Lopez v. Neutron Holdings Inc.

Background

Under an earlier court order, the parties submitted a joint letter stating their positions on whether Nancy Lopez should receive discovery about similar claims involving acceleration or speed issues with scooters of the same make, model, and year as the scooter involved in her accident.

Parties’ Positions

Neutron Holdings Inc. objected to the requested discovery. It argued that Lopez had not identified any acceleration problem during her deposition. The court reviewed the deposition testimony attached to the parties’ submission and rejected that characterization.

Lopez testified that the scooter was moving “really fast, faster than usual,” that it took time to brake, and that after she pressed the brake, she was thrown from the scooter. She also testified that the scooter was faster than another scooter she had previously ridden and identified that speed as the only defect or malfunction she noticed during an earlier part of the journey. The court noted that Lopez did not claim that the scooter inexplicably increased speed while she was riding it, but found that she had clearly identified unusually high speed as a defect or malfunction contributing to the accident.

Ruling

Judge Gary Stein found that the requested discovery was relevant and proportionate to the claims. The court granted Lopez’s request for discovery of similar claims involving the type of speed issue identified in her deposition and involving scooters of the same make, model, and year.

The parties reported that they had resolved other potential discovery issues without court intervention. The court also accepted their proposed schedule and modified the scheduling order. The new deadlines were March 11, 2025, for responses to all outstanding discovery demands and Neutron’s additional document production; April 11, 2025, for completing fact discovery, including depositions; and June 11, 2025, for completing expert discovery.