Earlier this month, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued a decision that has broad implications for the manner in which Pennsylvania lawyers and their clients communicate with outside consultants, including environmental consultants. In BouSamra v. Excela Health, No. 1637 WDA 2015, 2017 PA Super 235 (July 19, 2017), the Superior Court held that a company waived the attorney-client privilege when it forwarded an email containing legal advice to one of its consultants, a public relations firm. The decision calls into question whether outside consultants should be involved in privileged legal discussions unless the consultant is actively involved in facilitating legal advice from counsel to client. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Discovery, Privilege

In a 2-1 decision last week, the Michigan Court of Appeals declined to dismiss a lawsuit against Dow Chemical in connection with dioxin contamination in the soils of the Tittabawassee River flood plain. Henry v. Dow Chemical Co., LC No. 03-047775-NZ (Mich. Ct. App. June 1, 2017).  Affirming the lower court’s denial of Dow’s motion for summary disposition, the Court of Appeals rejected the argument that the plaintiffs’ claims for negligence and nuisance were barred by the applicable statute of limitations even though the public was made aware of potential dioxin contamination in the river from Dow’s operations as early as 1984.  The Court’s analysis, which was accompanied by a dissenting opinion, turned on the fact that Dow failed to support its motion with evidence that the floodplain soils on the plaintiffs’ property were contaminated as far back as the 1980s.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cases to Watch, Causation, Contamination, Damages, Discovery, Discovery Rule, Michigan, Negligence, Nuisance, Real Estate, Residential, Sediment Sites, Statute of Limitations, Toxic Torts

One of the finest lines that environmental attorneys walk is in protecting communications between counsel and a retained environmental consultant from disclosure in litigation.  In a recent case out of the Northern District of Indiana, Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Hartford Iron & Metal, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-00006 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 2017), the Court found that communications between counsel and consultants retained by the counsel  were not protected by the attorney-client privilege, in large part because the consultants also performed remedial work.  However, as the work was done "in anticipation of litigation" with, among others, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) and EPA, substantive communications were protected by the attorney work product doctrine.   Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Attorney-Client, Cleanup, Contamination, Discovery, EPA, Federal Procedure, Indiana, Insurance, Insurance Coverage, Privilege, Procedure, Remediation, Stormwater, Work Product

On Friday, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued a non-precedential opinion that affirmed a trial court’s order denying objections filed by natural gas drilling company, Range Resources-Appalachia, LLC, to a subpoena issued to one of its engineering consultants, URS Corp. The case, Haney v. Range Resources-Appalachia, LLC, et al., No. 2012-3534, involves personal injury and property damage claims filed by a group of residents that live near Range’s Yeager natural gas drilling site in Washington County, Pennsylvania.   Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Discovery, Expert Witness, Marcellus Shale, Natural Gas, Oil and Gas, Pennsylvania, Privilege, Work Product

We’ve been following the case of Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp., No. 2011 CV 2218, since May, 2012, when a Colorado trial court dismissed the action following plaintiffs’ failure to establish, pursuant to a Lone Pine order, a prima facie case showing that the defendant, a natural gas drilling company, was responsible for plaintiffs’ personal injuries.  The Lone Pine order required the Strudleys to submit to the Court, before it would allow any discovery, sufficient expert opinions, scientific testing results, and personal medical information to support their claims.  In July, 2013, a Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Lone Pine orders were not permitted under Colorado law and thus the plaintiffs could not be shut out of the courthouse at such an early stage. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Case Update, Causation, Contamination, Discovery, Drilling, Due Process, Marcellus Shale, Natural Gas, Oil and Gas, Procedure, Real Estate, Toxic Torts

In May, we reported on the case of Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp., No. 2011 CV 2218 (Denver Co. Dist. Court  May 9, 2012), in which a state trial court issued a Lone Pine order requiring the plaintiffs to show, prior to the initiation of discovery, that there was a prima facie basis for associating their personal injury claims with the defendants’ hydraulic fracturing activities.  The court subsequently dismissed the case when the plaintiffs failed, in the court's view, to meet this initial burden.  The dismissal was appealed and in Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp., Court of Appeals No. 12CA1251 (Co. Ct. Appeals, 1st Div., July 3, 2013), reversed.   Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Case Update, Causation, Contamination, Discovery, Drilling, Due Process, Marcellus Shale, Natural Gas, Oil and Gas, Procedure, Real Estate, Toxic Torts

I love dissents.  While majority opinions focus on legal analysis, as they should, dissents tell the story, because it is usually only in the context of the story that the legal analysis of the majority can be directly attacked.  Such is the case with the recent en banc decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital, 2011 Pa. Super. 251 (2011).  But more on the dissent later. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cases to Watch, Decisions of Note, Discovery, Expert Witness, Privilege, Work Product