Conservation Law Foundation v. Shell Oil Co.

In Conservation Law Foundation’s (CLF’s) citizen suit asserting that the owners and operators of a bulk fuel storage terminal in New Haven, Connecticut failed to prepare the facility for the impacts of climate change, the federal district court for the District of Connecticut denied the defendants’ motion to stay proceedings pending finalization of a new Connecticut general stormwater permit. The defendants argued that the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection’s (CT DEEP) 2024 draft permit introduced “Resilience Measures” as a “new” and “significant” climate consideration, thereby confirming that the prior permits never required the inclusion of climate risks in stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs). They claimed this regulatory development resolved the central dispute in CLF’s claims and warranted a pause in discovery to avoid unnecessary litigation costs. The court rejected this reasoning, holding that the draft permit and its fact sheets did not indicate an overwhelming likelihood of success. The court highlighted that fact sheets are not the usual example of agency actions that are afforded deference. Moreover, the court emphasized that litigation costs alone do not constitute substantial prejudice sufficient to justify a stay, and that discovery was nearing completion with summary judgment briefing on the horizon. The court also found that Shell’s yearlong delay in seeking a stay—despite having access to the relevant draft language since early 2024—weighed against granting relief. Additionally, the court denied as procedurally improper Shell’s omnibus motion to strike portions of CLF’s expert reports. The court also vacated a magistrate judge’s prior oral ruling denying Rule 37 discovery sanctions related to the defendants’ delayed disclosure of certain documents. The court said further record development was required to determine whether sanctions were warranted.