Court: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
The plaintiff and his wife brought suit in California, alleging that the plaintiff, Antony Ward, developed malignant mesothelioma following his use of contaminated talcum powder products, including those produced by Premier Brands of America, Inc.
On February 06, 2026, defendant Premier moved for summary judgment, alleging the plaintiff had not met his burden of proof in proving that he was exposed to contaminated product and that such product caused his illness. Of note, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s discovery responses were “factually devoid” and therefore an inference existed that the plaintiff lacked and/or could not reasonably obtain evidence to support his claim against Premier. Specifically, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s responses to standard interrogatories failed to mention Premier and that his testimony only alleged a vague and general recollection of using a powder product first in 1987 and last in 2023. The plaintiff was unable to recall with specificity the dates he used any brand of product or any distinguishing characteristics of any brand of product without speculation.
The plaintiff argued in the alternative and further argued that standard interrogatories are not “defendant specific ‘all fact’” and therefore were not sufficient for Premier to shift the burden on summary judgment.
The court ultimately denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
In issuing its decision, the court restated its legal standard. In California, a defendant seeking summary judgment must “conclusively negate a necessary element in Plaintiff’s case,” including by demonstrating a plaintiff does not and cannot reasonably obtain “needed evidence” to support its claim. In cases of contaminated talc products, such as here, defendants are required to prove that a plaintiff is unable to produce threshold evidence that the defendant’s product was defective during the time the plaintiff used it and that that defective product caused the plaintiff’s illness. A plaintiff can demonstrate this by supplying evidence that shows that the product was likely to be contaminated; that the plaintiff has no other known source of contamination; and/or that the plaintiff utilized the product for prolonged periods of time.
In denying the defendant’s motion, the court conceded that discovery responses are capable of supporting an inference that a plaintiff lacks evidence to support his claims and shifting the moving party’s burden for a motion of summary judgment, including where a plaintiff responds to “comprehensive interrogatories seeking all known facts with boilerplate answers.” However, here the court found that the defendant’s demand for interrogatories included standard interrogatories that were not specific to any defendant. As such, the court found the interrogatories relied upon were not designed to elicit “all evidence” to support the plaintiff’s claim against Premier and therefore, did not shift the burden of proof to the plaintiff. Furthermore, Premier had been named a defendant in the action less than one month prior to the plaintiff responding to the interrogatories.
The court therefore found it was unreasonable to infer the plaintiff would have “all information” necessary to respond to the defendant’s demand for all evidence to support his claims against Premier.