Johnson v. 3M Company
4:20-cv-00008
| N.D. Ga. | Aug 26, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs allege PFAS contamination in water supplied by the City of Rome, with extensive motions stayed during summary judgment on injunctive relief claims.
- Following mediation’s failure, the Court sought a case management plan for pending motions and the future direction of the case.
- In December 2024, the City enacted new water rate hikes, allegedly linked to PFAS treatment costs; Plaintiffs seek to pursue additional damages related to these increases.
- The procedural posture involves disputes over reopening discovery, supplementing expert reports, and the order/timing of motion resolutions, especially regarding class certification and the economic loss rule.
- Defendants contest broadening discovery or class scope, request a streamlined briefing on the economic loss rule, and oppose consolidation with a related action.
- The Court’s order addresses discovery scope, briefings on the economic loss rule, and timetables for supplementing motions, focusing on efficiency and fairness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reopening Discovery for Rate Increases | New rate hikes are relevant, evidence just arose, requesting limited discovery | Oppose: case age favors closure; new discovery will complicate/class broaden | Granted: strictly limited discovery on rate increases |
| Class Certification Briefing | Should be supplemented to reflect new facts (rate increases) | Should proceed based on current record, no further delay | Allowed: limited supplementation on class cert motion |
| Economic Loss Rule Summary Judgment | Arguments fully briefed, no need to re-brief; premature before class cert. | Should permit consolidated new motion post-injunctive relief order | Allowed: 15-page consolidated summary judgment motion |
| Case Consolidation with Related Action | Seeks consolidation with Coosa River Basin Initiative case | Strongly oppose due to different procedural postures | Not granted; parties permitted to brief the issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417 (11th Cir. 1998) (Rule 16(b) “good cause” standard for modifying schedules, focusing on party diligence)
- Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (Court considers party’s diligence when determining "good cause" under Rule 16(b))