The motion for summary judgment by defendants A.H. Voss Company and Voss International Corporation (together, defendants or Voss) is denied. Voss’s motion in the alternative for summary adjudication of plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is also denied.

Plaintiff Pamela O’Bryan (plaintiff, or O’Bryan) alleges in this case that she developed mesothelioma from secondary exposure to asbestos from her stepfather Kenneth O’Bryan’s work with and around asbestos-containing products, including asbestos-cement pipe distributed by Voss, from 1962 to 1977. Voss brings this motion seeking summary judgment, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.

Voss argues, in its motion, that plaintiff has failed to produce any admissible evidence in discovery showing that plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from any product manufactured, sold, supplied, or distributed by Voss. Voss points to the testimony of Kenneth O’Bryan that he had never heard of the A.H. Voss Company or Voss International. Voss Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (SSUMF) No. 2, Deposition of Kenneth O’Bryan, Exhibit B to the Declaration of Robert Engel, at 354:8-355:15. Voss further argues that it has propounded discovery requests asking plaintiff for all facts, witnesses and documents in support of her claims against Voss, and that she was not produced any admissible evidence showing that Voss sold or supplied any product that resulted in plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos. Nothing in plaintiff’s evidence, Voss argues, shows that Voss supplied asbestos-cement pipe to any of the projects on which Kenneth O’Bryan worked.

Plaintiff, in response, points to evidence that Voss was the exclusive distributor of Kubota asbestos-cement pipe in the United States beginning in the 1960s. Distributorship Agreement, Exhibit F to the Declaration of Crystal Marsh; Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Disputed Material Facts in Opposition to Kubota Corporation’s Motion for Summary Adjudication (PMF), No. 86. (The court notes that plaintiff has failed to file a Separate Statement in response to the Voss motion, instead apparently inadvertently re-filing the Separate Statement filed in response to Kubota Corporation’s motion for summary adjudication. As many of the facts asserted by plaintiff in that Separate Statement are equally relevant to Voss’s motion, and the evidence presented in opposition to this motion is the same as the evidence relied upon in that Separate Statement, the court has exercised its discretion to consider the facts and evidence presented therein in its consideration of this motion.) Plaintiff further notes that Mr. O’Bryan has testified that he frequently worked with Kubota asbestos-cement pipe. Kenneth O’Bryan Deposition, Exhibit B to the Declaration of Crystal Marsh, at 38:22-39:4; 57:12-17.

This is enough to show a triable issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from products distributed by Voss. Plaintiff has presented evidence of Voss’s distribution of Kubota pipe, and plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos from Kubota pipe, such that a trier of fact could find that plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from pipe distributed by Voss. This is sufficient to defeat Voss’s motion for summary judgment.

In moving for summary adjudication of plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages against it, Voss makes the same arguments made by Kubota Corporation in its motion for summary adjudication, and plaintiff responds with the same arguments and evidence made with regard to the Kubota motion. As with regard to the Kubota motion, plaintiff presents evidence that Voss distributed asbestos-cement pipe, manufactured by Kubota, during the relevant time period (Distributorship Agreement, Exhibit F to the Declaration of Crystal Marsh; Deposition Testimony of Arthur H. Voss, Exhibit E to the Declaration of Crystal Marsh, at 28:8-29:14); and that Kenneth O’Bryan worked with Kubota asbestos-cement pipe during the relevant time period. (Deposition Testimony of Kenneth O’Bryan, Exhibit B to the Declaration of Crystal Marsh, 38:22-39:4; 57:12-21; 58:10-16.) Mr. O’Bryan was exposed to dust from cutting or grinding Kubota pipe or when it was cut or ground by others, and the dust got on his clothes and his person. (K.OBryan Depo., Exh. B to Marsh Decl., at 59:15 to 65:16.) There were occasions when Mr. O’Bryan brought plaintiff onto jobs where asbestos-cement pipe was being cut. (K. O’Bryan Depo, Exh. B to Marsh Decl., at 80:20-81:14; 81:21-82:9.) Plaintiff also had contact with Mr. O’Bryan when he was still wearing his work clothes after cutting or grinding Kubota asbestos-cement pipe, and assisted with the laundering of those work clothes. (K. O’Bryan Depo, Exh. B to Marsh Decl., at 88:4-9; 89:14-24; 94:16-24; 96:2-97:1.) In the paperwork that came with the pipe or on the pipe itself, Mr. O’Bryan never saw any warnings or instructions regarding asbestos hazards or what practices should be used to minimize those hazards. (K. O’Bryan Depo., Exh. B to Marsh Decl., at 66:67:20.)

These facts, together with plaintiff’s evidence that Voss knew of the hazards of exposure to asbestos dust, are enough to establish a triable issue of material fact as to whether Voss acted with conscious disregard of plaintiff’s safety. For the reasons stated above, and in the court’s tentative ruling on the Kubota motion (Line 7), Voss’s motion in the alternative for summary adjudication on the punitive damages claim is denied.

Evidentiary Rulings:

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted. Evidence Code §452 (b) and (c).

Voss’s Objections to Evidence Submitted by Plaintiff:

Objection 1: overruled. Voss’s objection fails to comply with California Rules of Court Rule 3.1354. Numerous portions of testimony are included in the one objection and numerous grounds stated for objecting to all of those portions; the court cannot determine from the objection which statements are objected to on which grounds. Moreover, Mr. O’Bryan’s testimony, regarding facts in his own personal knowledge, is admissible.

Objection 2: sustained. Plaintiff has not shown that the deposition testimony of Mr. Sesaki, taken in 2007 in the case of Webber v. A.H. Voss, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC368967, meets the requirements of Evidence Code Sections 1291 and 1292 regarding admissibility of former testimony.

Objection 3: overruled. Voss’s objection fails to comply with California Rules of Court Rule 3.1354. Numerous portions of testimony are included in the one objection and numerous grounds stated for objecting to all of those portions; the court cannot determine from the objection which statements are objected to on which grounds. The testimony goes to the issues of Voss’s distribution of Kubota pipe and whether there was any warning on Kubota pipe distributed by Voss, or in written materials distributed with the pipe, regarding the presence of asbestos in the pipe and potential dangers therefrom, and Mr. Voss’s basis for his knowledge regarding that subject.

Objection 4: overruled. Ms. Marsh states an adequate foundation for her knowledge of this document, produced in discovery in this case.

Objection 5: overruled. Voss makes one objection to the entirety of seven of the exhibits submitted by plaintiff with her opposition papers. This objection fails to comply with California Rules of Court Rule 3.1354 which requires objections to be to specific material.

If any party wishes to argue the tentative ruling, that party must call Department 9 between 1:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. as usual. Argument will be held on the first day of trial as Judge Craddick will be unavailable on 3/25/14.