Marolf v. AyA Aguirre & Aranzabal S.A.
4:09-cv-03221
D. Neb.Mar 8, 2011Background
- Plaintiff Douglas Marolf sues AyA Aguirre & Aranzabal S.A. for products liability over a No. 2, 28 gauge shotgun allegedly defective.
- Marolf served interrogatories and requests for production; AyA supplemented responses after dispute and sought a protective order.
- Parties disagree on the scope and manner of protection for confidential/materially sensitive discovery materials.
- The court held a blanket protective order is appropriate, conditioned on good-faith designations and future challenges to designations.
- Court addressed scope of discovery (entire shotgun vs barrel; other AyA 28 gauge shotguns with identical barrel specs) and responsiveness of AyA’s discovery answers; ordered supplementation and set deadlines.
- The order granted AyA’s protective order as modified and allowed broader discovery within narrowly defined parameters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of protective order | Marolf seeks defined protections and list of protected documents. | AyA seeks blanket protection for confidential materials. | Protective order granted as modified; good-faith designations required. |
| Discovery scope—entire shotgun vs barrel | Discovery should cover all components of the Subject Shotgun. | Only the barrel is implicated; other parts unnecessary. | Discovery allowed for all components of the Subject Shotgun. |
| Discovery scope—other AyA 28 gauge shotguns | Other AyA 28 gauge shotguns with identical barrel specs are relevant. | Other models may differ in length/choke; not all AyA models are relevant. | Respond to requests limited to AyA 28 gauge shotguns with identical barrel specifications to the Subject Shotgun. |
| Responsiveness of AyA’s answers | AyA has provided incomplete responses (Nos. 2, 14, 21). | Supplementation may resolve objections; some responses stand. | AyA ordered to supplement Nos. 2, 14, 21 by deadline; evasive conduct not tolerated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1978) (broad discovery relevance and threshold showing of relevance)
- Gillard v. Boulder Valley School District RE-2, 196 F.R.D. 382 (D. Colo. 2000) (types of protective orders and good-faith designation emphasis)
- Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377 (8th Cir. 1992) (definition of 'same or similar' for discovery of product components)
- Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1998) (discovery scope and trial judge’s discretion)
- Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (motion to compel arbitration standard akin to summary judgment)