Maxey v. Bridgestone/Firestone N.A. Tire

Filed 6/22/06 Maxey v. Bridgestone/Firestone N.A. Tire CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yolo)

In this products liability action, plaintiffs Donna Maxey and Pamela Amie appeal from a judgment entered in favor of defendant Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire after the trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. Defendant was the distributor of a tire on Maxey's GMC Yukon which exploded, resulting in an accident that injured Maxey and her passenger, Amie.

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based on the opinion of its expert, Joseph Grant, who personally examined the tire and concluded that the tire was not defective. After defendant filed the summary judgment motion, plaintiffs' counsel divulged that the tire had been discarded inadvertently by his building's cleaning service. Plaintiffs sought to depose Grant and have him produce all materials he relied on in formulating his opinion, including a videotape and any pictures of the tire. When defendant refused to produce Grant or his work product, plaintiffs brought a motion to compel production of the documents described in the deposition notice. The trial court denied the motion, except as it related to the videotape of defendant's expert dismounting the tire for examination, which the court ordered produced.

Thereafter, defendant's summary judgment motion was heard. Plaintiffs' expert, not having examined the tire before it was discarded, was unable to determine whether the tire had been defective. Consequently, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment.

In addition to arguing the trial court erred in granting defendant's objections to evidence, plaintiffs claim they submitted sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact. Alternatively, they argue they should have access to defendant's photographs of the tire so that they may properly oppose the summary judgment motion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Maxey purchased the Yukon from its previous owners, Danelle Owens and Manuel Gomez, in June or July 2001. On August 18, 2001, the Yukon was involved in a rollover accident on Interstate 80 in Yolo County when one of its tires exploded.

Plaintiffs filed suit on August 5, 2002. The complaint contained a single cause of action for products liability, alleging the tire was defective and the defect caused plaintiffs' injuries.

In November 2003, the court ordered the parties to hold safe the tire as potential evidence, and ordered that the tire could not be tested or examined in any fashion that would destroy or degrade it without a prior court order. On December 19, 2003, defendant obtained a court order allowing it to dismount the tire from the wheel for the purpose of inspecting the tire. The court also ordered defendant to videotape the entire dismounting process.

After the tire was returned to plaintiffs' counsel, it was inadvertently discarded by the cleaning crew at counsel's office building. Plaintiffs' expert had not yet conducted forensic testing of the tire. Counsel stated the tire was discarded sometime between March 25 and April 6, 2004.

Defendant filed a summary judgment motion on July 2, 2004. In support of the motion defendant presented the declaration of its expert, Grant, who stated the tire showed â€