Hameed v. Egyptair Airlines Company
- Subramanian
- 1:23-cv-01757
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Hameed v. Egyptair, Judge Subramanian granted in part Hameed’s motion to compel discovery about cabin logs and prior scald-burn complaints.
Hameed and Egyptair Airlines Company; the order requires Egyptair to provide specified discovery and prepare its corporate representative to discuss it.
What happened
Hameed v. Egyptair Airlines Company concerns a passenger’s claim that hot liquid spilled from a defective, unlevel tray table on an Egyptair flight, causing burns. Hameed asked the court to require Egyptair to provide additional aircraft cabin logs, records of earlier lawsuits and complaints involving passenger scald burns, and testimony about those matters.
The parties resolved some disputes about maintenance manuals, but disagreed about the amount of cabin-log information and prior-incident records Egyptair had to provide. Egyptair had produced some cabin logs and objected to providing information about prior lawsuits.
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the motion to compel in part. He ordered Egyptair to produce nine months of cabin logs, written internal complaints, and information identifying publicly filed lawsuits involving scald burns from two years before the accident through the present. The airline’s designated witness also had to be prepared to discuss the complaints and lawsuits identified in that production.
The detailed version
- Hameed v. Egyptair Airlines Company · No. 1:23-cv-01757
- Subramanian
- Sept. 28, 2023
Background
The case concerns an incident on Egyptair flight 985 from Cairo International Airport to John F. Kennedy International Airport. Hameed alleged that, while seated as a fare-paying passenger, she suffered burns to her thighs and lower abdomen when a lidless cup of hot liquid spilled from a defective and unlevel tray table.
Hameed served Egyptair with document requests, interrogatories, requests for admission, and a notice for a deposition of a corporate representative under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). The requested discovery included nine months of aircraft cabin-log entries, records from prior lawsuits and legal claims involving passenger scald burns, and testimony about prior litigation and complaints concerning scald-burn injuries aboard Egyptair aircraft.
The parties resolved their dispute about beverage-service and component-maintenance manuals. Egyptair provided some cabin-log entries and agreed to produce a total of two months of those entries, but it continued to object to providing information about prior lawsuits. Hameed then moved to compel additional discovery.
Court’s Ruling
The court stated that discovery generally covers nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court’s order, issued after a September 28, 2023 teleconference, granted in part Hameed’s motion to compel.
The order required Egyptair to produce nine months of aircraft cabin-log entries covering the four-and-a-half-month periods before and after the accident. It also required Egyptair to produce written internal complaints and identify publicly filed lawsuits involving scald burns from two years before the accident through the present day. Egyptair’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness had to be prepared to discuss the complaints and lawsuits identified in that production. The court encouraged Hameed to provide some questions beforehand so the witness could become familiar with the requested details.
The Clerk of Court was directed to close ECF 22. The opinion text does not explain which additional part of the requested discovery was not granted.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.