Fassett v. Sears Holdings Corp.
319 F.R.D. 143
M.D. Penn.2017Background
- Plaintiff Daniel Fassett suffered severe burns when gasoline sprayed and ignited while he loosened the gas cap on a Craftsman "Zero Turn" riding lawnmower; suit filed May 2015 asserting negligence, strict liability, and related claims.
- Central discovery dispute: scope of discoverable materials about alternative gas-cap designs and other lawnmower models not involved in the accident.
- Plaintiffs seek broad production from Bemis (gas-cap manufacturer) and Briggs & Stratton (mower manufacturer) including testing, warranty/claims, and prior-litigation files for many models and long time periods.
- Defendants object as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and privileged for some materials (including settlement-related documents and work product).
- The court applies amended Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)’s proportionality factors and adopts a sliding-scale approach: greater similarity to the accident component → broader, more-purposeful discovery; lesser similarity → narrower, purpose-limited discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discoverability of alternative gas-cap designs from Bemis | All free-venting cap designs and related records (testing, claims, warranty) are relevant to show safer alternatives and notice | Only the open vent design used on the subject mower is relevant; other designs are dissimilar | Production required for non-privileged testing/warranty/materials for free-venting caps that are functionally similar (open, screw, covered, duckbill) but prior-claim/litigation files limited: only prior claims substantially similar (open cap) are discoverable |
| Use of prior claims/litigation files (Bemis & Briggs & Stratton) | Prior claims across free-venting caps show notice and danger | Prior claims are factually dissimilar and thus not relevant; burdensome to produce all | Prior-accident files are discoverable only where facts/circumstances are substantially similar to this accident; broad requests for all prior claims denied; work-product protected logs must be produced with specificity |
| Scope of Briggs & Stratton production (other mower models and components) | Plaintiffs seek documents for many models and product lines to identify defects/knowledge | Defendants: production for only models comparable in cap, tank, frame, layout, and heat shielding; broad requests could include ~100 products | Limited to specific similar models identified (Simplicity Axion, Snapper 150Z, Craftsman ZT7000, ZT75000, plus Coronet documents already being produced); broad requests across all products denied |
| Temporal scope of discovery | Plaintiffs sought documents dating to 1970 | Defendants: older documents are burdensome and not proportional | Temporal limit set to five years before approximate manufacture/sale period; here discovery limited to no earlier than Jan 1, 2000 (five years before manufacture/sale window) |
| Settlement/release documents and communications (Briggs & Stratton) | Plaintiffs say releases/communications show knowledge | Defendants assert FRE 408 and confidentiality; highly sensitive and low probative value | Requests for settlement releases and related communications denied under Rule 408 and proportionality; other claim-review/warranty-trend meeting records are discoverable for the enumerated models subject to privilege logs |
Key Cases Cited
- Marroquin-Manriquez v. I.N.S., 699 F.2d 129 (3d Cir.) (district court discovery discretion reviewed for abuse)
- In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810 (3d Cir.) (standard for appellate review of discovery rulings)
- Fine v. Facet Aerospace Prods. Co., 133 F.R.D. 439 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (test for when different product models are sufficiently similar for discovery in products-liability cases)
- Gumbs v. Int’l Harvester, Inc., 718 F.2d 88 (3d Cir.) (prior-accident evidence admissible to show notice only if substantially similar)
- Barker v. Deere & Co., 60 F.3d 158 (3d Cir.) (requirement of substantial similarity for prior-occurrence evidence)
- Berrier v. Simplicity Mfg., Inc., 563 F.3d 38 (3d Cir.) (discussion of design-defect proof and alternative designs)
- Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400 (7th Cir.) (observations on discovery burden and cost in modern litigation)
- Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772 (3d Cir.) (standards for sealing documents)