Defendants in Stella PFAS lawsuit file motion to compel

The companies defending themselves against a drinking water contamination lawsuit filed by a group of Town of Stella property owners have asked a federal judge to compel all named plaintiffs to respond to requests for production of documents.

Ahlstrom Munksjo and Wausau Paper, along with chemical giant 3M, filed the motion to compel in late January. 

In a 14-page brief filed in support of the motion, attorneys for the defendants argue that all of the named plaintiffs should be required to respond to the defense’s requests for discovery information.

“Forty-eight named plaintiffs sued defendants, asserting property damage claims on behalf of three putative subclasses. Yet despite voluntarily injecting themselves into this litigation as parties, 42 of those named plaintiffs contend that they can evade (defense) requests for production of documents concerning their property claims by ‘designating’ six other plaintiffs as class representatives,” the brief states.

The lawsuit, filed in August 2023, alleges that the spread of PFAS-contaminated sludge/fibercake from the Rhinelander paper mill on local farmlands contaminated private drinking wells. Ahlstrom has owned the mill since 2018, when it purchased the operation from Wausau Paper. 3M is accused of providing products to the mill that contained PFAS.

PFAS are a group of man-made, fluorinated chemicals manufactured and used since the 1940s. Because they are designed to be stable and unreactive to water, grease, heat, and other elements, they are often referred to as “forever” compounds. 

Studies have shown a link between human exposure to PFAS and adverse health effects and some of the Stella plaintiffs allege they have experienced health issues they attribute to PFAS contamination.

Stella residents became aware of the well contamination in late 2022 after the DNR conducted a statewide testing program. 

 In September 2024, attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint for a second time (the complaint was first amended in February 2024) to “reflect the current parties” and “generally amplify and clarify earlier actual allegations based on information presently known...”

The defendants have mounted a vigorous response since the outset.

Among other things, they argue that land-spreading is a common practice, regulated by the DNR, that does not meet the legal definition of a “hazardous activity” as is required for the plaintiff’s strict liability claim to prevail.

The defendants have also signaled their opposition to any attempt to have the lawsuit certified as a “class action” as it is their belief that none of the plaintiffs’ claims meet the “rigorous standards” for class certification.

In their motion to compel, the defendants argue there is no rule or precedent permitting the plaintiffs to “self-select which of them will respond to discovery requests and which can opt out of the discovery obligations...”

“To the contrary, case law provides that plaintiffs named in the operative complaint are subject to discovery under the Federal Rules (of Civil Procedure),” the attorneys argued. “To permit otherwise and allow named plaintiffs to self-select who responds to discovery would encourage gamesmanship and impair a defendant’s right to defend itself.”

“Forty-two plaintiffs’ blanket refusal to respond to defendants’ requests for production is improper. Although defendants do not intend to seek unnecessary or duplicative discovery, including duplicative depositions, they are entitled, like any defendant, to obtain relevant discovery that will enable them to understand the claims that each plaintiff has asserted against them and to oppose class certification.”

According to the defendants’ brief, attempts to resolve the dispute have been unsuccessful because “plaintiffs continue to assert, incorrectly, that the parties agreed to limit discovery, other than Plaintiff Fact Sheets, to the designated class representatives and that case law supports their refusal to provide any discovery for self-selected named plaintiffs.”

According to the defendants, the “fact sheets” provided only basic information while the requests for documents are much more detailed and include information regarding the condition, use, and value of each plaintiff’s property(ies). 

“For example, defendants’ requests seek communications with contractors regarding repairs to and remediation of plaintiffs’ properties; documents reflecting the marketability or value of plaintiffs’ properties; documents reflecting improvements to plaintiffs’ properties; documents reflecting alleged physical damage to plaintiffs’ properties; documents reflecting any alleged monetary damage or diminution in value of plaintiffs’ properties; and documents reflecting business uses of plaintiffs’ properties.”

“The blanket refusal of the non-class representative named plaintiffs to provide documents with that information would, if permitted by the court, leave defendants without this critical discovery necessary to oppose class certification,” the brief states. “The rules of discovery simply do not allow plaintiffs to stack the deck in their favor in this manner. Allowing plaintiffs to ‘self-select the active class representatives’ to ‘leave discovery limited to the portion of the plaintiffs selected’ is inappropriate because it would skew the evidence regarding the claims.”

“In short, having amended their complaint now for the third time, 48 plaintiffs have chosen to file a complaint asserting multiple property claims against defendants and seeking significant compensatory damages,” the brief concludes. “Having filed their claims, these plaintiffs cannot avoid the fundamental obligation imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of responding to requests for the production of documents by self-selecting — only after having received defendants’ document requests — 6 of the 48 who will agree to respond to (the) document requests.”

According to court records, plaintiffs are expected to respond to the motion to compel later this month.

Meanwhile, other deadlines associated with the litigation have been pushed back.

According to court records, a decision as to whether the case will be certified as a class action is not expected until February 2026 and the trial, if necessary, has been pushed back from September 2026 to March 2027.

Heather Schaefer may be reached at [email protected].