In Sessoms v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. COA24-265 (N.C. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2024), the Court of Appeals of North Carolina concluded that the trial court erred in requiring translation of Japanese documents into new English documents by Defendants, stating: “In other words, there is no duty to produce documents that do not exist.”

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In this case involving claims of faulty design in the vehicle manufactured by Defendants brought by the Plaintiff serving as Administratrix of the Estate of her son who died in a car accident, after the Toyota Defendants had already answered certain discovery requests and objected to other discovery requests by Plaintiff, Plaintiff noticed depositions pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of our Rules of Civil Procedure, which included document requests. Two months later, in June 2023, Plaintiff deposed the witnesses designated by the Toyota Defendants, all outside of North Carolina.

In July 2023, shortly after the last Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, Plaintiff moved to compel discovery, specifically to provide fuller responses to her prior written requests, to produce more documents (including English translations of certain documents that are currently in Japanese), and further to submit to additional Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. The Toyota Defendants opposed Plaintiff’s motion.

In August 2023, after a hearing on the matter, the trial court entered the Discovery Order, directing the Toyota Defendants to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, including ordering the Toyota Defendants to supplement certain requests for production of documents, including providing English translation of Japanese documents that had been produced, and to provide logs identifying those documents responsive to the request but which have been destroyed, or no longer in the possession of the Toyota Defendants or otherwise to which the Toyota Defendants claim a privilege. The trial court also required the Toyota Defendants to provide witnesses for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and that those depositions take place in Robeson County, North Carolina.

Still, Plaintiff moved for sanctions and to compel further discovery, contending that the Toyota Defendants did not comply with the Discovery Order, including, failing to provide English translation of Japanese documents that had been produced. In December 2023, after another hearing on the matter, the trial court entered the Sanctions Order, sanctioning the Toyota Defendants, finding that they “were deemed to have admitted that they were jointly obligated in the design of Mr. Sessoms’ Scion; that the engine compartment, firewall, and side structure of the Scion were defectively designed and manufactured; that they had constructive notice of these defects; and that a safer, alternative design was reasonably available to them.”

The Toyota Defendants noticed an appeal and filed a petition for a writ of certiorari for review of the Discovery Order and the Sanctions Order, both being interlocutory in nature.

The Appellate Court began its ruling by stating: “Regarding the Discovery Order (and the portions of the Sanctions Order directing the Toyota Defendants to comply with the Discovery Order), we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, commit reversible error, or the Toyota Defendants have otherwise waived any argument by not timely objecting except that we conclude the trial court erred by requiring the Toyota Defendants to create new documents in English of documents already provided that are in the Japanese language. Rule 26 of our Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to seek documents in the possession of the adverse party; it does not generally require the adverse party to pay for any said documents to be translated into the English language…Of course, if the Toyota Defendants already have English translations of the Japanese-language documents in the normal course of their business or they create English summaries of these documents for any purpose, such documents should be provided as being within the scope of the Rule.”

The Appellate Court also ruled on the Sanctions Order, stating: “we vacate the Sanctions Order and remand the matter to the trial court to reconsider its Sanctions Order by exercising its discretion in fashioning an appropriate sanction, if it still deems sanctions to be appropriate. Said sanctions may include those sanctions contained in the Sanctions Order (except the requirement to create English translations of discoverable documents). On remand, should the trial court invoke sanctions requiring that certain facts be deemed admitted by the Toyota Defendants, the trial court shall consider arguments that may be raised as to whether the deemed admissions render certain discovery requests by Plaintiff irrelevant to any matter still at issue.”

So, what do you think? Do you agree that the trial court erred in requiring translation of Japanese documents into new English documents? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.