From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Allison v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Aug 19, 2010
MDL 875, EDPA CIVIL NO. 07-69104 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2010)

Summary

concluding that, although settlement admissions were relevant to the defense's case on damages and apportionment of fault, Rule 408 prohibits the use of settlement negotiations for these exact purposes

Summary of this case from Agrofresh Inc. v. Essentiv LLC

Opinion

MDL 875, EDPA CIVIL NO. 07-69104.

August 19, 2010


ORDER


AND NOW, this 19th day of August, 2010, upon consideration of the letter briefs provided by Plaintiff and Defendant, Goodyear, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Request for disclosure of allegations of asbestos exposure contained in Plaintiff's settlement releases is DENIED.


Summaries of

Allison v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Aug 19, 2010
MDL 875, EDPA CIVIL NO. 07-69104 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2010)

concluding that, although settlement admissions were relevant to the defense's case on damages and apportionment of fault, Rule 408 prohibits the use of settlement negotiations for these exact purposes

Summary of this case from Agrofresh Inc. v. Essentiv LLC

denying motion to compel seeking allegations of asbestos exposure contained in settlement releases

Summary of this case from Ferguson v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.

recognizing "the interplay of Rule 26 with Federal Rule of Evidence 408, which states that information regarding settlements and negotiation is inadmissible if offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or amount of a claim."

Summary of this case from Agrofresh Inc. v. Essentiv LLC
Case details for

Allison v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co.

Case Details

Full title:DOUGLAS M. ALLISON v. GOODYEAR TIRE RUBBER CO

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Aug 19, 2010

Citations

MDL 875, EDPA CIVIL NO. 07-69104 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2010)

Citing Cases

Agrofresh Inc. v. Essentiv LLC

In the present case, the court must weigh the liberal relevance standard of Rule 26 against the policy of…

Reulet v. Lamorak Ins. Co.

See Plaintiffs' responses and objections to these requests at R. Doc. 181-7, pp. 7-8, 11-12. See also R. Doc.…