Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (E.D. Wash., Aug. 31, 2021)

Our plain-English summary of Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington, August 31, 2021).

Kristina Strong sued Honeywell International and Pneumo Abex, individually and as administrator of the estate of Matthew Strong. She alleged he developed peritoneal mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos-containing automotive friction products, including Bendix brakes made by Honeywell. The opinion does not describe his work or where he was exposed. The dispute here was about trial preparation. Strong served about 100 documents of designated testimony, including 79 deposition transcripts, 15 sets of exhibits and 6 sets of discovery responses from other cases. Honeywell asked for a protective order limiting her to testimony from no more than 15 transcripts, citing the burden of reviewing so much material. The court denied the motion. It noted that Strong described the designations as short and precise, and that the parties had agreed to extra time for Honeywell. It found Honeywell had not shown undue burden under Rule 26. Honeywell's remedy was to oppose the designations on substantive grounds. The court made no ruling on whether any designation was admissible.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington
• Decided: August 31, 2021
• Docket: No. 2:20-CV-136-RMP
• Stage: Discovery or evidence ruling
• State: Washington

Outcome. The court denied Honeywell's motion for a protective order to cap plaintiff Kristina Strong's deposition-testimony designations at 15 transcripts, leaving Honeywell to oppose the designations on their merits.

What the court held. A party seeking a protective order under Rule 26 must show undue burden; Honeywell did not show that reviewing plaintiff's designations was unduly burdensome, so its remedy was to oppose the designations substantively.

Issues decided: Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• Matthew Strong: peritoneal mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• Honeywell International, Inc. (manufacturer)
• Pneumo Abex, LLC (manufacturer)

Other decisions in this case

Other rulings from the same court in the same case, in our library:

• Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (August 30, 2021). The court granted Honeywell partial summary judgment on the conspiracy and breach of warranty claims, dismissing them with prejudice because Plaintiff Strong did not respond; the failure-to-warn portion of the motion remained pending.
• Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (September 27, 2021). The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a protective order barring Honeywell from obtaining Terry Strong's medical records and death certificate, and denied Honeywell's motion to exclude his product identification testimony and its request for a competency hearing.

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

KRISTINA T. STRONG, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Matthew W. Strong,

deceased, Plaintiff,

v.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., and PNEUMO ABEX, LLC, Defendants.

No. 2:20-CV-136-RMP.

August 31, 2021.

United States District Court, E.D. Washington.

ORDER DENYING HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION OF

TESTIMONY

ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON, District Judge.

BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant Honeywell International, Inc.'s ("Honeywell") Motion for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff's Designation of Testimony, ECF No. 125. The Court has reviewed the motion, the record, and is fully informed. This is an asbestos case brought by Kristina Strong, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Matthew T. Strong. Decedent Matthew Strong developed peritoneal mesothelioma which Plaintiff alleges was caused by exposure to asbestos-containing automotive friction products, including Bendix brand brakes manufactured by Honeywell. See ECF No. 30. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, on August 19, 2021, Plaintiff served Honeywell with Plaintiff's designations of deposition testimony as well as designations of Honeywell's interrogatory responses. See ECF No. 29 at 8 ("Designation of substantive, as opposed to impeachment, deposition testimony shall be by highlighting and shall be served upon opposing counsel, but not filed, by August 19, 2021.").

According to Honeywell, "Plaintiff served Honeywell with one hundred (100) separate documents, including seventy-nine (79) deposition transcripts,[1] fifteen (15) sets of exhibits to the deposition testimony designated, and six (6) sets of discovery responses from other jurisdictions designated against Honeywell." ECF No. 125 at 1-2. Plaintiff purportedly designated testimony from past Honeywell corporate representatives, testimony from witnesses related to Plaintiff's claims, as well as testimony from past users of Bendix brakes, co-workers, and eyewitnesses in other cases (i.e. "no warning witnesses"). ECF No. 140 at 2-4 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(3)).

The parties stipulated to extending certain deadlines, including Honeywell's deadline to serve cross-designations and file objections to designated testimony. ECF Nos. 129, 132.

Honeywell requests that the Court order Plaintiff to limit designated testimony to only the testimony she intends to substantively use at trial in order "to protect Honeywell from undue burden and expense of reviewing thousands of pages of deposition testimony." ECF No. 125 at 6. More specifically, Honeywell seeks to limit Plaintiff to designating testimony from no more than 15 transcripts. See ECF No. 125.

Plaintiffs maintains that the "designations are substantive, are directly relevant to the claims and defenses remaining in this case and are neither duplicative nor meant for impeachment." ECF No. 140 at 3. Plaintiff further argues that Honeywell's Motion improperly relies upon Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 because this case is past the discovery phase. Id.; see ECF No. 29 at 4 ("All discovery shall be completed by April 30, 2021."); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) ("The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense including. . . forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters.").

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, designations should be of substantive, as opposed to impeachment, deposition testimony. ECF No. 29 at 8. Plaintiff submits that the designations at issue are substantive. ECF No. 140 at 4.[2] Given Plaintiff's representation that the designations are "short and precise," ECF No. 140 at 4, combined with the additional time awarded to Honeywell by the parties' stipulation to amend deadlines, ECF No. 129, the Court finds that Honeywell has not shown that responding to Plaintiff's designations pose such an undue burden to justify issuing a protective order under Rule 26 or limiting Plaintiff to designating testimony from no more than 15 transcripts.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Honeywell's remedy at this time is to substantively oppose Plaintiff's designations. ECF No. 140 at 3. This Order makes no findings as to the admissibility of any designations by Plaintiff.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Defendant Honeywell International, Inc's Motion for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff's Designation of Testimony, ECF No. 125, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to counsel. [1] Plaintiff withdrew six transcript designations from depositions where Honeywell was not in attendance. ECF No. 140 at 2-3. [2] Plaintiff concedes that she failed to include certain individuals on her original trial witness list. ECF No. 140 at 4 n. 2. Plaintiff since filed an Amended Trial Witness List on August 27, 2021. See ECF No. 135 (listing several "no warning witnesses").

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• Washington asbestos laws
• Washington asbestos exposure sites