This products liability case concerns a Manitowoc 2010 Model 16000 crawler crane. At issue is whether Plaintiff is entitled to discovery regarding Manitowoc crawler cranes other than Model 16000.

According to the Complaint, John Robert Williams, Jr., was operating a 2010 Model 16000 crane in the course and scope of his employment at VT Halter Marine, Inc.'s shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi, when “one or more of the counterweights positioned at the rear of the crane [bearing number] 2241 separated from the crane, causing the crane to tip over and/or causing one or more of the 18,000 pound counterweights to strike the rear of the cab. The impact from the counterweights caused Mr. Williams to be ejected from the crane cab causing Mr. Williams to suffer serious and catastrophic injuries.” Pl.'s Sec. Am. Compl. [47] 3-4. According to Plaintiff, Mr. Williams suffered a “crushing injury to the right side of his head that required a craniectomy” and “has been left blind and brain damaged.” Pl.'s Resp. [108] 2.

“The thrust of Plaintiff's counterweight design defect allegations are that Defendant Manitowoc failed to secure the counterweights to the upper body of the crane or to provide a guard, restraint, or other mechanism to prohibit the counterweights from sliding off of the rear of the crane and striking the cab when the crane tips over during operation.” Pl.'s Mot. [92] 1-2. There are Manitowoc crawler cranes that attach counterweights to the crane body and some, like Model 16000, that do not. Plaintiff maintains that she is entitled to discovery regarding both types.

Plaintiff seeks discovery regarding Models 18000 and 21000 because they use the same counterweight design as Model 16000. Pl.'s Reply [114] 9. Model 16000's counterweight design was first developed for use on Models 18000 and 21000. Pl.'s Resp. [108] 7. The part number for the counterweights on Models 16000, 18000, and 21000 are the same. Id. Plaintiff asserts that discovery regarding Models 18000 and 21000 is proper because these cranes use the same allegedly defective part — a counterweight not attached to the crane body –and thus, the discovery goes to Defendant's knowledge and notice. Pl.'s Reply [114] 10.

Plaintiff desires discovery regarding nine Manitowoc crawler cranes that, unlike the Model 16000, use a lug or pin system to secure counterweights to the crane body. Pl.'s Mot. [92] 2. Plaintiff submits that discovery regarding these cranes is relevant because it demonstrates the feasability of securing counterweights to the Model 16000. Id. at 5.

*2 “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense .... Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevance for purposes of discovery is broader than relevance for purposes of admissibility at trial, though this tenet should not be misapplied so as to allow fishing expeditions in discovery. Hemphill v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 2:13cv201-HSO-RHW, 2014 WL 4101657, *1 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 18, 2014).

“Generally, different models of a product will be relevant if they share with the accident-causing model those characteristics pertinent to the legal issues raised in the litigation.” State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Black & Decker, Inc., 2003 WL 103016, *4 (E.D. La. Jan. 9, 2003)(collecting cases). For this reason, the Court will allow discovery regarding Models 18000 and 21000.

The Court will allow limited discovery regarding Manitowoc crawler crane models that secure counterweights to the crane body. The Court finds that this discovery goes to the issue of feasibility but also finds that extensive discovery regarding nine additional crane models is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Dollar v. Long MFG, 561 F.2d 613, 617 (5th Cir. 1977); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). In large part, discovery will be limited to Model 2250, which is the closest in capacity to Model 16000. This limitation was suggested as an alternative by Plaintiff at the telephone conference. Specifically, the Court finds as follows:

1. Plaintiff's' Motion to Compel as to Interrogatory No. 17 and Interrogatory No. 18 is granted to the extent that Defendant is ordered to supplement its responses to provide the requested information regarding Models 21000, 18000, and 2250.

*3 The Court finds that, once Defendant has responded to Plaintiff's outstanding discovery requests as allowed above, Plaintiff should be permitted to resume the 30(b)(6) deposition of Alan Calta, Manitowoc's Director of Product Safety, limited to the topics of (1) the methods and mechanisms used to secure counterweights on Manitowoc crawler cranes; (2) feasibility studies, cost analyses, and other tests related to securing counterweights on Manitowoc crawler cranes; and (3) incidents involving tip over events for Models 21000, 18000, and 2250 from the year 1994 to present. Mr. Calta's deposition will be limited to four hours. Plaintiff will not be permitted to question Mr. Calta on issues already covered in his initial deposition, although the Court encourages counsel to compromise if a dispute arises as to what topics have already been covered, or as to any issue.

Defendant will not be sanctioned for instructing Mr. Calta during the initial deposition not to answer questions regarding model cranes other than Model 16000. Plaintiff amended her notice of 30(b)(6) deposition on the Friday evening before Mr. Calta's Tuesday deposition. The amendment added two new topic areas, both seeking information regarding Manitowoc crawler cranes other than Model 16000. Though Plaintiff argues to the contrary, it was not reasonably clear from the original 30(b)(6) notice that Plaintiff intended to question Mr. Calta regarding crawler cranes other than Model 16000. Plaintiff knew that Defendant would likely object to the new topics because Defendant had objected to producing such information in response to written discovery, resulting in Plaintiff's Motion to Compel which was filed four days before Mr. Calta's deposition. Because it was filed one business day before the 30(b)(6) deposition, Defendant was not afforded sufficient time to prepare and file a motion for protective order as to the amended 30(b)(6) notice. Further, Mr. Calta was not given adequate opportunity to prepare to testify regarding other model cranes. For these reasons, the Court will not award costs or require Mr. Calta's deposition to resume in Gulfport, Mississippi.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [92] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as stated herein.

IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Protective Order [98] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as stated herein.

IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel [103] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as stated herein.

SO ORDERED, this the 12th day of August, 2015.