Alley v. Mtd Products,Inc.

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


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).