Court Opinion

ID: 9909544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 17:12:55.423604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:35.572491
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
                        DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN
                              *******************************

PETER PHILIP                                       )
                                                   )      CASE NO ST 2014 CV 00543
                              PLAINTIFF            )
                                                   )
       v                                           )
                                                   )      COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA INC                     )
TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING &                         )      J URY TRIAL DEMANDED
MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA                        )
INC TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U S A INC                   )      PUNITIVE DAMAGES SOUGHT
TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION                           )
TOYOTA DE PUERTO RICO CORP and                     )
LAMBERT HILTON INC D/B/A/ TOYOTA                   )
OF ST THOMAS                                       )      Cite as 2023 VI Super 72U
                                                   )
                              DEFENDANTS           )
.__________—)
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                         MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

‘1     Pending before the Court is Defendants Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc ( TMS’ ) and

Toyota Motor Corporation’s ( TMC”) (collectively,       Toyota ) Motion for Protective Order

Limiting the Scope of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Regarding Other Incidents   PlaintiffPeter Philip

(‘ Philip ) opposed Toyota 5 motion For the following reasons, Toyota 5 motion for protective

order will be granted in part and denied in part

       I       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

‘T2    In his complaint ﬁled on November 21, 2014, Philip alleges that on April 12 2014 his

2006 Toyota Highlander Hybrid vehicle suddenly and without warning uncontrollably accelerated

careened out of control up a stone wall embankment, became airborne, landed on a driveway and

eventually crashed into a residence Philip claims that the unintended acceleration was caused by
Peter Phl/Ip\ Tm 01a Motor Noni: Ameuca [m er al                           Cite as 2023 VI Super 72U
ST 2014 CV 00543
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 2 of 10

a defect in the vehicle’s electronic throttle control system with intelligence ( ETCS i ) ' More

generally, Philip asserts that Toyota vehicles with ETCS i are vulnerable to unintended and sudden

acceleration

113     On July 28 2016 and July 29 2016 Philip conducted depositions of TMS and TMC

corporate ofﬁcers However, the parties could not agree whether it was permissible to depose the

designees regarding (1) “other incidents’ in which Toyota vehicles have crashed due to unintended

acceleration and (2) a March 19 2014 Deferred Prosecution Agreement (‘ DPA”) between TMC

and the Ofﬁce of the Attorney General for the Southern District of New York As a result,

Defendants moved for a protective order seeking to bar Philip from deposing TMS and TMC 5

Rule 30(b)(6) designees on those disputed issues

114     On November 10 2017 the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion2 and Order in which the

Court ordered that the 30(b)(6) deposition of TMC may proceed regarding the March 19 2014

DPA provided the deposition questions are narrowly tailored to concern vehicles with ETCS i

defects that occurred between January I 2004, and April 12 2014 The Court’s ruling resolved

the parties dispute regarding the DPA The Court 5 November 10 2017 Order only partially

resolved the scope of the deposition regarding other incidents in which Toyota vehicles have

crashed due to unintended acceleration Phlllp v T0} om Moro; North America Inc , 2017 V I

LEXIS 158 *6 (Super Ct V I November 10 2017) The Court in addressing the other

incidents’ dispute ordered that

        The 30(b)(6) depositions of Toyota Motor Sales and Toyota Motor Corporation may
        proceed regarding (l) lawsuits ﬁled against TMS and TMC regarding unintended
        acceleration caused by ETC system defects that occurred between January 1, 2004 and

' The parties and the Court have used different acronyms for the Electronic Throttle Control System with
Intelligence They have used ETC system ETCS I or ETCS i
2Dunston J signed the Memorandum Opinion and Order on November 10 2017 but it was entered by the Court on
November 17 2017
Peter Phillp\ Tmola Motor North America Inc a a1                         Cite as 2023 VI Super 72U
ST 2014 CV 00543
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 3 of 10

        April 12 2014, (2) communications between TMS and TMC and other Defendants
        regarding unintended acceleration of Toyota vehicles caused by ETC system defects that
        occurred between January 1, 2004 and April 12, 2014 and (3) other incidents in which
        Toyota vehicles crashed due to unintended acceleration caused by ETC system defects that
        occurred between January 1 2004 and April 12 2014

Intending to have the parties work together to set reasonable limitations on the extent of the inquiry

during the depositions the Court further ordered that before the resumption of the Rule 30(b)(6)

depositions, (1) ‘ Plaintiff shall devise new parameters in an effort to limit the scope of Plaintiff’s

discovery inquiry regarding lawsuits arising from, and internal corporate communications

regarding, unintended acceleration incidents occurring between January 1, 2004, until April 12,

2014, in order to lessen Defendants burden when preparing the Rule 30(b)(6) designees for their

depositions ’ and (2) the parties will meet and confer to attempt to narrow the scope of discovery

consistent with the Memorandum Opinion ’

‘5      In compliance with the Court s Order, the parties conferred extensively but could not arrive

at a compromise In addition to parties exchange of letters and emails, Toyota conducted a WebEx

PowerPoint presentation on March 5, 2018 Toyota offered expert James Walker for deposition to

answer questions, and on August 2, 2018, Philip deposed James Walker Toyota also provided

Philip with the August 15 2018 Declaration of expert Harold Clyde Toyota also claims that Philip

had access to relevant information in the expert report of Toyota 3 designated experts and

depositions transcripts of Toyota 5 corporate representatives On October 5, 2018, TMS and TMC

again moved for a protective order limiting the scope of the Rule 30(b)6) deposition regarding

“other incidents ’ The motion has been fully briefed, and this Court heard arguments on the motion

on September 6 2023 On September 13 2023 Toyota informed the Court that the parties had not

reached any further agreement concerning the issues raised in their October 5, 2018, Motion for

Protective Order Limiting the Scope of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Regarding Other Incidents
Pm; Phlllpt Tovota Motor North Amenca Inc et a1                            Cite as 2023 VI Super 72U
ST 2014 CV 00543
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 4 of 10

        11        DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS

16      Rule 26(b)(1) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure provides that,          [u]nless

otherwise limited by court order the scope of discovery is as follows Parties may obtain discovery

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense      Information

within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable 3 When

determining the extent of discovery the key factor to consider is the relevance of the information

rather than its admissibility at trial Donastorgt Walker 2019 VI LEXIS 66 *6 (V1 Super Ct

July 1 I, 2019) (noting that the singular factor for determining whether information is discoverable

is its relevance) In this matter, the Court previously held that a party’s discovery requests should

be considered relevant if there is any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the

party 5 claim      Philip 2017 VI Lexis 158 at 4        The Court is afforded broad discretion in

determining the relevancy of information sought and discovery is often liberally granted to permit

parties a fair opportunity to develop their causes of action or defenses    Guardzan Ins Co v Estate

omeght Dawd 2014 V 1 LEXIS 159 *5 (V I Super Ct Sept 2 2014)

117     Rule 401 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Evidence deﬁnes relevant evidence as ‘ evidence

that has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence

and is ‘of consequence in determining the action ” V I R E Rule 401; see also Thomas v People

ofthe Virgin Islands 60 V I 183 196 (V I 2012)(explaining that the ‘test for relevance is whether

proffered evidence has am tender“) to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence’

to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the

evidence       ) Virgin Islands Courts have interpreted what constitutes relevant evidence at the

3VI}! cw P 26(b)(l)
Pm; Phl/lpt Tmota M010! Vnnh Ammca 1m eta!                             Cite as 2023 VI Super 72U
ST 20l4 CV 00543
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 5 of 10

discovery stage broadly See e g , Samuel v Century [-1le Inc , 2020 VI LEXIS l6 *6 2020

(VI Super Ct Feb 25 2020) (explaining that the “any tendency language in Rule 401 makes

relevance standard very easy to satisfy does not require the evidence to be dispositive of a fact in

issue and simply makes the existence or non existence of a fact more or less likely) However, V I

R Civ P 26(c)(l) allows a party to move for a protective order limiting the scope of discovery or

disclosure to speciﬁc matters A court may for good cause issue a protective order “to protect a

party or person from annoyance, embarrassment oppression or undue burden or expense relating

to discovery requests 4

{IS     In its November 2017 Order, this Court, recognizing that it would be burdensome for

Toyota 5 Rule 30(b)(6) designees to answer questions regarding unintended acceleration caused

by ETCS i defects in all Toyota vehicles given the sheer volume of such incidents ordered Philip

to devise new parameters for the depositions limiting the scope of the discovery inquiry Plultp

2017 V l LEXIS 158 at 6 To achieve consensus in narrowing the scope of the depositions, the

Court ordered the parties to meet and confer before conducting Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of

Toyota Id The Court suggested Toyota provide Philip with information regarding the similarities

and differences of the ETCS i in the 2006 Toyota Highlander and other Toyota models during the

meet and confer Id The Court explained that “[a]t this stage in the proceedings it is unclear

whether the ETC system in a 2006 Toyota Highlander differs signiﬁcantly from the ETC systems

in other Toyota models Philip is entitled to utilize discovery to determine whether other incidents

of unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles are substantially similar to the incident involving

Philip 8 vehicle   1d at 4 5

‘VlR Civ P 26(6)“)
Peter Phillp\ Tovola Motor No; 1/: America Inc et a!                     Cite as 2023 VI Super 72U
ST 20l4 CV 00543
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 6 of 10

119     Toyota urges the Court to limit the scope of other incidents of unintended acceleration

caused by ETCS i defects that Philip may inquire about during the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of

Toyota 5 designees to the 2006 2010 Toyota Highlander Hybrid and the 2006 2008 Lexus

RX400h         Toyota claims that the scope of Philip s intended examination of Toyota 5

representatives at the deposition is oppressive and unduly burdensome and seeks discovery of

matters that are not relevant to Philip’s claims To justify its recommended limitations on the scope

of the other incidents deposition questioning Toyota claims that they have provided Philip with

extensive evidence to distinguish the 2006 Toyota Highlander Hybrid and its ETCS i from all non

hybrid model vehicles equipped with ETCS i and also have provided sufﬁcient evidence to

distinguish the 2006 Toyota Highlander Hybrid and its ETCS i from the ETCS i featured in certain

other hybrid models Toyota complains that Philip offered no limitation beyond the parameters

outlined in the Court 5 November 2017 Order

1|10    In his opposition brief, Philip asserts that Toyota 5 presentation did not demonstrate that

the ETCS i in the 2006 Highlander Hybrid is any different than the ETCS i system in other Toyota

vehicles Philip further argues that there should be no limitation on ‘ other incidents’ inquiry at

the deposition as all Toyota vehicles equipped with electronic throttle control use a computer or a

microprocessor or a couple of microprocessors This Court is not persuaded by Philip s

oversimpliﬁed comparison, which fails to take into account the distinctive and unique features

between the hybrid and non hybrid Toyota vehicles

1l 1    In substantiating its proposed limitations on the scope of the deposition Toyota argues that

in all Toyota vehicles sold since 2006, the throttle valve is controlled electronically, however, there

are significant differences between vehicle models and vehicle series “which cannot be swapped

out from vehicle to vehicle      Toyota claims that any defect found in the ETCS i would be unique
Peter Philip \ Tovota M010! North America Inc et a1                    Cite as 2023 VI Super 72U
ST 2014 CV 00543
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 7 of 10

to the make and model series of the vehicle based on differences in hardware and software

Speciﬁcally, they argue extensively that the ETCS i differs signiﬁcantly between hybrid and non

hybrid vehicles The following are some of the unique features of the hybrid vehicles and

differences between the hybrid and non hybrid ETCS i vehicles that Toyota highlights

        (1)     In the non hybrid vehicles equipped with ETCS i, the vehicle 5 acceleration force
                is solely provided by the internal combustion engine, and the ETCS i controls all
                the acceleration force provided by the vehicle In contrast, the hybrid vehicle
                integrates a hybrid powenrain system called the Hybrid Synergy Drive, which uses
                the combined energy of a gasoline powered combustion engine and electric motor
                generators powered by high voltage batteries to provide the vehicle acceleration
                force
        (2)     Hybrid vehicles have a Hybrid Electronic Control Unit ( Hybrid ECU )
        (3)     When a driver depresses the accelerator pedal in a hybrid vehicle, the accelerator
                pedal sensors measure the depression of the pedal and send an electronic signal to
                the Hybrid ECU The Hybrid ECU calculates the Hybrid Drive output acceleration
                force based on this input signal, vehicle speed, and the high voltage battery charge
        (4)     The Hybrid ECU may command acceleration force from the engine the motor
                generators or both The Hybrid ECU constantly monitors and adjusts the operation
                of the engine and motor generators to optimize performance and fuel economy
        (5)     The Hybrid ECU directs the operation of the ETCS i control monitoring, and
                failsafe functions The Hybrid ECU contains software that monitors the Hybrid
                Drive powenrain and employs fail safe functions if an abnormality is detected
        (6)     The ETCS i in hybrid vehicles only controls the acceleration force provided by the
                engine when the engine operates the ETCS I and its software do not control or
                monitor the acceleration force provided by the electric motor generators, making
                the function and operation of the ETCS i in hybrid vehicles different from the
                function and operation in non hybrid vehicles
        (7)     The engine control software used in the non hybrid Highlander is not
                interchangeable with the engine control software of the hybrid Highlander
Peter Philip v Totota Motor N011]: 4m¢ma [m (I a]                     Cite as 2023 VI Super 72U
ST 2014 CV 00543
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 8 of 10

        (8)    The hybrid braking system differs signiﬁcantly in design and operation from the
               hydraulic braking system used in non hybrid Toyota vehicles
        (9)    The hybrid vehicle has a brake by wire system that provides the deceleration force
                for the vehicle when applied and can regenerate electrical energy for the high
                voltage battery during the vehicle braking
        (10)    The hybrid brake system differs from the hydraulic brake system used on non
                hybrid vehicles because of the Part Protection Logic ( PPL ) function in the Hybrid
                ECU When the Hybrid ECU receives an acceleration request and a deceleration
                request the Hybrid ECU can engage the PPL function and cut the fuel ﬂow to the
                internal combustion, which reduces the Hybrid Drive vehicle acceleration force,
                causing the vehicle to slow down
Toyota argues that because of these signiﬁcant differences between hybrid and non hybrid

vehicles equipped with ETCS i, non hybrid vehicles should be excluded from the population of

vehicles addressed at the deposition The Court agrees Permitting the discovery of non hybrid

vehicles when the ETCS i differs signiﬁcantly between hybrid and non hybrid vehicles is

essentially the equivalent of comparing apples to oranges

T12     Philip has provided no information to refute Toyota 5 contention that the ETCS i and

braking system in hybrid Toyota vehicles differ signiﬁcantly in hardware, software, operation, and

design from the ETCS i and braking system in non hybrid vehicles Without providing any

legitimate basis for doing so, Philip asks the Court to unjustiﬁany reject the scientiﬁc and

engineering information provided by Toyota The Court declines to do so For the information to

be relevant it must fall within some bounds of similarity Moreover, whether a product is defective

must be judged within the technological milieu existing when the product is manufactured Toyota

has demonstrated that the ETCS i differs signiﬁcantly between hybrid and non hybrid vehicles
Pete! Philip 1 Toyota Motor Noni: Amara: Inc et a1                      Cite as 2023 VI Super 72U
ST 2014 CV 00543
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 9 of 10

Thus, the relevant information in this instance is “other incidents” of unintended acceleration in

hybrid vehicles using similar technology at a deﬁned manufacturing period

T13     Toyota next argues that the 2006 Hylander Hybrid differs from other hybrid models and

subsequent year models As stated above, Toyota proposes expanding the deposition inquiry to

include the 2006 2010 Toyota Highlander Hybrids and 2006 2008 Lexus RX 400h vehicles

Toyota claims that the differences between this subset of hybrid vehicles and other hybrid vehicles

render other incident discovery of other hybrid vehicles irrelevant     Speciﬁcally Toyota claims

that the   component part      such as engine model, engine cylinders, engine size, drive motor

transaxle model accelerator pedals, throttle body, Hybrid ECU, and engine control of the various

hybrid vehicles have different part numbers Toyota argues that a different part number for the

component part means the part is not interchangeable Given the broad scope of discovery under

the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court does not consider the differences in

component part numbers among hybrid vehicles to be so signiﬁcant as to render inquiry of “other

incidents ’ of other hybrid vehicles irrelevant Toyota has not presented information to support a

ﬁnding that the design, engineering and technology used in different models of hybrid vehicles

vary so signiﬁcantly from one model of hybrid Toyota vehicles to the next that other hybrid

vehicles in the same series or period should be excluded from discovery         Rule 26(b)(1) of the

Virgin Islands Rule of Civil Procedure permits a party to discover any nonprivileged matter that

is relevant to any party's claim or defense, even information that is not admissible at trial, so long

as the discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence ’ Molloy

v Independence Blue Cross 56 V1 155 169 (V I 2012)                 Hence the Court will not limit

discovery to the 2006 2010 Toyota Highlander Hybrid and the 2006 2008 Lexus RX 400h as
Pele; Philip t Totem Motor North Amuua [m e! a!                      Cite as 2023 VI Super 72U
ST 2014 CV 00543
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 10 of 10

suggested by Toyota, but will expand the scope of discovery to include all Toyota hybrid vehicles

within the 2006 2010 series

         111      CONCLUSION

1114     Based on the foregoing, the Court does not ﬁnd information regarding other claims or

lawsuits regarding unintended acceleration in non hybrid Toyota vehicles to be relevant to

establish a design defect in Plaintiff’s 2006 Toyota Highlander Hybrid that led to the crash on

April 12 2014 and is the subject of this lawsuit The Court ﬁnds that the proper, reasonable, and

relevant inquiry of Toyota’s corporate representatives should be other incidents occurring between

January 1, 2004, and April 12, 2014, relating to all models of Toyota hybrid vehicles within the

2006 2010 series Accordingly, it is hereby

         ORDERED that the Toyota Defendants Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED IN

PART AND DENIED IN PART and it is further

         ORDERED that the Rule 30 (b)(6) deposition of the Toyota Defendants regarding other

incidents of unintended acceleration shall be limited to incidents occurring between January 1,

2004 and April 12 2014 relating to all models of Toyota hybrid vehicles within the 2006 2010

series

         ORDERED that copies of this order shall be distributed to counsels of record

Dated November 16, 2023                           at ﬁlm
                                                    CAROL THOMA            ACOBS
ATTEST                                              Judge of the Superior Court
Tamara Charles                                         of the Virgin Islands
Cler           e C urt

53%
Latoya Camacho
       Court Clerk Supervisor 11 / go / 31L
         IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
                    District of St. Thomas/St. John

Peter Philip,                             Case Number: ST-2014-CV-00543
                     Plaintiff            Action: Damages
v.

Toyota Motor North America, Inc. et al,
                   Defendant.

                       NOTICE OF ENTRY
                            OF A
                 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
 To: William Avery Thomas, Esq.             Simone R.D. Francis, Esq.
     Marjorie Beth Whalen, Esq.
     Christopher A. Kroblin, Esq.

                   Please take notice that on November 20, 2023
         a(n)               Memorandum Opinion and Order
                  dated November 16, 2023 was/were entered
                      by the Clerk in the above-titled matter.

Dated: November 20, 2023                                  Tamara Charles
                                                         Clerk of the Court

                                              By:
                                                          Danica A. Miller
                                                           Court Clerk II