Judge to limit expert witnesses in Toyota cases, discovery to begin soon

Judge to limit expert witnesses in Toyota cases

SANTA ANA, Calif. — A federal judge overseeing sprawling litigation against Toyota Motor Corp. indicated Wednesday he will not allow plaintiffs’ attorneys to call expert witnesses who work for the carmaker’s competitors.

In tentative opinions, U.S. District Court Judge James v. Selna also indicated he believes Toyota has the ability to compel dealerships to preserve evidence from defective cars they inspect, even though the carmaker’s attorneys argued the dealerships fall outside their authority.

Selna also appeared to reject Toyota’s bid to freeze discovery on the merits of non-class action claims until the class action cases could be certified — a process plaintiffs attorneys said outside court could take a year or more.

He also indicated he would allow federal attorneys in the Toyota cases to share confidential and propriety information about Toyota vehicles with plaintiffs’ attorneys handling cases in state courts in Texas, New York and California — but only with strict controls, careful scrutiny and prior notification to Toyota attorneys.

The judge is expected to issue a final written order on all of those issues within the next few days.

Resolution on the questions raised at the two-hour hearing should clear the way for attorneys on both sides to start exchanging information and taking depositions in the massive litigation, which touches on more than 320 lawsuits in state and federal court. Selna appeared to agree to a limited first phase of discovery spread over anywhere between 75 and 120 days, while plaintiffs’ attorneys handling personal injury and wrongful death claims said they would provide fact sheets on their clients to Toyota for review.

Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed in federal and state court against the Japanese automaker after it began its recall because of acceleration problems in several models and brake glitches with the Prius hybrid.

Toyota blamed faulty floor mats and sticky accelerator pedals for the unintended acceleration. Some plaintiffs also claim that there is a defect with Toyota’s electronic throttle control system, but Toyota denies that.

The court will also take great pains to make sure as much of the proceedings as possible are open the public while balancing it with Toyota’s concerns about the exposure of its proprietary information, Selna said.

“The material ought to be available to be shared … and I think Toyota acknowledges that,” Selna said.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have already provided Toyota with requests to take testimony from witnesses in 23 categories, said Mark Robinson Jr., an attorney overseeing the personal injury cases against Toyota.

The complex case is structured so that depositions and evidence turned over by Toyota in the consolidated federal case will be shared with attorneys, judges and plaintiffs suing the automaker in state courts nationwide. Such a system means that witnesses won’t have to be questioned multiple times, thereby speeding up litigation.

One issue that provoked debate at the hearing involved how much highly confidential information plaintiffs’ attorneys working on the federal case could share with their counterparts in state cases in other locations.

Plaintiffs’ attorney bridled at Toyota’s suggestion that access to the most confidential information — such as computer source codes — be restricted to a small number of people in the federal case. Such a rule would result in a “two-tier system” that would cut out a large number of plaintiffs, said Wylie Aitken, a plaintiff attorney.

“They have to feel that they’re part of what’s going on in this courtroom and the judges that we’re going to be working with, whether it be Texas or Florida, they want to feel that their litigants are getting the same type of treatment,” Aitken said.

But Toyota attorney Lisa Gilford said some of the information that will be placed in evidence at trial is extremely sensitive and any leaks could severely damage Toyota’s competitiveness.

“We want to have a further line of control for that trade secret and information that could be damaging should it get out into the wrong hands,” she told the judge. “We think the access to that should be controlled by the court.”

The next hearing, to discuss the details of the first phase of discovery, is scheduled for July 20.