NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2881-22
IAN CRESPI,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
VAPE ZEPPY, MICHAEL EILYUK, EDWARD VINOKUR, SOCIALITE E-CIGS, LLC, THOMAS OTTOMBRINO, MAYVILLAGE TRADING, LLC, TIANGANG YU, CCM CUSTOMS, INC., and TED A. BURKHALTER, JR.,
Defendants-Respondents,
and
LG CHEM, LTD.,
Defendant-Appellant. ______________________________
Argued January 16, 2024 – Decided March 27, 2024
Before Judges Gilson, DeAlmeida, and Bishop- Thompson. On appeal from interlocutory orders of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-5099-17.
Rachel Atkin Hedley (Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP) of the South Carolina bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for appellant (McCarter & English, LLP, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, and Rachel Atkin Hedley, attorneys; David R. Kott, James S. Rehberger, and Rachel Atkin Hedley, on the briefs).
Rachel Elizabeth Holt argued the cause for respondent Ian Crespi (Rebenack, Aronow & Mascolo, LLP, attorneys; Craig M. Aronow, of counsel; Rachel Elizabeth Holt, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In this product liability action, plaintiff and one defendant dispute the
proper scope of jurisdictional discovery. On leave granted, defendant LG Chem,
Ltd. (LG Chem) appeals from three orders denying its request to limit
jurisdictional discovery and granting plaintiff's motion to compel answers to
twenty-two interrogatories. Because twenty-one of the disputed interrogatories
seek information that does not relate to personal jurisdiction, we reverse in part.
Only one of the disputed interrogatories might produce information related to
jurisdiction and, therefore, we affirm in part. In short, LG Chem will be required
to supplement its answer to interrogatory number 71, but it need not provide or
A-2881-22 2 supplement answers to interrogatory numbers 2, 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23, 27, 31, 35,
39, 43, 47, 51, 55, 59, 63, 67, 84, 92, and 99.
I.
In December 2016, plaintiff Ian Crespi was injured when the vape he was
using exploded. Plaintiff filed a product liability action against several
defendants and alleged that those defendants had been involved in the
manufacture, distribution, and sale of the vape or its component parts. In
December 2019, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint naming LG Chem as
one of the defendants. Plaintiff identified the battery that he alleged exploded
in the vape as a "model MXJO 18650F 3000mah 35A high drain rechargeable
flat top battery." He contended that the battery was either manufactured by
Shenzhen MXJO Technologies Co. (MXJO Tech) or LG Chem. MXJO Tech is
a company based in Shenzhen, China, and it was not named as a defendant in
the third amended complaint.
LG Chem is a South Korean company headquartered in Seoul, South
Korea. It designs, manufactures, and sells a wide variety of consumer products ,
including an 18650 lithium-ion battery cell (the 18650 battery). LG Chem has
certified that it never designed, manufactured, distributed, advertised, or sold
batteries under the brand "MXJO." LG Chem also certified that it does not do
A-2881-22 3 any business in New Jersey, never conducted any business with any of the co-
defendants, and never authorized them to advertise, distribute, or sell its 18650
battery to consumers as stand-alone batteries.
In response to plaintiff's third amended complaint, LG Chem moved to
dismiss the complaint for insufficient service of process or, in the alternative,
for lack of personal jurisdiction. In August 2020, the trial court denied LG
Chem's motion. The trial court reasoned that the service of process was
sufficient, and that LG Chem was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in
New Jersey because it had "placed its faulty batteries into the stream of
commerce to New Jersey."
We granted leave to appeal, and in March 2022, we issued an opinion
reversing the trial court's order and remanding the matter. Crespi v. Vape
Zeppy, No. A-2044-20 (App. Div. Mar. 18, 2022) (slip op. at 2-3). We
concluded that the trial court's factual findings concerning the issues of service
of process and specific jurisdiction were insufficient. Id. at 13, 16.
Consequently, we remanded the matter and directed the trial court to "perform
the fact-specific inquiry required to render a decision" on the issue of proper
service. Id. at 13. Concerning specific jurisdiction, we directed that if the trial
court reached that issue on remand, it "must provide a schedule for the parties
A-2881-22 4 to conduct jurisdictional discovery, conduct an evidentiary hearing after that
discovery is completed, and then make findings of jurisdictional facts to support
a decision and properly adjudicate the motion." Id. at 17.
After the matter was remanded, plaintiff properly served LG Chem. The
parties then agreed to a proposed discovery plan, which was approved by the
trial court. Thereafter, plaintiff propounded 101 interrogatories. LG Chem
objected to many of those interrogatories, contending that they were not
appropriately limited to jurisdictional issues. After the parties could not reach
an agreement, LG Chem moved for a protective order to limit the scope of the
jurisdictional discovery.
On September 26, 2022, the trial court entered an order and statement of
reasons denying LG Chem's motion and directing LG Chem to respond to the
interrogatories. The court reasoned that "[p]laintiff's interrogatories, when
viewed through the lens of New Jersey's broad discovery rules, can lead to the
type of 'affiliation,' 'connection' or 'relationship' to the State of New Jersey that
would give rise to specific personal jurisdiction."
LG Chem then produced answers to certain interrogatories and moved for
reconsideration to limit the scope of jurisdictional discovery. In response,
plaintiff cross-moved to compel answers or supplemental answers to twenty-two
A-2881-22 5 interrogatories. Specifically, plaintiff sought answers to or supplemental
answers to interrogatory numbers 2, 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23, 27, 31, 35, 39, 43, 47,
51, 55, 59, 63, 67, 71, 84, 92, and 99.
After hearing argument, on November 18, 2022, the trial court issued two
orders: one denying LG Chem's motion for reconsideration, and another
granting plaintiff's motion to compel. LG Chem moved for leave to appeal from
the September 26, 2022 order and the two November 18, 2022 orders. We
initially denied that motion. The Supreme Court, however, granted LG Chem's
motion for leave to appeal and summarily remanded the matter to us to consider
the merits of this discovery dispute.
II.
On appeal, LG Chem argues that the trial court abused its discretion and
committed legal errors by ordering it to respond to interrogatories that exceeded
the boundaries of jurisdictional discovery. Specifically, LG Chem argues that
the trial court erred by putting the burden on it to show that the discovery was
overly burdensome.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2881-22
IAN CRESPI,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
VAPE ZEPPY, MICHAEL EILYUK, EDWARD VINOKUR, SOCIALITE E-CIGS, LLC, THOMAS OTTOMBRINO, MAYVILLAGE TRADING, LLC, TIANGANG YU, CCM CUSTOMS, INC., and TED A. BURKHALTER, JR.,
Defendants-Respondents,
and
LG CHEM, LTD.,
Defendant-Appellant. ______________________________
Argued January 16, 2024 – Decided March 27, 2024
Before Judges Gilson, DeAlmeida, and Bishop- Thompson. On appeal from interlocutory orders of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-5099-17.
Rachel Atkin Hedley (Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP) of the South Carolina bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for appellant (McCarter & English, LLP, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, and Rachel Atkin Hedley, attorneys; David R. Kott, James S. Rehberger, and Rachel Atkin Hedley, on the briefs).
Rachel Elizabeth Holt argued the cause for respondent Ian Crespi (Rebenack, Aronow & Mascolo, LLP, attorneys; Craig M. Aronow, of counsel; Rachel Elizabeth Holt, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In this product liability action, plaintiff and one defendant dispute the
proper scope of jurisdictional discovery. On leave granted, defendant LG Chem,
Ltd. (LG Chem) appeals from three orders denying its request to limit
jurisdictional discovery and granting plaintiff's motion to compel answers to
twenty-two interrogatories. Because twenty-one of the disputed interrogatories
seek information that does not relate to personal jurisdiction, we reverse in part.
Only one of the disputed interrogatories might produce information related to
jurisdiction and, therefore, we affirm in part. In short, LG Chem will be required
to supplement its answer to interrogatory number 71, but it need not provide or
A-2881-22 2 supplement answers to interrogatory numbers 2, 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23, 27, 31, 35,
39, 43, 47, 51, 55, 59, 63, 67, 84, 92, and 99.
I.
In December 2016, plaintiff Ian Crespi was injured when the vape he was
using exploded. Plaintiff filed a product liability action against several
defendants and alleged that those defendants had been involved in the
manufacture, distribution, and sale of the vape or its component parts. In
December 2019, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint naming LG Chem as
one of the defendants. Plaintiff identified the battery that he alleged exploded
in the vape as a "model MXJO 18650F 3000mah 35A high drain rechargeable
flat top battery." He contended that the battery was either manufactured by
Shenzhen MXJO Technologies Co. (MXJO Tech) or LG Chem. MXJO Tech is
a company based in Shenzhen, China, and it was not named as a defendant in
the third amended complaint.
LG Chem is a South Korean company headquartered in Seoul, South
Korea. It designs, manufactures, and sells a wide variety of consumer products ,
including an 18650 lithium-ion battery cell (the 18650 battery). LG Chem has
certified that it never designed, manufactured, distributed, advertised, or sold
batteries under the brand "MXJO." LG Chem also certified that it does not do
A-2881-22 3 any business in New Jersey, never conducted any business with any of the co-
defendants, and never authorized them to advertise, distribute, or sell its 18650
battery to consumers as stand-alone batteries.
In response to plaintiff's third amended complaint, LG Chem moved to
dismiss the complaint for insufficient service of process or, in the alternative,
for lack of personal jurisdiction. In August 2020, the trial court denied LG
Chem's motion. The trial court reasoned that the service of process was
sufficient, and that LG Chem was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in
New Jersey because it had "placed its faulty batteries into the stream of
commerce to New Jersey."
We granted leave to appeal, and in March 2022, we issued an opinion
reversing the trial court's order and remanding the matter. Crespi v. Vape
Zeppy, No. A-2044-20 (App. Div. Mar. 18, 2022) (slip op. at 2-3). We
concluded that the trial court's factual findings concerning the issues of service
of process and specific jurisdiction were insufficient. Id. at 13, 16.
Consequently, we remanded the matter and directed the trial court to "perform
the fact-specific inquiry required to render a decision" on the issue of proper
service. Id. at 13. Concerning specific jurisdiction, we directed that if the trial
court reached that issue on remand, it "must provide a schedule for the parties
A-2881-22 4 to conduct jurisdictional discovery, conduct an evidentiary hearing after that
discovery is completed, and then make findings of jurisdictional facts to support
a decision and properly adjudicate the motion." Id. at 17.
After the matter was remanded, plaintiff properly served LG Chem. The
parties then agreed to a proposed discovery plan, which was approved by the
trial court. Thereafter, plaintiff propounded 101 interrogatories. LG Chem
objected to many of those interrogatories, contending that they were not
appropriately limited to jurisdictional issues. After the parties could not reach
an agreement, LG Chem moved for a protective order to limit the scope of the
jurisdictional discovery.
On September 26, 2022, the trial court entered an order and statement of
reasons denying LG Chem's motion and directing LG Chem to respond to the
interrogatories. The court reasoned that "[p]laintiff's interrogatories, when
viewed through the lens of New Jersey's broad discovery rules, can lead to the
type of 'affiliation,' 'connection' or 'relationship' to the State of New Jersey that
would give rise to specific personal jurisdiction."
LG Chem then produced answers to certain interrogatories and moved for
reconsideration to limit the scope of jurisdictional discovery. In response,
plaintiff cross-moved to compel answers or supplemental answers to twenty-two
A-2881-22 5 interrogatories. Specifically, plaintiff sought answers to or supplemental
answers to interrogatory numbers 2, 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23, 27, 31, 35, 39, 43, 47,
51, 55, 59, 63, 67, 71, 84, 92, and 99.
After hearing argument, on November 18, 2022, the trial court issued two
orders: one denying LG Chem's motion for reconsideration, and another
granting plaintiff's motion to compel. LG Chem moved for leave to appeal from
the September 26, 2022 order and the two November 18, 2022 orders. We
initially denied that motion. The Supreme Court, however, granted LG Chem's
motion for leave to appeal and summarily remanded the matter to us to consider
the merits of this discovery dispute.
II.
On appeal, LG Chem argues that the trial court abused its discretion and
committed legal errors by ordering it to respond to interrogatories that exceeded
the boundaries of jurisdictional discovery. Specifically, LG Chem argues that
the trial court erred by putting the burden on it to show that the discovery was
overly burdensome. LG Chem also contends that the trial court erred by
ordering it to "answer discovery that was not narrowly tailored to a viable theory
of [personal] jurisdiction."
A-2881-22 6 Appellate courts generally use a deferential standard of review when
considering a trial court's discovery orders. Keyworth v. CareOne at Madison
Ave., 476 N.J. Super. 86, 100 (App. Div. 2023) (citing Brugaletta v. Garcia, 234
N.J. 225, 240 (2018)). Nevertheless, if the trial court misapplies the law or
abuses its discretion, appellate courts will reverse a discovery ruling. See Rowe
v. Bell & Gossett Co., 239 N.J. 531, 552 (2019); Brugaletta, 234 N.J. at 240.
A. Jurisdictional Discovery.
Whether a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant "must
be resolved at the outset, 'before the matter may proceed.'" Rippon v. Smigel,
449 N.J. Super. 344, 359 (App. Div. 2017) (quoting Citibank, N.A. v. Est. of
Simpson, 290 N.J. Super. 519, 532 (App. Div. 1996)). Courts in New Jersey
can exercise personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants "to the uttermost
limits permitted by the United States Constitution." Jardim v. Overley, 461 N.J.
Super. 367, 377 (App. Div. 2019) (quoting Avdel Corp. v. Mecure, 58 N.J. 264,
268 (1971)). To be subject to personal jurisdiction, a defendant must "have
certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of
the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and sub stantial justice.'"
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (quoting Milliken v.
Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)).
A-2881-22 7 In this case, there is no dispute that LG Chem is not subject to general
jurisdiction in New Jersey. Instead, the question is whether LG Chem is subject
to specific personal jurisdiction. To establish specific personal jurisdiction, the
defendant must have purposely availed itself of some benefit in the forum state ,
and the plaintiff's claims "must 'arise out of or relate to' the defendant's forum-
related activities." Jardim, 461 N.J. Super. at 376 (quoting Helicopteros
Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984)). In other
words, "the minimum contacts inquiry must focus on 'the relationship among the
defendant, the forum, and the litigation.'" Lebel v. Everglades Marina, Inc., 115
N.J. 317, 323 (1989) (quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204 (1977)).
"The 'minimum contacts' requirement is satisfied so long as the contacts resulted
from the defendant's purposeful conduct and not the unilateral activities of the
plaintiff." Ibid. (citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S.
286, 297-98 (1980)).
"The placement of a product into the stream of commerce, without more,
is not an act of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State"
sufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v.
Superior Ct., 480 U.S. 102, 112 (1987); see also J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v.
Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873, 888 (2011) (Breyer, J., concurring) (explaining that "the
A-2881-22 8 [United States Supreme] Court, in separate opinions, has strongly suggested that
a single sale of a product in a State does not constitute an adequate basis for
asserting jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant").
Whether a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant turns
on notions of "fair play and substantial justice," which are rooted in
constitutionally protected rights. Int'l Shoe Co., 326 U.S. at 316 (quoting
Milliken, 311 U.S. at 463). Consequently, jurisdictional discovery should be
focused and, where appropriate, limited. When the issue is specific personal
jurisdiction, the discovery must be directed at developing facts showing whether
defendant engaged in purposeful conduct in New Jersey related to plaintiff's
claims. Jurisdictional discovery is more narrowly focused than merits
discovery. While "the presumption of broad discovery is ingrained in our
jurisprudence, '[n]evertheless, there are limits.'" Est. of Lasiw by Lasiw v.
Pereira, 475 N.J. Super. 378, 395 (App. Div. 2023) (alteration in original)
(quoting Lipsky v. N.J. Ass'n of Health Plans, Inc., 474 N.J. Super. 447, 464
(App. Div. 2023)). Jurisdictional discovery, therefore, should not involve a
"fishing expedition" into the underlying merits of the legal claims. Marchionda
v. Embassy Suites, Inc., 122 F. Supp. 3d 208, 211 (D.N.J. 2015) (quoting LaSala
v. Marfin Popular Bank Pub. Co., 410 F. App'x 474, 478 (3d Cir. 2011)).
A-2881-22 9 B. An Evaluation of the Disputed Interrogatories.
Plaintiff argues that LG Chem should be subject to specific personal
jurisdiction in New Jersey because LG Chem "repurposes [its] lithium-ion cells
that do not meet the specifications needed to sell them to 'sophisticated
companies' and directs them to the State of New Jersey." In that regard, plaintiff
contends that LG Chem "recycles, reutilizes, rebrands, remarkets and/or
otherwise recharacterizes the lithium[-]ion cells that do not meet the required
specifications as would be in line with their closed loop system and recycling
goals," and "either directly funnels those recharacterized lithium-ion batteries
. . . into New Jersey, or sends them to a third[]party that [LG Chem] knows will
sell, distribute, market, donate and/or otherwise send them into New Jersey."
Plaintiff's jurisdictional theory is overly broad and must be tailored.
Plaintiff is only entitled to discovery on the question of whether LG Chem
purposely availed itself of some benefit in New Jersey related to the explosion
of the vape that injured plaintiff. Applying that correct standard, plaintiff is
entitled to an answer to one of the twenty-two interrogatories in dispute. The
one interrogatory that is proper is interrogatory number 71, which asks LG Chem
to "[l]ist in detail all of the ways LG Chem . . . recycles, re-purposes, brands,
names, uses, sells, ships, and/or distributes [18650 batteries] that do not satisfy
A-2881-22 10 [its] requirements for the rechargeable lithium[-]ion battery to be supplied to the
[c]onsumer by LG Chem." (Emphasis omitted). LG Chem answered: "LG
Chem never supplied [18650 batteries] to individual consumers. LG Chem did
not sell, distribute, or ship [18650 batteries] that did not satisfy LG Chem's
internal requirements." Plaintiff is entitled to a supplemental answer to clarify
what LG Chem does with 18650 batteries that do not meet its specifications.
Consequently, we discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court's order
compelling a further answer to interrogatory number 71.
The remaining twenty-one interrogatories in dispute can be analyzed in
two groups. Eighteen of those interrogatories ask LG Chem to describe in detail
how it produces batteries "from start to finish" and to describe the capacity,
voltage, charge, discharge, weight, operating temperature, storage temperature,
appearance, dimensions, test conditions, and specifications for 18650 batteries.
Those interrogatories have nothing to do with jurisdictional discovery , and it
was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to order LG Chem to answer those
eighteen interrogatories. Accordingly, we reverse and vacate the portion of the
November 18, 2022 order requiring LG Chem to answer interrogatory numbers
2, 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23, 27, 31, 35, 39, 43, 47, 51, 55, 59, 63, and 67.
A-2881-22 11 Two of the three remaining interrogatories, numbers 92 and 99, ask LG
Chem to list all its products that were advertised or sold in New Jersey between
2011 and 2016. In response, LG Chem certified that it did not advertise or sell
18650 batteries in New Jersey between 2011 and 2016. The final interrogatory,
number 84, asks LG Chem to explain what steps it took between 2011 and 2016
to ensure that other entities did not distribute or sell its 18650 batteries in New
Jersey. LG Chem objected to this interrogatory and did not provide an answer.
The answers and objection provided by LG Chem satisfied the scope of
jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiff was not entitled to supplemental answers to
interrogatory numbers 92 and 99, nor was plaintiff entitled to an answer to
interrogatory number 84. Thus, we also reverse and vacate the portion of the
November 18, 2022 order that compelled further answers to interrogatory
numbers 84, 92, and 99.
We have taken the time to detail the appropriate scope of discovery and
how that standard applies to the specific interrogatories in dispute. In remanding
this matter, we direct that the remaining discovery be limited to the standard we
have set forth. We also direct that plaintiff is not allowed to serve additional
discovery demands or request supplemental answers to any other interrogatories.
This matter has been in litigation for over four years, and the issue of whether
A-2881-22 12 New Jersey has specific personal jurisdiction over LG Chem related to plaintiff's
claims should be resolved expeditiously.
Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. We do not retain
jurisdiction.
A-2881-22 13