Lolicel (PTY) Ltd. v. Stanmar International [USA] Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 LOLICEL (PTY) Ltd, Case No.: 22-cv-926-LL-DTF

10 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY 11 v. DISPUTE 12 STANMAR INTERNATIONAL (USA) Inc., et al. 13 Defendants. 14 15 On June 26, 2025 the Parties, via a Joint Discovery Statement, notified the Court 16 that an issue had arisen regarding the confidential nature of portions of the deposition of 17 defendant Martin Pamensky being de-designated for use in another proceeding pending 18 between the Parties in South Africa. 19 Plaintiff maintains that the testimony at issue does not qualify as “Confidential” 20 under Paragraph 4(a) of the Protective Order. Further, it contends the testimony is 21 necessary in the South Africa action to contradict an affidavit submitted by Mr. Pamensky. 22 Defendant counters that the testimony at issue is confidential and includes details regarding 23 Defendants’ corporate formation, structure and relationships. Additionally, it argues that 24 it is inappropriate for Plaintiff to seek to use deposition testimony from this case in another 25 action, maintaining that Plaintiff is free to seek discovery in the South Africa action subject 26 to the applicable discovery and testimony rules. 27 Notwithstanding the narrowness of Plaintiff’s request, and the potential overlap 28 between the issues of this litigation and those in the South Africa action, Plaintiff failed to 1 || establish relevancy concerning the materials it seeks. See e.g. Chen v. Ampco Sys. Parking, 2 ||No. 08-cv-0422-BEN(JMA), 2009 WL 2496729, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug 14, 2009) 3 ||(“Although Plaintiff identifies certain similarities between the state cases and this case, 4 ||such similarities are not enough to require a carte blanche production of all documents 5 || from the state cases.”) (collecting cases). 6 Indeed, Plaintiff has made conclusory assumptions regarding the admissibility of 7 ||Mr. Pamensky’s prior testimony in a lawsuit brought in South Africa. The fact that Mr. 8 ||Pamensky sat for a deposition is this case does not necessarily make his testimony 9 ||admissible in the South African action. And this Court is not familiar with the applicable 10 ||South African rules governing the production of deposition transcripts from other cases in 11 || order to compare witness testimony to decide the issue. The court, therefore, agrees with 12 Defendant that “Plaintiff [] remain[s] free to seek testimony in the [South Africa] case 13 pursuant to whatever discovery or testimony rules apply to that action.” 14 Finally, although Plaintiff desires to share Mr. Pamensky’s testimony with the South 15 ||African court, that desire, without more, is insufficient to change what is otherwise 16 || properly designated confidential under the protective order. While “obtaining the fruits of 17 ||in this action might well save [Plaintiff] time and money, that does not entitle [it] to 18 documents and information governed by [a] protective order.” Barrella v. Vill of Freeport, 19 || No. 12-CV-0348 (AD) (WDW) 2012 WL 6103222, *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2012). 20 In light of the foregoing, this Court denies Plaintiff's request to de-designate the 21 ||requested material and declines to decide whether the select deposition testimony of Mr. 22 ||Pamensky can be used in the South Africa action. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: July 2, 2025 Ke, 26 27 Hon. D. Thomas Ferraro 28 United States Magistrate Judge