Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-1772.
May 27, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Most of the discovery motions now pending require the Court to assess the relevance of the information sought, and whether the requests are ambiguous, too broad, or unduly burdensome. In order to decide these matters, I need more information than can be derived from the record as it now exists. Plaintiff's counsel seems to be proceeding under state procedural rules, rather than the federal rules; the submissions of all parties seem never to have been proof-read; more importantly, they seem designed to obfuscate rather than inform. (One example, a responsive pleading which contains 28 separate "affirmative defenses," almost all of which would seem to have no conceivable relationship to this litigation; Rule 11 has been ignored.)
As I understand it, plaintiff was employed by C.P. Allstar (referred to as "additional defendant"; presumably "third party defendant") when he sustained injury while using a certain piece of machinery. Plaintiff is suing various firms allegedly involved in the manufacture and/or sale of the machine or some of its component parts. Plaintiff is asserting liability under § 402(a) of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, and negligence. One of the original defendants, Wayne-Dalton Corporation, contends that plaintiff's employer, C.P. Allstar, has a contractual obligation to indemnify Wayne-Dalton Corporation against any liabilities associated with the machine, which C.P. Allstar apparently purchased from Wayne-Dalton.
It is my understanding of the law that § 402(a) liability can be imposed only upon the manufacturer of a product, or someone who, in the usual course of business, sells the product. The present record does not clearly disclose what plaintiff's contentions are, or what plaintiff's theories of recovery are, as to each of the defendants. Allegations as to who manufactured the allegedly offending equipment or its component parts, or as to what the alleged defect might turn out to have been, are in a state of utter confusion. The documentary evidence thus far made part of the record seems to suggest that the defendant Wayne-Dalton Corporation may not qualify as either a manufacturer or seller (i.e., that its sale of the machine to C.P. Allstar was an isolated, "casual," transaction).
It is understandable that, at the outset of this litigation, the precise involvement of each of the parties was uncertain, and therefore it may have been reasonable to be imprecise as to the theories of recovery. At the present time, however, it is reasonable to assume that the parties' situations have been clarified.
Accordingly, as an aid to the proper disposition of the pending discovery disputes (i.e., those not resolved by this Court's Order of May 21, 2003) plaintiff will be required to file with this Court an initial pretrial memorandum which discloses, in brief, summary form, plaintiff's theories of recovery as to each defendant and what further information (if any) plaintiff needs to obtain by way of further discovery.
As between third-party plaintiff C.P. Allstar and third-party defendant Wayne-Dalton, counsel for those parties shall file preliminary pretrial memoranda specifying what factual disputes, if any, need to be resolved in order to determine the indemnity issue.
An Order to that effect follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of May 2003, IT IS ORDERED:
That counsel shall, within 10 days, file the preliminary pretrial memoranda specified in the accompanying Memorandum.