Letter,Correspondence: MASTER FILE vs. IN RE

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                June 10, 2021

                  Via Email
                  Judge Caroline Baker
                  333rd Civil Court
                  Harris County Civil Courthouse
                  201 Caroline St., 14th Floor
                  Houston, Texas 77002


                           RE:      Master Docket No. 2020-61765-MDL; In Re: Arkema Inc. Litigation; In the 333rd
                                    Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas

                  Judge Baker,

                           Please   see  the below proposed agenda         for the  status conference     in the  abovereferenced
                  matter scheduled for June 11, 2021:

                           Report on the Barrett Plaintiffs’ identification of what claims each of its plaintiffs is
                           asserting.    During   the  May    3, 2021,   status   conference,    this Court   directed   the  Barrett
                           Plaintiffs to respond to outstanding requests for admission that would identify what claims
                           each plaintiff is asserting and to “report back” in the hopes that “we don’t have to revisit
                           this one   at our  next  status  conference.”     See  May   3,  2021,  Hearing    Transcript   at  29:14
                           30:23, 31:1821. On May 5, 2021, the            Barrett Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Petition
                           that pled all claims and a damages prayer on behalf of all Barrett Plaintiffs (more than 300
                           individuals   and   entities) generally    and without    exception,    despite  their  representation    to
                           this  Court   just  two  days   earlier  that  only   some   plaintiffs   (about   25%)   were    claiming
                           personal injuries,    only some (perhaps 30%) were claiming property damage,                  and that the
                           remainder (45%) were claiming trespass and nuisance.               We wrote to the Barrett Plaintiffs’
                           counsel   on May 28, 2021, to request         again the   basic information of which plaintiffs are
                           asserting what claim

                                    On   June   4, 2021,    the  Barrett   Plaintiffs  produced     “Supplemental      Answers     and
                           Objections” to Arkema’s discovery requests, which again did not provide any clarity and
                           instead included (i) a single, blanket answer to each request on behalf of the hundreds of



                   See May 3, 2021, Hearing Transcript at 21:9–16, 27:7–28:8.
                   See May 3, 2021, Hearing Transcript at 23:1
                   See May 3, 2021, Hearing Transcript at 27:7–28:8.
                           Barrett   Plaintiffs   (enclosed);    and   (ii) an unverified    spreadsheet     providing    bare bones
                           individual answers to some interrogatories on behalf of less than all BarrettPlaintiffs.

                                    These   “Supplemental       Answers    and   Objections”     (i) fail to  tell defendants    what
                           claims each Barrett Plaintiff is asserting; (ii) continue to assert objections that Judge Moore
                           overruled 18 months ago; and (iii) assert objections that this Court itself overruled during
                           the uniform discovery process. Currently most pressing is the (continued) deficiency noted
                           in item (i)    that defendants still (nearly two years after the initiation of this action) do not
                           know    which    Barrett   Plaintiff  is asserting   what   claim(s).   For   example,    defendants    are
                           unable to ascertain what Barrett Plaintiffs, if any, are asserting a claim for business loss,
                           since   the  Barrett   Plaintiffs  only   provided    the  following    single  response    on   behalf   of
                           hundreds of plaintiffs:




                           The same for property damage:




                           And the same for personal injury:




                           Brief overview of status of other discovery efforts.

                                    Arkema Inc.:Since the May 3, 2021, status conference, Arkema Inc. (“Arkema”)
                                    has made two volumes of rolling document productions.
                                    Aziz Plaintiffs: The Aziz Plaintiffs have not produced any discovery since the last
                                    status conference. Approximately 70% of the Aziz Plaintiffs have not produced a
                                    single document. One production volume covering ~27% of the Aziz Plaintiffs has
                                    been   produced    posttransfer   . Only    two  plaintiffs  in  this group   have   produced     a
                                    records release.

                                    None of the other five Plaintiff Groups encompassing 131 plaintiffs (the Tracey &
                                    Fox Plaintiffs, Green Plaintiffs, Carmona Plaintiffs, Moore Landrey Plaintiffs,
                                    and    Pierce    Skrabanek       Plaintiffs)    has   produced     any   discovery     since   the
                                    transferred cases have been pending in state court.

                           Responses to Uniform Discovery.

                                    Each transferred plaintiff’s individual, full responses to Uniform Discovery are due
                                    Monday, June 14, 2021, pursuant to Paragraph 15(D) of the CMO.

                                    Arkema; CenterPoint Energy, Inc.; CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC; and
                                    Bureau    Veritas   North   America,    Inc.’s  responses    to  Uniform    Discovery     are  due
                                    Thursday, June 17, 2021, pursuant to Paragraph 15(B) of the CMO.

                           Barrett Plaintiffs not included in amended petitions. At various points throughout the
                             arrett litigation, plaintiffs have amended their petitions and added or dropped plaintiffs.
                           Bayou     City  Industrial    Contractors,    Ltd.   (“Bayou”)     filed  a  Motion     for  Clarification
                           regarding    whether   the  failure  to include   a  plaintiff in  an  amended     petition  constitutes   a
                           nonsuit of that plaintiff’s claims as to all defendants. Arkema agrees with Bayou that by
                           failing to be included in an amended pleading, a plaintiff has dropped its claims against the
                           defendants pursuant to        EXAS         IV     65 and 502.7, which are the authorities cited by
                           Mr. Hall in his June 4, 2021, email to the Court.


                                                                                          Sincerely,

                                                                                          /s/ Chris Reynolds

                                                                                          Chris Reynolds

                  Cc: All Counsel of Record

                  Enclosure: BarrettPlaintiffs’ Supplemental Responses and Objections to Arkema’s First Set of
                                Combined Discovery to All Plaintiffs (without Exhibit 1)