In re Asbestos, Catalyst, & Silica Toxic Dust Exposure Litigation, 67 V.I. 544

Background

127 asbestos toxic-dust personal-injury actions filed in 2013–2014 were consolidated under a master case for pretrial management; 123 remained after dismissals.
Court ordered phased (tracked) discovery: medical exams and written discovery for all; twelve bellwether matters (Group A) to proceed on an accelerated schedule with fact depositions due June 30, 2017 and trial beginning November 27, 2017.
Defendants (Hess and HOVIC) moved on July 5, 2017 for an emergency extension—seeking 6–9 months more for fact discovery and a corresponding delay of bellwether trials—citing voluminous outstanding medical and fact records, dispersed witnesses, and limited defense staffing.
Plaintiffs opposed, arguing defendants had ample notice of complexity, sufficient resources, and unreasonably failed to staff or act earlier; they urged adherence to deadlines to preserve docket control and settlement leverage.
Court held oral argument, found both sides diligent but concluded defendants waited too long and failed to allocate sufficient resources; denied a broad long-term continuance but granted a limited, partial continuance to allow briefing on consolidation and remaining pretrial work.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants showed good cause to extend fact discovery and postpone Group A trials by 6–9 months	Deadlines should be enforced; Hess had resources and failed to staff; delay prejudices plaintiffs and the court docket	Medical records and many depositions remain; witnesses scattered off-island; defense under-staffed and needs time; mediation prospects justify delay	Denied for broad 6–9 month continuance—no good cause for wholesale delay; partial, limited continuance granted for discrete matters (two December and two January trials scheduled)
Effect of substitution/late staffing on request for extension	Substitution does not excuse long inaction; defendants had notice of complexity	New counsel needed time to review files and obtain records after substitution	Timing of motion (after discovery deadline) weighs against excusable neglect; substitution months earlier did not justify last-minute extension
Whether master-case status justifies extensive global continuance	Plaintiffs: master case is administrative; individual cases retain their deadlines; cannot allow counsel convenience to control docket	Defendants: global mediation of 500+ cases could justify delay to resolve many claims efficiently	Court refused to let potential global mediation (including cases on other judges’ dockets) dictate continuances; court must retain docket control
Whether defendants’ lack of staffing/resources is excusable	Plaintiffs: party bears consequences of chosen counsel and staffing; cannot reward under-resourcing	Defendants: real resource constraints and need to add counsel (pro hac changes) support short extension	Court: parties bear consequences of counsel choices; insufficient staffing undermines good-cause finding; limited relief only for remaining discrete pretrial tasks

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Cintron, 55 V.I. 802 (V.I. 2011) (scope of amendment and supplementation of pleadings)
Edwards v. Hess Oil V.I. Corp., 66 V.I. 218 (Super. Ct. 2017) (nature and limits of a master case)
In re Alumina Dust Claims, 67 V.I. 172 (Super. Ct. 2017) (complex case management references)
Willie v. Amerada Hess Corporation, 66 V.I. 23 (Super. Ct. 2017) (complex toxic-tort procedural context)
Greene v. V.I. Water & Power Auth., 67 V.I. 728 (V.I. 2017) (factors for excusable neglect/good cause for continuances)
Fuller v. Browne, 59 V.I. 948 (V.I. 2013) (equating excusable neglect and good cause)
Beachside Assocs., LLC v. Fishman, 53 V.I. 700 (V.I. 2010) (continuance/forgiveness standards)
V.I. Taxi Ass'n v. V.I. Port Auth., 67 V.I. 643 (V.I. 2017) (parties bear consequences of counsel selection; Link principle)
Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (U.S. 1962) (party responsibility for acts/omissions of chosen counsel)