Smith v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc
3:15-cv-00560
W.D. Ky.May 31, 2017Background
- March 7, 2015: tractor-trailer driven by Danny Webb collided with and killed Nicholas Smith; Webb later admitted he was on the phone during the collision. Plaintiff Amy Smith sued Webb and Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL).
- April 12, 2016: Plaintiff deposed ODFL’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee, Sam Faucette; mid-deposition ODFL produced a post-accident interview form marking "cell phone/handheld in use: Yes." Plaintiff says she had requested that form earlier but received it only during the deposition.
- Forensic review of Webb’s phone revealed active communications around the crash; Plaintiff served a second 30(b)(6) notice (Feb. 2017) seeking topics and documents about ODFL policies, accident records, training, prior incidents, SMS violations, and post-accident interview forms.
- Discovery was stayed in part; parties conferred by telephone April 19, 2017; Court invited simultaneous briefs on whether the 30(b)(6) deposition should be reopened.
- The Court granted Plaintiff leave to reopen the 30(b)(6) deposition in part, denied it in part, and imposed temporal and topic limits (generally Jan. 1, 2010 to either March 7, 2015 or April 12, 2016 depending on topic). Several requests (e.g., complete internal cellphone policy and Webb’s statements previously sought) were denied as cumulative or already available.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff may reopen ODFL Rule 30(b)(6) deposition | New evidence (post-accident form produced mid-deposition and phone forensics) justifies reopening to explore company records, practices, and other incidents | Reopening is cumulative, duplicative, and disproportionate; some topics exceed relevance to Webb | Granted in part: Court permits reopening limited to specific topics and date ranges; some topics denied as duplicative |
| Scope re: ODFL written policy on handheld device use | Needs testimony/documents about ODFL policy/practice to prove negligent supervision/training | ODFL has no separate policy (follows FMCSA regs); topic already covered at original deposition | Denied as to topic 1 (ODFL policy) — duplicative; no production required |
| Scope re: changes after FMCSA rules (49 CFR 392.80/392.82) | Post-accident form suggests ODFL tracks cellphone use; need to probe changes to manuals, communications, training after codification | Topic partly duplicative; some forensic evidence does not prove texting | Granted as to topics 2 and 3 with limits (Jan 1, 2010–Apr 12, 2016) |
| Discovery into other drivers’ incidents, citations, and lawsuits | Incidents, citations, post-accident forms involving other drivers may show routine practice, notice, or negligent training/supervision | Evidence of other drivers is irrelevant or unduly burdensome and prejudicial | Granted in part: Court allows questioning and production re other drivers for Jan 1, 2010–Mar 7, 2015; excludes reopening on issues already covered for Webb himself |
Key Cases Cited
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (broad relevance standard for discovery)
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (scope of discovery and factual development)
- S.S. v. E. Ky. Univ., 532 F.3d 445 (6th Cir.) (district court’s broad discretion over discovery)
- Chrysler Corp. v. Fedders Corp., 643 F.2d 1229 (6th Cir.) (discovery discretion)