Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that Honda defendants must produce design-related and rear crash test documents related to the driver seat and left rear seat in the Honda Civic Coupe and Sedan for model years 2001-2005, 2006-2011, and 2012-2015. The court also held that the defendants were not required to produce requested documents related to the Honda Element.

Mary Thurman was rear-ended in her 2008 Honda Civic Coupe. The driver seat allegedly malfunctioned during the crash, causing her to suffer spinal cord damage that led to paraplegia. She sued various Honda defendants, including American Honda Motor Co., Inc., and Honda Motor Co., Ltd., alleging claims for strict liability design defect and negligence. The plaintiff served her first request for production of documents and set of interrogatories on American Honda Motor Co., which served its responses two months later. The plaintiff then served the remaining defendants and made a second request for production of documents to American Honda Motor Co. The defendants served responses to both sets of discovery, and the plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery.

Granting in part and denying in part, the district court noted that trial courts have broad discretion in resolving discovery disputes. The requesting party must make a threshold showing of relevance, and then the burden shifts to the opposing party to establish a lack of relevance or undue burden. Here, the court found, it must consider, among other things, whether discovery should include design-related and rear crash test documents for multiple generations of the Honda Civic Coupe and Sedan’s driver seat, passenger seat, and left and right rear seats, and whether discovery should include documents related to the Honda Element.

The court concluded that the defendants were not required to produce design-related and rear crash test documents for the passenger seat and right rear seat. Citing case law, the court found that discovery of similar components in products liability suits is generally permitted, and a court must make a fact-specific determination on the extent of the product similarities and the basis for the discovery request. The plaintiff, the court said, has not made a threshold showing of relevancy regarding the passenger seat and the right rear seat. Although the plaintiff states that other seats include many of the same key design attributes as the driver seat at issue here, she does not provide further discussion of how the passenger seat and right rear seat are similar to the driver seat, the court found, concluding that it could not, therefore, make the required fact-specific determination regarding the extent of the similarities between the seats. Thus, the court ordered that the Honda defendants produce design-
related and rear crash test documents, including sled test documents, for the driver seat and left rear seat in the Honda Civic Coupe and Sedan for model years 2001-2005, 2006-2011, and 2012-2015. The court held that the defendants were not required to produce documents related to the passenger seat and right rear seat, however.

Turning to the plaintiff’s discovery of documents related to the Honda Element, the court acknowledged the plaintiff’s argument that the Element’s documents were discoverable as evidence of alternative designs in that the Element uses a different all-belts-to-seat design. The court also noted the defendants’ argument that the Honda Element was not substantially similar to the Honda Civic because the vehicles’ style, design, target market, and manufacturer were different. Citing case law, the court said courts have held that where products use fundamentally different types of technology and are substantially different, plaintiffs are not entitled to discovery due to the issue of relevance. Moreover, the court said, where a plaintiff’s proposed alternative is a different product, not an alternative design, such discovery is not relevant.

Here, the court found that the Honda Civic and the Honda Element do not share the same pertinent characteristics. The Element is a completely different vehicle, the court noted, finding that it is an activity-oriented sport utility vehicle with no B-pillar. The Civic is a passenger vehicle that employs a traditionally designed B pillar to which the driver’s seatbelt is affixed, unlike the Element, whose seatbelts are attached to the seatbacks, the court said. Consequently, the Civic and Element have different designs and constructions and are therefore dissimilar. The court therefore denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel documents regarding the Element.

Citation: Thurman v. American Honda Motor Co., 2023 WL 3692840 (W.D. Mo. May 29, 2023).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ member Kenneth McClain, AAJ member Michael Kilgore, and Kevin Stanley, all of Independence, Mo.; and Mark Evans and Wally Bley, both of Columbia, Mo.