Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STCV18513, Date: 2023-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18513    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

            Plaintiffs Grace Schmidt and Anthony Schmidt move to compel further responses to requests for production of talc samples and documents from Defendant Charles B. Chrystal Company and for monetary sanctions.  The court rules as follows:

Request No. 1:  Granted.  This request seeks all samples of Osmanthus talc in Defendant’s possession.  Defendant states it already produced all talc samples in a different case.  If that means that Defendant no longer has possession of any Osmanthus talc samples, then Defendant is to serve a verified amended response so stating.  If Defendant still has Osmanthus talc samples, it is to produce them.

Request No. 2:  Granted.  This request seeks all samples of Osmanthus talc identified in an exhibit.  Defendant states it have already produced all talc samples in a different case.  If that means that Defendant no longer has possession of any Osmanthus talc samples, then Defendant is to serve a verified amended response so stating.  If Defendant still has Osmanthus talc samples, it is to produce them.

Request Nos. 3, 4:  Granted in part, denied in part.  This request seeks all written correspondence with RJ Lee about Osmanthus talc samples or confirming the existence of the samples.  These requests are vague in not identifying the scope of the correspondence sought.  If the requests include correspondence between RJ Lee and defense attorneys about retaining RJ Lee as an expert or about RJ Lee’s work as an expert, the requests improperly seek attorney-client privileged or work product communications.  If the requests seek correspondence between Defendant and RJ Lee before RJ Lee was retained as an expert, they do not seek attorney-client privileged or work product communications.  Therefore, the motion is granted in part, limited to correspondence between Defendant (not its counsel) and RJ Lee about osmanthus talc samples and the existence of such samples before RJ Lee was retained as an expert.

Request No. 5:  Denied.  This request seeks all correspondence between Bo Brybyla and RJ Lee.  This request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information as it is not limited to the Osmanthus talc samples at issue in this case.  And the correspondence concerning Osmanthus talc samples is already covered in Request Nos. 3 and 4.

Request No. 6:  Denied.  This request seeks all correspondence between Bro Byrblya and counsel about Osmanthus talc samples.  This request is vague as to who “counsel” is.  If counsel is Defendant’s attorney, then the correspondence likely comprises attorney-client privileged communications.  If “counsel” refers to someone else, the request is vague.

Request for sanctions:  A number of the requests improperly sought attorney-client privileged and work product documents and were vague, and Plaintiffs did not prevail on those requests.  Plaintiffs should not have asked for obviously privileged documents (such as Defendant’s communications with its attorney).  The parties should have been able to work out the requests seeking the production of the talc samples, and if Defendant no longer has the samples because it already produced them in a different litigation, then it cannot produce them in this litigation.  The request for sanctions is denied.

The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.  Defendant is to provide the verified amended responses and produce the items noted above within 20 days of the date of this order.  The moving party is to give notice.