Judge Laura A. Seigle, Case 20STCV7688 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 20STCV7688, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV7688 Hearing Date: May 16, 2023 Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Plaintiffs Karl Beirschmitt and Margaret Beirschmitt filed this lawsuit on February 27, 2020. Defendant Grobet File Company of America LLC filed a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction. In opposition, Plaintiffs requested jurisdictional discovery, which was granted. At the continued hearing on the motion, the trial court granted the motion to quash. Plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal of the case against Defendant. On April 19, 2023, Plaintiffs filed this motion contending Defendant engaged in discovery misconduct during the jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiffs seek terminating sanctions and $191,400 in monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, subdivision (f), 2023.030, and 2025.450, subdivisions (a) and (g)(1).

Section 2023.010 describes types of misuses of discovery, including “[m]aking an evasive response to discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (f).) Section 2023.030 states that monetary sanctions are available against one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, as well as issue, evidence and terminating sanctions. Section 2025.450, subdivision (a) states that a party may move to compel a deponent’s attendance at a deposition and production of documents described in the deposition notice. Section 2025.450, subdivision (g)(1) states that when a court grants a motion to compel under subdivision (a), the court shall impose monetary sanctions unless the court finds that the other side acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

Here, Plaintiffs did not file a motion to compel a deponent’s attendance at a deposition and production of documents described in the deposition notice. Therefore sections 2025.450, subdivision (a) and 2025.450 are not applicable.

Rather Plaintiffs argue that during the jurisdictional discovery, Defendant’s witness testified a particular catalog offered only jewelry supplies and equipment, but in a separate litigation Plaintiffs discovered the catalog actually also offered dental supplies and equipment. (Motion at pp. 7, 13-14.) Plaintiffs contend Defendant intentionally redacted the catalog to hide the evidence of dental supplies and equipment. (Motion at p. 16.) Plaintiffs also contend Defendant’s witness lied at his deposition when he testified Defendant did not offer dental products for sale in the catalog and did not market asbestos soldering blocks to California’s dental industry. (Motion at p. 15.) Defendant argues it redacted the catalog pursuant to the parties’ agreement and its witness’ testimony about only selling to certain industries was truthful. (Opposition at pp. 7, 12.)

As part of the jurisdictional discovery, the court conducted an informal discovery conference about “the scope and extent and parameters” of the discovery. (Thacker Decl., Ex. A at p. 5.) At the IDC, the parties agreed Defendant would produce the “catalog that contained the specific soldering block” identified by Plaintiffs,” but that the entire catalog did not need to be produced, only “the excerpts of the pages of the soldering blocks, along with the first few pages and last few pages.” (Id. at pp. 50:15-51:5.) Defendant then produced a redacted catalog containing pages of “Dixon Asbestos Soldering Blocks.” (Parker Decl., Ex. I.) Later in a case in New Jersey, Defendant produced the entire catalog. (Id., Ex. R.) Plaintiffs argue the full catalog contains products “directed to the dental industry,” such as a dust collection and polishing unit, torches, an examination mirror, knives, and a handpiece. (Motion at p. 14.)

However, the parties’ agreement at the IDC did not cover those types of products. The parties agreed that the pages from the catalog showing soldering blocks would be produced. (Thacker Decl., Ex. A at pp. 50:15-51:5.) That is what Defendant produced. Because the parties agreed to a limited production, Defendant did not engage in discovery misconduct by failing to produce pages of the catalog depicting products other than soldering blocks.

Plaintiffs also argue Defendant’s witness lied by testifying Defendant “did not offer dental products for sale” in the catalog. (Motion at p. 15.) The witness testified the catalog contained only products geared towards jewelers and did not contain products used in the dental industry, Defendant would not sell products from the catalog unless the buyer was a qualified distributor or dealer, and Defendant was restricted from cross-selling to other industries because each industry had its own distribution network. (Id. at pp. 10-11.) Plaintiffs argue that because the unredacted catalog contains references to dental work and dental type equipment, the witness lied in saying the catalog only contained products for use in the dental industry. (Id. at p. 14.)

At the deposition, the witness explained that Defendant had to sell through distribution networks and could only sell from the catalog to the jewelry industry. (Motion at p. 11.) Defendant’s president filed a declaration further explaining that Defendant published catalogs targeted to different industries with separate catalogs for the jewelry and dental industries, license agreements limited sales of products to particular industries, the catalog at issue was for the jewelry industry, salesmen could only sell to customers within that industry, dental salesmen only sold to dental wholesale distributors, the first dental catalog was in 1972, and before 1972 dental supply houses could only order from a dental salesman using price lists and sales sheets. (Canzoneri Decl., ¶¶ 4, 5, 12, 13, 17.) This declaration is consistent with the deposition testimony. (Parker Decl., Ex. A at pp. 49, 52-53, 60, 63.) Plaintiffs did not show that the witness lied at his deposition.

The motion is DENIED.

The moving party is to give notice.