Opinion ID: 1862647
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Terra's disclosures and the district court ruling.

Text: We believe it helpful to identify those disclosures by Mark Kalafut, the general counsel of Terra, upon which the district court relied in finding that Kalafut had waived the work product privilege as to the Cowett documents. In Bush Ranch v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours, growers brought suit against Du Pont in Georgia state court claiming damages from the use of Benlate. Although neither Terra nor Kalafut were parties in the Bush Ranch case, Kalafut was called by plaintiffs to testify during the 1993 trial. In his testimony, Kalafut explained how claims filed by growers against Du Pont alleging damage from Benlate were processed and how he learned from Cowett in the Du Bose litigation that the alleged atrazine contamination by Terra could not be the source of the growers' problems. In doing so, Kalafut briefly mentioned Cowett and his opinions regarding Benlate. The relevant excerpts of Kalafut's testimony, along with the court's limiting instructions, are as follows: Q. And Dr. Cowett had made known to Du Pont and Terra's lawyer what? .... THE COURT: The only thing, Mr. Pope, I don't think this witness ought to testify about what the expert said in that trial. I don't see any reason why he should do that. MR. POPE: Your Honor, I'm not offering THE COURT: If he just wants to testify that he learned as a result of the trial, so and so, why ask him that. .... THE COURT: I'm just not going to allow the witness to quote the so-called expert that you refer to. I'm not going to allow him to quote him. That would be hearsay. Q. When did you learn that the atrazine thing may have been contrived by Du Pont? .... A. [Kalafut] In September or sometime in the late summer or fall, probably in the fall, I learned from Mr. Cowett that atrazine at the levels of contamination in the product formulated by Terra could not have caused the damages that were being alleged. .... Q. Now, as a result of all of this, Mr. Kalafut, what happened? A. As a result, of this, Ias a result of learning the statements of Mr. [Cowett], that atrazine could not have caused theat the levels involved could not have caused the damage, I decided I would go back and check all correspondence and documents received in Du Pont litigation, and at that point I discovered that that letter was in there. When I'm talking about the letter, I'm talking about the September 12th [1989] letter from Du Pont to the EPA. .... Q. All right. Did you say to him, Glen [lawyer for Du Pont], we paid out 65 million dollars, and you never told us that you told the EPA that what we were doing wouldn't hurt plants? A. Basically, I indicated to him that we had the information that they had given to the EPA, that we had talked to experts who had told us that it wasn't even close, atrazine wasn't the problem. The record also contains a letter written by Du Pont attorney Peter Wellington to Kalafut. The letter, dated November 7, 1991, states in pertinent part: In view of your letter of November 6, 1991, [4] I believe a meeting at this time may be premature. You state that you have information that atrazine, even at the highest levels, could not have caused the damage. In our conversation, you mentioned the opinion of Dr. Cowett in the South Carolina Du Bose litigation and Du Pont information filed with EPA in June 1990. The latter was the best available information at a point in time and for a specific subject. Neither of these seem to me to be sufficient basis for a general statement regarding causation in hundreds of cases over different crops. Du Pont did not handle most of the Benlate I claimsCIGNA did.... Surely the millions of dollars paid out by or on behalf of Terra were done on the basis of scientific causation evidence under your control..... We understand Terra and XL have suspended all further efforts at claims adjustment on litigation settlement. We are concerned as to the impact of this decision on Du Pont and whether Terra may be in breach of its indemnity obligation.... Based on Kalafut's testimony in the Bush Ranch case as quoted above, the district court found that Kalafut engaged in considerable discussion of Dr. Cowett, including primarily his conclusions regarding the atrazine contamination in Benlate. Additionally, the court found that, based on the November 1991 letter and other communications between Terra and Du Pont, Cowett's work and his specific opinions concerning Benlate contamination had been widely discussed, injected into various litigation, and otherwise disseminated, and that this broad based disclosure of this area in the transcripts and other unprivileged documents effectively waives any privilege that might attach to it.