Sahu v. Union Carbide Corp., 650 F. App'x 53

Background

Plaintiffs are Bhopal-area property owners who sued U.S. parent Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) for property damage allegedly caused by hazardous wastes from a pesticide plant operated by Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL).
UCIL, incorporated in India, operated the Bhopal plant; UCC (a U.S. corporation) owned a majority of UCIL stock during the plant’s operation (1969–1984).
Plaintiffs previously litigated related personal-injury claims (Sahu I and Bano), and much of the same evidentiary record was developed over years of discovery.
In this action plaintiffs relied on new declarations (notably from former project manager L.J. Couvaras) and expert reports to show UCC’s direct role in engineering/construction and in creating defective waste-disposal practices.
The District Court granted UCC summary judgment, concluding the new evidence was insufficient to establish that UCC — rather than UCIL — had the requisite causal and tortious involvement; the court also denied a preservation deposition of Couvaras.
The Second Circuit affirmed, holding the record still failed to raise a triable issue that UCC caused the contamination or had knowledge creating substantial certainty of harm, and that denial of the deposition was not an abuse of discretion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether new evidence (Couvaras declaration, expert declarations) creates a triable issue that UCC caused property damage	Couvaras was a UCC employee assigned to UCIL and managed engineering/construction on behalf of UCC; experts link UCC process design to disposal failures	Couvaras was lent to UCIL and supervised by UCIL; documentary record shows UCIL executed engineering/construction and waste management; experts only repackage prior evidence	Held for UCC — new evidence is conclusory and does not rebut extensive record that Couvaras worked for UCIL and that UCIL, not UCC, controlled the offending operations
Proper legal standard for causation under New York law	MTBE supports liability where defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor or showed knowledge making harm substantially certain; plaintiffs contend broad causation applies	UCC contends the District Court applied correct standard and required sufficiently direct role or knowledge by UCC to impose liability	Held for UCC — court applied MTBE correctly; no evidence UCC had knowledge that UCIL’s waste system would leak or that UCC’s conduct was a sufficiently direct cause
Admissibility/persuasiveness of expert opinions tying UCC design to contamination	Experts opine UCC process engineering caused disposal problems and contamination	UCC argues experts only draw inferences from the same record addressed in Sahu I and do not add new factual basis tying UCC to tortious conduct	Held for UCC — experts do not supply new facts to defeat summary judgment; they blur UCC/UCIL roles without creating a triable issue
Whether District Court abused discretion by denying a preservation deposition of Couvaras	Deposition necessary because Couvaras uniquely could explain UCC/UCIL relationship and might provide facts not in the record	Court has an extensive record; Couvaras’s declaration does not promise additional material facts; deposition would be speculative and cumulative	Held for UCC — denial of deposition was not an abuse of discretion given the ample existing record and lack of indication Couvaras would add new material facts

Key Cases Cited

Bano v. Union Carbide Corp., 361 F.3d 696 (2d Cir. 2004) (background precedent addressing Bhopal litigation and relations between UCC and UCIL)
Sahu v. Union Carbide Corp., [citation="528 F. App'x 96"] (2d Cir. 2013) (prior appeal in related personal-injury litigation confirming record did not show UCC as the operative actor)
Sotomayor v. City of New York, 713 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment in Second Circuit)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment requires more than a scintilla of evidence)
In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2013) (causation standard: defendant liable if conduct was a substantial factor or showed knowledge making harm substantially certain)
F.D.I.C. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 607 F.3d 288 (2d Cir. 2010) (no genuine issue where evidence supporting nonmovant is too slight)
Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., Ltd. P'ship, 22 F.3d 1219 (2d Cir. 1994) (summary judgment appropriate where nonmoving party’s evidence is mere speculation)
Scott v. Coughlin, 344 F.3d 282 (2d Cir. 2003) (conclusory allegations insufficient to defeat summary judgment)