Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01526-RBJ-MJW
09-10-2012
YULDUZ SMITH, individually, and as parent and next friend of STANTON AZAM SMITH, and as personal representative of the ESTATE OF KIM F. SMITH, Plaintiff(s), v. MONESSEN HEARTH SYSTEMS CO., CFM MAJESTIC U.S. HOLDINGS, INC., CFM U.S. CORPORATION, CFM CORP., 2089451 ONTARIO LTD., CFM CANADA, VAIL SUMMIT RESORTS, INC., d/b/a BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, PAUL BENGTSON, MARY BENGTSON, SHEILA SCHULTHESZ, HENRY SCHULTHESZ, and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1 and 2, Defendant(s).
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Motion to Compel Responses to Deposition Questions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) and for Sanctions Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 30.3 (docket no. 140) is DENIED for the following reasons.
This is a premises liability claim against defendant Vail Summit Resorts, Inc. ("Vail") and not a products liability claim against defendant Vail. The information requested in Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents No. 2 seeks information from Vail regarding incidents involving fireplaces that occurred after June 27, 2009. In other words, after the alleged incident as plead in the Complaint. Furthermore, the questions that plaintiff is seeking an order to compel deponents to answer are all framed during a time frame after June 27, 2009. I find that such discovery requests concerning incidents and matters after June 27, 2009, are irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid 401 to the issues before this court concerning defendant Vail. Such discovery requested in the subject motion (docket no. 140) will not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. In addition, the case law cited by plaintiff relating to product liability cases is misplaced. Lastly, the relevant time frame for discovery in this case concerning defendant Vail is on or prior to June 27, 2009.