Oatridge v. Future Motion, Inc.

Background

The opinion concerns one of 28 federal product-liability actions pending in 15 districts involving Future Motion’s Onewheel electric skateboard. The plaintiffs in these cases similarly or identically alleged that they fell after a Onewheel stopped or shut off unexpectedly.

Future Motion had asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to transfer the federal cases for coordinated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. While that request was pending, Future Motion moved to stay this case and sought a protective order concerning deposition notices issued by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs opposed both motions. The court also vacated the hearing and decided the motions without oral argument.

Motion to Stay

The court applied three factors from the Supreme Court’s decision in Landis v. North American Co.: possible harm from a stay, hardship or unfairness if the case continued, and whether a stay would promote the orderly administration of justice.

The court found that all three factors favored a stay. First, it expected the stay to be short because the JPML’s transfer motion was scheduled for a November 30, 2023 hearing, and the JPML frequently decides transfer motions soon after oral argument. The court concluded that a short delay would not significantly affect the case schedule. It also found the plaintiffs’ assertion that a stay could waste tens of thousands of dollars too vague and speculative to establish prejudice.

Second, the court found that Future Motion would face prejudice without a stay. Continuing discovery and pretrial litigation could duplicate work if the JPML transferred the cases to one forum. The court noted that Future Motion could otherwise have to litigate the same issues in different forums and later proceed under rules and rulings issued by the multidistrict litigation court.

Third, the court concluded that a stay would conserve judicial resources and reduce the possibility of conflicting pretrial rulings. If the case were transferred, the court found it more efficient for the multidistrict litigation court to decide issues affecting all transferred cases.

Protective Order and Disposition

A protective order is an order limiting discovery to prevent annoyance, oppression, undue burden, or expense. The court found good cause to delay depositions and other discovery until the JPML ruled on the transfer motion.

The court granted Future Motion’s Motion to Stay and granted Future Motion’s Motion for a Protective Order. The action was stayed until the JPML ruled on the pending transfer motion, and the outstanding deposition notices were quashed consistently with the stay. The parties were ordered to file a joint status report within 10 days after the JPML’s decision.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman’s order addressed case management and discovery while the transfer request was pending; it did not decide the underlying product-liability claims.