United Oil Co. v. Parts Associates, Inc.
Not reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a products liability action, discovery requests for information about prior claims and lawsuits involving different products are relevant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) if those products contain the same allegedly harmful chemical constituents as the product at issue.
Facts:
- Mr. Jerry Tiede developed liver disease after alleged exposure to certain industrial chemicals at his workplace.
- The exposure involved red and blue dyes manufactured by Rohm & Haas (R & H) and a brake cleaner called Fleet-Fill distributed by Parts Associates (Parts).
- United Oil Company, Inc. (United Oil), a distributor of the products, paid a settlement of $820,098.89 to Mr. and Mrs. Tiede for their product liability claims.
- An expert for United Oil opined that Mr. Tiede’s liver disease was caused by specific chemicals: xylene and ethyl benzene in the R & H dyes, and perchloroethylene in the Parts brake cleaner.
Procedural Posture:
- United Oil Company paid a settlement to Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Tiede to resolve their product liability claims.
- United Oil then sued Rohm & Haas (R & H) and Parts Associates (Parts) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, seeking indemnity and contribution for the settlement amount.
- During the discovery phase, United Oil filed a motion to compel R & H to produce information regarding prior claims and lawsuits involving other products containing the same chemical components (xylene and ethyl benzene).
- R & H opposed the motion, arguing that information about other products was not relevant to the specific dyes at issue in the case.
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 products liability failure-to-warn case, is information regarding prior claims and lawsuits involving different products that contain the same allegedly harmful chemical constituents discoverable as 'relevant to the claim or defense' under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1)?
Opinions:
Majority - Magistrate Judge Gauvey
Yes. Information regarding prior claims involving different products is discoverable as relevant to a claim so long as those products contain the same allegedly harmful chemical constituents. Relevance for discovery purposes is broader than for evidentiary purposes at trial. In a failure-to-warn claim, the manufacturer's knowledge of the product's danger (notice) and causation are key elements. Information about other incidents, claims, or lawsuits involving products with the same toxic chemical components is probative of what the manufacturer knew or should have known about the potential harm and may also be relevant to causation. The requesting party need only make a threshold showing of relevance; here, United Oil met that burden by identifying the common toxic chemical constituents. The burden then shifts to the resisting party, R & H, to demonstrate the information's irrelevance. R & H failed to meet this burden, offering only lawyerly arguments without scientific support to show the products were not substantially similar.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of 'substantial similarity' for discovery in chemical exposure product liability cases. It establishes that the presence of a common chemical constituent can render different products 'similar' for discovery purposes, expanding the potential scope of discovery for plaintiffs. The ruling reinforces the principle that the burden is on the party resisting discovery to prove irrelevance once a threshold showing has been made. This precedent makes it more difficult for manufacturers to withhold information about other product lines by simply claiming they are different from the product at issue, forcing them to provide specific, often scientific, evidence of dissimilarity.
Unlock the full brief for United Oil Co. v. Parts Associates, Inc.