Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation

Filing 80

ORDER: Telephone Conference held on 6/11/14. By 7/11/2014, Bridgestone should supplement its response to these interrogatories and identify who was listed as the chairman(en) for these various committees during the course of the contract(s) and inso far as possible the primary presenters on the various issues. Bridgestone advised that they are in the process of preparing written discovery, which will have, in many cases, written decisions on issues by the various committees. These documents will be of assistance in narrowing the field further. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 6/11/14. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant

No. 3:13-1196
Judge Sharp/Brown
Jury Demand

O R D E R
A lengthy telephone conference was held with the parties
concerning three interrogatories submitted to Bridgestone by IBM. The
Magistrate Judge would like to compliment both sides in this matter
for their professional and courteous presentation of this issue.
IBM

is

attempting

to

determine

through

the

three

interrogatories the individuals and committees who were involved in
three separate aspects of the case. The first is the role various
committees and individuals played in the request for proposals and
decisions to select IBM.
The second is the role of individuals and committees in
approving the actual contract with IBM.
The third is the committees and individuals involved in the
actual

implementation

of

the

contract

through

the

day-to-day

supervision of the contract.
In response to the first interrogatory Bridgestone provided
some 12 bodies comprising 63 employees. The second interrogatory
produced 13 bodies with 77 members, and the final interrogatory
produced some 72 individuals. Bridgestone explained that unlike many
companies, Bridgestone operates very much on a consensus basis and,

therefore,

it

is

difficult

for

them

to

identify

specific

lead

individuals.
IBM, on the other hand, is attempting to identify the
custodians they wish to use for further discovery in the matter and
to limit the number requested insofar as possible.
Under the scheduling order in the case the parties have
started with 20 custodians and will be moving to 35, and possibly
more, as the case progresses.
After discussion it appears to the Magistrate Judge that
there is, in fact, a consensus as to how to resolve this issue at the
present time. By July 11, 2014, Bridgestone should supplement its
response to these interrogatories and identify who was listed as the
chairman(en) for these various committees during the course of the
contract(s) and insofar as possible the primary presenters on the
various issues.

Bridgestone advised that they are in the process of

preparing written discovery, which will have, in many cases, written
decisions on issues by the various committees. These documents will
be of assistance in narrowing the field further.
The third interrogatory does not list committees. However,
it lists some 72 individuals with their titles. The Magistrate Judge
expects, on this list, that Bridgestone will attempt to identify
insofar as possible who the lead individuals are within the various
subgroups.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/
Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

2