Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Fassett v. Sears Holding Corp.

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania · 2017 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDiscoveryRule 26(b)(1)Products Liabilitymotion to compelproportionalityrelevancealternative design

Facts

Daniel Fassett was using a Sears Craftsman zero-turn riding lawnmower when he heard sputtering from the gas tank, saw the tank had expanded, and loosened the gas cap to relieve pressure. Gasoline sprayed onto his body, the cap burst off, and the gasoline ignited, causing serious injuries. Plaintiffs sued on negligence and strict-liability theories alleging defects involving gas geysering and pressurized gas exploding from the tank. In discovery, the parties disputed whether plaintiffs could obtain materials about different gas-cap designs, different mower models, prior claims, testing, and related records not involving the exact mower used in the accident.

Issue

Under amended Rule 26(b)(1), how should a court determine the permissible scope of discovery in a products-liability case involving alternative component designs and different product models? More specifically, when are materials about other fuel-cap designs, other mower models, prior claims, testing, and related records relevant and proportional enough to be discoverable?

Rule

In a products-liability case, Rule 26(b)(1)'s relevance and proportionality requirements are applied through a sliding-scale similarity analysis. Materials concerning alternative designs or components that share significant relevant characteristics with the accident-causing design or component are discoverable in greater quantity and for more purposes, while materials concerning less similar designs or products are incrementally less discoverable as similarity diminishes. In applying that analysis, the court considers the extent of shared functionality, whether the items can be safety-tested under the same procedures and standards, whether they are interchangeable components or distinct systems, and whether the moving party supports technical assertions with competent testimony; for whole products, the court also considers whether the other product shares the same accident-causing component, general layout, general equipment type, and in fire cases similar heating, shielding, and exhaust systems. Temporal discovery in this type of products-liability case should generally run from the period during which the product was manufactured and sold, not from the date of the accident, and here was limited to no earlier than January 1, 2000.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a products-liability suit in Pittsburgh, Nina Calder alleges that a riding mower ignited after fuel sprayed from the tank when she loosened the cap. She moves to compel testing data for three other cap designs made by Prairie Valve Systems, and the manufacturer's engineering director testified that each design can operate in a partially open setting, can be tested under the same airflow protocol, and can be swapped onto the same tank with only minor adjustments.

How should the court most likely rule on Nina's request for the testing data?

Explanation. The majority adopted a sliding-scale similarity approach under Rule 26(b)(1). For component discovery, the court considers shared functionality, whether the items can be safety-tested under the same procedures and standards, whether they are interchangeable components, and whether technical assertions are supported by competent testimony. Those factors support discovery of testing data even where designs differ. The court distinguished this from the stricter substantial-similarity showing required for prior claims materials. (Derived from Fassett v. Sears Holding Corp. (2017).)