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 BishopThompson. 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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.
2 A-2881-22

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 
3 A-2881-22

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 
4 A-2881-22

any business in New Jersey, never conducted any business with any of the codefendants, 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 
5 A-2881-22

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 
6 A-2881-22

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."
7 A-2881-22

 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 substantial justice.'" 

Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. 

Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). 
8 A-2881-22

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 forumrelated 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 
9 A-2881-22

[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)). 
10 A-2881-22

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 
11 A-2881-22

[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. 
12 A-2881-22

 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 
13 A-2881-22

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.