*1 This matter comes before the court on the Objections to Magistrate Judge Christine D. Little's March 30, 2023 Order [Doc. 273] of plaintiffs Patrick and Kathren D. Oglesbee. For the reasons set forth below, the Objections are overruled.

This case has a lengthy procedural history, which the court will not attempt to fully summarize. Rather, the court limits its summary to the history relevant to the instant objections.

On October 29, 2016, plaintiff Patrick Oglesbee was using a Glock 19 9mm pistol when the pistol fell from the holster, struck the ground, and fired. The bullet that discharged from the firearm struck Mr. Oglesbee in his right leg.

On October 26, 2018, Mr. Oglesbee, with his wife Kathren D. Oglesbee, initiated this lawsuit against defendant Glock, Inc., among others. [Doc. 1]. In the Complaint, the Oglesbees asserted claims for manufacturer liability, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, negligence, and loss of consortium. [Id.].

On August 26, 2020, the Oglesbees filed the First Amended Complaint asserting claims for manufacturer liability, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, negligence, and loss of consortium, as well as a claim on behalf of the United States pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2651 and 38 U.S.C. § 1729. [Doc. 151]. Among other things, the Oglesbees specifically allege that the pistol was defective in that “[t]he pistol did not have a manual safety and/or safety to prevent an accidental discharge when dropped” and “the pistol would fire and discharge a round without an intentional trigger pull.” [Id. at p. 7]. Additionally, the Oglesbees assert that “[d]efendant[ ] should have warned that the use of any springs other than the original manufacturer springs would compromise the purported safety regarding the anti drop mechanism” and

[Id. at p. 9].

On June 27, 2022, Glock provided verified Supplemental Answers and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories and Requests for Production. [Doc. 264-1]. Therein, Glock stated that it was unaware of any prior claims when it was alleged that a trigger safety “failed to reset” in an OEM Glock 9mm pistol or when an OEM Glock 9mm pistol failed a “drop-safety test” during the three years prior to the October 29, 2016 incident. [Id. at pp. 21-23].

On September 1, 2022, the Oglesbees conducted a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Carlos Guevara, Glock's General Counsel. [Doc. 260-1]. During the deposition, Mr. Guevara testified that Glock had conducted a search for two separate three-year periods for responsive documents to the Oglesbee's First Interrogatories and Requests for Production. [Doc. 260-1, p. 36].[1]

*2 On October 7, 2022, the Oglesbees served Glock with Plaintiffs' Second Requests for Production, which included the following requests:

[Doc. 259-1]. The Second Requests defined “operational issues” as “relate[d] to the tracking system and work orders as described by Carlos Guevera at his September 1, 2022 deposition at pp. 26-30.” [Doc. 259-1, p. 4].

On January 19, 2023, Glock filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. [Doc. 245]. Therein, Glock argues that it is entitled to summary judgment for the following reasons: (1) Glock pistols are safe for use and are specifically designed to prevent drop fire incidents; (2) it was not reasonably foreseeable that the combination of after-market parts would defeat the design of the pistol; and (3) Glock adequately warns its users to not modify Glock pistols. Additionally, that same day, Glock filed a Motion to Stay Discovery Pending a Decision on its Summary Judgment Motion. [Doc. 247].

On January 24, 2023, the court held a telephonic hearing on Glock's motion to stay discovery during which the court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part. [Doc.256]. Specifically, the court denied the motion insofar as it sought to prohibit the Oglesbees from filing a motion to compel related to their Second Requests for Production and prevent an inspection scheduled for January 25, 2023. The court otherwise stayed discovery. [Doc. 256; Doc. 268].

On February 1, 2023, the Oglesbees filed the Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Glock, which sought responsive documents to plaintiffs' Second Requests for Production. [Doc. 259, pp. 3-4]. On February 22, 2023, Glock responded in opposition. [Doc. 264].

On March 30, 2023, U.S. Magistrate Judge Christine D. Little held a telephonic hearing on the motion to compel. [Doc. 270; Doc. 271]. At the close of the hearing, Magistrate Judge Little granted the motion in part, ordering as follows:

[Doc. 271, p. 16]. Magistrate Judge Little directed that Glock supplement its responses within forty-five (45) days of her order. [Id. at p. 19].

*3 On April 13, 2023, the Oglesbees filed the instant objections. [Doc. 273]. On April 25, 2023, Glock filed a response in opposition. [Doc. 275]. Thus, the Objection is ripe for the court's determination.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, subject to certain exceptions, “a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). A party may seek review by the district judge of a magistrate's judge order by filing an objection within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of same. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). This court is “required to ‘defer to the magistrate judge's ruling unless it [was] clearly erroneous or contrary to law.’ ” Allen v. Sybase, Inc., 468 F.3d 642, 658 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Hutchinson v. Pfeil, 105 F.3d 562, 566 (10th Cir. 1997)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”). The clearly erroneous standard requires the district court to affirm unless it “on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Allen, 468 F.3d at 658 (quoting Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988)).

The Oglesbees raise two objections to Magistrate Judge Little's March 30, 2023 order: (1) Magistrate Judge Little erred in not requiring Glock to produce the results of its searches so that the Oglesbees could determine the “veracity” of Glock's search; and (2) Magistrate Judge Little erred in not compelling production of reports from 2006 to 2009. [Doc. 273, pp. 2-3]. The court separately considers each objection.

The Oglesbees contend that they are entitled to the requested documents simply by virtue of them having requested them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. [Doc. 273, p. 4]. However, Rule 34 is limited by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), which defines the scope of permissible discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) (“A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) ....”). Pursuant to Rule 26(b),

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Although courts have adopted a broad interpretation of “relevant,” Reibert v. CSAA Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 17-CV-350-CVE-JFJ, 2018 WL 279348, at *4 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 3, 2018), “Rule 26(b) will not permit unlimited discovery.” Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Grp. Ins. Plan, 619 F.3d 1151, 1163 (10th Cir. 2010); see also Paycom Software, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., No. CIV-22-335-D, 2022 WL 16702474, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 3, 2022) (quoting Koch v. Koch Indus., Inc., 203 F.3d 1202, 1238 (10th Cir. 2000)) (“Discovery is not, however, intended to be a ‘fishing expedition.’ ”). “When the relevance is not readily apparent, the party seeking the discovery has the burden to show the relevance of the information requested.” Barton v. Tomacek, No. 11-CV-0619-CVE-TLW, 2012 WL 4735927, at *4 (N.D. Okla. Oct. 3, 2012).

*4 As discussed above, the Oglesbees assert they are entitled to documents regarding “operational issues” generated as a result of defendant's search in order to “check that work” and “determine the veracity of Defendant's response.” [Doc. 273, pp. 6-7]. In doing so, the Oglesbees fail to meaningfully contend with Judge Little's determination that “operational issues” was an overbroad search inquiry. See [Doc. 271, p. 16]. The Oglesbees state “Defendant's corporate representative identified that forty documents were generated as a result of the representative's search using Plaintiffs' requested search term [that is, “operational issues”], demonstrating relevance.” [Doc. 273, p. 5]. However, Mr. Guevara, the corporate representative, testified that he searched customer reports for incidents of drop fire and trigger reset failures in the Technical Services database. [Doc. 260-1, p. 34].

With respect to “operational issues,” Mr. Guevara explained that the Technical Services database is a database in which Glock maintains information about the gun itself, the customer, and the issue reported. Based on the issue reported, the customer reports are classified into one of approximately 50 subcategories. Because “[t]here is no specific category for trigger safety issue,” those issues would fall within a category for the “basic operation of the gun.” [Doc. 260-1, pp. 26-27]. The document recording the actual work performed is maintained in a separate system, but the serial number connects the two databases. [Doc. 260-1, pp. 28-29]. Mr. Guevara explained that, to conduct the search, William Carmichael, the person in charge of Glock's Technical Services Department, searched the Technical Services database and pulled approximately forty work orders associated with reports that could potentially include a trigger safety reset failure or drop safety type incident. Mr. Guevara personally reviewed those work orders and concluded that they were not responsive—i.e., they did not relate to a trigger safety reset failure or drop safety type incident. [Doc. 260-1, pp. 30-34].

The Oglesbees appear to take the position that, because a drop safety incident or trigger safety reset failure would be classified as an issue with the operation of the gun, all “operational issues” are relevant. However, it is clear from Mr. Guevara's deposition, as well as representations by defense counsel throughout this matter, that “operational issues” includes a variety of issues related to the operation of the gun, including ammunition feeding, ejection, and extraction. See [Doc. 260-1, p. 32; Doc. 259-7; Doc. 264; Doc. 259-2, p. 3]. Plaintiffs' claims in this case relate to drop safety and the trigger safety reset. See [Doc. 151]. Discovery is therefore properly limited to those claims.[2] See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) (“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim ....”); see also Evans v. Liberty Nat'l Life Ins Co., No. 13-CV-0390-CVE-PJC, 2014 WL 3449993, at *2 (N.D. Okla. July 11, 2014) (quoting In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180, 1193 (10th Cir. 2009)) (“The mere fact that a plaintiff offers a ‘broad theory of the case' does not automatically justify equally broad discovery, ‘unless the discovery is relevant to the plaintiff's actual claims or defenses.’ ”).

The Oglesbees also assert that Magistrate Judge Little erred in failing to order production of the approximately 40 work orders culled from the “operational issues” subcategory and personally reviewed by Mr. Guevara. However, the Oglesbees fail to point to any binding case law which would show Magistrate Judge Little's decision was “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Allen, 468 F.3d at 658. Instead, the Oglesbees rely on a single decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. See [Doc. 273, p. 5 (citing Nachurs Alpine Sols., Corp. v. Banks, No. 15-CV-4015-LTS, 2017 WL 2918979 (N.D. Iowa July 7, 2017)]. But that decision is not binding, nor is it persuasive as it is factually distinguishable.

*5 In Nachurs, the defendants conducted a search of ESI for certain search terms approved by the court. Defendants provided some documents, but also withheld certain documents as non-responsive and provided a privilege log. Based on the privilege log description prepared by the plaintiff, the court concluded that a colorable claim existed that certain withheld documents were relevant because they contained at least one of the ESI search terms. Nachurs, 2017 WL 2918979, at *4. Further, the court noted “[t]he Court's confidence in defendants' response is colored, however, by the Court's conclusion that defendants have previously not complied with discovery obligations.” Id. Here, in contrast, Mr. Guevara testified, under oath, that the 40 work orders did not relate to drop safety incidents or trigger safety reset failures.[3] [Doc. 260-1, pp. 30-34]. Discovery is properly limited to these categories. Unlike in Nachurs, the court has no reason to doubt Glock's representations. For these reasons, the court is not persuaded that Magistrate Judge Little erred in failing to order production of the work reports and other results of its searches so that the Oglesbees could determine the “veracity” of Glock's search.

As previously stated, the Oglesbees also argue that Magistrate Judge Little erred in not compelling production of reports from 2006 to 2009. Specifically, the Oglesbees argue that search results for operational issues for the five years preceding 2011, when Glock modified its Instruction for Use, are relevant to the foreseeability of modifications. [Doc. 273, pp. 7-8].

The relevance of the date when Glock modified its Instruction for Use is not readily apparent to the court, particularly given that, under Oklahoma law, “[t]he manufacturer has a continuing duty to warn of all potential danger, which it knew, or should have known, in the exercise of reasonable care to exist.” McKee v. Moore, 648 P.2d 21, 24 (Okla. 1982) (emphasis added). Presumably, any duty to warn that existed would continue, regardless of when the Instruction for Use manual was published. Thus, the date of the incident, rather than the date of the manual, constitutes the relevant date.

Although courts commonly extend discovery several years prior to the conduct on which liability may be premised—in this case, the October 29, 2016 incident—a period that begins ten years prior to the incident is overbroad. See E.E.O.C. v. Kansas City S. Ry., 195 F.R.D. 678, 679-80 (D. Kan. 2000) (collecting cases).

As previously stated, “[w]hen the relevance is not readily apparent, the party seeking the discovery has the burden to show the relevance of the information requested.” Barton, 2012 WL 4735927, at *4. The Oglesbees have not satisfied their burden and therefore the Oglesbees' objection in this regard is overruled.

Because the Oglesbees fail to show that Magistrate Judge Little's ruling was clearly erroneous, the Objections to Magistrate Judge Christine D. Little's March 30, 2023 are overruled.

WHEREFORE, the Objections to Magistrate Judge Christine D. Little's March 30, 2023 Order [Doc. 273] of plaintiffs Patrick and Kathren D. Oglesbee are overruled.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of May, 2023.