Catiller v. Super. Ct. CA2/3

Filed 5/30/13 Catiller v. Super. Ct. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

EDWARD CATILLER et al., B248439

Petitioners, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC492719) v. (JCCP No. 4674)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

DEXTER HYSOL AEROSPACE, LLC,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Emilie Harris Elias, Judge. Petition granted.

Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP and Rebecca A. Cucu for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Jeffry A. Miller, Arezoo Jamshidi, Caroline E. Chan and Arezou Khonsari for Real Party in Interest.

_________________________

Petitioners Edward and Barbara Catiller (collectively plaintiffs)1 filed this action against numerous defendants based on the contention that Edward was exposed to asbestos while in the navy, which resulted in malignant pleural mesothelioma, a terminal cancer. During his navy career, Edward allegedly was exposed to asbestos contained in Hysol adhesives and sealants manufactured by real party in interest Dexter Hysol Aerospace, LLC (DHA). On January 2, 2013, plaintiffs’ motion for trial preference was granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36.)2 The trial was scheduled for May 1, 2013. On March 7, 2013, plaintiffs noticed the deposition of DHA’s most knowledgeable person with the date of deposition set as March 19, 2013. DHA failed to provide its most knowledgeable person to testify at deposition and did not produce the requested documents, by this means depriving plaintiffs of the opportunity to obtain evidence and material necessary to establish their allegations. Rather than timely responding to the discovery requests, DHA filed a motion for summary judgment based on the contention that plaintiffs had no evidence that the products manufactured, sold, or provided by DHA caused or contributed to Edward’s terminal mesothelioma.