Green v. Blitz U.S.A., Inc.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20353 (2011)
- Written by Brett Stavin, JD
Facts
In 2007 Rene Green (plaintiff), heir of Brody Green, filed a products-liability lawsuit in federal court against Blitz U.S.A., Inc. (Blitz) (defendant), alleging that a gas can manufactured by Blitz caused Brody’s death, in part because the gas can did not contain a flame arrester. Blitz defended itself in part on the theory that flame arresters were ineffective. In a discovery order prior to the scheduling conference and trial, which neither party objected to, the court ordered that the parties produce all documents relevant to the claims and defenses in the case. Blitz’s corporate representative, Larry Chrisco, was responsible for the search and collection of Blitz’s relevant documents. With the assistance of counsel, Chrisco reviewed the claims and the discovery requests to gain an understanding of the materials that needed to be searched for. Then Chrisco personally visited each department that potentially had such documents. Chrisco did not institute a litigation hold or an electronic word search of emails, nor did he coordinate with Blitz’s information-technology (IT) department for a search of electronic documents. Prior to trial, the parties agreed to a high-low settlement that restricted Blitz’s liability to a range of amounts. A jury trial was then held, resulting in a verdict toward the low end of the range, and the case was then closed. However, counsel for Green also served as plaintiff’s counsel in several other pending lawsuits against Blitz, and in one of the similar lawsuits, Green’s counsel learned of documents that were wrongfully withheld in the Green case. Green’s counsel then moved to reopen the Green case and also moved for sanctions. At a show-cause hearing, it was shown that undisputedly relevant documents were withheld, despite being responsive to discovery requests. One example was a letter from the former CEO to Chrisco, sent two years prior to the filing of the Green suit, stating that development of a device to eliminate flashback from the flame source was on the CEO’s future expectations. Another document was an email with the subject line, “FW: Flame Arrester,” discussing the use of flame arresters in the marine industry.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ward, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.