MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO QUASH, # 480

*1 On November 8, 2023, the plaintiff, Robert Green, testified as follows. “Q. Mr. Green, is it fair to say that as of 2007 to the present, you've had no contact with CAM2 products. A. I would say yes.” (Emphasis added.) Deposition Transcript, November 8, 2023, Vol VI, p. 1631.

On June 25, 2024, this court granted the motion for protective order, # 345, of the defendant, CAM2 International, LLC of Louisiana (CAM2), related to a notice of the plaintiff's deposition notice of CAM2's designated representative. In that order the court observed that CAM2 International, LLC of Colorado (CAM2 Colorado) was never made a party to this action. The court accepted the representation of CAM2, supported by the above deposition transcript, that the plaintiff was never exposed to CAM2 products after 2007. Moreover, the court observed that CAM2, incorporated in 2014, purchased the assets of CAM2 Colorado in February of 2014, that the plaintiff had not alleged in his complaint any claim of successor liability on the part of CAM2. The plaintiff, instead, alleges – in stark contradiction to his sworn testimony - that CAM2 manufactured, marketed, etc, products, including but not limited to CAM2 Trans Fluid to which the plaintiff was exposed.[1] Revised Complaint, May 20, 2024, Count 35 ¶ 2 and Count 36, ¶2, # 384. This court ordered that “Because there is no claim for successor liability and CAM2 Colorado is not a party to this action, any discovery for any records prior to CAM2's coming into existence in 2014 is immaterial and thus not ‘reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.’ ” The court grants CAM2's motion to for protective order in its entirety. Thus, the deposition of a CAM2 representative is limited to any product manufactured or sold by CAM2 to which Green was exposed.” Green v. United Steel Corp., LLC, Superior Corut, Complex Litigation Docket at Hartford, Docket No. X07-HHD-CV-22-6158732-S, 2024 WL 3271482, at *3 (June 25, 2024, Noble, J.)

The plaintiff now seeks to depose “Jack Baker, chief executive officer, director, managing agent, or other person who consents to testify on behalf of Defendant CAM2 International LLC” as to certain areas identified in the attachment to the notice of deposition. CAM2, Objection and Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition, November 4, 2024, # 480, Exhibit A.

CAM2 objects on the grounds that the opportunity to conduct further depositions has expired according to the operative scheduling order and that it is in violation of the court's prior decision. This court does not interpret Judge Wilson's order approving the amended scheduling order, # 474, which expressed the plaintiff's intent to depose a CAM2 International, LLC, representative, as precluding the deposition outright.

*2 The areas of inquiry denominated in the attachment information are related to the relationship between CAM2, CAM2 Colorado and the co-defendant Energy Transfer, the corporate structure of CAM2 and CAM2 Colorado, the asset purchase agreement, and the knowledge of CAM2 and CAM2 Colorado related to benzene related products and a variety of related illnesses.

The plaintiff does not dispute that 1. his client was not exposed to any CAM2 products after 2008 nor, 2. that CAM2 was first incorporated in 2014. While the plaintiff asserts that a claim has been made against CAM2 Colorado, this court notes, as it did in its decision of June 25, 2024, that CAM2 Colorado is not a party to this action. It was not listed as a defendant it the original complaint and a review of the docket reveals that service of process on it was never made. The court, sua sponte, dismissed any purported claims against CAM2 Colorado in its June 25, 2024 decision. Accordingly, any discovery related to CAM2 Colorado was, and remains, immaterial and thus is not subject to discovery because the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Indeed, in the present posture of the pleadings, the discovery requested appears nothing more than the proverbial “fishing expedition.” The objection to the deposition is sustained and the motion to quash is granted.

Cam2 seeks sanctions including the amount of its attorney fees for responding to the Notice of Deposition. Disposition of this claim is referred to the court, Wilson, J.

Footnotes

[1]

The plaintiff should be mindful of Prac. Book § 10-60 and Genl. Statutes § 52-99, which place him and his co-plaintiff, Pamela Green, at peril for sanctions as a consequence of allegations made without reasonable cause and found untrue. See also Dorfman v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 227 Conn. App. 347, 322 A.3d 331 (2024).

Green v. United Steel Corp.

Citation: 2024 WL 5252164 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2024)

Summary: The plaintiff initially testified that he had no contact with CAM2 products since 2007, but later filed a revised complaint alleging exposure to CAM2 products. The court granted CAM2's motion for a protective order regarding a notice of deposition, stating that any discovery related to CAM2 prior to its incorporation in 2014 was immaterial. The plaintiff then sought to depose a representative of CAM2, but the court sustained CAM2's objection and granted the motion to quash. CAM2 also sought sanctions for responding to the notice of deposition.

Court: Superior Court of Connecticut, COMPLEX LITIGATION LITIGTION DOCKET. AT WATERBURY

Date decided: December 23, 2024

Judge: Noble, Cesar A.

ROBERT GREEN, ET AL. v. UNITED STEEL CORPORATION, LLC, ET AL DOCKET NO. X06-UWY-CV-22-6079639-S Superior Court of Connecticut, COMPLEX LITIGATION LITIGTION DOCKET. AT WATERBURY Filed December 23, 2024 Noble, Cesar A., Judge MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO QUASH, # 480 *1 On November 8, 2023, the plaintiff, Robert Green, testified as follows. “Q. Mr. Green, is it fair to say that as of 2007 to the present, you've had no contact with CAM2 products. A. I would say yes.” (Emphasis added.) Deposition Transcript, November 8, 2023, Vol VI, p. 1631. On June 25, 2024, this court granted the motion for protective order, # 345, of the defendant, CAM2 International, LLC of Louisiana (CAM2), related to a notice of the plaintiff's deposition notice of CAM2's designated representative. In that order the court observed that CAM2 International, LLC of Colorado (CAM2 Colorado) was never made a party to this action. The court accepted the representation of CAM2, supported by the above deposition transcript, that the plaintiff was never exposed to CAM2 products after 2007. Moreover, the court observed that CAM2, incorporated in 2014, purchased the assets of CAM2 Colorado in February of 2014, that the plaintiff had not alleged in his complaint any claim of successor liability on the part of CAM2. The plaintiff, instead, alleges – in stark contradiction to his sworn testimony - that CAM2 manufactured, marketed, etc, products, including but not limited to CAM2 Trans Fluid to which the plaintiff was exposed.[1] Revised Complaint, May 20, 2024, Count 35 ¶ 2 and Count 36, ¶2, # 384. This court ordered that “Because there is no claim for successor liability and CAM2 Colorado is not a party to this action, any discovery for any records prior to CAM2's coming into existence in 2014 is immaterial and thus not ‘reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.’ ” The court grants CAM2's motion to for protective order in its entirety. Thus, the deposition of a CAM2 representative is limited to any product manufactured or sold by CAM2 to which Green was exposed.” Green v. United Steel Corp., LLC, Superior Corut, Complex Litigation Docket at Hartford, Docket No. X07-HHD-CV-22-6158732-S, 2024 WL 3271482, at *3 (June 25, 2024, Noble, J.) The plaintiff now seeks to depose “Jack Baker, chief executive officer, director, managing agent, or other person who consents to testify on behalf of Defendant CAM2 International LLC” as to certain areas identified in the attachment to the notice of deposition. CAM2, Objection and Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition, November 4, 2024, # 480, Exhibit A. CAM2 objects on the grounds that the opportunity to conduct further depositions has expired according to the operative scheduling order and that it is in violation of the court's prior decision. This court does not interpret Judge Wilson's order approving the amended scheduling order, # 474, which expressed the plaintiff's intent to depose a CAM2 International, LLC, representative, as precluding the deposition outright. *2 The areas of inquiry denominated in the attachment information are related to the relationship between CAM2, CAM2 Colorado and the co-defendant Energy Transfer, the corporate structure of CAM2 and CAM2 Colorado, the asset purchase agreement, and the knowledge of CAM2 and CAM2 Colorado related to benzene related products and a variety of related illnesses. The plaintiff does not dispute that 1. his client was not exposed to any CAM2 products after 2008 nor, 2. that CAM2 was first incorporated in 2014. While the plaintiff asserts that a claim has been made against CAM2 Colorado, this court notes, as it did in its decision of June 25, 2024, that CAM2 Colorado is not a party to this action. It was not listed as a defendant it the original complaint and a review of the docket reveals that service of process on it was never made. The court, sua sponte, dismissed any purported claims against CAM2 Colorado in its June 25, 2024 decision. Accordingly, any discovery related to CAM2 Colorado was, and remains, immaterial and thus is not subject to discovery because the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Indeed, in the present posture of the pleadings, the discovery requested appears nothing more than the proverbial “fishing expedition.” The objection to the deposition is sustained and the motion to quash is granted. Cam2 seeks sanctions including the amount of its attorney fees for responding to the Notice of Deposition. Disposition of this claim is referred to the court, Wilson, J. Footnotes [1] The plaintiff should be mindful of Prac. Book § 10-60 and Genl. Statutes § 52-99, which place him and his co-plaintiff, Pamela Green, at peril for sanctions as a consequence of allegations made without reasonable cause and found untrue. See also Dorfman v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 227 Conn. App. 347, 322 A.3d 331 (2024).