Davis v. Ryobi Technologies, Inc., 2:16-cv-06882

Plaintiff Andrew Davis was injured and permanently blinded in his right eye when a metal fan assembly on a Ryobi Model 651D sander allegedly fractured and ejected fragments.
The sander was distributed by One World Technologies and purchased from Home Depot.
One World produced a compiled internal “Claims in Possession Report” listing ~220–230 similar reported incidents but redacted consumers’ first names, full addresses, phone numbers, and attorneys.
Davis moved to compel production of the unredacted report under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37; One World refused based on privacy concerns and alleged CPSC and company privacy restrictions.
One World conceded the list was compiled internally (by its Product Safety Manager) rather than prepared by the CPSC.
Magistrate Judge Shields granted the motion, ordering One World to produce the complete, unredacted report within ten days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether One World must produce its unredacted internal Claims in Possession Report	The report is relevant and central to causation, notice, and product-danger proof; plaintiff seeks contact info to investigate and corroborate prior incidents	Production would violate consumer privacy and the CPSC confidentiality rule and One World’s asserted privacy policy	Granted: report is discoverable; CPSC statute inapplicable because report was compiled internally; company policy does not bar discovery

Stagl v. Delta Airlines, 52 F.3d 463 (2d Cir. 1995) (evidence of other accidents is highly relevant and may be central to proving risk and causation; supports compelled production of similar-incident reports)
Hollander v. American Cyanamid Co., 895 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1990) (prior-accident evidence may be admissible to establish dangerousness and notice)