Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02820/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02820-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUISA GONZALEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

TEXACO, INC., TEXACO PETROLEUM

COMPANY, INC., CHEVRON

CORPORATION,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-02820 WHA

ORDER DENYING REQUEST 

TO EXPEDITE DISCLOSURE 

OF EXPERT WITNESSES 

AND SET EVIDENTIARY

HEARING ON ISSUE OF

GENERAL CAUSATION

INTRODUCTION

In this tort action arising out of the dumping of toxic oil-production byproducts in the

Ecuadorian rain forest, defendants move to expedite disclosure of expert witnesses and to set an

evidentiary hearing on the issue of general causation. For the reasons stated below, the request

is DENIED.

STATEMENT

To briefly summarize the allegations, plaintiffs in this action lived in the Ecuadorian

rain forest. Between 1971 and 1992, defendants, some of the world’s largest oil producers,

pumped crude oil from beneath the Ecuadorian rain forest. Defendants allegedly contaminated

the waters around plaintiffs’ homes. In that region of Ecuador, because of a lack of other water

supplies, people often drank and bathed in the contaminated waters. Plaintiffs allege that

defendants’ activities exposed them to toxins that caused them cancer. This action alleges

Case 3:06-cv-02820-WHA Document 135 Filed 02/28/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

various tort claims against defendants, including negligence, intentional or reckless infliction of

emotional distress, and battery.

After two rounds of motions to dismiss were ruled on, a case management conference

was held on October 4, 2006, and case management scheduling order issued the following day. 

Prior to the case management conference, defendants filed a case management statement

requesting phased discovery on the issue of individual causation, i.e., proof that plaintiffs’

cancer was caused by the alleged exposure to defendants’ products. After discussion on the

issue at the case management conference, the Court ruled that discovery would not be

bifurcated. Among other reasons, the Court informed counsel its view that phased discovery

would lead to increased costs based on an increased potential for discovery disputes. The Court

expressly left open the possibility of a bifurcated trial, but denied defendants’ request for

phased discovery (Def. Exh. A at 15–17). 

Under the case management order currently governing this case, the non-expert

discovery cut-off is August 31, 2007. The last day to designate expert testimony and disclose

full expert reports under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) is also August 31. 

ANALYSIS

Defendants contend and plaintiffs do not dispute the general principle that general

causation is an essential element in toxic tort cases. “Causation in toxic tort cases is typically

discussed in terms of generic and specific causation. General, or ‘generic’ causation has been

defined by courts to mean whether the substance at issue had the capacity to cause the harm

alleged, while ‘individual causation’ refers to whether a particular individual suffers from a

particular ailment as a result of exposure to a substance.” In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation

Litig., 292 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal citations omitted). Defendants assert that

expedited resolution of the issue of general causation is “appropriate and necessary,” because

the issue is case-dispositive (Br. 3–4). They contend that the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ evidence

on general causation should be examined now, before other resources are expended litigating

other claims by plaintiffs. To that end, defendants request that the date to disclose expert

witnesses on general causation be March 12, discovery on general causation be concluded by

Case 3:06-cv-02820-WHA Document 135 Filed 02/28/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

April 30, and a hearing on defendants’ Daubert and summary judgment motions on general

causation be set for June 1.

Defendants have not demonstrated sufficient justification for their request. The Court

construes the instant motion as a variation on defendants’ previous request for phased

discovery. The Court has not changed its view that setting an earlier deadline, even on one

issue, will likely result in increased costs for all involved. Defendants may be right that

following a Daubert hearing and summary judgment motions on the issue of general causation

much of plaintiffs’ case might fall away. But that is only speculation. In the Court’s view the

better approach is to wait until discovery closes. Expedited discovery on one issue, along with

the time and expense put into preparing for other hearings — which may or may not be

successful — could realistically result in delays on other discovery if defendants are

unsuccessful.

Under the case management order, defendants will have plaintiffs’ expert reports for any

issues on which plaintiffs have the burden of proof — including the issue of general causation

— within six months. Defendants will have their opportunity to be heard on these issues before

long.

Defendants’ citation to a recent California decision is interesting but unpersuasive. In

that decision the plaintiffs had claimed that their cancers had been “caused by one or more

chemicals emitted from the Oil and Gas Well sites on or near the Beverly Hills High School

campus” (Rector Decl. Exh. 1 at 1). Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Wendell Mortimer, Jr.

held that plaintiffs’ experts had not established that “benzene causes any of the diseases

involved in this case.” Judge Mortimer, granting summary judgment for the defendants,

described the experts’ opinions as “without support and speculative” (id. at 10). 

While the Beverly Hills High School decision granted summary judgment based on a

lack of general and specific causation, there was no expedited discovery or premature hearing

before that court. From what defendants have provided, that decision was rendered only a

month before the trial date, likely after all discovery had been completed. Thus, the Beverly

Hills High School decision is only relevant for the proposition that general causation is an

Case 3:06-cv-02820-WHA Document 135 Filed 02/28/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

important element for plaintiffs to prove. For case management purposes, at this point it is

preferable to allow fact and expert discovery to proceed on all issues. In this case, whatever

challenge defendants have to plaintiffs claims may be brought once the parties have conducted

discovery in accordance with the case management schedule already in place.

Following oral argument on this motion, plaintiffs submitted a declaration by their

causation expert, Edward Calabrese, explaining why he would be unable to complete an expert

report prior to August 31. The Court understands that Mr. Calabrese has a busy schedule that is

likely to keep him occupied for the remainder of the academic semester. For those reasons, it

would be burdensome on Mr. Calabrese to accelerate the deadline for his expert report. The

Court reiterates, however, as it did on the record, that Mr. Calabrese’s busy schedule will not be

accepted as a justification for extending the August 31 deadline for his expert report. That date

remains firm. Even considering Mr. Calabrese’s calendar, six months will be more than enough

time for him to dedicate the “approximately 100” hours it will take to complete his report

(Calabrese Decl. ¶ 5).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ request to expedite disclosure of expert witnesses

and set an evidentiary hearing on the issue of general causation is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02820-WHA Document 135 Filed 02/28/07 Page 4 of 4