# Hester

> District Court, E.D. Tennessee · October 14, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11170557

## Case

- **Full name:** Todd G. Hester v. Candido’s Inc. d/b/a Candido’s Towing & Repair, and Richard Jacobs; Todd G. Hester v. Miller Industries International, Inc., Miller Industries Towing Equipment Inc., and Miller Industries, Inc.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** October 14, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11170557

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE

TODD G. HESTER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 3:25-CV-30-KAC-DCP
)
CANDIDO’S INC. d/b/a )
CANDIDO’S TOWING & REPAIR, and )
RICHARD JACOBS, )
)
Defendants. )
)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
TODD G. HESTER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 3:25-CV-121-KAC-DCP
)
MILLER INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
MILLER INDUSTRIES TOWING )
EQUIPMENT INC., and )
MILLER INDUSTRIES, INC. )
)
Defendants. )

ORDER

This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02.
Now before the Court is the Motion for Preservation of Evidence and Inspection of Motor
Vehicle [Doc. 34], filed by Defendants Miller Industries International, Inc., Millier Industries
Towing Equipment Inc., and Miller Industries, Inc. (collectively, “Miller Industries”). They claim
that “[a]t the heart of this case is the Candido tow truck that rear ended a tractor double trailer
operated by Plaintiff while the Candido tow truck was towing a UPS tractor double trailer in a
mountainous area of Kentucky and Tennessee and claimed to have no air brakes available” [Id. at
2]. On June 27, 2025, counsel for Miller Industries sent a preservation letter to counsel for
Candido’s Inc., d/b/a Candido’s Towing & Repair (“Candido’s Inc.”) [Id.]. According to Miller

Industries, “the letter requests not only the preservation of relevant evidence regarding stopping
and braking that would be contained in on board computer data[] but also the letter requests an
inspection” [Id. at 2–3 (footnote omitted)]. They state, “No dates have been provided and no
assurance provided that the Candido vehicle is in the condition as it was immediately post-accident
or that any data from an ECM or EDR is available” [Id. at 3].
Miller Industries further submits that “this Court has the authority to preserve the integrity
of the discovery process and prevent any spoliation that would lead to an adverse instruction to the
jury” [Id.]. In addition, they claim that “[Rule] 34(a)(2) [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]
permits the requesting party to ‘enter onto land or property possessed or controlled by another
party so as to inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or object’” [Id.

(citation omitted)]. Miller Industries contends, “A video produced in discovery depicts a Candido
employee disassembling certain air line tubes and fittings outside the presence of other parties or
counsel” [Id.]. They therefore “request[] that the Court grant this motion for the preservation of
the tow truck and component parts and grant the non-possessory parties leave to inspect the tow
truck and component parts pursuant to a protocol established among the parties” [Id.].
As to Miller Industries’ first request, a preservation order, it is not necessary. See Swetlic
Chiropractic & Rehab. Ctr., Inc. v. Foot Levelers, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-236, 2016 WL 1657922, at
*2 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 27, 2016) (“Generally, preservation orders are unnecessary because parties to
civil litigation have ‘a duty to preserve relevant information’” (quoting John B. v. Goetz, 531 F.3d
448, 459 (6th Cir. 2008)). As to Miller Industries’ second request, to compel an inspection, “Rule
37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to file a motion for an order compelling
inspection if another party fails to grant inspection pursuant to a proper Rule 34 request.” Access
4 All, Inc. v. W & D Davis Inv. Co., No. CIV.A. 2:06-CV-504, 2007 WL 614091, at *1 (S.D. Ohio
Feb. 21, 2007).' But prior to filing such motion, the parties must meet and confer, and if they
cannot resolve the issues, they may contact the undersigned [Doc. 32 pp. 2-3; see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(a) (explaining that “[t]he motion must include a certification that the movant has in
good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or
discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action”)]. Miller Industries has not complied with
this procedure. Given that, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion [Doc. 34].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER: _

Debra C. Poplin WO
United States Magistrate Judge

It is not clear from the filings whether Miller Industries served a formal Rule 34 request.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11170557. Public record. Not legal advice.