The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 3rd day of June, 2010, following a telephone conference with counsel of record in the above-captioned case on May 26, 2010, and it appearing that plaintiff Richard Martin ("Martin") seeks discovery from defendant Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company ("Goodyear"),*fn1 and that Goodyear contends that certain materials requested by Martin are not discoverable,*fn2 and the court concluding that Martin is entitled to request additional materials within the scope of his earlier discovery requests, but not beyond that scope, and the court further concluding that Martin's requests must be "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence[,]" FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1), it is hereby ORDERED that Goodyear's objections to Martin's discovery requests are sustained in part and
a. Request 1, concerning claims or complaints related to G159 tires, from 1998 to 2001,
b. Request 3, concerning communications between Goodyear and any RV manufacturer, from 1998 to 2001, related to performance or durability of G159 tires,
c. Request 4, concerning communications between Goodyear and any RV manufacturer, from 1998 to 2001, related to use of G159 tires on Class A motor homes,
d. Request 5, insofar as it concerns testing of G159 tires,*fn3
e. Request 7, insofar as it concerns design history of G159 tires,
f. Request 8, insofar as it concerns communications regarding G159 tires, from 1998 to 2001,
g. Request 9, insofar as it concerns Goodyear's analysis of G159 tires, and
h. Request 10, concerning communications between Goodyear and "A Weigh We Go."
2. Goodyear's objections are sustained in all other respects. Goodyear is not required to respond to Request 2, or any other requests for documentation concerning G670 tires; nor is Goodyear required to respond to Request 6, ...