PITTSBURGH – Paint supplier PPG Industries' motion to quash Sherwin-Williams Co.’s subpoena against it was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on March 25.
Judge Robert Colville transferred the case to Judge Lynn Adelman of the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which initially issued the subpoenas.
“It’s not clear that the subpoena that was actually served upon PPG was presented to Judge Adelman,” Colville wrote. “Accordingly, the court finds that while Judge Adelman addressed the issue of the relevance of the requested discovery in finding good cause for the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of PPG in the underlying litigation, the issue of proportionality was not so squarely addressed.”
Still, the court deemed a transfer to be appropriate because Adelman is the most familiar with the case and the issues PPG raised in its motion to quash. The Eastern District of Wisconsin also is best to rule on the motion for the relevant information that PPG is asking for as the case is projected to be a lengthy one. The court also didn’t want to push a ruling that didn’t align with Adelman’s decision.
The subpoenas in question request 32 categories of documents concerning 21 different issues in lawsuits against Sherwin-Williams that claim plaintiffs suffered injuries after ingesting white lead carbonate pigments (WLC).
PPG challenged Sherwin-Williams’ request for a subpoena, stating that it not only isn’t a defendant in the cases, but that it doesn’t produce WLC, so Sherwin-Williams doesn’t need the documents it’s asking for, and that the discovery solely relates to the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
That court has an “expansion of Wisconsin state law’s risk-contribution theory in the underlying matter to subject paint manufacturers, as opposed to only WLC manufacturers, to potential risk-contribution liability,” according to the lawsuit.