Goodyear and Counsel Sanctioned $2.7M AFTER SETTLEMENT

Goodyear failed to produce key evidence, and told the court it did not exist.

The Haeger family was seriously injured when their Goodyear G159 tire failed and their motor home overturned on a highway. In 2005 the Haegers sued Goodyear. Throughout the litigation, Goodyear failed to produce their complete G159 testing documents. In particular, Haeger needed "heat tests." Goodyear's counsel

assured the court that there were no other tests in existence beyond those already produced.

In 2010 the parties settled (the Haegers received a small payment) and the case was closed.

Sometimes settling a case doesn't make it go away.

In 2011, counsel for the Haegers found out that heat tests were in fact performed, and asked the district court for sanctions.

In responding to this proposed order, Goodyear, apparently by accident, disclosed the existence of additional G159 tests – the crown durability, bead durability, and DOT endurance tests – none of which had been mentioned or produced in the litigation.

Because the case was closed, Rule 11 sanctions were unavailable, so the court used its inherent power

“to award Plaintiffs all of the attorneys’ fees and costs they incurred after Goodyear served its supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ First Request.”

The district court also ordered Goodyear to file the sanctions order in all future G159 cases.

The district court reasoned that “[b]ased on Goodyear’s history of engaging in serious discovery misconduct in every G159 case brought to this Court’s attention, filing this Order in future G159 cases will alert plaintiffs and the courts that Goodyear has, in the past, not operated in good faith when litigating such cases.”

UPHELD: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, July 20, 2015 (No. 12-17718)

The 41 page appellate opinion and 8 page dissent are available at http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/07/20/12-17718.pdf