Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING DEFECTS—MOTOR VEHICLES—N.C. App.: Discovery, sanction orders against Toyota partly reversed in driver death action, (Jan 14, 2025)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

Civil Procedure rules do not require an adverse party to pay for language translations of discoverable documents as there is no duty to produce documents that do not exist.

In an action brought against two vehicle designers by the mother of a driver who lost his life when his vehicle engine caught fire following a collision, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina largely affirmed a lower court’s discovery order and vacated a sanctions order made against the designers. The appellate court found that the trial court erred by requiring the designers to create new English translations of Japanese documents already provided to the estate, that orders related to Rule 30(b)(6) depositions were not appropriate for review, and that the sanctions order was due for reconsideration (Sessoms v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 21CVS3104 (N.C. App. Dec. 31, 2024)).

Factual background. A man was driving a 2013 Toyota Scion FR-S when a dump truck allegedly ran a stop sign and collided with his vehicle. His passenger exited the Toyota immediately after the collision while he remained inside, pinned by a steel bumper. Soon after, the engine caught fire, with fire breaching into the passenger area. Rescue efforts to extricate the driver were unsuccessful and he died at the scene. His mother/estate brought suit against the subject vehicle’s designers, Toyota Motor Company (TMC) and Subaru Corporation (Subaru) (together, Toyota), alleging that her son’s death was caused in part by the car’s faulty design which caused it to catch fire.

Procedural background. After depositions, the mother sought to compel discovery in order to obtain fuller responses to her prior written requests, produce more documents along with their English translations, and submit to additional Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. The trial court entered the Discovery Order. Subsequently, the estate moved for sanctions, claiming that Toyota did not comply with the Discovery Order. As per the Sanction Order, the designers were deemed to have admitted that they were jointly obligated in the design of the subject Scion; that the Scion’s engine compartment, firewall, and side structure were defectively designed and manufactured; that they had constructive notice of these defects; and that a safer, alternative design was reasonably available to them. The designers were ordered to comply with the prior Discovery Order. However, the motion was required to prove that any defects deemed admitted were a proximate cause of her son’s death.

Appeal. Toyota filed certiorari for review of the Discovery Order and the Sanctions Order, arguing that the orders being appealed affected substantial rights, thereby invoking this court’s appellate jurisdiction. The court relied on K2 Asia Ventures v. Trota, 209 N.C. App. 716, 718−19 (2011) to find that the appeal concerning the trial court’s ordering Rule 30(b)(6) depositions to be conducted in Robeson County did not affect a substantial right. The court accordingly declined to review that issue but granted certiorari as to the other issues.

Analysis. The mother cited Stapleton v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd., 69 F.R.D. 489, 490 (N.D. Ga. 1975) where a foreign defendant doing business in the U.S. was compelled to create English translations of certain documents. However, the greater weight of authority in the U.S. holds that a party producing documents is not required to create new documents consisting of English translations of documents already provided. In re: Puerto Rico Elec. Power Auth., 687 F.2d 501 (1st Cir. 1982) since each party is to bear the “ordinary burden of financing [their] own suit” Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 179 (1974). Although Rule 26 of North Carolina’s Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to seek documents in the possession of the adverse party, it does not require the adverse party to pay for translations as there is no duty to produce documents that do not exist. Electrolysis Prevention Sols. LLC v. Daimler Truck N. Am. LLC, 2023 WL 4750822 at *5 (W.D.N.C. 2023).

Decision. Based on the aforesaid, the portions of the lower court’s orders requiring the designers to create and then produce English translations of discoverable documents were reversed. The Discovery Order was affirmed apart from the issue relating to the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. The Sanctions Order was vacated and remanded for reconsideration with instructions that if sanctions requiring certain facts to be deemed admitted by Toyota are imposed, the trial court shall consider arguments as to whether the deemed admissions rendered certain discovery requests made by the mother irrelevant to any matter still at issue.

The case is No. 21CVS3104.

Judge: Per Curiam.

Attorneys: Noah B. Abrams (Abrams & Abrams, P.A.) for Sheila Martin Sessoms. Jennifer K. Van Zant (Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P.) for Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor Corp., Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Subaru of America, Inc. and Subaru Corp. f/k/a Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd.

Companies: Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.; Toyota Motor Corp.; Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.; Toyota Motor Corp.; Toyota Motor North America, Inc.; Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.; Subaru of America, Inc.; Subaru Corp. f/k/a Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd.

Cases: CourtDecisions MotorVehiclesNews DesignManufacturingNews NorthCarolinaNews