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)

Download PDF
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?