Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of this wrongful death case and its proceedings.)
E. Outstanding Discovery
Plaintiffs have not concluded the depositions of Universal’s PMK and custodian of records. Universal’s designated PMK, Edwin Ferguson, admitted that he has no knowledge about, among other topics, whether Universal had any agreements, provided manuals, imposed requirements on the purchase of asbestos-containing products and provided information about the handling and health hazards of asbestos to the West Facility. Indeed, other than briefly reviewing three documents, Mr. Ferguson did nothing to prepare for his deposition. This comes as no surprise since Mr. Ferguson first heard that he was being designated as Universal’s PMK on the day of his deposition. Also, during the deposition of Universal’s designated custodian of records, Linda Snowball, she testified that she has not searched for documents listed in Categories 5 through 17 of plaintiffs’ custodian of records deposition notice. These include documents about Universal’s control and supervision of the West Facility, as well as information about any asbestos-containing products used there. If the parties are still at an impasse after the meet-and-confer process, plaintiffs will move to compel.
On April 1, 6, 23 and 27, 2009, plaintiffs subpoenaed the deposition of Unity’s owner, Jimmy Arnold. Plaintiffs’ process server conducted several hours of surveillance on Mr. Arnold’s business and gated residence, and have made several attempts to personally serve Mr. Arnold with the subpoena. In fact, Mr. Arnold has continuously evaded service by ignoring and refusing to allow the process server to enter his gated home. Plaintiffs will re-effectuate service on Mr. Arnold in the coming days so that his June 1, 2009, deposition will go forward.
All of the aforementioned pending discovery may well produce evidence confirming, among other things, that: (l) David Plaza worked at the West Facility from 1981 through 1983; (2) the West Facility was either a Universal-owned or franchisee-owned store during the relevant time period; (3) Universal controlled the day-to-day operations of the West Facility; (4) Universal supplied asbestos-containing products to the West Facility;
(5) the West Facility removed and installed asbestos-containing products as part of its automotive repair service; and (6) Universal’s asbestos-containing products and negligent acts at the West Facility exposed decedent Tina Gomez to asbestos. Hence, facts essential to further justify opposition to Universal’s motion may exist, but for the reasons appearing in Ian A. Rivamonte’s declaration cannot now be presented, requiring that this motion be denied or continued in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(h). [Id.] (See Part 8 of 14.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.