The Register Citizen (Torrington, CT)
Remington: Sandy Hook families’ demands have ‘no bearing’ on case
NEWTOWN — Remington has objected to multiple demands for its internal marketing documents by 10 Newtown families who are suing the gunmaker for wrongful death over the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
In objecting point-by-point to the families’ 37 demands for documents relating to customer behavior data, tracking technology and other kinds of targeted marketing, Remington agreed to hand over limited inside information as part of the pretrial process.
As such, Remington’s legal document gives the clearest indication to date of what shape arguments will take in 2021, when the nation’s highly visible case of families suing a gunmaker over mass shooting goes to trial.
“(Remington) will produce relevant market research studies, consumer segmentation reports, customer and consumer surveys, and related documents concerning AR-type rifles for the agreed-to time period of January 1, 2006 to December 14, 2012,” the gunmaker’s attorneys wrote in a motion filed Monday in state Superior Court. “(Remington) will produce research concerning the purchasing habits and desires of AR-type rifle owners and potential purchasers ... (and Remington) will produce documents concerning the lawful use of firearms by family members for hunting and sporting purposes.”
Remington maintains it manufactured a legal firearm that was distributed and sold legally to Nancy Lanza. Her 20-year-old son, Adam Lanza took his mother’s rifle from an unlocked closet and killed 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook.
The families argue Remington’s “reckless” advertising motivated Lanza.
The latest battle over pretrial evidence follows a victory for the families in court last week when Judge Barbara Bellis allowed them to question Remington’s executives under oath about its internal organization and procedures — questions Remington called invasive and improper.
Remington followed with a motion asking Bellis to throw out the families’ lawsuit, claiming it failed to show Lanza saw the gunmaker’s advertising or that if Lanza did see Remington’s ads, that the ads motivated his crime.
In Remington’s latest objection, lawyers dismiss much of the families’ request for marketing information as irrelevant, unduly broad or overly burdensome.
“Countless statements were made in (Remington’s) advertisements for AR-type rifles during the relevant time period that have no possible relevance to (the families’) claim that advertising content motivated Adam Lanza to commit his crimes, including statements regarding the rifles’ accuracy, durability, reliability, specifications, and materials, none of which are alleged to have motivated Adam Lanza to kill innocent persons,” the gunmaker’s lawyers wrote.
As for other requests by the families, Remington claims the documents don’t exist.
The families asked Remington for “all documents concerning how to address mass shootings, school shootings, domestic violence, and any other potential crimes that may impact your business.”
In a separate request, the families asked for records of complaints about Remington’s advertising to “the National Advertising Division or Children’s Advertising Review Unit of the Better Business Bureau, FTC, or other regulatory (bodies)...”
Attorneys deny Remington has such records.
“Remington has not located documents concerning ‘how to address’ the deliberate criminal misuse of lawfully manufactured, sold and possessed firearms, the gunmaker’s lawyers write.
Nor has Remington “located any such complaints regarding its advertisements for AR-type rifles,” the lawyers argue.