Taylor v. Mazda Motor Corporation

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: June 25, 2026
• Docket: N22C-03-068 CLS
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SHYNEIKA D. TAYLOR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) RONALD KILLEN, TALLEY ) C.A. No. N22C-03-068 CLS BROTHERS, INC., MAZDA ) MOTOR CORPORATION, and ) MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, ) INC. ) ) Defendants. )

Date Submitted: June 23, 2026 Date Decided: June 25, 2026

ORDER

This 25th day of June 2026, upon consideration of Plaintiff Shyneika Taylor’s

(“Plaintiff”) Motion for a Protective Order,1 Defendants Ronald Killen’s and Talley

Brothers, Inc.’s Response in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion,2 and Defendant Mazda

Motor of America, Inc.’s (“Mazda”) Response in Opposition,3 it appears to the Court

that:

1 Pl.’s Mot. for a Protective Order, D.I. 210 (“MPO”). 2 Defs. Ronald Killen’s and Talley Brothers, Inc.’s Resp. to Pl.’s MPO, D.I. 211 (“Killen Resp.”). 3 Def. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.’s Resp. to Pl.’s MPO, D.I. 213 (“Mazda Resp.”). 1. This case arises from severe injuries Plaintiff sustained in a motor vehicle

collision in December 2021.4 Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on March 7, 2022.5

2. The Trial Scheduling Order (“TSO”) of February 14, 2025, establishes a trial

date of May 19, 2026, and a pre-trial conference date of April 22, 2026.6 On April

11, 2025, the Court granted the parties stipulation to amend the TSO, which extended

the expert reports and discovery deadlines.7

3. On April 6, 2026, Mazda filed a Motion to Amend the TSO and Continue the

Trial because: (1) its trial counsel had personal and professional conflicts with the

May 2026 trial dates, and (2) good cause existed to continue the trial based on

“outstanding expert and testing issues” based on difficulties scheduling depositions

of Plaintiff’s experts.8 Plaintiff responded that it was not opposed to a brief 90-120

day continuance if the Court’s schedule permitted, but that Mazda did not establish

good cause for extending discovery.9

4. On April 20, 2026, the Court issued an Order (the “Order”) granting Mazda’s

request to continue the trial but concluded that “[a]ll other dates have expired and

4 See generally Second Am. Compl., D.I. 69 (“SAC”). 5 Compl., D.I. 1. 6 Trial Scheduling Order, D.I. 104 (“TSO”). 7 Order Granting Stip. to Amend the TSO, D.I. 125. 8 Mazda’s Mot. to Amend the TSO and Continue Trial, D.I. 190, ¶¶ 9, 21. 9 See generally Pl.’s Opp. to Mazda’s Mot. to Amend the TSO and Continue Trial, D.I. 194. have not been continued.”10 The trial was rescheduled for September 28, 2026, with

a pre-trial conference date of August 31, 2026.11

5. On May 27, 2026, Mazda filed four Notices of deposition of Plaintiff’s

experts, which included requests for documents.12

6. Plaintiff then filed a Motion for a Protective Order on June 10, 2026, asking

the Court to preclude “Mazda’s unilateral attempt to conduct discovery and

depositions in contravention of” the Order, and impose sanctions against Mazda.13

Mazda’s Response in Opposition claims that the discovery requests are “not in

contravention of” the Order, and that scheduling issues establish good cause to allow

further discovery.14

7. Under Superior Court Civil Rule 26(c), where a party shows good cause for

doing so, the Court “may enter any order which justice requires to protect a party or

person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense[.]”

8. Here, Mazda’s May 27, 2026 discovery requests are in direct contravention of

the Order. The Order read: “The trial date and the pre-trial conference date are

10 Order with Amendments Granting Mazda’s Mot. to Amend the TSO and Continue Trial, D.I. 197 (“April 20, 2026 Order”). 11 Amended TSO, D.I. 199. 12 Notice of Dep. of Ronald J. Fijalkowski, D.I. 205; Notice of Dep. of Neil Hannemann, D.I. 206; Notice of Dep. of George Meinshein, D.I. 207; Notice of Dep. of Michael L. Markshewski, D.I. 208. 13 MPO ¶¶ 11–12. Defendants Ronald Killen’s and Talley Brothers, Inc.’s Response was filed on June 12, 2026, asking that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order. See generally Killen Resp. 14 Mazda’s Resp. at 1. continued. All other dates have expired and have not been continued.”15 “All”

should be interpreted broadly, like the expansive meaning of “any” as explained by

the United States Supreme Court in Ali v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons16 and Barnhart v.

Sigmon Coal Co., Inc.17

9. “All” certainly included depositions and other outstanding discovery issues.

Not only is this clear from the language of the Order, but also from the April 22,

2026 Amended TSO, which only changes the trial and pre-trial conference dates.

The parties have had more than enough time to complete the deadlines in the TSO.

10. Because Mazda’s discovery requests are untimely and do not comply with

the Order, Plaintiff has shown good cause to preclude Mazda from conducting

further discovery.18 The Court will not, however, impose sanctions on Mazda. In

conclusion, Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Calvin Scott Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr.

15 See generally April 20, 2026 Order. 16 552 U.S. 214, 218–20 (2008). 17 534 U.S. 438 (2002). 18 See e.g., Fletcher v. Doe, 2005 WL 1370188, at *2 (Del. Super. May 11, 2005) (granting the defendants’ motion for a protective order from the plaintiff’s informal and untimely discovery requests).