Thompson et al v Autoliv Safety Technology Inc et al

Filing 114

ORDER Granting 69 Motion for Protective Order and Granting 83 Motion to Compel. See Order for Further Details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 9/28/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
4
***
5
NICOLE THOMPSON, et al.,
6
Plaintiffs,

7
8
9

v.
AUTOLIV SAFETY
TECHNOLOGY INC., et al.,

10
Defendants.
11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:09-cv-01375-PMP-LRL
ORDER

12

This case comes before the court on defendant TRW’s Motion for Protective Order (#69). The

13

court has considered the motion, plaintiffs’ Response (#76) and Countermotion to Compel Discovery

14

(#83), TRW’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Protective Order and Response to Plaintiffs’

15

Countermotion (#80), and plaintiffs’ Reply to TRW’s Response to the Countermotion (#86). Good

16

cause appearing,

17
18

IT IS ORDERED that TRW’s Motion for Protective Order (#69) is granted to the following
extent:

19

1. The continued deposition of TRW’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness -- Mr. Rochette -- will be taken

20

in Detroit, Michigan. Plaintiff will be allowed an additional seven (7) hours (excluding breaks) to

21

complete the deposition.

22
23

2. Plaintiffs’ document requests regarding the design, development and testing of the AECM
in question shall be limited to the years 1996 through 1998.

24

3. TRW need not respond further to plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions.

25

...

26

...

1
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Countermotion to Compel Discovery (#83) is
granted to the following extent:

3

1. TRW shall, not later than October 17, 2011, respond without objection to all interrogatories

4

and document requests that call for information or documents relevant (within the meaning of

5

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1)) to the question of the extent, if any, to which TRW and Chrysler collaborated

6

on or discussed the design, testing and development of the AECM in question.

7

2. TRW shall, not later than October 17, 2011, respond without objection to all interrogatories

8

and document requests that call for information or documents relevant (within the meaning of Rule

9

26(b)(1)) to the question of the extent, if any, to which the depowered air bag system in question directly

10

or indirectly affected the design, development or testing of the AECM in question, including the timing

11

of its deployment threshold.

12

3. TRW shall, not later than October 17, 2011, produce an affidavit of a responsible corporate

13

officer or manager explaining in detail why TRW has not produced a contract or other documents

14

reflecting the nature and scope of TRW’s relationship with Chrysler regarding the design, development

15

and testing of the AECM in question.

16

DATED this 28th day of September, 2011.

17
18
19

LAWRENCE R. LEAVITT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2