Burd v. Ford Motor Company, 3:13-cv-20976

Two related motions in Ford v. Burd involve Ford’s Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition and for Protective Order and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration.
The court resolves the motions: denies Ford’s motion to quash the notice of deposition, grants in part and denies in part Ford’s Protective Order, and grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ reconsideration request.
The cases concern alleged sudden unintended acceleration in Ford vehicles (2002–2010) with claims that the ETC system was defective and lacked fail-safes like BOA; Plaintiffs allege Ford knew of risks but did not implement adequate design or safety measures.
Discovery has been contentious, focusing on e-discovery searches, keyword protocols, custodian selection, and Ford’s self-selected search process.
The court requires a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to discuss Ford’s document collection methods, retention policies, and search terms, while allowing targeted questions about specific claims; it also addresses discovery cooperation and fairness in the process.
The court’s rulings hinge on proportionality, good cause for protective orders, and the broader scope of discovery under Rule 26(b)(1).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ford’s Topic 15 may be limited.	Burd argues Topic 15 is relevant to SUA investigations.	Ford contends Topic 15 is overly burdensome and seeks irrelevant detail.	Topic 15 limited to an overview; allowed with constraints.
Whether Topics 18 and 78 regarding retention and discovery are permissible.	Plaintiffs claim retention and discovery topics are discovery-relevant.	Ford contends they are non-merits discovery and burdensome without spoliation.	Denied Ford’s motion to quash; topics permitted.
Whether Topic 79 (custodian search methods) is permissible against work product concerns.	Plaintiffs argue search terms and custodian identities are discoverable as facts.	Ford asserts attorney work product protection and burdensomeness.	Disclosures of search terms and custodian identities not protected; ordered.
Whether the court should compel a more transparent discovery process.	Plaintiffs seek ongoing court oversight of Ford’s collection methods.	Ford argues its processes are reasonable and should not be micromanaged.	Motion Granted to compel disclosure of collection methods; supervision ongoing.
Whether Ford of Europe materials and BOA SlowE are relevant; reconsideration standard.	Plaintiffs contend European ETC and SlowE/BOA are potentially relevant.	European systems differ; SlowE/BOA not currently persuasive.	Reconsideration denied to the extent of Europe materials; not yet warranted; continue exploration.

Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. #</> (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (protective orders and discovery principles; open process favored)
Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 269 F.R.D. 497 (D. Md. 2010) (proportionality and limits in discovery; open process urged)
DeGeer v. Gillis, 755 F.Supp.2d 909 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (relevance of discovery and transparency in e-discovery practices)