TOTALENERGIES RENEWABLES USA, LLC, et al. vs TRINA SOLAR (U.S.), INC., et al.

22CV014525: TOTALENERGIES RENEWABLES USA, LLC, et al. vs TRINA SOLAR (U.S.), INC., et al. 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other DEFENDANTS TRINA SOLAR CO., LTD.’S AND TRINA SOLAR (U.S.), INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE; filed by Trina Solar (U.S.), Inc. (Defendant) + CRS# 192168787317 in Department 22

Tentative Ruling - 07/01/2026 Han N. Tran

The Motion re: Defendants Trina Solar Co., Ltd.'s and Trina Solar (U.S.), Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion for Issuance of Letters of Request for International Judicial Assistance filed by Trina Solar Co., Ltd., Trina Solar (U.S.), Inc. on 05/07/2026 is Granted.

BACKGROUND Plaintiffs TotalEnergies Renewables USA, LLC, Danish Fields Solar, LLC, Skysol, LLC, Ellis Solar, LLC, and Myrtle Solar, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) initiated this action on July 18, 2022, filing a complaint for fraud, breach of contract, and declaratory judgment against defendants Trina Solar (U.S.), Inc. (“Trina USA”) and Trina Solar Co., Ltd. (“Trina China”). Trina China answered the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”OO) on December 1, 2025 following an unsuccessful motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Defendants seek to take the depositions of Laurant Becerra, Remi Bourgeois, Vincent Stoquart, and Olivier Jouny, all of whom reside outside the United States. Plaintiffs oppose the motion on the grounds that these are “apex” witnesses and Defendants have not demonstrated that they have exhausted less intrusive means of discovery before seeking these depositions. LEGAL STANDARD “Any party may obtain discovery by taking an oral deposition . . . in a foreign nation.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2027.010, subd.(a).) “On motion of the party seeking to take an oral deposition in a foreign nation, the court in which the action is pending shall issue a commission, letters rogatory, or a letter of request, if it determines that one is necessary or convenient.” (Id.; § 2027.010(e).) “The . . . letter of request may include any terms and directions that are just and appropriate.” Id.

Depositions taken under section 2027.010 shall be conducted under the supervision of “[a] person who is authorized to administer oaths or their equivalent by the laws of the United States or of the foreign nation,” “[a] person or officer appointed by commission or under letters rogatory,” or “[a]ny person agreed to by all the parties.” (Id. § 2027.010(d).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs oppose this motion on the grounds that the witnesses are entitled to “apex witness” protection, as described in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1282. The apex witness doctrine, as announced in Liberty, prohibits depositions of senior corporate executives “absent a reasonable indication of the officer’s knowledge of the case and absent exhaustion of less intrusive discovery methods.” (Id. at 1287.) The court is not convinced that the apex witness doctrine applies here.

First, as Defendants note in the Reply Declaration of Caroline Van Ness, witnesses Becerra and Bourgeois were identified by Plaintiffs as individuals who were involved in negotiating the Implementing Agreements at 22CV014525: TOTALENERGIES RENEWABLES USA, LLC, et al. vs TRINA SOLAR (U.S.), INC., et al. 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other DEFENDANTS TRINA SOLAR CO., LTD.’S AND TRINA SOLAR (U.S.), INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE; filed by Trina Solar (U.S.), Inc. (Defendant) + CRS# 192168787317 in Department 22 issue in this case. (Van Ness Reply Decl., ¶ 2, Exh.

A at p. 15.) This is highly indicative of unique personal knowledge such that the apex witness doctrine would not apply. Becerra and Bourgeois were also identified as witnesses with knowledge of the incident in response to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories. (Id. at ¶ 3, Exh. B at p. 19.) This is akin to an admission that these witnesses have unique knowledge, and Plaintiffs must have understood that by identifying these witnesses, they were inviting Defendants to seek their depositions.

With respect to Mr. Stoquart, Defendants’ evidence in support of taking his deposition is less robust. Defendants’ reply points out that he was a member of TotalEnergies’ Contracts Committee for Gas, Renewables, and Power, which had responsibility for approving contract awards such as those that replaced the Implementing Agreements. While this is not dispositive evidence of Stoquart’s direct involvement in the negotiations or even the details of the contracts at issue, it at least suggests that he may have unique knowledge. Importantly, as discussed below, Plaintiffs fail to submit evidence tending to refute this possibility. The same is true as to Mr. Jouny.

The only evidence seeking to substantiate Plaintiffs’ contention, notably, is the Declaration of Marc-Antoine Pignon, not testimony from the witnesses themselves. The Pignon Declaration provides an overview of each witness’s title and responsibilities but does not establish foundation for Mr. Pignon’s assertions or establish with competent evidence that these individuals lack unique knowledge of the facts of this case. Because Plaintiffs’ fail to submit declarations from the witnesses themselves, or individuals with more direct knowledge of the witnesses’ knowledge of this case, they fail to rebut Defendants’ contentions as to their knowledge.

Plaintiffs also contend in opposition that Defendants have not exhausted less intrusive discovery. While this claim may have some merit, the court is cognizant of the age of this case and the typically lengthy timeline involved in securing letters of request or letters rogatory, scheduling, and completing foreign depositions. While the court’s recent granting of Defendants’ motion for trial continuance alleviates the time crunch somewhat, it is still preferable to keep discovery moving forward as briskly as possible.

The court therefore GRANTS Defendant’s motion for issuance of letters rogatory in full. The court will sign Defendants’ proposed order and letters.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH eCOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV014525: TOTALENERGIES RENEWABLES USA, LLC, et al. vs TRINA SOLAR (U.S.), INC., et al. 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other DEFENDANTS TRINA SOLAR CO., LTD.’S AND TRINA SOLAR (U.S.), INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE; filed by Trina Solar (U.S.), Inc. (Defendant) + CRS# 192168787317 in Department 22 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6.

Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed” BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK (dept22@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely. Notice via BOTH eCourt AND email is required. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no party contests the tentative ruling.