Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery against Harcros Chemicals Inc. The court held that the motion was untimely as to requests for admission and, while reaching the merits for interrogatories and requests for production, found the requested 65-year discovery period overbroad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate. The court limited discovery on the remaining claims to the ten-year period preceding the filing of the lawsuit, June 30, 2015, to the present.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiffs' motion to compel was timely under District of Kansas Local Rule 37.1.
- Whether Harcros waived its undue-burden and proportionality objections by not using the precise phrase 'undue burden' in its discovery responses.
- Whether the temporal scope of plaintiffs' interrogatories and requests for production should be limited to a reasonable period rather than extending back to 1960.
- Whether Harcros's burden and proportionality objections were adequately supported.
Holdings
- The motion to compel was untimely as to the requests for admission because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate diligence in pursuing that specific dispute after the December 30 meet-and-confer.
- Harcros did not waive its undue-burden or proportionality objections because its discovery responses expressly challenged the requests' temporal scope and proportionality.
- Harcros adequately supported its burden and proportionality objections.
- Discovery concerning plaintiffs' remaining claims against Harcros was limited to a reasonable period of ten years before the filing of the lawsuit, June 30, 2015, through the present.
Key quotations
“The court therefore denies the motion to compel on timeliness grounds with respect to the RFAs, given the lapse in plaintiffs’ efforts to resolve the discovery dispute as to the RFAs following their meet-and-confer on December 30.”
“Accordingly, the court denies plaintiffs’ motion to compel and limits discovery related to plaintiffs’ remaining claims against Harcros (strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, gross negligence, negligence, wrongful death, and failure to warn) to a reasonable timeframe of ten years from the date the lawsuit was filed—June 30, 2015 to present.”
Factual background
Plaintiffs alleged that toxic emissions from Harcros's Kansas City, Kansas facility caused community exposures and related injuries. The facility was constructed in 1960 and had been owned or operated by successive corporate entities, with Harcros operating it since 2001. Plaintiffs served discovery requests covering the period from December 1, 1960, to the present, while Harcros objected that the requests were overbroad, disproportionate, and outside the relevant period. Harcros submitted evidence that responding to the historical requests would require reviewing thousands of boxes, microfilm, and microfiche at an estimated cost of $2.1 million to $2.6 million.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs sued Harcros Chemicals Inc. and predecessor owners and operators of an industrial facility, alleging toxic-emission injuries and related tort claims. The court dismissed the claims against the predecessor defendants and certain claims and plaintiffs' claims against Harcros under the Kansas statute of repose, while allowing other claims to proceed. Plaintiffs then sought issue-class certification and moved to compel discovery extending back to 1960. The magistrate judge denied the motion and limited discovery concerning the remaining claims to June 30, 2015, through the present.