Kozlowski v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Not provided (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party cannot excuse its failure to produce relevant documents during discovery by claiming undue burden or impossibility when that burden is a product of its own self-serving or inadequate record-keeping system.
Facts:
- On November 11, 1970, a minor plaintiff was severely burned in Royal Oak, Michigan.
- The burns occurred when a pair of pajamas, allegedly manufactured and marketed by the defendant, Sears, Roebuck & Co., ignited.
- Sears maintained a long-standing practice of indexing claims alphabetically by the claimant's name, rather than by the type of product involved.
- Sears had an indemnification agreement with Russell Mills, Inc., the manufacturer of the children's nightwear.
- In a separate, unrelated product liability case, Sears had successfully procured records of similar claims from its manufacturer/indemnitor.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a product liability lawsuit against Sears, Roebuck & Co. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 9, 1975.
- On July 17, 1975, the plaintiff served a Request to Produce documents, including records of similar complaints.
- The defendant filed a motion to quash the request, which the plaintiff opposed while filing a motion to compel discovery.
- On January 22, 1976, a U.S. Magistrate Judge overruled the defendant's objections and ordered production within thirty days.
- After the defendant failed to comply, the plaintiff filed a motion for a default judgment on April 16, 1976.
- On July 14, 1976, the Court entered a conditional judgment by default against the defendant on the issue of liability, which would be removed upon full compliance with the discovery order by September 15, 1976.
- On September 14, 1976, the defendant filed a motion to remove the default judgment, leading to the present ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party's use of a record-keeping system that makes locating relevant documents difficult and costly excuse its failure to comply with a discovery request for those documents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34?
Opinions:
Majority - Julian, Senior District Judge
No. A party may not excuse itself from compliance with discovery rules by utilizing a system of record-keeping which conceals rather than discloses relevant records or makes them unduly difficult to locate. The court reasoned that information about similar accidents is clearly relevant to a product liability claim to establish whether a product was unreasonably dangerous and whether the defendant knew of that danger. Under the discovery rules, the burden is on the party resisting discovery to show why it should not be allowed, and mere cost or time consumption is not a sufficient reason. Allowing a defendant to frustrate discovery by creating an inadequate filing system and then claiming undue burden would defeat the purposes of the discovery rules. Furthermore, Sears failed to seek the information from its manufacturer, a source under its control, which it had successfully done in a prior case. Offering the plaintiff the chance to search the files themselves improperly shifts the burden and cost of discovery.
Analysis:
This ruling reinforces a core principle of discovery: the obligation to produce relevant information is robust and cannot be evaded through strategic internal practices. It establishes that a corporation's choice of a record-keeping system is not a valid shield against discovery; instead, the responding party bears the responsibility and cost of searching its own records. This precedent is significant in litigation against large entities, as it prevents them from using the sheer volume of their records or an intentionally opaque filing system to overwhelm plaintiffs or obstruct the discovery process. The decision empowers discovering parties and ensures that the cost of inefficient data management falls on the party that created the system.
Unlock the full brief for Kozlowski v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.