Edwards v. Arctic Cat, Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 August 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 3:12-cv-03269 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | RUSSELL D. EDWARDS and CYNTHIA EDWARDS, Plaintiffs, v. ARCTIC CAT, INC., et al., Defendants. |
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. (ECF No. 44). Defendants have filed a response to the motion, and Plaintiffs have replied. (ECF Nos. 48, 50). Having carefully reviewed the memoranda, the undersigned finds that oral argument is unnecessary. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is GRANTED as set forth below.
This action arises from an accident that occurred when Plaintiff, Russell Edwards, was operating a 2008 Arctic Cat Prowler XTX 700 H1 Limited Edition utility terrain vehicle designed, manufactured, and distributed by Defendants. According to Plaintiffs, a cast aluminum rear suspension knuckle failed while Mr. Edwards was driving the vehicle, causing it to flip over. Mr. Edwards suffered severe physical injuries including numerous broken bones, lacerations, and head and brain trauma. Plaintiffs allege strict liability, defects in design and manufacturing, breach of warranty, and a failure to warn. They seek compensatory and punitive damages.
In the course of discovery, Plaintiffs learned that the cast aluminum knuckle in question, identified as Part No. 0504-389, was manufactured and supplied to Defendants by a third-party corporation, DEE, Inc. Plaintiffs now believe that DEE, Inc. was negligent in its manufacturing of the knuckle by allowing foreign materials to enter the casting process, resulting in metallurgical defects.
On December 6, 2012, Plaintiffs served interrogatories and requests for production of documents on Defendants. After receiving Defendants' responses, Plaintiffs raised concerns regarding their sufficiency. The parties discussed the issues, but eventually agreed to defer further discovery and pursue early mediation. Unfortunately, mediation was unsuccessful; therefore, the parties revisited the outstanding discovery issues. When their disputes could not be resolved, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel. Two days before filing a response to the motion, Defendants served Plaintiffs with supplemental answers. Plaintiffs were instructed by the Court to review the supplemental answers and notify the Court of any remaining discovery concerns.
Plaintiffs raise several unresolved matters. First, Plaintiffs take issue with general objections asserted by Defendants, arguing that the objections are improper and frustrate the purpose of discovery. Next, Plaintiffs complain that Defendants refuse to produce available information regarding failures of their off-road vehicles caused by cast aluminum knuckles. Finally, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have improperly redacted customer information from warranty claim documents and have failed to produce materials regarding tests or studies performed by Defendants on the effectiveness of warnings and instructions intended for users of the Arctic Cat Prowler. The Court addresses each issue in turn.
When objecting to appropriate discovery requests, a party must do more than assert non-specific, generic objections. Mainstreet Collections, Inc. v. Kirklands, Inc., 270 F.R.D. 238 (E.D.N.C. 2010). General objections, without more, simply do not satisfy the "burden of the responding party under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to justify objections," because they "cannot be applied with sufficient specificity to enable courts to evaluate their merits." Hager v. Graham, 267 F.R.D. 486, 492 (N.D.W.Va. 2010), quoting Convertino v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 565 F.Supp.2d 10, 13 (D.D.C. 2008); see, also, Mills v. East Gulf Coast Preparation Co., LLC, 259 F.R.D. 118, 132 (S.D.W.Va. 2009). Consequently, a party resisting a discovery request on the ground that it is "overly broad," "burdensome," "vague," or "oppressive" is required to explain precisely why the request is unreasonable. In the case of burdensomeness, the party must also produce evidence, such as affidavits, detailing the anticipated time and expense involved in responding to the discovery request. Convertino, 565 F.Supp.2d at 14.
In this case, Defendants objected to the majority of Plaintiffs' discovery requests, asserting that the requests sought information outside the scope of permissible discovery and were unduly broad, burdensome, vague, and ambiguous. Defendants occasionally raised relevancy, the attorney-client privilege, and the work product doctrine as well. In some answers, Defendants supplied a brief explanation of their specific concern with the request, and in others, Defendants did not. Accordingly, in many of their responses, Defendants failed to state objections with sufficient specificity to comply with the discovery rules.
Having reviewed the requests and the responses, the Court OVERRULES all of Defendants' objections of burdensomeness in light of Defendants' failure to supply supporting evidence. Likewise, Defendants' objections that requests are vague or ambiguous are OVERRULED because Defendants interpreted the requests and answered them. Finally, Defendants' objections based on the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine are OVERRULED to the extent that Defendants have not supplied a privilege log consistent with the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5). Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with any information withheld by Defendants on the basis of these general objections within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. If Defendants have not withheld any information on these particular grounds, then they shall so inform the Plaintiffs in writing.
Much of Plaintiffs' discovery seeks information regarding all cast aluminum knuckles used by Defendants in all models of their off-road vehicles. In particular, Plaintiffs inquire about complaints, accidents, warranty claims, failures, malfunctions, risk assessments, internal discussions, and safety issues concerning "cast aluminum knuckles used on Arctic Cat machines." Plaintiffs contend that this information is relevant for several reasons. First, the exact same knuckle assembly, Part No. 0504-389, was used on other models of Arctic Cat off-road vehicles. Second, it appears that other cast aluminum knuckles manufactured by DEE, Inc. were used in Arctic Cat Prowlers. Therefore, evidence of additional failures in Part No. 0504-389 or in other cast aluminum knuckles manufactured by DEE, Inc. supports Plaintiffs' claim of a defective manufacturing process. Finally, at some point after Mr. Edwards's accident,Defendants switched from cast aluminum knuckles to forged steel knuckles. Consequently, evidence of other cast aluminum knuckle failures is relevant for purposes of causation, notice of defect, and punitive damages.
Defendants, on the other hand, contend that these requests are overly broad, arguing that Plaintiffs are only entitled to information regarding Part No. 0504-389 and only as it was used in the Arctic Cat Prowler. According to Defendants, discovery of other accidents, failures, and claims in a federal product liability action is strictly limited by the "substantial similarity" doctrine. Under this doctrine, evidence of other incidents may only be discovered when the products involved are the same, the alleged defect is similar, causation in the cases are related to the defect, and all reasonable secondary explanations for the incidents have been excluded. Defendants assert that the substantial similarity doctrine prohibits Plaintiffs from collecting information about other models of utility terrain vehicles (UTV) or any of Defendants' all-terrain vehicles (ATV), because they are not the same as the Arctic Cat Prowler XTX 700 H1 Limited Edition utility terrain vehicle used by Mr. Edwards at the time of his accident. In addition, Defendants claim that Plaintiffs are not permitted to investigate all cast aluminum knuckles, or other component parts, because the alleged defect is limited to Part No. 0504-389.
The federal discovery rules allow parties to "obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Relevancy in discovery is broad in scope, "such that relevancy encompasses any matter that bears or may bear on any issue that is or may be in the case." Carr v. Double T Diner, 272 F.R.D.431, 433 (D.Md. 2010). "Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to thediscovery of admissible evidence." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Generally, the burden is on the party resisting discovery to support an objection based on lack of relevancy. United Oil Co., Inc. v. Parts Associates, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 404, 411 (D.Md. 2005).
As Plaintiffs point out, Defendants' reliance on the "substantial similarity" doctrine is misplaced because it applies to the admissibility of evidence at trial rather than the relevancy of information for purposes of discovery. Bennett v. Segway, Inc., Case No. 1:11-cv-09, 2011 WL 4965179, at *2 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 19, 2011). To prevent unfair prejudice to a defendant at trial, the doctrine requires a plaintiff to show that other accidents are substantially similar to the accident at issue before evidence of the other accidents may be presented to a jury. Id. However, the demands on the plaintiff are considerably more relaxed in the context of discovery and, clearly, "the defendant should not be the final arbiter of substantial similarity" for the purposes of determining the scope of a plaintiff's discovery requests. Smith v. Gorilla, Inc., Case No. CV-10-17-M-DWM-JCL, 2010 WL 4286246, at *3 (D. Mont. Oct. 21, 2010).
Thus, to justify discovery of other incidents, a plaintiff must make only a threshold showing that the other incidents bear some relationship to the issues...
To continue reading
Request your trial