Minerva26

Johnson v. Werner Co.

2024 WL 4818257 (D.S.C. 2024)

October 10, 2024

Baker, Mary G., United States Magistrate Judge

Download PDF

To Cite List

Summary

The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the defendant to produce all complaints, reports, and lawsuits involving similar incidents of false locking in any of their extension ladders. The court found this information to be relevant and discoverable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), and also deemed materials from a previous case with a similar locking mechanism to be relevant and discoverable.

Additional Decisions

Stephen L. Johnson and Catherine Johnson, Plaintiffs,
v.
Werner Co., also known as Werner Ladder Co., and Lowes Home Centers LLC, Defendants

Civil Action No. 2:23-03573-BHH

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division, CHARLESTON DIVISION

Filed October 10, 2024

Baker, Mary G., United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

*1 Plaintiffs, through counsel, initially filed this civil action in state court. (Dkt. No. 1-1.) The case was removed to federal court on July 25, 2023. (Dkt. No. 1.) The Complaint alleges causes of action for product defect negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty. (Dkt. No. 1-1.) This matter is currently before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 37), which was filed on August 16, 2024, and referred to the undersigned by the Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks, United States District Judge, on September 13, 2024. (Dkt. No. 42).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this civil action following a severe injury that Plaintiff Stephen Johnson (“Mr. Johnson”) suffered while using a “Werner 16FT Type II Aluminum D-Rung Extension Ladder, Model No.: D1216-2, Mk 21, Part No.: 100513-27,” which Plaintiffs claim was “designed, tested, manufactured, distributed, imported, and/or sold” by Defendant Werner. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 4–5.) Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Johnson was injured “when his Werner-brand ladder collapsed due to the ladder being ‘false locked’—i.e., the ladder's locking mechanism did not fully engage the rung, resulting in the ladder being in an unsecured extended position.” (Dkt. No. 37 at 1.) Plaintiffs assert that “the design aspects of the ladder's locking mechanism created a tendency for the ladder to ‘false lock,’ rendering the ladder unreasonably dangerous and defective.” (Id. at 1–2.) Plaintiffs further assert that “ ‘[f]alse lock’ is not a novel defect theory” and that “[o]ver the last thirty years, Werner has faced countless ‘false locking’ reports and lawsuits involving a variety of its extension ladder models.” (Id. at 2.)

Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Compel on August 16, 2024, asking the Court to compel Defendant Werner to: “(i) identify all other complaints, reports, and lawsuits involving alleged incidents of ‘false locking’ in any Werner-brand extension ladder and (ii) to produce any and all documents and information related to those complaints, reports, and lawsuits ....” (Id. at 1.) After requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Defendant Werner responded to Plaintiff's motion on September 13, 2024. (Dkt. No. 43.) Plaintiff replied to Defendant Werner's response on September 19, 2024. (Dkt. No. 44.) Accordingly, the motion before the Court has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal district courts are vested with broad discretion in resolving discovery disputes. Erdmann v. Preferred Research, Inc., of Ga., 852 F.2d 788, 792 (4th Cir. 1988). Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs this discovery dispute and provides:

Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

*2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “is broad in scope and freely permitted.” Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Centers, Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 402 (4th Cir. 2003). “The burden of proof is with the party objecting to the discovery to establish that the challenged production should not be permitted.” HDSherer LLC v. Nat. Molecular Testing Corp., 292 F.R.D. 305, 308 (D.S.C. 2013).

DISCUSSION

As noted, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel asks that the Court compel Defendant Werner to: “(i) identify all other complaints, reports, and lawsuits involving alleged incidents of ‘false locking’ in any Werner-brand extension ladder and (ii) to produce any and all documents and information related to those complaints, reports, and lawsuits ....” (Dkt. No. 37 at 1.) According to Plaintiffs, Defendant Werner has “faced countless ‘false locking’ reports and lawsuits involving a variety of its extension ladder models” over the last thirty years, and Plaintiffs “are aware of at least twenty-two (22) other ‘false lock’ incidents.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs believe that all of these incidents involved locking mechanisms that are substantially similar to the one at issue in Plaintiffs’ case. (Id.)

Plaintiffs assert that, during discovery, they asked Defendant Werner to “identify and produce documents related to any and all claims, allegations, complaints, and lawsuits involving similar failures in other Werner-brand ladders,” but that Defendant Werner has failed to produce the full scope of responsive materials. (Id. at 3–4.) Plaintiffs contend that “Werner, ignoring the logical conclusion that a common malfunction across these models raises questions as to a shared defect, and without having produced the engineering drawings for these ladders, claims that the locking mechanisms in these ladders are so distinct as to render ... these models ‘irrelevant’ to this case.” (Id. at 7.) Plaintiffs further contend that Defendant Werner's position is wrong, and that the locking mechanisms across all ladder models at issue here—spring-assisted gravity locks—are substantially similar in composition, form, and function. (Id. at 7–10.) More specifically, Plaintiffs assert that “[t]he common design features among these locks explain why ladders equipped with them have all [been] the subject of allegations of ‘false locking,’ despite other differences between the ladders,” and that “[the] shared design features and the fact [that] these ladders have all been the subject of allegations of the same malfunction renders the[ ] ‘other incidents’ relevant and therefore discoverable” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). (Id. at 10–11.) Ultimately, Plaintiffs contend that “it is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims that there have been claims of identical malfunctions in ladders equipped with locking mechanisms that share similar design features—regardless of other immaterial distinctions,” and that the requested information “may lead to the discovery of admissible information, such as the specific design feature in these ladders that causes ‘false lock,’ [and] Werner's knowledge of the same.” (Id. at 15.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs reiterate that the requested information “is within the scope of discovery in this case and Werner is obligated to identify all other claims, reports, complaints, and lawsuits involving allegations of ‘false locking,’ and produce documents related to the same.” (Id.)

*3 In response, Defendant Werner contends that the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion because “the discovery it seeks is irrelevant to this litigation, is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial, and the burden it places on Werner to respond is disproportionate to the probative value of any discovery to which it may lead.” (Dkt. No. 43 at 1.) Defendant Werner further contends that “in response to Plaintiffs’ request that Werner identify and produce information on ‘other incidents’ of alleged false-locking on Werner extension ladders, Werner has voluntarily provided such discovery not only with respect to all ladders in the D1200-2 Mk 21 model class, regardless of length, but also provided discovery with respect to all ladders sold by Werner that contain the same fly lock assembly as that used on the D1200-2 Mk 21 class ladders ....” (Id. at 2–3.) According to Defendant Werner, Plaintiffs were “[u]nsatisfied with discovery of information on ladders with the same locking assembly as the subject ladder,” and “now move to compel discovery of information related to all ‘false locking’ claims ever received by Werner, regardless of the model and its lock assembly.” (Id. at 3.) Defendant Werner believes the breadth and scope of such request “goes well beyond reasonable discovery and offers no chance at the discovery of evidence that would be admissible against Werner at trial.” (Id.) Defendant Werner therefore objects to Plaintiffs’ request. (Id.)

As for the twenty-two incidents specifically mentioned in Plaintiffs’ motion,[1] Defendant Werner explains that the parties communicated regarding Plaintiffs’ discovery requests after Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel. (Id. at 5.) Defendant Werner claims that it informed Plaintiffs that “it has a record retention policy which dictates that it maintains records of claims for a period of 5 years after the claim has been closed,” and that “its search for prior claims was necessarily limited by its record retention policy.” (Id.) Still, Defendant Werner claims that it “voluntarily provided discovery as to five (5) of those claims for which it still possesses the requested documentation and advised Plaintiffs that it retains documentation as to only one of the other claims.” (Id. at 3.) Defendant Werner believes it is not required to provide the documentation for the one other claim because “the claim involved a wholly different ladder design and model, with different rungs and fiberglass rails, rendering information related to that claim irrelevant to the pending action.” (Id.)

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Werner contends the only remaining issues before the Court are: (1) whether Defendant Werner “must provide discovery for the sixteen alleged ‘false locking’ claims ... for which Werner no longer possesses materials pursuant to its document retention policy”; (2) whether Defendant Werner must disclose materials for the one claim as to which Defendant Werner admits retaining documentation—the Kornfiend case; and (3) whether Defendant Werner “has a duty to disclose any further ‘false locking’ claims not yet identified by Plaintiffs or, disclosed by Werner, to the extent such claims exist.” (Id. at 7.) The undersigned considers these issues, below.

I. Relevance of Other “False Locking” Incidents

Because the relevance of other “false locking” incidents involving Defendant Werner's ladders, including the Kornfiend case, is at the crux of this discovery dispute, the undersigned considers this issue first. For the reasons set forth in greater detail below, the undersigned finds that these incidents are relevant to this litigation and information about them is therefore discoverable.

“In a product liability case, ‘discovery of similar, if not identical, [products] is generally permitted,’ and discovery of requested products will be denied only when they ‘are not substantially similar to the [product] at issue.’ ” Wynne v. W.M. Barr & Co., No. 2:18-CV-2203-DCN, 2020 WL 13627634, at *3 (D.S.C. Jan. 27, 2020) (quoting Moore v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, 2018 WL 2980328, at *2 (D.S.C. June 14, 2018)); see also Hartsock v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires N. Am. LTD, No. 2:13-CV-00419-PMD, 2013 WL 6919715, at *8 (D.S.C. Nov. 22, 2013), aff'd sub nom. Hartsock v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2014 WL 51237 (D.S.C. Jan. 7, 2014). “Courts allow only the same or substantially similar products into discovery because ‘allowing discovery of [products] that are not substantially similar to the [product] at issue is truly the equivalent of comparing apples and oranges.’ ” Wynne, 2020 WL 13627634, at *3 (quoting Hartsock, 2013 WL 6919715, at *8).

*4 “The determinative factor in the inquiry of substantial similarity of a product is whether ‘the products contain the same injury-producing component as the product at issue.’ ” Id. (quoting Edwards v. Arctic Cat, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-03269, 2013 WL 4017152, at *3 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 6, 2013)); see also Bryte v. Am. Household, Inc., 429 F.3d 469, 479 (4th Cir. 2005) (noting that courts should consider whether the “salient characteristics” of incident at issue are shared with the incident to which comparison is sought). “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.” Fine v. Facet Aerospace Products Co., 133 F.R.D. 439, 441 (S.D.N.Y. 1990); see also Hartsock, 2013 WL 6919715, at *8 (allowing discovery of tires where defendant did not meet the burden of proof in showing that the other products did not have the same accident-causing characteristics as the product at issue). “[A]t the discovery stage, and especially if the evidence is sought for purposes of showing notice [and/or design defect], substantial similarity should be liberally defined.” Desrosiers v. MAG Indus. Automation Sys., LLC, 675 F. Supp. 2d 598, 603 (D. Md. 2009).

Here, the undersigned is not convinced that the “injury-producing component”—i.e., the locking mechanism—of the ladder in the Kornfield case is so dissimilar to the locking mechanism at issue in this case such that the Kornfield case is irrelevant to this litigation. The parties agree that the injury-producing component of the ladder at issue in this case is the locking mechanism. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 37, 43, 44.) The parties also agree that the locking mechanism in the ladder at issue is a “fly lock,” or spring-assisted gravity lock. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 37, 43, 44.) Further, it is undisputed that fly locks on extension ladders “operate by engaging the rungs on the fly section with the rungs on the base section, which ... locks the fly section rung to a base section rung and renders the fly section secured in an extended position.” (Dkt. No. 43-1 at 20; see also Dkt. No. 37 at 10.)

Materials from the Kornfiend case are therefore relevant and discoverable if the locking mechanism in the ladder used in Kornfield is substantially similar to the locking mechanism in the ladder used in this case. See Bryte, 429 F.3d at 479; Wynne, 2020 WL 13627634, at *3; Hartsock, 2013 WL 6919715, at *8; Fine, 133 F.R.D. at 441. In support of its contention that the locking mechanism in the Kornfield ladder does not share “salient characteristics” to the locking mechanism in the ladder at issue here, Defendant Werner has provided an affidavit from Dale King, its Senior Advanced Development Engineer. (Dkt. No. 43-1 at 18.) In this affidavit, King explains how the ladder in the Kornfiend case is distinguishable from the ladder at issue here:

16. The technical differences between the subject ladder and the Kornfiend ladder render the two ladders dissimilar to each other for purposes of this lawsuit. Fly locks on extension ladders operate by engaging the rungs on the fly section with the rungs on the base section, which, when properly used, locks the fly section rung to a base section rung and renders the fly section secured in an extended position.
17. The D1216-2 Mk 21 ladder used by Mr. Johnson has a rung profile on both its base and fly sections that are different in size and shape from the rungs on large fiberglass ladders like the D6028-2 that was the subject of the Kornfiend case. In addition to its rails being fiberglass instead of aluminum, the Kornfiend ladder has a different rail profile from the subject ladder.
18. The phenomenon of “false locking,” as it is espoused by those who testify as experts against Werner on such matters, is based on a friction interaction between the lock assemblies and the rungs of the ladders, which supposedly causes the locks to stick in place on a rung without being fully and properly engaged. The theory necessarily relies on the physical properties of the lock assemblies and the rungs of a given ladder.
*5 19. Because the rail profile, rung profile, lock profile, and rung size on the subject ladder is materially different from that on the Kornfiend ladder, the physical properties that can supposedly lead to a “false locking” scenario are also different. Furthermore, fiberglass ladders like that involved in the Kornfield case are typically heavier than aluminum ladders and are favored for their non-conductive properties, making them suitable for electrical work. The material properties of fiberglass, including its weight, rigidity, and impact resistance, differ significantly from those of aluminum.
20. The subject ladder model is constructed from aluminum, a material known for its high strength-to-weight ratio, corrosion resistance, and durability. Aluminum ladders are designed to be lightweight yet capable of supporting substantial loads.
21. The subject ladder has a Type II duty rating, indicating a maximum load capacity of 225 lbs.
22. The Kornfiend ladder was manufactured in the mid-1990's by Werner's predecessor company, using a different pultrusion method and with different component parts than those used to manufacture the same ladder since the current Werner Co. assumed ownership.
23. In addition, the Kornfiend ladder has a Type I duty rating, indicating a higher maximum load capacity of 250 lbs. The disparity in duty ratings and load capacities further distinguishes the two ladders in terms of their design specifications and performance characteristics.
24. The Kornfiend case has no relevancy to this matter involving a completely different ladder, made of different materials and equipped with different ratings.

(Id. at 20–21.)

The affidavit does not, however, specify how the actual locking mechanism of the ladder in the Kornfiend case differs from the locking mechanism at issue here. (Id. at 18–22.) As Plaintiffs correctly note, the affidavit “focuses on differences such as rail composition, duty rating,[ ] load capacity,[ ] rung profile, and length[ ] – but these distinctions are immaterial to the question of similarity of the locking mechanism.[ ]” (Dkt. No. 44 at 8.) Plaintiffs have also provided deposition testimony from King (testifying as Defendant Werner's Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative) which confirms that many of the purportedly distinguishing features outlined in his affidavit do not substantially differentiate the actual locking mechanism. (Dkt. No. 44 at 6–7; see generally Dkt. No. 44-1.)

Thus, based on the record currently before the Court, the undersigned cannot conclusively determine that the locking mechanism in the Kornfield ladder does not contain the “characteristics pertinent to the legal issues raised” in this case. Fine, 133 F.R.D. at 441. Accordingly, materials from the Kornfield case are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and are, therefore, discoverable. See, e.g., Hartsock, 2013 WL 6919715, at *8 (“Although Mr. Parsons’ Affidavit explains much about the G670RV tires, it contains no information about how the inner liners in these ten tires are similar or different to each other.... At this point, there is no way for the undersigned to conclude the inner liners are not substantially similar. The undersigned therefore concludes production pertaining to all ten G670RV tires is warranted.”).

Similarly, the undersigned cannot conclude, at this juncture, that other complaints, reports, and lawsuits involving alleged incidents of “false locking” in Werner-brand ladders are not relevant to Plaintiffs’ case. In an effort to distinguish other “false locking” incidents from the one at issue here, Defendant Werner again points to King's affidavit, which states, in relevant part:

*6 25. Aside from the Kornfiend ladder, Werner extension ladder models equipped with different locking mechanisms than the subject ladder are also irrelevant to the above-captioned matter.
26. Ladders with different locking mechanisms than the subject ladder are fundamentally dissimilar in design and operation, which is why they incorporate different lock designs to begin with. The subject ladder's locking mechanism is engineered to engage and secure the ladder sections through a specific mechanical interaction involving its unique design and components.
27. Ladders with alternative locking mechanisms, whether they incorporate springs or other mechanisms, operate on different principles. These mechanisms may rely on different types of mechanical interactions, materials, or configurations to secure the ladder sections, which do not involve the same design as the subject ladder's locking mechanism.
28. The performance and reliability issues associated with the subject ladder's locking mechanism are specific to its design and materials. The “false locking” is grounded in the idea that the ladder's rung locks have a propensity to give the appearance of being properly locked, when in fact they are not, allegedly leading to unexpected telescoping of the ladder while in use.
29. Ladders with different locking mechanisms do not share the specific physical properties as the lock assembly on the subject ladder, and those differences, in conjunction with different types of extension ladders that use the different lock designs, render claims or cases related to those other ladders irrelevant and not pertinent to the subject ladder.
30. Therefore, it is my professional opinion that both the Kornfiend ladder model and any other ladders with different locking mechanisms and rail profiles than the subject ladder are significantly dissimilar to the subject ladder such that they are irrelevant to the “false locking” claim at issue in the instant litigation.

(Id. at 21–22.)

Again, King's affidavit does not specify how or why the locking mechanisms of the ladders involved in other “false locking” incidents are different from the locking mechanism at issue in this case. Although King's affidavit points out that each ladder's locking mechanism is specific to its “unique design and components,” he provides no detail as to how the lock at issue here is distinguishable from other spring-assisted gravity locks—which is purportedly the only type of lock that can give rise to a “false locking” claim. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 37, 44.) As Plaintiffs correctly note, “a review of Mr. King's affidavit shows that while he states the locks are ‘different,’ he fails to present any basis for this assertion, or to what extent those differences are salient to the issue of false locking.” (Dkt. No. 44 at 9.) Plaintiffs contend that “[p]erhaps, this is because Mr. King ... had already provided sworn testimony as to the multitude of similarities between design, materials, and functionality of the locking mechanisms.” (Id.) Indeed, the deposition excerpts attached to Plaintiffs’ reply indicate that all spring-assisted gravity locks giving rise to “false locking” claims: (1) function in the same manner; (2) have the same or similar design features; and (3) are made of the same or similar materials. (Dkt. No. 44 at 6–7; see generally Dkt. No. 44-1.) Accordingly, other incidents of “false locking” in Werner-brand extension ladders would necessarily involve a locking mechanism that is the same or substantially similar to the one at issue here. Complaints, reports, and lawsuits involving other alleged “false locking” incidents in Werner-brand extension ladders are therefore relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, and documents and information related to those incidents is discoverable.[2]

II. Document Retention Policy

*7 Having determined that documents and information relating to complaints, reports, and lawsuits involving alleged incidents of “false locking” in Werner-brand ladders throughout the past thirty years (including the Kornfiend case) is relevant and discoverable, the undersigned turns to Defendants’ contention that it cannot produce certain of the requested information because of its document retention policy. (Dkt. No. 43 at 8.)

Defendant Werner contends that “[u]nder Werner's document retention policy, materials related to individual claims or incidents for Werner-brand ladders are preserved for five years after the date on which the claim or incident is closed.” (Id.) Defendant Werner claims that it has informed Plaintiffs of this document retention policy, and that it simply “cannot produce materials that no longer exist.” (Id.) More specifically, Defendant Werner contends that it is no longer in possession of materials for sixteen of the twenty-two incidents referenced in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel “because those materials were disposed of pursuant to Werner's document retention policy.” (Id.) Defendant Werner asserts that it has provided all responsive materials in its possession. (See generally id.)

At the outset, the undersigned notes that “ ‘[t]he court cannot compel a party to furnish information that [it does] not possess.’ ” Mach. Sols., Inc. v. Doosan Infracore Am. Corp., 323 F.R.D. 522, 530 (D.S.C. 2018) (quoting Hoffman v. Jones, No. 2:15-CV-1748-EFB P, 2017 WL 5900086, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2017)). Further, suspicion is an insufficient basis on which to compel production. See Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. ConvaTec Inc., 268 F.R.D. 226, 252 (M.D.N.C. 2010) (“[E]ven an informed suspicion that additional non-privileged documents exist ... cannot alone support an order compelling production of documents.”); see also University of Kansas v. Sinks, No. 06-2341-KHV-GLR, 2007 WL 869629, at *3 (D. Kan. Mar. 22, 2007) (unpublished) (“The Court cannot compel a party to produce documents based solely on opposing speculation and belief that responsive documents exist and that the producing party is withholding them.”). Thus, absent some indicia that the requested information exists, the Court must accept Defendant Werner's contention that it does not have the requested materials.

However, in Plaintiffs’ reply to Defendant Werner's response, Plaintiffs explain that it “recently c[a]me to light that Werner also has a 50-year document retention policy for ‘Plaintiff Expert Testimony,’ which includes ‘testimony, reports, correspondence, etc.,’ ” and that “[p]ursuant to this 50-year document retention policy, Werner should have retained all expert testimony, reports, correspondence, and other materials provided by experts for plaintiffs injured in similar false-locking cases dating back to 1974.” (Dkt. No. 44 at 2.) As support, Plaintiffs have provided a redacted copy of Defendant Werner's Retention Policy for in camera review. (Dkt. No. 44-1.) Plaintiffs also submitted deposition testimony from King, Defendant Werner's Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative. (Dkt. No. 44-2.) Both Defendant Werner's Retention Policy and King's deposition testimony confirm Plaintiffs’ assertions. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 44-1, 44-2.) The undersigned therefore finds Defendant Werner's contention that it cannot produce additional responsive materials due to its five-year document retention policy unconvincing.

*8 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 37) is GRANTED. Defendant Werner is ORDERED to supplement its discovery responses. More specifically, Defendant Werner should: (1) identify all complaints, reports, and lawsuits involving alleged incidents of “false locking” in any Werner-brand extension ladder occurring within the last thirty years, and (2) produce any and all documents and information related to those complaints, reports, and lawsuits, including the Kornfiend case and each of the other cases identified in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel for which it has responsive materials, by October 25, 2024.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 37) and ORDERS Defendant Werner to supplement its discovery responses in accordance with this Order by October 25, 2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Footnotes

[1]

The undersigned notes that Defendant Werner's response indicates that “Werner has reason to suspect that the tailored requests are posed in an effort to give Plaintiffs’ retained expert ... cover for having improperly retained or otherwise obtained confidential information and materials from these other lawsuits against Werner, in many of which he served as an expert ....” (Dkt. No. 43 at 3.) Because this issue is not currently before the Court, the undersigned need not address it. The undersigned does, however, note that a Confidentiality Order was entered in this case on May 9, 2024. (Dkt. No. 32.)

[2]

Although the time period for which Plaintiffs request this information is not entirely clear, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel mentions that Defendant Werner has faced “false locking” complaints throughout the “last thirty years.” (Dkt. No. 37 at 2.) As such, the undersigned finds that Plaintiffs’ request for identification of, and documents and information related to, complaints, reports, and lawsuits involving alleged incidents of “false locking” in Werner-brand ladders shall be limited to incidents occurring within the past thirty years.