Judge sides with defendants in PFAS lawsuit discovery dispute

A federal judge has resolved a discovery dispute between a group of Town of Stella property owners and the companies they are suing for alleged drinking water contamination. In a decision issued late last month, Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted, with some modifications, a defense motion to compel all named plaintiffs in the case to respond to defense requests for production of documents.
“Named plaintiffs are always subject to discovery, regardless of whether putative class representatives have been identified,” Conley wrote. “Here, all forty-eight plaintiffs remain named in the operative complaint, and are pursuing claims in their individual capacities, and so are subject to discovery.”
The plaintiffs had argued that only its six self-selected “class representatives” were required to respond to the defendants’ full array of requests for production of documents and previously submitted “fact sheets” would suffice as to other 42 named plaintiffs.
According to the defendants, the “fact sheets” provided only basic information while the requests for documents are much more detailed and include information regarding the condition, use, and value of each plaintiff’s property(ies).
Conley found the defense argument more compelling but clarified that only the nine plaintiffs who are bringing personal injury claims are required to produce documents the defense has requested regarding their personal health and health habits.

“Although defendants are entitled to reasonable merits discovery at this time, some of their requests are overly broad given the nature of plaintiffs’ claims,” Conley wrote. “All class claims are either property-based or for products liability and unjust enrichment. By contrast, the personal injury claim is brought only on behalf of nine individual plaintiffs. Some of the requests to which plaintiffs specifically objected, defendant 3M’s requests nos. 15 and 21 and defendant Wausau and Ahlstrom’s requests nos. 13–15, seek documents exclusively related to plaintiffs’ personal health and health habits. While these documents are not irrelevant to the personal injury claim, they are inapplicable to the property claims and so must be limited to the nine individual plaintiffs bringing the personal injury claim.”
The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in August 2023, several months after a DNR-conducted statewide study revealed dangerously high levels of PFAS in some private wells in the eastern Oneida County township.
PFAS are a group of man-made, fluorinated chemicals manufactured and used since the 1940s. Because they are designed to be stable and unreactive to water, grease, heat, and other elements, they are often referred to as “forever” compounds.
Studies have shown a link between human exposure to PFAS and adverse health effects and some of the Stella plaintiffs allege they have experienced health issues they attribute to PFAS contamination.
The defendants are the mill’s current owner Ahlstrom Rhinelander LLC, its former owner, Wausau Paper, and the chemical giant 3M, which is accused of providing products to the mill that contained PFAS.
The plaintiffs allege the  practice of spreading sludge/fibercake from the mill on local farmlands caused their properties to become contaminated.
The defendants have mounted a vigorous response. Among other things, they argue that land-spreading is a common practice, regulated by the DNR, that does not meet the legal definition of a “hazardous activity” as is required for the plaintiff’s strict liability claim to prevail.
The defendants have also signaled their opposition to any attempt to have the lawsuit certified as a “class action” as it is their belief that none of the plaintiffs’ claims meet the “rigorous standards” for class certification.
Court records indicate Conley is not expected to rule on the question of class certification until late next year. The case is not scheduled for trial until March 2027.