With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". designs. Moreover, we also note that the similarity of the products need not be identical, as Exmark seems to argue, because the similarity may be defined in terms of the defect and any differences among the products may merely go to the weight of the evidence and not its discoverability or admissibility. See Jackson v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 788 F.2d 1070, 1082-88 (5th Cir.1986); see also Uniroyal Goodrich Tire, 977 S.W.2d at 341; Davidson Oil Country Supply, Inc. v. Klockner, Inc., 908 F.2d 1238, 1245 (5th Cir.1990). We note that many other decisions from courts around the nation reject the notion that discovery in a strict product liability case is uniformly limited to the specific product at issue. See, e.g., In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180, 1191 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Brownlow v. General Motors Corp., No.

A: holding that plaintiffs work environment was not affected by comments and conduct of which she was not aware
B: holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law
C: holding that discovery on other tires was not overbroad where plaintiffs alleged that defendant was aware of tread separation problem
D: recognizing trial courts decision on discovery issues implies a finding that requested discovery was not reasonably available
C.