Rehberger v. Honeywell International, Inc.

Filing 107

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons stated in this memorandum, the undersigned Magistrate Judge DENIES plaintiff's motion to deem these requests admitted or, in the alternative, to require supplemental responses. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 3/5/12. (dt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
PAUL REHBERGER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
)
Defendant.
)

NO: 3:11-0085
Judge Sharp/Bryant
Jury Demand

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff has filed his motion to compel defendant to
serve supplemental responses to certain requests for admissions
(Docket Entry No. 66).

Specifically, plaintiff argues that the

Court should deem requests number 4, 5, 39, 40, 41 and 42 admitted
or, alternatively, require defendant Honeywell International, Inc.
to serve supplemental responses to these six requests.
Defendant Honeywell has responded in opposition (Docket
Entry No. 77).
For the reasons stated below, the undersigned Magistrate
Judge finds that plaintiff’s motion to compel should be DENIED.
In these six requests for admission, plaintiff seeks to
interpret and characterize certain information found in documents
apparently

produced

by

defendant

Honeywell

during

discovery.

Requests 4 and 5 relate to an email and accompanying report by
Chuck Bartlett, a Honeywell engineer, regarding a 2004 study
relating to ozone production by the Honeywell model F50F electronic
air cleaner and a competitive model.

Apparently, Mr. Bartlett’s

email and the report accompanying the email describe certain
findings obtained during this study. Requests 4 and 5, rather than
merely seeking an admission of the authenticity of the subject
email

and

report,

include

what

amounts

to

plaintiff’s

interpretation or characterization of the reported study results.
Honeywell, in response, objects to the terminology of the requests
and then, subject to such objections, denies the substance of these
two requests.
Plaintiff in his motion argues that Honeywell’s responses
are clearly insufficient and that the Court should deem these two
requests admitted despite Honeywell’s denials. As grounds for this
argument, plaintiff states: “In short, this document [the Bartlett
email and report] without doubt establishes that Honeywell has
knowledge of at least one test result where a Honeywell F50
generated an amount of ozone above 10 ppb and 20 ppb.” (Docket
Entry No. 67 at 4).
Requests 39 - 42 similarly seek to impose plaintiff’s
interpretation

or

characterization

upon

certain

documents

apparently produced by Honeywell in discovery. These requests seek
to have Honeywell admit that it received complaints from customers
about experiencing “adverse health effects,” a term defined by
plaintiff, which the customers attributed to ozone produced by
Honeywell electronic air cleaners. In his motion papers, plaintiff
includes

what

appear

to

be

excerpted

2

reports

of

telephone

complaints received by Honeywell and apparently maintained in
Honeywell’s call database (Docket Entry No. 67 at 6 through 8).
Honeywell has objected to these requests on the grounds
that they are not relevant because records of customer complaints
are

inadmissible,

unsubstantiated

hearsay

lacking

scientific

reliability necessary to link such complaints causally to ozone.
The undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that defendant
Honeywell’s objections to these requests have merit and that
plaintiff’s motion to compel should be DENIED.

The Court is

persuaded

that

both

the

documents

and

and

mean

the
the

best

evidence

customer

of

complaints

what
say

Bartlett
are

the

documents themselves rather than either parties’s attempts to
interpret or characterize them.

Plaintiff may seek an admission

that these documents are authentic records maintained by defendant
Honeywell, may seek to have them admitted into evidence at trial
and, if they are admitted, may argue to the jury what these
documents properly mean and what conclusions should be drawn from
them. However, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that the six
requests

for

admission

at

issue

improperly

seek

to

impose

plaintiff’s interpretation or characterization on the documents
themselves and that Honeywell’s objections have merit.
For

the

reasons

stated

in

this

memorandum,

the

undersigned Magistrate Judge DENIES plaintiff’s motion to deem

3

these

requests

admitted

or,

in

the

alternative,

to

require

supplemental responses.
It is so ORDERED.

s/ John S. Bryant
JOHN S. BRYANT
United States Magistrate Judge

4