Suez Water New York Inc. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-10731
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Veolia Water New York v. EIDP, Judge Liman granted Veolia’s motion to compel discovery concerning its design-defect claim.
Veolia Water New York, Inc. and EIDP, Inc.; the order governs the scope and handling of discovery between them.
What happened
Veolia Water New York, Inc. v. EIDP, Inc. concerns Veolia’s request for documents and answers to questions from EIDP in a lawsuit involving alleged defects in EIDP’s fluorochemical products. Veolia argued that its discovery should not be limited to Teflon products.
EIDP argued that the design-defect claim was limited to Teflon and that Veolia had not identified specific fluoropolymers for which it sought discovery. The court rejected EIDP’s categorical interpretation, pointing to the claim’s allegations about EIDP’s fluorochemical products, including Zonyl fluorotelomers and Teflon fluoropolymers.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted Veolia’s motion to compel as set forth in the order. He directed the parties to meet and discuss whether the discovery requests were sufficiently specific and proportional, while allowing EIDP to seek limits on discovery for reasons other than restricting the claim categorically to Teflon.
The detailed version
- Suez Water New York Inc. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company · No. 1:20-cv-10731
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 3, 2025
Background
Veolia Water New York, Inc., formerly Suez Water New York, Inc., moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) to compel discovery from EIDP, Inc., formerly E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company. The court stated that Rule 26 permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.
Dispute over the discovery’s scope
The parties disagreed about whether Veolia’s design-defect claim was limited to Teflon. In an earlier order, the court had rejected EIDP’s argument that Veolia failed to state a design-defect claim because it did not identify an alternative design. The court had concluded that Veolia’s allegation that GenX could be used instead of PFOA to produce fluoropolymers such as Teflon alleged a feasible alternative design.
The court held that EIDP read that earlier ruling too narrowly. Count Five of Veolia’s Second Amended Complaint alleged a design defect involving EIDP’s “fluorochemical products,” including but not limited to Zonyl fluorotelomers and Teflon fluoropolymers. The Third Amended Complaint contained similar allegations. The court therefore concluded that Veolia was entitled to discovery relevant to that claim and proportional to the needs of the case.
EIDP also argued that fluoropolymers were not one single product and that Veolia had not identified the specific polymers for which it sought discovery. The court explained that those arguments concerned whether the document requests were stated with reasonable particularity and whether the requests were proportional—not whether Count Five was categorically limited to Teflon. EIDP did not make those arguments in response to this motion.
Ruling
Judge Liman granted Veolia’s motion to compel as set forth in the order. The parties were directed to meet and confer about the particularity and proportionality of the document requests and interrogatories. The order stated that it was without prejudice to an application by EIDP to limit discovery on grounds other than treating Count Five as limited to Teflon. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 156.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.