Lopez v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.

Background

The court addressed a joint discovery letter concerning Harley-Davidson, Inc.’s deposition subpoena to Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger (WMKS), counsel for the plaintiffs. Harley-Davidson argued that the deposition was needed to collect and evaluate facts about WMKS’s efforts to preserve a motorcycle involved in the action and the circumstances surrounding its destruction. The order also referenced an earlier order concerning another subpoena for information about the motorcycle’s destruction.

Ruling

The court ordered that WMKS did not need to comply with the subpoena at that time. Instead, within seven days, the parties had to meet and confer—that is, discuss the issue together—to determine a deadline for Doris Cheng to provide a declaration. The declaration must give a detailed explanation of WMKS’s efforts to preserve the decedent’s motorcycle and the circumstances under which it was destroyed. The parties also had to discuss the subjects the declaration should address.

The order noted Harley-Davidson’s concerns about redactions and omissions in Interstate Services’ records. It explained that declarations can provide suitable evidence concerning possible spoliation, which means the loss or destruction of evidence, although missing information in a declaration may raise further concerns.

Further discovery

No later than seven days after Cheng provides the declaration, Harley-Davidson may request additional discovery, such as a supplemental declaration or Cheng’s deposition, if it believes follow-up is necessary. If Harley-Davidson makes that request, the parties must meet and confer about its scope. If they disagree about whether the additional discovery is needed, they may file a joint letter no later than fourteen days after Cheng provides the declaration. The court stated that, if a deposition remains necessary, the declaration should help define appropriate topics and limits for that deposition.