Huang v. Continental Tire the Americas, LLC

Filing 84

STIPULATED ORDER terminating 53 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of a Post-Sale Duty to Warn; terminating 54 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of a Duty to Recall. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DONGDONG HUANG,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:10-cv-12598
Hon. Robert H. Cleland
Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives

v.
CONTINENTAL TIRE THE AMERICAS,
LLC,
Defendant.

STIPULATED ORDER TERMINATING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO
EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF A POST-SALE DUTY TO WARN [53]
AND EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF A DUTY TO RECALL[54]
Upon stipulation of the parties,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff (1) shall not assert or argue, through
submissions, statements or examination of witnesses, that Defendant had a duty to recall,
modify or retrofit the subject General Ameri*GS60 P215/70R15 tire in this case
(“Subject Tire”) after its sale, (2) shall instruct his witnesses not to testify that the
Defendant should have recalled, modified or retrofitted the Subject Tire after its sale, and
(3) shall not introduce evidence that is relevant only to the proposition that Defendant had
such a duty;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff (1) shall not assert or argue, through
submissions, statements or examination of witnesses, that Defendant had a post-sale duty
to warn, publicize or notify consumers of an alleged defect or potential defect in the
1

Subject Tire, (2) shall instruct his witnesses not to testify that the Defendant should have
warned, publicized or notified consumers of an alleged defect or potential defect in the
Subject Tire, and (3) shall not introduce evidence that is relevant only to the proposition
that Defendant had such a duty;
Subject to and without limiting the foregoing, this order does not preclude Plaintiff
from introducing evidence that is otherwise admissible and relevant to another material
proposition in this case including, but not limited to, Plaintiff’s claims, a requisite
element of each such claim, or a practical and technically feasible alternative production
practice or design;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendant’s motion to exclude evidence
relating to a post-sale duty to warn [Dkt. # 53] and motion to exclude evidence relating to an
alleged duty to recall [Dkt. # 54] are TERMINATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 14, 2012

2

SO STIPULATED AND AGREED:
MORGAN & MEYERS

BROOKS WILKINS SHARKEY &
TURCO PLLC

By: s/with consent of Justin J. Hakala
Justin J. Hakala, Esq. (P72996)
Jeffrey T. Meyers (P34348)
3200 Greenfield, Suite 260
Dearborn, MI 48120-1802
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

By: s/Maureen T. Taylor
Edward M. Kronk (P16258)
Herbert C. Donovan (P51939)
Maureen T. Taylor (P63547)
401 S. Old Woodward, Suite 400
Birmingham, Michigan 48009
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

3