The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Hugh B. Scott
Before the Court are the parties' discovery motions in two related personal injury actions, Griffith v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America Ltd, No. 09CV761S (hereinafter "Griffith") and Blundon v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America Ltd., No. 11CV990 ("Blundon"). Both set of plaintiffs in these cases retained the same counsel. The parties made identical arguments in support or opposing the motions in both cases and the motions and responses filed are virtually identical. For judicial efficiency, this Court considered in detail the motions in both cases in an Order entered in Blundon (Docket No. 47), the findings and conclusions in that Order are incorporated in this Order. Annexed to this Order is a copy of the Blundon Order.
As in Blundon, first is plaintiffs' motion to compel inspection of defendant's Tonawanda, New York, tire plant (Griffith, Docket No. 14)*fn1 . Then defendant filed a series of motions, either to compel production of the tire and rim at issue (Griffith, Docket No. 16*fn2 ), for Protective Orders against disclosing confidential documents (Griffith, Docket No. 17*fn3 or against inspection of its plant (Griffith, Docket No. 19*fn4 ).
Responses to these motions were due by June 22, 2012, and any replies by June 29, 2012, and all motions were deemed submitted (without oral argument) on June 29, 2012 (Griffith, Docket Nos. 15, 20).
Both cases are removed diversity product liability actions arising from automobile accidents where defendant's tires allegedly failed. In Griffith, on or about April 24, 2005, plaintiff Daniel Griffith purchased a 2005 Harley Davidson motorcycle with a Dunlop D402 rear tire and purchased a new D402 rear tire on October 4, 2007 (Griffith, 11CV761, Docket No. 1, Notice of Removal, Ex. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 7, 8). On or about July 29, 2009, the Griffiths were riding on that motorcycle in California when the rear tire suddenly deflated causing loss of control and crashing the motorcycle (id. ¶ 9).
On March 15, 2012, a joint Scheduling Conference was held for both cases (Griffith, Docket No. 8; Blundon, Docket No. 16) and Scheduling Orders were entered with common deadlines (Griffith, Docket No. 9; Blundon, Docket No. 17). According to the Scheduling Orders, plaintiffs' expert disclosure is due by February 1, 2013; defense expert disclosure by March 15, 2013; discovery concludes by March 29, 2013; and dispositive motions are due by June 28, 2013 (Griffith, Docket No. 9; Blundon, Docket No. 17).
For the reasons stated in the Order entered in Blundon (Docket No. 47), plaintiffs' in Griffith v. Goodyear Dunlop, No. 11CV761, motion to compel inspection of defendant's plant (Docket No. 14) is granted, while defendant's motion for a protective Order against inspection of its plant without preconditions (Docket No. 19) is denied. Defendant's motion to compel production of the tire and rims at issue (Docket No. 16) is granted. Defendant's motion for another protective Order against disclosure of confidential and proprietary documents (Docket No. 17) is granted.
The item in Docket No. 18, misidentified as a motion (when in fact it is an appendix of exhibits), and an affidavit filed as motion in Docket No. 21 are terminated as motions.
Honorable Hugh B. Scott United States Magistrate Judge
Attach.: Blundon, et al. v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America, Ltd., ...