Emery v. Wood Industries CV-98-480-M 05/17/00 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
John Emery, Plaintiff
v.
Wood Industries, Inc., Defendant
And Civil No. 9 8-480-M (Consolidated Cases) Opinion No. 2000 DNH 120 John Emery,
Test-Rite International Co., Ltd., Test-Rite Product Corp., and Anonymous II, Inc. (formerly Woods Wire Products, Inc.), Defendants
O R D E R
On January 27, 1996, John Emery was severely injured when an
allegedly defective voltage meter he was using exploded. Emery
claims that each of the named defendants in these consolidated
cases either manufactured, designed, sold, or distributed that product. Defendants Test-Rite International (U.S.) Co., Ltd.
("Test Rite International") and Test-Rite Product Corporation
("TRP Corp.") move for summary judgment, asserting that they are
not proper parties to this action. Plaintiff objects, at least
in part.
With regard to defendant Test-Rite International, plaintiff
concedes that because it did not come into existence until after
the voltage meter was manufactured, Test-Rite International could
not have designed, manufactured, sold, or distributed the voltage
meter. Consequently, he agrees that "summary judgment is
appropriate as to Test-Rite International (U.S.) Company, Ltd."
Plaintiff's objection (document no. 20), at para. 8. Thus, the
parties' dispute focuses on whether summary judgment is
appropriate with regard to TRP Corp.
Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate when the record reveals "no
genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party
2 is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c) . When ruling upon a party's motion for summary judgment,
the court must "view the entire record in the light most
hospitable to the party opposing summary judgment, indulging all
reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Griggs-Rvan v.
Smith. 904 F.2d 112, 115 (1st Cir. 1990) .
The moving party "bears the initial responsibility of
informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and
identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact."
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the
moving party carries its burden, the burden shifts to the
nonmoving party to demonstrate, with regard to each issue on
which it has the burden of proof, that a trier of fact could
reasonably find in its favor. See DeNovellis v. Shalala, 124
F .3d 298, 306 (1st Cir. 1997).
3 At this stage, the nonmoving party "may not rest upon mere
allegation or denials of [the movant's] pleading, but must set
forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue" of
material fact as to each issue upon which he or she bears the
ultimate burden of proof at trial. I d . (quoting Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986)). In this context,
"a fact is ''material' if it potentially affects the outcome of
the suit and a dispute over it is 'genuine' if the parties'
positions on the issue are supported by conflicting evidence."
International Assn. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v.
Winship Green Nursing Center, 103 F.3d 196, 199-200 (1st Cir.
1996) (citations omitted).
Discussion
The voltage meter at issue in this case was apparently
manufactured some time before the Spring of 1987. It was
distributed in the United States by either Woods Industries, Inc.
or its predecessor. Woods Wire Products, Inc.
4 In October of 1999, in response to plaintiff's
interrogatories, TRP Corp. provided a sworn statement saying that
it did not manufacture, distribute, or sell the voltage meter.
See TRP Corp.'s answer to interrogatory no. 6. Approximately six
weeks later, defendant Woods Industries responded to plaintiff's
interrogatories, saying that its records reveal that the voltage
meter was manufactured (and subsequently sold to Woods Wire
Products, Inc.) by Test-Rite International, Ltd., a company
headquartered in Taiwan. See Woods Industries' answer to
interrogatory no. 7 (Exhibit B to defendants' motion for summary
judgment). Documents produced during discovery support that
assertion, and reveal that in correspondence with the Taiwan
company Woods Wire discussed perceived design defects in the
voltage meter and asked that those defects be remedied. See
Exhibit F to defendant's motion.
In light of all the information produced during discovery,
TRP Corp. moves for summary judgment, asserting that it is simply
not a proper party to this litigation. In short, it says that it
5 did not design, manufacture, distribute, or sell the voltage
meter that allegedly caused plaintiff's injuries. In response,
plaintiff claims:
[T]here remains a genuine issue of material fact as to whether [TRP Corp.] could have been involved in the design, manufacture, distribution and/or sale of the subject voltage meter. . . . It has been established, through the course of discovery, that the voltage meter in question was manufactured some time before the spring of 1987. . . . Although Ms. Shih testified, during her deposition, that a check of the company records revealed that [TRP Corp.] did not manufacture the subject voltage meter, the records only go back as far as 1992. As such, there remains an issue of material fact as to whether [TRP Corp.] was involved in the manufacture of the subject voltage meter.
Plaintiff's objection, at 2-3 (citations omitted). The court
disagrees.
As noted above, once the party moving for summary judgment
has produced evidence demonstrating its entitlement to judgment
as a matter of law, the non-moving party must specifically
identify those portions of the record that establish a genuine
issue of material fact. To carry that burden, the non-moving
6 party may not simply rely upon unsupported denials of the
movant's pleading. Instead, he must identify specific evidence
showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to each
issue as to which he bears the ultimate burden of proof at trial.
See DeNovellis v. Shalala, 124 F.3d 298, 306 (1st Cir. 1997) .
Here, plaintiff has failed to carry that burden.
That the voltage meter was manufactured at some time during
the corporate existence of TRP Corp., and that TRP Corp.'s
records do not extend back to that date, are insufficient to
permit a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that TRP Corp.
designed, manufactured, distributed, or sold that product.
Simply stated, the absence of evidence, at least in this case, is
not evidence of manufacture, design, distribution or sale of the
voltage meter at issue.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Emery v. Wood Industries CV-98-480-M 05/17/00 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
John Emery, Plaintiff
v.
Wood Industries, Inc., Defendant
And Civil No. 9 8-480-M (Consolidated Cases) Opinion No. 2000 DNH 120 John Emery,
Test-Rite International Co., Ltd., Test-Rite Product Corp., and Anonymous II, Inc. (formerly Woods Wire Products, Inc.), Defendants
O R D E R
On January 27, 1996, John Emery was severely injured when an
allegedly defective voltage meter he was using exploded. Emery
claims that each of the named defendants in these consolidated
cases either manufactured, designed, sold, or distributed that product. Defendants Test-Rite International (U.S.) Co., Ltd.
("Test Rite International") and Test-Rite Product Corporation
("TRP Corp.") move for summary judgment, asserting that they are
not proper parties to this action. Plaintiff objects, at least
in part.
With regard to defendant Test-Rite International, plaintiff
concedes that because it did not come into existence until after
the voltage meter was manufactured, Test-Rite International could
not have designed, manufactured, sold, or distributed the voltage
meter. Consequently, he agrees that "summary judgment is
appropriate as to Test-Rite International (U.S.) Company, Ltd."
Plaintiff's objection (document no. 20), at para. 8. Thus, the
parties' dispute focuses on whether summary judgment is
appropriate with regard to TRP Corp.
Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate when the record reveals "no
genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party
2 is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c) . When ruling upon a party's motion for summary judgment,
the court must "view the entire record in the light most
hospitable to the party opposing summary judgment, indulging all
reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Griggs-Rvan v.
Smith. 904 F.2d 112, 115 (1st Cir. 1990) .
The moving party "bears the initial responsibility of
informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and
identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact."
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the
moving party carries its burden, the burden shifts to the
nonmoving party to demonstrate, with regard to each issue on
which it has the burden of proof, that a trier of fact could
reasonably find in its favor. See DeNovellis v. Shalala, 124
F .3d 298, 306 (1st Cir. 1997).
3 At this stage, the nonmoving party "may not rest upon mere
allegation or denials of [the movant's] pleading, but must set
forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue" of
material fact as to each issue upon which he or she bears the
ultimate burden of proof at trial. I d . (quoting Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986)). In this context,
"a fact is ''material' if it potentially affects the outcome of
the suit and a dispute over it is 'genuine' if the parties'
positions on the issue are supported by conflicting evidence."
International Assn. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v.
Winship Green Nursing Center, 103 F.3d 196, 199-200 (1st Cir.
1996) (citations omitted).
Discussion
The voltage meter at issue in this case was apparently
manufactured some time before the Spring of 1987. It was
distributed in the United States by either Woods Industries, Inc.
or its predecessor. Woods Wire Products, Inc.
4 In October of 1999, in response to plaintiff's
interrogatories, TRP Corp. provided a sworn statement saying that
it did not manufacture, distribute, or sell the voltage meter.
See TRP Corp.'s answer to interrogatory no. 6. Approximately six
weeks later, defendant Woods Industries responded to plaintiff's
interrogatories, saying that its records reveal that the voltage
meter was manufactured (and subsequently sold to Woods Wire
Products, Inc.) by Test-Rite International, Ltd., a company
headquartered in Taiwan. See Woods Industries' answer to
interrogatory no. 7 (Exhibit B to defendants' motion for summary
judgment). Documents produced during discovery support that
assertion, and reveal that in correspondence with the Taiwan
company Woods Wire discussed perceived design defects in the
voltage meter and asked that those defects be remedied. See
Exhibit F to defendant's motion.
In light of all the information produced during discovery,
TRP Corp. moves for summary judgment, asserting that it is simply
not a proper party to this litigation. In short, it says that it
5 did not design, manufacture, distribute, or sell the voltage
meter that allegedly caused plaintiff's injuries. In response,
plaintiff claims:
[T]here remains a genuine issue of material fact as to whether [TRP Corp.] could have been involved in the design, manufacture, distribution and/or sale of the subject voltage meter. . . . It has been established, through the course of discovery, that the voltage meter in question was manufactured some time before the spring of 1987. . . . Although Ms. Shih testified, during her deposition, that a check of the company records revealed that [TRP Corp.] did not manufacture the subject voltage meter, the records only go back as far as 1992. As such, there remains an issue of material fact as to whether [TRP Corp.] was involved in the manufacture of the subject voltage meter.
Plaintiff's objection, at 2-3 (citations omitted). The court
disagrees.
As noted above, once the party moving for summary judgment
has produced evidence demonstrating its entitlement to judgment
as a matter of law, the non-moving party must specifically
identify those portions of the record that establish a genuine
issue of material fact. To carry that burden, the non-moving
6 party may not simply rely upon unsupported denials of the
movant's pleading. Instead, he must identify specific evidence
showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to each
issue as to which he bears the ultimate burden of proof at trial.
See DeNovellis v. Shalala, 124 F.3d 298, 306 (1st Cir. 1997) .
Here, plaintiff has failed to carry that burden.
That the voltage meter was manufactured at some time during
the corporate existence of TRP Corp., and that TRP Corp.'s
records do not extend back to that date, are insufficient to
permit a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that TRP Corp.
designed, manufactured, distributed, or sold that product.
Simply stated, the absence of evidence, at least in this case, is
not evidence of manufacture, design, distribution or sale of the
voltage meter at issue. The lack of any link between TRP Corp.
and the voltage meter is underscored by Woods Industries' sworn
statement that the product it distributed was manufactured and/or
designed in Taiwan, by Test-Rite International (Taiwan) Ltd. It
is further supported by TRP Corp.'s sworn discovery responses
7 denying that it ever had anything to do with the voltage meter
and asserting that Woods Wire was never one of its customers.
Little more need be said. TRP Corp. has pointed to evidence
in the record supporting its assertion that it never designed,
manufactured, distributed, or sold the voltage meter at issue in
this case and, therefore, is not a proper party to this
litigation. In response, plaintiff has done little more than
speculate that, notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary, it
is still conceivable, or possible, that TRP Corp. could have had
some involvement in the design, manufacture, distribution, or
sale of the voltage meter. Speculation, however, is insufficient
and plaintiff has failed to point to any evidence in the record
supportive of that assertion.
Absent some evidence linking TRP Corp. with the allegedly
defective voltage meter, there is no "genuine dispute" as to
whether it designed, manufactured, distributed, or sold that
product, see generally International Assn. of Machinists, 103 F.3d at 199-200, and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.1
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for summary judgment
submitted by defendants Test-Rite International (U.S.) Co., Ltd.
and Test-Rite Product Corporation (document no. 19) is granted.
The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of those
defendants in accordance with the terms of this order.
SO ORDERED.
Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge
1 Parenthetically, the court notes that plaintiff filed his objection to summary judgment nearly three months ago. Presumably, discovery has been ongoing. Nevertheless, plaintiff has failed to supplement his objection with any references to documents, testimony, or other evidence supportive of his belief that TRP Corp. might have had some hand in the design, manufacture, distribution, or sale of the voltage meter. Of course, if he believed that additional discovery might have revealed such evidence, he certainly could have sought more time within which to object to defendants' motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). He did not.
9 May 11 ,2000 cc: Scott A. Ewing, Esq. Richard E. Mills, Esq. Nicholas K. Holmes, Esq.