A Federal Court judge in Australia sharply questioned whether Tesla was treating the discovery obligations in a large consumer class action with appropriate seriousness, after plaintiffs' lawyers told the court the company had produced only a small fraction of documents they expected.
At a pre-trial hearing, Justice Tom Thawley expressed concern about the pace and scope of Tesla's document production, calling it "gobsmacking" that the company had handed over just 2,000 documents following an eight-month discovery process. The class action, brought on behalf of roughly 10,000 Australian Tesla drivers, alleges the automaker made misleading statements regarding phantom braking, battery range and its self-driving capabilities. Tesla has denied mischaracterising its product.
Representing the plaintiffs, Brisbane-based law firm JGA Saddler, lawyer Rebecca Jancauskas told the court the materials produced to date were insufficient for expert analysis. She said the litigation required access to documents related to the automaker's engineering software, computer systems and complaints filed outside Australia, but that those classes of documents had not been adequately provided.
"From what we're getting, we can't brief our experts," Jancauskas told the court. "The paucity of discovery is what's thrown a massive spanner in the works."
Justice Thawley said he expected more comprehensive production and noted the carmaker could legitimately seek redactions where confidential or sensitive information was involved. He observed that the case likely will require access to engineering drawings, technical reports and the results of any investigations that may have been conducted.
In response, Tesla lawyer Imtiaz Ahmed said the defence team had manually reviewed about 100,000 documents and still had another roughly 75,000 to examine. Ahmed also said the company was mindful of protecting confidential information, including the names of individuals who might be approached by the applicants' lawyers.
To accelerate the process, Justice Thawley ordered Tesla to complete discovery by July 31 and warned that if the production remained inadequate the court would undertake a detailed review of how discovery had been handled. He scheduled the next case management hearing for September 1.
The hearing highlighted a sharp contrast in characterisations of the discovery exercise: plaintiffs' counsel describing a slow trickle of material that hampered expert engagement, and the defence pointing to a much larger body of documents already processed or awaiting review. The judge's admonition underlines the court's expectation that large-scale discovery in high-profile litigation be conducted with sufficient rigor and pace.
Procedural timeline and next steps
- Justice Thawley set a firm deadline of July 31 for completion of discovery.
- A further case management hearing has been scheduled for September 1.