Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Kozlowski v. Sears Roebuck

United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDiscovery sanctionsRule 34Rule 37Default judgmentRule 34Rule 37default judgment

Facts

The plaintiff, a minor, brought a product liability action after suffering severe burns when pajamas allegedly manufactured and marketed by Sears ignited. In discovery, the plaintiff requested records of complaints and communications concerning personal injuries or deaths allegedly caused by burning children's nightwear manufactured or marketed by Sears, and a magistrate ordered production of the requested items within a limited time period. Sears did not produce records of similar complaints and argued that its longstanding alphabetical indexing system made locating such records practically impossible. Sears also had an indemnification relationship with Russell Mills, Inc., the manufacturer, but apparently had not asked that company for the requested information in this case, even though similar information had been obtained from the manufacturer in another case.

Issue

Whether the defendant showed the full compliance required by the court's prior order so that the default judgment entered under Rule 37 should be removed. More specifically, whether a defendant may avoid producing relevant records of similar complaints by claiming that its own indexing system makes compliance excessively burdensome or impossible.

Rule

Once requested materials are within the scope of Rule 26(b), the party resisting production under Rule 34 bears the burden of showing a sufficient reason discovery should not be allowed. Cost or time burden alone ordinarily does not justify withholding relevant and necessary documents, and a party may not excuse noncompliance by maintaining a filing or indexing system that conceals or makes it unduly difficult to locate relevant records; a corporation also cannot claim impossibility if it can obtain the information from sources under its control. Default under Rule 37, though severe, is appropriate when a party acts in willful and deliberate disregard of reasonable and necessary court orders.

🔒

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 federal court in Boston, Maya Patel alleges that a space heater sold by North Shore Home Goods caused a fire in Providence. She serves a Rule 34 request for records of prior customer complaints alleging fires caused by the same heater model during a limited seven-year period. North Shore objects that prior complaints are not admissible to prove defect and therefore are not discoverable.

How should the court most likely rule?

Explanation. The majority held that records of similar accidents and complaints were within Rule 26(b) because they were relevant to whether the product was unreasonably dangerous and whether the defendant knew or should have known of the danger. It further emphasized that even if the records themselves might be inadmissible, they are still discoverable if they may lead to admissible evidence. Thus the court should compel production. (Derived from Kozlowski v. Sears Roebuck (n.d.).)