Opinion ID: 2325365
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Discovery Process

Text: 1. The Initial Discovery a. Harodite's Interrogatory Numbers 25 and 26 In July of 2005, plaintiff and defendant propounded interrogatories and requests for production of documents upon each other. On August 22, 2005, defendant Warren Electric filed its first set of answers to plaintiffs interrogatories. Of significance to the instant appeal are the following interrogatories propounded by Harodite and Warren Electric's responses:  INTERROGATORY NO. 25: State what you contend caused the failure of the Warren Electric oil pre-heater at Harodite on May 3-4, 2002.  RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25: At this time, Warren has not made any contentions concerning the cause of this spill, as investigation is incomplete. Among other things, no information or site visit has been allowed to determine the workings of the entire system, the control system, maintenance or the relief valve.  INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Set forth the facts that support the contention you stated in response to the previous interrogatory including the names and last known addresses of the persons having knowledge of those facts.  RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Inapplicable at this time. b. Warren Electric's Interrogatory Numbers 12 and 13 Between October of 2005 and May of 2006, Warren Electric and Harodite engaged in several rounds of discovery (and discovery-related disputes) with respect to Harodite's answers to Warren Electric's interrogatories and its answer to interrogatory No. 12 in particular; that interrogatory had asked Harodite to explain the maintenance and service procedures that were in place in 2001 and 2002 with respect to the pre-heater, gasket, pressure relief valves, system controls, electrical connections, and boiler. Harodite stated in its first response (dated January 6, 2006) that [t]here was no maintenance performed on the pre-heater. Harodite essentially adhered to that position in its first more responsive answer (dated March 8, 2006). However, in its second more responsive answer (dated May 3, 2006), Harodite stated in pertinent part as follows: SECOND MORE RESPONSIVE ANSWER: The maintenance consisted of switching the strainers every other week to filter the oil. The gauges would be monitored on a daily basis. These two tasks were performed as a matter of course, they were not reduced to writing. Every year the controls would be checked by Warren Professional Controls. The safety valves were tested by Transcat after the incident. Moreover, every year the boiler would be inspected by a Commonwealth of Massachusetts boiler inspector. If any parts failed, they would be immediately replaced. Harodite's employees monitor gauges and make visual inspections in a constant basis and do maintenance as required. There is no other written or recorded inspection or maintenance schedule. Also of significance to the instant appeal is Harodite's answer (dated January 6, 2006) to Warren Electric's interrogatory No. 13. Warren Electric's interrogatory and Harodite's answer read as follows: INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify any problems or issues experienced with the Pre-Heater, the Casing or the Gasket prior to May 2002. ANSWER: The pre-heater was purchased on August 31, 2001. The pre-heater was installed on September 20, 2001. The pre-heater failed sometime between May 3, 2002 at 3:00 p.m. and May 4, 2002. There were no problems or issues prior to that time.  (Emphasis added.) Harodite never supplemented or amended its answer to this particular interrogatory. 2. A New Theory Quite significantly, as the discovery process continued, on November 17, 2007, Harodite provided supplemental answers to interrogatories that had been propounded by Acadia Elastomers Corp.a defendant named in Harodite's original complaint, but not a party to these appellate proceedings. (Harodite's certificate of service that accompanied those supplemental answers indicates that a copy thereof was sent to counsel for Warren Electric.) Among those supplemental answers was Harodite's supplemental answer to Acadia Elastomers' interrogatory No. 15 (State whether you have consulted, engaged or otherwise obtained the assistance of any expert, with respect to any of the issues in this case   .). In response to that interrogatory, Harodite identified Dr. Ali M. Sadegh and described the subject matter about which Dr. Sadegh would testify as follows: The subject matter on which Dr. Sadegh will testify will concern, inter alia, the fact that a gasket can be damaged by the bolts if it is not centered properly when installed. This can happen if a pre-heater is assembled with the flange in the vertical position as the gasket may slip down before the bolts are tightened. Also, a flange that has a raised surface on one side that might also contribute to the gasket being displaced from the center. If the bolts are tightened too much in the assembly process the gasket may get crushed. Moreover, if the bolts are not tightened evenly the flange may expand and contract unevenly as it heats and cools during the circulation process. There may be a leakage or greater pressure at the less tight points. This opinion is based upon a review of the case pleadings and materials and an inspection of the accident site and the subject pre-heater. (Emphasis added.) [5] 3. Discovery Concerning RALCO Electric, Inc. On September 24, 2008, Harodite produced certain documents in response to a Warren Electric Request for Production of Documents that had been propounded on July 19, 2005. Of particular significance to the instant appeal, the documents produced by Harodite included a copy of a three-page document, which included an invoice and work order from a company named RALCO Electric, Inc. [6] On September 30, 2008, defendant Warren Electric deposed Chad Rosen, an employee of Harodite. Mr. Rosen testified as to his belief that Harodite's plant electrician had asked RALCO to perform work on the heater. During Mr. Rosen's deposition, the above-referenced three-page document was marked as an exhibit and was described in pertinent part as follows: Three-page document containing copy of Check No. 32381 payable to Ralco Electric Inc. dated 5/13/02, Invoice from Ralco to Harodite dated 5/13/02, and Work Order from Ralco Electric, Inc. dated 4/30/02   . (Emphasis added.) [7] Mr. Rosen agreed that the work order bore his signature and that he had thereby acknowledged that the referenced work had been completed. He further agreed (in response to a question posed to him at the deposition) that the work in question was the addition of a remote oil temperature thermostat which is wired to shut heat off in both normal and constant modes. Mr. Rosen was then asked the following question at the deposition: Do you know why Ralco was adding a remote oil temperature [thermostat] to the Warren Electric preheater in April of 2002? He stated that he thought that it was being added as a precautionary measure because [of]    trouble with the thermostat and they didn't want to cause any overheating. [8] According to his deposition testimony, it was Mr. Rosen's understanding that the remote thermostat would perform the following function: If it sensed [that] the oil temperature coming out of the heater was too hot and the thermostat stayed on on the Warren heater, it would automatically shut the system down. 4. Harodite's Supplemental Answer of March 24, 2009 On March 24, 2009, Harodite supplemented its answer to Warren Electric's interrogatory No. 3 (first propounded on July 19, 2005), which interrogatory had sought information about Harodite's expert witnesses. Harodite's supplemental answer reads as follows: Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference Plaintiffs Supplemental Answer to Defendant Acadia Elastomer[s']    Expert Interrogatories certified to the parties on November 19, 2007, which answer identified Dr. Ali Sadegh as Plaintiff's expert witness. Plaintiff also incorporates by reference the report of Dr. Ali Sadegh dated October 6, 2008 provided to Warren Electric on or about October 10, 2008. 5. Warren Electric's Supplemental Answer of March 26, 2009 On March 26, 2009, defendant Warren Electric supplemented its answers to Harodite's interrogatories. Significantly, Warren Electric supplemented its answers to interrogatory No. 25 (which interrogatory asked Warren Electric to state its contention as to what caused the failure of the pre-heater) and No. 26 (which interrogatory asked Warren Electric to set forth the facts that supported its contention as set forth in interrogatory No. 25). Warren Electric's supplemental answers to those two interrogatories read as follows: SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25: It appears the oil spill was caused by misuse of the Warren Electric oil pre-heater and casing by Harodite.    SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26: In addition to Harodite employees, Roberta Benjamin and William Smith have knowledge of the facts supporting the contention identified in response to Interrogatory No. 25. Based on the deposition testimony of current and/or former Harodite employees, in addition to what was observed during the November 2002 inspection of the pre-heater when it was disassembled, it appears that Harodite severely overheated its oil system and wired around the Warren Electric thermostat on the pre-heater. The electrical tests done at the November 2002 inspection showed that the Warren Electric switch was off. In fact, the switch had been so severely overheated and damaged, it was permanently off. The Warren Electric heater would not have heated the oil because it was not operable in this condition if wired properly. 6. Harodite's Deposition of Roberta Benjamin and William Smith On April 20, 2009, Harodite deposed Roberta Benjamin (the president of Warren Electric) and William Smith (an employee of Warren Electric)Warren Electric had identified those two persons as having knowledge of the facts supporting its contentions as set forth in its supplemental answers to interrogatories Nos. 25 and 26. William Smith testified at his deposition about conversations that he had had with other Warren Electric employees while driving back from an inspection of the Harodite pre-heater, which inspection occurred at some point after the May 2002 incident. He stated that there was a lot of conversation about how hot it had been, and how the unit had been damaged. Mr. Smith added that he had surmised something with respect to why the unit had been so hot. It was Mr. Smith's deposition testimony that he had said to his colleagues: The switch was open, and I assumed that somebody else had bypassed the controls on this heater, preheater, casing combination. [9] Mr. Smith explained why he thought that someone might have bypassed the controls as follows: The switch was open, which means it should have been closed. It should have been closed at room temperature. As questioning of Mr. Smith by Harodite's counsel continued, the following two exchanges occurred: Q. Do you know whether there has ever been any warning or instruction to a customer that if they wire around this particular thermostat    they may cause damage to the preheater? A. Specifically, no.    Q. Just so we're clear, there's no device in the preheater which stops it from heating fuel at higher than 225 other than this thermostat? [COUNSEL FOR WARREN ELECTRIC]: Objection. A. No. [10] , [11] During Roberta Benjamin's deposition, she was also asked about the post-spill inspection and, more specifically, whether testing had indicated anything unusual. Ms. Benjamin responded as follows: The thermostat switch showed that it was open, which means it was not calling for heat, and the diastat, again, that device I told you that goes down into the oil, it has a little tube on the end of it, it's filled with fluid, the fluid is designed to increase in volume as it gets hotter, and when it comes up to a certain temperature, it moves that oil up with a pin that turns our switch off. If it gets too hot, i.e., over 250 degrees, that fluid goes up into the diastat and puffs the wafer, shutting our switch off, that's when you need to replace your thermostat. This heater had a puffed wafer. According to Ms. Benjamin, a puffed wafer is an indication that the temperature that that diastat felt was more than 250 degrees. C