Rich v. TASER International, Inc.

Citations: 917 F. Supp. 2d 1092; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3339; 2013 WL 129326Docket: No. 2:09-CV-2450 JCM (RJJ)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada; January 8, 2013; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendant TASER International, Inc. filed a motion for reconsideration regarding a previous order from March 30, 2012, which partially granted and denied its motion for summary judgment. The case stems from the death of Dr. Randy Rich, who suffered a seizure while driving, leading to an incident with law enforcement on January 7, 2007. After Dr. Rich failed to comply with Officer Lazoff's commands, the officer used a TASER on him multiple times, ultimately resulting in Dr. Rich's death shortly after being transported to the hospital.

The court's earlier order dismissed plaintiffs' third, fourth, and fifth causes of action but allowed the first (negligence) and second (strict product liability) causes to proceed, citing unresolved factual issues regarding the adequacy of TASER's warnings about its products. TASER's motion for reconsideration cites two recent Ninth Circuit rulings that it argues address the same legal issues regarding warning adequacy and the plaintiffs' burden of proof. The court highlighted that it retains the authority to revise non-final orders under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), which allows for modification of interlocutory orders before a final judgment is rendered.

District courts have the authority to reconsider interlocutory orders before final judgment under specific circumstances, such as newly discovered evidence, clear error, manifest injustice, or changes in controlling law, as established in Petrocelli v. Baker. In this case, a March 30, 2012, order denied summary judgment on plaintiffs’ negligence and strict product liability claims, indicating a triable issue of fact regarding the adequacy of defendant's warnings about ECD exposure risks. The court found that the warnings might not sufficiently address the risks of cardiac arrest or the dangers of targeting the chest.

Defendants sought reconsideration based on claims of intervening changes in controlling law, referencing two Ninth Circuit cases—Marquez v. City of Phoenix and Rosa v. Taser Int’l, Inc.—published after the March 30 order. However, the court determined that these cases do not constitute controlling precedent for reconsideration. 

In Marquez, although the Ninth Circuit assessed similar warnings, the ruling was based on Arizona law, making it only persuasive, not controlling, for Nevada. In Rosa, the Ninth Circuit's ruling on a manufacturer’s duty to warn was grounded in California law, which similarly does not apply in Nevada. Therefore, the court declined to reconsider its prior order, concluding that neither case provided a sufficient legal basis for such action.

Rosa's involvement does not constitute controlling law that would necessitate a reconsideration of the court’s March 30, 2012, order. Plaintiffs sought Rule 11 sanctions against the defendant, TASER International, Inc., arguing that the defendant’s motion was misleading and filed in bad faith. However, while the court finds the defendant's motion unconvincing, it concludes that sanctions are unwarranted. Consequently, the court denies the defendant’s motion to reconsider. The plaintiffs include Randy Rich, representing the deceased Ryan Rich, and Nick and Tanya Jensen, guardians for R.J., a minor. The court notes that the relevant events occurred on January 7, 2008, which impacts the statute of limitations for the plaintiffs’ claims. Under Arizona law, warnings must be clear and informative enough to allow a consumer to recognize and protect against potential dangers. Similarly, Nevada law requires that products include warnings that effectively communicate associated risks from use or misuse.