TORTS AND DAMAGES

BOOK REPORT ON A CIVIL ACTION

HAPSAH S. BAUNTO Institute of Law

ATTY. GALAHAD PE BENITO Professor

March 3, 2012

Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Chapter 2: Chapter 3: Chapter 4: Chapter 5: Chapter 6: Chapter 7: Chapter 9: Chapter 10: Chapter 11: Chapter 12: Chapter 13: Boston: July 1986 .......................................................................................................... 3 Woburn: Summer 1966................................................................................................. 4 The Lawyer .................................................................................................................... 5 Rule 11 .......................................................................................................................... 6 Orphans and Dogs ......................................................................................................... 7 Discovery ....................................................................................................................... 8 The Woodshed .............................................................................................................. 9 Fachers Plea ............................................................................................................... 11 The Trial....................................................................................................................... 12 The Vigil ....................................................................................................................... 13 The Negotiation........................................................................................................... 14 Blindmans Bluff .......................................................................................................... 15

Chapter 1:

Boston: July 1986

The story starts at the end. It starts with the narration of how a lawyer, Jan Schlichtmann, is made to await the verdict of the jury in a case against two large companies for the effects of their operations. In these times, Schlichtmann had sleepless nights and even if he sleeps, the case still haunts him since his dreams involve the members of the jury themselves. It starts with a telephone call from Baybank South Shore which demanded payment of Schlichtmanns debt to it. He referred the said demand to his financial adviser, James Gordon. However, he could not escape the demand made by his second caller who is the Sherriff. The Sheriff demanded the possession of his car which he only drove for five thousand miles. The same was already not used by Schlichtmann since its insurance had already lapsed and its battery was already broke. He himself was close to being homeless himself. This was the scenario in the summer of 1986.

Chapter 2:

Woburn: Summer 1966 striking cluster 12 cases of leukemia for a fifteen-year period

The first part of the novel is a description of Woburn, the setting of the story. Woburn is an outskirt city north of Boston. In 1966, the City is small and not a very-much developed city. For a time, the City was nicknamed the Tan City since in the 1950s, the City prospered because of tanneries. Even in the summer of 1966, the remnants of what used to be a throbbing commercial district remain in the structural milieu of the City. By the late 1960s, only J.J. Riley Tannery in east Woburn was left of the industry and in the northeastern part of the City, W.R. Grace, a Company producing chemicals. It was also in this time that Reverend Mr. Bruce Young worked at Woburn Trinity Episcopal Church. Even as he had plans of transferring to another Episcopal Church, he was not able to do so since he was trapped in his counselling and before long, he finds himself ministering to the sick and infirm. As it happened, the Reverend became an instrument in the unfolding of this environmental story. The heart of the controversy stems from the Aberjona River, a narrow, placid stream, only a few feet wide and waist-deep, ran through a marshland of reeds, cattails, and grassy tussocks. This river covers the land over the lands where the businesses of J. Riley and W.R. Grace are located in the north and extends down south to the homes of people who work for said companies. Also in this time, the Citys had a problem with their water since it became very unpotable in the 1960s. Wells G and H which are located in the northern part of the City were found to have been contaminated with trichloroethylene, commonly known as TCE, an industrial solvent used to dissolve grease and oil and tetrachloroethylene, known as perc, an industrial solvent. The said solvents are considered as possible carcinogens. These have been bases for the indecisive stands on the closing of said wells. The story started, or rather, it was thought that the story started with the Andersons. One of the couples children was diagnosed of acute lymphocytic leukemia. The boy died in January 1981. A Robbins boy, who lives within the area of the River, also died of acute lymphocytic leukemia when he was nine in 1981. Several other children died from the families of Gamache, Nagle, Zonas, Aufiero (1982), Kane, Carlson, Lilley, Barbas, Ryan, Veno and Toomey (1979 - chronic myelocytic leukemia) within a fifteen-year period. These families had a meeting to discuss about the reflection of Anne Anderson that there is a significant observation that a cluster of leukemia cases is found within the area of the River where water from Wells G and H come from. They have established that the families are situated within miles from each other and they found that a study of the University of Chicago in the Niles case, no evidence was found of any hereditary factor in childhood leukemia. According to them, since water is the only thing that they share, the epidemic could have been caused by it. However, the families are unable to answer to the question as to who have caused the pollutants in Wells G and H. They were not one in their answers to this because some would say that the tanneries were to blame. Some say it is the state or the City.

Chapter 3:

The Lawyer bulldog once he gets hold of something, he doesnt let go

Jan Schlichtmann is the lawyer who was fated to be the lawyer to represent the right of action of the Woburn families. He followed his calling as a personal injury lawyer because of his brief stint in the American Civil Liberties Union when still a non-lawyer, he drafted a complaint on the Senate House to protest the governors cut on the budget of welfare in support of t he nuns and welfare mothers. It was this exposure that made him want to enrol in law school since in that brief stint of his in the ACLU, he realized he had to consult a lawyer. In the end, he became a lawyer and he exemplified that the law was perhaps the highest calling a man could aspire to because he engaged in personal injury cases until he encountered a case about a businessman who caused injury to his passengers because he negligently caused the plane to crash. It was because of this case that he got an invitation to be part of Reed & Mulligan. Barry Reed, a partner of the said personal injury firm wanted to get the case from Schlichtmann since one of the parties injured was Reeds client but Schlichtmann refused and both ended up working together for the case. Because of Reeds dedication to the case, their clients were able to claim compensation out of the negligent act. As it turned out, Schlichtmann was invited to work for the firm and Joe Mulligan, also one of the partner of the said firm, introduced Schlichtmann to the Woburn case. Only Schlichtmann was interested in the case since Mulligan and Schlichtmanns confidante, Conway, did not like the case and did not do anything about it since they think that it is a dead case. Schlichtmann flew to Boston to tell the Woburn families that they cannot continue with the case. However, fate had it that he was not able to turn his back to the families since Reverend Young mentioned that ACLU, through its Executive Director, Anthony Roisman, is ready and willing to help in the case. Schlichtmann just couldnt say no. On his way back to downtown Boston, Schlichtmann visited the area where the business operation of Beatrice Foods, the parent company of J.J. Riley. He noted that there were hundreds of drums piled at the back of the property and he there he also noted the foul odor emitted by said drums. The property was owned by the said Company and was used as a production well of the tannery and it was mentioned in one of the studies that the same land had high contents of TCE, in an intensity higher than that noted in Wells G and H. On his way back, Schlichtmann frames his arguments in favour of the Woburn families. On May 14, 1982, eight days prior to the prescription of the action, Schlichtmann, with the help of Roisman, filed the complaint against W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods (which owns John J. Riley Tannery) before the Superior Court of Boston. The prescriptive period for personal injury actions in Massachusetts, where Woburn is part of, is three years which began to run on the day the Woburn wells had closed May 22, 1979.

Chapter 4:

Rule 11 that the lawyers for the Woburn families had no grounds for the allegations

As a consequence to the lawsuit filed by the Woburn families, Beatrice Foods and W.R. Grace implored the services of Hale and Dorr through Jerome Facher and Foley, Hoag and Eliot through William Cheeseman, respectively. Facher is a sixty-year old lawyer who is respected both in the law firm where he is part of and in Harvard Law School where he teaches. He assigned Neil Jacobs as his junior partner in the case. Jacobs then went to the premises of their clients business in Woburn to help him prepare for his answer to the complaint. Although theirs was a big law firm which already has template answers, Neil Jacobs also had to go to Woburn to interview John J. Riley, the owner of J.J. Riley Tannery, which is a subsidiary of Beatrice Foods, whom Jacobs and Facher represent. In this venture, Jacobs came to know that the barrels alleged in the complaint of Schlichtmann were indeed factual, in that he saw the barrels himself in their clients premises. However, the said observation was not made part of his answer. This is because it was on the part of Schlichtmann to prove that such fact existed and that his thrust will always be for and in behalf of Beatrice Foods. Cheeseman, on the one hand, is the counsel for W.R. Grace. Although the Woburn case was not the first environmental suit against W.R. Grace, it was the first case which accuses the Company of killing five children. As such, the case was important to Grace and in the same vein, Cheeseman regarded the suit as important. Cheeseman takes pride and is known for not reaching trial because of two things: 1. he is good in pre-trial techniques which usually lead to dismissal of cases and 2. he admits that he is no good in the trial proper. Given those premises, he was able to think of Rule 11 dismissal of the action because the plaintiff had no grounds for the allegations and deem it wise to actually file the same Motion in order to make the plaintiffs counsel to be the one to explain that there were grounds in the said action, otherwise, the Court should dismiss the same. The counsel for W.R. Grace informed Facher about this Motion but the latter did not give its support on the matter. This act of Facher was later on proved to be wise since the Judge who heard the case dismissed the said motion. Judge Walter Jay Skinner was the one to whom the case was raffled when Cheeseman moved for the transfer of the case from a state court to a U.S. District Court. He is fifty-six years old and was known to exert earnest efforts to lessen his backlog. He has met Schlichtmann earlier in one case wherein Schlichtmann won. The said judge also knows and actually respects Fatcher, the latter having been known for his name and stature. After two weeks, Judge Skinner decreed its ruling that the Motion filed by Cheeseman and not supported by Fatcher was dismissed as he said the Motion should not be used when the plaintiff may well present evidence in trial which could not have been made available at the time of the filing of the complaint.

Chapter 5:

Orphans and Dogs the Woburn case is an orphan and Schlichtmann adopts it

It came to pass that Schlichtmann was able to win cases for the firm Reed & Mulligan. A certain case was completed by Schlichtmann with a settlement of two and a quarter million dollars. However, the credit all went to Reed. And so, Schlichtmann decided to start his own firm named it Schlichtmann, Conway & Crowley. And even with the new firm, Schlichtmann was bound to be the counsel for the Woburn case while ACLU and Roisman regarded the case as a dog a case which must not be pursued. For the next year and a half, after the denied ruling on the Motion invoking Rule 11, Schlichtmann became busy with other cases. One particular case was the Carney case in which he was the counsel for Paul Carney who was a victim of a medical malpractice. In this said case, judgment was rendered in favor of Carney but it was not made without any costs since it was in this case that Schlichtmann and his partners started to incur debts. Their banker became present in the trial of Schlichtmanns cases to secure the debt owed to him. At first, Cheeseman thought that the Woburn case had become an orphan since for a long time, he has not heard of Schlichtmann. He then finds out that Schlichtmann is engrossed in the Carney case. He then realized how detailed Schlichtmann is in his pre-trial and trial processes and evidences that he knew that he should do everything to stop the case from continuing to trial. However, Cheeseman was mistaken because a supervening event happened. Schlichtmann was reminded about the Woburn case when in February of 1984, the Harvard Health Study was released giving grounds for the case against the Companies and for the advantage of the families. A day after such release, Cheeseman filed a Motion for Summary Judgment from the sala of Judge Skinner only to be denied by the latter because according to the Judge, the complex factual issue of causation is a subject of heated dispute. Said motion, like the Motion on Rule 11, was not supported by Beatrice. Undaunted, Cheeseman filed a Motion to implead Unifirst. The said Company is also within the vicinity of Aberjona River and near the area where Schlichtmanns clients live. This motion of Cheeseman, as usual, was neither supported by Fatcher not was the latter informed of the same. As it happened, Cheesemans act of impleading Unifirst only made matters worse since the defendants all three of them, started pointing fingers at each other. And from which events, Graces in-house counsel overruled the act of Cheeseman by dropping charges against Unifirst. This event, however, proved beneficial to Schlichtmann and his clients since Unifirst decided to end the case against it by agreeing to settle out of court in the amount of one million and fifty thousand dollars.
7

Chapter 6:

Discovery what is there to discover when things were made not to be discovered

Before trial, there is a process called depositions. This is a process whereby the lawyers of both sides conduct modes of discoveries to be able to know all the facts pertaining to the case so that in the trial itself, there will be no surprises since the parties already know the facts. Deposition of the thirteen Woburn families took up the whole of January. It was Richard Aufiero, who testified the sudden death of his child in a highway but was later found out to be caused by leukemia. In that deposition, Facher realized that it would not help their case if the families were made to take the witness stand because the jurys testimony would be in their favor. The deposition to make discoveries of facts about the Graces Operation was commenced by the interview of Paul Shalline, the head of safety and maintenance at the Woburn Plant. In the said deposition-taking, the said employee only denied any knowledge of any practice of the plant in disposing waste materials by spreading it on the ground in the 1960s. Next in line was the deposition-taking of Thomas Barbas, who was a painter in the plants paint shop. Schlichtmann intervied him because of the reply of Cheeseman to the fact that TCE contents were kept in the said shop. When he was also asked if he had knowledge of the dumping of waste materials in their compound, Barbas said that he had no direct knowledge of such but only heard other people talk about it but when he was asked who said things about it, he denied having remembered their names. Worthy of note was the fact that it was only after twenty-two years in the shop that Barbas had a promotion. The very promising deponent that Schlichtmann had encountered was Al Love. He worked in the sheet metal department where he cleaned metal parts with a solvent he obtained from a drum in a paint shop. Unlike the other deponents, Al Love was straightforward in his answers and was concerned of his familys health. The same witness, however, took offense in the fact that whenever Schlichtmann asks about the health of his family, there were objections from Cheeseman and even from the representative from Beatrice. Then he realized that his testimonies make him at the wrong side as an employee of Grace and before long, he became an instrument in the discovery that during the 1960s, the employees of the Woburn plant saw drums containing chemicals in the plants premises which led Schlichtmann to believe that the previous deponents were not truthful. By then, Schlichtmann was able to prove that employees of Grace dumped TCE in the grounds of the Company but he still had to prove that the same chemicals had gotten to the city wells. He was able to do a lot for the investigation of the Grace plant but not so much for Beatrice. He was only able to take the deposition of John J. Riley which were only full of denials. In the process of digging up knowledge on the possibility of the Tannery effecting disposals of toxic substances on the ground, Schlichtmann was able to get a hold of the Killer Document which was issued by A.C. Bolde, a sanitary engineer who asked Riley to remove the tannery waste on the ground in response to repeated complaints by Woburn residents. The said document was dated July 12, 1956 and was released by the public health department.

Chapter 7:

The Woodshed Fatcher is the Tweedledum of Tweedledee Skinner

Five months away from the trial date, the Office of the Schlichtmann, Conway & Crowley have become full of the Woburn case. It was in this part of the story wherein Schlichtmann and his team conducted several scientific studies to prove that the toxic wastes were the reason of the death of several children in Woburn. By this time, Schlichtmann employs a total of twelve medical experts who look into the medical records of each family. In these studies, it was observed that there are several similarities in all of the thirteen families. Another point of concentration of Schlichtmann is the investigation of the contents of the soil of both Grace and Beatrice. These studies were conducted to prove that the soil of both Companies was filled with toxic substances which are then transmitted to the water in the area where the Woburn families live. This was later referred to as the expensive pump tests. The studies revealed that not only are the families were affected by the toxic wastes in the soil because of the tap water which they drink but also of their contact with the contaminated water when they take a bath. It has been discovered that the families have a common observance of having a burning sensation when they take a bath. This was then traced to the fact that the water was contaminated with toxic wastes which are then emitted to the families through the toxic wastes contact with their skin. Thus, not only did the families get affected by the contaminated water but also because of chronic solvent poisoning. Of course, because of the number of plaintiffs and medical experts involved, and the expenses relating to these, the firm incurred debts from Uncle Pete, the banker. In this time, the funds of the firm were devoted to the conduct of the several medical studies and the settlement in the Unifirst involvement was already used up. This was also the point in which the firm makes good use the services of the Economic Planning Group run by Mark Phillips and James Gordon since the firm was in financial disarray. As this was the time very near the trial, several motions were filed by all of the parties Woburn families, Grace and Beatrice. One of the significant motions which were filed was the motion of Facher, which, among others, moved for the censure of Schlichtmann. This was known as the Woodshed conference. In here, Schlichtmann was reprised of the many uncalled for comments of Schlichtmann during the depositions as indicated in the transcripts of the depositions. During said conference, Judge Skinner warned Schlichtmann that his conduct during the depositions should not be tolerated. The Judge also ruled that, no matter how long the parties want to delay the proceedings, he would hear the case in February because he doesnt think it will be any better if they will delay it. Conway did not approve of the notion that Facher and Skinner are so close as to warrant the partiality of the latter to the former. Schlichtmann had this thought as he had observed that each finishes each others sentences like as if listening to Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

Chapter 8:

Billion-Dollar Charlie

The Woburn families want to send a message but should not be a Case of the Blue Bus. Judge Skinner has advised Schlichtmann that they should provide statistical analysis and not merely rely on the Harvard Health Study in 1984 but to prove causation by showing the unlikelihood of so many instances of disease in a particular area. The judge implored Schlichtmann to use statistics in proof. He said that he is reminded of an ideology and the Case of the Blue Bus of a certain Charles Nesson from Harvard Law School. Judge Skinner said that in proving a plaintiffs case, one must not only rely on the odds, not even good odds, because such would not have moral or legal force. This was the gist of the Case of the Blue Bus. Simply put, the nature of judicial proof should not be based on mere odds, or else, the judgment will be a judgment for anarchy. Apart from the need for this, Schlichtmann also had to focus on all the depositions and studies of all the medical experts which numbers twenty-eight in total for both Grace and Beatrice. Schlichtmann realizes that his own medical experts are also known to the experts of both Companies, either by personal relation or contact or by reputation. In their own depositions of the plaintiffs, Grace and Beatrice did not focus on the subject matter of the case the water. But instead, they asked questions about the families contact with other possible carcinogens ranging from peanut butters to bacon to Teflon pans, sugarless gums, to shower curtains. As much as possible, the Companies would chafe the connection of the Companies operations to the demise of several members of the Woburn families. It is also at this juncture that Schlichtmann realized that he needs a law professor to at least meet the reputation of Facher and cause the respect of Skinner in the same degree of the Skinners respect for Facher. Together with a friend, they listed a number of professors who can assist them in the case. And as fate had it, Rikki Klieman, a friend of Schlichtmann knows Charles Nesson himself. The universe conspired so that Schlichtmann was able to get an introduction to Nesson. As it happened, Nesson became part of the case and was responsible for the levelling up of the expectations of Schlichtmann and the others of the worth of the case. He made Schlichtmanns team to realize that the Woburn families are not only suing for themselves but theyre suing on behalf of a broader constituency to serve as an alarm to the corporate world. And that Companies should be on the look-out on the effect that they are making of the world and its people. The value, then of the case is not merely millions but would entail the taking away of a full year of the Companies profits which would amount to billions . Thus, the label Billion-dollar Charlie. Gordon, now a fulltime financial adviser of the firm begins to pray that there be settlement from either party as soon as possible as the fiscal status of the firm is in shambles. He knows for sure that if the trial will not be had because of any long delay of the trial, there would be no funds to finance the expenses for the trial since the firms creditors from Uncle Pete, to other bankers to credit card companies are already banging on their doors.
10

Chapter 9:

Fachers Plea I am asking you, practically begging you Jerry Facher, January 29, 1986

The renowned and respected Facher, made an affidavit, submitted it for decision before the sala of Judge Skinner, asking the Judge to postpone the trial for another seven months or a year so that he would be able to prepare well for the trial. He invoked that no one had slacked in the preparation for the hearing of the case yet there was still so much to be done for trial since the case was able to compile loads and loads of documents, scientific studies, depositions and everything. Thus, he begs for the Judge to postpone the trial. This event, however, unusual and unexpected did not budge the Judge. This is because, the Judge, decided on the negative on the plea of Facher. The Judge did not want to postpone the trial because as he said it may raise hell with your time to get all cranked up for a case and then drop it for half a year and then it becomes a terrible waste. Besides, the Judge said that the postponement will on ly give time for Schlichtmann to prepare for the trial. He suggests, though, that a settlement should be pursued since it will save everyones time and resources. This, however, was not availing, as countered by Facher because Schlichtmann still has not given the Companies their figure for possible settlement. The Judge further reasoned that the case should be tried as scheduled because, the Judge thinks that maybe, the families did not want to settle and that they were not filing the suit because of money but because they want to get rid of their personal guilt. And that what they really want is to be relieved of the blame on their childrens death. Alas, because of the suggestion of Skinner, Schlichtmann and his team set up the negotiation table between the families and Grace and Beatrice in a hotel. During said meeting, Schlichtmann and his team laid down their cards and demanded that the case will only be settled out of court if the Companies would be joint and severally liable for One Hundred Fifty Million Dollars, indicating the particular manner of the payment for the said amount. The said demand was not accepted and both counsels for the Company walked out of the meeting without coming up with a settlement. They practically said that the case would continue to the trial. It was like Facher was telling Schlichtmann and his team to get lost. From thereon, the case was continued with jury selection. The process was very taxing in that the possible jurists were trimmed down to those people who could not have been easy preys to the stories of the plaintiff families. Despite the fact that Schlichtmann and his team thinks that they could have overestimated the Companies liabilities, they continued to participate in the jury selection and there was this instance when Fachers lieutenant, Neil Jacobs, showed interest in settling with the case. However, it also did not pursue and the team of Schlichtmann was left hanging in what could have been the most that they could have from the case eight million dollars.

11

Chapter 10: The Trial the evidence is complicated.. you must.. you must.. As much as Schlichtmann did not want to go to trial because of he knows that the evidence is complicated and that he may be required to present up to thirty expert witnesses and that is his side of the story only. We still, are not talking about the witnesses for Grace and Beatrice. At the trial, Schlichtmann had to prove two things: that the Grace and Beatrice properties were contaminated with TCE and other toxic solvents, and that these solvents had seeped into the groundwater and migrated to the city wells by the late 1960 s. The argument that was hard to prove was that the Woburn soil was contaminated with TCE right before the Woburn family members died and that the same toxic substances were due only to Beatrice and Grace and no other. In the course of trial, there were several witnesses presented by the three parties. Witnesses definitely make or unmake cases. In his part, Schlichtmann had witnesses whose credibility and testimony were probed with gusto by Facher. In the same manner, witnesses of Keating and were also interrogated by Schlichtmann. The testimonies of Schlichtmanns witness, Drobinski, who is a geologist and Braids, an expert witness for Beatrice were sought to be erased from record since their credibility as experts as well as their testimonies were questioned. However, as Nesson had insisted on the case of Drobinski, since Drobinski had passed the qualifications of an expert witness, his testimonies cannot be stricken out. Hence, his testimony remained on record and also that of Braids. Keating, on his part, presented the defence that it is the industries North of Woburn that should be blamed. With the help of Nesson, Schlichtmann was able to expunge the theory of Guswa, when, after due research, Nesson found that the formula that Guswa presented before the jury, actually did not balance. Schlichtmann and his team also turned Guswa into a testimony against Beatrice. But the trial was not flawless on the part of Schlichtmann. In fact, he committed several errors. One, when he was cross-examining J. Riley, he went out of control because he did not expect that during trial Riley would be composed when before trial, Riley was a very hightempered man. He made a blunder when he asked Riley why would you not throw toxic waste into your soil? In practice, as Keating noted, counsel for the other party should not ask a hostile witness why because that would give the hostile witness to give self -serving statements. Second, during his last speech before the case is submitted for the jurys decision, he became so nervous that he did not sleep. This resulted to him delivering a speech which dictated the jury to do something and even bordered pleading before the jury. This is frowned upon in trial practice because cases such as the Woburn case is based on facts and plea to emotions should be out of the picture. During this time, a scheduled field trip to Woburn was also conducted by the jurors and counsels alike. However, as it happened, the area of Beatrice and Grace were practically wiped clean and that the jurors were led to believe that toxic wastes in that part of Woburn was unheard of. In the end, four questions were posed to the jury to answer and they were anything but easy to understand.

12

Chapter 11: The Vigil the corridor is the best place to agonize It is rather ironic that the Courts, the place where justice is ought to be rendered, is the best place to agonize. This is the exact scenario that Schlichtmann was in after the case was submitted for the jurys decision. He waited for their decision on the corridor of the room that the jury was deliberating. The case of the Woburn families became subject to public scrutiny not only because two towering industrial companies are involved but because of two things: 1. The case of a leukemia cluster was uncommon and not yet subjected to medical approbation and 2. The case involved two known and enormous law firms. Hence, it was not infrequent that the case would attract several interviews which were held to illicit comments not only from the Woburn families but also from their respective counsels. The job of the jury was to come up with a unanimous vote in each of the four questions that they have to answer. However, they failed to come up with a unanimous vote. They had to ask for Judge Skinners advice on how to go about their task and if not for one member of the jury Vogel who informed the body that he will have to be replaced by an alternate because he had a scheduled appointment for a heart surgery, the jury wouldnt have come up with their verdict. The verdict absolved Beatrice from liability stating that Schlichtmann and his team failed to show preponderance of evidence that the said Company is liable for the death of several Woburn family members. However, the jury said that Grace is responsible because of the evidence presented against them. They were, nevertheless unsure as to when they were held to be liable. Upon learning of the verdict, Schlichtmann was devastated because he felt that his life was put to waste because of the case and yet he lost his case. It was noted that he focused his attention to the Woburn case only that he failed to give attention to his other cases which resulted to the huge indebtedness of the firm. To the community, in general, the case was seen as a success since Grace was made to answer for the damages. From the perspective of public, Schlichtmann was successful in sending a message that the Corporate world should be responsible to the society in ensuring that their operations do not affect the bigger community of which they are part of. In spite of the verdict against Grace and for the Woburn families, and despite the perception of the general public, it did not change the fact that the families had no money as well as Schlichtmann.

13

Chapter 12: The Negotiation The Woburn case was not really over. He didnt have to die yet. Due to the ruling of the jury that Grace is liable to the injuries sustained by the Woburn families because of the toxic wastes that its Woburn plant disposes in the soil, Keating asked the Judge to postpone the rendition of the judgment because his client is negotiating a possible settlement with the Woburn families. During such time, Keating asked Schlichtmann to accept a settlement of eight million dollars. The latter would have wanted to increase said settlement but to no avail. Hence, as it happened, the judgment was rendered against Keatings client but they raised a motion for new trial which was granted and the previous ruling rendered null and void. Although in paper, that was the circumstance, the truth of the matter was that not only Grace was liable but Beatrice, even more. So negotiations ensued between Grace and Schlichtmanns team. In the said nego tiation proceedings for a possible settlement was sought. In this process, Schlichtmanns team was made to await the figure that Grace is willing to settle. Schlichtmann realized that he is caught in between two disparate factions in the American society: The Woburn families and a very big Company which is W.R. Grace. He recognized the fact that although the case entailed his firm to spend a lot, the case was really for his clients. They were made to wait for the settlement in a sense that one of Graces secretary mockingly asked Schlichtmann if they had a hard time in waiting for the settlement. The negotiation was important to the firm of Schlichtmann because its creditors were already demanding its fulfilment. The computers of the firm were threatened to be repossessed by their creditors and the employees are aware of such fact. Also, on the part of the families, since the jury indicated a certain date which was indicated to be the time in which Grace was proved to have caused the toxic wastes to be submerged in the waters of Woburn, not all the families were assured of damages. In fact, only three deaths were accounted to be worthy of the damages from the judgment of the court. As much as Schlichtmanns team wanted to increase the amount of settlement, t hey also had to be conservative in that Grace may refuse to pay and the families would not receive anything. There was a case when a plaintiff was given an indemnity but when she sought for further indemnity, the decision was overturned and she got nothing. The initial figure of 6.6 million was increased to 8 million and it was the last figure. Each of the families got a portion of the award, the firms debts were paid out and Schlichtmann was placed back where he was before he accepted the Woburn case.

14

Chapter 13: Blindmans Bluff what is there to discover when things were purposely concealed? When the judgment became null and void, Schlichtmann discovered a document which points out that Beatrice was liable since in the nearby areas which surround the residences of the victims (the Woburn families) it is the grounds of Beatrice which is polluted the most. The said paper points out to the result that the said toxic wastes are submerged below the river which then made contact with the Woburn families. Schlichtmann felt betrayed because he had persistently asked Beatrice of any document of this sort but they denied the same. At the onset, even during the stage of getting depositions, Schlichtmann had asked Riley of any document which might touch on the subject matter of their case or even any document regarding its business but the latter said that there were no documents which could give an idea of how the operations of the said tannery was conducted. Because of this discovery, Schlichtmann moved for a new trial on its judgment against Beatrice. The result of which was that Riley was cited for perjury and the secretary was alluded for grave misconduct. In retaliation, the secretary divulged that she did not hide the said document and that the assistant counsel of Facher, Jacobs, knew of the existence of such document. For Schlichtmann, this was unfair because the purpose of the modes of discovery was to uncover documents and facts so that by the time trial would ensue, the Court would only decide on what law to apply in the given uncontested set of facts. But, this did not happen because what was precisely sought to be discovered was intended to be concealed. The Woburn families appealed the judgment rendered by the Court presided by Judge Skinner before the Court of Appeals. The said appellate court ordered the remand of the case to the trial court in lieu of the belated discovery of the said document. However, in the said remand, the outcome was that the Judge ruled that Schlichtmann is liable for clear misconduct under Rule 11 since he filed and prosecuted his case without basis. Also during the remand, one of the newest member of Fachers team, Quarles, said that Jan Riley and Mary Ryan may have screwed up, but the Judge isnt going to give you a new trial. This proved to be prophetic because even with the said document and it being prevented from being discovered by Schlichtmann and his team, Judge Skinner said that neither party should benefit for the misconduct of Schlichtmann and the misconduct of Mary Ryan. The victims appealed the said judgment before the Supreme Court alleging the error of judgment of Judge Skinner, but the said appeal was denied when the Supreme Court that Skinner did not commit grave abuse of discretion because his decisions were based on the records of the case. Glaringly, this judgment, which was supposedly a judgment on the merits of the case, was overturned in a sense that the Environmental Protection Agency. Its studies all proved that Beatrice land was responsible for the contaminating the aquifer of Woburn. Schlichtmann, after investing on the case, retreated in Hawaii and felt that in some mysterious way, all the confidence he had in himself, his ambition, and his talent, would drain away.

15