Cerrato v. Nutribullet, LLC, 8:16-cv-03077

Plaintiffs Phyllis and German Cerrato sued NutriBullet and Capital Brands after Phyllis allegedly was burned when a NutriBullet Pro 900 Series blender exploded and hot liquid caused injury and property damage.
Plaintiffs served a second request for production seeking all accident reports and consumer complaints about the product; Defendant objected as overbroad and limited production to incidents it considered “similar enough.”
Defendant produced two pre-incident reports it deemed potentially relevant but refused to produce broader complaint files without limiting principles (e.g., substantially similar circumstances).
Plaintiff moved to compel production; discovery deadline had passed but the motion was filed and briefed.
Court found the requests overbroad and disproportionate as drafted but concluded a narrowed time- and circumstance-limited production was appropriate: Defendant must supplement by producing complaints and accident reports from five years before the incident through the complaint date for incidents where the Pro 900 cup could not be turned off.
Court required redaction of other consumers’ private/confidential information and denied plaintiff’s request for fees and costs related to the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of discovery for prior accidents and complaints	Request all accident reports and complaints for the product so plaintiff can identify substantially similar incidents	Requests are overbroad, vague, and not proportional; discovery should be limited to incidents substantially similar to plaintiff’s accident	Granted in part: production limited to incidents within 5 years pre-incident through complaint date where the Pro 900 cup could not be turned off
Temporal scope of discoverable incidents	No temporal limit; produce all responsive documents	Limit to pre-incident or only those similar enough; exclude subsequent incidents as irrelevant	Court set a 5-year pre-incident to complaint-date window; allowed discovery of subsequent incidents within that window and up to complaint date
Confidentiality of third-party consumer information	Plaintiff did not contest redaction request	Defendant objected that files contain private consumer data	Court ordered redaction of names, addresses, phone numbers, SSNs and other private information before production
Fees for filing the motion to compel	Sought fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion	Opposed	Denied; motion for fees denied

Porter v. Ray, 461 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2006) (discovery rules do not permit a fishing expedition)
Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545 (11th Cir. 1985) (trial court has wide discretion in setting discovery limits)
Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729 (11th Cir. 1984) (motions to compel discovery are committed to district court discretion)
Tran v. Toyota Motor Corp., 420 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2005) (federal substantial similarity doctrine governs admission of other-incident evidence)
Heath v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 126 F.3d 1391 (11th Cir. 1997) (other-incident evidence admissible only if conditions substantially similar)
Hessen v. Jaguar Cars, Inc., 915 F.2d 641 (11th Cir. 1990) (prior accidents admissible when substantially similar and not too remote in time)
Moore v. Armour Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1194 (11th Cir. 1991) (district court wide discretion in setting discovery limits)
Dollar v. Long Mfg., N.C., Inc., 561 F.2d 613 (5th Cir. 1977) (subsequent incidents may be admissible to prove causation when circumstances of an accident are unknown)