Wirowek v. Amazon.com
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:24-cv-06795
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Wirowek v. Amazon.com, Judge Chhabria permitted a second deposition of Amazon, limited to four tested ladders, and excluded 73 others.
The ruling affects the plaintiffs’ requested discovery and Amazon.com, Inc.’s second organizational deposition. The deposition may address only the four tested ladders, not the other 73 ladders.
What happened
Christopher Wirowek and other plaintiffs asked to depose Amazon.com, Inc. a second time about 77 ladders they believed were the same as the ladder involved in the case. They had bought and tested four of those ladders, finding similarities in design, dimensions, materials, and the allegedly thin rails.
The court found that the testing provided enough support to allow discovery about the four tested ladders. But the plaintiffs offered no comparable showing for the other 73 ladders, so the court did not allow discovery about them. The court also found that limiting the deposition to four ladders reduced the burden of the request and gave permission for the second deposition.
In Christopher Wirowek, et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., Judge Vince Chhabria ordered that Amazon’s second organizational deposition could proceed only about the four tested ladders and stated that the order disposed of the discovery letter.
The detailed version
- Wirowek v. Amazon.com · No. 3:24-cv-06795
- Vince Chhabria
- Dec. 2, 2025
Background
The parties filed a joint discovery letter concerning a second deposition of Amazon.com, Inc. The plaintiff sought to question Amazon about 77 ladders believed to be the same product as the ladder involved in the case. The plaintiff had purchased and tested four of the 77 ladders and reported that they had the same design, dimensions, materials, and allegedly thin aluminum telescoping rails as the subject ladder.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that the testing of the four ladders provided a sufficient showing, for discovery purposes, that they might be the same product as the subject ladder. The court noted that the alleged defect also appeared similar: the plaintiff claimed that the subject ladder’s rails buckled and bent between two rungs, causing a fall.
The court reached a different conclusion about the remaining 73 ladders. The plaintiff had not shown that those ladders were the same product, so the plaintiff had not established an entitlement to discovery about them.
Amazon argued that discovery about other products was irrelevant, that the request was overly burdensome because it covered four general areas for 77 products, and that a second deposition required permission from the court. The court determined that limiting the deposition to the four tested ladders substantially reduced the burden. It also discussed decisions questioning whether permission is required for a second deposition of an organizational party and cited authority permitting a second organizational deposition that was not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.
Ruling
Judge Vince Chhabria permitted the second deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which concerns depositions of organizations and requires the organization to designate one or more people to testify about specified topics. The deposition was limited to the four ladders that had been tested. The court did not permit discovery concerning the other 73 ladders and stated that the order disposed of docket entry 48, the discovery letter.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.