Kozlov v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. et al

Filing 183

ORDER granting (182) Motion to Compel in case 8:10-cv-03191-LSC-FG3; granting (167) Motion to Compel in case 4:10-cv-03211-LSC-FG3; granting (170) Motion to Compel in case 4:10-cv-03212-LSC-FG3. By or before May 3, 2013, Mrs. Scott shall answer Kozlov's discovery requests, which are identified as Exhibit 5 of Filing No. 169 (Case No. 4:10-cv-03211). Mrs. Scott shall also make herself available in Omaha, Nebraska to provide deposition testimony regarding the 1997 accident involving M r. Scott, including, but not limited to, the injuries Mr. Scott sustained in the accident. The deposition shall be conducted promptly, at a time mutually convenient for the parties. Kozlov's request for costs and attorney fees is denied. Member Cases: 4:10-cv-03211-LSC-FG3, 4:10-cv-03212-LSC-FG3, 8:10-cv-03191-LSC- FG3 Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
IGOR KOZLOV,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE
GROCERS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
ANDREI TCHIKOBAVA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE
GROCERS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

PAMELA SCOTT, Personal
)
Representative of the Estate of Michael )
E. Scott, Deceased,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
IGOR KOZLOV, ALBATROSS
)
EXPRESS, LLC and UNICK, LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
)

4:10-cv-03211
ORDER

4:10-cv-03212

8:10-cv-03191

This matter is before the Court on Igor Kozlov’s (“Kozlov”) Motion to Compel.
(Case No. 4:10-cv-03211, filing 167); Case No. 4:10-cv-03212, filing 170; Case No. 8:10-cv03191, filing 182.) For the reasons explained below, Kozlov’s Motion will be granted.

BACKGROUND
These consolidated civil cases arise out of a motor-vehicle accident between a tractor
trailer driven by Michael Scott (“Mr. Scott”), deceased, and a tractor trailer driven by
Kozlov. In his Complaint, Kozlov alleges that Mr. Scott acted negligently, thereby causing
the accident which resulted in injuries to Kozlov.
Kozlov has moved the Court to compel Pamela Scott (“Mrs. Scott”) to answer
interrogatories and deposition questions related to her deceased husband’s prior medical
conditions. Specifically, Kozlov wants additional information about injuries Mr. Scott may
have sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in 1997. Kozlov maintains that
discovery related to the injuries that Mr. Scott sustained in the 1997 accident is relevant to
Kozlov’s claims that Mr. Scott’s negligence was the cause of the accident at issue in this
litigation.
DISCUSSION
Under the federal rules, parties to a lawsuit may obtain discovery regarding any
matter, not privileged, that is relevant to a claim or defense of any party. Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1). Relevant information need not be admissible at trial “if the discovery appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. “Relevancy is
broadly construed, and a request for discovery should be considered relevant if there is any
possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the claim or defense of any party.”
Moses v. Halstead, 236 F.R.D. 667, 671 (D. Kan. 2006) (footnote omitted).
Discovery in this case has revealed that Mr. Scott may have sustained a head injury
in a motor vehicle accident which occurred in 1997. Seemingly, as a result of the accident,
Mr. Scott could not work for thirteen months. Kozlov claims that such a substantial length
of convalescence indicates that Mr. Scott suffered a serous injury that might have had lasting
effects - including an impact on his job performance. Kozlov argues that he should be
permitted to explore evidence that may disclose some long-term effect on Mr. Scott’s brain
which could have contributed to the accident involved in this litigation.
2

Mrs. Scott claims that the requested information is irrelevant because it occurred over
ten years before the accident at issue. Mrs. Scott argues that Kozlov already has access to
Mr. Scott’s Department of Transportation medical certifications from 2006 through 2010,
and that these certifications establish that Mr. Scott did not have any injuries that would have
affected his driving in 2010. Simply put, Mrs. Scott claims that because Mr. Scott was
medically certified to drive a commercial vehicle in 2010, Kozlov’s request for older records
is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In opposition
to Kovlov’s Motion, Mrs. Scott further points out that she has already offered to produce ten
years of Mr. Scott’s medical records. She contends that her agreement to produce Mr. Scott’s
medical records for the last ten years should satisfy Kozlov’s need for discovery regarding
Mr. Scott’s previous medical history.
Having considered the matter, the Court finds that information related to the 1997
accident is relevant and could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. If Mr. Scott had
previously sustained a head injury that kept him from driving for a substantial length of time,
as Mrs. Scott testified, Kozlov should at least be permitted to make reasonable inquiry into
the circumstances of that accident and the injuries suffered by Mr. Scott.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Igor Kozlov’s Motion to Compel (Case No. 4:10-cv-03211,
filing 167); Case No. 4:10-cv-03212, filing 170; Case No. 8:10-cv-03191, filing 182) is
granted. By or before May 3, 2013, Mrs. Scott shall answer Kozlov’s discovery requests,
which are identified as Exhibit 5 of Filing No. 169 (Case No. 4:10-cv-03211). Mrs. Scott
shall also make herself available in Omaha, Nebraska to provide deposition testimony
regarding the 1997 accident involving Mr. Scott, including, but not limited to, the injuries
Mr. Scott sustained in the accident. The deposition shall be conducted promptly, at a time
mutually convenient for the parties. Kozlov’s request for costs and attorney fees is denied.
DATED April 19, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
S/ F.A. Gossett
United States Magistrate Judge
3