(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a

columnist for Reuters.)

By Jenna Greene

Nov 20 (Reuters) - "This is not our first rodeo."

So said plaintiffs' lawyer Brett Schreiber, fresh off a $243

million win against Tesla before a Miami jury, who was squaring

off against the automaker at a hearing Monday over another

wrongful-death lawsuit.

Schreiber, co-founder of plaintiffs' firm Singleton

Schreiber, is suing Tesla in San Francisco federal court on

behalf of the family of a California man who died in a 2023

crash that occurred when the car's Autopilot system was

allegedly engaged.

Already, he and Tesla's lawyers at Nelson Mullins Riley &

Scarborough are sparring over discovery. Schreiber sought court

permission to share confidential information from Tesla with

other plaintiffs' attorneys litigating similar self-driving tech

cases against the automaker. In an early win for the company,

the judge denied his motion at the preliminary hearing and asked

the parties to come back with revised proposals - but more on

that later.

Schreiber told me that, by his estimate, at least 20

lawsuits have been filed to date by people who blame Tesla for

crashes that allegedly occurred while the vehicles were in

Autopilot mode. Most of the cases have been resolved or

dismissed before trial.

Schreiber was the first to prevail before a jury. Three

months ago, jurors in Miami federal court found Tesla partly

responsible for a 2019 fatal crash involving an

Autopilot-equipped Model S. They awarded $129 million in

compensatory damages plus $200 million in punitive damages.

Tesla, which has denied wrongdoing, has said it will appeal

the verdict. A Tesla spokesperson did not respond to requests

for comment on the case or other litigation related to the

company's self-driving technology.

Tesla lawyers have argued that driver error is to blame for

the crashes. The Autopilot system, which can steer, accelerate

and brake by itself, doesn't make the cars autonomous and

requires a "fully attentive driver" who can "take over at any

moment," Tesla warns its customers.

Those arguments carried the day for Tesla in the first two

Autopilot-related cases to go to trial, both heard by California

state court juries in 2023.

Schreiber's San Francisco complaint, which was filed last year,

makes arguments that echo the Miami case. The suit alleges Tesla

has "continuously misrepresented its cars' ability to provide

safe, autonomous driving" and that the Autopilot design is

defective.

In 2023, 33-year-old Genesis Giovanni Mendoza Martinez was

killed while driving his 2014 Model S on a Bay Area freeway

early in the morning, and his brother Caleb was injured. The car

crashed into a parked firetruck that had stopped to respond to

another incident.

In moving to dismiss a swath of the case earlier this year,

Tesla argued that the suit "represents a deeply flawed attempt

to take products liability and fraud law where it has never gone

before." Company lawyers said that alleged misrepresentations

about self-driving technology from CEO Elon Musk - for example,

he said Autopilot was "probably better" than human drivers

- were not actionable because they were either opinions or

predictions about the future.

In a May ruling, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria kept the

claims alive.

"It can be reasonably inferred that Musk - the CEO of a

major car company who repeatedly told investors and press that

his company's cars would soon be fully self-driving- had special

knowledge about the subject," Chhabria wrote.

As the litigation gets underway, discovery has been a hot

spot.

Schreiber asked the court to issue a protective order that would

include a provision allowing him to share materials he gets from

Tesla with other plaintiffs' lawyers litigating Autopilot cases

against the company. Such an order would allow him to provide

information such as design and engineering materials related to

the Model S.

Sharing provisions can promote efficiency when the same

information is repeatedly sought in multiple suits, Schreiber

argued, noting that Tesla "routinely agreed" to such terms in

the early years of the Autopilot defect litigation.

Tesla lawyers opposed the move, objecting in court papers to

"Plaintiffs' attorneys' aspirations to become a clearing house

of Tesla trade secret information."

Tesla said the trade secret design and engineering

information relevant to the case "is still of significant

commercial value, and Tesla goes to substantial lengths to

protect that information from disclosure."

If other litigants want information, they should first have

to show it's specifically relevant to their case and ask the

court for access, they said.

Similar spats over plaintiffs' lawyers' requests to share

evidence gleaned in discovery have arisen in other mass tort

cases. For example, plaintiffs' lawyers in litigation over

alleged sexual assaults by Uber drivers sought court permission

to use confidential documents obtained in other cases involving

the ride-sharing company, as I wrote last year, with mixed

success.

Schreiber has another ongoing Autopilot case against Tesla in

San Diego and settled a fourth case in the Northern District of

California in September.

In an interview, he noted that Tesla was hit with

"substantial" sanctions for discovery abuses in the Miami case,

though court records detailing the episode are sealed. Sharing

provisions are a way to make sure the relevant materials are

made available in every case, Schreiber said.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Cisneros largely agreed with

Tesla. Ruling from the bench on Monday, she denied Schreiber's

proposed sharing provision but added, "I don't think that

entirely resolves the issue."

She directed the parties to meet and confer and come back

with a revised proposal for how lawyers in other cases might

seek information from them. Still, she cautioned that the court

should have some role in reviewing what's disclosed, she said,

"as opposed to free-for-all sharing."