Fassett et al v. Sears Holdings Corporation et al

Filing 115

ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry) Granting in part and Denying in part Motions to Compel Doc. 93 and 94. (See Order for further details).Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 1/27/2017. (jn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DANIEL FASSETT and LESLIE FASSETT,
husband and wife, individually and as parents and
natural guardians of J.F., an minor,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, SEARS,
ROEBUCK AND CO., SEARS HOMETOWN
AND OUTLET STORES, INC., SEARS
AUTHORIZED HOMETOWN STORES, LLC,
KENMORE CRAFTSMAN DIEHARD
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC, BRIGGS &
STRATTON CORPORATION, SIMPLICITY
MANUFACTURING and KOHLER CO.
Defendants.
And
BRIGGS & STRATTON POWER PRODUCTS
GROUP, LLC,
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
BEMIS MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
a Foreign Corporation,
Third-Party Defendant.
ORDER
January 27, 2017
1

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 4:15-cv-00941
(Judge Brann)

AND NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with the accompanying
Memorandum filed on this date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Bemis Discovery. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Documents from
Third-Party Defendant Bemis Manufacturing Company, ECF No. 94,
is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
a.

b.

2.

Warranty information, testing data, and any other materials
evidencing over-pressurization or geysering corresponding to
each of the identified free venting caps designs (open, screw,
covered, and duckbill) are relevant to a number of Plaintiffs’
theories and are discoverable, so long as they do not constitute
work product.
Although material unprotected by the work product doctrine as
to prior claims involving the open gas cap design is
discoverable, the same is not true of prior claims or litigation
involving screw, cover, or duckbill caps. As for the latter group,
the differences in design and what tend to be the distinct factual
circumstances render them beyond the scope of discovery.

Briggs & Stratton Discovery. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Documents from Briggs & Stratton Corporation and Briggs & Stratton
Power Products Group, LLC, ECF No. 93, is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
a.

The Briggs & Stratton Defendants should produce or continue
to produce only those non-privileged records associated with
the Simplicity Axion, the Snapper 150Z, the Craftsman
ZT7000, and the Craftsman ZT75000. Defendants have also
indicated that they are producing similar documents that
correspond to the Coronet model, which documents they should
continue to produce. Defendants need not produce those
documents requested in Categories 1 and 2, except and to the
extent that they pertain to the five lawnmower models identified
above.

b.

Plaintiffs’ Category 3 request seeks information relating to the
Dortch/Reaves, Oliff, Milner, Reynolds, Steve Johnson,
2

Timothy Johnson, James Thomas, O. Alexander, Ron Sheets, or
Earl Vinson mowers and lawsuits, including all prior warranty
claims. The Category 4 request seeks all “In Depth
Investigation” (IDI) records from the Briggs & Stratton liability
claims system. Consistent with my prior reasoning, those
requests are denied, except and to the extent that any of the
previously named actions or requests involved any of the five
enumerated lawnmower models about which material has been
deemed discoverable (the Simplicity Axion, the Snapper 150Z,
the Craftsman ZT7000, the Craftsman ZT75000, and the
Coronet).
c.

Categories 5 and 6 seek releases obtained by Thomas Wise,
including drafts and any markups by Mr. Wise related to claims
of venting clogging of fuel caps, fires, or near misses, as well as
cover letter or cover email communications between Mr. Wise
and claimants/owners from whom Mr. Wise obtained releases
regarding such claims. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence
408, these documents are beyond the scope of discovery.

d.

Category 7, which seeks records of the claims review/warranty
trend meetings with or claims personnel, are discoverable and
should be produced, subject to the earlier limitation set as to the
five enumerated models, as well as any valid claim of privilege
or protection.

e.

The Defendants shall engage in a reasonable, good faith search
to locate the gas cap purchase order file sought in Category 8.

f.

The Defendants shall complete their production of Category 9
documents, which seek claims, warranty or other litigation files
for the Coronet riding lawnmower, subject to any valid claim of
privilege or protection.

g.

Category 10, which requests the production of materials for all
Briggs & Stratton gasoline engine products, even those
products that are not lawnmowers, is denied. Plaintiffs’
discovery is appropriately limited to the five lawnmower
models enumerated above.

3

3.

Temporal Scope of Discovery. The discovery of information and
material relating to the manufacture, design, or sale of the subject
lawnmower or its parts (or the comparable models and parts identified
above) is limited to no earlier than January 1, 2000.

4.

Privilege Logs. As applicable, each Defendant shall produce a
privilege log detailing with sufficient specificity any material that
would be discoverable but for the claim of a valid privilege or
protection.

5.

Compelled Discovery & Privilege Logs Deadline. Any discovery or
privilege log required to be produced by this Order and the
accompanying Memorandum shall be made available to counsel for
Plaintiffs no later than March 10, 2017.

6.

Renewed Case Management Deadlines. The following case
management deadlines apply to this action and supersede any prior
case management deadlines:
a.

Discovery --------------------------------- March 31, 2017

b.

Plaintiff’s Expert Report --------------- May 1, 2017

c.

Defendant’s Expert Report ------------- May 31, 2017

d.

Supplemental/Rebuttal Reports -------- June 14, 2017

e.

Dispositive Motions --------------------- August 14, 2017

f.

All remaining case management deadlines are HELD IN
ABEYANCE pending resolution of the parties’
dispositive motions, if any.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge
4