## Facts

- A 15-passenger van crashed in Utah after a Cooper tire’s tread belt separated, causing a rollover that killed nine occupants and severely injured two.
- Survivors and heirs sued Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. and other defendants in federal court, alleging strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty.
- Plaintiffs alleged Cooper knew of a broader tread-separation problem in its tires and failed to correct the condition or warn consumers.
- Plaintiffs served expansive discovery requests seeking materials beyond the specific tire specification, plant, and narrow time period; the requests included confidential and trade-secret information.
- Cooper moved for a protective order and sought to limit discovery to the specific tire design/specification at issue, the plant at issue, and a limited time window around manufacture.
- A magistrate judge ordered Cooper to comply with most requests (denying requests relating to other complaints), finding the broader defect-and-knowledge theory supported broad discovery.
- The district court overruled Cooper’s objections and affirmed the magistrate judge’s discovery order.
- Cooper petitioned the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate the discovery order and to apply Rule 26(b) more narrowly.

## Issues

1. Whether Cooper established a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief vacating the district court’s discovery order.
2. Whether the district court grossly abused its discretion under Rule 26(b) in defining relevance and scope, rejecting undue-burden objections, and allowing discovery of alleged trade secrets subject to protective measures.
3. Whether mandamus was appropriate given the availability of ordinary appellate review after final judgment.

## Decision

- The court of appeals denied the petition for a writ of mandamus.
- Cooper failed to show a clear and indisputable right to relief from the discovery order.
- The court concluded mandamus was not appropriate under the circumstances, including because discovery orders are typically reviewable on appeal after final judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Mandamus is a drastic, extraordinary remedy requiring: (1) no other adequate means to obtain relief, (2) a clear and indisputable right to the writ, and (3) a determination that issuance is appropriate under the circumstances.
- Rule 26(b) permits broad discovery; the permissible scope may track the pleadings and the plaintiffs’ theory, including allegations of company-wide knowledge and a systemic defect.
- Alleged discovery error, even if arguable, generally does not justify mandamus absent a clear and indisputable abuse of discretion.
- Undue-burden concerns may be addressed through narrowing, cost mitigation, and case-management measures; disagreement with the district court’s balancing typically does not satisfy mandamus standards.
- Trade-secret or confidential information does not bar discovery when relevant and necessary and when protective orders or similar safeguards can reduce the risk of improper disclosure.
- Post-judgment appellate review usually provides an adequate remedy for discovery disputes, weighing against mandamus.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit refused to disturb the district court’s broad discovery order in a products-liability case, holding that Cooper did not meet the stringent mandamus requirements and that Rule 26(b) discretion, burden considerations, and confidentiality protections were not clearly misapplied.


In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir. 2009)