Ruiz v. SharkNinja Operating LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

NATASHA RUIZ, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 6:21-cv-1628-WWB-LHP SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC and WALMART INC., Defendants

ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: PLAINTIFF’S SHORT-FORM DISCOVERY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT A SECOND RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC (Doc. No. 32) FILED: March 3, 2023 THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

This products liability case concerns Plaintiff’s claim that she was injured operating a “push down” blender, model BL450, designed by Defendant SharkNinja Operating LLC (“SharkNinja”). See Doc. No. 1-5, at 11–19. By the present motion, Plaintiff moves for leave of Court to conduct a second deposition of SharkNinja’s corporate representative, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). Doc. No. 32.1 According to Plaintiff, she learned for the first time during the February 9, 2023 deposition of SharkNinja’s expert that SharkNinja uses different model numbers for the same “push down” blender design as model BL450. Id. at 3. Plaintiff contends that “[t]his type of information is regularly discoverable in product liability cases.” Id. In response, SharkNinja argues, among other things,2 that Plaintiff has known about the existence of other “push down” models since at least January 2022, by SharkNinja’s document production identifying other such model numbers, and that its December 2022 document production also identified other “related configurations” by model number. Doc. No. 33, at 1–2. But Plaintiff has only sought discovery in this matter related to model BL450. Id. at 2. See also Doc. Nos. 33-2 through 33-5. So, SharkNinja contends that Plaintiff has had ample

Doc. No. 33, at 2.

Based on SharkNinja’s response, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a reply brief. Doc. No. 34. Plaintiff has timely replied, see Doc. No. 35, and the matter is now ripe for review. Upon review, and for the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiff’s motion is due to be denied.3 First,4 as set forth in the papers and attachments, Plaintiff never requested discovery from SharkNinja regarding other blender models similar to model BL450; indeed, all of Plaintiff’s discovery requests appear to have been limited to model BL450, and SharkNinja’s responses to the discovery were limited to BL450. See Doc. Nos. 33-2 through 33-5. Plaintiff does not dispute this, despite Plaintiff’s own admission that “[t]his type of information is regularly discoverable in product

Fla. Dec. 2, 2011) (denying motion for second 30(b)(6) deposition where, among other things, “Simply stated, Plaintiff did not ask for this information during the discovery period.”).

Second, and more importantly, Plaintiff does not dispute that SharkNinja’s responsive production to Plaintiff’s discovery requests identified model numbers for blenders similar to model BL450. See Doc. No. 35. Discovery identifying these other model numbers was served on Plaintiff as early as January 2022, and further discovery was served in December 2022. See id. See also Doc. No. 33, at 1–2.

Plaintiff’s argument boils down to a contention that she was not required to review SharkNinja’s document production in detail to find those model numbers, and to seek discovery regarding those other models on her own accord until the issue arose at the deposition of SharkNinja’s expert. Doc. Nos. 32; Doc. No. 35, at 1–2. The Court cannot accept this argument based on the facts presented, as to rule in favor of Plaintiff on this issue would mean that a second 30(b)(6) deposition would be warranted simply by failure to carefully review document production before the first. Cf. Sevi v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. 6:13-cv-1433-Orl-37KRS, 2015 WL 12911709, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2015), aff’d, 2015 WL 1242795 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2015) (denying motion to strike affidavit or alternatively reopen discovery to question 30(b)(6) deponent about the affidavit where the documents attached to the affidavit were previously produced to the plaintiff during discovery before the 30(b)(6) deposition). See also generally Mamani v. Sanchez de Lozada, No. 07-22459- CIV, 2017 WL 11633120, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2017) (“The ‘new information’ that would justify re-opening a deposition is typically information that was not produced until after the deposition, created post-deposition, or involved new parties or claims.”).

Third, even accepting Plaintiff’s argument that she first learned of the additional models similar to model BL450 at the February 9, 2023 deposition, Plaintiff did nothing until filing the present motion on March 3, 2023. See Doc. No. 32. Plaintiff could have served written discovery on SharkNinja as early as February 10, 2023 directed to this issue, but she did not. Cf. Mokris v. United States, No. 2:20-cv-34-JES-MRM, 2021 WL 8822316, at *2–3 (M.D. Fla. July 15, 2021) (denying motion for second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition where the information could be obtained through written discovery). By waiting until March 3, 2023 to take any action, Plaintiff has failed to establish diligence, and has effectively necessitated that any ruling in her favor result in an extension of the discovery period. See Doc. No. 12.

For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. No. 32) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on March 10, 2023.

Ayn LESLIE AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties -6-