Readers know we have posted before about the important case management tool known as the “Lone PIne” order. These “Lone Pine” orders take their name from a 1986 New Jersey Superior Court case involving toxic tort claims; they refer to case management orders that require the plaintiffs to make a showing regarding causation, injury, and/or damages to demonstrate, typically at an early stage, some minimal level of evidentiary support for the key components of their claims which will be in dispute.
A Colorado trial court had dismissed a claim, relying on a Lone Pine order, 2012 WL 1932470, that arose from the drilling and completing of three natural gas wells in Silt, Colorado. The central issue was whether defendants caused plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, which plaintiffs vaguely described as “health injuries” from exposure to air and water contaminated by defendants with “hazardous gases, chemicals and industrial wastes.” Plaintiffs also alleged that defendants had caused loss of use and enjoyment of their property, diminution in value of property, loss of quality of life, and other damages. The court required plaintiffs, before opening full two-way discovery, to make a prima facie showing of exposure and causation. The court further determined that the prima facie showing requirement should not prejudice plaintiffs because they needed a good faith basis for their complaint, and ultimately they would need to come forward with this data and expert opinion on exposure and causation in order to establish their claims anyway.
Plaintiffs were given 105 days to comply with the CMO. After that time, all plaintiff’s expert could opine was that “sufficient environmental and health information exists to merit further substantive discovery.” Significantly, the expert offered no opinion as to whether exposure was a contributing factor to plaintiffs’ alleged injuries or illness. And the requested march towards further discovery
without some adequate proof of causation of injury is precisely what the CMO was meant to
curtail. The expert suggested, at best, a very weak circumstantial causal connection between the Wells and plaintiffs’ injuries.
The expert did not opine on whether any and each of the substances present in the air and water samples (taken after plaintiffs had moved out of the area) can cause the type(s) of disease or illness that plaintiffs claimed (general causation). Finally, and perhaps most significantly,the expert did not even attempt to draw a conclusion that plaintiffs’ alleged injuries or illnesses were in fact caused by such exposure (specific causation).
The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in 2013 that the state civil procedure rules did not allow trial courts to require plaintiffs to present prima facie evidence supporting their claims after initial disclosures, but before other discovery commenced. This view was outside the mainstream of cases discussing the broad discretion necessarily given trial courts to manage their dockets and administer discovery.
The state supreme court has now agreed to review the decision. See Antero Res. Corp. v. Strudley,, No. 2013SC576 (Colo. cert. granted 4/7/14). The review will focus on two issues. First, whether the trial court is barred under the state rules from entering a modified case management order requiring plaintiffs to produce limited evidence essential to their claims after initial disclosures but before further discovery. The second issue is whether the district court in this case acted within its discretion in entering and enforcing such an order.
It will be interesting to see if Colorado moves back into the mainstream in allowing these sensible case management tools.