From what we can tell from the recent opinion in Race Tires America Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 2011 WL 1748620 (E.D. Pa. May 6, 2011), that case was one of those e-discovery wars where the parties went at one another hammer and tong, and for long periods e-discovery disputes all-but-obscured the merits of the suit. Id. at *5.
The underlying facts almost don’t matter. Suffice it to say that the plaintiff, a tire manufacturer, was caught outside looking in when the governing body for the “sport” of dirt-track auto racing signed an exclusive tire supply contract with a competitor. Plaintiff filed an anti-trust action as a result. That’s enough about the merits.
Plaintiff lost. Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 660 F. Supp.2d 590 (W.D. Pa. 2009). Plaintiff lost again on appeal. Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 614 F.3d 57 (3d Cir. 2010). Then it came time to pay the piper for all those e-discovery follies.
Please see full article below for more information.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.