Opinion
No. 02-1154 c/w, 02-1584
January 8, 2003
MINUTE ENTRY
The plaintiffs, State Farm Fire and Casualty as Subrogee to the fights of/and Albert E. Patent and Gayle K. Patent ("State Farm"), filed a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (doc. #7) requesting that the defendant, Black Decker, Inc. be compelled to provide responses to their discovery requests. The defendant opposes the motion.
I. Background
The plaintiffs filed this civil products liability action on March 18, 2002, in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana. The defendant removed the matter to this Court on April 17, 2002.
State Farm contends that Jill Patent placed a waffle in a Black Decker Toaster, Model No. T245. Ms. Patent allegedly pushed the lever down to toast the waffle and moments later the toaster, as well as, the cabinets behind the toaster were engulfed in flames. The Patents attempted to put out the fire with a fire extinguisher, however, their attempts were unsuccessful. The Patents then exited the house and the fire spread throughout the home. State Farm alleges that the Patent's home was destroyed and had to be completely renovated. State Farm Causaulty Fire and Casualty Company paid the Patents $286,247.61 for the damages sustained. State Farm thereafter filed the instant suit alleging that the Black Decker Toaster, Model No. T245 caused the fire and was unreasonably dangerous in design, manufacture and warning.
On April 16, 2002, State Farm propounded Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents upon Black Decker. State Farm contends that after requesting several extensions, Black Decker responded on July 1, 2002. However, State Farm contends that the responses provided are evasive and unresponsive.
Black Decker opposes the motion contending that State Farm's discovery requests are extremely overbroad and not limited to matters which are the subject matter of this litigation or reasonably anticipated to lead to admissible evidence. Black Decker further contends that the discovery propounded by State Farm evidences that this litigation has been initiated by the plaintiff without sufficient investigation to clearly articulate a defect in its product.
II. Analysis
The discovery rules are accorded a broad and liberal treatment in order to affect their purpose of adequately informing litigants in civil trials. Hebert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 176 (1979). In ascertaining whether information is discoverable, the court must focus on the claims and defenses involved in the action. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) ; Seabulk Towing v. Oceanografia, 2002 WL 1837855 at *3 (E.D.La. 2002). The determination of whether such information is discoverable because it is relevant to the claims or defenses depends upon the circumstances of the pending action. Seabulk, 2002 WL at *3.
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the scope of discovery includes any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. The range of relevant matters is broad and may be related to "the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id.
When the discovery sought appears relevant, the party resisting the discovery has the burden to establish the lack of relevance by demonstrating that the requested discovery (1) does not come within the broad scope of relevance as defined under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), or (2) is of such marginal relevance that the potential harm occasioned by discovery would outweigh the ordinary presumption in favor of broad disclosure. Beach v. City of Olathe, 2000 WL 960808, *2 (D.Kan. 2000).
A. Interrogatories 1. Interrogatory No. 1
Interrogatory No. 1 seeks the identity of all persons participating in formulating responses to State Farm's Interrogatories. Black Decker responds by indicating that counsel for Black Decker and his staff prepared the responses with help from Black Decker. In a July 2, 2002, letter to counsel for Black Decker, State Farm objected to the response contending that the interrogatory seeks the names of individuals at Black Decker who gave any information. Three days later, Black Decker responded by stating that it will seek to obtain the name of the individual who directed the gathering of information but was not obligated to identify every individual who may have supplied information.
The Court, however, disagrees and finds that the identity of these individuals is relevant. Further, Black Decker has cited no authority in support of its contention that it should not be required to provide the identity of individuals providing information in response to this request. Thus, Black Decker is ordered to respond to this request within 10 days of this order.
2. Interrogiatory No. 2
Interrogatory No. 2 seeks the identity of all individuals participating in the design of the T245 toaster. Black Decker objected to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome. It also claims that as the interrogatory is not limited to the alleged defect, the information requested is irrelevant. However, it indicated that the basic chassis design dated back to General Electric.
In its July 2, 2002, letter to counsel for Black Decker, State Farm objected to this response by stating that Black Decker had not provided the identity of the individuals who participated in the design of the toaster. Black Decker responded by stating that the information is overly broad in that it seeks the identity of "all" individuals participating in the design.
The Court overrules Black Decker's objection. Although the use of the term "all", on its face appears overly broad, the Court finds it hard to believe that the number of individuals participating in the design of a toaster would be too burdensome to produce. Further, Black Decker has not provided the Court with any indication as to the number of individuals participating in the design of the T245 toaster. Therefore, Black Decker is ordered to respond to this request within 10 days of this order.
3. Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4
Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4 seeks information pertaining to any other litigation and claims brought against Black Decker for alleged malfunctions of the T245 toaster. Black Decker objected contending that the request was overly broad, unduly burdensome and irrelevant, it also stated that it would provide a response once the plaintiff has put forth a defect theory. In its July 5, 2002 letter to State Farm, Black Decker contended that it should not have to respond to this request as it will allow State Farm to go on a "fishing expedition" to find defects to allow them to better focus their case. The Court, however, disagrees. As the instant request is limited to malfunctions of the T245 toaster, the Court finds that the information is relevant and should be produced. Thus, Black Decker is ordered to respond to Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 4 within 10 days of this order. 4. Interrogatory No. 5
The Court notes that Black Decker contends that several of the plaintiffs requests seek private and privileged information in that the requests would require the production of the identities of individuals who have not filed lawsuits. However, Black Decker has not cited and the court is not aware of any authority that supports this proposition. Black Decker has cited Center for Auto Safety v. National Highway Safety Traffic Administration, 809 F. Supp. 148 (D.C. Cir. 1993), however, as Black Decker seems to acknowledge, the circumstances surrounding that matter are distinguishable from the instant case. Center for Auto Safety involved a Freedom of Information Act request which would place the identities of the complainants into the public domain and subject them to a barrage of junk mail, telephone calls, and commercial exploitation. See id. at 149. None of the concems addressed in Center for Auto Safety are present in the instant case.
Interrogatory No. 5 seeks information relating to documents in the possession or control of Black Decker concerning consumer complaints regarding the T245 toaster. Black Decker responded to this request by stating that it is unclear as to what is meant by "consumer complaints." It stated that if it includes lawsuits, the request is irrelevant. However, if "consumer complaints" refers to unverified, uninvestigated complaints, it will revisit the issue.
State Farm does not define "consumer complaints." However, Black Decker has indicated that it would respond to the request to the extent it seeks uninvestigated complaints. Further, the Court has determined that the information pertaining to lawsuits involving the toaster at issue is relevant. Thus, the Court grants the plaintiffs request to the extent "consumer complaints" seek information pertaining to lawsuits and uninvestigated complaints involving the T245 toaster.
The Court notes that Black Decker indicates that it no longer has control of consumer complaints not involving damage or bodily injury. The Court further notes that the instant request was not limited to cases involving damage or bodily injury. However, Black Decker's response is insufficient. The fact that a party does not have possession of the requested materials responsive to the request does not excuse its failure to fully respond to the request, because its duty to fully answer implies a duty to make reasonable efforts to obtain the information requested. See Newport Limited, Etc. v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 1988 WL 47860 (E.D.La. 1988).
Thus, Black Decker is ordered to provide documentation regarding any unverified and uninvestigated consumer complaints within 10 days of this order. If Black Decker does not possess or cannot obtain the information necessary to fully respond to the request, its answer must include a detailed explanation of its efforts to obtain the information and the reasons its efforts were not successful.
5. Interrogatory No. 6
Interrogatory No. 6 seeks the identity of all documents generated by Black Decker concerning any design or manufacturing concerns regarding the T245 toaster. Black Decker responded to this request by stating that the toaster was designed in accordance with applicable safety standards. Black Decker also contends that the request for "all" documents is overly broad and burdensome. The Court, however, disagrees.
Although the use of the term "all", on its face appears overly broad, the Court finds it hard to believe that the number of such documents concerning the design of the T245 toaster would be too burdensome to produce. Further, Black Decker has not provided the Court with any indication as to the number of documents it would be required to produce. Therefore, Black Decker is ordered to respond to Interrogatory No. 6 within 10 days of this order.
6. Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 9
Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 9 requests that Black Decker specify the reasons for the voluntary recall of its toasters Models Nos. T1200, T1250, T1400 and T1450. They also requests that Black Decker explain any conclusions drawn concerning the fires associated with these toasters.
In product liability actions it is frequently difficult to judge which of a manufacturer's products are sufficiently similar to the allegedly defective product to be subject to discovery. Evidence of similar accidents is admissible at trial so long as the conditions in effect during the past incidents are "substantially similar" to those at the time of the incident in question and the two events arise from the same cause. Lohr v. Stanley-Bostitch, Inc., 135 F.R.D. 162, 163 (W.D.Mi. 1991) (citing Koloda v. General Motors Parts Division, 716 F.2d 373, 376 (6th Cir. 1983)).
At the discovery stage, however, the plaintiff need not lay the same foundation concerning "substantial similarity" as would be necessary to support admission into evidence. Lohr, 135 F.R.D. at 163. For discovery purposes, the Court need only find that the circumstances surrounding the other accidents are similar enough that discovery concerning those incidents is relevant to the circumstances of the instant case. Generally, different models of a product will be relevant if they share with the accident-causing model those characteristics pertinent to the legal issues raised in the litigation. Fine v. Facet Aerospace Products Comp., 133 F.R.D. 439, 441 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).
For example, where a plaintiff alleged that three-wheel all-terrain vehicles are inherently unstable, he was entitled to discovery with respect to each of the manufacturer's models. Id. (citing Culligan v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 110 F.R.D. 122, 124, 126 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)). Similarly, an injured party who contended that the redesigned motor mounts that had failed in his vehicle had not eliminated the defects of earlier models was granted discovery concerning the predecessor versions. See Swain v. General Motors Corp., 81 F.R.D. 698, 699-700 (W.D.Pa. 1979). Finally, a plaintiff arguing that the left front spring main leaf on his vehicle failed could obtain discovery regarding all types of vehicles with that component, not merely the identical model. Fine, 133 F.R.D. at 441; see Uitts v. General Motors Corp., 58 F.R.D. 450, 452 (E.D.Pa. 1972); see also Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985, 991 (3d Cir. 1982) (similar models of printing presses); Dollar v. Long Mfg., N.C., Inc., 561 F.2d 613, 617 (5th Cir. 1977) (similar models of backhoes), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 996, 98 S.Ct. 1648, 56 L.Ed.2d 85 (1978); Bowman v. General Motors Corp., 64 F.R.D. 62, 70-71 (E.D.Pa. 1974) (subsequent vehicle model with similar fuel system).
On the other hand, where there has been no suggestion that other models share pertinent characteristics with the products at issue, discovery relating to those models will be disallowed. In Prashker v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 258 F.2d 602 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 910 (1958), for example, the court permitted discovery of three model years preceding the model at issue, but denied discovery as to a still earlier model, finding that it was too dissimilar. Fine, 133 F.R.D. at 441 (citing Prashker, 258 F.2d at 608).
Likewise, a plaintiff was denied information about a vehicle recall when the Court found that the models recalled did not have the same component at issue in the litigation. See Uitts v. General Motors Corp., 62 F.R.D. 560, 562-63 (E.D.Pa. 1974). Indeed, the Second Circuit endorsed the denial of recall information involving the same component where the defect that allegedly caused the accident differed from the defect that triggered the recall. See Butkowski v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1158, 1159 (2d Cir. 1974). Finally, a request for discovery of models with the same type of component as in the accident vehicle was denied on grounds that the word "type" was too vague, and the court limited discovery to models with the identical components. See Frey v. Chrysler Corp., 41 F.R.D. 174, 176 (W.D.Pa. 1966).
Thus, in order to determine the proper scope of discovery here, it is first necessary to define the plaintiff's legal claims. Fine v. Facet Aerospace Products Comp., 133 F.R.D. 439, 442 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). State Farm has not alleged any particular defect in the Toaster, Model No. T245, but only alleges that "inspection of the Black Decker toaster evidenced a malfunction which subsequently caused the fire." State Farm claims that Black Decker is liable for manufacturing a defective product, designing a defective product and failure to warn.
Here, Black Decker responded to Interrogatories Nos. 8 and 9 by stating that it cannot answer because it did not manufacture or recall the toasters at issue. In its July 2, 2002 letter, State Farm stated that it has information from the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission which suggests otherwise. In response, Black Decker stated that it will revisit the interrogatory and will inform State Farm if its response needs to be changed.
Black Decker has failed to indicate that it supplemented its responses. Nevertheless, the Court denies State Farm's request for such information as it has failed to indicate that the circumstances surrounding the fires with toasters Models Nos. T1200, T1250, T1400 and T1450 are similar enough that discovery concerning those incidents is relevant to the circumstances of the instant case. See Fine v. Facet Aerospace Products Comp., 133 F.R.D. 439, 441 (S.D.N.Y. 1990); see also Lohr v. Stanley-Bostitch, Inc., 135 F.R.D. 162, 163 (W.D.Mi. 1991). Further, State Farm has failed to indicate that these models share characteristics relevant to the toaster at issue in this litigation. Thus, State Farm's request to compel responses to Interrogatories No. 8 and 9 is denied.
7. Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 12
Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 12 seek the identity of all individuals participating in the investigation of the fire claims in the toaster at issue and toasters T1200, T1250, T1400 and T1450, as well as, a list of the claims and information pertaining to the claims. Black Decker responded by stating that it is not in possession of this information as it did not manufacture said toasters and did not investigate such claims. In its July 2, 2002 letter, State Farm stated that it has information from the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission which suggests otherwise. In response, Black Decker stated that it will revisit the interrogatory and will inform State Farm if its response needs to be changed.
Black Decker has not indicated that it supplemented its responses. The information requested here is relevant to the extent it seeks the individuals participating in the investigation of the fire claims in the toaster at issue and information pertaining to those claims. Therefore, the response provided by Black Decker as it relates to the toaster at issue is incomplete and fails to satisfy the requirement of Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that each interrogatory be answered "separately and fully." Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(1). However, as State Farm has failed to establish that toasters T1200, T1250, T1400 and T1450 are relevant, Black Decker is not required to provide the names of individuals participating in the investigation of the fire claims in those toasters.
The Court notes that Black Decker did not object on the grounds that these interrogatories were not relevant.
Thus, Black Decker is ordered to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 12 within 10 days of this order by providing the names of the individuals participating in the investigation of the fire claims in Toaster Model No. T245. If Black Decker does not possess or cannot obtain the information necessary to fully respond to the requests, its answer must include a detailed explanation of its efforts to obtain the information and the reasons its efforts were not successful.
B. Request for Production 1. Request for Production No. 1
Request for Production No. 1 seeks all design, engineering and manufacturing drawings of the toaster at issue, and all manufacturing specifications. Black Decker objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome and irrelevant. It contends that the request for "all" drawings would be virtually impossible to produce. The Court, however, disagrees. The Court finds that the information requested is relevant. Further, the Court does not believe that producing such drawings of a single toaster would be burdensome and Black Decker has not provided any indication as to the number of drawings it would be required to produce. Thus, Black Decker is ordered to respond to this request within 10 days of this order.
2. Request for Production No. 2 and 4
Request for Production Nos. 2 and 4 seek all documents concerning the fires and recalls of toasters T1200, T1250, T1400, and T1450. Black Decker responded by stating that it is not in possession of this information as it did not manufacture said toasters and did not investigate such claims. In its July 2, 2002 letter, State Farm stated that it has information from the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission which suggests otherwise. In response, Black Decker stated that it will revisit the interrogatory and will inform State Farm if its response needs to be changed.
Black Decker has not indicated that it supplemented its response. However, as State Farm has failed to establish that toasters T1200, T1250, T1400 and T1450 are relevant, Black Decker is not required to provide any documents concerning their recall. Thus, State Farm's request to compel production is denied as to Request for Production Nos. 2 and 4.
3. Request for Production No. 3
Request for Production No. 3 seeks documents concerning allegations, reports or complaints of fires associated with the toaster at issue. Black Decker objects contending that such request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and irrelevant. Black Decker contends that requiring it to produce such information would allow State Farm to engage in a `fishing expedition' to find a defect. The Court, however, disagrees. As the instant request is limited to "fires associated with the toaster at issue," the information requested is relevant and should be produced. Thus, Black Decker is ordered to respond to Request for Production No. 3 within 10 days of this order.
4. Reiuest for Production No. 5
Request for Production No. 5 seeks all documents concerning the recall of any Black Decker toaster or an associated risk of fire with any Black Decker toaster. Black Decker responded by stating that the information requested is overly broad, unduly burdensome and irrelevant. It also stated that the P245 toaster has never been recalled and has complied with safety standards.
As State Farm has failed to establish that "any Black Decker toaster" share circumstances and characteristics similar to that of the T245 toaster, the request is irrelevant to the extent it seeks such information. However, the Court finds that the information requested is relevant to the extent it seeks documents concerning the recall or associated risk of fire with the T245 toaster. As such, the Court finds that Black Decker's response is sufficient and the instant request is denied.
C. Attorney's Fees and Expenses
State Farm seeks to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Rule 37(a)(4)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that when a motion is granted in part and denied in part, the court may enter any protective order authorized under Rule 26(c) and may, after affording an opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable expenses incurred in relation to the motion among the parties and persons in a just manner. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4)(C). However, after a review of the circumstances, the Court finds that attorney's fees are not warranted in the instant case.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (doc. #7) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
1) GRANTED as to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, and 12, and Request for Production Nos. 1 and 3.
2) DENIED as to Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 9 and Request for Production Nos. 2, 4 and 5.
3) DENIED as to the request for attorney's fees.