Toyota is committed to the highest standards of product quality and safety, and we fully stand behind the structural integrity of all our vehicles and their adherence to federal safety regulations. We maintain the highest professional and ethical standards in our legal practices as well.

Recent lawsuits filed against Toyota by Dimitrios Biller, Todd Tracy and Richard McCune are based on inaccurate and misleading allegations made by Mr. Biller. As our court papers in the Biller case make clear, we strongly dispute his unfounded claims. After careful review of these allegations, we are confident that we have acted appropriately with respect to product liability litigation. Toyota has initiated proceedings against Mr. Biller, and we intend to defend against the Biller, Tracy and McCune claims vigorously.

Contrary to Mr. Biller’s claims, Toyota vehicles are all carefully and rigorously tested, and are all engineered to meet or exceed the high standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is the global leader in motor vehicle safety. Among the many inaccuracies in his lawsuit, Mr. Biller has grossly mischaracterized Toyota’s reporting to NHTSA. His accusations that Toyota misled NHTSA regarding roof crush strength standards are completely false. Contrary to his claims, there has never been any question about the completeness and accuracy of the information we have provided to product safety regulators.

The facts of the NHTSA situation cited by Mr. Biller are as follows. In August of 2005, NHTSA announced proposed changes to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 216 and requested voluntary comments from interested parties. Toyota provided one comment to the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers (AAM), which hired outside consultants to prepare its response on behalf of its members, which include 11 carmakers including GM, Ford and Chrysler. Toyota was not required to provide input and did not respond directly to NHTSA. Furthermore, NHTSA performs its own independent vehicle tests as it ultimately decides on new safety rules.

Mr. Biller also exaggerates the incidence of roll-over litigation involving Toyota vehicles. In fact, Toyota vehicles have an excellent safety record relative to the millions of cars on the road. While a roll-over accident can be severe, with 27 million Toyota vehicles currently in operation, roll-overs are a rare event.

Biller's actions and the timing of his lawsuit do not support his claim that he is motivated by the public interest. Rather, his actions are driven to advance his own personal financial interests and a desire to damage Toyota and his former colleagues. Biller did not resign from Toyota because of ethics concerns. In making his demand for a severance package he held open his option to return to work at Toyota as an attorney. He was fully responsible for managing the cases cited in his lawsuit but he did not take any action at the time that would be consistent with his concerns.

Biller has a history of suing his former employers, as well as attorneys who represented him, accusing them of conspiracy against him. Biller was terminated from his position with the Los Angeles District Attorney (LADA) and subsequently sued the LADA (case 2:09-cv-03079-GHK-RZ) for $50 million on the grounds that his colleagues were conspiring to have him fired. He has also sued the attorney who represented him against Toyota (Los Angeles Superior Court, Santa Monica Division, Biller vs. Faber). In court papers related to these suits, Mr. Biller claims he is disabled and has suffered from organic brain disease “for most of his life.”

In November, 2008 Toyota filed a lawsuit against Biller to stop his use of Toyota case studies and other confidential or proprietary information in seminars and on the website of his legal education business, in clear violation of confidentiality agreements and attorney-client privilege. This suit and its related restraining order have nothing to do with his false claims regarding the conduct of product liability cases and Biller cannot claim that Toyota ever sued him to stop the disclosures he is making now.

Toyota agreed to a severance package for Mr. Biller in order to avoid the time and expense associated with his unsubstantiated allegations. Such agreements are not unusual in cases of highly compensated individuals who have had access to confidential and proprietary information. Toyota acted honorably in seeking a mutually acceptable separation, but ultimately it was a mistake because Biller did not honor his agreement.

We are disappointed that Mr. Biller has elected to file his lawsuit in an attempt to avoid what we believe are his obligations as an attorney formerly employed by Toyota. In our view, Mr. Biller has repeatedly breached his ethical and professional obligations, both as an attorney and in his commitments to us, by violating attorney-client privilege without legitimate cause.

Toyota has filed a motion to seal Biller’s complaint and its exhibits despite Biller's public disclosures. Toyota does not seek to hide the complaint or the exhibits; however the legal process requires it to make this request of the court to avoid jeopardizing its defense.

↓↑report

You're looking at it all wrong. These lawyers set legal precedence which acts as a deterrent for other businesses that might want to incorporate the same shady and illegal practices, but won't because of legal instances such as this.

↓↑report

No way they'd comment on what now looks like inevitable pending litigation.

↓↑report

nice

Getting back to the topic, I was wondering how you can sue Toyota for racketeering and get monetary gains from it. How does the lawyer get damages? I'm guessing he doesn't

↓↑report

If it's racketeering, doesn't it then become a Federal combined civil/criminal case, under the RICO Act?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rico_act

The damages under such a case could be huge, and would be precedent-setting.

↓↑report

Even assuming that the lawyer is a slimeball, if the case has merit, it still needs to go forward.

↓↑report

I agree it should go forward. Do I think there's a possibility Toyota destroyed or withheld evidence? Absolutely. But the fact that Mr. Biller's hands aren't exactly clean complicates things. The complaint is also an interesting read. He's claiming that Toyota gave him Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and the $3.7 million severance package was actually a bad deal because he got ineffective counsel from his own lawyer. Plus there's an active Toyota conspiracy to destroy him. With his claimed issues - depression, dyslexia, PTSD, suing the L.A. County D.A. as well for firing him - I'm guessing Toyota's lawyers are preparing to totally shred this guy. Which means that the truth will likely be the first casualty.

Another annoying tidbit about this guy. While slamming Toyota's discovery compliance, he doesn't seem to mind leveraging that to toot his own horn about how successful he's been managing Toyota's National Rollover Program. By his own admission (assuming his allegations are true), his victories are tainted so why doesn't he pull this little blurb from his company's site?

After resigning from Pillsbury Winthrop in 2003, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. retained Mr. Biller as National Managing Counsel to head up and address the National Rollover Program for Toyota Motor Corporation. During his four and half years at Toyota, Mr. Biller turned around the National Rollover Program and saved Toyota very significant sums through numerous trials and successful settlement negotiation strategies. In a three year period Mr. Biller managed the following cases through trial and obtained defense verdicts in all 12 cases.

http://ldtconsulting.com/credentials.html

↓↑report

If it was GM or Chrysler there would be no suit as they'd put it all on "Old GM" and wouldn't be liable for any of this.

↓↑report