Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 17,300+ case briefs...

Haeger v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
793 F.3d 1122 (2015)


A G159 tire manufactured by Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (defendant) failed, causing the Haegers (plaintiffs) injury when their mobile home flipped. The Haegers brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. During discovery, the Haegers requested the results of Goodyear’s testing of its G159 tires. Goodyear’s attorneys, Musnuff and Hancock, initially neglected to search for all G159 tests that Goodyear had conducted. Subsequently, in January 2007, Goodyear engineers located some of the requested tests and sent them to Musnuff, who sent them to Hancock. The attorneys did not, however, send the tests to the Haegers. In April 2007, the district court judge asked if Goodyear had produced all requested documentation, and Hancock replied that Goodyear had responded to all outstanding discovery requests. In May 2007, after a third request for production of documents, Hancock produced the additional tests that the engineers had located four months prior. Eventually, the Haegers and Goodyear settled the case. After the case closed, the Haegers’ attorney discovered that Goodyear had failed to produce additional responsive tests. The attorney moved for sanctions against Hancock, Musnuff, and Goodyear. The district court used its inherent power to impose sanctions against Musnuff, Hancock, and Goodyear. The district court analyzed other G159-related cases and determined that the Haegers’ settlement was less than it would have been had the requested tests been produced. The district court imposed sanctions against Musnuff, Hancock, and Goodyear in the amount of $2,741,201.16, the estimated amount the Haegers spent on attorney’s fees after their first request for production of documents. Goodyear and its attorneys appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Smith, J.)

Dissent (Watford, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 457,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 457,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 17,300 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial