SCRANTON – A federal magistrate judge has decreed that a ski business facing a negligence and wrongful death lawsuit must produce all records related to prior accidents involving skiers and snowboarders on Shawnee Mountain for the past five ski seasons.
Katherine Birl of Lewes, Del. and Damian Birl of Rehoboth, Del. (as parents and natural guardians of G.B., a minor, and in their own rights) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 19, 2022 versus Ski Shawnee, Inc., of East Stroudsburg.
“This case arises out of what all acknowledge is a tragedy. Katherine and Damian Birl have filed a negligence lawsuit against Ski Shawnee arising out of a Jan. 12, 2021 incident in which their minor son, G.B., suffered catastrophic injuries while snowboarding at Ski Shawnee, when he collided with what is alleged to have a negligently and improperly placed and unprotected light post,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson said.
“Given these allegations, the parties are now engaging in discovery in this case aimed at elucidating these claims of negligence, and come to the court with a discovery dispute regarding the discoverability of prior similar accidents at Ski Shawnee. This discovery dispute is framed by the plaintiffs’ requests for production of documents 10 and 11 which seek the following information: All documents and communications related to all prior accidents involving skiers and/or snowboarders colliding with light poles and/or any other fixed objects on Shawnee Mountain from 2000-present; and all documents and communications related to all prior accidents involving skiers and/or snowboarders on any terrain park on Shawnee Mountain from 2000-present.”
In response, Ski Shawnee “objected to these requests for production, asserting that the requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome and are not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant information,” per Carlson.
Conversely, the defendant seeks to limit discovery to “any prior accidents involving the specific light pole involved in this particular incident.”
Using Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a guidepost, Carlson found that while the records sought by the plaintiffs would indeed qualify as discoverable, principles of proportionality dictated that a shorter time frame than the plaintiffs had requested would be more appropriate in this matter.
According to Rule 26: “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.”
“Judged by these legal guideposts, we find that other incidents involving injuries arising out of collisions with light poles or other fixed objects or injuries at terrain parks would be potentially discoverable since, depending upon the factual similarity of these prior incidents, these prior accident reports could constitute ‘non-privileged matter that is relevant to a party’s claim or defense.’ Further, it would be no barrier to this disclosure that the specific incidents might not be admissible at trial since Rule 26 provides that: ‘Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.’ Thus, in our view the threshold requirement of relevance is met here,” Carlson stated.
“We recognize, however, that the 20-year scope of these requests raises questions of proportionality, so we must also consider whether the specific discovery sought is ‘proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.’ Here, the issues at stake in this action are grave for all parties, since this case entails claims of negligence leading to the catastrophic injury of a minor. Moreover, depending upon what this discovery reveals, resolution of this question could be vitally important to resolving the issues in this lawsuit. Further, the information at issue here regarding prior accidents at Ski Shawnee is exclusively in the possession of Ski Shawnee.”
Carlson concluded by imposing “temporal limits on the scope of discovery in order to ensure proportionality.”
“Thus, in the first instance, while we will require Ski Shawnee to produce all documents and communications related to all prior accidents involving skiers and/or snowboarders colliding with light poles and/or any other fixed objects on Shawnee Mountain, as well as all documents and communications related to all prior accidents involving skiers and/or snowboarders on any terrain park on Shawnee Mountain, we will limit the initial temporal scope of this search to the five ski seasons prior to this accident. Therefore, we will require Ski Shawnee to search for and produce, any records that fall within the scope of this opinion and order for incidents from Oct. 1, 2015 through Jan. 21, 2021,” Carlson said.
The plaintiffs are represented by Adam J. Pantano, Scott A. Fellmeth, Robert J. Mongeluzzi and Larry Bendesky of Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Anthony W. Hinkle, William M. Brennan and Caitlin A. Donahue of Cipriani & Werner, in Philadelphia, Blue Bell and Lancaster, respectively.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:22-cv-01598
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com