dismissed their claims and their requests for injunctive relief

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document 118 Filed 06/26/12 Page 4 of 56question,” id. at 67, 70, the Second Circuit vacated andremanded both decisions. The Court of Appeals found thatPlaintiffs had not received adequate notice that Defendants’motion to dismiss the non-veil-piercing claims would beconverted to one for summary judgment. Id. at 66-70.Additionally, “because the court’s dismissal of the veilpiercingclaim relies, in part, on its dismissal of the nonveil-piercingclaims,” the Court of Appeals vacated both theSahu I and Sahu II judgments in their entirety. Id. at 70. Thecase was remanded to the district court “for what would appearto be relatively limited further proceedings in connection withconsideration of summary judgment.” Id.Despite the Second Circuit’s guidance as to “limited”further proceedings, Plaintiffs embarked on a discoveryexpedition worthy of Vasco da Gama. See Sahu v. Union CarbideCorp., 262 F.R.D. 308, 312 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (granting in partPlaintiffs’ “63 requests for the production of documents fromDefendants; 18 requests for the production of documents fromthird party Arthur D. Little, a consulting firm that assisted inthe environmental rehabilitation of the Bhopal site; a Rule30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant UCC; depositions of several ofDefendant UCC’s former officers; and 86 requests foradmission”); Sahu v. Union Carbide Corp., No. 04 Civ. 8825, 2010WL 909074 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2010) (denying cross motions for4
Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document 118 Filed 06/26/12 Page 5 of 56reconsideration of September 22, 2009 order granting limitedRule 56(d) discovery); Sahu v. Union Carbide Corp., 746 F. Supp.2d 609 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (overruling objections to MagistrateJudge Pitman’s July 23, 2010 order denying Plaintiffs’ motion tocompel production of certain documents); Sahu v. Union CarbideCorp., No. 04 Civ. 8825, 2010 WL 5158645 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20,2010) (denying Plaintiffs’ application to stay time foropposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion to conductstill more Rule 56(d) discovery and Rule 30(b)(6) depositions);see also Sahu v. Union Carbide Corp., No. 04 Civ. 8825, 2010 WL2473585 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2010) (denying as prematurePlaintiffs’ motion for retroactive application of Rule 15(a) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should they decide to filean amended complaint); Sahu v. Union Carbide Corp., No. 04 Civ.8825, 2010 WL 532307 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2010) (denyingPlaintiffs’ motion to have the case reassigned to anotherdistrict judge). More than two years and 12,000 pages ofdiscovery later, Defendants renewed their motion for summaryjudgment as to all theories of liability.B. Summary Judgment FactsAlthough Sahu I and Sahu II were vacated on procedural, asopposed to substantive, grounds, the Court begins its summaryjudgment analysis anew to account for the entirety of theexpanded record. Accordingly, the Court considers the May 17,5
Page 1 and 2: Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document
Page 3: Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document
Page 54 and 55:
Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document
Page 56:
Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document
show all

dismissed their claims and their requests for injunctive relief

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?