MICHAEL ROBECK and SHEILA ROBECK, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant Civil No. 04-4858 (JNE/JJG) United States District Court, D. Minnesota Filed April 06, 2006 Counsel Daniel T. DeFeo, Gary Stoneking and Angela Cahill, Esqs., for Plaintiffs Theodore Dorenkamp, For Defendant Graham, Jeanne J., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the undersigned Magistrate Judge of the District Court on March 23, 2006, on Plaintiffs’ three discovery-related motions and Defendant’s four motions seeking to quash various depositions noticed by Plaintiffs. The matter has been referred to the undersigned for resolution of pretrial issues pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and D. Minn. L.R. 72.1. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Michael and Sheila Robeck, husband and wife, filed suit against Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) in November 2004. This products liability suit arises from a rollover crash of Plaintiffs’ 2001 Ford F-150 Supercab pickup truck in which the driver, Sheila Robeck, suffered severe injuries. Plaintiffs claim Ford is liable for various design and structure defects of the vehicle. Ford denies Plaintiffs’ claims. On March 23, 2006, the Court heard arguments on the following Plaintiffs’ motions: (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Request for Production (Doc. No. 120); (2) Motion for Order to Sanctions (Doc. No. 150); and (3) Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Fully Comply with the Court’s Order of November 9, 2005 (Doc. No. 153). The Court also heard argument on four motions to quash and for protective order filed by Ford regarding five depositions noticed by Plaintiffs. The Court ruled from the bench on Ford’s four motions, and the parties have begun the process of taking deposition testimony according to the Court’s oral order. Therefore, the Court will not repeat its findings regarding Defendant’s motions in the instant Order.[1] II. DISCUSSION A. Plaintiff’s Motions The numerous discovery disputes brought to the Court in Plaintiffs’ three motions very familiar to both the parties and this Court. Plaintiffs are once again before this Court alleging incomplete production of documents and information by Ford in response to Plaintiffs’ numerous discovery requests. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek additional production of documents and information from Ford in numerous areas relating to the Robecks’ vehicle and accident, and complain that Ford has failed to meet all of its obligations regarding production set forth in this Court’s Orders dated November 9, 2005, and January 6, 2006. While the Court finds that a number of issues raised in the Plaintiffs’ instant motions are familiar attempts to reach beyond the permitted scope of discovery in this case, the Court also finds that many of the issues raised by Plaintiffs regarding Ford’s discovery responses are meritorious, and that the Court is again required to intervene to compel Ford to comply with its discovery obligations. Accordingly, and as set forth below, Plaintiffs’ motions shall be granted in part and denied in part. Because there is sufficient overlap in the substance of the Plaintiffs’ motions, the Court will, to the extent possible, address the current disputes by categories of requested documents in an effort to avoid redundancy. 1. Categories of Discovery in which the Court Grants All or Part of Plaintiffs’ Request for Relief *2 From the arguments of counsel and the evidence presented at the hearing and in the moving papers, the Court concludes that Ford has failed to comply with its discovery obligations as well as with the Court’s Orders dated November 9, 2005, and January 6, 2006, in numerous areas of discovery. The Court will address each of these areas in turn. a. The Black Box Data The Robecks continue to contend that Ford has not provided complete information concerning the data available for download on the Robeck vehicle’s RCM or “black box.” Pursuant to the Court’s previous Order, Ford provided Plaintiffs’ counsel with a list of the data fields available for download, as well as the information needed to obtain a download pursuant to the RCM manufacturer’s procedures. The Court finds the evidence presented by the Robecks strongly suggests that Ford can gain access to more information on the RCM than it has identified as accessible to Plaintiffs. Therefore, Ford is ordered to provide Plaintiffs with an affidavit, sworn by a management level Ford representative with the appropriate knowledge, that identifies a list of all of the data fields and categories of information available to Ford from an RCM such as the one installed on the Robeck’s F-150 truck. This list shall include any information that is retrievable from the RCM through the use of the manufacturer’s downloading software or through other means known and available to Ford. The list shall further identify the method of access for each data field and category of information identified. The affidavit shall certify the accuracy and completeness of the information contained therein. Ford shall fully comply with this portion of the Court’s Order within two weeks of the date of this Order. b. Failure Mode and Effects Tests The Robecks presented to this Court a document identifying numerous tests they contend were conducted by Ford on the PN-96 model regarding “failure mode and effects analysis.” (See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Fully Comply with the Court’s Order of November 9, 2005, Exhibit 21). The Robecks state they have not received sufficient production of documents relating to these tests. Ford argues that this list represents tests that “could have” been conducted, but that it is not necessarily the case that all of the tests were actually performed. This Court has previously ordered Ford to produce all relevant and responsive documents concerning failure mode and effects tests. The Court now orders Ford to specifically identify which the tests included on Exhibit 21 of the Plaintiff’s motion(Doc. No. 153) were actually performed on the 1997-2003 PN-96 model, and to produce all of the underlying data from those tests, including, but not limited to, written reports, photographs, videotapes, diagrams, simulations, or other computer generated information. If Ford determines that it has already produced any such information, Ford shall provide to Plaintiffs the specific locations of any such information within Ford’s production. By specific location, the Court means bates-number ranges for specific documents or the specific directory paths and file names for any information produced electronically. The Court finds insufficient any general reference by Ford to an entire CD or other electronic storage device without a further specification of the directory path and file name for each responsive document. Ford shall fully comply with this Order on or before May 10, 2006.[2] c. Seat Integrated Restraint Tests *3 The Robecks complain that Ford has failed to fully produce documents relating to seat restraint tests pointing to documents Ford has already produced that identify other relevant tests that Ford has not yet produced. Ford suggests it is the Robecks’ responsibility to first look at the documents Ford has provided, and then to make additional more specific requests to Ford regarding the production of additional documents. As a preliminary matter, to the extent the Robecks are seeking car-to-car crash tests performed by Volvo that involved the F-series truck, the Court finds this information to be outside the scope of discovery and denies the Plaintiffs’ motion in this regard. Ford’s position regarding the proper procedure for its production of the seat restraint system documents is not persuasive. At the hearing before this Court on November 3, 2005, Ford represented that would complete its production regarding Plaintiffs’ requests for documents relating to safety advantages and disadvantages(Plaintiffs’ Document Request Nos. 57-60 and 77), including documents and information concerning seat restraint systems in the 1997-2003 PN-96, with a production to be delivered to Plaintiffs at the close of the hearing. In its November 9, 2005 Order, this Court ordered Ford to continue to produce any documents it subsequently identified as responsive to these request, and to do so no later than December 15, 2005. The Court rejects Ford’s contention that it was appropriate for Ford to provide some of the documents relating to seat restraint tests, and then wait for the Robecks to specifically request additional information based upon their review of the produced information. Ford’s obligations under the Federal Rules governing discovery and under this Court’s previous Order were to produce all relevant and responsive documents regarding seat restraint systems that were in Ford’s possession and control on or before December 15, 2005. To the extent Ford has failed to comply with this Court’s Order, whatever the reason, Ford is ordered to immediately supplement its production of documents and information in its possession regarding seat restraints systems on the 1997-2003 PN-96. This supplemental production shall include any underlying data and information obtained as a result of any relevant seat restraint tests. Issues regarding seat restraints are clearly a part of the Robecks’ claims in this lawsuit, and the Court will not tolerate any further delay in Ford’s full compliance with its obligation to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests on this topic. Ford is further ordered to provide Plaintiffs with the specific locations of its entire production of documents and information relating to seat restraint systems by indicating the bates-number ranges for each document or the specific directory path and file name for information produced electronically. Ford shall fully comply with this Order on or before May 10, 2006. d. Ford Vehicle Tests To the extent that Ford has not produced the underlying data (reports, photographs, diagrams, simulations, etc.) for tests performed by Ford on relevant components of the 1997-2003 PN-96, Ford is ordered to complete its production. Ford is not, however, obligated to produce test information regarding vehicles that are outside the scope of discovery in this case, such as the PN102 or the P-131. Ford shall fully comply with this portion of the Court’s Order within two weeks of the date of this Order. e. Redactions The Robecks complain that Ford has produced numerous documents containing redactions without any explanation for the redactions from Ford. Ford responds claiming that most of the redactions concern non-relevant information included in otherwise responsive documents. By way of example, the Robecks identified a report on roof crush in Ford light trucks authored by Ford engineer Bruno Barthelemy. The report, as produced by Ford, contains numerous “blank portions” scattered throughout the text of the document. Ford explains these “blanks” by stating that the particular version of the report it produced was not the “final” version of the report, and that the diagrams intended for inclusion in the report had not yet been inserted into the blank spaces. Ford further states that it has been unable to locate the “final” version of the report. Through the use of their own internal documents, counsel for the Robecks has adequately demonstrated the redaction to the report included diagrams relevant to the issues in this case. *4 Ford’s claim that it could not locate the final version of this Barthelemy report is suspect, especially in light ofthe fact that Ford has produced the final version in other accident-related litigation.[3] The Court is of the belief that the inadequate production of the Barthelemy report is but one example of a much more pervasive lack of full disclosure on the part of Ford Accordingly, the Court now orders Ford to produce a “Redaction Log” in order to allow Plaintiffs to evaluate the appropriateness of Ford’s numerous redactions on the basis of non-relevance. The Court intends this Redaction Log to operate similarly to a Rule 26(c) privilege log, in that it shall identify documents produced by Ford that contain redactions and identify the reason(s) for the redaction with enough specificity to allow Plaintiffs’ to evaluate the appropriateness of the redaction and challenge it if necessary. Ford shall also include in this Redaction Log documents identified by Plaintiffs as containing redactions that are not already included in the Log. The Court recognizes the volume of documents Ford has produced to date. Accordingly, the Court shall permit Ford to produce full and unredacted version of all of its responsive documents in lieu of providing the Redaction Log ordered here. Ford shall fully comply with this portion of the Court’s Order on or before May 10, 2006. f. Full Scale and CEA Testing The Robecks claim Ford has not fully responded to Document Request 2-5 in their Second Request for Production. These requests all relate to full scale and CAE testing on the PN-96 roof. Ford claims it has fully responded to Request 2, but that Plaintiffs have failed to conduct the required Rule 37.1 “meet and confer” regarding the Requests 3-5. The Court has reviewed the transcript of the parties’ “meet and confer” held on September 3, 2005, and finds sufficient evidence that the parties have discussed the insufficiency of Ford’s responses to each of these requests. In fact, Ford indicated at that time that it would find and produce the very information the Robecks now seek. Accordingly, the Court orders Ford to produce all relevant documents and information within the scope of discovery that Plaintiffs seek in Requests 2-5 of their Second Request for Production. Ford shall fully comply with this portion of the Court’s Order within two weeks of the date of this Order. g. “Pregnant Dummy” Testing To the extent Ford has not produce all relevant and responsive information regarding tests conducted with a pregnant female or with dummies with pregnancy simulated, or produced a privilege log identify those tests and related information Ford has withheld on the basis of privilege, Ford is order to complete its production in these regards. Ford is directed to produce all non-privileged information regarding these tests that is within the defined scope of discovery, including the underlying data and information. The Court specifically directs that production by Ford of only lists of conducted tests is insufficient to meet its obligations under this Order. Ford shall fully comply with this portion of the Court’s Order within two weeks of the date of this Order. h. SAE Article The Court finds the Ford document identified by Plaintiffs as “SAE Article - Factors Influencing Likelihood of Fatality and Serious/Fatal Injury in Single-Vehicle Rollover Crashes” to be relevant to the issues in this lawsuit. To the extent that Ford has not produced any of the underlying documents relating to this report that are within the discovery scope in this case, the Court orders Ford to produce these underlying documents and information. To the extent Ford claims it has already produced the underlying documents and information, Ford shall specifically identify where within its production this information exists by indicating the bates-number ranges for these documents, or in the cases of electronic documents, the directory path and file name for each produced document. Ford shall fully comply withthis portion of the Court’s Order on or before May 10, 2006. i. Alternative Design *5 The scope and sufficiency of alternative design discovery has emerged as one of the most contentious areas of dispute between the parties in this case. While this is perhaps a complex area of discovery from a substantive standpoint, the Court’s Orders have been clear regarding the permitted boundaries of alternative design discovery in case. The Court has also provided clear instructions regarding the procedures to be followed for providing the Robecks with access to sophisticated electronic information produced by Ford as responsive to the Plaintiffs’ alternative designs requests. In view of the Court’s Orders and instructions, the Court continues to be perplexed by the parties’ continuing inability to cooperatively and productively engage in the exchange of discovery in this area. The Court rejects the interpretations of the scope of alternative design discovery set forth in both parties’ moving papers, and reiterates the scope as defined in the Court’s prior Orders. In the area of alternative design Ford is required to produce responsive information concerning the 2004 model year Ford F-150 that was known or available to it prior to December 21, 2001. In the interest of clarity, and to bring the parties to a uniform understanding of the alternative design scope in this case, the Court will further delineate the boundaries intended by the established scope of discovery. Plaintiffs in this case shall be permitted to examine, and Ford shall thus produce, documents and information concerning the design of the 2004 F-150 (P-221) as it was known to Ford on or before December 21, 2001. Plaintiffs shall also be permitted to examine, and Ford shall thus produce, documents and information concerning any component that has been identified as relevant to this lawsuit that was actively considered by Ford’s engineers to be included on the P-221 during the development and design process or had been finalized for inclusion on the P-221 as of that same date. To be clear, this includes documents and information regarding theoretical version and prototype version of the P-221, and is not limited only to those components that were known to be a part of the final “as manufactured” 2004 F-150 as of December 21, 2001. Furthermore, the discovery scope for alternative design in this case does not include any and every possible component of any vehicle that Ford could have considered for inclusion on the P-221 on or before December 21, 2001. Again, the Court makes it clear that the alternative design discovery scope is intended to include those components that Ford actually did consider for inclusion on the P-221, whether at the conceptual phase, the initial design phase, the prototype phase or the production phase, and whether or not the component ultimately became a part of the production version of the 2004 F-150. The Court is aware that the vast majority of the responsive alternative design information in the possession of Ford is in electronic form. Based upon the representations of the parties, the information is contained in I-DEAS files that are only viewable through specific software that Ford holds a license to, but the Plaintiffs do not. In an Order dated January6, 2006, this Court ordered a joint-viewing of the I-DEAS files produced to the Robecks by Ford. The Order also set forth specific procedures and requirements for the joint-viewing session. The Court was disappointed to learn of the failure by the parties to meet the objectives of the joint-viewing. The Court has considered the positions of the parties regarding the problems experienced at the joint-viewing and concludes that Ford is largely at fault for the failures. Ford’s inability or plain refusal, or some combination of both, to provide Plaintiffs’ counsel access to the I-DEAS files on the CDs Ford produced in response to Plaintiffs’ alternative design requests essentially rendered the entire joint-viewing exercise useless. The Court’s Order made clear the objectives of the joint-viewing, yet Ford appears to have confined the words in the Court’s Order to their most literal meanings, which served to prevent the attainment of these objectives. The result was a substantial waste of time and resources. *6 The Robecks are entitled to examine discoverable alternative design information contained in the I-DEAS files produced by Ford. Accordingly, the Court will again require a joint-viewing between the parties to allow for this access. In light of the Court’s finding that Ford is largely responsible for the failure of the previously ordered viewing session, the Court orders a second joint-viewing to occur as follows: The Court’s Second Ordered Joint-Viewing A. Defendant shall provide a room at its Claycomo, Missouri Assembly Plant that contains two functional work stations that are equivalent to those normally used by Ford engineers and other employees for accessing the I-DEAS system, along with all of the components necessary for fully viewing the I-DEAS files described herein. Based on the parties’ representations, this shall include both a UNIX based system, as used by Ford engineers, as well as a PC-based workstation as used by Ford’s Office of General Counsel. Ford shall make available within that room operators knowledgeable in gaining accessing to the I-DEAS system in general, as well as knowledgeable in accessing and viewing those I-DEAS files produced by Ford in response to the alternative design discovery requests in this case. Any access codes or login codes necessary for full viewing capabilities shall be provided to the operators, and the operators shall provide counsel for the Robecks with the opportunity to view the I-DEAS files on the CDs produced by Ford. B. Because this Order obligates Ford to produce additional alternative design information in light of the clarification of the discovery scope, Ford shall provide all I-DEAS files produced in response to the alternative design discovery requests in electronic format on CDs. The CDs produced by Ford shall be provided in both UNIX and PC-based formats. In addition, Ford is ordered to provide the Robecks with CD copies of the already produced alterative design I-DEAS files in UNIX format (it is the Court’s understanding that Ford originally produced these files only in PC-based format). The purpose of this requirement is to avoid a repeat of the access problems that occurred at the first joint-viewing, and to allow the Robecks to have access to these files as they are kept in Ford’s ordinary course of business, i.e., in both the UNIX and PC-based formats. C. The parties shall view the I-DEAS files produced by Ford in response to the alternative design discovery via the CDs produced by Ford or from the databases and file systems accessed by Ford engineers in the ordinary course of business. No other source for the I-DEAS files shall be substituted or permitted. D. Ford shall produce all responsive electronic alternative design information that is in the form of I-DEAS files on CDs as described herein no less than three business days prior to the date of the scheduled joint-viewing. The parties shall agree to a specific date or dates, sometime after May 10, 2006, but prior to May31, 2006, on which the joint viewing will occur, and shall reach such agreement not later then the close of business on Friday, April 14, 2006. E. At the time Ford produces the CDs containing the discovery responses that are the subject of this joint-viewing, Ford shall also provide to Plaintiffs identifying information regarding the type and volume of files contained on the CDs. This information shall be specific enough to allow Plaintiffs to reasonably estimate the amount of time needed for conducting and completing the joint viewing. Defendant shall also provide to Plaintiffs no later than three business days prior to the appointed date of the joint viewing information available to Ford regarding an operator’s use of the I-DEAS system, including practical instructions on how to use the software for viewing files in the ordinary course of business. This user information shall include information authored by Ford or by other third-parties that are used by Ford employees to assist in their access and use of the I-DEAS file system during their ordinary course of business. *7 F. Nothing in this Order is intended to authorize or permit Plaintiffs to access files and materials legitimately protected by the attorney-client privilege, or the opinions, mental impressions, or intangible work product of Defendant’s attorneys. As with all other discovery in this case, Defendant are entitled to withhold relevant and responsive I-DEAS files on the grounds of an asserted privilege. Ford shall provide Plaintiffs on the first day scheduled for joint viewing with a complete and adequate privilege log identifying, pursuant to the Federal Rules, those files and materials withheld on the basis of a privilege or protection. Ford shall update this log with any additional withholdings from production that arise during the course of the viewing and produce the completed log no later than three business days after the completion of the joint viewing by the parties. G. These procedures, all documents described herein and the I-DEAS files viewed by the Plaintiffs at the joint viewing are subject to the existing Protective Order entered by the Court in this case. The parties are bound by the terms of that Order. H. Each party shall bear the costs and expenses associated with compliance with this Order. I. If the Court determines that either party has failed to abide by the procedures and directives of the Court regarding this second joint-viewing, the imposition of sanctions will result. These sanction could include the ordered exclusion of some or all alternative design evidence at trial and/or Court ordered opening of Ford’s corporate databases and file systems for monitored access by Plaintiffs to ensure compliance with its discovery obligations in this matter, or other sanctions the Court deems appropriate. With regards to any responsive information regarding alternative design that Ford may produce under this Order that is not in I-DEAS file format, Ford shall produce any and all such responsive information to Plaintiffs within fourteen days of the date of this Order. 2. Categories of Discovery in which the Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Request for Relief To the extent Plaintiffs’ requests are not specifically addressed above, the Court expressly denies the remaining parts of Plaintiffs’ motions. The Court specifically addresses the following categories of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests: a. Other Similar Incidents The Court finds it unnecessary to clarify its prior Order regarding the substance of Ford’s production obligations concerning other similar accidents. The Court finds its Order dated November 9, 2005, clearly indicates that Ford’s production of “other similar accidents” in the relevant areas would be in the form of “lists.” b. Design Verification Plan Reports The Court finds the Robecks have failed to demonstrate that Ford has withheld from its production responsive information regarding Design Verification Plan Reports. However, while it is clear to the Court that the full Design Verification Plan Report for Ford Light Trucks is beyond the scope of discovery in this case, the Court reminds Ford of its obligations under this Order to provide a “Redaction Log” to Plaintiffs’ for any redactions present in Ford’s production of documents and information. This would include, of course, appropriate entries for any pages redacted from the Design Verification Plan Report for Ford Light Trucks from which Ford has only produced two non-sequential pages. c. PN-96 Risk of Rollover, Stability & Handling and Rollover Resistance Ford has repeatedly denied that the PN-96 was to be equipped with Interactive Vehicle Dynamics (“IVD”) technology, despite the Robecks’ continuing insistence to the contrary. While the Robecks offer the Court certain documents they claim demonstrate the inclusion of IVD on the PN-96, the Court finds the information contained in these documents to be theoretical and speculative. The documents do not provide definitive evidence that the PN-96 was to be equipped with IVD. Accordingly, the Court is obliged to accept the representations of Ford regarding its production in this area. d. Privilege Logs *8 The issue of privilege logs was fully addressed in this Court’s Order dated November 9, 2005, and the Court finds no reason to revisit it here. The Court reminds the parties of their obligations under Federal Rule 26(c), and of the availability of sanctions in the form of a waiver of privilege in the event of a party’s under-achievement in meeting these obligations. e. Organization of Production The Robecks complain that Ford has produced information in obsolete computer format, and that some of the CDs produced by Ford contain “shuffled files.” The Robecks seek production of indexes for this electronically produced information in Microsoft XP and Summation Format. Ford represents that it has produced the information in the “condition and organizational scheme” that they were located in when Ford located and identified them, and as they were kept in the ordinary course of business. While the Robecks may desire to have Ford produce information in a format that is compatible with their own computer systems and trial preparation software, the discovery rules only require Ford to do what they represent they have done–produce documents and information in as it is kept in the ordinary course of business. That said, the Court reminds Ford of its obligations under certain parts of this Order to provide the directory paths and file names for documents Ford identifies as responsive to certain discovery requests by Plaintiffs. The Court’s Order in regard to the Ford’s identification of the location of the specified documents is intended to include those documents located on the CDs and the SCSI drive produced to Plaintiffs by Ford. f. Prasad/Skogsmo Correspondence Relating to Volvo and Rollover Accidents The Court finds the Robecks are seeking information that is far afield from the clearly defined scope of discovery in this case. The Court has repeatedly stated that documents and information concerning Volvo are not within the scope of discovery. g. Suspension Order The Court finds no reason to revisit its previous Orders regarding the Suspension Orders. The Court has previously found that the Suspension Orders are privileged documents. The Court reiterates here that its finding of privilege applies only to the Suspension Order itself, and that any underlying document that is relevant and response to a specific substantive discovery request in this case must be produced (without any reference to its identification as a part of the Suspension Order). The Court separately notes that counsel for the Robecks has gained access to a copy of the Suspension Order at the center of this dispute through sources outside the instant lawsuit, and Plaintiffs are thus fully aware of its contents. III. CONCLUSION Based uponthe arguments of counsel, the memoranda of the parties and the entire record and file, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Request for Production(Doc. No. 120) is GRANTED IN PARTAND DENIED IN PART as set forth in the substance of this order; 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order to Sanctions (Doc. No. 150) is GRANTED IN PARTAND DENIED IN PART as set forth in the substance of this order; and 3. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Fully Comply with the Court’s Order of November 9, 2005 (Doc. No. 153) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth in the substance of this order. *9 4. Production of discovery under this Order is due according to the specific dates set forth in each subsection of the Order. The parties shall resolve any ambiguity in these specific deadlines by providing the responsive documents or information no later than May 10, 2006. 5. The deadline for fact discovery set forth in the Pretrial Scheduling Order, as modified under prior Orders of this Court, shall be extended to May 31, 2006. Footnotes [1] The Court issued a Minute Order, dated March 23, 2006, setting forth the disposition of each of the Defendant’s motions to quash. This Minute Order can be found at Docket Number 185. [2] Currently, the parties are scheduled for a settlement conference on May 3, 2006. The Court forewarns the parties that it will not entertain a motion to extend the May 10, 2006 production deadline in the event the case does not settle. [3] In fact, at a hearing before this Court on April 4, 2006, regarding a separate motion, the Court was informed that Ford was able to locate a version of the Barthelemy report that included the diagrams missing from its first production less than one week after the Plaintiffs brought the issue to the Court’s attention on March 23, 2006.