On August 15, 2014, Alameda Superior Court Asbestos Coordination Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee enforced a “no-PID” stipulation that a plaintiff spouse would not provide product identification (PID) testimony, and sanctioned plaintiffs’ counsel for trying to un-do the stipulation.
Plaintiffs’ counsel stipulated at Mr. Leeper’s deposition that Mrs. Leeper would not provide product identification testimony. In exchange, the defendants agreed not to seek to continue the trial date (advanced due to Mr. Leeper’s health) based on the fact that Mrs. Leeper’s deposition was delayed. At Mrs. Leeper’s deposition months later (and only two months before trial), plaintiffs’ counsel sought to withdraw the prior no-PID stipulation because Mrs. Leeper recalled four specific, separate products affecting five defendants. The defense objected and moved for a protective order. Judge Lee ordered that Mrs. Leeper not be allowed to give product identification testimony.
The stipulation … was freely entered into by Plaintiffs’ counsel, on behalf of Plaintiffs, and it is an enforceable waiver of the right of [Mrs. Leeper] to offer product identification testimony. [Citation omitted.] Plaintiffs do not argue that there are grounds for rescinding the stipulation, they provide no evidence that would justify that relief; they merely offer counsel’s representations that counsel entered into the stipulation “in good faith.”
The court recognized that the “obvious and severe prejudice to the defendants affected.” “Defendants have relied upon the stipulation in conducting discovery, preparing witnesses, and generally preparing a defense at trial.” The court also awarded $1,800 in sanctions against plaintiffs’ counsel.
Given this recent order, will plaintiffs’ counsel refrain from entering into future no-PID stipulations? That remains to be seen, but this order is a welcome recognition that such stipulations should be enforced.