Louisville Slugger Plaintiff Seeks Court’s Help to Get Documents from Wilson

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Plaintiffs in a Louisville Slugger defective product class action lawsuit are seeking the court’s help in getting defendant Wilson to hand over relevant documents.

In a motion to compel discovery filed last Tuesday, plaintiff George Alea accuses defendant Wilson Sporting Goods Co. of engaging in “sharp discovery tactics, delays and gamesmanship” to avoid responding to Alea’s requests for evidence.

Alea says Wilson has spent the past six months dragging its feet to avoid responding to the plaintiff’s 23 requests for documents and 17 interrogatories.

“Despite a phone call and numerous letters and emails, Plaintiff’s efforts to secure Defendant’s compliance with its discovery obligations have failed,” the motion reads. “As a result, Plaintiff is, unfortunately, left with no choice but to seek the intervention of this Court.”

He is asking the court to compel Wilson to produce the requested documents, answer interrogatories, and provide a log of which documents have been redacted and which others Wilson considers privileged.

Alea is seeking documents relevant to his January 2017 defective product class action lawsuit accusing Wilson of failing to honor its own warranty in connection with the company’s BBCOR Louisville Slugger bats.

The BBCOR bats, which can retail for $400 or more, reportedly suffer from a defect that causes the handle to rotate independently from the barrel. Alea says he wrote to Wilson to request a replacement bat under the company’s warranty. Wilson allegedly replied that the rotation of the barrel is normal and expected. The company refused to replace Alea’s bat.

Wilson later changed its advertising of the BBCOR Louisville Slugger bats to present the connection between the handle and the barrel as a selling point. The company argued as much in its March 2017 motion for dismissal, claiming that the design was not defective but instead worked exactly as it was meant to.

Alea counters that there is no advantage to a bat with a rotating barrel, which he claims decreases the power transferred to the ball and degrades the bat’s performance. He quotes consumer complaints that report the barrel and handle begin to separate after just a few days of use.

Wilson has since handed over a document showing it received 1,300 such complaints or warranty claims related to the defect at issue. But the company has yet to produce any copies of those complaints, Alea says.

Contact between the two parties’ attorneys revealed Wilson’s effort to find relevant documents have been cursory at best, according to Alea’s motion. Wilson has allegedly identified only a single person who handles the documents at issue, and the company says its search for documents used only a single search term.

Alea is represented by Michael Flannery and Charles LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Katrina Carroll, Kyle Shamberg and Ismael Salam of Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, and Jon Herskowitz of Baron & Herskowitz.

The Louisville Slugger Defective Baseball Bat Class Action Lawsuit is George Alea v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00498, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

UPDATE: On Dec. 7, 2018, Wilson Sporting Goods reached a settlement with consumers that will end a class action lawsuit claiming that the company’s Louisville Slugger Prime BBCOR bats are defective.

UPDATE: March 2019, the Louisville Slugger baseball bat class action settlement is now open. Click here to file a claim.