Haeger v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
906 F. Supp. 2d 938
D. Ariz.2012Background
- Haeger motor home accident involving Goodyear G159 tires; Plaintiffs sued Gulf Stream, Spartan, and Goodyear for product liability and negligence.
- Goodyear was represented by Hancock and Musnuff; Musnuff served as national coordinating counsel for G159 cases.
- Protective orders and discovery disputes shaped early proceedings; Goodyear repeatedly objected and delayed disclosures.
- Plaintiffs uncovered Goodyear’s failure to produce high-speed and heat-rise testing data relevant to the tire’s 75 mph rating.
- Heat Rise tests and other testing data surfaced late, while Goodyear and counsel made false or misleading statements to the court.
- Case ultimately settled after extensive sanctions briefing and proceedings, with the court imposing monetary sanctions and ordering fee allocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions are warranted for discovery misconduct | Haeger argues misconduct and concealment prejudiced plaintiffs | Goodyear contends no bad faith and that disclosures were adequate | Sanctions affirmed; misconduct found against Hancock, Musnuff, and Goodyear |
| Whether § 1927 and the court’s inherent power authorize sanctions | Haeger seeks sanctions under both authorities | Goodyear contends only § 1927 or limited inherent power applies | Both § 1927 and inherent powers authorize sanctions; §1927 limited against corporate entity; inherent powers applied to Goodyear and its counsel |
| How to allocate sanctions among defendants and counsel | Fees incurred after supplemental responses should be sanctions-based | Allocation as equitable; disputes about causation | Hancock 20%, Musnuff and Goodyear 80% jointly; Spartan denied separate award in this case |
| Whether Goodyear’s 30(b)(6) witness testimony constitutes bad faith | Olsen’s testimony hid other tests; Goodyear knew of undisclosed data | Olsen’s statements were argued as incomplete recollection | Yes, testimony that all tests existed was false; evidence of bad faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (U.S. 2009) (sanctions; due process and fairness concerns in judicial proceedings)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1991) (inherent power to sanction for bad faith conduct; broad authority but needs restraint)
- Hester v. Vision Airlines, Inc., 687 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2012) (sanctions; bad-faith conduct in discovery filings as a basis for relief)
- Miller v. Miller, 661 F.3d 1024, 661 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2011) (inherent powers; tailoring sanctions to harm caused; evolution of rule)