IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

DAVID FINNEY, an individual,, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., et 

al. 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 3:06cv622WKW 

OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

RENEWED MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT 

TO PROPOUND 27 WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES

 Takata U.S.A. Corporation, Takata Seat Belts Inc., Takata Restraint Systems 

Inc., Takata North American Inc., and Takata Inc. (“these Defendants”) object on the 

following grounds to Plaintiff’s Second Renewed Motion for Leave of Court to Propound 

27 Written Interrogatories with Subparts: 

 1. The parties’ discovery plan filed on October 3, 2006, states that the number of 

interrogatories allowed by the parties shall be governed by Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, which limits the number of interrogatories to twenty-five. 

 2. Plaintiff was involved in the preparation of the discovery plan and had an 

opportunity at that time to suggest that more than twenty-five interrogatories be allowed. 

However, Plaintiff agreed to be limited to twenty-five interrogatories. 

 3. Plaintiff’s motion contains no grounds that justify service of the additional 

interrogatories. Plaintiff knew when preparing the discovery plan that this case was a 

complex products liability case and that discovery would be needed on the production, 

Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 41 Filed 01/03/2007 Page 1 of 4
2

design, manufacture, testing, and distribution of the seatbelt at issue in the lawsuit. The 

nature of the case and the issues involved have not changed between the time the discovery 

plan was prepared and the time the Plaintiff requested leave to serve additional 

interrogatories. 

 4. Moreover, counsel for these Defendants notified Plaintiff’s counsel as early as 

August 2006 by telephone and three letters (attached as Exhibit A) that none of these 

Defendants participated in the manufacture or design of the restraint system involved in this 

lawsuit and that some of these Defendants no longer exist. 

 5. In November 2006, these Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s First Request 

for Production. The responses again advised Plaintiff that none of these Defendants 

participated in the manufacture or design of the restraint system involved in this lawsuit. 

 6. Counsel for these Defendants has also given Plaintiff the name of the correct 

defendant, Takata Corporation. Plaintiff amended the Complaint to add Takata Corporation 

as a defendant and is attempting to obtain service on Takata Corporation, at which time 

Plaintiff can propound discovery to Takata Corporation within the limits agreed to in the 

parties’ discovery plan. 

 7. Because these Defendants were not involved in the manufacture or design of 

the restraint system at issue in this lawsuit, no amount of interrogatories will produce 

relevant facts or information vital to Plaintiff’s prosecution of this matter. The general 

subject matter of the proposed interrogatories, as described in Plaintiff’s motion, is the same 

as the subject matter of Plaintiff’s First Request for Production mentioned above. 

Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 41 Filed 01/03/2007 Page 2 of 4
3

 8. Finally, the fact that Co-Defendant Nissan North America, Inc., has agreed to 

respond to the additional interrogatories without an order from this Court is irrelevant to 

whether the additional interrogatories should be allowed against these Defendants, who 

played no role in the design or manufacture of any product at issue in this lawsuit. 

 9. Requiring these Defendants to respond to the additional interrogatories will 

be wasteful, will cause unnecessary expense, and will prejudice these Defendants. 

 WHEREFORE, premises considered, these Defendants respectfully urge the Court 

to deny Plaintiff’s Second Renewed Motion to Propound 27 Written Interrogatories. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Angela R. Rogers 

Charles A. Stewart III (STE067/ASB-4955-a56c) 

Angela R. Rogers (RAI017/ASB-0853-e60r) 

Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP

The Alabama Center for Commerce 

401 Adams Avenue, Suite 780 

Montgomery, AL 36104 

Telephone: (334) 956-7700 

Facsimile: (334) 956-7701 

Attorneys for these Defendants 

Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 41 Filed 01/03/2007 Page 3 of 4
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 3, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to 

the following: 

Joel Lee DiLorenzo 

Jackson and Tucker, PC 

2229 First Avenue North 

Birmingham, AL 35203 

Email: joel@jacksonandtucker.com 

Joseph Luther Tucker 

Jackson and Tucker, P.C. 

2229 1st Avenue North 

Birmingham, AL 35203 

Email: josh@jacksonandtucker.com 

Kenneth S Jackson 

Jackson and Tucker, P.C. 

2229 1st Avenue North 

Birmingham, AL 35203 

Email: steve@jacksonandtucker.com 

Walter B. Calton 

Calton & Rutland LLC 

PO Box 696 

Eufaula, AL 36027-0696 

Email: wcalton@bellsouth.net 

Robert C Khayat, Jr. 

King & Spalding LLP 

1180 Peachtree St, NE 

Atlanta, AL 30309 

Email: rkhayat@kslaw.com 

Chilton Davis Varner 

King & Spalding LLP 

1180 Peachtree St, NE 

Atlanta, AL 30309 

Email: cvarner@kslaw.com 

Robert B. Friedman 

King & Spalding LLP 

1180 Peachtree St, NE 

Atlanta, AL 30309 

Email: rfriedman@kslaw.com 

Andrew T. Bayman 

King & Spalding LLP 

1180 Peachtree St, NE 

Atlanta, AL 30309 

Email: abayman@kslaw.com 

and I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the document to the 

following non-CM/ECF participants: None. 

s/ Angela R. Rogers 

Angela R. Rogers (RAI017/ASB-0853-e60r) 

Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP

The Alabama Center for Commerce 

401 Adams Avenue, Suite 780 

Montgomery, AL 36104 

Telephone: (334) 956-7700 

Facsimile: (334) 956-7701 

E-mail: arogers@bradleyarant.com 

Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 41 Filed 01/03/2007 Page 4 of 4