In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
568 F.3d 1180 (2009)
- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
The plaintiffs were injured in a car accident after the tread on a tire manufactured by Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper) (defendant) came apart. The plaintiffs sued Cooper, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, and DaimlerChrysler Motors Corporation (defendants) in strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. The plaintiffs claimed Cooper knew or should have known that its tires were likely to separate, but purposefully did not change its design or warn customers. During discovery, the plaintiffs sought information from Cooper to substantiate their claims. Cooper filed a motion for a protective order on the ground that the plaintiffs’ demands were excessively broad. Cooper requested that discovery be limited to the design of the type of tire at issue, the manufacturing plant at issue, and a reasonable period of time before and after the manufacture of the tire at issue. The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel. The magistrate judge denied Cooper’s motion and required it to produce the requested discovery. The district court affirmed the magistrate’s rulings. Cooper appealed, seeking a writ of mandamus vacating the order of the district court and requiring the district court to apply Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in its discovery ruling.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holmes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.