Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Phillips County Circuit Court
381 S.W.3d 67
Ark.2011Background
- Cooper Tire was ordered to fully respond to Tucker Plaintiffs' discovery requests and to defend two protective-order motions; the court found waiver of objections due to failure to respond within time.
- Tucker Plaintiffs alleged a defective tire caused a February 6, 2009 one-car accident and propounded extensive Rule 34 requests totaling 467 items.
- Cooper Tire sought protective orders limiting discovery and reimbursing costs, arguing substantial burden and protection of trade secrets and confidential information.
- Cooper Tire asserted it had already produced thousands of pages and that many requests were irrelevant or burdensome, proposing reasonable scope limits.
- The circuit court denied the protective-orders and granted the motion to compel; Cooper Tire filed a petition for extraordinary relief, including a writ of certiorari, which this court granted.
- This Court held the writ appropriate to address interplay between discovery rulings and trade-secret protections, vacated the circuit court’s order, and remanded with protection for trade secrets.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cooper Tire waived objections by not responding timely | Tucker asserts requests were timely; objections were preserved | Cooper Tire filed protective orders within 30 days of objectionable requests | No waiver; error to treat delay as waiver |
| Whether protective orders were necessary to protect trade secrets | Protection was not adequately shown; discovery should proceed | Trade secrets require protective measures under Rule 26(c) | Protection necessary; exceptions apply under Rule 37(d) |
| Whether the writ of certiorari is proper relief for discovery orders | Writ limited to pursuing underlying merits | Discovery rulings can be reviewed; certification warranted due to trade-secret issues | Writ of certiorari appropriate given impact on trade secrets |
| Whether Dunkin v. Citizens Bank governs preservation of objections | Dunkin supports waiver of objections for failure to respond | Dunkin is distinguishable and here protective-order timing preserves objections | Dunkin distinguished; error to rely on it to deny protective orders |
| Whether the case implicates state/federal protections for trade secrets (Brantley/Remington, etc.) | Trade-secret protections require balancing discovery and rights | Trade-secret law supports protective relief and limits on disclosure | Certiorari appropriate; case falls within trade-secret protection context |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunkin v. Citizens Bank of Jonesboro, 291 Ark. 588, 727 S.W.2d 138 (1987) (waiver of objections not allowed when protective-order timely requested)
- Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc. v. Brantley, 359 Ark. 75, 194 S.W.3d 748 (2004) (protective order and discovery interplay with broader law; certiorari appropriate in certain contexts)
- Chiodini v. Lock, 373 Ark. 88, 281 S.W.3d 728 (2008) (discovery rulings within trial court’s jurisdiction; certiorari limits)