The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:20-cv-6347 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
| Parties | The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Plaintiff, v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al., Defendants. |
OPINION AND ORDER
Under federal law, a person who is liable for paying to clean up hazardous substances can seek contribution from others who were responsible for a substance's release. See Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f). The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company seeks to do just that for costs it has incurred in responding to the release of hazardous substances at the Jackson County Landfill in southern Ohio. Goodyear admits it contaminated the Landfill in the 1970s and 1980s by dumping thousands of drums containing acetone. But it alleges that the eight defendants are also responsible for dumping a variety of hazardous waste, including animal by-products, food sludge, foundry sand, metal fabrication waste, paints, pesticides, plastics and sawdust from treated wood.
In an unusual procedural move, Goodyear filed pre-discovery motions for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, with an allocation of defendants' respective shares of responsibility to be determined later at a bench trial. Defendants raise a host of objections, many of which relate to the admissibility of the evidence which Goodyear has submitted in support of its motions. Defendants also seek relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) for an opportunity to take discovery to refute the evidence submitted by Goodyear. Finally, defendants Conagra and General Mills argue that Goodyear cannot establish successor liability for the purported actions of their alleged corporate predecessors-in-interest.
This matter is before the Court on Goodyear's eight motions for partial summary judgment, defendants' joint motion in limine to exclude improper evidence, and General Mills' cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of successor liability. For the reasons stated below, Goodyear's motions are denied, defendants' motion in limine is granted in part, and General Mills' motion is denied.
Plaintiff Goodyear is an Ohio company that manufactures and distributes rubber products. It once operated a plant in Jackson, Ohio.
Defendant ConAgra Foods, Inc. (now Conagra Brands, Inc.) is a food company and alleged successor to Banquet Foods, which prepared food products at a facility in Wellston, Ohio.
Defendant General Mills, Inc. manufactures consumer foods and is the alleged successor to Jeno's, Inc. and the Pillsbury Company. Jeno's operated one or more plants in southern Ohio, producing frozen pizza products. Pillsbury acquired Jeno's in 1985.
Defendant Inland Products, Inc. is an Ohio corporation in the business of rendering animal waste to produce fat and protein products.
Defendant Lancaster Glass Corporation is the legal successor to Jackson Corporation, which manufactured plastic goods at a facility in Jackson.
Defendant Masco Cabinetry, LLC (now Cabinetworks Group Michigan, LLC) is the successor of Merillat Cabinet. Merillat operated a cabinet-manufacturing facility in Jackson.
Defendant National Oilwell Varco, Inc. (now NOV, Inc.) is the successor of Robbins & Myers, which operated an iron foundry and related facilities in southern Ohio.
Defendant OSCO Industries, Inc. was founded as the Ohio Stove Company in Portsmouth, Ohio. It operated foundries in southern Ohio.
Defendant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. is the legal successor to R.J. Reynolds Foods, Inc. In 1966, R.J. Reynolds Foods acquired the Chun King food business and operated a packaged foods facility in Jackson.
The Landfill began operations in about 1970 at ¶ 24-acre site in Jackson County. The Ohio Department of Health approved the operation of the Landfill as a solid waste disposal site. Doc. 64-3.[1] The site also had an additional one-acre area for the disposal of foundry sand. The Landfill received waste from municipal and industrial sources. Doc. 64-2 at PAGEID 470, ¶ 6(h). A creek and nature preserve bordered the site in part. Id. at PAGEID 469, ¶ 6(a).
Donald Jenkins initially owned and operated the Landfill. In 1972 his son-in-law J. Gregory Fields took over the Landfill, while the Foundry Sand area was owned by Shawn and Melissa Sexton. Fields later transferred ownership of the Landfill to a company he owned and controlled, Sanitation Commercial Services, Inc. (SCS). Doc. 64-2 at PAGEID 469-70, ¶ 6(c)-(f).
As early as 1976, the Ohio EPA raised concerns about the Landfill. In a letter to the Jackson County Health Department, the Ohio EPA noted that liquid waste “of an apparent chemical nature” had been observed at the site, and that “leachate had surfaced” in a particular area of the Landfill. Doc. 64-7 at PAGEID 703. The Ohio EPA issued a notice of violation one year later. Doc. 64-2 at PAGEID 470, ¶ 6(g).
In 1984 the Ohio EPA issued a letter to Goodyear. Doc. 64-9. The letter stated that hazardous substances had been detected at the Landfill. The Ohio EPA formally requested Goodyear to respond to a series of questions and requests for documents relating to Goodyear's activities at the Landfill. Goodyear stated that it had disposed of 5, 772 drums of waste materials - including acetone, paints and styrene - at the Landfill between 1974 and 1980. Doc. 64-2 at PAGEID 470, ¶ 6(j); Doc. 64-4 at PAGEID 540.
Later in 1984 the Ohio EPA brought an administrative action against the Jackson County Combined General Health District for alleged violations at the Landfill and another site in Jackson County. Fields was later joined to the action. The parties ultimately entered into a settlement agreement establishing conditions and benchmarks which had to be satisfied in order for the Landfill to continue operating. Sanitary Comm. Servs., Inc. v. Shank, 57 Ohio St.3d 178, 179, 566 N.E.2d 1215, 1216 (1991).
In 1987 the Ohio EPA found that Fields had failed to comply with the settlement agreement. The Director issued Final Findings and Orders requiring Fields to cease accepting waste and to begin shutting down the Landfill. Id., 57 Ohio St.3d at 179, 566 N.E.2d at 1217.
The Ohio EPA later determined that Fields had not properly closed the Landfill. In 1996 it discovered releases of hazardous substances, including ammonia, benzene and lead. Doc. 64-5 at PAGEID 554.
The Ohio Attorney General's Office brought an enforcement action in this Court in 1997 against Fields and SCS. Case No. 2:97-cv-984 (S.D. Ohio) (Smith, J.). The suit ended in a Consent Decree by which Fields and SCS agreed to pay $225, 000 into a trust fund to help defray the costs of closure and post-closure maintenance of the Landfill.
The Ohio EPA continued monitoring the Landfill. In 2005, it directed Goodyear to complete a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. Doc. 64-2 at PAGEID 472 at ¶ 6(hh). Goodyear prepared two reports, which the Ohio EPA approved in 2009 and 2010. The reports indicated the presence of many “contaminants of concern, ” including arsenic and mercury, as well as methane gas. Id. at PAGEID 473 at ¶ 6(ii). The reports determined that the release of waste materials posed risks to human and ecological health. Id.; Doc. 64-5 at PAGEID 556-60.
The Ohio EPA and Goodyear continued working on a plan to remediate the Landfill. Doc. 64-5 at PAGEID 554. In 2015 the Ohio EPA issued public notice of a Preferred Plan for remediation. Doc. 64-2 at PAGEID 473 at ¶ 6(jj). On September 15, 2015, the Ohio EPA issued a Decision Document announcing its selected plan, which called for the placement of a geomembrane cap with leachate treatment at a projected cost of over $10 million. Doc. 64-5 at PAGEID 580.
In late 2016, the Ohio EPA issued a Director's Final Findings and Orders for Remedial Design and Remedial Action. Doc. 64-2. It provided that Goodyear, as the “Work Respondent, ” would perform the design and action plan selected by the Ohio EPA.
Goodyear alleges that it has incurred over $12.5 million in response costs so far.
According to Goodyear, the Landfill property is still owned by SCS. Fields passed away in 2018.
Goodyear filed its Amended Complaint in April 2021. The Magistrate Judge then set a preliminary pretrial conference for May 25, 2021. The parties conferred pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) on May 11 and agreed to make initial disclosures by June 22. Doc. 72.
On May 17, 2021, Goodyear filed motions for partial summary judgment against each of the defendants. Docs. 64-71. Goodyear argues that the evidence attached to its motions is sufficient to establish that each defendant arranged to dispose of hazardous substances at the Landfill. Goodyear seeks a determination that defendants are liable as a matter of law for contribution. Goodyear contends that the Court should then proceed with discovery and ultimately a bench trial regarding allocation of costs.
Defendants jointly filed a motion in limine to exclude certain exhibits submitted by Goodyear in support of its motions. Doc. 88. Defendants argue that the pieces of evidence on which Goodyear relies the most heavily are inadmissible as hearsay. This includes a deposition of Fields taken during the enforcement action in this Court and notes recorded by an investigator when he interviewed people who had worked at the Landfill.
General Mills filed a cross-motion for summary judgment concerning successor liability. Doc. 92. It contends that the Purchase Agreement between Jeno's and Pillsbury contained a broad disclaimer that Pillsbury was not assuming the liabilities of Jeno's.
The parties...
To continue reading
Request your trial