Party Discovery: JUDITH SHRUM et al VS. 3M COMPANY

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                ~~

oo 0 OWN OH Fe WwW ND

Eric Brown, Esq. (229622)

email: brown@dbeilegail.com

Mike Eyerly, Esq. (178693)

email: meyerly@dbelegal.com
DEBLASE BROWN EYERLY LLP
10990 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1060
Los Angeles, California 90024
Telephone: 310-575-9955

Facsimile: 310-575-9919

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

MAY 10 2013

Clerk of the Court
BY: VANESSA WU
Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

DONALD SHRUM, Individually and as
successor in interest to JUDITH SHRUM,
deceased; DONNA KUHL; DANNY
SHRUM; JEANNETTE KING,

Plaintiffs,

VS.

3M COMPANY; et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. CGC-12-276007

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT MACK TRUCKS, INC.’S
MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’
RESPONSES TO SAN FRANCISCO
STANDARD ASBESTOS CASE
INTERROGATORIES (LOSS OF
CONSORTIUM), (WRONGFUL
DEATH), AND (FRICTION);
STANDARD DOCUMENT
PRODUCTION REQUEST; AND
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Date: May 22, 2013

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Dept.: 503

Judge: Hon. Teri L. Jackson

Trial date: None set

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MACK TRUCKS, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL=

oOo ON DOD A RF WwW DN

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1. PLAINTIFFS HAVE RESPONDED TO DISCOVERY

Plaintiffs have served responses to San Francisco Standard Asbestos Case
Interrogatories (Wrongful Death), (Loss of Consortium) and (Friction). True and correct
copies of those responses are attached to the declaration of Michael Eyerly as Exhibits 1,
2 & 3, respectively. Plaintiffs have served responses to San Francisco Standard
Document Production Request. A true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit 4 to the
declaration of Michael Eyerly. Plaintiffs have therefore responded to all outstanding

discovery.

2. DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS SHOULD BE DENIED

Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,120 based on ten hours counsel
states will be associated with bringing the motion. All time spent by counsel Eduardo
Robles in preparing his erroneous, irrelevant and hyperbolic declaration should be
discarded. Mr. Robles spent a good deal of his time attacking Plaintiffs’ counsel. The
attacks are irrelevant, having nothing to do with this case or this motion.

Plaintiffs will not address all of the matters contained in Mr. Robles’s irrelevant
declaration. To do so would be a waste of this Court's time, and would likely just provide
Mr. Robles reason to generate a time-consuming reply document for which his client would
seek to recover against Plaintiffs in monetary sanctions. However, even looking at just the
first two unrelated cases referenced in defense counsel's declaration demonstrates its lack
of credibility.

The discovery dispute referenced by defense counsel in Canino v. Borg Warner
Corporation, LASC Case No. BC454323 involved defense counse''s client's insistence the
plaintiffs respond to discovery specifically excluded by Los Angeles General Order No. 22.
His client propounded and served plaintiffs with Form Interrogatories. Our office, quite

properly took the position that Los Angeles County Asbestos Litigation General Order No.

-2- ces witowssnn th Onde ee AANA pte Tok amd

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MACK TRUCKS, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPELon oa kh Ow NY =

22 (“GO 22") does not permit Form Interrogatories. (See Eyerly Decl.) GO 22 states: “[N]o
discovery may be conducted by means of interrogatories except as provided by the general
orders of this Court.” General Order No. 22 mandates that each party “shall only be
required to answer two forms. of interrogatories:” Standard Sets and Individual Sets.
General Order No. 22 then goes on to define what “Individual Sets” may be propounded. It
states: “Each defendant may propound an individual set of interrogatories which shall
contain no more than 10 questions, without subparts.” Our office took the position that Mr.
Robles's client's discovery violated the General Order 22's discovery proscriptions. (Eyerly
Decl.) Ultimately the matter was addressed by the parties with the Court during a status
conference, where a number of issues concerning the Canino case where being
addressed. (Eyerly Decl.)

Mr. Robles then incorrectly goes on to state in his declaration that this office
disregarded the Judge Elias’ prior ruling in Canino when Mr. Robles's client disregarded
General Order No. 22 even further in Brown v. 3M Co., et al, LASC Case No. BC473219.
In that case Ford, Mr. Robles’s client, propounded and served all 10 of its Special
Interrogatories on Plaintiffs, and then still propounded Form Interrogatories on Plaintiffs.
(Eyerly Decl.)

In fact, in Brown Mr. Robles’s office followed its usual practice of propounding
excessive, harassing amounts of written discovery. There, Mr. Robles’s client first
propounded 72 Request for Admissions, a number far in excess of the 35 allowed by
C.C.P §§ 2033.030, 51 Requests for Productions of Documents, 7 Special Interrogatories
in Defendant Ford Motor Company's Special Interrogatories and Form Interrogatories, Set
One, 17.1. (Eyerly Decl.) Those discovery requests were followed by sixteen (I6) days of
Mr. Brown's deposition (not counting the trial preservation deposition). (Eyerly Decl.) The
sixteen volumes contain some 2320 pages and cover every subject remotely related to this
action.

After participating in this lengthy deposition and having already propounded alll the

Standard Interrogatories, as well as Request for Production, Set One, Request for

-3- es eetuun diaDAC Darden penn Tk eke ee

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MACK TRUCKS, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPELoo ON DOD oO RF WOW Dy =

NN NY NH NH NYNN DP B= B@ B BB Bee a aw a
on Of ahbh © NYN |= ODO ON DO oO FF ON =

Admissions, Set One and Form interrogatories, Set One, Mr. Robles’s client apparently
believed it still necessary to propound additional written discovery. Mr. Robles’s office
thereafter propounded 86 additional Requests for Admissions, 37 additional Requests for
Production, 3 more Special Interrogatories (bringing its total to 10 Special Interrogatories)
and Form Interrogatories, Set Two. (Eyerly Decl.)

As is always the case with Mr. Robles’s clients, no matter the responses provided,
Mr. Robles’s client always finds deficiencies. Our office engaged in extensive meeting and
conferring with Ford, so that only one outstanding item remained ~ Ford’s Form
Interrogatories, Set Two. (Eyerly Decl.) In an effort to resolve that item, Plaintiffs’ counsel
suggested a telephonic conference with this Court in order to arrive at a streamlined
resolution and avoid time-consuming law and motion practice. (Eyerly Decl.) Instead of
seeking easy resolution, Ford's counsel proceeded to file a formal motion, which provided
it with a vehicle to seek $3,323.00 in monetary sanctions — for a single issue involved in the
dispute, which could have been so easily resolved without resort to law and motion
practice. (Eyerly Decl.) Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the file-

stamped opposition Plaintiffs filed in the Brown case.

3. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, as well as all other papers and evidence submitted and
may be presented at oral argument, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny

Defendant's motion to compel and for sanctions.

Dated: May 9, 2013 DEBLASE BROWN EYERLY, LLP

A. ighael Eyerly, Esq
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

4- crevictetozh tei DRE Oates FAL sadn Tack min bean

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MACK TRUCKS, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPELPROOF OF SERVICE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Lam employed in the City and County of Los Angeles, State of California. | am over the age
of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 680 S. Santa Fe Ave, Los Angeles,
California 90021. Michael Eyerly, Esq. is a member of the Bar of the above-entitled Court, and I
made the service referred to below at his direction.

On the date executed below, 1 electronically served the document(s) via LexisNexis File &
Serve, described below, on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the

LexisNexis File & Serve website.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MACK TRUCKS, INC.’S MOTION TO
COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO SAN FRANCISCO STANDARD ASBESTOS
CASE INTERROGATORIES (LOSS OF CONSORTIUM), (WRONGFUL DEATH), AND
(FRICTION); STANDARD DOCUMENT PRODUCTION REQUEST; AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS

I declare the above to be true and correct. Executed this 10th Day of May 2013 at Los
Angeles, California.

Carrie Ardoin

PROOF OF SERVICE