Document VGYXVLv7EV7XGOm38Bm2jbQeZ

FILED WITH- COLW r-*\ ?**K RECEIVED SEP 7 '992 PITNEY, HARDIN, KIPP & SZUCH Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch (MAIL T0) P O BOX '945 MORRISTOWN NJ 07962 1945 (DELIVERY TOI 200 CAMPUS DRIVE, FLORHAM PARK, N J 07932 1201) 966 6300 attorneys for Third-Party Defendant Monsanto Company ' CITY OF PERTH AMBOY, A Municipal Corporation, I Plaintiff/ Counterclaim| Defendant, t1 v. jwiTCO CORPORATION, Defendant/ Counterelaimant/ Third-Party Plaintiff, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION: MIDDLESEX COUNTY DOCKET NO. L-073370-86 Civil Action ORDER DENYING THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF WITCO CORPORATION'S APPLICATION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY MONSANTO COMPANY, et al. Third-Party Defendants. This matter having been opened to the Court on application by Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi & Stewart, HARTOLDMON0044392 attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant/Third-Party Plaintiff witco Corporation ("Witco") for an Order, to compel Third-Party Defendant Monsanto Company ("Monsanto") to produce a "computer index to PCBrelated documents," and counsel of record having appeared, and the Court having reviewed the moving papers and papers submitted in opposition thereto, and having heard the oral arguments of counsel, and the Court having conducted an in camera review of the documents submitted to the Court pursuant to the Court's Order of July 24, 1992, and for good cause shown; IT IS on this ORDERED that Witco's application to compel Monsanto to produce a "computer index to PCB-related documents" is he'feby denied for the reasons set forth by the Court on the record on July 31, 1992, a copy of which is attached hereto. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order be served within seven (7) days from receipt of this Order by counsel for Monsanto. HON. THOMAS B. MANNION, J.S.C. 2 HARTOLDMON0044393 f U'P'- I L/ 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION - CIVIL PART 2 MIDDLESEX COUNTY DOCKET NO. L-Q73370-86 3 CITY OF PERTH AMBOY, ) 4) Plaintiff, ) 5) vs. ) 6) WITCO CHEMICAL CORPORATION, ) TRANSCRIPT OF JUDGE 1S 7 ) DECISION Defendant- ) 8 Third-Party) Plaintiff, ) 9) vs. ' 10 MONSANTO, et a Is., ) ) ) 11 ) Third-Party) 12 Defendants.) 1 13 Place: Middlesex County Courthouse New Brunswick, N.J. 08903 14 Date: July 31, 1992 15 BEFORE 16 HON. THOMAS B MANNION, J.S.C. 17 TRANSCRIPT ORDERED BY: 18 MARY S- PARENTE, ESQ. (Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch) 19 APPEARANCES; 20 JAMES TYRRELL, ESQ. (Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch), 21 Attorney for Third-Party Defendant, Monsanto. 22 23 24 Patricia A. Meade, Transcriber 25 36 Cranmer Road Bayville, N.J- 08721 HARTOLDMON0044394 o 1 THE COURT: This is the matter of City of Perth Amboy 2 versus Witco and versus Monsanto, et al, docket number 3 L-073370-86. 4 Counsel, do you want to state your name for the 5 record, please. 6 MR. TYRRELL; Good morning, Your Honor. My name is 7 James Tyrrell from Pitney, Hardin, Kipp and Szuch for third8 party defendant, Monsanto Company, and with me but not appear 9 ing is Thomas Bistline, in-house counsel at Monsanto, 10 B-i-s-t-l-i-n-e. 11 THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect that 12 this is the return date of an in camera review of the certain 13 documents that have been submitted pursuant to the previous 14 Court ruling in the motion on this matter, I believe was on the 15 24th, is that correct? 16 MR. TYRRELL: Yes, Your Honor, 17 THE COURT: 7/24, July 24, 1992. 18 The record should reflect further that I have reviewed 19 the document that has been referred to as Monsanto's compute' 20 taxonomy, t-a-x-o-n-o-m-y. 21 My review leads to me cite the case I cited at the 22 motion which is IBM Peripherals. U.S. District Court, Northern 23 District of California, February 10, 1975, 5COSR876, and I make 24 si mi la,' findings which I'll state as follows: 25 The document I just referred to is a computerized HARTOLDMON0044395 3 1 child support system developed by IBM's counsel. The material 2 contained therein was prepared solely for litigation and was 3 put in computerized form so as it could be used in connection 4 with any litigation. 5 Two, all documents and other materials referenced by 6 this document, in this case Monsanto, are available through 7 normal discovery to the plaintiffs. The document in no way 8 hides, destroys or deprives the third-party plaintiff, Witco, 9 of access to any. evidence whatsoever. 10 Three, the document in question created by Monsanto's 11 counsel reflects their mental impressions, theories and thought 12 processes, and the Court is not satisfied that the information 13 contained in that document can be segregated from such lawyers' 14 mental impressions and/or theories. 15 Four, to allow Witco a more detailed description of 16 the document or to allow Witco to make use thereof would im 17 pinge upon the right of Monsanto's counsel to organize mate 18 rial in the perspective they want it to be put in and to uti 19 lize such information in their trial preparations. Witco has 20 failed to make a sufficient showing of need in order to jus 21 tify such a result. 22 And, five, Witco has failed to show that there are no 23 alternative means available to them to obtain the equivalent 24 information without undue hardship. 25 In view of that, I'm returning herewith the document HARTOLDMON0044396 4 1 in question to Monsanto's attorney and further order that the 2 application by Witco to receive that document is denied. 3 Counsel for Monsanto will submit the appropriate Court order. 4 Let the record reflect the items being returned. 5 All right, we stand in recess. 6 (End of proceedings.) 7 8 9 10 I, Patricia A. Meade, assigned transcriber, do hereby 11 certify that the foregoing transcript of proceedings in the 12 Middlesex County Civil Court on July 31, 1992, Tape No. 1, 13 0018-0156, is a true and accurate record of the proceedings to 14 the best of my knowledge and ability. 15 16 Date 17 18 Patricia A. Meade, AOC #284 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HARTOLDMON0044397