Kwasniewski et al v. sanofi-aventis U.S., LLC et al
Filing
190
ORDER Granting 181 Motion to Compel. See Order for details/deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/3/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
JENNIFER KWASNIEWSKI, et al.,
11
12
13
14
15
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
Case No. 2:12-cv-00515-GMN-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 181)
16
17
Pending before the Court is Defendant Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC’s motion to compel
18
inspection of decedent’s computer hard drive and mobile telephone. Docket No. 181. Plaintiffs filed
19
a response, and Defendant filed a reply. Docket Nos. 184, 188. The Court finds this motion properly
20
resolved without oral argument. See LR 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s motion
21
to compel, Docket No. 181, is hereby GRANTED.
22
I.
BACKGROUND
23
This action arises from the death of Andrew A. Kwasniewski (“decedent”), who committed
24
suicide while prescribed Ambien CR. See, e.g., Docket No. 148 ¶ 64. Plaintiffs initially commenced
25
the action in state court. Docket No. 1 at 2. On March 27, 2012, Defendant Sanofi-Aventis removed
26
the action to this Court. Docket No. 1. On April 25, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
27
alleging, inter alia, failure to warn, negligence, and strict liability claims. Docket No. 148. Plaintiffs
28
allege that Ambien CR caused the decedent to commit suicide. See, e.g., id. ¶ 64.
1
II.
DISCUSSION
2
When a party fails to provide requested discovery, the requesting party may move to compel
3
that discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). “[B]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit
4
or deny discovery.” Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Parties are permitted to
5
seek discovery of any nonprivileged matter that is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.
6
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The party seeking to avoid discovery bears the burden of explaining why
7
discovery should be denied. See, e.g., Carr v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 312 F.R.D. 459, 469
8
(N.D. Tex. 2015) (addressing burdens following 2015 amendments to the discovery rules).
9
Defendant submits that it seeks the discovery at issue in order to determine whether personal,
10
professional, or financial stressors could have contributed to the decedent’s suicide. Docket No. 181
11
at 6-8. Defendant further notes that the parties previously agreed to a stipulated protocol for
12
allowing Defendant to search the decedent’s electronic devices which, it submits, the Court should
13
enforce. Id. at 6. Plaintiffs respond that the discovery requested is neither relevant nor proportional
14
because Defendant has not yet filed an answer. Docket No. 184 at 2-3. Plaintiffs do not dispute the
15
validity of the stipulated protocol. See Docket No. 184. Defendant replies that, inter alia, Plaintiffs
16
placed the cause of decedent’s death in issue by alleging that Ambien CR caused his suicide. Docket
17
No. 188 at 2. Defendant also submits that the discovery sought is relevant and proportional, and that
18
Plaintiffs impliedly agreed as such because “the parties previously stipulated to a cost-sharing
19
agreement that distributes the cost of data retrieval between the two parties.” Id. at 4.
20
The Court finds that the discovery that Defendant seeks is clearly relevant to the issues
21
presented, specifically the decedent’s state of mind before his suicide, and any factors that
22
contributed to his suicide. Additionally, the Court finds the discovery requested proportional to the
23
needs of the case. Moreover, the Court has repeatedly rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that discovery
24
should not ensue prior to the filing of an answer. See, e.g., Docket Nos. 165, 174. Further, as
25
Defendant notes, the fact that Plaintiffs previously agreed to a stipulated protocol for the exact
26
searches at issue here weighs in favor of granting this motion. See, e.g., Docket No. 181 at 6 (citing
27
28
2
1
Direct Lineal Descendants of Jack v. Sec’y of the Interior, 2014 WL 5439781, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct.
2
24, 2014)).
3
III.
CONCLUSION
4
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel inspection of decedent’s computer hard drive
5
and mobile telephone, Docket No. 181, is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall allow Defendant
6
access to the decedent’s electronic devices in accordance with the parties’ stipulated protocol for
7
preservation and forensic evaluation of electronically stored information, Docket No. 105, no later
8
than March 17, 2017.
9
10
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 3, 2017
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?