Stratton v. Thompson/Center Arms et al

Filing 110

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 98 Motion for Sanctions. Defendant is still to comply with Plaintiff's discovery requests per 85 Memorandum Decision. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul Kohler on 5/13/20 (alt)

Case 4:18-cv-00040-DN-PK Document 110 Filed 05/13/20 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
ZANE STRATTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS, INC.,
SMITH & WESSON CORP., SMITH &
WESSON HOLDING CO., CABELA’S
WHOLESALE, LLC, and DOES I -X,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
RULE 37 MOTION FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER REVERSING DENIAL OF
PLAINTIFF’S SHORT FORM MOTION
TO COMPEL INTERROGATORY
RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS
Case No. 4:18-cv-00040-DN-PK
District Judge David Nuffer
Magistrate Judge Paul Kohler

In an order dated December 3, 2019,1 the Court ordered Defendant Thompson/Center
Arms, Inc. (“Thompson”) to supplement its responses to Plaintiff Zane Stratton’s (“Plaintiff”)
Interrogatory No. 4, Interrogatory No. 9 and Request for Production No. 4 (the “December 3
Order”).
Plaintiff now argues that Thompson has failed to comply with the December 3 Order, and
moves for Rule 37 sanctions (“Motion”). 2 The central issue presented by the Motion is whether
the December 3 Order requires Thompson to identify and produce all documents related to each
similar incident, or only all documents related to the notice received by Thompson of each
incident.

Memorandum Decision and Order Reversing Denial of Plaintiff’s Short Form Motion to Compel Interrogatory
Responses and Documents, docket no. 85, filed December 3, 2019.

1

Plaintiff’s Rule 37 Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with the Court’s Memorandum Decision and Order
Reversing Denial of Plaintiff’s Short Form Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses and Documents, docket no.
98, filed March 17, 2020.

2

Case 4:18-cv-00040-DN-PK Document 110 Filed 05/13/20 Page 2 of 7

Request for Production No. 4
Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 4 states:
Produce all documents related to any notice to Thompson/Center
(including, without limitation, warranty claims, complaints,
returns, lawsuits, injury or death claims, or any other form of
notice) from 2007 through the present concerning any explosion,
fracture, breakage, cracking, or other weakness in the barrel of any
muzzle loading rifle manufactured by Thompson/Center. 3
In response, Thompson initially produced only documents related to notices of incidents
involving Omega model rifles.4 Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of responsive
documents for all muzzleloaders manufactured by Thompson, or at least all muzzleloaders with
the same barrel metal as the subject rifle model. 5 In the December 3 Order, the court ordered:
3. In response to Request for Production No. 4, Thompson must
produce all documents related to any notice Thompson received, as
described in Paragraph 2 of this Order, supra, relating to
Interrogatory No. 9.6
Thompson subsequently produced documents related to notices of incidents involving all
rifle models made from the same metal as the rifle involved in the subject accident. 7 Plaintiff
contends the December 3 Order requires more: the production of “all documents related to each
incident”, including documents such as expert reports, witness statements, photographs, and the
like. 8

3

Id. at 5.

4

Id.

Plaintiff’s Short Form Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses and Documents at 2, docket no. 66, filed April
17, 2019.

5

6

December 3 Order.

7

Motion at 7.

8

Id. at 13.

2

Case 4:18-cv-00040-DN-PK Document 110 Filed 05/13/20 Page 3 of 7

Paragraph 3 of the December 3 Order ordered Thompson to produce “documents related
to any notice Thompson received.”9 It did not order Thompson to produce all documents related
to any incident; rather, the order was limited in scope to documents relating to notice.
This is consistent with the scope of Request for Production No. 4, which only requests
the production of notice-related documents.10 It is further consistent with the scope of Plaintiff’s
motion to compel, which did not address Thompson’s refusal to produce all documents, as
opposed to just notice-related documents, for incidents involving the Omega model rifles. The
December 3 Order should not be read to require production of documents beyond the scope of
the underlying request for production and motion to compel.
Plaintiff’s expansive interpretation of Request for Production No. 4 is based on the last
several words of Paragraph 3: “as described in Paragraph 2 of this Order, supra, relating to
Interrogatory No. 9”.11 Plaintiff suggests this language incorporates the “identify all documents
related to each incident” provision from Paragraph 2 into Paragraph 3, turning Paragraph 3 into
an order to “produce all documents related to each incident.” 12
The Court rejects Plaintiff’s interpretation. The “as described in Paragraph 2 of this
Order, supra, relating to Interrogatory No. 9” language serves to establish the scope of incidents
for which notice documents need to be produced—that is, incidents involving “any muzzle
loading rifle manufactured by Thompson, and made from the same metal as the Subject Rifle”,
which scope is stated in Paragraph 2 of the December 3 Order in relation to Interrogatory No. 9.

9

December 3 Order (emphasis added).

10

Motion at 5.

Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Rule 37 Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with the
Court’s Memorandum Decision and Order Reversing Denial of Plaintiff’s Short Form Motion to Compel
Interrogatory Responses and Documents (Reply Memorandum) at 4, docket no. 103, filed April 6, 2020.
11

12

Id.

3

Case 4:18-cv-00040-DN-PK Document 110 Filed 05/13/20 Page 4 of 7

Plaintiff contends it needs access to all documents related to each incident in order to
establish substantial similarity to Plaintiff’s accident. 13 If so, Plaintiff is free to propound a
request for production of documents to Thompson asking for production of all documents related
to each incident. Request for Production No. 4 does not do that.
Accordingly, Thompson did not fail to comply with the December 3 Order by restricting
its response to Request for Production No. 4 to notice-related documents, and Plaintiff’s request
for sanctions on this ground is DENIED.
Interrogatory No. 9
Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 9 states:
State whether Thompson/Center received any notice (including,
without limitation, warranty claims, complaints, returns, lawsuits,
injury or death claims, or any other form of notice) from 2007
through the present concerning any explosion, fracture, breakage,
cracking, or other weakness in the barrel of any muzzle loading
rifle manufactured by Thompson/Center.
If the answer to the foregoing is "yes", please provide the
following:
A. The date of each incident,
B. A description of each incident and the names of the people
involved in the incident,
C. The year, make and model of the Gun involved in each incident,
and
D. Identify all documents related to each incident. 14
Thompson limited its initial response to incidents involving Omega model rifles.15

13

Reply Memorandum at 4.

14

Motion at 4.

15

Id.

4

Case 4:18-cv-00040-DN-PK Document 110 Filed 05/13/20 Page 5 of 7

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Thompson to identify incidents involving all muzzleloaders, or
at least all muzzleloaders with the same barrel metal as the subject rifle model.16 The Court
entered the following order:
2. In response to Interrogatory No. 9, Thompson must state
whether it received any notice (including, without limitation,
warranty claims, complaints, returns, lawsuits, injury or death
claims, or any other form of notice) from 2007 through the present
concerning any explosion, fracture, breakage, cracking, or other
weakness in the barrel of any muzzle loading rifle manufactured by
Thompson, and made from the same metal as the Subject Rifle. If
the answer to the foregoing is “yes,” Thompson must provide the
following:
(A) the date of each incident;
(B) description of each incident and the names of the
people involved in the incident;
(C) the year, make and model of the gun involved in each
incident; and
(D) identify all documents related to each incident. 17
Plaintiff contends that Thompson failed to comply with the December 3 Order because it
did not identify all documents related to the incidents described in response to Interrogatory No.
9, but only those related to notice. 18
Taken in context, the order to “identify all documents related to each incident” is an order
to identify all documents related to notice of incidents. Interrogatory No. 9 is expressly directed
to notices of incidents. Furthermore, Plaintiff did not, in the motion to compel, object to
Thompson only identifying documents related to notice for the Omega model rifles. In Plaintiff’s

Plaintiff’s Short Form Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses and Documents at 2, docket no. 66, filed April
17, 2019.

16

17

December 3 Order.

18

Motion at 13.

5

Case 4:18-cv-00040-DN-PK Document 110 Filed 05/13/20 Page 6 of 7

objection to the order denying the motion to compel, in regard to Interrogatory No. 9, Plaintiff
did not mention anything about Thompson’s failure to identify documents beyond the notice
documents. 19 Thus, the issue of whether or not Thompson should be required to identify all
documents related to the incidents, as opposed to only notice-related documents, had not been
briefed prior to issuance of the December 3 Order, and was not properly before the court for
decision. While the December 3 Order does order Thompson to “identify all documents related
to each incident”, that should be interpreted consistently with the scope of Interrogatory No. 9,
which, as discussed above, is directed to notice.
In addition, Plaintiff contends that Thompson failed to properly identify all incidents as
required by Interrogatory No. 9—specifically, the McClain, Garvick and Ford incidents. 20
The McClain incident is outside the scope of Interrogatory No. 9 and the Discovery Order

because it did not involve any explosion or fracture of the barrel. 21 Plaintiff correctly notes that
the complaint in the McClain incident alleges the muzzleloader exploded, 22 but Thompson
represents that the explosion in that incident involved the breech plug, not the barrel.
The Garvick and Ford incidents were identified by Thompson in its discovery
responses. 23

Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate’s Memorandum Decision and Order Mooting in Part and Denying in Part
Plaintiff’s Short Form Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses and Documents, docket no. 70, filed June 26,
2019.
19

20

Motion at 14.

Defendant Thompson/Center Arms, Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Rule 37 Motion (Opposition Memorandum) at
14-15, docket no. 101, filed March 31, 2020.
21

22

Reply Memorandum at 7.

23

Opposition Memorandum at 16 n. 49.

6

Case 4:18-cv-00040-DN-PK Document 110 Filed 05/13/20 Page 7 of 7

Accordingly, Thompson did not fail to comply with the December 3 Order by restricting
its response to Interrogatory No. 9 to notice-related documents, and Plaintiff’s request for
sanctions on this ground is DENIED.
Interrogatory No. 4
Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 4 states:
State the model names and numbers of all muzzleloader firearms
manufactured by Thompson/Center which have barrels made of the
same metal as the barrel of the Subject Gun, and state the years during
which these firearms were manufactured. 24

In the Discovery Order, the Court entered the following order:
1. In response to Interrogatory No. 4, Thompson must state the model
names and numbers of all muzzleloader firearms manufactured by
Thompson from 1997 to the present which have barrels made of the
same metal as the barrel of the Subject Gun and state the years during
which these firearms were manufactured. 25
Plaintiff has not provided any specific facts or law demonstrating that Thompson’s response
to Interrogatory No. 4 is deficient.

ORDER
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.
Nothing in this Order relieves Thompson of its obligation, as described in the December 3 Order
and this Order, to comply with Plaintiff’s discovery requests.
Signed May 13, 2020.
BY THE COURT
________________________________________
Paul Kohler
United States Magistrate Judge

24

Motion at 4.

25

December 3 Order.

7