M.G. v. Bodum USA, Inc.
3:19-cv-01069
N.D. Cal.Apr 3, 2020Background
- Minor plaintiff (M.G.) was severely burned when the glass carafe of a Bodum French Press distributed in North America broke; Bodum USA is the exclusive North American distributor.
- Design responsibilities lie with Bodum AG (Switzerland); assembly/production was handled by Bodum (Portuguesa) S.A. (Portugal); Bodum USA is an indirect subsidiary of Bodum AG.
- Plaintiff served discovery (RFPs and Special Interrogatories) seeking design/manufacture documents; Bodum USA responded that it did not design/manufacture the product and that relevant documents are held by Bodum AG/Portuguesa.
- Plaintiff deposed Bodum USA’s PMQ (CFO) who confirmed design by Bodum AG, production involvement by Bodum Portuguesa, routing of complaints through Portuguesa, and regular reporting from Bodum USA to Bodum AG.
- Plaintiff moved to compel Bodum USA to obtain and produce documents from Bodum AG and Bodum Portuguesa; Bodum USA objected, arguing lack of legal control over those entities’ documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bodum USA has “possession, custody, or control” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 over documents in Bodum AG’s and Bodum Portuguesa’s possession | Close corporate relationship and operational integration (weekly reporting, complaint routing, involvement in litigation/insurance) gives Bodum USA control to obtain documents | Entities are separate legal corporations; Bodum USA lacks any contractual or legal right to demand documents from Bodum AG/Portuguesa; typical parent-subsidiary/distributor relationship | Motion denied — Plaintiff failed to show Bodum USA has legal right to compel production; practical ability alone is insufficient under Ninth Circuit precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Int’l Union of Petrol. & Indus. Workers, AFL–CIO, 870 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir.) (control requires legal right to obtain documents)
- In re Citric Acid Litig., 191 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir.) (U.S. subsidiary cannot force foreign parent to produce documents absent legal right to demand them)
- St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc. v. Janssen-Counotte, 305 F.R.D. 630 (D. Or.) (agency/principal relationship on the specific subject matter can support a finding of control)
- Choice-Intersil Microsystems, Inc. v. Agere Sys., Inc., 224 F.R.D. 471 (N.D. Cal.) (subsidiary ordered to produce parent documents where shared access and control over databases was shown)