Martin et al v. Interstate Battery System of America, Inc. et al

Filing 78

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 69 Motion to Compel (tjc, Dpty Clk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
GEORGE MARTIN and JANET MARTIN,
Husband and Wife,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No.12-CV-184-JED-FHM

INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM OF
AMERICA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, [Dkt. 70], is before the undersigned United States
Magistrate Judge for decision. The matter has been fully briefed, [Dkt. 70, 75, 77], and is
ripe for decision. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
Plaintiffs’ motion seeks to compel answers to interrogatories and responses to
requests for production of documents. Plaintiffs’ opening brief cites general complaints
about the alleged insufficiency of Defendants’ discovery responses, but Plaintiffs’ brief
does not make clear what information Plaintiffs want produced. The argument section of
Plaintiff’s brief relies on a version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 that was significantly changed in
2000. Consequently, the case law cited in Plaintiffs’ brief is outdated and inapplicable to
the instant case.1
In their reply brief Plaintiffs state that the primary discovery dispute remaining is
“Defendants[‘] refusal to produce any documents or other information (kept in any format)

1
The version of R ule 26 cited by Plaintiffs provided that parties “m ay obtain discovery regarding
any m atter, not privileged, w hich is relevant to the subject m atter involved in the pending action . . .” R ule
26 w as am ended in 2000, narrowed the scope of discovery and now provides: “Parties m ay obtain
discovery regarding any nonprivileged m atter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense[.]”
Fed.R .C iv.P. 26.

concerning other exploding JCI batteries of the same or similar make that have occurred
in the past five (5) years.” Plaintiffs do not identify which discovery requests address this
information. The discovery requests identified in Plaintiffs’ opening brief, Interrogatory Nos.
4, 6, 7, 12, and 17, do not specifically request this information.2 [Dkt. 70, pp. 41-44, 46-47].
Interrogatory No. 4 might be read to encompass the information, but that interrogatory is
far too broad to be meaningful. Further, in its June 7, 2013 supplemental response to that
interrogatory JCI represents that it produced responsive documents pursuant to the
protective order “which relate to the design manufacture and testing of the product and the
photographs and subject battery depicting the modifications.” [Dkt. 70, p. 42]. Plaintiff has
not discussed the documents that JCI provided or attempted to demonstrate that the
documents constitute an insufficient response. Thus, even if relief were merited, Plaintiffs
have not provided the court any basis upon which to grant relief.
Arguably, Interrogatory No. 17 might also encompass information that Plaintiff states
is the subject of this discovery dispute. On June 7, 2013, Defendant Johnson Controls
Battery Group, Inc. (JCI) provided a supplemental answer to Interrogatory No. 17, which
asks JCI to identify complaints, lawsuits and claims “relating to the alleged defects of
similar makes and models of the subject product[,]” Defendant JCI answered:
Plaintiff has not alleged any defect with sufficient specificity to
inform Defendants of what the alleged defect is. . . . Defendant
sates that Mr. Jacobson has issued a report on behalf of
Plaintiff which wrongly contends that the subject battery was
defective for failing to include two warnings he has created
and, to the best of Defendant’s understanding, it is Plaintiff’s
2

In their reply brief Plaintiffs m entioned Request for Production N os. 7 and 13 for the first tim e,
but did not m ake any specific argum ent related to those requests. The court has not addressed those
requests but finds that the sam e factors discussed herein apply equally to inform ation sought in those
requests.

2

intent to allege Mr. Jacobson’s conclusion as the “the alleged
defect.” Accordingly, Defendant has searched to identify any
complaints for the five (5) year period prior to Plaintiff’s alleged
accident with respect to the same make and model where the
complaint contains allegations substantially similar to the
opinion of the defect in Mr. Jacobson’s May 1 2013 report.
There were none. Defendant then broadened the search to
determine if during that same period there were any
allegations substantially similar to the opinion of defect in Mr.
Jacobson’s May 1, 2013 report for the other models of marine
batteries sold by defendants. There were none. (The search
was not limited to warnings. It included the underlying
substance of the proposed warning to identify any occurrence
where a claimant asserted a personal injury caused by an
explosion due to plate growth and electrolyte loss resulting
from overcharge.)
[Dkt. 70, pp.46-47]. The court finds that the foregoing response fairly answers the
interrogatory. This case is a products liability lawsuit which addresses the injuries Plaintiff
George Martin received when a deep cycle marine battery designed and manufactured by
Defendant Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc (JCI) exploded. Plaintiffs have identified
a single expert witness who has testified to his opinion that overcharging the battery lead
to its explosion. Plaintiffs’ expert has not identified any specific design or manufacturing
defect in the subject battery, except that the battery lacked sufficient warnings. [Dkt. 75-1,
pp.3-8].
There is no merit to Plaintiffs’ contention that Defendant’s response is an attempt
to unilaterally narrow Plaintiffs’ case to a “failure to warn case” rather than a products
liability case involving theories of manufacturing defects as the case was plead. [Dkt. 77,
p. 3]. Defendant’s response was based on the only defect (failure to warn) identified by
Plaintiffs’ expert witness.

The court finds that Defendant has not impermissibly

3

reinterpreted Plaintiffs’ discovery request, as Plaintiffs argue.

Rather, Defendant

reasonably explained the scope of its answer.
Considering the content of Plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony, Defendant’s adequate
response to Interrogatory No. 17, the lack of specificity in Plaintiff’s arguments, the fact that
the date for identification of experts and submission of expert reports is long past (May 1,
2013), that Plaintiff’s expert was deposed months ago (July 30, 2013), the fact that
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel was filed on October 11, 2013 when at the time the discovery
deadline was set for October 31, 2013, and the four-times extended discovery deadline is
set to expire on December 31, 2013, the court finds that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)3 is
properly applied to deny Plaintiffs’ motion to compel.
Plaintiffs also complain about the failure of the Defendants other than JCI to
respond to discovery requests.

In their brief filed November 5, 2013, Defendants

represented that the requests did not specify that they were directed to those Defendants
and requested until November 15, 2013 in which to provide responses. [Dkt. 75, pp. 1314]. Defendants’ request for additional time is granted.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order Compelling Responses and Documents [Dkt. 70] is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 12th day of December, 2013.

3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) states the court m ust lim it the extent of discovery otherwise allowed
if it determ ines that “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outw eighs its likely benefit, taking
into account the needs of the case, the am ount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the im portance of
the issues at stake in the litigation, and the im portance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues.”

4