Background
Several asbestos manufacturers and related companies sued ten asbestos settlement trusts and the Delaware Claims Processing Facility after the trusts adopted policies requiring destruction of claims data after specified periods. The manufacturers alleged that this data— including claimants’ exposure histories, supporting records, and evidence of recoveries—could help them identify alternative sources of asbestos exposure and defend pending and future asbestos claims.
The manufacturers sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring preservation of the data but did not identify particular asbestos cases, claimants, subpoenas, or discovery requests implicated by the proposed destruction. Although their complaint did not expressly request an equitable bill of discovery, the Court of Chancery raised that doctrine sua sponte and held that the complaint adequately pleaded such a claim. It denied the trusts’ motion to dismiss and certified an interlocutory appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Delaware Supreme Court reversed. It held that an equitable-bill-of-discovery claim requires the requesting party to allege: an interest in the discovery; discovery material to a specific pending or anticipated claim; and the absence of an adequate remedy at law. The manufacturers failed to satisfy the second requirement because their general references to thousands of pending cases and possible future litigation did not identify any specific claim to which particular trust data was material.
The Court explained that requiring a specifically identified proceeding supplies a measure for limiting the scope of equitable relief. Without one, the requested order would preserve data from hundreds of thousands of claimant files spanning decades for an unknown number of existing and future cases. The Court also declined to affirm on the manufacturers’ declaratory-judgment theory because they identified no legal basis for such a broad preservation mandate. It did not decide standing or waiver.
The Court remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the trusts and dismiss the action.
Key Takeaways
- An equitable bill of discovery remains potentially available in Delaware despite the development of modern discovery rules.
- A party seeking that remedy must connect the requested evidence to a specifically identified pending or anticipated claim and show that no adequate legal remedy exists.
- Equity cannot support a broad preservation order against third parties based only on unspecified current and future litigation.
Why It Matters
The decision defines the limits of a rarely invoked equitable discovery device and prevents it from becoming a mechanism for indefinite, litigation-wide data retention. Parties seeking pre-suit preservation relief in Delaware must identify the proceeding involved, explain why the evidence is material, and show why ordinary discovery cannot protect it.
For asbestos defendants, the ruling forecloses the sweeping preservation theory pleaded here but does not rule out targeted equitable relief tied to particular claims. The Court also left unresolved whether the manufacturers had standing and whether they waived the equitable-bill theory by omitting it from their complaint.