We use cookies on this site to enable your digital experience. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our cookie policy. close

Haeger V. Goodyear: Just Put The Cookie Back In The Jar

Law360, New York (April 28, 2017, 11:19 AM EDT) -- In its sixty-six page sanctions order, the Arizona District Court noted twenty-five times that the tire manufacturer’s lawyers or its designee made false or misleading statements. See generally Haeger v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. et al., Order, No. CV-05-02024 (D. Ariz. Nov. 8, 2012).[1]

As to the manufacturer’s 30(b)(6) designee, the court wrote that “Goodyear’s 30(b)(6) witness provided false testimony but the falsity emerged only as a result of Goodyear’s inability to keep its falsehoods straight.” Id. at 38. By withholding the crucial tire testing and denying its existence, the court wrote, Goodyear and its lawyers “engaged in repeated and...

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.


  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS