On July 20, 2005 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between First Doe Through Tenth Doe, Inclusive, Scott, Michael Gerald, Scott, Nancy Marie, Scott, Robert David, Scott, Thomas Cary, Sobolik, Mary Denise, Wolfarth, Joanne Marie, and 3M Company (Formerly Named Minnesota Mining And, Abb, Inc., Abb, Inc. Which Will Do Business In California As, Ac And S, Inc., Allied Packing & Supply, Inc., Amchem Products, Inc., Asbestos Corporation Ltd., A.W. Chesterton Company, Babcock Borsig Power, Inc.,As The Parent Alter Ego, Cbs Corporation, A Delaware Corporation,, Coltec Industries, Inc.,, Crane Co., Darcoid Company Of California, Db Riley, Inc., Dee Engineering Co., Douglass Insulation Company, Eaton Electrical Inc., Eleventh Doe Through Three Hundredth Doe,, Enpro Anchor Packaging, Foster Wheeler Llc, Foster Wheeler Llc, Survivor To A Merger With, Garlock, Inc., General Electric Company, Graybar Electric Co., Graybar Electric Company, Inc., Hill Brothers Chemical Company, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Imo Industries Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Company, J.T. Thorpe And Son, Inc., Leslie Controls, Inc., Lucent Technologies, Inc., Lucent Technologies, Inc. As A Successor In, Metalclad Insulation Corporation, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Minnesota Mining Corporation, Aka 3M Company, M. Slayen And Associates, Inc., M.Slayen & Associates, Inc., New Iem, Llc, The, Quintec Industries, Inc., Rapid-American Corporation, Sb Decking, Inc., Sb Decking, Inc., Formerly Known As Selby,, Soco-Lynch Corporation, Soco West, Inc., Square D Company, Sterling Fluid Systems, Inc., Sterling Fluid Systems, Syd Carpenter Marine Contractor, Inc., Syd Carpenter Marine Engineering, T H Agriculture & Nutrition Llc, The Darcoid Company Of California, The New Iem, Llc,, Thomas Dee Engineering Company, Thorpe Insulation Company, Triple A Machine Shop, Inc., Union Carbide Corporation, Viacom Inc., As Sbm To Cbs Corp., Fka Westinghouse, for civil in the District Court of San Francisco County.
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Preview
RAYMOND L, GILL (STATE BAR No, 153529) DEIRDRE M, DIGRANDE (STATE BAR No. 199766) KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART PRESTON GATES ELLIS LLP FILED 55 Second Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, California 94105-3493 Telephone: (415) 882-8200 Facsimile: (415) 882-8220 Attorneys for Defendants CRANE CO, and SQUARE D COMPANY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO NANCY MARIE SCOTT, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. AC AND §S, INC.,, et al. Defendants. 1. INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND This action arises out of the alleged injuries sustained by decedent Denzil Scott as a result of exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products, Plaintiffs filed their complaint on July 20, 2005, naming numerous defendants, including CRANE CO. (“Crane”) and SQUARE D COMPANY’s (“Square D”). On January 2, 2007, Crane propounded a comprehensive set of written discovery on Plaintiffs that asked them to identify all facts, documents, and witnesses supporting their claims RAR SEARDEOOZIOMOADAE: PREPE -|- Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Crane & Square D’s Motion for Order Reopening Discovery Case No. 443236 ELECTRONICALLY Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco JUN 26 2007 GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk BY: LUCIA RAMOS Deputy Cler ASBESTOS RELATED CASE Casc No. 443236 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS CRANE CO. AND SQUARE D COMPANY FOR ORDER REOPENING DISCOVERY [Code Civ. Proc. §2024.050] Date: June 29, 2007 Time: 10:30 a.m. Dept: 610 Judge: Commissioner Bruce E, Chan Trial Date: July 16, 2007 Complaint Filed: July 20, 2005 Printed on Recycled Paperagainst Crane, (See Exh. A. to the accompanying Decl. of Deirdre M. Digrande, “Digrande Decl.”) In response, Plaintiffs did not provide any substantive information or identify a single witness. (Exh. B. to Digrande Decl.) On January 12, 2007, Square D also propounded a comprehensive set of written discovery on Plaintiffs that asked for all facts, documents, and witnesses that support their claims against it. (Exh. € to Digrande Decl.) As with its previous responses to Crane’s discovery, Plaintiffs failed to provide any substantive information or name any witnesses to the alleged injuries. (Exh. D 10 Digrande Decl.) On March 28, 2007, both Crane and Square D filed motions for summary judgment based upon the lack of evidence supporting Plaintif's’ claims against them. (Digrande Decl. at §4]7-8.) In their respective oppositions to these motions, filed on June 1, 2007, Plaintiffs submitted as their only evidence the declarations of two previously undisclosed witnesses, Mel Gadd (in opposition to Crane’s motion) and Frank Vassallo (in opposition to Square D’s motion). (Exhs. E-F to Digrande Decl.) Upon receipt of the aforementioned declarations, counsel for Crane and Square D immediately began a diligent search for Messrs. Gadd and Vassallo. (Digrande Decl. at § 9.) Contact information for individuals bearing these names was discovered on June 7, cight days before the discovery cut-olT date of June 15 — too late for the depositions to take place on the 10 days’ notice required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.270, subd. (a). (Digrande Decl. at § 10.) Plaintiffs’ counsel did not respond to the request of counsel for Crane and Square D to extend discovery and allow these depositions to go forward aller the discovery cut-oll date. (/bid.) i. ARGUMENT GOOD CAUSE AND NECESSITY WEIGH IN FAVOR OF REOPENING DISCOVERY Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 states in relevant part: (a) On motion of any party, the court may grant leave . . . to reopen discovery afier a new trial date has been set. This motion shall be accompanied by a mect and confer declaration under section 2016.040. (b) In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following: FS TREECRONE PTFE 2 Prinved on Recycled Paper ‘Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Crane & Square D’s Motion for Order Reopening Discovery Case No, 4(1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery (2) The diligence ... of the party secking the. .. discovery (3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery . .. will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise .. . result in prejudice to any other party (4) The length of time that has clapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action. ‘As amply demonstrated above, Crane and Square D have satisfied the requirements of Section 2024.050: they have acted diligently in conducting discovery on Plaintifls and in searching for Messrs. Gadd and Vassallo, but, through no fault of their own, were prevented from deposing discovery now for these depositions is these witnesses before the discovery cut-off date. Reopeni crucial to Crane and Square D’s defense of Plaintif{s’ claims, Should they not be able to take these depositions, Crane and Square D will be severely prejudiced at trial. Conversely, Plaintifis will suffer no prejudice should these depositions be allowed to occur: they can be noticed to take place well before the trial date and in advance of any expert depositions. Moreover, given the nature of the declaration testimony, it is unlikely that Plaintifis’ experts will need to consider Messrs. Gadd and Vassallo’s deposition testimony in preparation for their depositions. I. CONCLUSION There is no question that good cause and necessity mandate the reopening of discovery and the opportunity to depose Messrs. Gadd and Vassallo. As no party will suffer prejudice therefrom and the current trial schedule will not be disrupted, Crane and Square D respectfully request that the Court enter an order reopening discovery, Dated: June 26, 2007 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART PRESTON GATES ELLIS LLP By_/s! Deirdre M. Digrande DEIRDRE M. DIGRANDE, Atiomeys for Defendants CRANE CO, and SQUARE D COMPANY LTT PETE = Printed on Recycled Paper| Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Crane & Square D’s Motion for Order Reopening Discovery Case No, 4