## Facts

- Wayne Trask and his minor daughter, A.T., were hunting when Trask’s Winchester Model 94 lever-action rifle fell from a tree stand and discharged.
- The rifle’s hammer was in the half-cocked position; during the fall, the hammer struck an object and the rifle fired without the trigger being depressed.
- The bullet passed through Wayne Trask’s knee and hand and then through A.T.’s hand, causing serious injuries.
- Plaintiffs asserted state-law products-liability and negligence claims alleging defective design, inadequate safety devices, and inadequate warnings.
- In discovery, plaintiffs sought Olin’s information concerning other accidental discharge incidents involving the Winchester Model 94, without limiting the request to half-cock incidents.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 26 permits discovery of other accidental discharge incidents involving the Winchester Model 94 even when the hammer position or circumstances differ from plaintiffs’ accident.
2. Whether the court should reconsider and narrow a prior order compelling production of such other-incident information based on relevance, similarity, or burden.

## Decision

- The court denied Olin’s motion for reconsideration.
- The court left in place its earlier order compelling Olin to produce information about other accidental discharges of the Winchester Model 94, without restricting production to half-cock hammer incidents.
- The court found the requested material relevant (or reasonably likely to lead to relevant evidence) to design-defect, notice, feasibility of safety measures, and warning claims, and not disproportionate to the needs of the case.
- The court concluded Olin failed to show grounds for reconsideration such as an intervening change in law, newly discovered evidence, or clear legal or factual error.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 26 allows discovery of nonprivileged matter relevant to a claim or defense, including information reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence.
- In products-liability litigation, other-incident information about the same product may be discoverable to address defect, notice, and warning issues even if some incidents may later be excluded at trial.
- The “substantial similarity” requirement primarily governs admissibility, and does not operate as a strict threshold barrier to discovery where broader incident data may assist in evaluating similarity and developing proof.
- Proportionality limits discovery, but production may be required where the information is central to disputed issues and is uniquely controlled by the producing party.

## Conclusion

The court refused to narrow earlier compelled discovery and held that plaintiffs alleging a defective firearm design and inadequate warnings were entitled under Rule 26 to obtain other-incident accidental-discharge data for the same rifle model, even when the hammer position differed from the incident at issue.


Trask v. Olin Corp., 298 F.R.D. 244 (W.D. Pa. 2014)