## Facts

- In a products-liability personal injury suit involving a Jeep CJ-5, the defendant anticipated that the plaintiff would rely on a published 1980 University of Michigan Highway Safety Institute report concluding utility vehicles, particularly the Jeep CJ-5, had a disproportionately high rollover rate.
- Jeep served a subpoena duces tecum on Dr. Richard G. Snyder, the report’s principal author, seeking “any and all” underlying study materials, including raw data, notes, drafts, correspondence, and related items.
- Dr. Snyder was not a party, had no first-hand knowledge of the accident, and was not retained as an expert by either side.
- Dr. Snyder moved to quash, arguing the request was extraordinarily broad and burdensome and that compelled disclosure would chill academic research and interfere with academic freedom.
- A magistrate quashed the subpoena; Jeep sought district-judge review of that discovery order.

## Issues

1. Under what limits may civil litigants compel a non-party academic researcher to produce underlying research data and materials by subpoena.
2. How a court should balance litigants’ need for evidence against burdens imposed on a non-party researcher not connected to the dispute.
3. Whether, and in what way, First Amendment and academic-freedom concerns affect enforcement of subpoenas directed at unretained academic researchers.

## Decision

- The district court affirmed the magistrate’s order quashing the subpoena.
- The court recognized a qualified protection for non-party academic research materials in discovery.
- The court held Jeep failed to show a sufficient need to justify compelling broad production of Dr. Snyder’s underlying research files, given the subpoena’s breadth, burden, and the availability of alternatives.

## Legal Principles

- Discovery demands served on non-parties, especially unretained academic researchers, warrant careful scrutiny for burden and proportionality.
- No absolute academic-research privilege applies, but courts may afford qualified protection informed by First Amendment and academic-freedom concerns.
- In assessing whether to compel non-party research materials, courts may balance: (i) relevance and necessity, (ii) availability of comparable information from other sources (including published materials and retained experts), (iii) the breadth and burden of the request, and (iv) the risk that compelled disclosure will deter or disrupt academic research.

## Conclusion

The court refused to compel an unretained, non-party academic researcher to produce expansive underlying study materials, concluding that the requesting party’s asserted litigation need did not outweigh the burden on the researcher and the policy concerns associated with compelled disclosure of academic research files.


Wright v. Jeep Corp., 547 F. Supp. 871 (E.D. Mich. 1982)