Sahu v. Union Carbide Corp.
528 F. App'x 96
2d Cir.2013Background
- Sahu and others sued Union Carbide Corp. (UCC) seeking damages and remediation/medical monitoring for injuries from soil and water pollution near the Bhopal plant in India.
- UCIL produced Sevin pesticide; UCC previously owned majority stake and later divested; the plant's hazardous waste disposal allegedly contaminated local wells and soil.
- Waste disposal involved solar evaporation ponds; Sahu alleges leakage contaminated groundwater and caused health impairments.
- Sahu claims UCC approved back-end integration, supplied pesticides technology, aided waste-disposal designs, and advised on remediation, implying direct/indirect liability.
- District Court granted summary judgment for UCC; after extensive discovery on remand, the District Court again granted summary judgment, which the Second Circuit affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct nuisance liability viability | Sahu contends UCC participated in creating the nuisance. | UCC did not directly cause the pollution; UCIL designed/disposed waste. | No reasonable jury could find UCC created the nuisance |
| Indirect liability theories viability | Concerted action, agency liability, and veil-piercing theories show liability. | Record lacks evidence of control or domination to justify those theories. | No triable issue; theories fail |
| Discovery rulings and depositions on remand | District Court abused discretion denying Rule 56(d) depositions (e.g., Warren Anderson). | Depositions would be burdensome and not help; limited document discovery suffices. | No abuse; denial reasonable |
| Reassignment/remand handling | Court should reassign to avoid potential bias or to ensure fairness. | No authority allowing such reassignment by district court; reassignment denied. | No error; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Copart Indus. v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., 41 N.Y.2d 564 (New York 1977) (public vs private nuisance distinction)
- People ex rel. Spitzer v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., 761 N.Y.S.2d 192 (1st Dep’t 2003) (remoteness and duty in public nuisance claims)
- State v. Schenectady Chems., Inc., 459 N.Y.S.2d 971 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1983) (liability for nuisance specifics on public nuisance)
- Shore Realty Corp. v. 759 F.2d 1032, 759 F.2d 1032 (2d Cir. 1985) (corporate officer liability in nuisance context)
- Bano v. Union Carbide Corp., 361 F.3d 696 (2d Cir. 2004) (remediation impracticability as a remedy)
- In re Dana Corp., 574 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2009) (discovery sufficiency and subsidence of discovery requests)
- Sotomayor v. City of New York, 713 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary judgment standard; de novo review)