Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 19STCV27717, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV27717 Hearing Date: March 22, 2023 Dept: 15
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL
Plaintiffs
served a notice to appear at trial on Defendant Exxonmobil Oil Corporation requesting
the production of various documents at trial.
Defendant objected. Plaintiffs
filed a motion to compel. Code of Civil
Procedure section 1987, subdivision (c) requires the notice to appear to “state
the exact materials or things desired and that the party or person has them in
his or her possession or under his or her control.”
The
trial subpoena contains many categories of documents that do not state an
“exact” thing. For example, item 4) asks
for the originals of all documents Defendant produced in discovery. Likewise, items 7) through 9) ask for all
issues of three newsletters. Those items,
and others, seek the production of categories of documents, not specific
documents.
However, the following
items do seek exact documents: item 6)
seeking original transcripts of the specified depositions from other cases;
item 10) seeking the first edition of the Mobil Employee Safety Reference Book,
Torrance Refinery; item 11) seeking the second edition of the Mobile Employee
Safety Reference Book, Torrance Refinery; item 12) seeking the third edition of
the Mobil Employee Safety Reference Book, Torrance Refinery; item 13) seeking
the March 1992 edition of the Mobil, Torrance Refinery, Safety Policies &
Procedures Manual; and item 14) seeking the July 1991 Safety Policies &
Procedures-05, for Asbestos Handling Policy.
Regarding the request for
the original transcripts, the court encourages the parties to stipulate that
copies of transcripts can be used in lieu of originals. Plaintiffs did not show good cause for
seeking the originals of transcripts from other cases. The time to designate deposition testimony
from prior cases has passed.
Plaintiffs did show good
cause for seeking items 10) through 14).
Defendant states it already produced the safety manuals in its
possession and that the requested documents are irrelevant. If Defendant already produced any specific document
requested in items 10) through 14), Defendant does not need to bring that document
to trial. The motion to
compel is GRANTED as to items 10) through 14), which Defendant is to produce at
trial, and is otherwise DENIED.
The moving party is to
give notice.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION RE PAGE-LINE DESIGNATIONS
Plaintiffs state Defendant
J-M Manufacturing filed its responses to Plaintiffs’ objections to Defendant’s
designations of Harold Sorenson and Richard Cronk eight days late and therefore
waived any responses and conceded the objections. Defendant did not contest this. Therefore pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO,
the Plaintiffs’ objections to the Sorenson and Cronk designations are
sustained.
The revised designations
on pages 4-8 are approved.
The motion is GRANTED. The moving party is to give notice.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXXON EXHIBITS
Defendant Exxonmobil Oil
Corporation moves to exclude all documents from Exxon Mobil Corporation relating
to Exxon Mobil Corporation’s operations and refineries because Exxonmobile Oil
Corporation and Exxon Mobile Corporation are separate companies, the documents
will be confusing and prejudicial, and the documents are hearsay. The specific documents are Exhibits Nos. 40,
42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 60, 69, 81, 104, 114, 115, and 116.
Plaintiffs argue these
documents are relevant to Exxonmobil Oil Corporation’s notice and knowledge
because they show the information available to large refineries. Assuming Plaintiffs can authenticate the
exhibits, they might be admissible for notice or knowledge. As for prejudice and confusion, the parties
should meet and confer on a stipulation or jury instruction explaining the
difference between Exxonmobile Oil Corporation and Exxon Mobile Corporation.
The motion is DENIED without
prejudice subject to Plaintiffs authenticating the exhibits.
The moving party is to
give notice.