united states district court for the western district...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN DIVISION

LISA C. CONE, Attorney-in-Fact and Next )

Friend of TIMOTHY H. L. FRAZIER, and )

TIMOTHY H. L. FRAZIER, Individually, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) No. 1:14-cv-01122 STA-egb

v. ) Anderson/Bryant

)

HANKOOK TIRE COMPANY, LTD., )

f/k/a HANKOOK TIRE MFG. CO., LTD., )

)

)

Defendant. )

JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER

1. The pleadings in this matter are hereby amended to conform to the Pretrial Order,

and the Pretrial Order supplants the pleadings.

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)

because this is an action between citizens of different states and the matter in controversy

exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. Defendant does not contest

personal jurisdiction or venue.

3. Pending Motions:

The following motions are pending:

Hankook’s Motion Regarding Handling of Confidential Trial Exhibits and

Testimony [Doc. 319]. Pursuant to the Court’s direction, Hankook will, prior to

trial, submit further briefing and a supporting declaration addressing the

documents at issue on a document-by-document basis.

In Docket Entry 320, the Court reserved ruling on certain motions in limine

Case 1:14-cv-01122-STA-egb Document 323 Filed 06/09/17 of 32 PageID 10221

2

4. Contentions of the Parties:

PLAINTIFFS:

Plaintiffs’ claims for damages in the amount of $25,000,000.00 or such sum as jury

determines against Hankook Tire Co., LTD. and for punitive damages against Defendant

Hankook Tire Co., Ltd., or as the jury determines, sufficient to compensate the Plaintiff for his

injuries and damages, together with pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs, and

other expenses and all other relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled.

DEFENDANT:

Hankook states that the subject tire was safe and complied with industry standards and

federal safety regulations when it left Hankook’s control. The tire failed because it was subjected

to significant damage in service, and should have been replaced by Mr. Frazier’s employer,

Southern Concrete. Further, the tire failure should not have caused an accident. Hankook

contests liability and damages.

5. Uncontested Facts:

On July 8, 2013, Plaintiff Timothy H.L. Frazier was involved in a one vehicle accident

while driving a 1996 International/Navistar Model 2574 concrete mixer VIN

1HTGGAUT1TH316097 owned by his employer, Southern Concrete. The accident occurred on

State Highway 57 in Hardeman County, Tennessee. The left front tire on the subject vehicle

suffered a tread separation. The vehicle overturned on the south shoulder of the roadway.

During the rollover event, the mixer separated from the truck.

Mr. Frazier was removed from the vehicle by EMS personnel and taken to a hospital for

medical treatment. Mr. Frazier sustained injuries in the accident, including a spinal cord injury

resulting in quadriplegia.


3

The tire was a Hankook AH10 truck tire, size 425/65R22.5, bearing DOT Code

T76CKAH5105. This tire was manufactured by Hankook Tire Company, Ltd. in Daejon, Korea

during the 51st week of 2005.

6. Contested Issues of Fact:

PLAINTIFFS:

A) Whether the left front steer tire failure resulted in a rollover accident.

B) Whether or not the subject tire failure and subsequent accident were caused or

contributed to by any negligence of Timothy H. L. Frazier.

C) Whether or not the Plaintiff’s injuries and damages were caused or contributed to

by the failure of the left front steer tire and subsequent rollover accident and as a direct and

proximate result of the negligence of Hankook.

D) Whether or not the AH10 tire is an “on & off road” tire.

E) Whether or not the failure of the subject Hankook AH10 tire located on the left

front of the subject vehicle precipitated the accident.

F) Whether or not a failure of the left front steer tire on a concrete mixer vehicle,

such as the subject vehicle, can cause loss of control of the vehicle such as the subject vehicle.

G) Whether or not liner pattern marks in a failed tire is evidence of an improper bond

in the belt skim stock.

H) Whether or not HTCL keeps records of the performance of Hankook brand tires.

I) Whether or not the subject tire was in substantially the same condition as it was

when it was originally sold.

J) Whether or not the subject tire was manufactured by Hankook without adequate

control measures and inappropriate manufacturing procedures and processes.


4

K) Whether or not the subject tire was defective in manufacture in that it lacked

proper adhesion of the steel belts to surrounding material resulting in tread belt separation and

catastrophic failure during normal use.

L) Whether or not the subject tire exhibited insufficient inner liner gauge,

insufficient rubber insulation between the belt endings, premature aging as evidence by oxidation

of the belt skim, poor or improper bonding between the steel belts as evidence by liner pattern

marks within the belts, defective steel belt construction, defective cords of insufficient strength,

defective and insufficient belt coat stock, defective and insufficient circumferential edge strips,

and lack of double wrap full width nylon cap plies.

M) Whether or not the subject tire has inadequate countermeasures to prevent the

known hazard of tread belt separation in similarly constructed tires and Hankook failed to heed

the results of testing and adjustment data prior to the construction of the subject tire.

N) Whether or not at the time the subject tire was placed into the stream of

commerce it contained defects which were unreasonably dangerous to persons such as the

Plaintiff who was the intended foreseeable user.

O) Whether or not the tire was in substantially the same defective condition at the

time of the subject accident, as it was when it left Hankook’s possession or control.

P) Whether or not the defects in the subject tire were a direct and proximate cause of

the tread belt separation which caused the Plaintiff’s injuries.

Q) Whether or not as a result of the defects in the subject tire, the Plaintiff, Timothy

Frazier sustained injuries and damages.

R) Whether or not the unfitness of the tire was the proximate cause of Plaintiff

Timothy Frazier’s injuries and resulting damages.


5

S) Whether or not as a direct proximate result of the acts and omissions of Hankook

as set out above, Plaintiff Timothy Frazier was catastrophically injured sustaining damages as

follows:

1) severe personal injuries, including brain and spinal cord injuries, which in

all respect are catastrophic injuries and losses;

2) loss of wages and permanent impairment of his earning capacity;

3) past and future medical expenses;

4) past and future physical pain and suffering and resulting mental and

emotional distress;

5) loss of the pleasures and enjoyment of life.

DEFENDANT:

A) Whether the subject tire failed because of a manufacturing defect or because of

damage it sustained and/or improper storage.

B) Whether any of the following caused or contributed to Mr. Frazier’s injuries:

1) Damage to the subject tire;

2) Southern Concrete’s failure to maintain the subject tire and the subject truck;

3) Improper storage of the subject tire;

4) Failure to properly inspect the subject tire, and remove it from service;

5) Southern Concrete’s failure to properly supervise and train its employees,

including Mr. Frazier, concerning proper inspection and maintenance of the

subject tire and subject vehicle, and concerning how to safely handle a tire

failure.


6

C) The accident sequence and driver actions.

D) Post-accident spoliation of the subject truck.

E) Mr. Frazier’s injuries and damages.

7. Contested Issues of Law: The following legal issues are contested by the

parties:

PLAINTIFFS:

A) Whether or not the Defendant knew or should have known, at the date of

manufacture in December 2005,that the subject tire was defective and could suffer tread

separation.

B) Whether or not the Defendant knew or should have known, at the date of

manufacture in December 2005,that treads separation events can lead to loss of vehicle control.

C) Whether or not the Defendant knew or should have known that tread separation

hazards created a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm, including the increased likelihood

of serious injury and death.

D) Whether or not Hankook defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff, Timothy Frazier and

other users of their products to use due care in the designing, testing, assembling, manufacturing,

and inspection of the subject tire.

E) Whether or not Hankook breached their duty of reasonable care owed to Plaintiff,

Timothy Frazier.

F) Whether or not Hankook defendant is liable under Section 29-28-101, et seq.

TCA.


7

G) Whether or not Hankook placed the subject tire into the stream of commerce

intending that it be used in the precise manner that it was being used at the time of the subject

tread belt separation and injuries.

DEFENDANT:

A) Whether the subject tire was defective due to manufacturing defects at the time

that it left the control of Hankook.

B) Whether the failure of the subject tire was caused by alteration, improper

maintenance, or abnormal use.

C) Whether the acts or omissions of Southern Concrete demonstrate that the

Hankook tire was not defective or unreasonably dangerous, or establish that Southern Concrete’s

conduct was the sole cause of Mr. Frazier’s injuries.

D) Whether Mr. Frazier is guilty of comparative fault per se as a result of violations

including the following:

1) Failure to ensure that the tires on the truck were in good working order prior

to operation, 49 C.F.R. § 392.7, 49 C.F.R. § 396.17(g);

2) Failure to complete the required daily vehicle inspections and the required

Driver Vehicle Inspection Reports, 49 C.F.R. § 396.11, 396.13;

3) Operation of the subject truck on a tire that did not comply with the

requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 393.75, 49 C.F.R. § 396.17(g), and 49 C.F.R. Ch.

III, Subch. B, App. G;

4) Operation of a truck without the ability, by reason of experience, training, or

both, to safety operate the vehicle being driven, 49 C.F.R. § 391.11(a), (b)(3);

5) Operation in excess of the posted speed limit, Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-152;


8

6) Failure to exercise due care by operating the vehicle at a safe speed, by

maintaining a safe lookout, by keeping the vehicle under proper control and

by devoting full time and attention to operating the vehicle, under the existing

circumstances as necessary in order to be able to see and to avoid endangering

life, limb or property and to see and avoid colliding with any other vehicle or

person, or any road sign, guard rail or any fixed object either legally using or

legally parked or legally placed, upon any roadway, within or beside the

roadway right-of-way including, but not limited to, any adjacent sidewalk,

bicycle lane, shoulder or berm, Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-136;

E) Whether Mr. Frazier otherwise breached the applicable duty of care with respect

to his operation, inspection, and/or maintenance of the subject truck and subject tire, and if so,

the percentage of comparative fault that should be assessed.

F) Proximate cause.

G) Mr. Frazier’s injuries and damages.

H) The appropriate adverse inference instruction or other sanction for spoliation of

the subject truck.

8. Exhibit List:

Each party’s exhibit has been filed separately.

The parties have exchanged exhibit lists and have discussed by category the admissibility

and authenticity of the documents that they expect to offer into evidence. The parties agree and

stipulate to authenticity and exception from the hearsay rule to the following categories of

exhibits:


9

1. The subject tire, and all parts and pieces thereof;

2. The wheel from the subject tire;

3. The companion tire and wheel;

4. Photographs and video of the subject tire and wheel and/or the companion tire and

wheel;

5. X-rays and shearography of the subject tire and/or the companion tire;

6. Photographs and video of the scene of the accident;

7. Hankook documents produced in this case by Defendant Hankook;

8. Documents produced by Southern Concrete; and

9. Documents produced by the Tennessee Department of Safety concerning Mr.

Frazier’s CDL (except page 5 which lists other accidents).

The parties reserve all other objections and continue to confer in good faith in effort to

narrow any objections that need to be presented to the Court. In view of the great number of

potential exhibits that have been listed, particularly those contained within the expert file

materials that the parties have exchanged, and the likelihood that only a small fraction of these

documents likely will be offered at trial, the parties have agreed to reserve, and work

cooperatively to resolve or narrow any objections to exhibits that must be resolved during trial.

The parties further refer to and incorporate by reference their motions in limine and motions to

exclude evidence, and reserve all of the arguments raised therein.

In addition to the foregoing, Defendants have reviewed Plaintiffs’ preliminary exhibit list

and based upon same note the following additional specific objections:

All exhibits marked CONFIDENTIAL:

As to all Hankook documents marked Confidential pursuant to the Protective Order

entered in this matter (DE 134), Hankook objects to use of the documents in a manner that would

impair their continued protection, and requests that any such exhibits and related testimony be

sealed to preserve the continued protection of Hankook’s trade secrets and confidential

commercial information.


10

P-5 - A Day in the Life Video of Timothy Frazier

Subject to establishing a proper foundation for admission, Defendant objects, pursuant to

Fed. R. Evid. 901, to any attempt to characterize the video as a “Day in the Life” video, or

otherwise suggest that the video fairly and accurately represents Mr. Frazier’s daily routine. The

video appears to depict only certain aspects of Mr. Frazier’s daily routine including, among other

items, a sponge bath, his dressing routine, and moving him into his power wheelchair.

P-29 - Itemization of Medical Expenses of Timothy H.L. Frazier

Defendant incorporates by reference all arguments set forth in Defendant’s Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment Concerning the Proper Measure of Compensatory Damages and to

Exclude Expert Testimony Utilizing an Improper Measure of Damages. (DE 196.) In particular,

Plaintiff’s medical expense damages must be based upon the amounts actually paid to providers

for medical care, as distinguished from the generally much higher amounts charged by them.

Hall v. USF Holland, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-02494, 2016 WL 361583, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 12,

2016); Smith v. Lopez-Miranda, No. 15-CV-2240-SHL-DKV, 2016 WL 1083845, at *1 (W.D.

Tenn. Feb. 10, 2016). Defendant further objects to the addition of any medical expenses not

listed on the Notice of Itemization of Medical Expenses filed by Plaintiff on June 3, 2016 (DE

189), and incorporates by reference its response thereto. (DE 234.)

P-32 – Hankook TBR Catalog

Hankook objects to the use of any version of the TBR Catalog other than the 2005

version of the catalog, applicable to the subject tire. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403. Plaintiffs

agree to substitute the 2005 version of the catalog which is Defendant’s exhibit D-117.

P-235 - Exhibit “3" to Deposition of Un Chang Chung Taken March 31, 2016 - AH10

425/65R22.5 U.S. Sales & U.S. Adjustment Data

Hankook incorporates by reference all arguments set forth in Hankook’s motion in limine

addressing evidence of other incidents, claims, or lawsuits.

P-313 - CONFIDENTIAL Adjustment Data (AH10 425_65R22.5 18PLY)



P-365 CONFIDENTIAL Documents Adjustment Data AM02 (HTCL000350)



P-366 - CONFIDENTIAL Documents Adjustment Data TH08 (HTCL000351)



P-367 - CONFIDENTIAL Documents Adjustment Data TH10 (HTCL000352)




11

P-368 - CONFIDENTIAL Documents Adjustment Data UF06 (HTCL000353)



P-371 - CONFIDENTIAL Claim forms 2010


















P-377 - CONFIDENTIAL AH10 Sales & Adjustment Data



P-378 - CONFIDENTIAL AM02 Sales & Adjustment Data



P-379 - CONFIDENTIAL TH08 Sales & Adjustment Data



P-380 - CONFIDENTIAL UF06 Sales & Adjustment Data



Hankook further objects to the following reference materials, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid.

703, 801-803:


12

P-184 - Exhibit “192" to Deposition of George H. Carter, III, Ph.D. Taken November 17,

2015 - The Markov Process Model

P-205 - Exhibit “224" to Deposition of Troy Cottles Taken March 1, 2016 - Zip Drive

P-206 - Exhibit “225" to Deposition of Troy Cottles Taken March 1, 2016 - Dropbox

Printout

P-208 - Exhibit “227" to Deposition of Troy Cottles Taken March 1, 2016 - British

Rubber Manufacturers’ Association, Ltd. Document

P-224 - Exhibit “243" to Deposition of Troy Cottles Taken March 1, 2016 - Box and

Contents

P-227 - Exhibit “247" to Deposition of David Southwell Taken March 19, 2016 – Binder

P-272 - Spinal Cord Injury Facts and Figures at a Glance

P-276 - Exhibit 13 to Deposition of David Southwell Taken March 19, 2016 - Thumb

Drive

P-437 - Exhibit 261 to Deposition of Troy Cottles Taken 6/16/16 - Dennis Carlson

Photos of Various Types of Defects

P-443 - Exhibit 258 to Deposition of David Southwell taken on March 19, 2016

Additional Documents; Australian File; Bills; 75 Statement page 2; 75 Statement;

2016.04.28 - Cambpell - Muscato; 2016.06.11 - Lynch – Cambpell

In addition to the foregoing, Plaintiffs have reviewed Defendant’s preliminary exhibit list

and based upon same note the following additional specific objections:

D-5.3 – Cut Tire Sections

Plaintiff objection to the use of this document/demonstrative aid as it was not

produced.

D-5.4 – Cut Tire Section Illustrations

Plaintiff objection to the use of this document as it was not produced.

D-6 – Exemplar of Hankook passenger tire

Plaintiff objection to the use of this document on the grounds of relevance, further the

document does not involve a substantial similar tire.


13

D- 7 – Tennessee Electronic Traffic Crash Report

Plaintiff objects to this document as hearsay, accident reports are not admissible, further

said report contains improper opinion testimony

D-8 – Commercial Vehicle Post-Crash Investigation Report



D-9 – Sharp documents - THP Commercial Vehicle Post-Crash Investigation Report,

Dudley fax with inspection report, repair work order, Frazier’s health card and delivery

ticket



D-118– Grant's expert report

Plaintiff objects to the Expert report as hearsay and not admissible,

D-128 – All Impact Literature and Reference Materials

Plaintiff objects to this literature as hearsay. Further such documents are treatises and not

admissible. The Plaintiff also objects on the grounds of substantial similarity.

D-128.249 – Nylon Monofilament Patent

Plaintiff objects to this document as it was not produced in discovery or in

deposition, hearsay.

D-128.250 – Dunlop Exemplar Tires – P195/75R14 92S Dunlop SP 20A/S



D-128.251 – Dunlop Exemplar Tires – P235/75R15 Dunlop SP 40 A/S & Remington

ST Traction



D-128.252 – Dunlop Exemplar Tires – Seven (7) Various Size Tires



D-128.253 – Cottles Collection of 60 Tires – 2006

Plaintiff objects to this document/collection as it was not produced in discovery or in

deposition.

D-128.254 – RMA Tire Aging Study 2006




14

D-128.255 – Continental Tire Service Life Recommendation



D-128.256 – Michelin Tire Service Life Recommendation



D-128.257 – Bridgestone Tire Service Life Recommendation



D-128.258 – RMA Statement on Tire Aging



D-128.259 – Forensic Analysis in Tire Tread Separations – John Daws – Rubber

and Plastic News – 03/05/07



D-128.260 – Dynamic Fracture of Natural Rubber – Tire Science – Tire Science and

Technology Vol. 35, No. 4



D-128.261 – High Speed Tensile Testing of Tire Textiles – Applied Polymer

Symposia No. 5 – 1967



D-128.262 – Avon Tyre: Tire Care for Safe Driving – “Heading off Trouble –

www.avontyresracing.com



D-128.263 – Impact Damage – Tire Failure – www.sullivantire.com



D-128.264 – Impact Damage – Tire Failure (Goodyear) – www.goodyeartires.com



D-128.265 – Tire Suspension – Chassis Dynamics in Rolling Over Obstacles for Ride

and Harshness Analysis (Impact Simulation and Analysis – Vladimir Kerman –

Kumho Tire Co., Inc


http://www.avontyresracing.com/

http://www.sullivantire.com/

http://www.goodyeartires.com/

15



D-128.266 – 8/4/2003 NTSB Safety Recommendation



D-128.267 – Tire Tech Information – Storing Tires



D-128.268 - Tire Safety Group – Summer Tire Storage: Tips and Best Practices



D-128.270 – Rubber & Plastic News Article – Forensic Analysis in Tire Tread

Separations



D-128.271- Radial Tire Conditions Analysis Guide



D-129 – 2005 NHTSA publication - The Pneumatic Tire - Chapter 15


admissible. The Plaintiff also objects to the relevance of this document.

D-131 - 2008 NHTSA report DOTHS811 060 - "Commercial Medium Tire Debris

Study"



D-132 - 2000 International Tire Exhibition and Conference paper by Harold Herzlich

entitled, "The Effect of Snaked Belt Anomalies on Tire Durability."



D-133 - 2005 Standards Testing Labs paper entitled, "Impact Simulations - What

Happens When a Tire/Wheel Impacts a Road Hazard."



D-134 - STL paper entitled, "Structural Impact Damage Under Varying Laboratory

Conditions" presented at 2006 International Tire Exhibition and Conference


16



D-135 - Tire Industry Association's 2005 Passenger & Light Tire Conditions Manual



D-136 - 2002 Technical Paper by Harold Herzlich entitled, "Belt Misalignments and

Belt/Belt Tear Patterns"



D-137 – Technical Paper entitled, "Component Interfacial Tearing Appearance" by Gary

Bolden



D-138 - Technical Paper entitled, "Do Liner Patterns Affect Tire Performance," by James

Rancourt



D-139 - Technical Paper entitled, "Process Marks in Disabled Tires," by Jean-Claude

Brico



D-140 - "Tire Forensic Investigation - Analyzing Tire Failure" by Thomas Giapponi



D-141 - Paper presented by Grant at the 2012 International Tire Exposition and

Conference (“ITEC”), in Cleveland, Ohio



D-142 - National Transportation Safety Board - Safety Recommendations dated 8/4/2003



D-143 - Rubber Manufacturers Association - Information Service Bulletin - Tire Storage

Recommendations



D-144 - Tire Safety Group - article - Summer Tire Storage: Tips and Best Practices


17



D-145 – Tech Tire Information - Storing Tires



D-147 – Grant expert report

Plaintiff objects to the Expert report as hearsay and not admissible,

D-149 – Rubber Manufacturer’s Tire Service Information Bulletin


admissible. The Plaintiff also objects to the relevance of this document

D -150 – NTSB document re: storage of tires



D-151 – Excerpts from Giapponi book



D-152 – USB of Grant file documents

Plaintiff objects to Mr. Grant’s file. The file contains numerous documents and plaintiff

has various reasons for objections.

D-159 – Photo

Ex. 14 to Grant’s Depo is not a photo – this exhibit is misidentified.

D-160 – 2006 Bolden paper



D-162 – NTSB safety recommendation dated 8/4/2003

Plaintiff objects to this document as hearsay. Further document contains improper

opinion testimony.

D-163 – NITSA Study


opinion testimony.

D-164 – Document entitled, Energy Analysis in Tire Manufacturing Industries


admissible.

D-169 – Amended declaration of Yun-Chang Chun


18


opinion testimony.

Mr.Chun is not subject to cross examination.

D-173 – Grant’s deposition prep folder

Plaintiff objects to this literature as hearsay

D-173.1 - All Documents relied upon by Joe Grant

Plaintiff objects to this document as vague.

D-173.2 – Joe Grant’s File

Plaintiff objects to this document as vague.

D-174– Holbrook's expert report

Plaintiff objects to this literature as hearsay and not admissible. The Plaintiff also objects

on the grounds of substantial similarity.

D-175 –Video – Rapid Air Loss – the Critical Factor - Tire Handling Tips

Plaintiff objects to this literature as hearsay and not admissible.

D-176 – Video - Big Rig - Truck Driver Training - Blowouts

Plaintiff objects to this video as hearsay. Further such documents are treatises and not

admissible

D-177 - 1994 Tennessee Commercial Drivers License Manual

Plaintiff objects to this document as hearsay and not admissible. The Plaintiff also

objects to the relevance of the document.

D-178 – 2000 Tennessee Commercial Drivers License Manual



D-179 – 2009 Tennessee Commercial Drivers License Manual



D-179.1—2011 Tennessee Commercial Driver’s License Manual

Plaintiff objects to this document as hearsay. The Plaintiff also objects to the relevance

of the document.

D-180 – Safety Measurement System - Complete SMS profile

Plaintiff objects to the authenticity of the document. The Plaintiff also objects to the

relevance of the document. Plaintiff objects to this document as hearsay.

D-181 – 7/10/2012 Traffic Crash Report - prior accident involving Timothy Frazier


19

Plaintiff objects to the relevance of the document. The Plaintiff also objects to this

document as hearsay and to its authenticity. Further said document contains

inadmissible prior acts.

D-182 – International Operator’s Manual Heavy 2000 5000 8000 9000 (excerpts):

Vehicle Inspection Guide, Emission Control Systems - Section A: To the Owner; and

Section C: Maintenance (Tires)

Plaintiff objects to this document as hearsay.

D-183 - – International Truck Service Manual – CTS-5540 Volume 3 (Excerpts)

Plaintiff objects to this video as hearsay. Further such documents are treatises and not

admissible

D-184 – Sections from 49 C.F.R

Plaintiff objects to this document as not admissible.

D-185 – SAFER Reports – Southern Concrete Products

Plaintiff objects to the authenticity of the document. Plaintiff also objects to the

document as hearsay. Further the Plaintiff objects to the relevance.

D-186 – All documents relied upon by Mr. Holbrook

Plaintiff objects to the category “all document relied upon by Mr. Holbrook”

D-187 – Devivo's Expert Report

Plaintiff objects to the Expert report as hearsay and not admissible

D-189 – All documents relied upon by Mr. DeVivo

Plaintiff objects to the category “all documents relied upon by Mr. DeVivo”

D-190 – Marshall’s Expert Report

Plaintiff objects to the Expert report as hearsay and not admissible.

D-192 – All document relied upon by Mr. Marshall

Plaintiff objects to the category “all documents relied upon by Mr. Marshall”

D-193 – Tandy’s Expert Report

Plaintiff objects to the Expert Report as hearsay and not admissible

D-195 – Video - Tire Disablement Tests on a 1995 Freightliner FLD120

See Plaintiff’s MIL. The Plaintiff objects to this document as hearsay. The Plaintiff

objects to the authentication of this document

D-203 – Tandy paper 1


admissible.


20

D-204 - Tandy paper 2


admissible. The Plaintiff also objects to the relevance.

D -205 – Tandy paper 3



D-206 – Tandy paper on air outs



D-207 - Databook on Freightliner air out testing

See Plaintiff’s MIL regarding FMVSS. The Plaintiff objects to this document as hearsay.

The Plaintiff objects to the authentication of this document

D-208 – Videotape during air out – semi truck

See Plaintiff’s MIL regarding Video. The Plaintiff objects to this document as hearsay.

The Plaintiff objects to the authentication of this document

D-209 – Brochure on NADS simulator

Plaintiff objects to this literature as hearsay. Further Plaintiff also objects to the

relevance.

D-211 – Entire contents of Tandy File on Hard Drive

Plaintiff objects to Mr. Tandy’sfile. The file contains numerous documents and plaintiff

has various reasons for objections.

D-211.1 – Tandy – Site Drive Video

Plaintiff objects to this video as to relevance.

D-214 – All documents relied upon by Mr. Tandy

Plaintiff objects to the category of “all documents relied upon by Mr. Tandy”

D-215 – Vinett's Expert Report - 10/22/2015 Life Care Plan


D-217 – All documents relied upon by Ms. Vinett-Mitchell

Plaintiff objects to the broad category of “all documents relied upon my Mr. Vinett”

D-324—Southern Concrete Products Employment Application, Carter Ex. 198

Plaintiff objects to the Medical Information and Drug Testing Information Contained

therein as irrelevant and prejudicial


21

D-327--Jennings Marshall report 10/5/2015, Carter Ex. 201


D-471 – All Pleadings filed in this case

Plaintiff objects to this exhibit. The file contains numerous documents and plaintiff has

various reasons for objections.

D-471.1 – Intervening Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal and Supporting

Memorandum of law

Plaintiff objects to this document on the grounds of relevant.

D-471.2 – Amended Intervening Complaint of Southern Concrete Products

Plaintiff objects to this document on the grounds of relevant.

D-472 – Any Discovery Responses by Plaintiff



D-473 – All Documents Produced or to be Produced by Plaintiff



D-484.1 – Summary of FMVSS 119 Endurance Test Protocol

Plaintiff objects to this document as it was not produced, hearsay.

D-484.4 – Chronological Summary of records regarding use and maintenance of the

subject truck.


D-488 – Map showing location and route to accident site on day of accident.


D-489 – Historical Weather.


9. Witness List:

PLAINTIFF:

[F]act/

Will/ [E]xpert

May [L]iability/ Business Address &

Name Call [D]amages Telephone Number

Lisa C. Cone M F/D


22

Timothy Frazier M F/L/D Humboldt Healthcare

& Rehab Center

2301 Avondale Street

Humboldt, TN 38305

Trooper Roderick Sharp M F/L TN Hwy. Patrol

6348 Summer Ave.

Memphis, TN 38234

(901) 543-6281

Trooper Charles Childers M F/L TN Hwy. Patrol

6348 Summer Ave.

Memphis, TN 38234

(901) 543-6281

Sgt. Johnny Briley M F/L TN Hwy. Patrol

6348 Summer Ave.

Memphis, TN 38234

(901) 543-6281

Lt. Wayne Newman M F/L TN Hwy. Patrol

6348 Summer Ave.

Memphis, TN 38234

(901) 543-6281

Carolyn Newman APNC M F/D 219 S. Missouri Street

Jackson, TN 38301

Richard Odle, Jr. M F/L Southern Concrete Products

P. O. Box 1090

Lexington, TN 38351

Karen Foster M F/L 14055 Highway 57

Middleton, TN 38052

(731) 376-0752

Butch Smith M F/L Bob Parker Service Ctr.

1874 South Highland Ave.

Jackson, TN 38301-1701

Troy Cottles M E/L Cottles Consulting, Inc.

25884 Katpaugh Lane

Toney, AL 35773

(256) 444-0854


23

Edward Steve Carry M F/L 20135 Hwy. 114 South

Hollow Rock, TN 38342

(731) 467-0321

Wilson Watkins M F/L 5360 Damon Road

Michie, TN 38357

731-689-0113

John Doolen M F/D Hardeman Co. Sheriff

Hardeman Co. Criminal

Justice Complex

505 South Main Street

Suite B

Bolivar,TN 38008

(731) 658-3971

John Turner M F/D 350 Kirk Drive

Middleton, TN 38052

(731) 609-2356

Robert Kevin Marcam M F/D 320 Smalley Road

Middleton, TN 38052

(731) 609-7646

Bruce Kidd M F/L 9 Pebble Creek Cove

Humbolt, TN 34343

(731) 695-9946

Greg Mills M F/L 30 Amy Drive

Jackson, TN 38301

(731) 467-0436

Stephen Haynes M F/L 44 Bloomfield Cove

Jackson, TN 38305

(731) 467-0414

Ronnie Austin M F/L 463 East College St.

Dyer, TN 38330

(731) 692-4430

Mason Peters M F/L 150 Ayers Drive

Jackson, TN 38301

(731) 267-5979

Ezekiel Adetunji, M.D. M F/D Amen Clinic

139 Stonebridge Boulevard


24

Jackson, TN 38305

Howard T. Katz, M.D. M E/D Gulf States Physical Medicine

And Rehabilitation

Medical Arts West Building

1190 North State Street

Suite 202

Jackson, MS 39202

(601) 968-0896

Cathy Gragg-Smith M E/D 265 W. Pike Street

Suite 1

Lawrenceville, GA 30046

(770) 277-9235

Paul Maurer M F/L Carlson Engineering, Inc.

1548 S. Euclid Ave.

Tucson, AZ 85713

(520) 623-1620

Arly Kinniburgh M F/L 802 Sweet Lips Road

Finger, TN 38334

(731) 343-4535

Gene Johnstone M F/L/D 8635 Heatherly Cove

Germantown, TN 38138

(731) 225-2935

Dan Nichols M F/L 495 Henderson Drive

Paris, TN 38242

(731) 445-1023

Karla Dudley M F/L 90 Flipplin Field Road

Milan, TN 38358

(731) 742-2799

Robert Pardue M F/D 730 Clifft View Road

Bolivar, TN 38008-8324

(731) 609-0732

William Garner M F/D 35 Roxie Cove


(731) 394-7683

Kayla Fowler M F/L 453 Adkins Lane

Lexington, TN 38351-3663


25

(731) 267-8974

Micky Gilbert M E/L Gilbert Engineering, LLC

12441 W. 49th

Ave. #8

Wheat Ridge, CO 80033

(303) 463-4817

George Carter, III, Ph.D. M E/D MS Consulting Group, Inc.

27 Grand Bayou Circle

Hattiesburg, MS 39402

(601) 271-6054

David Southwell M E/L Independent Tyre Consultant

27 Netherby Avenue

Netherby

South Australia

Defendant objects to Plaintiffs’ failure to list Mr. Southwell as a live witness at least 30

days prior to trial, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3)(A)(i).

Will testify live.

DEFENDANT:

Will Call Witnesses

Defendant’s Tire Expert

1) Grant, Joseph – Tire Expert 4201 Moss Creek Court

Matthews, NC 28105

(704) 617-0336

May Call Witnesses

Hankook Tire Employee

2) Chun, Yun Chang – Hankook Tire

Lucky Hana Apartments

107 Dong, Apt. 12002

Dae-Jeon, Yusung-Ku

South Korea

Defendants’ Other Experts

3) DeVivo, Michael – Life Expectancy

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Spain Rehabilitation Center, Room 515

1717 Sixth Avenue South


26

Birmingham, AL 35233-7330

(205) 934-3320

4) Holbrook, Gary – Truck Driving and Trucking Operations

Gary L. Holbrook Safety Services

4205 Warren Court

Franklin, TN 37067

(615) 347-9885

5) Marshall, Jennings – Damages, Economist

Samford University

800 Lakeshore Drive

Birmingham, AL 35229

(205) 726-2539

6) Mitchell, Cathlin Vinett – Damages, Life Care

Care Management Consultants, Inc.

214 Overlook Circle, Suite 100

Brentwood, TN 37027

(615) 373-2273

7) Tandy, Donald – Accident Reconstruction and Vehicle Dynamics

Tandy Engineering & Associates, Inc.

32100 Dobbin Huffsmith Road

Magnolia, TN 77354

(281) 363-0888

Accident Scene Eyewitness/Bystander

8) Foster, Karen

14055 Highway 57

Middleton, TN 38052

(731) 376-0752

Tennessee Highway Patrol

9) Childers, Trooper Charles


20 Vann Drive

Jackson, TN 38305

731-926-6734

10) Sharp, Trooper Roderick


6348 Summer Avenue

Memphis, TN 38134

615-815-6554


27

Southern Concrete

11) Austin, Ronnie – Southern Concrete Employee

463 East College St.

Dyer, TN 38330

(731) 692-4430

12) Cary, Steve – Southern Concrete Employee

20135 Highway 114 South

Hollow Rock TN 38342

(731) 467-0321

13) Dudley, Karla Joann – Southern Concrete Employee

90 Flipplin Field Road

Milan, TN 38358

(731) 742-2799

14) Haynes, Steven – Southern Concrete Employee

44 Bloomfield Cove

Jackson, TN 38305

(731) 467-0414

15) Kidd, Bruce – Southern Concrete Employee

9 Pebble Creek Cove

Humbolt, TN 34343

(731) 695-9946

16) Mills, Greg – Southern Concrete Employee

30 Amy Drive

Jackson, TN 38301

(731) 467-0436

17) Nichols, Daniel – Southern Concrete Employee

495 Henderson Drive

Paris, TN 38242

(731) 445-1023

18) Odle, Richard F., III – Southern Concrete Employee

860 Westover Road

Jackson, TN 38301

731-614-0035

19) Peters, Mason – Southern Concrete Employee

150 Ayers Drive

Jackson, TN 38301

(731) 267-5979


28

20) Watkins, Wilson – Southern Concrete Employee

5360 Damon Road

Michie, TN 38357

(731) 689-0113

Other First Responders

21) Doolen, John – Hardeman County Sheriff

Hardeman Co. Criminal Justice Complex

505 South Main Street, Suite B

Bolivar,TN 38008

(731) 658-3971

22) Fowler, Kayla Jo – EMT

453 Adkins Lane

Lexington, TN 38351-3663

(731) 267-8974

23) Garner, William L. – EMT

35 Roxie Cove


(731) 394-7683

24) Marcum, Kevin – First Responder

320 Smalley Road

Middleton, TN 38052

(731) 609-7646

25) Pardue, Robert W. – EMT

730 Clifft View Road

Bolivar, TN 38008-8324

(731) 609-0732

26) Turner, John – First Responder

350 Kirk Drive

Middleton, TN 38052

(731) 609-2356

Plaintiffs

27) Cone, Lisa - Party

28) Frazier, Timothy – Party

Humboldt Healthcare & Rehab Center


Humboldt, TN 38305


29

10. Deposition Testimony to Be Used at Trial:

Deposition designations for the following witnesses have been exchanged and submitted

herewith.

PLAINTIFF:

1) Larry Easterling - deceased

2) Yun Chang Chun

Lucky Hana Apartments

107 Dong, Apt. 12002

Dae-Jeon, Yusung-Ku

South Korea

3) David Southwell

Independent Tyre Consultant

27 Netherby Avenue

Netherby

South Australia

DEFENDANT:

1) Timothy Frazier

Humboldt Healthcare & Rehab Center


Humboldt, TN 38305

2) Paul Maurer

NDT and Radiography


Humboldt, TN 38305

3) Howard T. Katz, M.D.

Gulf States Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Medical Arts West Building

1190 North State Street, Suite 202

Jackson, MS 39202

4) Bruce Kidd (See Doc. Entry 306)

11. Estimated Length of Trial: The parties expect that the trial will last two weeks.

12. Jury trial: This case is a jury trial.


30

13. Ascertainable Damages: In accordance with the Complaint, Plaintiffs seek

compensatory damages not to exceed $25,000,000. The Defendant contests the recoverability

and amount of these damages.

14. Attorneys:

PLAINTIFFS:

Ralph Chapman, Esq.

Sara Bailey Russo, Esq.

Chapman, Lewis & Swan, PLLC

Ricky L. Boren, Esq.

Boren and Boyd

Skip E. Lynch, Esq.

Bruce E. Kaster, Esq.

Kyle Farrar, Esq.

Kaster, Lynch, Farrar & Ball, LLP

DEFENDANTS:

A. Scott Ross, Esq.

J. Isaac Sanders, Esq.

Neal & Harwell, PLC

T. Steven Harr, Esq.

Christopher Campbell, Esq.

Joel Dewey, Esq.

DLA Piper LLP

15. Special Equipment for Use at Trial:

The parties anticipate using the Court’s evidence presentation equipment. The parties

also will bring notebook computers, tablets, and with the Court’s permission, each party may set

up a printer in the courtroom during the course of the trial. The subject and companion tires and

wheels will be used during trial. The parties and their experts likely will use foam board


31

blowups, for which they can bring their own presentation easels. The parties and their witnesses

also may use flip charts, which the parties will supply themselves. One or more of the experts

may utilize scale models.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ S. Thomas Anderson

S. THOMAS ANDERSON

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: June 9, 2017


32

APPROVED FOR ENTRY:

BOREN AND BOYD

s/ Ricky L. Boren

Ricky L. Boren, No. 006312

114 South Liberty Street

Jackson, Tennessee 38301

(731) 423-3300

Attorney for Plaintiffs

NEAL & HARWELL, PLC

s/ A. Scott Ross

A. Scott Ross, No. 15634

1201 Demonbreun, Suite 1000

Nashville, Tennessee 37203

(615) 244-1713

Attorney for Defendants
