United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
David B. Rodes, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., Jason T. Shipp, Goldberg, Persky, Jennings & White, Pittsburgh, PA, Victoria Antion, Motley Rice, Morgantown, WV, Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Jonathan D. Orent, Michaela S. McInnis, Motley Rice LLC, Providence, RI, for Plaintiffs.
John P. Phillips, Peter C. Meier, Alyse L. Katz, Caley M. Heekin, Christopher M. Mooney, Elisa M. Pandolfi, Paul Hastings LLP, Edward A. Bayley, Sean M. Callagy, Simona A. Agnolucci, Arnold & Porter LLC, San Francisco, CA, Jonathan I. Coronel, Arnold & Porter, Los Angeles, CA, Joel D. Rohlf, Kevin M. Henley, Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, DC, Chris Michael Temple, K& L Gates LLP, Jarrod Shaw, Reed Smith LLP, Jason T. Shipp, Goldberg, Persky, Jennings & White, Matthew H. Meade, Buchanan Ingersoll, Pittsburgh, PA, Nancy G. Milburn, Mary E. Sylvester, Matthew D. Grant, Philip H. Curtis, Reuben S. Koolyk, Tanya E. Kalivas, Arnold & Porter LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROBERT C. MITCHELL, United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiffs bring these actions alleging that Defendants, Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc., B & W Technical Services, Inc. and Atlantic Richfield Co., as successors in interest to the Nuclear Materials Corporation (" NUMEC" ), are responsible for the release of radioactive, hazardous and toxic substances into the environment surrounding two nuclear materials processing facilities located in the Borough of Apollo and in Parks Township, Pennsylvania, during the operation, remediation and/or decommissioning of these facilities. Plaintiffs allege that the releases have contaminated the air, soil, surface water and ground water in the surrounding communities and caused them personal injuries and property damages. Plaintiffs assert jurisdiction under the Price Anderson Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2210(n)(2), and the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2011, and also assert state law claims of negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, civil conspiracy, and wrongful death and survival, for which supplemental jurisdiction is asserted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
Currently pending before the Court for disposition are motions, filed by the Defendants in each case, which contend that Plaintiffs have failed to fully comply with this Court's January 24, 2012 Case Management Order (CMO) regarding their responsibility to set forth a prima facie case in support of their claims, particularly on the issues of each Plaintiff's exposure, dose and theory of causation. Defendants request that the Court narrow the issues by precluding Plaintiffs from pursuing, offering or relying upon evidence relating to theories of exposure, dose or causation that are not supported by prima facie evidence.
The motions have been fully briefed. For the reasons that follow, they will be granted in part and denied in part.
On January 24, 2012, the Court entered a CMO requiring that, within 90 days, each Plaintiff provide Defendants with admissible evidence, in the form of expert affidavits or otherwise, establishing the prima facie elements or his or her claims, including:
a. an identification by name of the specific radionuclide(s) released from Defendants' facilities in excess of the applicable federal permissible limits;
b. an identification of each exposure pathway(s) through which each Plaintiff was exposed to each specific radionuclide;
c. the facility from which the radionuclide(s) originated and the dates of each Plaintiff's exposure to those specific radionuclides originating from that facility;
d. the numerical dose, if any, for each Plaintiff's claimed exposure to the specific radionuclides originating from that facility;
e. the epidemiological evidence demonstrating that the specific radionuclide(s) to which the Plaintiff was exposed causes the Plaintiff's specific disease(s) (general causation) and that the exposure(s) and resulting dose (if any) caused the Plaintiff's specific disease(s) (specific causation); and
f. the scientific and medical evidence providing the basis for and supporting each such prima facie element of his or her claim.
2. Plaintiffs['] submittal pursuant to this Order shall not use phrases such as " including, but not limited to" or " including without limitation" when responding to items 1(a)-(e) above. Plaintiffs shall be prohibited from asserting any theory of exposure, dose, or causation that is not specifically stated in Plaintiffs' response to the Court's Order and supported by admissible evidence of a prima facie theory.
Plaintiffs, who had objected to the CMO, filed motions for clarification of the CMO and " motions to determine standards and procedures for adjudication of the sufficiency of Plaintiffs' prima facie materials," and these motions were denied by the undersigned. In addition, they filed objections to the CMO, which were overruled by the district judges in each case. See Civ. A. No. 10-143, ECF No. 147; Civ. A. No. 10-368, text-order dated May 15, 2012; Civ. A. No. 10-650, ECF Nos. 112, 113; Civ. A. No. 10-728, ECF No. 131; Civ. A. No. 10-744, ECF No. 128; Civ. A. No. 10-908, ECF No. 145; Civ. A. No. 10-1736, ECF No. 116; Civ. A. No. 11-898, text-order dated May 15, 2012; Civ. A. No. 11-1381, ECF No. 41.
On April 24, 2012, Plaintiffs submitted five expert reports in support of their claims (from Dr. Howard Hu, Dr. Paul Doetsch, Mr. Bernd Franke, Dr. Michael Ketterer and Dr. Joseph Ring) and on May 8, 2012, they submitted a sixth report from Dr. James Melius. Defendants filed motions regarding the five reports on May 30, 2012 and submitted supplements regarding the sixth report on June 14, 2012. Plaintiffs filed their briefs in opposition on July 23, 2012, and Defendants filed reply briefs on August 21, 2012. Although Defendants requested oral argument in connection with these motions, the undersigned has determined that oral argument is not necessary and the motions can be decided based upon the briefs and evidence submitted by the parties.
Standard of Review
Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' motions improperly challenge their claims in the manner of a motion for summary judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 or that they improperly seek to limit the evidence they may offer at trial in the manner of a motion in limine. Defendants respond that the motions properly address whether Plaintiffs have complied with the CMO.
As noted above, the CMO itself stated that Plaintiffs would be prohibited from asserting any theory of exposure, dose or causation that was not specifically stated in their response to the CMO and supported by admissible evidence. (CMO ¶ 2.) Thus, Defendants' motions are neither motions for summary judgment under Rule 56 nor motions in limine, but rather the appropriate mechanism to probe whether Plaintiffs have complied with the CMO. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(c)(2)(A) (the Court may adopt procedures for the purpose of " formulating and simplifying the issues, and eliminating frivolous claims or defenses." )
As explained by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit:
The pre-discovery orders in issue are of a type known as Lone Pine orders, named for Lore v. Lone Pine Corp., 1986 WL 637507, No. L-33606-85 (N.J.Super.Ct.1986). Lone Pine orders are designed to handle the complex issues and potential burdens on defendants and the court in mass tort litigation. In the federal courts, such orders are issued under the wide discretion afforded district judges over the management of discovery under Fed.R.Civ.P. 16.
In these two cases, treated as related in the district court, there are approximately one thousand six hundred plaintiffs suing over one hundred defendants for a range of injuries occurring over a span of up to forty years. Neither the defendants nor the court was on notice from plaintiffs' pleadings as to how many instances of which diseases were being claimed as injuries or which facilities were alleged to have caused those injuries. It was within the court's discretion to take steps to manage the complex and potentially very burdensome discovery that the cases would require. See Landry v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l AFL-CIO, 901 F.2d 404, 436 (5th Cir.1990); Fournier v. Textron, Inc., 776 F.2d 532, 534 (5th Cir.1985) (noting district court's authority to manage and develop complex litigation discovery).
The scheduling orders issued below essentially required that information which plaintiffs should have had before filing their claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(3). Each plaintiff should have had at least some information regarding the nature of his injuries, the circumstances under which he could have been exposed to harmful substances, and the basis for believing that the named defendants were responsible for his injuries. See Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., 197 F.3d 161, 165 (5th Cir.[ (1999) ] ) (plaintiff's complaint is insufficient where it is devoid of " names, dates, locations, times, or any facts that would put [defendant] on notice as to what conduct supports ... his claims" ). The affidavits supplied by plaintiffs did not provide this information. The district court did not commit clear error or an abuse of discretion in refusing to allow discovery to proceed without better definition of plaintiffs' claims.
Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 340-41 (5th Cir.2000). See also Avila v. Willits Envt'l Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833-35 (9th Cir.2011) (affirming application of Lone Pine order and district court's dismissal of claims due to plaintiffs' failure to make a sufficient prima facie showing of exposure and causation).
Plaintiffs note that the Price Anderson Act (PAA) indicates that " the substantive
rules for decision in [a public liability action] shall be derived from the law of the State in which the nuclear incident involved occurs, unless such law is inconsistent with the provisions of section ." 42 U.S.C. § 2014(hh). Thus, they contend that they need only present a prima facie case of negligence under Pennsylvania law. Plaintiffs then describe how the PAA and Pennsylvania law intersect, in that: 1) demonstrating that a defendant caused a nuclear release in excess of applicable federal statutes establishes two of the four elements necessary to bring a PAA case in Pennsylvania, namely duty by the defendant and breach; 2) under the PAA, a plaintiff must show a violation of 10 C.F.R. § 20.1005 (which limits the amount of radiation a licensee may allow to be released in the area of its facility) or 10 C.F.R. § 20.1006 (which provides that licensees shall not possess, use or transfer licensed material so as to release to an unrestricted area radioactive material in concentrations which exceed the limits specified in a table attached to the regulation); and 3) proving causation under Pennsylvania law does not require a plaintiff to show that radiation was the exclusive cause of harm, only a " substantial factor" as indicated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 431(a) and thus evidence that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the alleged negligence increased the risk of injury actually sustained is sufficient even if the actual procuring cause of the injury cannot be determined and no particular degree of increased risk is required. They assert that they have shown by expert testimony that each of them was exposed to ionizing radiation released from Defendants' plants in violation of the law, that their exposures to radiation increased the risk that each would contract the cancers they did, and that the exposure was a substantial contributing factor in causing each Plaintiff's cancer. They also argue that they have made a proper prima facie case of recklessness under Pennsylvania law and the relevant provisions of the PAA because deliberately exposing people to radiation in excess of permitted levels in the course of operating a plant has been found sufficient to make out a claim for punitive damages in Pennsylvania, and they have proffered evidence that Defendants chose the economic benefit of continued plant operation over public safety by knowingly exposing Plaintiffs and their community to unlawful levels of radiation on an ongoing basis.
However, Plaintiffs' arguments miss the mark. Defendants are not arguing that Plaintiffs have violated the Lone Pine CMO by failing to present any evidence that any Plaintiff suffered exposure to radiation from any facility operated by Defendants that increased the risk that the individual would contract any cancer, thereby calling for the dismissal of the cases utilizing a standard higher than that required under Pennsylvania law or the PAA. Rather, they are arguing, as anticipated by the CMO, that Plaintiffs' claims should be narrowed to proceed with the prima facie cases that are met, but not for the radionuclides, pathways and exposure doses that are not supported by prima facie evidence. Therefore, the Court will proceed to review Plaintiffs' evidence to determine the extent to which it complied with the CMO.
Summary of Plaintiffs' Expert Reports
Joseph P. Ring, Ph.D.
Dr. Ring was retained by Plaintiffs to offer an expert opinion regarding alleged
releases of radiation from Defendants' facilities at Parks and Apollo (i.e., a source term expert). Plaintiffs contend that Dr. Ring indicated that radioactive materials including plutonium and highly enriched uranium were used at both Parks and Apollo (Ring Rpt. at 5); that the operational, health and safety practices of the facilities did not comply with industry standards for much of the time they were operated ( id. at 5, 9, 12); that the radiation protection programs were not adequate to monitor the radioactive material used and management knew this to be the case ( id. at 5, 6, 21); that compliance records showed several large-scale releases of ionizing radiation into surrounding neighborhoods ( id. at 5); that NUMEC was regularly issued violations of federal regulations and also regularly failed to comply with orders from the Atomic Energy Commission and/or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on matters related to health and safety ( id. ); that NUMEC's environmental monitoring was also inadequate and improperly accounted for the extent of environmental releases ( id. at 6); that NUMEC's failure to properly monitor and report levels of radiation led employees at the facilities to be placed in a special exposure cohort by the United States Department of Health and Human Services and, as such, were " presumed to have sufficient radiation exposure to cause a reasonable likelihood it may have endangered their health" if they were employed 250 or more days at the plant ( id. ); that NUMEC's improper operations resulted in illegal dumping of radioactive materials in the soil and water around the plants and there were also excessive and unlawful emissions of radioactive materials from plant stacks ( id. ); that where monitored, data shows frequent unlawful emissions well above federal regulatory limits in unrestricted areas ( id. at 7); that NUMEC affirmatively hid the nature and extent of violations of health and safety regulations ( id. ); that at one point, NUMEC had the highest level of nuclear " Materials Unaccounted For" (" MUF" ) of any facility in the United States ( id. ); and, that " Based on the inadequate monitoring system, large number of unmonitored release points, and significant quantities of radioactive materials deposited in the ventilation system, and in view of NUMEC's failure to provide a plausible explanation for the MUF, it is reasonable to infer that most of this MUF was released into the communities surrounding these facilities." ( Id. )
Defendants respond that Dr. Ring does not identify any release of radioactive materials to which Plaintiffs' experts claim that any particular individual Plaintiff was actually exposed. They note that he references a hypothetical dose calculation prepared by Bernd Franke (described below), but he does not tie this calculation to any specific Plaintiff. (Ring Rpt. at 19.) He testified that he has no opinion on dose. (Ring Dep. at 65:7-13.) Dr. Ring testified that he has no opinion whether radionuclides were released from Parks. (Ring Dep. at 62:20-63:13; 132:10-11; 196:9-10 (" I didn't look at Parks." ). He further testified that his opinions are related solely to claimed uranium emissions from Apollo during its period of operations. (Ring Dep. at 58:19-59:15; 60:11-19; 64:7-20; 124:14-18; 132:12-19.)
Michael Ketterer, Ph.D.
Dr. Ketterer is a chemist who was retained by Plaintiffs to provide an expert report, analysis and opinion " about sources of uranium and plutonium near [the Apollo and Parks facilities.]" (Ketterer Rpt. at 3.) Dr. Ketterer analyzed soil samples he took around the ...