Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Federal District Court Rejects Motion to Enjoin Biden Administration’s Section 401 Clean Water Act Rule
- Federal District Court Holds that CERCLA Procedure for Natural Resource Damage Assessments Not Required as a Matter of Law
- Local Law Prohibiting Natural Gas Piping is Preempted, Ninth Circuit Holds
- District Court Failed to Consider Maui Factors as to Mining Company's Groundwater Discharges, Tenth Circuit Holds
- Federal District Court Excludes Expert Testimony in Flint Water Cases as Unreliable
Topics
- Internal Investigation
- Evidence
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- FIFRA
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- National Priorities List
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Historic Resources
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- PFAS
- Ohio
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- New Mexico
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Gold King Mine
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- Effluents
- FOIA
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- TMDL
- Stormwater
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- Takings
- Condemnation
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Tenth Circuit
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Laches
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Boiler MACT
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Standing
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- Certification
- Contamination
- CLE
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Real Estate
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Trespass
- Farming
- Administrative Hearing
- New Jersey
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Air
- Cancer
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
- Danielle N. Bagwell
- Brielle A. Brown
- Kate Campbell
- Stephen D. Daly
- Thomas M. Duncan
- Kelly A. Hanna
- Jessica D. Hunt
- Todd D. Kantorczyk
- Dylan G. LaMorte
- Brandon P. Matsnev
- Giselle F. Mazmanian
- Nicole R. Moshang
- Shoshana (Suzanne Ilene) Schiller
- Diana A. Silva
- Alice Douglas Solomon
- Natalia P. Teekah
- Garrett D. Trego
In May, we reported on the case of Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp., No. 2011 CV 2218 (Denver Co. Dist. Court May 9, 2012), in which a state trial court issued a Lone Pine order requiring the plaintiffs to show, prior to the initiation of discovery, that there was a prima facie basis for associating their personal injury claims with the defendants’ hydraulic fracturing activities. The court subsequently dismissed the case when the plaintiffs failed, in the court's view, to meet this initial burden. The dismissal was appealed and in Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp., Court of Appeals No. 12CA1251 (Co. Ct. Appeals, 1st Div., July 3, 2013), reversed.
The Court of Appeals opened its decision with a bold pronouncement, that Colorado law flatly prohibits the entry of Lone Pine orders. Its conclusion, described in a thorough opinion, was based on both existing case law and on an analysis of Colorado's procedural rules.
First, the Court noted that two prior Colorado Supreme Court cases, both involving commercial torts, rejected entry of orders precluding discovery without a prima facie showing because such a requirement "contradicts the broader policy of the [state's procedural] rules that all conflicts should be resolved in favor of discovery." Slip Op., quoting Curtis, Inc. v. Dist. Court, 186 Colo. 226, 233 (1974).
Second, the Court rejected the defendants' claims that recent changes to the state's rules of civil procedure overruled these cases. In particular, the Court noted that while Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 16, often relied upon by courts issuing Lone Pine orders, expressly permits federal courts to "adopt[] special procedures for managing potentially difficult or protracted actions," Colorado's analogous rule contains no similar language. Indeed, since Colorado's rules are patterned after the federal rules, the omission of this language evidenced, according to the Court, "an intent to grant less discretion to trial courts than that afforded by the federal rules."
Finally, the Court rejected the issuance of Lone Pine orders on policy grounds, finding that existing procedures such as bringing motions to dismiss or for summary judgment can serve the same stated purpose of challenging claims that were vague or lacked evidence of causation. This was especially true with respect to the Strudley's case, as it involved only four people from one family as plaintiffs and alleged contamination to a single piece of property, and thus was not nearly as complex as a mass tort action which might involve hundreds of plaintiffs and properties.
In summary, what was initially a victory for defendants in Colorado toxic tort cases seems to have become a significant defeat. Had the trial court been faced with a much larger or more complex case, it is possible that the Colorado Court of Appeals would have issued a more nuanced ruling, upholding the issuance of Lone Pine orders in such cases while rejecting them for smaller suits. Instead, defendants are now faced with an appellate decision that quite plainly holds that, as a matter of law, Lone Pine orders are impermissible under Colorado law.