The People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al

Filing 192

NOTICE RE BRIEFING ON MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Alsup on 3/27/2018. (whalc1, COURT STAFF)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

No. C 17-06011 WHA
No. C 17-06012 WHA

NOTICE RE BRIEFING ON
MOTION TO DISMISS

BP P.L.C., et al.,
Defendants.

15

/

16
In the remainder of the FRCP 12(b)(6) briefing, please address the following questions.

17
18

The parties’ page limits and briefing schedule remain the same.

19

1.

Identify and describe all state and federal court decisions sustaining a nuisance theory of

20

liability based on the otherwise lawful sale of a product where the seller financed and/or

21

sponsored research or advertising intended to cast doubt on studies showing that use of

22

the product would harm public health or the environment at large. Also, identify and

23

describe all decisions rejecting such a theory.

24

2.

Identify and describe all state and federal court decisions that address a nuisance theory

25

of liability in the context of global warming (i.e., the combustion of fossil fuels leads to

26

carbon dioxide that leads to warming, polar melting, and coastal flooding).

27
28

3.

Please address the extent to which the Noerr-Pennington doctrine may apply to these
actions.

1

4.

If plaintiffs’ theory is correct, why wouldn’t everyone involved in supplying carbon-

2

based fuels (or in otherwise increasing carbon dioxide, e.g., deforestation) be liable upon

3

a showing that they questioned the science of global warming or sponsored research

4

intending to question it?

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: March 27, 2018.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2