gestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, successor to
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (Firestone) and Ford Motor Company (Ford) and move pursuant
to sections 74.161-.164 of the Texas Government Code and Texas Rule of Judicial
Administration 13 for transfer of the related Firestone/Ford cases listed in Appendix A to a
pretrial court for coordinated pretrial proceedings. In support of their motion, Firestone and Ford
would show the MDL panel as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Firestone and Ford are defendants in hundreds of cases pending throughout the country,
all of which involve claims of defects in certain Ford vehicles and Firestone tires. Many of these
cases were filed after Firestone voluntarily recalled approximately 6.5 million P235/75R15 ATX,
ATX II, and Wilderness AT tires on August 9, 2000. In Texas, over 300 tire cases have been
filed against Firestone and Ford. The Presiding Judges in eight of the nine Administrative
Judicial Regions in Texas (every region in which Firestone and Ford requested the assignment of
a Rule 11 pretrial judge), agreed to utilize Rule 11 for the pretrial coordination of almost every
one of the pre-September 1, 2003 Firestone/Ford cases. While a large number of these cases
have been resolved, either through settlement pursuant to the Rule 11 mediation/settlement
guidelines, dismissal or non-suit, new cases are still being filed against Firestone and Ford after
2
September 1, 2003.
Because the filing of new Firestone/Ford cases has continued after September 1, 2003,
Firestone and Ford now file this motion requesting that the MDL Panel appoint a Rule 13 MDL
Pretrial Judge for the post-September 1, 2003 Firestone/Ford cases. As Firestone and Ford
interpret Rule 13, a single judge is to be appointed as an MDL Pretrial Judge. See T
EX
.

R.

J
UD
.

A
DMIN
.

13.6(a). If that is the case, Firestone and Ford believe that the Honorable K. Michael
Mayes, Judge of the 410th Judicial District Court and the Rule 11 Pretrial Judge for the
Firestone/Ford cases coordinated pursuant to Texas Rule of Judicial Administration 11 in the
Second Administrative Judicial Region, would be the most logical choice to be appointed the
new Rule 13 MDL Pretrial Judge, for the reasons explained below.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
A.
The Firestone/Ford Cases in Appendix A Involve Common Questions of Fact.

In order to transfer cases to a pretrial court for coordinated pretrial proceedings, the cases
must involve one (or more) common questions of fact. See T
EX
.

G
OV T
C
ODE
§ 74.162. The
cases listed in Appendix A, which were filed on or after September 1, 2003, involve many
common questions of fact.

For example, the post-September 1, 2003 Firestone/Ford cases involve sport-utility-type
vehicles, or, in the Pressley case, a truck. Aragon Petition at 3 (1998 Ford Explorer);
1
Ratliff
Petition at 4 (Ford Explorer); Pressley Petition at 4 (truck). Similarly, all of the post September
1, 2003 cases involve a tire manufactured by a Firestone entity and a tire event concerning

1
Firestone and Ford have not attached evidence, pursuant to Texas Rule of Judicial Administration 13.3(j), which
states The MDL Panel will accept as true facts stated in the motion, response, or reply unless another party
contradicts them. A party may file evidence with the MDL Panel Clerk only with leave of the MDL Panel. The
MDL Panel may order parties to submit evidence by affidavit or deposition and to file documents, discovery, or
stipulations from related cases. (emphasis added). Firestone and Ford are prepared to submit their evidence to the
MDL Panel upon order of the Panel.
3
failure of the tire (usually a tread separation), and a vehicle incident, usually a rollover or a
collision. Aragon Petition at 3 (right rear tread separation; loss of control; rollover); Ratliff
Petition at 4 (right rear tread separation; loss of control; rollover); Pressley Petition at 4 (left
front detread; collision with Plaintiffs vehicle). All the cases also include causes of action for
strict liability and negligence. Aragon Petition at 3-7; Ratliff Petition at 5-9; Pressley Petition at
4-6.
The fact patterns in the Aragon, Ratliff, and Pressley cases mirror the fact patterns found
in the pre-September 1, 2003 cases already coordinated under Rule 11. The cases coordinated in
the Rule 11 Firestone/Ford litigation typically involve a Firestone or Firestone-related entity tire
event, primarily a tread separation, allegedly leading to loss of control. These tire events usually
involve sport-utility vehicles, primarily Ford Explorers, but can also involve other types of
vehicles. Similarly, just as with the post-September 1, 2003 cases, the Rule 11 coordinated cases
all allege tire failure and/or tread separation, loss of control of the vehicle, and that the vehicle
rolled over or was involved in an accident or collision. Additionally, the pre-September 1, 2003
cases include causes of action for strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty.
As in the pre-September 1, 2003 Firestone/Ford cases, the plaintiffs in the post-
September 1, 2003 cases have (or likely will) make the following allegations in their cases:
1.
Plaintiffs typically allege products liability claims against Firestone.
2.
Plaintiffs typically allege negligence claims against Firestone.
3.
The cases typically involve allegations relating to tires and stability of
vehicles.
4.
The cases typically involve allegations of tire failure of some kind.
5.
The cases typically involve allegations of tread/belt separations in
Firestone tires.
4
6.
The cases typically involve allegations of loss of control of the vehicle,
resulting in rollover accidents in the vast majority of cases.
7.
Plaintiffs typically allege that the tires were not properly designed.
8.
Plaintiffs typically allege that the tires were not properly manufactured.
9.
Plaintiffs typically allege that the tires were not properly marketed.
10.
Plaintiffs typically allege that Firestone failed to adequately warn about
the tire.
11.
Plaintiffs typically claim that Firestone tires are designed with inadequate
component gauges, including but not limited to innerliner gauge, interbelt
gauge, belt wedge gauge, and W7 gauge.
12. Plaintiffs typically claim that Firestone tires are manufactured with
inadequate component gauges, including but not limited to inner liner
gauge, interbelt gauge, belt wedge gauge, and W7 gauge.
13.
Plaintiffs typically claim or attempt to show that Firestone tires were
manufactured with defective rubber compounds, particularly in the belt
package.
14.
Plaintiffs typically want to depose the same defendants witnesses from
Firestone and Ford.
15.
Plaintiffs typically seek and list as trial exhibits the same defendants
documents from Firestone.
16.
Plaintiffs always want to introduce evidence regarding the August 2000
tire recall, other voluntary product replacement programs, and the
Engineering Analysis Report and Initial Decision issued by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
17.
Plaintiffs always seek to demonstrate that the tire recall issues apply to
their particular tire regardless of whether the tire was recalled.
18.
The experts typically designated by Plaintiffs and Defendants overlap
among the cases.
19.
Plaintiffs argue all Firestone tires should have been recalled.
Additionally, the post-September 1, 2003 cases will also involve other common issues of law and
fact relevant to pretrial coordination, including issues relating to venue, the scope of discovery,
the production of documents, corporate representative depositions, trial consolidation, the
5
admissibility of expert opinions, and the scheduling of trials.

The Firestone/Ford cases listed in Appendix A satisfy the requirement that the related
cases involve a common question of fact.
B.
Transfer of These Related Cases Would Be Convenient for the Parties and
Witnesses and Would Promote the Just and Efficient Conduct of the Cases.


As discussed above, coordinated pretrial proceedings are already in place in Texas
Administrative Judicial Regions one through eight for the Firestone/Ford cases filed prior to
September 1, 2003. In ordering Rule 11 pretrial coordination for the pre-September 1, 2003
Firestone/Ford cases, the administrative Judges of Regions one through eight found that pretrial
coordination would promote the just and efficient conduct of the cases. T
EX
.

R.

J
UD
.

A
DMIN
.
11.4(h)(2).
Rule 11 pretrial coordination of the Firestone/Ford litigation has been an outstanding
success. For example, at the outset of the Firestone/Ford litigation, the Rule 11 pretrial judges
worked together to implement a single Case Management Order that would govern all
coordinated cases in Texas. That Case Management Order addresses such issues as appointment
of Plaintiffs and Defendants Steering Committees; filing and service of documents; discovery
dispute resolution; evidence preservation and retention; establishment of a document depository;
interim protective orders; tire and vehicle inspection; master written discovery; core or
litigation-wide discovery; scheduling order deadlines; and certification of cases for trial. This
Case Management Order was largely the product of negotiations between the Defendants
Steering Committee and the Plaintiffs Steering Committee (of which counsel for the Aragon
case, Mr. Ammons, is a member). The Rule 11 pretrial judges have also worked together to
establish uniform mediation guidelines and to address issues of statewide application, and
judicial