Plaintiff is entitled to discovery regarding other incidents.

Plaintiff New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Group instituted this action as subrogee of its insured after a fire occurred in her home. The plaintiff alleged the fire originated from a clothes dryer manufactured by the defendant Electrolux. The plaintiff asserted claims for strict product liability and breach of warranty. The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motion to compel more specific responses to discovery requests, narrowing the scope of the discovery to be provided. Seeking identification of dryers using the same or substantially similar design as the dryer subject to this action is a reasonable, not burdensome request. The court found the plaintiff entitled to discovery of any dryer fires involving Electrolux dryers with the same design features involved in this case. Further, it is reasonable to request identification of any legal actions, including docket numbers and dates of any legal actions, involving similarly designed dryers causing fires, as well as any customer complaints regarding the same. Likewise, any change notices involving any aspect of the design encompassing the alleged defect should be provided. Changes not addressing the design components at issue need not be produced. The requests for reports prepared by the defendant’s expert are relevant expert discovery requests.

Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2012