Opinion ID: 2585525
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Benlate Litigation in Hawai`i

Text: On November 4, 1992, plaintiffs David and Steven Matsuura (collectively, the Matsuuras), commercial nurserymen, filed suit against defendant E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (DuPont) in two separate actions in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit. [4] Both actions alleged damages arising out of the use of Benlate, an agricultural fungicide produced by DuPont, that was contaminated with herbicides, which resulted in damage to plants and soil. The Matsuuras were represented by attorney Kevin Malone, who additionally represented over 200 similarly situated plaintiffs in Hawai`i and Florida and in other cases filed across the country. In July 1993, the first trial involving Benlate [hereinafter, the Bush Ranch case] commenced in federal court in Columbus, Georgia. Mr. Malone monitored this litigation for reference in his Benlate cases. According to the Matsuuras, DuPont, during the Bush Ranch case: (1) misrepresented critical test results performed by Alta Laboratories [5] (Alta test results) that demonstrated that Benlate was contaminated with herbicides; (2) withheld evidence of widespread contamination of Benlate; and (3) withheld field tests demonstrating that Benlate was harmful to plants. On August 16, 1993, while the jury in the Bush Ranch case was deliberating, the Bush Ranch parties settled. On September 14, 1993, the Matsuuras' cases were consolidated for discovery purposes with seventy other Hawai`i cases involving Benlate. On November 15, 1993, the Honorable Ronald Ibarra conducted a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion seeking the Alta test results, which were not previously produced by DuPont. DuPont asserted that this data was protected by the attorney work product privilege. The plaintiffs alleged that the Alta test results, along with certain other documents, were smoking gun evidence that Benlate contained herbicides. The evidence was the subject of various discovery motions throughout 1993 and 1994 in Hawai`i cases as well as in other Benlate cases around the country. By May 1994, DuPont had finally produced the Alta test results to those plaintiffs who had not settled their cases. One such case was the Kawamata Farms case, which went to trial in June 1994 before Judge Ibarra. Trial was completed in January 1995. During trial, the Kawamata Farms plaintiffs utilized the test results that had been withheld during the Bush Ranch case, i.e., the Alta test results as well as evidence from the so-called Keeler documents, released in June 1994, which also showed that Benlate may have been contaminated with toxins. Ultimately, the Kawamata Farms plaintiffs prevailed and were awarded nearly $10 million in compensatory damages and more than $14 million in punitive damages. Kawamata Farms v. United Agri Products, 86 Hawai`i 214, 948 P.2d 1055 (1997). In addition, Judge Ibarra found that DuPont had engaged in serious discovery violations with respect to the disclosure of information and imposed sanctions of $1.5 million payable to the State of Hawai`i. Id. Moreover, after the verdict was entered, the Kawamata Farms plaintiffs learned of additional discovery violations, which they brought to the court's attention in August and September 1995 via motion pursuant to Hawai`i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 60(b)(3) (1995). [6] Id. Judge Ibarra then further sanctioned DuPont by, inter alia, awarding the Kawamata Farms plaintiffs their attorneys' fees and costs. Id. DuPont appealed from the judgment in the Kawamata Farms case, and this court affirmed the jury's verdict, the $1.5 million sanction, and the sanctions awarded pursuant to HRCP Rule 60(b)(3). Id. In affirming the trial court, this court held that DuPont committed discovery fraud upon the circuit court and the other parties. Kawamata Farms, 86 Hawai`i at 257, 948 P.2d at 1097. We further characterized the nature of DuPont's fraud as egregious and an unusual, unique example of unprecedented discovery fraud perpetrated against the court. Kawamata Farms, 86 Hawai`i at 258, 948 P.2d at 1098. [7] The disclosure of the Alta test results in the Kawamata Farms trial was the first time many of these results were made public. See In re: E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. Benlate Litigation, 918 F.Supp. 1524, 1538-39 (M.D.Ga.1995) [hereinafter, Bush Ranch I ]. Based on the disclosure of this information, plaintiffs in the Bush Ranch case petitioned the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia [hereinafter, Georgia district court] for sanctions against DuPont. Finding, among other things, DuPont's conduct to be the most serious abuse the court had ever seen and the most serious abuse in legal precedents, the Georgia district court imposed sanctions and contempt penalties totaling $115 million; however, the award was later overturned on procedural grounds. Bush Ranch I, 918 F.Supp. at 1557. [8]