227 F.R.D. 404 (Dist. M.D. 2005)
The underlying product liability claim involved a person who allegedly developed liver disease as a result of his exposure to certain chemicals. The theory of the contribution and indemnity lawsuit was a failure to properly warn about the dangers of liver damage from exposure to the dye manufacturer's red and blue dyes and the distributor's brake cleaner. One of the primary discovery issues was whether the dye manufacturer and brake cleaner distributor had to respond to discovery seeking information concerning any other claims or lawsuits involving similar issues.
- The court determined that the oil company successfully demonstrated the relevance of such requests to its failure to warn claim.
- The court limited the discovery to other claims involving alleged liver disease.
- However, the court did not limit the discovery to the exact same product at issue in the product liability case.
- Instead, the court compelled responses with respect to claims regarding other products containing the same chemical compounds.
- The court reasoned that such information was probative of what the manufacturer and distributor knew or should have known about the liver toxicity of the chemicals at issue.
The court granted the oil company's motions to compel in part and denied the motions in part.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.