In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Products Liability Litigation

Filing 2913

LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Nicholas G. Campins dated 3/10/09 re: The City of New York writes to request the Court's assistance in resolving a discovery dispute regarding its obligations, if any,to further respond to 11 sets of unduly burdensome contention discovery served by defendants on 11/18/08 and 11/19/08, see Exhibits A1-A11, which the City responded to on 12/18/08 and 12/19/09, see Exhibits B1-B11. Document filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Exhibit, #7 Exhibit, #8 Exhibit)Associated Cases: 1:00-cv-01898-SAS-DCF, 1:04-cv-03417-SAS(mro) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/15/2009: #9 Exhibit, #10 Exhibit, #11 Exhibit, #12 Exhibit, #13 Exhibit, #14 Exhibit, #15 Exhibit, #16 Exhibit) (mro).

In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Products Liability Litigation

Doc. 2913 Att. 4

24130694

Mar 10 2009 11:30AM

EXHIBIT C1

Dockets.Justia.com

Nick Campins
From: Sent: To: Cc: Nick Campins Monday, December 15, 2008 10:13 AM '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]' '[e-mail]'; 'Pejan, Ramin'; Todd Robins; Jeff Osbun

Subject: City of New York vs Amerada Hess Corp et al Case #: NY-04-CV-03417 Counsel: I was recently admitted pro hac vice as counsel for Plaintiff City of New York ("the City") in the above-captioned action. I write to request an extension until January 19, 2009 for the City to respond to the following contention interrogatories served by you on behalf of your clients: 1. Certain Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests Regarding Punitive Damages 2. Atlantic Richfield Company's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff City of New York 3. BP Products North America Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff City of New York 4. CITGO Defendants' First Set of Company-Specific Interrogatories and Document Requests 5. Defendants El Paso Merchant Energy-Petroleum Company's and Coastal Eagle Point Oil Company's First Set of CompanySpecific Interrogatories and Document Requests 6. Defendant Gulf Oil Limited Partnership's Requests for Admission, Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Plaintiff City of New York 7. The Premcor Refining Group Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff City of New York 8. The Shell Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests Regarding Punitive Damages 9. Defendants Sunoco, Inc. and Sunoco, Inc. (R&M)'s First Set of Company-Specific Interrogatories and Document Requests 10. Total Petrochemicals USA, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff City of New York 11. Valero Defendants and Ultramar Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff City of New York This extension request is consistent with the parties' agreement to extend the fact-discovery cutoff for already-served discovery by 30 days. Please indicate whether you consent to this extension by reply email by the close of business on Tuesday, December 16. you in advance for your professional courtesy. Best regards, Nick Campins Sher Leff LLP 450 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 [phone] x202 (phone) [phone] (fax) [e-mail] Thank

3/9/2009

The information in this E-mail message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you should not further disseminate, distribute, or forward this E-mail message. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender. Thank you.

3/9/2009

EXHIBIT C2

Nick Campins
From: Sent: To: Cc: Pardo, James [[e-mail]] Tuesday, December 16, 2008 10:34 AM Nick Campins Pejan, Ramin; Todd Robins; Jeff Osbun; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]

Subject: RE: City of New York vs Amerada Hess Corp et al Case #: NY-04-CV-03417 Mr. Campins, The defendants to whom you made this extension request have asked me to forward this single response on their behalf. The pre-trial schedule has both sides on several very tight deadlines -- a fact the City emphasized last week when a few defendants requested one additional week (7 calendar days total) to prepare their respective responses to the City's pipeline RFAs and Interrogatories. Given the very tight schedule that both sides have negotiated, agreed to and jointly proposed for the Court, Defendants cannot agree to the 30+ day extension you have requested. Defendants will agree to an extension of seven (7) business days for the City to prepare and serve its responses. Please confirm. - Jim From: Nick Campins [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:13 PM To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail] Cc: Pardo, James; Pejan, Ramin; Todd Robins; Jeff Osbun Subject: City of New York vs Amerada Hess Corp et al Case #: NY-04-CV-03417 Counsel: I was recently admitted pro hac vice as counsel for Plaintiff City of New York ("the City") in the above-captioned action. I write to request an extension until January 19, 2009 for the City to respond to the following contention interrogatories served by you on behalf of your clients: 1. Certain Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests Regarding Punitive Damages 2. Atlantic Richfield Company's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff City of New York 3. BP Products North America Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff City of New York 4. CITGO Defendants' First Set of Company-Specific Interrogatories and Document Requests 5. Defendants El Paso Merchant Energy-Petroleum Company's and Coastal Eagle Point Oil Company's First Set of Company-Specific Interrogatories and Document Requests 6. Defendant Gulf Oil Limited Partnership's Requests for Admission, Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Plaintiff City of New York 7. The Premcor Refining Group Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff City of New York 8. The Shell Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests Regarding Punitive Damages 9. Defendants Sunoco, Inc. and Sunoco, Inc. (R&M)'s First Set of Company-Specific Interrogatories and Document Requests 10. Total Petrochemicals USA, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff City of New York

3/9/2009

11. Valero Defendants and Ultramar Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff City of New York This extension request is consistent with the parties' agreement to extend the fact-discovery cutoff for already-served discovery by 30 days. Please indicate whether you consent to this extension by reply email by the close of business on Tuesday, December 16. Thank you in advance for your professional courtesy. Best regards, Nick Campins Sher Leff LLP 450 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 [phone] x202 (phone) [phone] (fax) [e-mail]

The information in this E-mail message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you should not further disseminate, distribute, or forward this E-mail message. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender. Thank you.

******************************************************************************************************************* IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained herein (including any attachments), unless specifically stated otherwise, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter herein. ________________________________________________________________________________ This message is a PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL communication. This message and all attachments are a private communication sent by a law firm and may be confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you. ******************************************************************************************************************* Please visit http://www.mwe.com/ for more information about our Firm.

3/9/2009

EXHIBIT C3

Nick Campins
From: Sent: To: Cc: Nick Campins Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:57 AM 'Pardo, James' [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Pejan, Ramin; Todd Robins; Jeff Osbun

Subject: RE: City of New York vs Amerada Hess Corp et al Case #: NY-04-CV-03417 Mr. Pardo: I am disappointed to hear that defendants are unwilling to provide the City with a sufficient extension to respond to the massive and unreasonable volume of discovery served by defendants, which includes 12 separate sets of Contention Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Document Requests, containing over 240 separate interrogatories and requests, some of which contain over 50 subparts each, and which ask about facts contained in millions of pages of documents and the testimony of hundreds of witnesses, with tens of thousands of pages of deposition and other testimony. As you know, the parties' counsel in this litigation have always been able to accommodate one another's discovery adjournment requests in good faith. Your unreasonable offer to provide only an additional week that coincides with the December holidays hardly conforms to past practice. Defendants' refusal to grant a longer extension based on a "tight schedule" is all the more disappointing in light of the parties' recent extension of the fact discovery cut-off, which expressly contemplated an extension of already-served discovery until January 19, 2009. As you are well aware, the City worked in good faith with Defendants and gave them the requested extension to complete their 30(b)(6) depositions of the City and other discovery. Finally, the City further disagrees with your mischaracterization of the City's response to Certain Defendants' request for a one week extension regarding the City's Requests for Admissions to all Defendants regarding Pipelines and the City's Fourth Set of Interrogatories Regarding Pipelines. In fact, as you are well aware, the City agreed to such an extension in a December 12, 2008 e-mail to you, asking only that Defendants not object to its supplementation of reports with any additional data, saying: As per our conversation this morning, the City does not oppose granting a one week extension to the Sunoco, Coastal and Marathon defendants to respond to the City's outstanding interrogatories regarding pipelines (and RFAs with respect to Coastal) on the condition that the City reserves its rights to enable the City's product distribution expert to submit a supplement to his expert report to respond to this new information on or before December 31, 2008. Id. In light of the above, the City will file Responses and Objections on December 18 and 19. Sincerely, Nick Campins Sher Leff LLP 450 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 [phone] x202 (phone) [phone] (fax) [e-mail]

The information in this E-mail message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you should not further disseminate, distribute, or forward this E-mail message. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender. Thank you.
From: Pardo, James [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 10:34 AM To: Nick Campins Cc: Pejan, Ramin; Todd Robins; Jeff Osbun; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];

3/9/2009

[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail] Subject: RE: City of New York vs Amerada Hess Corp et al Case #: NY-04-CV-03417 Mr. Campins, The defendants to whom you made this extension request have asked me to forward this single response on their behalf. The pre-trial schedule has both sides on several very tight deadlines -- a fact the City emphasized last week when a few defendants requested one additional week (7 calendar days total) to prepare their respective responses to the City's pipeline RFAs and Interrogatories. Given the very tight schedule that both sides have negotiated, agreed to and jointly proposed for the Court, Defendants cannot agree to the 30+ day extension you have requested. Defendants will agree to an extension of seven (7) business days for the City to prepare and serve its responses. Please confirm. - Jim From: Nick Campins [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:13 PM To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail] Cc: Pardo, James; Pejan, Ramin; Todd Robins; Jeff Osbun Subject: City of New York vs Amerada Hess Corp et al Case #: NY-04-CV-03417 Counsel: I was recently admitted pro hac vice as counsel for Plaintiff City of New York ("the City") in the above-captioned action. I write to request an extension until January 19, 2009 for the City to respond to the following contention interrogatories served by you on behalf of your clients: 1. Certain Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests Regarding Punitive Damages 2. Atlantic Richfield Company's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff City of New York 3. BP Products North America Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff City of New York 4. CITGO Defendants' First Set of Company-Specific Interrogatories and Document Requests 5. Defendants El Paso Merchant Energy-Petroleum Company's and Coastal Eagle Point Oil Company's First Set of Company-Specific Interrogatories and Document Requests 6. Defendant Gulf Oil Limited Partnership's Requests for Admission, Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Plaintiff City of New York 7. The Premcor Refining Group Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff City of New York 8. The Shell Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests Regarding Punitive Damages 9. Defendants Sunoco, Inc. and Sunoco, Inc. (R&M)'s First Set of Company-Specific Interrogatories and Document Requests 10. Total Petrochemicals USA, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff City of New York 11. Valero Defendants and Ultramar Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff City of New York This extension request is consistent with the parties' agreement to extend the fact-discovery cutoff for already-served discovery by 30 days. Please indicate whether you consent to this extension by reply email by the close of business on Tuesday, December 16. Thank you in advance for your professional courtesy. Best regards,

3/9/2009

Nick Campins Sher Leff LLP 450 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 [phone] x202 (phone) [phone] (fax) [e-mail]

The information in this E-mail message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you should not further disseminate, distribute, or forward this E-mail message. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender. Thank you.

******************************************************************************************************************* IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained herein (including any attachments), unless specifically stated otherwise, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter herein. ________________________________________________________________________________ This message is a PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL communication. This message and all attachments are a private communication sent by a law firm and may be confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you. ******************************************************************************************************************* Please visit http://www.mwe.com/ for more information about our Firm.

3/9/2009

EXHIBIT C4

24026899

Mar 3 2009 2:04PM

EXHIBIT C5

EXHIBIT C6