40 results for 'cat:"Product Liability" AND cat:"Discovery"'.
J. Huntsman grants the car owners' motion for discovery sanctions based on the defendant car company's failure to appear at one deposition and failure to provide a prepared witness at another deposition in this lawsuit concerning a Hyundai vehicle and its alleged defects. The plaintiffs are entitled to expenses and attorney fees caused by the company's failure to appear, as well as the "constructive failure to adequately present a corporate representative."
Court: USDC Northern District of Oklahoma , Judge: Huntsman, Filed On: May 8, 2024, Case #: 4:23cv297, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Sanctions, product Liability, discovery
J. Dimke declines to dismiss the customer's complaint alleging that the vape supplies company manufactured a cigarette battery that spontaneously exploded in his pocket and injured him. The company argues that the complaint is time-barred due to the three-year statute of limitations starting from when he discovered his injury. However, it took the customer a significant amount of time to uncover the previously unknown identity of the company and even the smoke shop that sold the defective cigarette battery admitted that it had trouble finding the identity of its supplier, hence why the customer's discovery was hindered.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Washington, Judge: Dimke, Filed On: April 30, 2024, Case #: 4:22cv5014, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: product Liability, discovery
J. Pepper grants a manufacturer’s motion to enforce the court’s discovery order and for sanctions against an individual. The individual filed suit against a manufacturer claiming he was injured when a chair the company made collapsed, resulting in quadriplegia. The court ordered the individual to respond to the manufacturer’s discovery requests, but he has not fully complied. The court grants the manufacturer’s motion to compel discovery and orders the individual to produce the requested documents by a certain deadline or face additional sanctions.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge: Pepper, Filed On: April 16, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv586, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Sanctions, product Liability, discovery
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Dimke denies Daimler Truck's motion for a protective order over questions such as where the company placed "safety" among other criteria, as part of the family's suit accusing Daimler of not equipping its semi-truck with collision warnings and automatic emergency braking, resulting in the truck driver hitting and killing a pedestrian. Daimler argues that topics 1 through 4 should be limited at deposition because they seek information to leverage a juror to artificially increase a damages award, but its compliance with industry safety customs and ensuring its products were safe are relevant to this case.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Washington, Judge: Dimke, Filed On: February 2, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv3054, NOS: Motor Vehicle Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: product Liability, Wrongful Death, discovery
J. Johnson denies the defendant companies' motion to claw back a document produced during discovery in a product liability suit involving a defective surgical stapler. The document, an Establishment Inspection Report from the FDA, is relevant to the claims and not protected by work product privilege.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Texas , Judge: Johnson, Filed On: January 23, 2024, Case #: 4:19cv870, NOS: Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Tort, product Liability, discovery
J. Milazzo denies a request by the maker of an allegedly defective chemotherapy drug to vacate the multi-district court’s case management order in a mass product liability litigation. The pharmaceutical company unsuccessfully argued the lawyers for the cancer patient-litigants violated the multi-district litigation (MDL) court’s established procedure for controlling pretrial discovery by introducing new and previously excluded testimony. Out of 14 hours of preserved testimony, the drug-maker alleges only five violations, which can be cured by striking the improper testimony. The order specifically provides the MDL court will not decide issues related to admissibility of preservation deposition testimony at trial, which are reserved for the receiving courts.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Milazzo, Filed On: January 8, 2024, Case #: 2:16md2740, NOS: Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Fraud, product Liability, discovery
J. Rowland partially grants a class of hair product consumers’ motion to compel production of materials related to hair care products sold outside the U.S. The class of consumers claim they were injured in various ways by using L’Oreal, Revlon and other companies’ hair care products, and they seek information regarding what safety and marketing standards the products adhered to domestically as opposed to when they’re sold abroad. They seek materials pertaining six specific categories of information: foreign regulatory materials, product labels and usage instructions, scientific studies, articles in scientific journals, organizational charts and board of director materials. The hair care product companies must produce all but the organizational charts and board of director materials.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Rowland, Filed On: December 27, 2023, Case #: 1:23cv818, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: product Liability, discovery, Class Action
J. Trauger denies the defendant company's motion for review of a magistrate judge's order, which mostly granted the motion to compel discovery in this dispute "between a U.S. citizen and a foreign company." The defendant, an Italian employer, contends that Italian privacy laws prevent it from searching employee emails without consent, but it fails to establish grounds for "rejecting or modifying any part of the underlying Order."
Court: USDC Middle District of Tennessee , Judge: Trauger, Filed On: December 27, 2023, Case #: 3:20cv1103, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: International Law, product Liability, discovery
J. Sweazea denies in part the injured driver's motion to compel, ruling the tire manufacturer is entitled to consulting expert privilege on discovery requests for the identifies of and evidence produced by reconstruction experts, all of which might be used at trial.
Court: USDC New Mexico, Judge: Sweazea, Filed On: December 11, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv89, NOS: Motor Vehicle Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: product Liability, discovery, Privilege
J. Dishman denies the refrigerator owners' motion to compel certain discovery in this product liability lawsuit involving a fire that was allegedly caused by the refrigerator installed on their recreational vehicle. The owners seek certain testing materials, which were produced by an outside consultant for the refrigerator manufacturer. However, it is not clear how the material is relevant to the claims at issue here, as the testing was done on other models of refrigerators.
Court: USDC Western District of Oklahoma , Judge: Dishman, Filed On: November 8, 2023, Case #: 5:20cv272, NOS: Property Damage Product Liability - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: product Liability, discovery
J. Duffin grants the manufacturer's motion for sanctions against the insurance company for violations of discovery rules in the company's lawsuit over fires caused by the manufacturer's defective dryers. The company litigating a motion to compel documents that its expert had already purchased in some form from a third party was an abuse of the discovery process, so even though the federal rule the manufacturer cites does not apply to discovery requests, the motion is granted in that it is awarded costs and fees it incurred responding to the company's motion to compel. The insurance company's motion to reopen discovery in light of a recall of dryers that occurred shortly after discovery closed is denied.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge: Duffin, Filed On: October 19, 2023, Case #: 2:20cv1455, NOS: Tort Product Liability - Real Property, Categories: Tort, product Liability, discovery
J. Nelson denies the medical products corporation's motion to exclude the testimony of John Cary, who offered expert testimony on damages, from the patient's lawsuit alleging that the medical products corporation's AccuLIF TL interbody device was defective and caused injury to his spine. Although Cary potentially erroneously applied the RAPEL methodology because his conclusions contradict the evidence on record, this does not mean that Cary erroneously applied the methodology using the reviewed materials, so his conclusions are currently admissible.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Nelson, Filed On: October 17, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv80, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: product Liability, Experts, discovery
J. Lin denies the insurance company's motion to exclude HP's expert from testifying in the insurance company's lawsuit alleging that HP's computer started a fire that caused significant damage to an apartment complex. The expert has “over 29 years of work experience in commercial construction management in the Pacific Northwest" and sufficient support for his report. However, this does not include conclusions about a fire alarm system and the Washington State Sales Tax that were not in his original report, so he is not allowed to testify on those two categories.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Lin, Filed On: October 13, 2023, Case #: 2:19cv138, NOS: Tort Product Liability - Real Property, Categories: product Liability, Experts, discovery
[Consolidated.] J. Cronan partially grants both parties' discovery motions in a dispute between a mining company and its supplier over three contracts to purchase industrial filter presses used to process refinery waste. The miner's expert may testify that bauxite residue in the filters may have caused longer cycle times, but not that this was the only reason for slower-than-expected cycle times. However, the supplier is entitles to dismissal of claims for negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Cronan, Filed On: September 11, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv4136, NOS: Contract Product Liability - Contract, Categories: product Liability, discovery, Contract
J. Lin partially denies the information technology company's motion to exclude the testimony of the insurance company's battery expert, Michael Eskra, as part of the insurance company's lawsuit alleging that the lithim-ion battery in the technology company's laptop started a fire that caused damage to the apartment of an insured client. Although by his own admission Eskra is not an expert on the laptop's System Management Bus (SMBus) and thus cannot explain its intricate details, his detailed report and deposition show that he can explain to a layperson how a SMBus generally functions with a battery system, and how the fire could have started that way.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Lin, Filed On: September 5, 2023, Case #: 2:19cv138, NOS: Tort Product Liability - Real Property, Categories: product Liability, Experts, discovery