Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court granted in part an artificial hip manufacturer’s motion to compel production of data from a patient’s Fitbit tracking device in a products liability case claiming damages resulting from an allegedly defective artificial hip.

In a consolidated action, plaintiffs alleged they experienced substantial injuries from the implantation of an artificial hip manufactured and marketed by Biomet, Inc., and others. One of the plaintiffs, Guan Hollins, claimed he experienced pain and lack of mobility from the defendants’ hip device. The defense requested production of all data from Hollins’s Fitbit device and any other wearable fitness tracker used by Hollins, who objected to the request as overbroad. The defense moved to compel discovery responses.

Granting in part, the district court noted that it had considerable discretion in handling pretrial discovery and must interpret discovery rules to eliminate surprise and promote settlement. Citing case law, the court added that discoverability of wearable device data depends on the facts of a particular case.

Here, the court said, the plaintiff asserted that he suffered permanent physical injuries from the implantation of the defendant’s artificial hip, including difficulty walking. The court found that production of the Fitbit data was minimally burdensome and posed limited privacy risks. Moreover, the court said, the extent of the plaintiff’s physical activity is relevant to his claims of long-term physical injury. Any argument regarding the reliability of the Fitbit data goes to its admissibility and weight, not its discoverability, the court said.

Consequently, the court ordered production of Hollins’s step-count data and noted that he may redact any information regarding his heart rate, sleep records, or location, which, the court said, is not relevant to the litigation.

Citation: Bartis v. Biomet, Inc., 2021 WL 2092785 (E.D. Mo. May 24, 2021).