C.C. v. Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. et al

Filing 132

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions 97 is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. The Court will revisit the motion for sanctions, subsequently. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 6/20/2018. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
C.C., through his natural mother and
guardian, MELANIE GINNEVER,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
SUZUKI MANUFACTURING OF
AMERICA CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16CV01271 ERW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and for Sanctions
[97].
This case was filed in the Eastern District of Missouri on August 4, 2016. Since its filing
the Court has decided a motion for a protective order for Plaintiff’s amended Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition notice [ECF No. 28] filed by Defendant Suzuki Manufacturing of America
Corporation (“SMAC”), a motion to compel [ECF No. 62] filed by Plaintiff, a motion for
protective order regarding Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) notice of Suzuki Motor of America, Inc.
[ECF No. 78] filed by Defendants SMAC and Suzuki Motor Corporation (“SMC”), a motion for
protective order about Plaintiff’s first set of requests for admissions to SMC, and two telephone
conferences on discovery issues. Additionally, the parties have amended the case management
order twice to accommodate the issues with discovery.
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and for Sanctions.
Plaintiff asks the Court to strike Defendants’ pleadings, order the case proceed to trial on
damages only, compel Defendants to produce any and all documents pertaining to the August

2013 glue change, and compel SMC to produce a corporate representative in Plaintiff’s counsel’s
office for a deposition prior to trial.
Plaintiff argues he has asked for documents on any testing related to the way the
handlebar grip is secured to the handlebars and no testing documents were ever produced by
Defendants. According to Plaintiff, Defendants repeatedly asserted there were no testing
documents to produce. Then, seven pages of emails were produced to Plaintiff, in Japanese. One
of the emails, from SMC to SMAC, stated “the design department has made a decision that there
will be no problems with the switchover based on the results below . . .” and included an
attachment titled “Adhesive Performance Confirmation Results.” Defendants have also added a
witness who, according to Plaintiff, is coming to trial to discuss “endurance and performance
testing.”
Defendants assert Plaintiff misunderstands the emails. According to Defendants, the
“results” mentioned in the email refer to testing on prototypes of ATV Models XC907, XC907P, XC887F, and XC887AF to evaluate the potential use of the new glue. Defendants argue they
have complied with all discovery requests and orders of the Court, and have produced all testing
documents which currently exist.
The Court will withhold ruling on monetary sanctions at this time. It is clear Plaintiff
asked for documents related to testing of the glue multiple times and the discovery was not
timely disclosed. Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents to SMAC contains the
following requests: (5) “All documents and materials that relate to the design and manufacture of
the handlebar grips on substantially similar ATVs that were designed or manufactured within the
last 10 years.”; (7) “All documents and materials that describe or explain the process by which
the handlebar grips are attached, secured, glued, adhered to, or otherwise fastened to the

2

handlebars of a Suzuki KingQuad ATV.”; (9) “All documents and materials related to any
testing performed on the handlebars of substantially similar ATVs that were designed or
manufactured within the last 10 years.”; (11) “All documents and materials related to any testing
performed on the handlebar grips of substantially similar ATVs that were designed or
manufactured within the last 10 years.”; (18) “All documents and materials that reflect any
design changes implemented or considered to the handlebars and handlebar grips of substantially
similar ATVs that were designed or manufactured within the last 10 years.” There are many
more requests similar to these made by Plaintiff related to testing of the handlebar grips.
The Court understands Plaintiff now has at least some of the requested discovery. If
Defendants have any other documents or information related to the requests, Defendants shall
disclose all such documents and information pertaining to the August 2013 glue change within
ten days of this order. This is not limited to comparison testing between the two types of glue.
Due to the untimeliness of Defendants’ disclosure and what the Court perceives as
Defendants’ intentional non-disclosure of requested information, the Court will permit Plaintiff
to take a 30(b)(6) deposition of SMC in Japan. Defendants shall pay for the costs of the
deposition, including travel, accommodations, and attorneys’ fees for two attorneys for Plaintiff,
and the costs of an interpreter or interpreters and a court reporter. Plaintiff shall arrange for such
court reporter and interpreter or interpreters. The Court will not strike Defendants’ pleadings.

3

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and for Sanctions [97] is
GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. The Court will revisit the motion for sanctions,
subsequently.
Dated this 20th Day of June, 2018.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4