Judge Laura A. Seigle, Case 22STCV18173 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV18173, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18173 Hearing Date: January 26, 2023 Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant Mechanical Drives & Belting filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiffs Dolores W. St. Amour, Laura Apodaca Gonzales, and Gregory Steven Apodaca have no evidence of exposure to asbestos from a product manufactured or supplied by Defendant.

A defendant seeking summary judgment must “conclusively negate[] a necessary element of the plaintiff’s case, or . . . demonstrate[] that under no hypothesis is there a material issue of fact that requires the process of trial.” (Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.) To show that a plaintiff cannot establish an element of a cause of action, a defendant must make the initial showing “that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.) “The defendant may, but need not, present evidence that conclusively negates an element of the plaintiff’s cause of action. The defendant may also present evidence that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence – as through admissions by the plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he has discovered nothing.” (Id. at p. 855.) A plaintiff’s deposition testimony that the plaintiff has no knowledge of any exposure to the defendant’s products may be sufficient to shift the burden to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact. (McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1103-1104.) The plaintiff’s deposition testimony that he did not recall ever working with a product manufactured by the defendant may not be sufficient to shift the burden if the plaintiff is able to prove his case by another means. (Weber v. John Crane, Inc. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1439.) “ ‘If plaintiffs respond to comprehensive interrogatories seeking all known facts with boilerplate answers that restate their allegations, or simply provide laundry lists of people and/or documents, the burden of production will almost certainly be shifted to them once defendants move for summary judgment and properly present plaintiff’s factually devoid discovery responses.’” (Id. at p. 1440.)

Defendant cites to Plaintiffs’ response to an interrogatory asking for all facts supporting Plaintiffs’ contentions that Hector Apodaca was exposed to asbestos from Defendant’s products. (Motion at p. 2; “Undisputed Material Fact “UMF” 2.) Plaintiffs responded that that Hector Apodaca was employed as a firefighter with the Los Angeles County Fire Department from 1952 to 1987 and wore fire protective equipment. (UMF 3; Mayfield Decl., Ex. C at p. 4.) Plaintiffs also stated in their responses that Defendant was a manufacturer and distributed of compressed sheet gasket materials, transite sheets, textile cloth and rope, and that textile cloth was distributed by Defendant from 1972 to 1985. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs added that they are investigating the extent to which Hector Apodaca was exposed to asbestos through Defendant’s asbestos-containing products. (Ibid.) The response does not state, or cite any evidence that, the textile cloth contained asbestos.

Another interrogatory asked for the identity of people with information about Plaintiffs’ contentions against Defendant, and in response Plaintiffs did not identify any witnesses by name. (UMF 6, 7.) Instead, Plaintiffs generally listed Hector Apodaca’s co-workers and supervisors as having knowledge, but said they have no contact information for those people. (UMF 7; Mayfield Decl., Ex. C at p. 5.) Plaintiffs also stipulated that they would not offer any product identification testimony against any Defendant. (UMF 8.)

Defendant also cites Hector Apodaca’s deposition where he testified that he had not heard of Defendant and had no information that he ever worked around products from Defendant. (Motion at p. 3; UMF 4; Mayfield Decl., Ex. E at pp. 461-462.) Hector Apodaca also provided a list of manufacturers and products that did not include Defendant or its products. (UMF 5.)

Plaintiffs argue these responses are not factually devoid because Plaintiffs supplied “three pages of documents in support of Plaintiffs’ allegations against [Defendant].” (Opposition at p. 4.) In support of that assertion, Plaintiffs cite to their own UMF 4, which cites to their response to interrogatory No. 6. (Opposition at p. 2.) The response to interrogatory No. 6 lists generic documents such as Plaintiffs’ medical records, “all documents produced by defendant in prior asbestos cases,” Plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses, Defendant’s interrogatory responses, Defendant’s documents, scientific publications, trade publications, OSHA regulations, deposition transcripts, articles, declarations, and Hector Apodaca’s deposition transcript. (Mayfield Decl., Ex. C at pp. 6-9.) The response to interrogatory No. 6 is factually devoid and does not identify any specific evidence that Hector Apodaca was exposed to asbestos in a product from Defendant.

Plaintiffs also the depositions of Hector Apodaca’s children and step daughter will be taking place, but Plaintiffs do not state that those witnesses have knowledge of the products from Defendant that exposed Hector Apodaca to asbestos.

Plaintiffs argue Defendant failed to show present evidence to negate causation or exposure, citing to Villa v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733. (Opposition at p. 5). The court in Villa stated that discovery responses, such as deposition or interrogatory responses, may shift the burden of proof. (Villa, supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at pp. 748-749.) A plaintiff’s deposition testimony that the plaintiff has no knowledge of any exposure to the defendant’s products may be sufficient to shift the burden to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact. (McGonnell, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1103-1104.)

Defendant established that Plaintiffs’ discovery responses are factually devoid and shifted the burden to Plaintiffs. In opposition, Plaintiffs did not present any evidence of any disputed issue of material fact.

Therefore, the motion is GRANTED. Defendant is to file a proposed judgment within 5 days.

The moving party is to give notice.