305 F.R.D. 655
D. Kan.2015Background
- This is a Kansas federal diversity product liability case about tread-separation in a Kumho Road Venture tire.
- Plaintiffs allege design/manufacturing defects and moved to compel Kumho to answer interrogatories and produce documents.
- Protective orders were entered; sharing of confidential information was rejected by the court.
- Kumho produced documents but objected to many requests as trade secrets or highly confidential information.
- The court held a hearing, reviewed supplemental responses, and issued a memorandum and order balancing trade secrets protection against discovery needs.
- The court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ motion, with tailored limits on scope, time, and allowed redactions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trade secret objections and discovery scope | Kumho’s trade secret protections should not bar discovery; protective order suffices. | Certain information constitutes Kumho’s highest-level trade secrets; disclosure would cause harm. | Heightened protection sustained for skim stock trade secrets; other trade secret objections overruled with redactions. |
| Scope of discovery for tires other than the Subject Tire | Substantially similar tires may provide relevant evidence of defects and alternative designs. | Discovery should be limited to the Subject Tire or very narrowly defined similar tires. | Limitations set: only Kumho Road Venture AT/APT/MT tires manufactured in Vietnam and same size as Subject Tire; broader requests denied. |
| Time limits on discovery requests | Requests should cover long relevant periods to capture warranty data and defect trends. | Limit time to five years and tie to manufacturing dates and protective order terms. | Five-year window imposed (Sept 1, 2009 forward) and related time limits for other requests. |
| Premature expert-discovery obligations | Some information pertinent to design/defect theories should be discoverable before expert reports. | Expert-related materials should await expert disclosures. | Premature expert-discovery objections sustained; Kumho may delay responsive items until after expert disclosures. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir.2009) (trade secret discovery limits; burden on objecting party to show relevance)
- Centurion Indus., Inc. v. Warren Steurer & Assocs., 665 F.2d 323 (10th Cir.1981) (privilege considerations in discovery; overriding concerns in trade secrets)
- Alvarez v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 75 So.3d 789 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011) (substantial similarity and trade secret discovery considerations in Florida)