1:23-cv-03506
S.D.N.Y.Dec 3, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Nicolas Millan alleges he suffered serious personal injuries due to a malfunctioning electric scooter (alleged stuck throttle and non-functioning brakes) owned/operated by defendant Veoride, Inc. on December 31, 2021.
- Plaintiff seeks discovery related to similar incidents and maintenance records, arguing such evidence is relevant to Veoride’s notice of a potential dangerous condition and liability for design defect, negligence, and failure to warn.
- Defendant produced some records limited to stuck throttle complaints in the Bronx market over a four-month period but has refused broader discovery requests covering all markets and similar issues over a three-year span.
- Plaintiff claims discovery is necessary to account for defenses and incomplete witness recollections at deposition, and is seeking a court order to compel full production.
- Defendant, a small company, claims broader discovery is disproportional and unduly burdensome, and disputes both the scope and timing of plaintiff’s expanded demands.
- The parties have a history of negotiation over narrowing discovery, but reached an impasse, resulting in this joint letter seeking court direction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Discovery | Requests all market records on similar failures (throttle, brakes, app malfunctions) | Scope limited to NY/4 months is inadequate to show notice/condition | TBD |
| Proportionality and Burden | Claims records are easily accessible electronically | Wide search is burdensome for small company; not proportional | TBD |
| Relevance of Prior/Other Incidents/Complaints | Other markets’ complaints show notice and dangerous condition | Only local, similar events are relevant; other market complaints irrelevant | TBD |
| Timing/Procedural Issues | Diligently pursued discovery; only now apparent what is lacking | Plaintiff delayed raising broader demands; scope shouldn’t be expanded | TBD |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Burnett v. Paul, 52 A.D.3d 510 (2d Dept. 2008) (records from several years prior to an incident are discoverable for notice/liability)
- Timothy Mc. V. Beacon City Sch. Dist., 127 A.D.3d 826 (2d Dept. 2015) (prior similar incidents relevant to liability)
- Kelly G. v. Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers, 99 A.D.3d 756 (2d Dept. 2012) (complaints of dangerous conditions relate to liability)
- Albino v. New York City Hous. Auth., 52 A.D.3d 321 (1st Dept. 2008) (post-accident records are discoverable to show dangerous condition)
- Francklin v. New York El. Co., Inc., 38 A.D.3d 329 (1st Dept. 2007) (post-incident evidence may be relevant for condition and notice)
- Kaplan v. Einy, 209 A.D.2d 248 (1st Dept. 2000) (scope of discoverable evidence in negligence cases)