Laffitte v. Bridgestone Corp.
| Decision Date | 02 March 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 26606.,26606. |
| Citation | 674 S.E.2d 154,381 S.C. 460 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Russell LAFFITTE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Angela Lynn Plyler, Respondent, v. BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION, Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, Ford Motor Company, Bubba Windham and Chuck Horton d/b/a Vintage Motors, Defendants, of whom Bridgestone Corporation is the Petitioner. Russell Laffitte, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Justin Plyler, Respondent, v. Bridgestone Corporation, Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, Ford Motor Company, Bubba Windham and Chuck Horton d/b/a Vintage Motors, Defendants, of whom Bridgestone Corporation is the Petitioner. Alania Plyler, a minor by and through her Conservator, Russell Laffitte, Respondent, v. Bridgestone Corporation, Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, Ford Motor Company, Bubba Windham and Chuck Horton d/b/a Vintage Motors, Defendants, of whom Bridgestone Corporation is the Petitioner. Hannah Plyler, a minor by and through her Conservator, Russell Laffitte, Respondent, v. Bridgestone Corporation, Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, Ford Motor Company, Bubba Windham and Chuck Horton d/b/a Vintage Motors, Defendants, of whom Bridgestone Corporation is the Petitioner. |
M. Dawes Cooke, Jr., Todd M. Musheff, and John W. Fletcher, all of Barnwell Whaley Patterson & Helms, of Charleston, and Wallace K. Lightsey, of Wyche Burgess Freeman & Parham, of Greenville, for Petitioner.
F. Arnold Beacham, Jr., of Young & Sullivan, of Lexington, and John E. Parker, Ronnie L. Crosby, and R. Alexander Murdaugh, all of Peters, Murdaugh, Parker, Eltzroth & Detrick, of Hampton, for Respondents.
Elbert S. Dorn and Nicholas W. Gladd, both of Turner Padget Graham & Laney, of Columbia, for Defendant Ford Motor Company, Erin D. Dean, of Tupper Grimsley & Dean, of Beaufort, for Defendant Bubba Windham et al., and Henry B. Smythe, Jr., David B. McCormack, and David S. Cox, all of Buist Moore Smythe McGee, of Charleston, for Defendant Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire.
E. Warren Moise, of Grimball & Cabaniss, of Charleston, and Debora B. Alsup, of Thompson & Knight, of Austin, Texas, for Amicus Curiae Rubber Manufacturers Association.
John G. Creech, James H. Fowles III, and C. Victor Pyle III, all of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae South Carolina Chamber of Commerce.
C. Mitchell Brown, William C. Wood, Jr., and A. Mattison Bogan, all of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
In this product liability case, we granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in our original jurisdiction to review the trial court's discovery order compelling Petitioner Bridgestone Corporation (Bridgestone) to turn over its steel belt skim stock formula, classified as a trade secret, to Respondent Russell Laffitte. For the reasons detailed below, we find that Respondent has not shown that knowledge of Bridgestone's trade secret is necessary in order for Respondent to litigate this product liability action. Consequently, the trial court's order compelling disclosure by Bridgestone of the skim stock formula is reversed.
On July 16, 2005, Angela Plyler was driving her 1999 Ford Explorer along Interstate 95 in Hampton County with her three children as passengers. The tread from the left rear tire of the Explorer separated from the tire, allegedly causing the vehicle to overturn and collide with a tree. The single-car accident killed Angela and her teenage son Justin, and seriously injured her daughters Alania and Hannah.
Respondent, acting as personal representative for the decedents and as conservator for the minor daughters, filed four separate lawsuits against several defendants, including Bridgestone, the manufacturer of the vehicle's left rear tire. The complaints allege negligence, warranty, and strict liability claims against Bridgestone. As to the negligence allegations, Respondent maintains Bridgestone used an inadequate tire design and failed to use proper manufacturing techniques resulting in a defective tire. In addition, Respondent specifically alleges Bridgestone failed to use sufficient antidegradants to protect the integrity of the tire.
The four cases were consolidated for discovery purposes. Respondent sought to obtain information on the design and manufacturing processes for the subject tire, which had been manufactured in 1996 at Bridgestone's Hofu Plant in Japan.1 Bridgestone objected to Respondent's requests for its steel belt skim stock formula2 and other related information on the basis that the skim stock formula was a trade secret of Bridgestone.3 According to Bridgestone, Respondent can prove his claims without discovery of the skim stock formula because he has access to the actual failed tire and can therefore conduct appropriate testing on the tire itself. Respondent counters that without the information related to the skim stock ingredients and manufacturing processes, including any plant-specific deviations from the manufacturing formula, the defect claims cannot be proven.
The trial court held a hearing in January 2007 on Respondent's motion to compel and Bridgestone's cross-motion for a protective order. The trial court informed counsel in February 2007 that it would be granting the motion to compel. Prior to entry of the final order, however, the trial court granted Bridgestone's request that it be allowed to depose Respondent's experts solely on the issue of Respondent's need for the skim stock formula. Four experts provided affidavit or deposition testimony on the issue of Respondent's need for the skim stock formula.
Bridgestone's expert, Brian Queiser, described the various factors beyond the tire's chemical composition which could affect the tire's durability.4 According to Queiser's affidavit:
A tire is a highly engineered, complex product, which is the result of a blend of chemistry and engineering. A steel belted radial passenger tire typically contains twenty or more components and more than a dozen different rubber compounds. . . . . . . Furthermore, the individual components of a steel belted radial tire are designed to work in conjunction with the other components of that tire. As a result, the forces exerted on the tire during its operation are subject to the combined effects of many parameters, including tire size; inflation pressure; component materials, dimensions, and gauge; as well as vehicle characteristics. Therefore, it is not accurate to gauge the performance of any particular tire by focusing on one isolated component or compound.
. . . .
. . . Given the inherent design of any steel belted radial tire, . . . the areas of the steel belt edges are generally the areas of highest stress/strain. As a result, any steel belted radial tire can sustain a tread/belt separation due to numerous service conditions such as overloading, underinflation, punctures, road hazards, impact damage and so forth.
Queiser further explained that rubber compound formulas cannot be reverse engineered from the finished product because once a tire is cured, the chemical composition changes. Queiser asserted that because the physical properties of the subject tire itself could be inspected and tested, "[a]ccess to the formulas is unnecessary to determine whether the tire was properly designed and manufactured." As to the trade secret nature of the skim stock formula, Queiser described the formula as "one of Bridgestone/Firestone's most valuable assets and most closely guarded secrets."
At his deposition, when asked why the skim stock formula was unnecessary in the instant litigation, Queiser responded as follows:
Well, I guess in this case, as I understand it, all that you would need is what you essentially have. You have the tire, you have the ability to test the tire, test its physical properties. It has been my experience that that is all you need to evaluate the condition of the tire as it relates to its performance. It is my experience that the ability to have the chemical information, the recipe, really doesn't answer those questions for you. The formula or recipe doesn't give you the performance, frankly, which is the most important element.
Queiser elaborated that when the federal government investigated certain tires manufactured by Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., which were similar to tires recalled by Firestone in August 2000, When pressed by Respondent's counsel as to whether the skim compound or manufacturing process was ever considered as part of the federal investigation, Queiser answered as follows:
No, I would not say "never considered." But certainly it was something that was clearly early set aside as a probable cause. We had so many tires produced from so many different plants with that same formula, hundreds of which . . . had absolutely no claim or lawsuit associated with them on that same compound. That formula or compound, per se, no, it wasn't a factor early on.
Queiser also described how rubber changes over time from exposure to oxygen and ozone, noting that "[t]he environment, the use of the tire or the rubber, how the rubber is used, [and] other external influences naturally are a part of its properties over time." Queiser acknowledged that oxidation in general would cause changes in the makeup of a rubber compound, but qualified his statement saying that chemical changes in rubber compounds, in his opinion, were still not fully understood by modern science. Queiser also acknowledged that antidegradants are added to the skim stock...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hueble v. S.C. Dep't of Natural Res.
-
State v. Broadnax, Appellate Case No. 2013–000615.
...we have looked to the federal courts' interpretation as our rule is similar to the federal rule."); Laffitte v. Bridgestone Corp., 381 S.C. 460, 474 n. 10, 674 S.E.2d 154, 162 n. 10 (2009) ("The language of Rule 26(c), SCRCP, mirrors that of federal Rule 26(c). Because there is no South Car......
-
State v. Broadnax, Appellate Case No. 2013-000615
...we have looked to the federal courts' interpretation as our rule is similar to the federal rule."); Laffitte v. Bridgestone Corp., 381 S.C. 460, 474 n.10, 674 S.E.2d 154, 162 n.10 (2009) ("The language of Rule 26(c), SCRCP, mirrors that of federal Rule 26(c). Because there is no South Carol......
-
State v. Broadnax, Appellate Case No. 2013-000615
...we have looked to the federal courts' interpretation as our rule is similar to the federal rule."); Laffitte v. Bridgestone Corp., 381 S.C. 460, 474 n.10, 674 S.E.2d 154, 162 n.10 (2009) ("The language of Rule 26(c), SCRCP, mirrors that of federal Rule 26(c). Because there is no South Carol......