*1 This matter is before the undersigned on the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. [R. 30]. The relevant response [R. 41] and reply [R. 45] have been filed. Having been fully briefed, this matter is ripe for consideration. For the reasons discussed below, the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel shall be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

This is a product liability action arising out of an single-vehicle accident (rollover) which occurred while Lakyn Pennington was operating her aunt's 2002 GMC Envoy. Lakyn Pennington lost control of the vehicle in a curve and was ejected from the vehicle during the accident. She suffered fatal injuries due to her ejection. Police photographs taken of the vehicle at the accident scene show that Lakyn's seatbelt was not buckled after the accident.

Penny Pennington, the appointed Administratrix of the Estate of Lakyn Pennington, sued General Motors, LLC (“GM”), the manufacturer of the 2002 GMC Envoy driven by Lakyn Pennington, and TK Holdings, Inc. (“TK”), the manufacturer of the seatbelt buckle (the Takata “AB”) which was in place in the driver seat of the vehicle.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the 2002 GMC Envoy driven by Lakyn Pennington and the TK seatbelt located in the driver seat of the vehicle were defectively designed, tested, manufactured, and/or assembled, and failed to provide adequate occupant restraint in foreseeable rollover accidents. [R. 1-1]. Specifically, the Plaintiff claims the design, testing, manufacture, and/or assembly of the 2002 GMC Envoy and the TK seatbelt created such a risk of injury to occupants during foreseeable accidents that reasonably prudent designers, manufacturers, assemblers, and/or marketers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle restraints, being fully aware of the risks, would not have placed the vehicle/restraint system on the market as the Defendants did. [R. 1-1].

The Plaintiff also alleges that the 2002 GMC Envoy and the TK seatbelt were negligently designed, tested, assembled and/or marketed. [R. 1-1]. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants knew, or should have known, that the restraint system of the 2002 GMC Envoy was defective and unsafe, and failed to warn the general public, including Lakyn Pennington, of its defective and dangerous condition. [R. 1-1].

On January 13, 2012, the Plaintiff served interrogatories and requests for production of documents upon GM. [R. 30-1; R. 41]. Counsel for Plaintiff granted GM's request for additional time to respond. [R. 30-1]. On February 24, 2012, GM served its answers to Plaintiff's interrogatories and its responses to Plaintiff's request for production of documents. [R. 30-1; R. 30-3; R. 30-4]. GM did not produce any documents until after entry of the Agreed Protective Order on March 16, 2012. [R. 30-1].

On April 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Compel now before the Court. [R. 30]. In its motion, the Plaintiff raises three (3) issues as follows:

[R. 30-1].

The Plaintiff's first claim involves the scope of discovery. Before addressing the issue, it's important to discuss some background information. As indicated by the Plaintiff, the seatbelts in the 2002 GMC Envoy (the subject vehicle of this action), including the two front seatbelts and the three rear seatbelts, were manufactured by Takata Seat Belt Corporation.[1] [R. 30-1]. The seatbelt buckle is known as, and designated by Takata as, the “AB” buckle. [R. 30-1].

In order for evidence of prior accidents to be admissible, the Sixth Circuit employs the “substantially similar” test. See Surles ex rel. Johnson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288, 297 (6th Cir. 2007); Clark v. Chrysler Corporation, 310 F.3d 461, 472 (6th Cir. 2002); Rye v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 889 F.2d 100, 102 (6th Cir. 1989) (citing Koloda v. Gen. Motors Parts Div., Gen. Motors Corp., 716 F.2d 373, 376 (6th Cir. 1983)). Substantial similarity means that the accidents must have occurred under similar circumstances or share the same cause. Rye, 889 F.2d at 102. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the substantial similarity between prior accidents and his own. Id.

The Plaintiff claims that the Takata AB buckle is defective and unreasonably dangerous because it is subject to unintended unlatching during an accident. [R. 30-1]. Further, Plaintiff believes the appropriate scope of discovery is the unintended unlatching of any Takata AB buckle in any GM vehicle or during any GM test or study. [R. 45]. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks discovery of any unintended unlatching of a Takata AB buckle and any test procedures, tests, test reports, studies and other incidents involving the unintended unlatching of a Takata AB buckle. [R. 30-1]. It is believed that discovery will reveal three (3) mechanisms of unintended unlatching: (1) inertia release; (2) inadvertent contact with the end-release mechanism; and (3) false latch. [R. 30-1].

The Plaintiff believes that numerous GM vehicles were equipped with Takata AB buckles; however, the Plaintiff claims that GM limited its discovey responses to Takata AB buckles installed in the front outboard seating positions of the 2002-2004 GMC Envoys and its clone vehicles (2002-2004 Chevrolet Trailblazer, Oldsmobile Bravada, Buick Rainer, and Isuzu Ascender, designated by GM as its S/T platform[2]). [R. 30-1]. Plaintiff also argues that GM further limited its discovery responses to unintended unlatchings in rollover cases only. [R. 30-1].

*3 In response, GM argues that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject-matter of the action, and the scope of discovery has been limited to vehicle designs substantially similar to the subject 2002 GMC Envoy and should not be expanded. [R. 41]. As to GM's first argument, it claims Plaintiff's discovery request is limitless. [R. 41]. Citing to the Eight Circuit, GM asserts that while parties may obtain relevant information, “the legal tenet that relevancy in the discovery context is broader than in the context of admissibility should not be misapplied so as to allow fishing expeditions in discovery.”[3] [R. 41].

Moreover, GM asserts that the Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of establishing that the different products are substantially similar and that the discovery is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. [R. 41]. Relying on an opinion out of the Northern District of Illinois[4], GM notes that the court held plaintiff's discovery was not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because of the dissimilarities between the subject-vehicle of the action and other makes and models of vehicles. [R. 41]. That court held that allowing discovery of models that are not substantially similar to the model at issue is truly the equivalent of comparing apples and oranges.[5] [R. 41]. GM claims the Plaintiff seeks discovery on unrelated vehicle designs manufactured by GM that are not substantially similar to the 2002 GMC Envoy, but is not able to establish a “threshold showing of relevance” with respect to those unrelated vehicles. [R. 41].

GM's second argument is that the scope of discovery should not be expanded beyond the subject 2002 GMC Envoy and substantially similar vehicle designs. [R. 41]. GM begins defending its argument by discussing the front outboard safety restraint system utilized in GMT360/370[6]vehicles. [R. 41]. While the information supplied by GM is useful, the only piece of the front outboard safety restraint system that the Plaintiff is concerned about is the buckle assembly. GM indicates that the buckle is an end release type and attached to the inboard side of the seat structure. [R. 41].

In its response, GM attached the affidavit of Antonio Antonucci, a Senior Staff Analysis Engineer employed by GM. [R. 41-5]. Antonucci states that the performance of the 2002 GMC Envoy at issue cannot be compared with the performance or characteristics of another vehicle in terms of its safety belts, without substantial similarity in design of those components. [R. 41]. He also explains that to determine which vehicles are substantially similar to the subject-vehicle in this action, GM considered the various vehicle specific parameters and their significance on the complex interactions occurring between an occupant and a vehicle in collision. [R. 41]. Moreover, Antonucci indicates that GM undertook to identify the correct scope for documents and other information responsive to the discovery requested by the Plaintiffs. [R. 41-5]. In doing so, GM identified an appropriate scope of vehicles whose safety belt systems are substantially similar to the driver's safety belt system in the 2002 GMC Envoy as the front outboard safety belts in the 2002-2004 midsize S/T (GMT360/370/305) sport utility vehicles. [R. 41-5].

*4 Under the substantially similar test, prior accidents must have occurred under similar circumstances or share the same cause. Rye, 889 F.2d at 102. Here, Lakyn Pennington was operating a 2002 GMC Envoy when she lost control of the vehicle in a curve and the vehicle rolled over. [R. 30-1]. Lakyn was ejected from the vehicle during the rollover and suffered fatal injuries due to her ejection. [R. 30-1]. According to the Sixth Circuit, those are the conditions under which the scope of discovery will be limited. Therefore, GM will be required to produce discovery related to the unintended unlatching of Takata AB buckles located in the front outboard position for the 2002-2004 midsize S/T (GMT360/370/305) sport utility vehicles involved in rollover accidents. Those vehicles include: 2002–2004 Chevrolet Trailblazer and GMC Envoy (GMT360); 2002–2004 Oldsmobile Bravada (GMT 360); 2004 Buick Rainier (GMT360); 2004 Isuzu Ascender (GMT360); 2002–2004 Chevrolet Trailblazer EXT and GMC Envoy XL (GMT370); 2003–2004 Isuzu Ascender (GMT370); and 2004 GMC Envoy XUV (GMT305).

The second issue raised by the Plaintiff's is whether GM should provide answers to Plaintiff's interrogatories, rather than referencing documents which do not fully answer the interrogatories. [R. 30-1]. The third issue is whether GM should be compelled to produce relevant documents which it has failed to produce. [R. 30-1]. Specifically, the Plaintiff states that if the Court compels GM to identify specific documents in response to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, these documents should be produced in response to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents. [R. 45].

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense” or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc., v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978); Lewis v. ABC Bus. Services, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 402 (6th Cir. 1998). Under the rules, an interrogatory “may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). Similarly, a party may make a request for production of “any designated document or electronically stored information” in the responding party's possession, custody, or control, that is within the scope of Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(A)

The scope of discovery is “within the broad discretion of the trial court.” Lewis, 135 F.3d at 402 (internal citations omitted). Although traditionally broad, discovery has “ultimate and necessary boundaries.” Oppenheimer Fund, 437 U.S. at 351 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

The court can limit discovery if it determines that the requested discovery is (1) unreasonably cumulative; (2) obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (3) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity for discovery in the action to obtain the information; or (4) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. v. Michelson, 229 F.R.D. 550, 552–53 (W.D. Tenn. 2003) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(i)-(iii)); Chavez v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 206 F.R.D. 615, 619 (S.D. Ind. 2002)(citing same). Generally, a discovery request is considered overly broad or unduly burdensome on its face if it “(1) uses an omnibus term ... and (2) applies to a general category or group of documents or a broad range of information.” Moses v. Halstead, 236 F.R.D. 667, 672 (D. Kan. 2006).

Plaintiff asserts that GM has failed to properly respond to the following interrogatories:

7(b)-(c). GM indicates that it responded to this interrogatory by stating “that the driver's seat belt buckle assembly is not used in any other GM vehicles.” [R. 41]. “Further, GM states that the driver's seat belt buckle assembly is different than the rear seat belt buckle assembly and not interchangeable between the front and rear.” [R. 41]. Under the rules, each interrogatory “must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). GM's response does not explain how the driver's seat belt buckle assembly is different from the rear seat belt buckle. As such, GM must supplement its answer to Interrogatory 7(c) and explain, in detail, the differences between the driver's seat belt buckle assembly and the rear seat belt buckle assembly.

7(d). GM has provided the Plaintiff with a list of clone vehicles whose driver seatbelt buckle systems are substantially similar to the driver's seatbelt buckle system in the 2002 GMC Envoy. The list of those vehicles can be found on p. 13 of GM's Response to the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. [R. 41]. GM has fulfilled its discovery obligation by identifying several clone vehicles who have substantially similar driver seatbelt buckle systems to that of a 2002 GMC Envoy.

8(b); 8(c); 8(e). GM claims that it has fulfilled its obligation regarding these two interrogatories by referring the Plaintiff to list of sixteen (16) responsive documents. [R. 41]. While the rules allow a responding party to answer an interrogatory by producing business records, the rule also require the responding party to specify the records to be reviewed in sufficient detail. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d)(1). The only details GM provides to the Plaintiff is the title of the responsive document. As a result, GM must supplement its answer to Interrogatory 8(b), Interrogatory 8(c), and Interrogatory 8(e) and provide the Plaintiff with an explanation of each responsive document and its relevance to the matter at hand.

8(d); 8(f). These interrogatories are overly broad and GM is under no obligation to respond. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2).

*6 9(b). This request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. First, it requires GM to identify tests used by other corporations, manufacturers, etc. which pertain to unintended seatbelt buckle unlatching during an accident. Second, it would force GM to expend a potentially unlimited amount of time in search of all the different names for tests pertaining to unintended unlatching of seatbelt buckles. Third, this matter revolves around the alleged unintended unlatching of driver's seatbelt buckle in a 2002 GMC Envoy during a rollover accident. Interrogatory No. 9(b) goes well outside the scope of relevance. As such, GM has no obligation torespond further.

13(b)-(e). GM claims that it has fulfilled its obligation regarding these interrogatories by referring the Plaintiff to list of eleven (11) responsive documents. [R. 41]. While the rules allow a responding party to answer an interrogatory by producing business records, the rule also require the responding party to specify the records to be reviewed in sufficient detail. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d)(1). The only details GM provides to the Plaintiff is the title of the responsive document. As a result, GM must supplement its answer to Interrogatories 13(b)-(e) and provide the Plaintiff with an explanation of each responsive document and its relevance to the matter at hand.

14. As GM points out, this interrogatory seeks information about a test performed by the Plaintiff's expert, Joseph Stidham. [R. 41]. Further, GM claims that it has no knowledge of the downloads conducted by Mr. Stidham and its representatives were not invited to the downloads and have no information as to how it was conducted and the protocols employed, if any. [R. 41]. GM has no obligation to provide an interpretation of a download to which it has no knowledge.

As mentioned above, the Plaintiff states that if the Court compels GM to identify specific documents in response to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, these documents should be produced in response to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents. [R. 45]. Under the rules, a request for production of documents “must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A).

In this case, Plaintiff's description falls short of the rules. Specifically, the Plaintiff claims “General Motors has not provided all of the documents it said it would produce, and has provided none of the SDM interpretative documents.” [R. 30-1]. Moreover, the Plaintiff's state that “[i]f the Court compels GM to identify specific documents in response to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, these documents should be produced in response to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents.” [R. 45].

These requests do not include any sort of description other than referring to “documents.” Further, the Court is unable to direct GM to produce the requested documents because it is unaware of what exactly the Plaintiff is requesting. Because the Plaintiff has not described with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected, GM will not be required to produce the requested documents.

*7 Having considered this matter fully, and for the reasons discussed above,

IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

(1) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [R. 30] is DENIED as to compelling GM to produce discovery regarding all Takata AB seatbelt buckles. GM shall produce discovery related to the unintended unlatching of Takata AB buckles located in the front outboard position for the 20022004 midsize S/T (GMT360/370/305) sport utility vehicles involved in rollover accidents;

(2) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [R. 30] is GRANTED as to Interrogatories 7(b)-(c); Interrogatories 8(b)(c) and (e); and Interrogatories 13(b)-(e). GM must supplement its discovery responses, to the extent possible, within fourteen (14) days of entry of this Order; and

(3) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [R. 30] is DENIED as to the Request for Production of Documents.

Takata Seat Belt Corporation later became a part of TK Holdings, Inc., and is a Defendant in this action. [R. 30-1].

The S/T platform was new for the 2002 model year as a midsize sport utility vehicle, and is referred to inside GM by the program name GMT360/370. The GMT360/370 is available only as a four-door model with a short and long wheelbase. In addition, the long wheelbase “ultimate” utility vehicle was also available, and is known as the GMT305. [R. 41].

Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 1992).

Piacenti v. General Motors Corp., 173 F.R.D. 221 (N.D. Ill. 1997).

Piacenti, 173 F.R.D. at 225.

GMT360/370 refers to the S/T vehicle platform, which includes the 2002 GMC Envoy and its clone vehicles. [R. 41].