Deitz et al v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC et al, No. 3:2014cv31091 - Document 46 (S.D.W. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 36 MOTION by Jason Deitz, Jonathan Eldon Dietz to Compel Defendant Pilot Travel Centers, LLC to fully and completely respond to the Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, Request for Production of Docu ments, and Request for Admissions, as more fully set forth herein; directing Pilot to provide the plaintiff with a full and complete response to Interrogatory No. 24 within 21 days of the date of this Order, except Pilot may limit the response to inf ormation regarding claims asserted and lawsuits filed in the past five years in which Pilot, or its agent or employee, was accused of causing a collision between two or more moving vehicles. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 8/25/2015. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (mkw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Deitz et al v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC et al Doc. 46 IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF W EST VIRGIN IA H U N TIN GTON D IVISION JASON D EITZ, in d ivid u ally an d as n e xt frie n d o f JON ATH AN ELD ON D IETZ, h is m in o r s o n , Plain tiff, v. Cas e N o .: 3 :14 -cv-3 10 9 1 PILOT TRAVEL CEN TERS, LLC, FLYIN G J TRAN SPORTATION , LLC, an d KEN N ETH E. PEN N IN GTON , II, D e fe n d an ts . MEMORAN D U M OPIN ION AN D ORD ER Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Com pel Discovery, (ECF No. 36). Defendants have filed a response to the m otion, and Plaintiffs have replied. (ECF Nos. 41, 43). Having carefully reviewed the m em oranda, the undersigned finds that oral argum ent is unnecessary. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion to Com pel is GRAN TED as set forth below. This case arises from a m otor vehicle accident that occurred on Interstate 64 East in Barboursville, West Virginia. According to the plaintiff, he was driving his Honda Civic on the interstate when he slowed and attem pted to pull off the side of the road. In the course of exiting the lane of travel, the plaintiff’s vehicle was struck in the rear by a tractor-trailer owned and operated by the defendant corporations and driven by their em ployee, Kenneth Pennington. As a result of the rear-end collision, 1 Dockets.Justia.com the plaintiff alleges that he sustained serious physical injuries, including perm anent brain injury, loss of enjoym ent of life, pain and suffering, and m ental anguish; has incurred m edical bills; and has lost past and future wages. He asserts claim s of negligence and gross negligence and seeks com pensatory and punitive dam ages. In late May, 20 15, the plaintiff served the defendants with interrogatories, requests for the production of docum ents, and requests for adm ission. Defendants served responses, and the parties subsequently corresponded over answers that the plaintiff believed were insufficient. They resolved all of their issues, except for those involving one interrogatory. Currently in dispute are interrogatory num ber 24 and the answer given to that interrogatory by Pilot Travel Centers, LLC (“Pilot”). The interrogatory states as follows: If Pilot Travel has been sued, or had a claim m ade against them [sic] in connection with m otor vehicle collisions within the last ten (10 ) years, please describe each such claim or lawsuit in detail, including in your answer whether each instance was a claim or lawsuit, the nam e of each such plaintiff or claimant, the date of each such lawsuit or claim , the court and the nam e of the plaintiff’s attorney involved in each such claim or lawsuit, the nature of each such claim or lawsuit, and the resolution, if any, of each such claim or lawsuit. In response to the interrogatory, Pilot stated: Objection as this request seeks inform ation that is irrelevant and overly broad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of adm issible evidence in violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Without waiving objections, there is no record of this defendant being sued or a claim being filed against this defendant or Mr. Pennington regarding any other incident involving Mr. Pennington. Plaintiff m oves to com pel a full and com plete response to the interrogatory, arguing that the scope of discovery is broad, and the inform ation requested is relevant to m any issues, including the plaintiff’s claim of negligent training. Pilot objects to the discovery request on the ground that accidents in other states, involving non-party 2 drivers are irrelevant to this case. Moreover, Pilot contends that the interrogatory is overly burdensom e in that it requests inform ation covering a ten-year tim e span. Pilot adds that it operates in 60 0 locations across the country and in Canada; therefore, the burden on Pilot to collect this inform ation far outweighs the likelihood that useful and adm issible evidence will be recovered. In reply to Pilot’s objection, the plaintiff points to a recent decision in this district finding that prior claim s and lawsuits m ade against a defendant m ay be relevant and discoverable. See Douty v. Rubenstein, Civil Action No. 2:13– 32832, 20 15 WL 41630 93 (S.D.W.Va. J ul. 9, 20 15). Relying on the sam e case, the plaintiff asserts that Pilot’s claim of burdensom eness should also be rejected because Pilot did not properly support the claim with affidavits or other evidence dem onstrating the nature of the alleged burden. The plaintiff em phasizes that m any large corporations, like Pilot, have centralized legal or risk m anagem ent departm ents that keep close tabs on claim s and litigation regardless of their volum e and place of origin. Accordingly, the Court should not speculate on the nature of the defendant’s burden, and should not deny the m otion to com pel based solely on Pilot’s unsubstantiated claim of burdensom eness. The federal discovery rules allow parties to “obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged m atter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Relevancy in discovery is broad in scope, “such that relevancy encom passes any m atter that bears or m ay bear on any issue that is or m ay be in the case.” Carr v. Double T Diner, 272 F.R.D.431, 433 (D.Md. 20 10 ). “Relevant inform ation need not be adm issible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of adm issible evidence.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Generally, the burden is on 3 the party resisting discovery to support its contention that the inform ation sought is irrelevant. United Oil Co., Inc. v. Parts Associates, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 40 4, 411 (D.Md. 20 0 5). Likewise, when a party objects to discovery on the ground of burdensom eness, the party “m ust dem onstrate how the request is burdensom e by subm itting affidavits or other evidence revealing the nature of the burden. Douty , 20 15 WL 41630 93, at *6. Courts in this circuit and in sister circuits have held that discovery related to other accidents, incidents, claim s, and lawsuits involving a party to the litigation is relevant in a personal injury action when the discovery is reasonably designed to lead to adm issible evidence on issues such as notice, knowledge, foreseeability, standard of care, and dam ages. See, e.g., United Oil Co., 227 F.R.D. at 410 ; Bennett v. Segw ay , Inc., No. 1:11cv0 9, 20 11 WL 4965179, at *2 (W.D.N.C. Octo. 19, 20 11); Librado v. M.S. Carriers, Inc., No.Civ.A. 3:0 2-CV-20 95-D, 20 0 3 WL 22768675 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 10 , 20 0 3); Donovan v. W al-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-0 0 885-J MC, 20 12 WL 30 25877 (D.S.C. J uly. 24, 20 12); Stansberry v. Belk, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-145-CLCSKL, 20 15 WL 521114 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 9, 20 15); W alker v. W al-Mart Stores, No. CV– 0 6– BLG– CSO, 20 0 7 WL 10 31576, at *4 (D.Mont. Apr. 2, 20 0 7); and Cardenas v. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc., 230 F.R.D. 611, 633 (D.Kan. 20 0 5). Based upon these cases, the Court finds that the plaintiff has m ade a threshold showing that inform ation regarding other motor vehicle collisions is relevant. Nonetheless, the undersigned agrees with the defendant that the interrogatory, as written, is a little broad. Claim s and litigation that do not involve a collision between two or m ore m oving vehicles are not particularly relevant to the issues in this case. By way of exam ple, Pilot m ay have been sued in the past ten years for property dam age done by one of its drivers when he was backing into a loading dock, or unloading a trailer. 4 That type of accident is not particularly relevant to how drivers are trained for overthe-road travel. In addition, requesting inform ation for a ten-year period is too long. If lack of training is indeed a m eritorious claim , then data covering a five-year period should be sufficient. Accordingly, while the plaintiff’s m otion to com pel is granted, Pilot shall only be required to provide inform ation regarding claim s asserted and lawsuits filed in the past five years in which Pilot, or its agent or em ployee, was accused of causing a collision between two or m ore m oving vehicles. With respect to Pilot’s argum ent that the request is overly burdensom e, the undersigned agrees with the plaintiff that Pilot failed to m eet its obligation to establish an excessive burden. Pilot did not provide any affidavits or other evidence outlining the anticipated tim e and resources that would be involved in gathering the inform ation. As the plaintiff points out, m any corporations have centralized departm ents to m anage claim s and litigation, and with the advent of com puters, these corporations would be able to produce the requested inform ation with relative ease. Pilot does not dispute or refute that assertion. Moreover, Pilot provided no inform ation regarding the am ount of docum entation that would have to be collected and reviewed in order to respond to the interrogatory. Certainly, if Pilot has had only five m otor vehicle accidents in the last five years, the burden of responding to the interrogatory is significantly less than if there were five thousand collisions. It sim ply is not apparent from Pilot’s response that any effort was m ade to determine the burden involved in answering the discovery request. In the absence of a showing of undue burden, Pilot’s objection m ust be overruled. Accordingly, Pilot is hereby ORD ERED to provide the plaintiff with a full and com plete response to Interrogatory No. 24 w ith in tw e n ty-o n e ( 2 1) d ays of the 5 date of this Order, except Pilot m ay lim it the response to inform ation regarding claim s asserted and lawsuits filed in the past five years in which Pilot, or its agent or em ployee, was accused of causing a collision between two or m ore m oving vehicles. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. EN TERED : August 25, 20 15 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
