PROVIDENCE, R.I. (Legal Newsline) - Oil companies sued by Rhode Island over global warming say the state judge hearing their case cited has created the appearance of bias by citing news articles in a ruling and comparing the state to developing nations that are seeking payment for climate change at the United Nations.
Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell and others asked Judge William Carnes to “clarify and strike” parts of his April 28 granting Rhode Island the power to conduct limited discovery into the companies’ marketing oil and gas and knowledge about the effects of hydrocarbons on global warming.
In his order, the judge cited Associate Press articles from November about the United Nations Climate Change Conference, referencing “record-breaking floods, heat waves, and storms.”
“Small countries in other parts of world, like Kenya, Tanzania, and the Seychelles, presented that oil companies have benefitted billions in corporate profits at the expense of their climate-related disasters that have caused severe destruction,” the judge wrote. “Rhode Island, the smallest state in the country, is similarly situated to these small countries.”
Those statements could violate Rhode Island’s code of judicial conduct, the oil companies said in a June 7 motion, because they refer to information outside the record and disputed claims that are at the core of the case.
”No evidence of any kind has been introduced on any `consequences Rhode Island has borne,’ much less on `consequences relating to sea-level rise, rising temperatures, and severe storms,’” quoting phrases from the judge’s order.
Rhode Island, like Massachusetts and other government plaintiffs, claims oil companies imposed climate-related damages on the state by failing to tell consumers about the effects of hydrocarbon use on global warming. Plaintiff lawyers tried a number of strategies before hitting upon the idea the companies could be sued for consumer fraud, effectively claiming that drivers and even the state itself was misled into burning gasoline, oil and natural gas.
The case was allowed to proceed in state court after the U.S. Supreme Court in April denied a defense request to move it to federal court, which the oil companies consider fairer. Rhode Island, like several other states and cities, is represented by private lawyers at Sher Edling under a contingency fee contract that will pay it a portion of any proceeds.
The defendants have sought to dismiss the case, in part by arguing the state lacks specific jurisdiction over them to decide whether they caused climate damages to Rhode Island. The judge ordered limited discovery into that question, but the oil companies said his other remarks in the order could be construed as authorizing a broader inquiry into their global activities. To show specific jurisdiction, the oil companies said, the court should consider only evidence about oil and gas marketing efforts within Rhode Island and climate change impacts specific to the state.
“Historical knowledge of climate change impacts is irrelevant to the personal jurisdictional inquiry because knowledge is not a forum contact,” they said.