Since the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman in 2014, general jurisdiction over a corporate defendant has become a hot topic. See 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014). In most jurisdictions, it is no longer sufficient for a plaintiff to establish a corporate defendant was registered to do business in the jurisdiction at issue or that the corporate defendant had sales and/or derived revenue in the jurisdiction at issue. Rather, there is a heightened inquiry and heavier burden placed on a plaintiff.
The Daimler Court held that a corporate defendant is deemed “at home” for purposes of establishing general jurisdiction over it in the forum where it is incorporated and in the forum where it maintains its principal place of business. Outside of those two circumstances, a corporate defendant will be considered at home only in exceptional cases.
One such exceptional case, as noted by the Daimler Court, can be found in the Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co. case wherein a corporate defendant moved its operations to Ohio out of Japanese occupied Philippines during World War II. See 342 U.S. 437 (1952). In Perkins, the president of the corporate defendant company kept an office, maintained company files, and oversaw the company’s activities in Ohio sufficient to render the defendant essentially at home in Ohio.
Many courts have interpreted the Court’s opinion in Daimler to place a heavy burden on plaintiffs to present such an exceptional case. With such a heavy burden placed on plaintiffs, the question many defendants are asking is: what amount of discovery are plaintiffs entitled to take in order to establish general jurisdiction over a corporate defendant?
The Delaware Superior Court recently faced this very question. In April 2016, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a decision in Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec limiting the circumstances in which a defendant is deemed to be subject to general jurisdiction in the State of Delaware pursuant to Daimler. 137 A.3d 123 (Del. 2016). Shortly thereafter, Defendant Union Carbide Corporation (“UCC”) filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Daimler and Cepec in 211 cases pending in New Castle County, Delaware. The plaintiff in one of those cases – Charles Kimble – responded by serving written discovery requests and seeking the deposition of UCC’s corporate representative. In addition, plaintiffs in six additional cases (out of the 211 with pending motions to dismiss) sought the deposition of The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) alleging Dow, as a Delaware corporation and parent to UCC, held some information relevant to whether the Delaware Superior Court could exercise general jurisdiction over UCC.
UCC responded to written interrogatories and document requests providing its basic corporate information and publicly available documents detailing its limited contacts with Delaware and its relationship with Dow. However, UCC and Dow both filed separate motions to quash the depositions of their corporate representatives (“Motions”). In their Motions, UCC and Dow argued Plaintiffs failed to provide “some indication” of a plausible basis for their