Stark-Tusc-Wayne Joint Solid Waste Management District et al v. American Landfill, Inc. et al
Filing
111
Memorandum Opinion and Order For the reasons stated, Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery of General Documents Relating to Landfill Gases and Leachate Produced by Landfills is denied. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 11/9/2012. Related ECF Nos. 79 and 80 .(S,L)
PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
STARK-TUSCARAWA-WAYNE JOINT
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AMERICAN LANDFILL, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 5:10cv119
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER [Regarding ECF Nos. 79; 80]
This matter is before the Court based upon Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of
Discovery of General Documents Relating to Landfill Gases and Leachate Produced by Landfills
(ECF No. 79) and Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition (ECF No. 80).1 For the reasons that
follow, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for the discovery of documents set forth in its
memorandum (ECF No. 79).
I.
Plaintiffs brought this action against Waste Management, Inc. (“WMI”) and American
Landfill Inc. (“ALI”) (collectively “Defendants”), alleging violations of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6901, et seq., and Ohio law pertaining to
solid waste management. ECF No. 50 at 3. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint alleges that
1
On July 5, 2011, the Court issued an Order instructing counsel to inform the Court in
writing why information and documents related to the production of landfill gases and leachate
by landfills, in general, is relevant to the instant matter. See July 5 Minutes of Proceedings.
Because Plaintiffs are asking the Court to allow discovery as to certain documents in the
possession of Defendants, the Court treats the memorandum filed by Plaintiffs (ECF No. 79) as a
motion.
(5:10cv119)
Defendants improperly handled and disposed of solid and hazardous waste, hazardous waste
constituents, landfill gas, leachate, contaminants and other hazardous substances at the American
Landfill. ECF No. 50 at 3.
ALI currently owns and operates the American Landfill, and is owned and controlled
by WMI. ECF No. 50 at 7. Plaintiffs allege WMI controls and manages ALI based, in part, upon
the information collected over the years at both ALI and “sister” landfills also owned and
controlled by WMI. ECF No. 79 at 2. Plaintiffs move the Court to allow discovery of data and
information as to these other landfills controlled and operated by Defendants.
II.
Plaintiffs argue the discovery of the data and information from Defendants’ other landfills
is relevant to the instant matter because the data and information Defendants collect from the
other landfills informs and instructs Defendants as to how they should manage the American
Landfill. ECF No. 79 at 2-3. Plaintiffs assert they can then show what Defendants knew and
evaluate Defendants’ response to problems at the American Landfill. ECF No. 79 at 2-3.
However, the examples set forth by Plaintiffs are not illustrative of the reasons asserted.2
Plaintiffs appear to suggest the data from the other landfills can be compared to the American
Landfill to show whether certain conditions existed or exist at the American Landfill. The Court
assumes that conditions at the American Landfill will be introduced using data and information
discovered about the American Landfill, and notes that any comparative study involving data
2
It is not clear, for example, how leachate contamination patterns at other sites will assist
Plaintiffs in showing that the pattern of contamination at the American Landfill is actually
leachate contamination and not, as Defendants assert, brine contamination. ECF No. 79 at 3.
2
(5:10cv119)
taken from the American Landfill can be achieved by comparing that data to industry standards
through expert witness testimony, as Defendants suggest.3 ECF No. 80 at 4.
III.
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery of General Documents
Relating to Landfill Gases and Leachate Produced by Landfills is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 9, 2012
Date
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
3
Defendants additionally argue that landfills vary by: “the type and volume of waste
disposed there, how the landfill was operated, the site-specific design of the engineered
components of the landfill, how those components function to prevent or minimize the escape of
contaminants, whether the monitoring systems in place at the landfill were properly designed and
installed so that they provide early warning to the landfill and regulators that contaminants may
be escaping, the location of the landfill, the climate setting of the landfill (landfills located in
wetter climates have different characteristics than landfills located in drier climates), and the
site-specific geologic and hydrogeologic conditions that control the potential to transport
contaminants that may have escaped.” ECF No. 80 at 1-2. Thus, Plaintiffs’ argument that in
order to know how much leachate Defendants should expect to be generated at the American
Landfill based upon what levels are generated at Defendants’ other landfills is problematic and,
in any event, could be achieved using expert testimony and industry standards. Plaintiffs have
not alleged such industry standards do not exist or would somehow be insufficient for purposes
of comparison.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?