Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Shell Oil Products US

The federal district court for the District of Rhode Island ruled that whether the terms of a permit for a bulk petroleum storage and distribution facility in Providence required consideration of climate change factors was a question of fact to be decided at trial. The court therefore denied the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing three counts in a citizen suit brought by Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. The defendants had argued that the issuance by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management of a new Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Industrial Activity in 2024 that explicitly imposed climate change-related obligations demonstrated that duties to consider climate change factors did not previously exist. The court concluded, however, that “whether the revised terms clarified a preexisting obligation or instead introduced an entirely new requirement is not a strictly legal exercise.” Instead, the court found that the answer to the question would depend on “facts surrounding regulatory practice, industry expectations, and what conditions were reasonably understood to fall within expected operational parameters of ‘Good Engineering Practices’ and ‘Best Management Practices’ at the time” (which were operative terms for the stormwater pollution prevention plan required by the facility’s permit). The defendants therefore failed to meet the initial burden of demonstrating no genuine dispute of material fact.

In Conservation Law Foundation’s (CLF’s) citizen suit alleging that Shell defendants failed to prepare a bulk storage and fuel terminal in the Port of Providence (Providence Terminal) for the impacts of climate change, the federal district court for the District of Rhode Island granted in part and denied in part each side’s motion to compel discovery. The court ruled that Shell must provide factual responses to questions regarding the defendants’ “knowledge and intent in designing, constructing and operating the Terminal with regard to specified flood/storm risks,” rejecting the argument that the documents and admissions sought were more appropriate for expert discovery. The court also rejected the Shell defendants’ contention that requested documents related generally to climate change and not restricted to the Providence Terminal were not relevant. The found, however, that CLF’s request for admissions about what is “possible” called for “irrelevant speculation.” Regarding the Shell defendants’ requests for documents related to “CLF’s institutional knowledge, fundraising, advocacy and communications,” the court found that the discovery was not relevant to the claims and defenses in issue and that to the extent it was “peripherally relevant” was “hopelessly overbroad,” though the court left open that possibility that such information could be relevant and proportional in a different circumstance. The court said both CLF and the Shell defendants could not refuse to respond based on the purported vagueness of requests, finding that the parties must respond based on their reasonable understandings of the requests.