Ford Motor Co. v. Tennin
| Decision Date | 05 April 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 2003-CA-02601-SCT.,No. 2003-IA-02547-SCT.,No. 2003-IA-02546-SCT.,2003-IA-02546-SCT.,2003-IA-02547-SCT.,2003-CA-02601-SCT. |
| Citation | 960 So.2d 379 |
| Parties | FORD MOTOR COMPANY and World Rental Car Sales of Mississippi, LLC v. Julia TENNIN, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of L.C. Tennin, III, Deceased, and on behalf of all other Wrongful Death Beneficiaries; and Patricia Alexander, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Antoine Alexander, Deceased, and on behalf of all other Wrongful Death Beneficiaries. Ford Motor Company and World Rental Car Sales of Mississippi, LLC v. Julia Tennin, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of L.C. Tennin, III, Deceased, and on behalf of all other Wrongful Death Beneficiaries; and Patricia Alexander, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Antoine Alexander, Deceased, and on behalf of all other Wrongful Death Beneficiaries. Ford Motor Company and World Rental Car Sales of Mississippi, LLC v. Julia Tennin, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of L.C. Tennin, III, Deceased, and on Behalf of all other Wrongful Death Beneficiaries; and Patricia Alexander, individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Antoine Alexander, Deceased, and on behalf of all other Wrongful Death Beneficiaries. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Michael B. Wallace, Reuben V. Anderson, Rebecca Hawkins, Barry W. Ford, Walker (Bill) Jones, III, Bradley Witherspoon Smith, Robert F. Walker, Jackson, attorneys for appellants.
Felecia Perkins, attorney for appellees.
Before COBB, P.J., DICKINSON and RANDOLPH, JJ.
¶ 1. This case requires the Court to wade through the plaintiffs' myriad and oft-repeated accusations of discovery abuse by the defendant to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a new trial based on the alleged discovery violations. Our second task is to evaluate whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees and expenses in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
¶ 2. The parties (and even the trial court) dispute how the discovery process proceeded. Because our disposition hinges on the specific orders and rulings of the trial court, we have scoured the 70-plus record volumes to develop the following timeline of key events.
¶ 3. On November 2, 2001, Bradley Christian was driving north on Highway 7 in Marshall County, Mississippi, when he crossed into the southbound lane and collided at a high speed with a 1997 Ford Explorer driven by L.C. Tennin and carrying Antoine Alexander. The collision was a left frontal, driver-to-driver impact. Shortly after the crash, a fire started somewhere within the Explorer, and both L.C. and Antoine died.1
¶ 4. Representatives from the two men's estates ("plaintiffs") filed suit against Ford Motor Company ("Ford"), the manufacturer of the Explorer,2 on January 24, 2002. They alleged that a defective fuel system caused the men's deaths because it failed to perform properly under the circumstances of the collision.
¶ 5. On January 29, 2002, Ford received Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production. A request for production concerning crash test reports was to become a flash point in the discovery process. It stated:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Crash test reports for crash tests involving frontal, side or rear impacts, whether full, angled, or partial overlap, with any Ford Explorer, which were conducted by or for the defendants from the inception of the initial design of the Ford Explorer up to the date of the trial of this lawsuit, including without limitation, evaluations, demonstrations, experiments or tests (static or dynamic) used by engineering as a basis for instructive analysis of the incident.
¶ 6. Ford served the plaintiffs with its response to the interrogatories and requests for production on March 15, 2002. The response was prefaced by "General Objections" to all of the plaintiffs' requests, including the following:
1. The Ford vehicle at issue in this litigation is a 1997 Ford Explorer. To the extent Plaintiffs' Interrogatories seek information relating to vehicle models or model years other than the 1997 Ford Explorer, Ford objects on the ground that such requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome, and the information sought is neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
2. Ford objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine or any other applicable privileges, and otherwise outside the scope of reasonable and permissible discovery provided by the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. Ford's responses to these Interrogatories are made without waiving the right to object on the grounds of competency, privilege, relevance, materiality, hearsay or any other proper ground, to the use of any such information for any purpose in whole or in part in any subsequent proceeding in this action or any other action.
* * *
Ford hereby objects to these requests as a whole on the above grounds. In order to avoid repetition, Ford also hereby incorporates these objections into each of its responses set out below as if these objections were set forth in their entirety in each response. Ford has also detailed its specific objections to each Interrogatory [and Request for Production] and has responded within the scope of its objections.
¶ 7. Ford also responded to most of the plaintiffs' interrogatories and requests for production with specific objections. Its response to "Request for Production No. 6" stated:
RESPONSE: Ford objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome in seeking information pertaining to side or rear impact crash tests as the incident at issue in this lawsuit involves a front impact collision. As written, this Request seeks documents pertaining to vehicle collisions which are substantially dissimilar to the vehicle incident which is the subject of this lawsuit. Such information is neither relevant to the issues involved in this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This Request is further overly broad and unduly burdensome in seeking documents pertaining to crash tests without limitation as to vehicle model year, vehicle component system tested or test purpose and encompass[es] collision impacts that are substantially dissimilar to the front impact collision that occurred in this case. As written, this Request seeks a voluminous amount of information regarding the design, development and testing of every Ford Explorer ever manufactured by Ford, "since its inception," including vehicles which are substantially dissimilar to the vehicle which is the subject of this lawsuit. Further more, this Request is objectionable to the extent that it exceeds the scope of discovery in this case which is 1995-1997 Ford Explorers. Finally, this Request is objectionable to Ford on the grounds and to the extent that it seeks documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.
Without waiving its objections, Ford refers Plaintiffs to Ford's response to Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories No. 8 wherein Ford agreed to produce a list of all non-privileged front impact crash tests conducted on the 1997 Ford Explorer to test the fuel system integrity of such vehicles.
Similar "specific" objections were included in the responses to most of the plaintiffs' interrogatories and requests for production.
¶ 8. On April 26, 2002, plaintiffs' counsel received approximately 500 documents from Ford responding to the plaintiffs' requests, but the production did not include a point of reference for the documents. That same day, plaintiffs' counsel wrote Ford's counsel insisting that the company withdraw its general objections and provide amended responses. Plaintiffs' counsel then sent the documents back to Ford, explaining, A handwritten note faxed to Ford from plaintiffs' counsel similarly stated, Plaintiffs' counsel neither described what defects she believed existed in the production nor asked that they be cured.
¶ 9. On May 7, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel, arguing that The motion asked the court to enter an order compelling Ford to amend its discovery responses. However, the plaintiffs decided not to proceed with the motion to compel, and no ruling was made or order entered by the trial court on the motion.
¶ 10. On May 16, 2002, Ford sent a letter to plaintiffs' counsel requesting the plaintiffs sign a protective order covering all "confidential, commercial and proprietary" documents produced during discovery. Plaintiffs' counsel advised Ford that she would not agree to its proposed course of action "unless and until a judicial determination is made concerning trade secrets, confidentiality, etc." While Ford would later move for a protective order on August 22, 2002, agreeing to produce additional documents upon the entry of the requested order, there is no evidence that this motion was ruled on by the trial court. However, on the eve of trial, all allegedly privileged documents were ordered produced for in camera review.
¶ 11. On May 24, 2002, Ford's counsel faxed a letter to plaintif...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Rules Procedure
...... applicable to each and every interrogatory..are clearly outside the bounds of this rule." See Ford Motor Co. v. Tennin, 960 So. 2d 379 (Miss. 2007). If an interrogatory is only partially ......
-
Hood v. City of Pearl
...court by filing a motion to compel." Boyd ex rel. Mastin v. Nunez , 135 So. 3d 114, 116 (¶13) (Miss. 2014) (citing Ford Motor Co. v. Tennin , 960 So. 2d 379, 393 (Miss. 2007) ). Furthermore, under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) "[a] party, upon reasonable notice to other parties ......
-
Barrett v. Jones, Funderburg, Sessums, LLC
......"where the basis for the award is itself a product of abused discretion, so too is the award." Ford Motor Co. v. Tennin, 960 So.2d 379, 395 (Miss.2007). We find that the trial court's refusal to ......
-
Hood v. City of Pearl
...by filing a motion to compel." Boyd ex rel. Mastin v. Nunez, 135 So.3d 114, 116 (¶13) (Miss. 2014) (citing Ford Motor Co. v. Tennin, 960 So.2d 379, 393 (Miss. 2007)). Furthermore, under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) "[a] party, upon reasonable notice to other parties and all per......