The NAM joined with 5 other organizations in support of a general court order in California that requires plaintiffs in asbestos cases to file basic information to support their claims about 8 months after a complaint is filed and allowing defendants to move to dismiss the case if the required report does not identify witnesses or documents linking the defendant to the plaintiff's exposure. Our brief supported the court order as a sound approach to manage complex litigation, to facilitate pretrial resolution of evidentiary and other issues, and to minimize the time and expense of trials.
This is particularly important in asbestos cases, which have bankrupted 85 employers, put 60,000 people out of work, and dragged 8,500 defendants into the litigation. We argued that the Los Angeles Superior Court has the authority to require that a plaintiff have some evidence to show that its lawsuit is not a malicious act -- that there is some evidence linking the defendant to the plaintiff's exposure to the hazard.
On 12/18/07, the Court of Appeal ruled that the general order conflicts with a state rule of civil procedure that prohibits the discovery of an attorney's "impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories." It held that disclosing the witnesses, their expected testimony, and product identification documents intended to be relied on at trial depends on an attorney's impressions, conclusions and opinions and violates the work product doctrine encompassed by the rule. It overturned the lower court order and reinstated Caterpillar as a defendant in the case.
This is an unfortunate result that will drag cases on. The plaintiff will ultimately have to put on its case and disclose its witnesses and documents, so this just delays the process and makes it more expensive for all parties.