Fassett v. Sears Holdings Corp.
319 F.R.D. 143 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a product liability action, the scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) is determined by a sliding scale of similarity; the more an alternative design shares relevant characteristics with the allegedly defective product, the more discoverable information about it becomes.
Facts:
- In May 2013, Daniel Fassett was operating his Sears Craftsman “Zero Turn” riding lawnmower.
- After about an hour, Fassett heard sputtering sounds from the gas tank and observed that the tank had visibly expanded and was hissing from under the cap.
- In an attempt to relieve what he perceived as built-up pressure, Fassett began to loosen the fuel tank's gas cap.
- As he turned the cap, gasoline sprayed from the tank, covering his clothes and body.
- The gas cap then burst off the tank, releasing more gasoline.
- Almost immediately, the gasoline ignited, engulfing Fassett in flames and causing him to sustain serious injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 13, 2015, Daniel Fassett and other plaintiffs filed a products liability lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
- The complaint named as defendants the manufacturers of the lawnmower and its gas cap, asserting claims for negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty.
- On August 28, 2015, the court granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss but allowed the core claims and a punitive damages claim to proceed.
- During discovery, a dispute arose over the plaintiffs' requests for information about alternative gas cap and lawnmower designs.
- After attempts to resolve the issue informally failed, the plaintiffs filed motions to compel discovery against Bemis Manufacturing Company and the Briggs & Stratton defendants.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a product liability action, does the scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) extend to alternative product designs that are not identical to, but share relevant characteristics with, the allegedly defective product?
Opinions:
Majority - Matthew W. Brann
Yes. The scope of discovery in a product liability case extends beyond the specific product model at issue to other products and components that share relevant characteristics, subject to Rule 26(b)(1)'s proportionality requirements. The court adopted a sliding scale analysis, where the discoverability of information about alternative designs increases with their similarity to the accident-causing product. This approach balances the plaintiff's need for information to prove claims like the existence of a safer alternative design against the defendant's burden of production. The court found that other 'free venting' cap designs were discoverable from the cap manufacturer because they shared functionality and testing protocols. However, discovery from the lawnmower manufacturer was limited to five other models that shared the same critical components and layout as the mower involved in the accident, deeming requests for all other products to be overly broad.
Analysis:
This memorandum decision provides a significant framework for applying the amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1)'s proportionality principle in product liability litigation. By establishing a 'sliding scale' test based on similarity, the court rejects an overly restrictive, all-or-nothing approach to discovery of alternative designs. This creates a nuanced precedent that guides future courts in balancing a plaintiff's right to relevant information against the potential for overly burdensome discovery requests on defendants. The decision is particularly useful for its creation of specific, multi-factor tests for assessing the similarity of both individual components and entire products.
