Alley v. Mtd Products,Inc.

2018 WL4689112 (E.D. Pa Sept. 28, 2018)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Alley (P) sued D alleging that he was injured by a defective snowblower which was manufactured and sold by D. P was inflating the tire of the snowblower using an air compressor when the tire's plastic rim burst, injuring P's hand. A discovery dispute arose regarding P's 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice and a request for production of documents. Request for Documents No. 6, seeks: Any document including Complaints and correspondence referencing any prior or subsequent claims against you which resulted from the same or similar circumstances as those set forth in the Complaint ... [including] any instance where an individual claims he sustained an injury as a result of the use of a similar product. P argues that D must produce all expert reports, deposition transcripts, and discovery responses generated in prior cases involving snowblowers that D manufactured. D filed a Motion for Protective Order. D argues: (1) that in his Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice, P seeks improper 'discovery on discovery' by requesting information on D's storage, creation, retrieval, and retention of documents that P seeks in discovery; and (2) that P's discovery requests for documents from prior litigation involving D's snowblowers are not proportional to the needs of this case under Rule 26(b).