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.

Defendants filed a memorandum in support of their motion to stay discovery and proceedings on all “climate change” allegations. The defendants argued that the central factual and legal dispute in Counts I–IX of CLF’s complaint—whether they were required under the current Connecticut General Stormwater Permit to consider climate change risks like sea-level rise and storm surge—has been rendered moot by a draft permit issued by Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP). That draft permit, released in March 2024 and revised in December 2024, included for the first time an express requirement that permittees evaluate climate resiliency factors in their stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs). CT DEEP characterized these provisions as “new” and “significant changes” from prior permit language. Defendants argued that this regulatory update confirms that the permit in force at the time of the alleged violations never required consideration of climate change, directly undermining CLF’s claims and making further litigation unnecessary since the draft permit conclusively resolved the issue. Consequently, there was no longer any dispute of material fact. Defendants maintained that a stay would conserve judicial and party resources, as expert discovery would otherwise proceed on issues likely to be legally foreclosed in the coming months once the draft permit is finalized. They claimed that they would suffer irreparable injury and expense if forced to undergo expert discovery on already resolved claims. The motion noted that CLF refused to agree to a joint stay, leading to defendants’ unilateral request. The defendants argued that under controlling precedent and the standards for discretionary stays, the court should pause litigation on the climate-related counts until CT DEEP completed its permitting process.

The parties on February 11, 2025 stipulated to dismissal of two Shell entities from the suit with prejudice, with three companies remaining as defendants as owners and operators in control of the New Haven facility at issue in the case. CLF also agreed to “irrevocably withdraw” its subpoena to Shell Pipeline Company LP and not to file any motion to amend its complaint to add this entity as a party. The parties also agreed to a plan for depositions and agreed that the parties to the Rhode Island and Connecticut lawsuits could use all discovery produced in the other case.

In a citizen suit alleging that a bulk oil storage terminal on New Haven Harbor had not been prepared for the impacts of severe weather and climate change in violation of federal environmental laws, the federal district court for the District of Connecticut granted in part and denied in part plaintiff Conservation Law Foundation’s (CLF’s) motion to compel Shell Oil Co. to comply with 39 discovery requests. The court found that CLF had “reasonably tailored” its requests for information about what the defendants do at their other facilities by limiting the number of facilities to 15 and by only asking about coastal facilities that store petroleum in bulk and that have certain risk profiles. The court also found that the defendants did not support “undue burden” and “lack-of-proportionality” objections. The court said it was “simply implausible” that the defendants could not identify its “coastal” facilities or its bulk petroleum storage facilities and that, even if their systems were deficient, the defendants could not rely on “obsolescence” as a basis for undue burden or lack of proportionality. The court also said that the defendants’ arguments regarding the burdens of collecting and producing responsive information did not account for CLF’s narrowing of its requests. In addition, the court concluded that pre-2017 documents would be relevant to at least some claims. The court found that a request for one category of the defendants’ climate change assessments was facially overbroad and unduly burdensome but that requests for design standards and adaptation plans applicable to the New Haven terminal were not.

The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part CLF’s January 2023 motion to compel compliance with 75 requests interrogatories and requests for production. The magistrate judge generally agreed with CLF that the defendants’ knowledge of climate change risks was relevant but found that many of the requests seeking information on this topic were “grossly overbroad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate.”

The federal district court for the District of Connecticut allowed Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) to proceed with claims under the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in its citizen suit alleging that Shell Oil Company and other defendants failed to prepare a bulk storage and fuel terminal in New Haven for the impacts of climate change. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that CLF did not have standing, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged “near-term harms from foreseeable weather events” that were “not purely theoretical” and that were “fairly traceable” to defendants. The court found that the allegations established that CLF had standing to seek penalties for ongoing violations that could continue if undeterred. The court further found that the complaint alleged facts sufficient to assert Clean Water Act adaptation claims and also declined to dismiss CLF’s RCRA imminent and substantial endangerment claim. The court dismissed, however, two RCRA regulatory violation claims and also dismissed all claims against a former owner and operator except for the RCRA endangerment claim. The court declined to dismiss the non-owner/operator defendants, finding that “at this early stage” the complaint stated a plausible claim for direct liability.

On July 7, 2021, Conservation Law Foundation filed two citizen suits asserting that the defendants’ bulk storage and fuel terminals in New Haven, Connecticut violated the Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The complaints alleged that the defendants had not designed, maintained, modified, or operated their terminals to account for “the numerous effects of climate change,” including sea-level rise and more frequent and more severe storms. Conservation Law Foundation sought declaratory and injunctive relief, civil penalties, environmental restoration and compensatory mitigation, and costs of litigation, including attorney and expert witness fees.