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

Filing 3624

FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - DECLARATION of Ledger in Support re: (157 in 1:04-cv-04973-SAS) MOTION for Summary Judgment for Lack of Evidence Pertaining to Causation.. Document filed by Coastal Chem, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit #01, #2 Exhibit #02, #3 Exhibit #03, #4 Exhibit #04, #5 Exhibit #05, #6 Exhibit #06, #7 Exhibit #07)Filed In Associated Cases: 1:00-cv-01898-SAS-DCF, 1:04-cv-04973-SAS(Allen, Brent) Modified on 3/18/2013 (db).

EXHIBIT 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
("MTBE") Products Liability Litigation:

MDL No. 1358 (SAS)

This Document Relates To:
City of Fresno v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., et al.

THE SHELL DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

Defendants Shell Oil Company, Equilon Enterprises LLC, Equiva Services LLC and
Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. (the "Shell Defendants"), through counsel and pursuant to
Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby responds to Plaintiffs First Set
of Interrogatories.
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

The Shell Defendants are submitting a single answer to the interrogatories served in the
above-captioned case. In compiling their answers, the Shell Defendants have conducted
interviews of numerous employees, reviewed computer databases and spreadsheets, and have
taken all reasonable efforts to provide information sought by Plaintiffs interrogatories.
Computerized information that would assist in preparing responses to Plaintiffs interrogatories
is generally unavailable for periods prior to 1999. Although some computerized information
may be available for periods prior to that time, it is contained on computer systems that are no
longer used by the Shell Defendants and those systems are not readily accessible without undue
burden or expense. Where available, such information has been provided.
Computerized information regarding gasoline supplies for defendants Shell Oil Company
and Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. is generally unavailable for the time periods requested.
In 1998, the western United States refining and marketing businesses of Shell and Texaco were
combined in a joint venture limited liability company, Equilon Enterprises LLC. Relatively

complete computerized information is available for Equilon and has been provided. In addition,
anecdotal information regarding historical gasoline and MTBE suppliers has been ascertained
through interviews with company personnel and has also been provided to the extent available.
Equiva Services LLC neither refined nor supplied gasoline in the City of Fresno or in
California.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
1.

The Shell Defendants object to the instructions and definitions set forth in

Plaintiff's discovery requests to the extent they deviate from or purport to impose requirements
other than or in addition to those required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local
Civil Rules for the Southern District of New York. The definitions provided in Local Civil Rule
26.3 are automatically incorporated into all discovery requests and "[TI]o discovery request shall
use broader definitions or rules of construction."
2.

The Shell Defendants object to Plaintiff's discovery requests to the extent they

seek information outside the restricted scope of discovery permissible under the Local Civil
Rules of this Court, and in particular Rule 33.3 which limits the types of interrogatories that are
permitted.
3.

The Shell Defendants object to Plaintiff's discovery requests to the extent they

seek information outside the restricted scope of discovery permissible under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and in particular Rule 33(a) which limits the number of interrogatories that are
permitted.
4.

The Shell Defendants object to Plaintiff's discovery requests to the extent they

purport to call for the production and/or disclosure of privileged documents, materials, or
matters, including but not limited to those protected by the attorney client privilege, the
work-product doctrine, the joint-defense privilege, the self-evaluative privilege, and/or the
privilege accorded to settlement materials. The Shell Defendants make these responses on the
condition that the inadvertent production of information or documents covered by such privilege,
2

rule, or doctrine does not waive any of Shell's rights to assert such privilege, rule, or doctrine
and that the Shell Defendants may withdraw or recover any such information or documents
inadvertently produced as soon as identified. The Shell Defendants may withhold documents
and/or information subject to the foregoing privileges. Upon request, the Shell Defendants will
provide a description of such documents and/or information in accordance with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
5.

The Shell Defendants object to Plaintiff's discovery requests to the extent they

purport to require Shell to provide information or materials outside of its possession, custody, or
control, and/or information that is equally available to Plaintiff.
6.

The Shell Defendants object to Plaintiff's discovery requests to the extent they

seek information relating to events that occurred prior to initial manufacture, sale, or distribution
by the Shell Defendants of gasoline containing MTBE on the grounds that those discovery
requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive, and on the further grounds that they
seek information not relevant to the subject matter of this case and not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
7.

The Shell Defendants object to Plaintiffs discovery requests to the extent they

seek information pertaining to events or operations outside of relevant areas on the grounds that
those discovery requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive, and on the further
grounds that they seek information not relevant to the subject matter of this case and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, although in certain
instances when information is maintained on a broader geographic basis than relevant areas it
may be practical or necessary to respond with information on such a broader basis.
8.

The Shell Defendants object to Plaintiff's discovery requests to the extent they

seek information from an individual and/or entity who is not a party to this action on the basis
that such requests are overly broad, onerous, burdensome, and seek information that is not within
the knowledge of Shell.

3

9.

The Shell Defendants object to Plaintiffs discovery requests to the extent they are

vague, ambiguous, and/or not susceptible to a reasonably clear definition or interpretation.
10.

The Shell Defendants object to Plaintiff's discovery requests to the extent they are

unduly burdensome, oppressive, and overly broad.
11.

The Shell Defendants object to Plaintiff's discovery requests to the extent they

seek information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. No disclosure by Shell of any information shall constitute a waiver of any
objections.
12.

The Shell Defendants object to Plaintiff's discovery requests to the extent they

seek information that cannot be located after a reasonable search of its records reasonably
believed most likely to contain the responsive information on the grounds that any such
requirement would be unduly burdensome and oppressive.
13.

The Shell Defendants object to Plaintiff's discovery requests to the extent they

contain no time limitation or an unreasonable time limitation regarding the information
requested. Shell further objects to providing any discovery response for a time period that is
beyond applicable statutes of limitations.
14.

In compliance with Rule 26.3(c)(3) of the Local Civil Rules of this Court, the

Shell Defendants provide herein the present or last known place of employment and address for
each person "identified" in response to Plaintiff's interrogatories. If a person is identified in
responses to multiple interrogatories, the present or last known place of employment and address
are provided only once. All current and former employees of Shell are represented by counsel in
connection with this action. Plaintiff should not contact any current or foliner employees
directly, but instead should address any inquiries to counsel for Shell.
15.

The Shell Defendants object to Plaintiffs discovery requests to the extent they

request information beyond the limitations and parameters agreed among the parties or imposed
by the Court. Shell's responses are subject to all such limitations and parameters and incorporate
by reference the discovery parameters imposed by the Court.
4

16.

The Shell Defendants object to Plaintiffs discovery requests to the extent they

seek trade secrets and/or confidential, sensitive, or proprietary information. The Shell
Defendants make these responses on the condition that the inadvertent production of information
or documents that disclose trade secrets and/or confidential, sensitive, or proprietary information
does not waive any of Shell's rights to protect such trade secrets and/or confidential, sensitive, or
proprietary information and that Shell may withdraw or recover any such information or
documents inadvertently produced as soon as identified.
17.

The Shell Defendants object to Plaintiff's discovery requests to the extent they

seek Shell's trial proof, strategy, and evidence at this time on the basis that such proofs and
evidence are not subject to identification and production.
18.

The Shell Defendants object to Plaintiffs discovery requests to the extent they

contain or are predicated upon legal or factual assumptions that are not correct.
19.

The Shell Defendants object to Plaintiffs discovery requests insofar as they

purport to call for legal conclusions.
20.

The information the Shell Defendants produce in response to these discovery

requests, if any, will be produced solely for the purpose of this action. Such information is
subject to all objections regarding relevance, authenticity, materiality, propriety and admissibility
and any other objections that would require exclusion of the information, if such information
were offered as evidence at trial, all of which objections are hereby expressly reserved and may
be interposed at the time of trial.
21.

The Shell Defendants' responses are based on information available as a result of

a good faith search in the time allowed before submitting the responses. The Shell Defendants
reserve the right to supplement or modify these responses as appropriate in the event additional
information becomes available.
22.

The Shell Defendants' decision to provide information notwithstanding the

objectionable nature of any of the discovery requests should not be construed as a stipulation that

5

the information is relevant, a waiver of Shell's general or specific objections, or an agreement
that requests for similar discovery will be treated in a similar manner.
23.

The Shell Defendants reserve the right to amend or supplement its responses as

appropriate, as well as the right to object to other discovery directed to the subject matter of the
discovery requests.
24.

These General Objections and Limitations apply to each discovery request as

though restated in full therein.
25.

All responses are subject to appropriate confidentiality agreements negotiated, or

to be negotiated, between the parties, or as may be imposed by the Court.
26.

No disclosure by the Shell Defendants of any information shall constitute a

waiver of any objections.
INTERROGATORIES
1.

Please identify the name and address of each entity (including You, if applicable)

that supplied You with MTBE Products for ultimate delivery into the City of Fresno at any time
since the date of first MTBE use in the City of Fresno; the dates or date ranges when each such
entity supplied You with MTBE Products, and the name and address of each Refinery from
which such MTBE Products were supplied.
RESPONSE: The Shell Defendants object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly
broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving any of their objections, the Shell
Defendants respond as follows:
The Shell Defendants have undertaken a review of records reasonably available to them
and have conducted interviews with company personnel in an effort to determine the identities of
companies, in addition to themselves, that have supplied the Shell Defendants with gasoline that
may have contained (but did not necessarily contain) MTBE at locations from which the Shell

6

Defendants have from time-to-time provided gasoline to stations in the City of Fresno; however,
the Shell Defendants make no representations that these suppliers' gasoline necessarily was
delivered into the City of Fresno. Product descriptions provided do not always allow the Shell
Defendants to ascertain with precision whether particular types of conventional gasoline
contained MTBE, as the specification sheets for those varieties of gasoline permitted, but did not
require, that gasoline to contain MTBE.
SUPPLIERS OF GASOLINE TO EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC
Company Name
Arco Products
Ultramar Inc./Ultra= Diamond
Shamrock
Chevron USA
ExxonMobil
Tosco Refining & Mktg.
Tesoro
Valero Refining & Mktg.

Date Range
1999-2002
1999-2002

Location
Fresno
Fresno

1999-2002
1999
1999-2002
2001-2002
2002-2003

Fresno
Fresno
Fresno
Fresno
Fresno

The Shell Defendants do not have any readily ascertainable information regarding the
refinery at which the gasoline at issue was refined, nor is that information that ordinarily would
have been provided to the Shell Defendants.
2.

Please identify the name and address of each entity from which You obtained neat

MTBE for use at any Refinery owned or operated by You that supplied gasoline for ultimate
delivery into Orange County; the dates or date ranges when MTBE was acquired from each such
supplier, and the name and address of Your Refinery(ies).
RESPONSE: The Shell Defendants object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly
broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving any of their objections, the Shell
Defendants respond as follows:
Prior to the effective date of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (i.e., November
1992), the Shell Defendants generally obtained neat MTBE from three sources: Arco Chemical
Company, Texas Petrochemical Company, and Texaco Chemical Company.
7

Following enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which required
increased use of MTBE in gasoline, Shell obtained MTBE from a number of other suppliers
depending upon supply and demand issues. Suppliers of neat MTBE to the Shell Defendants in
California since approximately 1996 have included Arco Chemical Company, BP West Coast
Products LLC, Chevron U.S.A., Inc., ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Petro Diamond, Inc., SABIC
Americas, Inc., Sadaf, Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co., ConocoPhillips Co., TFAMM, Valero
Marketing and Supply Co., Kern Oil & Refining Co., Lyondell Petrochemical Co., Tesoro
Refining and Marketing Co., Enron Clean Fuels Co., Murex N.A., Ltd., Ultramar Inc., Ultramar
Diamond Shamrock, Star Enterprise, Noble Americas Corp., Vitol S.A., Inc., Oxygenated
Marketing and Trading, Tradax Energy, Inc., Ecofuel S.p.A., Huntsman Petrochemical
Corporation, American Agip, Oxygenate Division, Astra Oil Co., Inc., ATOFINA
Petrochemicals, Inc., BP North American Petroleum, BP Products North America, Flint Hills
Resources, LP, Global Octanes Corp., Motiva Enterprises LLC, Neste Canada Inc., Texas
Petrochemicals Corporation, Tramrnochem, Equiva Trading, LTC Limited, Tauber Oil
Company, Glencore Ltd., and Chevron U.S.A. Products Co.
It cannot be determined with precision which company's MTBE was blended into
gasoline that was shipped to any particular locality.
Addresses of the Shell Defendants' refineries that may have produced gasoline that
ultimately was supplied to the City of Fresno are as follows:
Shell Martinez Refinery
3485 Pacheco Boulevard
Martinez, California 94553
Dates of Shell Ownership: 1915-1998, 2002-present
Dates of Equilon ownership: 1998-2002
Shell Bakersfield Refinery
P. 0. Box 1476
Bakersfield, California 93302
Dates of Shell Ownership: 2002-present
Dates of Equilon ownership: 1998-2002
Dates of Texaco ownership: 1984-1998

8

Dates of Getty ownership: 1980-1984
Dates of Reserve Oil and Gas Company ownership: 1970-1980
Dates of Mohawk ownership: 1932-1970
3.

Please identify each Terminal You use or used to supply gasoline for ultimate

delivery into the City of Fresno, at any time since the date of first MTBE use in the City of
Fresno; and the dates or date ranges when you have used such Terminal. For each Terminal You
use or used, please also state whether You owned or operated such Terminal or were a
Terminalling Partner at such Terminal.

RESPONSE: The Shell Defendants object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is
overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving any of their objections, the
Shell Defendants respond as follows:
Subject to and without waiving any of their objections, the Shell Defendants identify the
following terminals from which they may have supplied gasoline to the City of Fresno:
State

Terminal Name

Terminal Operator

California

Fresno

Kinder Morgan

Dated: August 30, 2004

Respectfully submitted,

Richard E. Wallace, Jr.
Peter C. Condron
Rebecca L. Schuller
WALLACE KING MARRARO & BRANSON PLLC
1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants Shell Oil Company,
Equilon Enterprises LLC, Equiva Services LLC and
Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc.

9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing to be served by
electronic mail upon the following counsel of record on this 30th day of August, 2004. A true and
correct copy of the foregoing will also be sent by overnight delivery (for delivery August 31, 2004)
upon counsel for plaintiffs.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Stanley N. Alpert
Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038

Counsel for ExxonMobil Corporation
Peter John Sacripanti
James A. Pardo
McDeiinott, Will & Emery
50 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10020