Lone Pine Orders–Shutting The Door On Frivilous Toxic Tort Suits

By on November 10, 2009

A Lone Pine Order is a case management tool that requires toxic tort plaintiffs to produce credible evidence to support a key legal component of their claim prior to the commencement of pre-trial discovery.  As Niall A. Paul and Timothy D. Houston of Spilman Thomas & Battle write in a recent IADC Newsletter article titled, "Checking Meritless Mass Tort Claims at the Door–Lone Pine Case Management Orders Reinforce the Obligation of Plaintiffs’ Counsel to Have a Case Before Filing Suit," a Lone Pine Order should be designed to weed out frivolous claims "before a defendant is forced to undergo the financial rigors of protracted discovery and invest hundreds of thousands of dollars and irrecoverable time only to face the stark reality that plaintiffs are devoid of credible evidence–to establish exposure, injury or causation."   In light of the the enormous defense costs consumed in document production and pretrial and the increasing emphasis by in-house counsel on cost control in toxic tort litigation, it is surprising that Lone Pine Orders are not sought by defense counsel more frequently than they are.  A Lone Pine Order can require the plaintiffs to produce credible evidence on the issues of (1) exposure; (2) causation; and (3) damages.  However, that may impose a greater burden on plaintiffs’ counsel than some courts, particularly state courts, may be willing to require early in a litigation. However, I have had success in identifying a single issue–my client’s best issue–and seeking a Lone Pine Order on that sole issue rather than on multiple issues.  For example, in the Happyland Social Club Fire Litigation, which case arose from the deaths of some 87 people at an illegal social club in New York City on March 23, 1990 (see photo above), defendants obtained a  Lone Pine Order on the sole issue of product identification.  Plaintiffs’ theory of the case was that the defendants’ products were fire initiators, fire promoters or, alternatively, emitted toxic fumes when burned.  The contents of the social club were stored by Plaintiffs Steering Committee in a huge warehouse in lower Manhattan.  The Catch-22 for plaintiffs was that if a  product was in the warehouse more or less intact, it could not  have burned and contributed to the deaths of the plaintiffs.  On the other hand, if the product was consumed in the fire, there was no way of identifying the product or its manufacturer.  As a result, plaintiffs were not able make a proper product identification in many instances, pursuant to the Lone Pine Order and, consequently, many defendants were dismissed from this Bronx state court case. It is unlikely that a state court judge in the Bronx would have entered a more onerous order.  In every instance were they are employed, Lone Pine Orders foster judicial economy and substantially reduce the litigationn costs for all parties. In In re Vioxx, 557 F.Supp. 2d 741 (E.D.La. 2008), the federal district court in Louisiana observed that Lone Pine Orders also reduced the litigation expenses incurred by plaintiffs’ counsel in prosecuting mass tort actions. 

Filed under case management tool, Happyland Social Club Fire Litigation, IADC, In re Vioxx, International Association of Defense Counsel, Lone Pine, Lone Pine Order, Spilman Thomas & Battle Tagged with

Toxic Telephone Poles?

By on November 6, 2009

In a first-of-its-kind litigation, the Ecological Rights Foundation ("ERF") has alleged in a Complaint brought in federal district court in San Francisco that Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E)  is  in violation of the Clean Water Act ("CWA") and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA").  ERF alleges that the treatment of PG&E’s utility poles treated with pentachlorophenol ("penta"), a wood preservative, has resulted in contamination of groundwater and surface water throughout four counties in Northern California — Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, and San Francisco, including San Francisco Bay.  The suit implicates all of the estimated 300,000 utility poles that support Northern California’s electrical power grid. Does ERF expect a court will order that all of those utility poles be taken down and replaced with poles comprised of an as-yet-to-be-invented-space-age-material that does not require chemical treatment, never deteriorates, causes no environmental harm and does not cause hazardous waste to be emitted during manufacture? 

In an article posted on its website, Foley & Lardner, which has been tapped by PG&E, cautions that  this lawsuit potentially has far-reaching implications. The Milwaukee-based law firm notes that millions of utility poles throughout the country are treated with penta or other preservatives, which are necessary to keep the utility poles from deteriorating and to keep electricity and telephone service flowing to homes and businesses.  Significantly, they observe that the environmental impact of the penta-treated poles was examined in great detail by the USEPA when the use of penta-treated wood poles as utility poles was approved.  By approving the use of penta, USEPA found that penta did not cause the significant environmental harm now alleged by ERF. If ERF is successful in San Francisco, where might this type of litigation lead? 

Apart from the serious policy considerations at issue here, ERF’s lawsuit will have to overcome significant legal hurdles, including for starters: (1) that under CWA, ERF must demonstrate that each individual pole is a "point source". It may be difficult to argue with a straight face in federal court that PG&E should have obtained a permit for each discharge from every pole–all separate violations of the statute: and (2) that under RCRA, ERF must demonstrate that PG&E is a generator of solid waste that presents "an imminent and substantial endangerment to the environment. The defendants are not the applicators of the material.  The sub-text of the litigation appears to revolve around  ERF’s unhappiness over USEPA’s past decision making concerning the use of Penta on utility poles. If so, ERF take it up with USEPA and leave our fragile power grid alone! 

Filed under CWA, Ecological Rights Foundation, Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Federal Court Litigation, Foley & Lardner, Penta, Pentachlorophenol, PG&E, Public Utilities, RCRA, USEPA, utility poles Tagged with , , ,

Cost Allocation Of E-discovery In NY Trial Courts

By on November 4, 2009

The Manual For State Trial Courts Regarding Electronic Discovery Cost-Allocation, authored by the Joint E-Discovery Subcommittee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, is required reading for any New York state court litigator involved in e-discovery.  The Manual is intended to assist New York State judges and court personnel in managing issues relating to the cost of discovery of electronically stored information, or "ESI’.  As  state court decisions on e-discovery cost allocation are likely to reference the Manual, practitioners are well-advised to familiarize themselves with the Manual now.  The authors cite one study that found that between 58% and 90% of litigation budgets are devoured by document review.  The issue of who pays for  e-discovery–the requesting party or the responding party–often involves sums of money above and beyond the damages sought by the claimant.  As a result, litigation costs drive cases to settle that should not settle on the merits.  Although New York law mandates that the requesting party pay the costs of discovery, there is authority in New York law for requesting parties to seek protective orders aimed at shifting all or part of the ESI costs to the producing party.

Of interest to practitioners outside New York, the Manual provides an overview of ESI burden and expense, and cost-shifting rules, adopted in states across the country.  This discussion, as well as a review of federal case law, suggests that New York is not "going it alone" but is drawing on the principles developed at the Sedona Conference and in leading cases such as Zubulake, which provides a seven-factor balancing test for determining cost allocation.

Filed under Association of the Bar of the City of New York, E-Discovery, Electronic Discovery, Manual For State Court Trial Costs Regarding Electronic Discovery Cost-Allocation, Zubulake Tagged with

My Old Sony Trinitron Is Not A CERCLA Waste!

By on November 2, 2009

Virtually everyone believes that it is good public policy to encourage the recycling of old electronic products, including computers, cathode ray tubes, televisions, printers and portable music devices.  Nearly 20 states have e-waste laws on the books.  However, New York City recently enacted an e-recycling law (over Mayor Bloomberg’s veto), the first municipality in the United States to do so, that is so overly aggressive and costly that trade associations for the electronics industry have filed suit to block the law’s implementation.  Under the law, if a television manufacturer is apprised, for example, that a homeowner on East 87th Street is desirous of recycling his 15 year old television, the manufacturer is required to make a special trip to pick it up on East 87th Street, regardless of the fact that the cost of this pick-up may be prohibitively expensive and  was never factored into the cost of the television when it was sold for $279.99 at Best Buy in 1994.  Worse, if the television is an “orphan”, for whom no manufacturer currently doing business can be identified, there is still an obligation to drive up to East 87th Street and haul it away.  My own Sony Trinitron is more over 15 years old having provided me with flawless service from the day I brought it home from The Wiz in Herald Square.  But I hardly expect Sony to drive to my house to pick it up all these years later!  For goodness sakes!  It’s a television set, not a hazardous CERLCA waste!  This law appears to confuse the CERLCA statute, which holds generators of waste responsible for their disposal practices years after the fact, and the sale of a useful product, such as a television, since there you can enjoy movies and series, even more if you get a quality cable or satellite service, which you can get from the AAA Satellite in Kansas City that offer a good quality service for this.  A worthwhile discussion of the dispute, with some helpful background links, can be found in Meline MacCurdy’s article of Aug. 12, 2009 in the Marten Law Group’s Environmental News titled, “Electronic Manufacturers Challenge New York City E-Waste Law.”

The electronic industry alleges that this program will cost manufacturers over $200,000,000 per year and that, on a per pound basis, the cost of collection alone will be ten times more expensive that the total cost of collection and recycling in California and Maine, two states that have promulgated e-recycling statutes.  Among other arguments, the manufacturers allege that the NYC statute violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution by targeting only certain types of electronic equipment while excluding other electronic equipment containing the same types of potentially harmful substances, and constitutes a regulatory taking and violates the manufacturers’ substantive due process rights.    Some e-recycling advocates and environmentalists are concerned that this lawsuit may represent the first step of an attempted roll-back by industry of the e-recycling strides made in other states.  The Electronic TakeBack Coalition, whose motto is “Take it Back, Make it Green, Recycle Responsibly,” has issued a call-to-arms on its web-site, “Electronic Industry Attacks Product Stewardship with Lawsuit in New York City“. If interested in reviewing the pleadings filed in the lawsuit, the Electronic TakeBack Coalition web-site is a great resource.  Unfortunately, this entire controversy does nothing to advance the cause of e-recycling.  If the New York legislature enacted a state-wide e-recycling measure, which is what is needed here,  NYC could gracefully withdraw from the fray by rescinding its Draconian measure and permit the state legislation to  take effect.

Filed under CERCLA, CERCLA and Cost Recovery, E-Waste, Electronic TakeBack Coalition, Environmental, Litigation Issues and Factors, Sony Trinitron Tagged with , , , , ,

Component Part Manufacturer Asbestos Liability

By on September 10, 2009

The plaintiff’s bar continues to look for fresh targets in the asbestos litigation, utilizing increasingly creative theories of liability, as the original targets of plaintiffs’ lawsuits have been largely forced into bankruptcy.  One of the new asbestos battlegrounds centers around the liability of parts manufacturers, such as pump and valve manufacturers, who never manufactured or sold asbestos-containing materials ("ACM").  Plaintiffs typically argue that these manufacturers may be liable for asbestos-containing products manufactured by different companies that they can reasonably anticipate will be used with their equipment.  However, in recent months, there have been a handful of appellate decisions suggesting that liability will not be extended to equipment manufacturers that neither sold nor included with their equipment ACM.  At the end of last year, the Supreme Court of Washington issued two decisions that rejected plaintiffs’ claim that defendants should be held liable for failing to warn of the hazards of another manufacturer’s product that is applied to or incorporated into the defendants’ products.  The Supreme Court of Washington articulated a blanket rule that a duty to warn under common law negligence "is limited to those in the chain of distribution of the hazardous product."  The court also concluded that the defendants were not strictly liable for manufacturing a defective product because, not being product sellers or manufacturers, they could not translate their knowledge of the product’s dangerous aspects into a cost of production against which liability insurance could be obtained.  Thus, the court held, it would be manifestly unfair to hold a defendant liable for another party’s product. There is a good discussion of these cases, Simonetta v. Vlad Corp. and Braaten v. Saberhagen, in a Metropolitan Corporate Counsel article written by John E. Heintz and Justin F. Lavella at Kelly Drye & Warren LLP. A great deal was at stake on the appeal of these cases.  On February 25, 2009, The California Court of Appeal decided Taylor v. Elliot Turbomachinery Co. Inc  2009 WL 458543, and reached the same result as the Washington Court.  In rejecting plaintiffs’ theory that the defendant should be liable for exposure to ACM in replacement parts sold and manufactured by other companies, the California court relied upon the California’s "chain of distribution" line of cases that culminated in Cadio v. Owens-Illinois Inc. These cases recognize that "legal nightmares" would result if one company was held liable for the products of other companies.  There is a discussion of both the California and Washington decisions in a March 17, 2009 Law360 article  In an August 21, 2009 blog post by Michael J. Pietrykowski of Gordon & Rees, LLP, the DRI Blog reported that the California Supreme Court has declined to accept an appeal of Taylor v. Elliot Turbomachinery Co. Inc.  In the world of asbestos litigation, defense victories like these in Washington and California are hard fought and few and far between.

Filed under Asbestos, Braaten v. Saberhagen, DRI blog, kelly drye & warren, parts manufacturers, Simonetta v. Vlad Corp, Strict Liability, Taylor v. Elliot Turbomachinery Tagged with

Is Safety Equipment Ever Optional?

By on August 21, 2009

Kenneth Ross, one of the more discerning authors in the product liability defense bar, has authored a thoughtful piece titled, Is There Anything Optional About Safety? in the August ’09 DRI Product Liability Committee Newsletter–"Strictly Speaking".  As manufacturers design new products and update the design of old products, many times they sell and offer for sale differing levels of safety and quality.  Ken’s article explores the legal and practical risks in selling products with these differences and provides advice to manufacturers about minimizing risk.  As one law professor notes, the case law is "muddled and quite sparse".  There are cases on both sides–those that hold that safety devices can be optional and those that hold that not installing a safety device establishes a basis for liability.  Ken discusses several important considerations that should be weighed in performing this delicate balancing act.

Filed under Bowman and Brooke LLP, Defense Research Institute, DRI, Kenneth Ross, Product Manufacturers, reasonable alternative, Restatement Third, Torts:Product Liability, safety, Strict Liability, Toxic Tort/Product Liability Litigation Tagged with ,

Dismissal of American Chemistry Council Upheld

By on August 7, 2009

BNA Toxics Law Reporter reports that on August 3, 2009, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the American Chemistry Council ("ACC"), formerly known as the Chemical Manufacturers Association, in a case arising from a plaintiff’s long-term exposure to vinyl chloride. The First Circuit’s decision in June Taylor et al v. ACC, et al is attached. The ACC is the chemical industry’s trade association.  The ACC has been effective in improving the image of the chemical industry in the United States and in promoting safety and environmental initiatives within its membership.  The family of Claude Taylor alleged in federal district court in Massachusetts that ACC, along with several chemical manufacturers, should be found liable for failure to warn, conspiracy and fraud for helping to produce false and misleading warnings that were adopted by the PVC industry.  The plaintiff focused on an ACC publication entitled, "Chemical Safety Data Sheet SD-56", which was first published in 1954 and later revised in 1972, claiming that the publication downplayed the danger of VC exposure.  In upholding the trial court’s dismissal of the claims against the ACC, the First Circuit held that there was no evidence that the trade association had the "unlawful intent" necessary to establish "substantial assistance liability" under MA law.  The court held that it would have been necessary for plaintiff to prove that ACC was aware of Monsanto’s tortious conduct and that it intended to assist or encourage that conduct.  The wide dissemination of SD-56 within the industry was not sufficient to support the claim that the ACC was aware that Monsanto was incorporating SD-56 into its own literature.  ACC’s lawyer, Tim Couglin of Thompson Hine, successfully convinced the appeals court that: (1) ACC did not provide "substantial assistance" to Monsanto; (2) ACC had no knowledge of Monsanto’s activities; and (3) there was no record evidence to support the underlying conspiracy claim. 

Trade associations do not manufacture or market products, but they have been the targets of toxic tort and product liability plaintiffs nonetheless.  The threshold issue in these cases is whether the association owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.  In cases in which the trade association is alleged to have promulgated a safety standard, the issue often comes down to the degree of control the trade association has over its members.  In the absence of control, the trade association is not as likely to be held liable for failure to warn.  What about a trade association that endorses products?  If a plaintiff’s injury is due to a defect in a product bearing the "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval", for example, is the association potentially liable?  One California court replied in the affirmative if it could be demonstrated that the association obtained economic gain from the endorsement and encouraged the public to purchase the product, and that  the plaintiff relied on the representation to his detriment.  Courts appear to recognize that it is not in the public interest to hold trade associations liable for injuries to remote plaintiffs in tort litigation.  The AAA might rank hotels on the basis of service and cleanliness.  Should the AAA be subject to liability for injuries allegedly resulting from its failing to warn its members that a hotel was located in a bad neighborhood?

Filed under Agencies, Associations, & Organizations, Association, Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, Liability", Litigation Issues and Factors, Thompson Hine Tagged with

ARCADIS & Malcolm Pirnie Merge: Big Gets Bigger!

By on August 5, 2009
Leave a comment

ARCADIS, an international engineering and management services company, reported that it has merged with Malcolm Pirnie, an environmental engineering firm headquartered in White Plains, New York.  The hundred year old Malcolm Pirnie, active in water and environmental consulting and engineering, will be the jewel in the crown for ARCADIS, which has mushroomed world-wide to over 13,500 employees.  Malcolm Pirnie’s assets extend beyond what the company last reported on its balance sheet.  With over forty years of professional experience, Senior VP Dick Brownell, a veteran problem solver, provides expert engineering services to Malcolm Pirnie clients  for hazardous waste and petroleum materials management, industrial wastewater systems, and air pollution control.  Jerry Cavaluzzi, Malcolm Pirnie’s General Counsel, is a highly talented lawyer who is well-regarded not only within the company, but in the legal community as well.  Jerry is frequently tapped to speak at forums on cutting edge environmental and insurance issues hosted by Westchester/Southern Connecticut Chapter of the Association for Corporate Counsel (WESFACCA); the New York State Bar Association, the American Law Institute, and the ABA. We wish both Dick and Jerry continued success within ARCADIS.

Filed under Agencies, Associations, & Organizations, Dick Brownell, Jerry Cavaluzzi, Litigation Issues and Factors, WESFACCA Tagged with

Spoliation Defeats Innocent Landowner’s CERCLA Claim

By on July 10, 2009

Innis Arden Country Club is a well-run country club located on beautiful acreage in Old Greenwich, CT. that has operated for over 100 years. Close friends of mine are members–the food is good, the golfers congenial, and laughing children run barefoot across the pool deck in good weather.  Club members had been stunned to learn in 2004 that PCB contamination had been discovered on the golf course property, not far from where an industrial company, Pitney Bowes, had once conducted operations on an adjacent parcel in Stamford.  The country club’s environmental consultants determined that Pitney Bowes was the source of the contamination, which Pitney Bowes denied, and that PCBs from the Pitney Bowes property had migrated by way of storm water and surface water runoff to Innis Arden.  What no one could dispute was that the country club had not placed the PCBs on the golf course–it was what CERCLA characterizes as an "innocent landowner". On June 26, 2009, the federal district court in Connecticut dismissed Innis Arden’s complaint prior to trial and affirmed a prior sanctions award against the country club. Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. et al. Case No. 3:06 cv 1352 (JBA), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54135.  Something had gone terribly wrong!  But what?

Pitney Bowes retained Hunton and Williams, a law firm with a strong reputation in environmental litigation to defend the case.  In a July 2009 Client Alert, the law firm attributed Innis Arden’s dismissal to its consultant having destroyed the key evidence that allegedly linked the PCB’s at the country club to their client.  Without being able to perform tests on the actual soil samples the consultant had taken, Pitney Bowes would be unable to refute the consultant’s claim that the PCB’s on the golf course were identical to PCB’s identified on the Pitney Bowes’ site, it alleged.  As the Alert points out, the Court’s spoliation ruling is a strong reminder of the obligations of parties and their experts to impose a litigation hold and to ensure that tangible evidence, such as as a soil sample taken to the lab for testing, is preserved.  Central to the court’s ruling was that the soil sampling in question had been undertaken in preparation for litigation.  As the Magistrate Judge had earlier ruled "……counsel was actively involved in the investigation and analysis of the samples in preparation for legal action……"  Sanctions were awarded even though the Court concluded that Innis Arden had not intended to destroy evidence or to disadvantage Pitney Bowes.  In the Bow Tie Law Blog, the author opines that Innis Arden’s "toxic mess" was created in part by deposition testimony that made it clear to the Court that plaintiff had taken no steps to prevent the destruction of electronic and tangible evidence as early as 2005, by which time it was clear that plaintiff recognized the importance of that evidence in its future litigation. 

By the time  the spoliation sanctions issue came before Judge Atherton on a motion for reconsideration, Innis Arden was in even deeper trouble.  The Magistrate Judge had also awarded sanctions against Innis Arden for discovery abuses–the most egregious that the Magistrate Judge had seen during over twenty years on the federal bench.  Worse, Judge Atherton concluded after hearing Daubert motions that Innis Arden’s trial experts were not sufficiently reliable to be permitted to testify at trial.  On the basis of that ruling, she granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint.  At the end of the day, the Court did not have to reconsider the Magistrate Judge’s spoliation ruling because the issue was now moot!  Still the "innocent landowner", Innis Arden’s complaint has been dismissed and may yet have to pay the defendants’ sanctions for discovery abuses.   

Filed under CERCLA, CERCLA and Cost Recovery, Contaminants & Toxins, Hunton & Williams, Innis Arden, Pitney Bowes, Spoliation Tagged with

Reichhold, Inc. Prevails In New Jersey CERCLA Case

By on June 26, 2009

On June 22, 2009, after an six-week bench trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, we achieved a resounding victory for our client, Reichhold Inc., in an environmental cost recovery litigation. Reichhold v. USMRC et al, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52471. The case addressed claims relating to the cleanup of a contaminated chemical plant site formerly owned by Reichhold in Carteret, New Jersey along the Arthur Kill. The case was brought pursuant to the federal CERCLA and New Jersey Spill Act statutes, as well as a 1994 settlement agreement between the parties.

Defendant United States Metals Refining Co. ("USMRC"), which owned the site prior to Reichhold, had argued that the settlement agreement prohibited Reichhold from bringing the claims in the instant lawsuit. The Court rejected USMRC’s argument and held that, because virtually all of Reichhold’s claims constituted "New Environmental Obligations" under the settlement agreement, they were actionable. The Court also dismissed every defense to liability raised by the defendant, including the defense that Reichhold’s claims were time-barred.

In its Final Judgment, the Court awarded Reichhold $1,209,719 for investigation and cleanup costs that Reichhold had incurred while addressing metals contamination caused by USMRC’s industrial operations. The Court also entered a declaratory judgment requiring USMRC to pay certain of Reichhold’s future cleanup costs.

Our success at trial was attributable, in part, to our being able to discredit the expert testimony of USMRC’s experts. In conjunction with an aerial photogrammetrist, USMRC’s environmental engineering expert used historical aerial photographs of the site taken over a 60-year period to develop computer-generated surface contour maps that purported to depict Reichhold’s excavation and fill activities at the site over time. Because of these topographical maps, USMRC’s experts argued that Reichhold had caused extensive metals contamination at the site in the 1960’s and 1970’s by using contaminated fill in low lying areas of the property. On the basis of the cross-examination of defendants’ experts by me and my partner, Sheila A. Woolson, the Court rejected the experts’ testimony and held that the conclusions based on the photogrammetry performed were unconvincing. Consequently, the Court placed no reliance on the cut and fill evidence presented. In contrast, the Court accepted the testimony of Reichhold’s witnesses that Reichhold had not disposed of any metals containing contamination at the site.

Over the last several months, federal and state environmental regulatory agencies have devoted substantial regulatory attention to New Jersey waterways and rivers in the northwestern portion of the state that have been contaminated with metals, declaring some of them to be federal Superfund sites. In light of these events, the judicial determination that the metals contamination on the southern edge of the property was solely due to our adversaries’ prior disposal activity was timely. The Opinion is perhaps the first trial court decision to apply the apportionment principles articulated in the Supreme Court’s May 2009 decision in Burlington Northern.   

Filed under Aerial Photogrammetry, Apportionment, CERCLA, CERCLA and Cost Recovery, Epstein Becker & Green, New Jersey Spill Act, Reichhold, Sheila Woolson, United States Metals Refining Co, USMR, Victoria Sloan, William A. Ruskin Tagged with

← Older posts

Newer posts →