Callahan v. Toys "R" US-Delaware, Inc., 1:15-cv-02815

Plaintiffs (T.G., a minor, and her grandmother) sue Toys "R" Us-Delaware and Pacific Cycle for defects and negligence after a bicycle's rear brake failed; Plaintiffs allege improper final assembly under Toys "R" Us’ "Ready to Ride" program.
Plaintiffs' expert indicates the alleged assembly defect involved brake cable length and/or routing in a cable-controlled (linear pull) rear brake system.
Plaintiffs moved to compel discovery on multiple categories; most disputes were resolved, leaving three contested categories: (1) prior complaints about rear brake assembly, (2) contact information for former Toys "R" Us employees, and (3) Toys "R" Us "Ready to Ride" program documents dated after the sale.
The court applies Rule 26(b)(1) relevance/proportionality principles and a relaxed "substantial similarity" test for discovery-stage relevance of other-incident complaints.
The court ordered production, with limits: complaints about the same or similar models with similar rear brake (linear pull) systems from the three years before the sale; contact information for certain former employees; and "Ready to Ride" documents for the earliest two-year period the defendants possess.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Production of complaints about rear brake assembly	Complaints about improperly assembled rear brakes on same/similar bikes are relevant to notice and negligent training/supervision	Too broad; "similar" models differ in routing and are irrelevant; burden/timeframe concerns	Granted in part: produce complaints concerning same or similar models with same/similar rear (linear pull) brake systems from 3 years before sale
2. Contact information for former Toys "R" Us employees	Needed to interview former employees with knowledge about assembly and procedures	Disclosure may permit ex parte contact that could violate Md. Rules of Professional Conduct; prefer communications through counsel	Granted: defendants must provide contact information; court cautioned plaintiffs to avoid ethical violations and suggested using counsel as safer route
3. "Ready to Ride" program documents dated after sale	Post-sale documents may lead to admissible evidence, aid cross-examination, and help locate pre-sale materials	Post-sale documents irrelevant to warranties; some pre-sale records destroyed	Granted: produce "Ready to Ride" materials for the earliest two-year period defendants possess; post-sale date alone does not make materials irrelevant

Desrosiers v. MAG Indus. Automation Systems, LLC, 675 F. Supp. 2d 598 (D. Md.) (discusses burden on party resisting discovery and relaxed similarity test at discovery stage)
Bryte v. Am. Household, Inc., 429 F.3d 469 (4th Cir.) (analysis of similarity for other-incident evidence)
Rye v. Black & Decker Mfr. Co., 889 F.2d 100 (6th Cir.) (consideration of other-incident relevance)
Fine v. Facet Aerospace Products Co., 133 F.R.D. 439 (S.D.N.Y.) (use of similarity tests for incident evidence)
Rogosin v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 164 F. Supp. 2d 684 (D. Md.) (declines to issue advisory opinions on ethical constraints for contacting former employees)
Camden v. State of Md., 910 F. Supp. 1115 (D. Md.) (counseling caution on ex parte contacts with former employees)