The NAM joined with 6 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 in the court of appeals supported a trial 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.
On 12/18/07, that court 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.
On January 25, 2008, the NAM filed a brief urging the California Supreme Court to hear this appeal. California's asbestos docket appears to be increasing, and out-of-state parties make up a large percentage of plaintiffs. We urged the court to take the case and recognize the validity of this trial court procedure, which does not interfere with attorney work product or disclose anything that won't have to be disclosed anyway at trial. The procedure helps prevent trial by ambush and coercive settlement power.
On April 9, the court declined to hear this appeal.