297 F.R.D. 194
D. Conn.2014Background
- This is a product liability case involving a locking reconstruction plate (LRP) used in the jaw.
- Plaintiff-Napolitano alleges negligent manufacture, inadequate warnings, and breaches of warranties],“The plate was sold on Aug 4, 2003, implanted May 1, 2006, fractured ~6 weeks later, and replaced on July 27, 2007.
- Pursuant to a court order, plaintiff moved for sufficiency of Synthes’ responses to RFAs and for production, with oral argument held Jan 13, 2014.
- The RFAs largely concern imputing Synthes’ knowledge from corporate documents to the company; some RFAs identified specific employees.
- The court’s ruling: amend certain responses to reflect that knowledge is not imputable; require production and further responses within 21 days; grant in part and deny in part on the omnibus discovery motions.
- The court also denied sanctions and declined to extend discovery beyond the established deadlines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imputing corporate knowledge from documents | Napolitano contends Synthes knew from documents that knowledge could be imputable | Synthes denies imputing knowledge without a proper basis; costly to determine | RFA responses amended to deny imputability; reasonable inquiry required |
| Sufficiency of responses to RFAs 1–3 and related requests | Synthes failed to provide sufficient detail about knowledge and control | Responses were adequate given documents’ provenance | Amendments required; some RFAs to be admitted/denied with specifics within 21 days |
| Motion to compel production and Fifth RFP requests | Requests are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence | Requests were burdensome or duplicative and not all documents exist | GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; specified RFPs must be produced within 21 days; Fifth RFP granted for allowing service; other requests deferred or narrowed |
| Requests for production Nos. 63–65 and related items | Documents may reveal relevant background and compliance history | Some requests beyond discovery deadline or not relevant | Requests 63–64 deemed reasonably calculated; production ordered within 21 days; 65 is sustained as non-discoverable per prior ruling |
| Late October 2013 discovery requests (Matrix DHF) – good cause | New matrix-related requests may uncover relevant incidental evidence | Late, not shown good cause, potential delay | Denied for lack of good cause; leave to file avoided; no extension for those requests |
Key Cases Cited
- T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Fun v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., 174 F.R.D. 38 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (reasonable inquiry and control limit Rule 36 admissions; not a broad discovery device)
- Al-Jundi v. Rockefeller, 91 F.R.D. 590 (W.D.N.Y.1981) (requirements to provide information obtainable; reasonable efforts to obtain knowledge)
- Colon v. Blades, 268 F.R.D. 129 (D.P.R.2010) (responses to document requests under oath when based on production assertions)