 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kawamata Farms Inc. v. United Agri Products12/11/1997
--/REF--> 250, 534 P.2d 489, 494 (1975). Defendants/Crossclaimants/Counterclaimants did not show due diligence in pursuing the discovery at issue since most frequently it took no position regarding discovery motions.
I. Post-Appeal Motions
After the jury verdict in the instant case, significant developments took place in another of DuPont's Benlate-related cases, namely In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.; The Bush Ranch, Inc., v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., 918 F. Supp. 1524 (M.D. Ga. 1995), reversed, In re E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Company-Benlate Litigation, 99 F.3d 363 (11th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company v. Bush Ranch, Inc., 118 S. Ct. 263, 139 L. Ed. 2d 190, (U.S. 1997), also known as the Bush Ranch litigation. In the Bush Ranch litigation, the Bush Ranch plaintiffs sued DuPont in federal court for damages resulting from defective Benlate. After the case was submitted to the jury, the Bush Ranch plaintiffs offered to settle their claims, and DuPont agreed. On August 16, 1993, the Bush Ranch plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice.
After the settlement, the Plaintiffs in the instant case requested documents related to the testing of Benlate from the Bush Ranch litigation. DuPont resisted, but DuPont eventually produced the documents pursuant to a court order. Among the documents produced were some of the Alta documents, which DuPont had not produced in the Bush Ranch litigation. The Alta documents included analytical findings that some experts would construe as evidence that Benlate was contaminated with sulfonylureas.
As a result of the production of the Alta documents in the instant case, the Bush Ranch plaintiffs returned to the federal district court, more than a year and a half after the settlement of the Bush Ranch litigation, with a petition seeking sanctions against DuPont. The Bush Ranch plaintiffs charged that DuPont had intentionally withheld evidence of sulfonylurea contamination, which was in its possession and which the district court had ordered it to produce. Furthermore, the petition charged that DuPont had falsely represented to the district court and to the Bush Ranch plaintiffs that the Alta documents it withheld contained no evidence of sulfonylurea contamination. On August 21, 1995, the district court agreed with the Bush Ranch plaintiffs and sanctioned DuPont by, among other things, ordering DuPont to either pay $101 million to the court or publish a judicially approved confession of guilt in selected newspapers across the United States. In re E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co.; The Bush Ranch, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co., 918 F. Supp. at 1557-58.
After learning about these events in the Bush Ranch litigation, on August 31 and September 12, 1995, the Plaintiffs and the Declaratory Defendants in the instant case returned to the circuit court and filed motions, pursuant to Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 60(b)(3), seeking to alter or amend the judgment based upon the newly discovered evidence of fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and other misconduct on the part of DuPont. The Plaintiffs and Declaratory Defendants also sought sanctions against DuPont. Although DuPont had eventually produced the Alta documents in the instant case pursuant to court orders and sanctions, DuPont had asserted that the Alta documents were privileged under the work product doctrine, and DuPont had represented to Discovery Master Takao that the Bush Ranch Alta documents had never been produced, proffered, or in any way used in any other Benlate trial. However, according to the transcripts of DuPont's attorneys' testimony in the Bush
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|