DANIEL HAGLUND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VAN DORN COMPANY, an Ohio corporation and A.L. BELROSE COMPANY, INC., a Michigan corporation, jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellees, 169 Mich. App. 524

Summary

Injury victim had sought supplemental interrogatories regarding product warning labels and any lawsuits related to injection molding machines by designers and manufacturers. Designers and manufacturers had responded that the requested information was irrelevant. The court reversed the judgment of the lower court because it determined the trial court had abused its discretion in denying injury victim's motion to compel answers. The court found that although the information sought by injury victim was inadmissible, it nevertheless could have been discoverable if it could lead to admissible evidence. The court found that under Mich. Ct. R. 2.302 injury victim only needed to show that the information sought was reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. The court found that injury victim had met his burden of showing that the information was reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.