentiality is consistent with Texas law and the information obtained can be had and videographically recorded for videographically recorded for use use in in this this case case by Robert Coleman's counsel and his tire failure analysis experts. experts. Robert Coleman proposes proposes that that each each side should bear its own costs. Robert Coleman proposes proposes that the observation should include include the machine or machines used to

4517897 50

SuppR 235 place the innerliner on the tire building dram and to assemble assemble the belts and and nylon nylon reinforcement reinforcement into the pre-cured tire (sometimes referred to as first and second stage tire building machines) on which LT265/75R16 LT265/75R16 BF BF Goodrich Goodrich Rugged Rugged Terrain Terrain T/A T/A LRELRE tires tires were were built built in the the 6th week of 2011 201l at Michelin's Fort Fort Wayne Wayne plant plant (or, (or, in in the the alternative, alternative, observation observation of of the most similar similar tire building machines machines toto be identified by Michelin if if the specific specific tire building building machines on which LT265/75R16 LT265/75Rl6 BF BF Goodrich Goodrich Rugged Rugged Terrain Terrain T/A. T/A. LRE LRE tires tires were were built built in the 6th week ofof 2011 cannot cannot be identified). identified). Robert Coleman Coleman proposes proposes that the the observation observation should should include include visually visually inspecting and videotaping the machines videotaping the machines while while they they are are in use building light truck car tires, and the scope scope of of the the observation observation should should not include include anyany sampling sampling or destructive destructive testing and should include nothing more than a visual visual observation observation - - including including recording recording by by videotape videotape -— and be limited to one hour hour of of observation observation and videotaping the machines while they machines while they are in use. Robert Coleman proposes that the observation should include:

(a) (a) 15 minutes of observation observation of the first stage stage tire building process conducted conducted in a manner manner asas near as is is practical practical to to the the first first stage stage tire tire building building processes processes implemented implemented in building LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires built in the 6th week of 2011 2011 at Michelin's Fort Wayne plant,

(b) (b) 15 minutes of of observation of of the second stage tire building process conducted in a manner as near as is practical to the second second stage stage tire building building processes processes implemented in LT265/75R16 LT265/75Rl6 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires built in the 6th week of 2011 of201l at Michelin's Fort Wayne plant,

(c) (c) 15 15 minutes minutes of observation observation of the second second stage stage tire tire building building process process where where a jointless nylon jointless nylon strip strip spirally spirally wound wound over over the the belts belts in in at least two layers layers and covering a greater portion of the belt package as compared to the portion of of the belt package covered by nylon in the the LT265/75R16 LT265/75R16 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A T/A LRE LRE tires tires built in the 6th 6th week week of 2011 2011 is being being applied to a light applied to light truck truck car car tire tire as as similar similar as as practical practical to LT265/75R16 LT265/75Rl6 BF Goodrich Rugged Terrain T/A LRE tires built in the 6th week of 2011 of201l at Michelin's Fort Wayne plant, and

(d) (d) 15 15 minutes minutes of of observation observation of the the second second stage stage tire tire building building process process where where Filament at Zero Filament at Zero is is being being applied applied to to a light truck tire car tire as similar as practical practical to a LT265/75R16 LT265/75Rl6 BFBF Goodrich Rugged Rugged Terrain Terrain T/A T/A LRE LRE tires tires were were built built in the the 6th week of 2011.

Robert Coleman proposes that the videotaping should occur while these machines are in noimal normal use. use. Robert Robert Coleman proposesthat Coleman proposes that his his counsel, his tire counsel, his tire failure failure experts, experts, and and his his videographer who who would attend the observation should be identified within seven days of when the the inspection inspection protocol protocol is is agreed agreed or ordered ordered byby the the court courtand andshould shouldpresent presentphotographic photographic identification in the form of a driver's driver's license license or or similar similar government government issues issues identification identification before entering the plant, and that all such attendees should wear visitor badges the entire time they are in the plant (if (if Michelin Michelin requests), should be accompanied and escorted by Michelin's personnel at all times times they they are are in in the the plant plant (if (ifMichelin Michelin requests), requests), should should wear wear hardhats hardhats and and safety safety glasses glasses and ear protection and steelsteel toed boots boots during during the observation observation (if (if Michelin requests), should not interrupt interrupt oror interfere with the interfere with the equipment equipment or or the the nothial normal operations operations of of the the plant plant or plant plant

4517897 51

SuppR 236 employees, and should employees, and should not attempt attempt to speak speak with any any plant plant personnel personnel except for their their escorts. escorts. Robert Coleman proposes that his representatives representatives should not be allowed to videotape any other area of of the plant except the tire building machines being observed and should not bring recording or photographing photographing or or videotaping devices other videotaping devices other than than the videographer's videographer' s equipment equipment to to the the observation. Robert Coleman proposes that Michelin should be allowed to take whatever steps it deems appropriate appropriate to limit access so that access includes only access to the particular particular machines and processes to be videotaped as set out out above. above. Robert Coleman Coleman proposes that Michelin should be allowed allowed to conduct conduct itsits own own videotaping videotaping of of the the inspection. inspection. Robert Robert Coleman Coleman proposes proposes that Michelin Michelin should should be allowed allowed to to all videotapes videotapes should should be copied copied and provided to the other side provided to within 10 10 days after after the observation observation of of the tire building machines. Robert Coleman proposes that the videotapes as well as anyany documentation documentation of of the equipment and processes recorded during the inspection inspection should be governed governed by by whatever whatever confidentiality confidentiality requirements requirements that Michelin Michelin should should request request provided that such confidentiality provided that confidentiality is is consistent with Texas consistent with Texas law andand the the infoiiiiation information obtained can be had and obtained can and videographically recorded for videographically recorded for use use in in this this case by Robert Robert Coleman's Coleman's counsel and his tire failure analysis experts.

In the alternative, alternative, if if Michelin Michelin would would prefer, prefer, Robert Robert Coleman Coleman would agree to protocols protocols based on the attached order. See Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

If Michelin Michelin refuses refuses to allow allow the the entry entry upon upon land land as as requested requested above, above, Robert Robert Coleman Coleman requests that Michelin preserve and document the evidence requests evidence by videotaping videotaping the same same machines machines and the same processes without Robert Coleman or his representatives being present and further requests that Michelin file requests file such videotapes videotapes under seal with the trial court court as as permitted permitted pursuant Texas Rule of of Civil Procedure 76a.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ENTRY UPON LAND:

MNA objects objects to the extent this request request because it seeks seeks information information that constitutes constitutes the

highly highly confidential and closely confidential and closely guarded guarded trade trade secrets secrets of MNA, MNA, which should not be divulged divulged

except under extraordinary circumstances. circumstances. Intervenors Intervenors have not demonstrated demonstrated any need for these

trade secrets. secrets. Pursuant Pursuant to to Rule Rule 507 507 of ofthe the Texas Texas Rules Rules of ofEvidence, Evidence, MNA MNA asserts asserts trade trade secret secret

protection for such information. protection for information. Furthermore, Furthermore, the the requested requested inspection inspection is overly overly broad, would

impose impose an undue burden on MNA, MNA, and is not reasonably calculated calculated to to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. MNA's admissible evidence. MNA's trade trade secrets secrets within within the Fort Fort Wayne, Wayne, Indiana Indiana plant today have no

bearing bearing as to whether whether MNA MNA manufactured manufactured a defective tire in 2011, defective tire 2011, and and any any information information from

4517897 52

SuppR 237 observing this machinery in 2015 would be both confusing and misleading if presented to a jury

in this case.

Finally, MNA objects to this request because intervenors have not identified the specific

manufacturing processthat manufacturing process that produced producedthe the defect defect alleged allegedtoto be be present present in in the tire in in question. question.

Accordingly, this request Accordingly, this request is is nothing nothing more more than than an animpermissible impermissible "fishing "fishing expedition" expedition" for for

infoiiiiation information generally related to generally related to every aspect of of MNA's MNA's manufacturing process, process, whether whether or not

related to intervenors' claims in this case.

4517897 53

SuppR 238 CAUSE NO. NO. 2014-57952

KOLLYE KILPATRICK, KOLLYE KILPATRICK, Individually § Individually as Heir at at Law Law and andRepresentative Representativeofofthe the § Estate of BEVERLY BEVERLY ANN § KILPATRICK, Deceased; ERIC § KILPATRICK; and KAREN § KILPATRICK, § § Plaintiffs, § § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF AND § § ROBERT DWAYNE COLEMAN, § Individually, and KIMBERLY § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS HARRIS.COUNTY, COLEMAN as Next Friend of § BLAYNE MICHAEL COOK, § CAMERON CAMERON BAILEY BAILEYCOOK,COOK, minors, § minors, Intervening Plaintiffs and Cross- § 152ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Claimants, § § vs. § § MICHELIN MICHELIN NORTHNORTHAMERICA, AMERICA,INC., INC., § BF GOODRICH, GOODRICH,ROBERT ROBERTDWAYNE DWAYNE § COLEMAN,

Defendants. VERIFICATION OF MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, AMERICA, INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENING COLEMANS' FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, INTERROGATORY, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

I, Traci Gudger, certify and declare that I have read Defendant Michelin North America,

Inc.'s Responses Responses and and Objections Objections to to Intervening Intervening Colemans' Colemans' First First Requests Requests for for Admission, Admission,

Interrogatory, and Requests Interrogatory, and Requestsfor forProduction Production(the (the"Responses") "Responses")and andknow knowitsitscontents. contents. I am am

authorized to make this this verification for for and and on on behalf behalf of of Michelin MichelinNorth NorthAmerica, America,Inc. Inc. ("MNA")

and I make this verification for that reason. verification for reason. The The Responses Responses were were prepared prepared with with the the assistance assistance

and advice advice of employees employees of, and counsel counsel for, for, MNA, upon whose assistance assistance and advice advice I have

SuppR 239 relied. relied. The TheResponses, Responses, subject subject to to inadvertent inadvertent or or undiscovered undiscovered error, are based on and and therefore therefore

necessarily limited by the records and infoimation necessarily limited information still in in existence, existence, presently presently recollected, recollected, and

thus far discovered discovered in the course course of preparation of these preparation of these responses. responses. MNA MNA reserves reserves the right to

change or supplement these responses, or to apply for relief to permit insertion of of unintentionally

omitted matters. matters. Subject Subject to to the the limitations limitations set set forth forth herein, herein, I am am informed informed and and believe, believe, and on

that ground allege, that the matters stated in the Responses are true to the best of of my knowledge,

infoiniation information and belief.

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Traci Gudger D-015

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED Before Me This /,..51r- Day Of 2015.

No y ublic

My Commission Expires: ///--/6 --11 /—/6 -174'

-2- 2

SuppR 240 E RM E R r LE C GERMER_ AUSTIN BEAUMONT HOUSTON BEAUMONT HOUSTON

G ATTORNEYS ATTORNEYS AT LAW www.germer.com

KATHRYN M. LINDSAY KATHRYN LINDSAY PARALEGAL

direct: (512} direct: (512) 482-3532 482-3532 klindsay@germer-austin.com

January 16, 2015

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RRR

John Gsanger The Edwards Law Firm 802 N. Carancahua, Ste. 1400 Frost Bank Plaza Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

Re: Cause Cause No. No. 2014-57952; Kollye Kilpatrick, 2014-57952; Kollye Kilpatrick,Individually IndividuallyasasHeir Heir at at Law Law and and Representative of Representative of the the Estate of of Beverly Ann Kilpatrick, Kilpatrick, deceased; deceased; Eric Kilpatrick; and and Karen Karen Kilpatrick Kilpatrick v. v. Michelin Michelin North North America, America, Inc. Inc. and and Robert Robert Dwayne Dwayne Coleman; In the 152nd Judicial District, Harris County, County, Texas. Texas.

Dear Counsel:

Enclosed please find Enclosed please find Michelin North America, Michelin North America, Inc.'s Inc.'s Responses Responses and Objections Objections to Intervening Colemans' First First Requests Requests for Admission, Admission, Interrogatory, and Requests for Production to Defendant, Michelin North America, Inc.

Yours very truly, -K~ 26re; (004, r /YL--;;p~Cl-/ Kathryn M. Lindsay Paralegal

KML:lq Enclosure

cc.: (w/encl.) (via regular mail) Robert E. Ammons Michael E. Bourland Timothy D. "Tim" Riley

GERMER GERM ERBEAMAN BEAMAN & BROWN PLLC & BROWN PLLC CONGRESS AVE, 301 CONGRESS AVE, SUITE SUITE1700 1700 AUSTIN, AUSTIN,TXTX78701 78701 PHONE: PHONE: 512.472.0288 FAX: 512.472.0721 512.472.0288 • FAX: 512.472,0721 4517935

SuppR 241 · .. ·....· ·. :.

1820 0001 7014 1820 7014 5824 3477 5824 0001 3477 II GERMER GERMER AiTORNEY S ATTORNEYS AT LAW AT LAW

GERMER BEAMAN & GERMER BEAMAN BROWN PLLC & BROWN PLLC 301 Congresss Avenue, 301 Congres 1700 Suite 1700 Avenue, Suite Austin, Texas Austin, 78701 Texas 78701

#86973 ,.t;

John Gsanger Edwards Law Firm The Edwards Finn ua, 802 N. Carancahua, ·802 Carancah Ste. 1400 1400 Frost Bank Plaza Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

·--· ··~·-------

SuppR 242