in Re the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
04-16-00590-CV
| Tex. App. | Apr 26, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs sued Goodyear alleging the subject tire was defectively designed and manufactured; they sought to inspect and videotape the tire-building machine (an “RTN” machine) used to build the tire.
- Trial court granted a discovery order allowing visual observation and videotaping of the RTN machines, expressly stating Goodyear need not make new tire designs or perform new manufacturing processes.
- Goodyear objected, claiming the order would require creation of new evidence and relied on a declaration (Monroe Griffith) served one day before the motion-to-compel hearing.
- The trial court declined to consider Griffith’s declaration as untimely under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.4; plaintiffs did not object at the hearing to its timeliness.
- Goodyear admitted at the hearing and on appeal that it had multiple RTN machines at its Danville plant, and continued to use some RTN machines similar or identical to the one that produced the subject tire.
- Justice Chapa dissented, arguing the trial court did not abuse its discretion because (1) Goodyear’s evidentiary showing was untimely and therefore not before the court, (2) the order does not require Goodyear to manufacture new tires, and (3) Goodyear judicially admitted possession of the relevant machines, so inspection is proper discovery for design/manufacturing claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by ordering inspection/videotaping of RTN machines | Inspection of the RTN machine used (or a nearly identical machine) is relevant to design/manufacturing defect claims and falls within permissible discovery | Order requires creation of new tires or new manufacturing, and/or the machines to be inspected are not available or have been modified | Dissent: trial court did not abuse discretion; Goodyear presented no timely evidence to oppose discovery and admitted possession of RTN machines |
| Whether Goodyear’s Griffith declaration could be considered at the hearing despite being served one day before | N/A (plaintiffs argued untimely evidence was not before court) | Declaration should be considered; Rule 193.4 deadline inapplicable to motions under Rule 215 | Dissent: Griffith declaration was untimely under Rule 193.4 and not before the trial court; plaintiffs not required to object to untimely filing |
| Whether the trial court’s order should be read as requiring Goodyear to manufacture new tires | Order contains language about tires made on the machines but expressly states no new designs or manufacturing required | The order implicitly requires creation of evidence (manufacturing new tires) | Dissent: Order must be read as whole — it expressly forbids creating new designs or processes and only allows observation/videotaping of existing machine operations |
| Whether this case is distinguishable from prior mandamus decisions (In re Michelin; In re Goodyear Dallas) | This case differs because Goodyear admitted it still has the RTN machines or identical machines in operation | Prior cases control because machines were removed or modified there, so inspection was improper | Dissent: This case is distinguishable — Goodyear made judicial admissions that RTN machines remain and were not shown to be modified or removed |
Key Cases Cited
- Benchmark Bank v. Crowder, 919 S.W.2d 657 (Tex. 1996) (untimely-filed affidavit not properly before trial court absent leave)
- Gharda USA, Inc. v. Control Sols., Inc., 464 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. 2015) (standards for manufacturing-defect proof and relevance of manufacturing evidence)
- Lone Star Cement Corp. v. Fair, 467 S.W.2d 402 (Tex. 1971) (court orders must be read as a whole)
- Neimes v. Ta, 985 S.W.2d 132 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998) (parties not required to object to untimely-filed response to preserve complaint)
- City of San Antonio v. Winkenhower, 875 S.W.2d 388 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1994) (Rule 33.1 preservation applies to party seeking to alter trial court’s order)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. [case name omitted], 437 S.W.3d 923 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014) (distinguishing circumstances where equipment was removed from plant)