## Facts

- United Oil Company, Inc. distributed hydraulic oils and industrial chemicals and settled product-liability claims brought by Jerry and Mrs. Tiede for $820,098.89.
- The Tiedes alleged Mr. Tiede developed liver disease from occupational exposure to chemicals in dyes and brake-cleaning fluids associated with United Oil’s distribution activities.
- United Oil then sued Rohm & Haas Company (manufacturer of dyes) and Parts Associates, Inc. (distributor of Fleet-Fill brake cleaner) for indemnity and contribution to recover the settlement amount.
- United Oil’s causation expert opined that Mr. Tiede’s liver disease was caused by xylene and ethyl benzene (in dyes) and perchloroethylene/tetrachloroethylene (in brake cleaner), identified as known liver toxicants.
- United Oil’s theory sounded primarily in failure to warn regarding risks of liver disease from exposure to products containing those chemicals.
- In the indemnity/contribution action, discovery disputes arose over interrogatories and document requests, with motions to compel filed by United Oil (and a related motion by Parts) seeking discovery largely from Rohm & Haas.
- The contested discovery sought information about other claims, lawsuits, and internal/regulatory materials involving the same chemicals and similar products, not merely the specific product identifiers at issue.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 26(b)(1) permits discovery of prior claims and lawsuits involving the products and chemical compounds at issue in a failure-to-warn products-liability theory.
2. Whether discovery may extend beyond the particular product identifiers to other products containing the same chemical compounds.
3. Which party bears the burden when discovery is challenged on relevance and scope grounds under Rule 26(b)(1).
4. Whether materials bearing on defendants’ knowledge, notice, and warnings (including safety and internal records) are discoverable.

## Decision

- The court largely granted the motions to compel.
- The court held that discovery could include other claims and lawsuits involving the same products and similar products containing the same chemical compounds (xylene, ethyl benzene, and perchloroethylene).
- The court rejected limiting discovery to the exact product identifiers, permitting discovery into other products sharing the relevant chemical constituents because such information could bear on notice, knowledge, adequacy of warnings, and causation.
- The court held that relevance for discovery is broader than admissibility and that United Oil made a sufficient threshold showing of relevance.
- The court placed the burden on the resisting party to show irrelevance, overbreadth, or undue burden and found the resisting parties did not carry that burden on the record presented.
- The court imposed limitations to address breadth and burden (including tailoring by categories and time), while still requiring substantial production.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 26(b)(1) allows discovery of nonprivileged matter relevant to any party’s claim or defense; discoverability is broader than trial admissibility.
- In failure-to-warn litigation, information about other claims and incidents involving the same harmful chemicals may be discoverable to prove notice, knowledge of risk, warning adequacy, and causation.
- Discovery may reach beyond a specific product label or identifier to other products containing the same chemical constituents when the shared constituents are central to the claims and defenses.
- Once the requesting party shows a facial connection between requested discovery and the claims or defenses, the resisting party bears the burden to justify withholding based on irrelevance, disproportionality, or other Rule 26 limits.
- Courts may tailor discovery with reasonable limits to reduce burden while still permitting access to information plausibly related to claims or defenses.

## Conclusion

The court applied Rule 26(b)(1)’s broad relevance standard to compel production of other-claims and related information concerning the same chemicals across similar products, holding that such materials can bear on notice and causation in a failure-to-warn theory and that the party resisting discovery must substantiate objections with more than conclusory assertions.


United Oil Co. v. Parts Assocs., Inc., 227 F. Supp. 2d 404 (D. Md. 2005)