Stay Plugged In With Canon
Latest News & Updates

In product liability litigation, discovery serves as the backbone for gathering critical information about whether a design defect caused an injury and whether the manufacturer knew or should have known about the risk. Start by mapping the product’s lifecycle, including design iterations, testing protocols, and documentation that could reveal defect patterns. Identify whether there were internal memos, meeting notes, or risk assessments that discuss safety concerns or known issues. Request technical data, engineering drawings, and failure analyses, as well as supplier communications that might show how components contributed to risk. A thoughtful approach targets gaps between claimed safeguards and observed failures, which can illuminate the true source of liability.

Courts often require a proactive discovery plan that prioritizes relevant, proportional information. Before issuing requests, conduct a thorough custody and control analysis to determine where documents reside, how they are organized, and who might possess key information. Draft requests that are specific about dates, product models, and defect categories to minimize broad, burdensome productions. Consider cross-referencing materials with expert opinions and prior recall histories to demonstrate a pattern of risk. By tying requests to the legal theories in play—design defect, failure to warn, or manufacturing defect—you build a coherent evidentiary record that supports admissible claims at trial.

A core objective in design-defect cases is to prove that a feasible alternative design existed that would have reduced or eliminated the injury. Seek documentation on design criteria, performance standards, and risk analyses performed during development. Obtain correspondence between engineers, product managers, and safety officers that discusses known hazards or tradeoffs. You should also request test data, including results from prototypes, field tests, and third-party certifications. When evaluating this material, distinguish between speculative hypotheses and documented conclusions. Clarify how purported safeties were intended to function and whether any real-world failures contradicted those intentions. This fosters credible causation arguments anchored in engineering reality.

Equally important is uncovering the manufacturer’s knowledge of the defect. Look for internal discussions that reveal awareness of risks, even if those discussions were never reflected in public warnings. Seek minutes from safety reviews, internal incident reports, and quality assurance notes that mention defect signals or recurring failure mechanisms. Demand correspondence with suppliers and contract manufacturers about component performance and tolerances that may have contributed to the defect. Retrieve training manuals and standard operating procedures to determine if employees were instructed to follow unsafe practices. This evidence helps establish knowledge, notice, and potential culpability.

In parallel, obtain marketing and product-literature archives to assess whether the defendant minimized risk or misrepresented safety features. Compare user manuals with actual product behavior reported in complaints to cue possible misalignment between advertised protections and real-world performance. Request change notices, recall communications, and post-market surveillance data to gauge whether manufacturers acknowledged issues after initial release. Look for internal approvals that conditioned marketing claims on specific safety tests. These sources can reveal strategic decisions that undercut safety assurances and bolster causation arguments linking design or omissions to injuries.

Consider how to leverage third-party data as corroborating material. Expert reports, independent testing lab results, and regulatory filings can corroborate or challenge a manufacturer’s assertions about safety. Request access to independent verification of design features and failure analyses, including any discrepancies between internal conclusions and external evaluations. If a pattern emerges across multiple product iterations, this strengthens the argument that a defect was systemic rather than incidental. Use this corroboration to support questions during depositions about whether the company pursued safer alternatives that could have prevented harm.

Depositions are a powerful complement to document discovery, enabling you to test the consistency of company narratives. Prepare witnesses with questions about design rationales, testing limitations, and risk disclosures. Probe for knowledge of field performance data, adverse event reporting, and any steps taken to address warnings after initial incidents. Use admissions about gaps in testing or constraints on resources to illustrate risk management failures. The goal is to transform documentary evidence into testimony that confirms or challenges the company’s portrayal of safety practices, while preserving the integrity of the deposition process.

When seeking discovery from manufacturers, maintain proportionality by prioritizing sources most likely to yield admissible evidence. Focus on engineering teams, compliance departments, and product-safety units rather than broad corporate files. Tailor requests to the product’s model years and known defect categories to avoid sprawling productions. If the case involves multiple defendants, coordinate discovery to avoid duplicative burdens and preserve judicial resources. A well-structured plan demonstrates that the discovery process is purposeful, efficient, and aligned with the legal theory, increasing the likelihood of meaningful outcomes at trial.

Another essential focus is the standard of care under which manufacturers operated. Seek internal risk assessments and decision-making rationales that show how safety considerations were weighed against cost, speed, or market pressure. This information can explain why certain risk mitigations were not pursued or why safer design alternatives were deemed impractical. It also supports claims that warnings were insufficient or that the design itself created an undue risk. The challenge is to translate internal deliberations into legally relevant evidence that highlights fault without overreaching into privileged territory.

Uphold ethical boundaries while pursuing discovery by clearly identifying privileged communications and narrowly tailoring requests to non-privileged material. Use discovery tools, such as protective orders, to safeguard trade secrets while ensuring essential evidence remains accessible. When privilege issues arise, work with in-house counsel or ethics advisors to craft a defensible approach that complies with court rules. A disciplined balance between transparency and protection helps preserve the integrity of the case while still obtaining the facts needed to establish liability and causation.

Finally, translate discovery findings into a persuasive liability narrative. Organize materials by defect type, failure mechanism, and design choice, aligning them with expert opinions and regulatory interpretations. Build a timeline that connects design decisions to observed injuries, then overlay this with evidence of knowledge and communication about risk. A coherent narrative that accurately reflects the evidentiary record improves credibility with judges and juries alike. Throughout, ensure that every inference is grounded in the documents and testimony obtained, avoiding overstatements or speculative leaps.

In evergreen practice, thorough discovery is not a one-time event but an ongoing process of refinement. Revisit requests as the case evolves and new information emerges, especially after expert design analyses or after additional recalls. Maintain an open line of communication with opposing counsel to narrow disputes and reduce motion practice. By staying disciplined about scope, relevance, and proportionality, you enhance your capacity to uncover design defects and the scope of manufacturer knowledge, ultimately supporting a just outcome for injured parties.