The NAM led a group of national organizations in filing an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court, urging it to overturn an obsolete order by a San Francisco court that requires all defendants in asbestos cases to respond to sweeping and burdensome discovery requirements. The order, General Order No. 129, requires companies to answer 53 interrogatories, most with 4 or more subparts, and to attach all supporting documents. The plaintiff, who is apparently asymptomatic and has normal lung function, sued Watts Regulator Company relying on an alleged contact with one type of Watts valve used one day at one location in 1981. The defendant estimates it will take 3.5 person-years of work and cost $1 million to comply with the discovery order.
The NAM argued that, while the order may have been helpful during the early years of traditional asbestos litigation, the environment has changed and companies that are far removed from direct manufacturing of asbestos have been ensnarled in asbestos litigation. Discovery should now be tailored, as it is in other contexts, to the claims at issue, and normal objections should be available so that discovery actually leads to admissible evidence in the pending action. Burdensome discovery creates unfair pressure to settle cases without regard to the merits of the claim.
In April, 2007, the court declined to review this appeal.