Case Document 98 Filed 10/27/14 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RUDY F. and BETTY WEBB, husband and wife, ARNEZ and CHARLETHA HARPER, husband and wife, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated Plaintg?fs v. Civil Case No. 4:13 CV 232 BSM EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION de/a EXXONMOBIL PIPELINE COMPANY MOBIL PIPE LINE COMPANY Defendants. MOTION TO FILE UNDISPUTED STATEMENT FACTS NOT UNDER SEAL AND FOR AN ORDER OF THIS COURT DIRECTING EXXON TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ANY DOCUMENT PRODUCED TO DATE IS ENTITLED TO CONFIDENTIALITY Plaintiffs, for their Motion to ?le Plaintiffs? Undisputed Statement of Facts Not Under Seal and for an Order of this Court Directing Exxon to Show Cause Why Any Document Produced to Date is Entitled to Con?dentiality, state: 1. This case involves ExxonMobil?s failure to properly maintain and repair the Pegasus Pipeline, an aging, antiquated pipeline that has remained in operation 35 years after its life expectancy. (Magnolia Pipeline Expert Testimony, pp. 11, 61-62, 101, 111,_Exhibit 2. ExxonMobil has kept this pipeline in operation, despite warnings that the ERW pipe manufactured before 1970 was operationally dangerous due to the manufacturing process that resulted in weak seams and hook cracks throughout the pipe. (DOT Pipeline Safety Alert Notice, January 28, 1988, Exhibit and US. Department of Commerce, July 1989 Executive Summary, p. iv, Exhibit ?3 Case Document 98 Filed 10/27/14 Page 2 of 4 3. In keeping this ancient pipeline in operation, ExxonMobil ignored the warnings of pipe failure revealed by its own testing. 4. ExxonMobil has failed to properly maintain the Pegasus Pipeline, leaving the pipe exposed above ground in many areas, including the Lake Maumelle Watershed, which provides drinking water to over 400,000 residents in Central Arkansas. The May?ower Oil Spill was only miles away from destroying this water source that is essential for Little Rock and the Central Arkansas area. (See photos, Exhibit 5. When asked to defend its maintenance and repair of this pipeline, ExxonMobil has declared that every single document it possesses regarding the maintenance and repair of this pipeline is information which cannot be disclosed to the public. ExxonMobil claims that the very peOple Whose property this pipeline crosses are not entitled to know the dangerous condition of this pipeline, lying beneath and, in some cases, openly exposed above ground on their property. 6. ExxenMobil declared every single page, of the 872,000 pages produced, 7. ExxonMobil wishes to try this lawsuit in secrecy and under seal. By declaring every single page of the documents produced in this case as ExxonMobil is seeking unprecedented judicial censorship of a dangerous and hazardous situation, which not only affects the property owners in this case, but the public at large. This type of unprecedented secrecy can jeopardize public health and safety and has no place in our Courts. (See The Hazards of Secrecy: 10 Cases Where Protective Orders or Con?dential Settlements Jeopardize Public Health Safely, ATLA Docket, Winter 2012, at p. 19, Exhibit Case Document 98 Filed 10/27/14 Page 3 of 4 8. ExxonMobil?s designation of every page as is clearly unj usti?ed, made for an imprOper purpose, and imposes unnecessary expense and burdens on the parties, the Clerk?s of?ce and this Court. Plaintiffs respectfully request that ExxonMobil be required to Show cause why any of the documents produced to date should be designated 9. For the reasons cited in Plaintiffs? Memorandum in Support and the Exhibits attached hereto and to Plaintiffs? Statement of Undisputed Facts, ?led under seal, Plaintiffs respectfully request an Order of this Court (1) allowing Plaintiffs? Statement of Undisputed Facts and Exhibits thereto, to be filed, not under seal; and (2) for an Order of this Court directing ExxonMobil to show cause why every single document produced to date by ExxonMobil is entitled to con?dentiality. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the relief requested herein and for all other appropriate relief as may be determined by the Court. DATED: October 27, 2014. Respectfully submitted, By: Thomas P. Thrash Thomas P. Thrash, ABN #80147 Marcus N. Bozernan, ABN #95287 THRASH LAW FIRM, RA. 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Telephone: 501 -374-1 058 Facsimile: 501?374n2222 Case Document 98 Filed 10/27/14 Page 4 of 4 ls/ Phillip Duncan Phillip Duncan, ABN #74039 Richard Quintus, ABN #2000078 William Rob Pointer, ABN #2007216 Justin C. Zachary, ABN #2010162 Timothy P. Reed, ABN #2012210 DUNCAN FIRM, P.A. 900 South Shackleford Road, Suite 725 Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 Telephone: 501?228-7600 Facsimile: 501 -228-041 5 Jerrold S. Parker Jerrold S. Parker Jay L.T. Breakstone PARKER WAICHMAN, LLP 6 Harbor Park Drive Port Washington, New York 11060 Telephone: 516-466-6500 Facsimile: 516?723-4733 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Thomas P. Thrash, the undersigned, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing is being served by electronic noti?cation through the US. District Court Arkansas Eastern District electronic ?ling system and by electronic mail upon the following counsel of record: Jane A. Kim, Esq. Gary D. Marts, Jr., Esq. Michelle M. Kaernmerling, Esq. Scott A. Irby, Esq. Michael Barnes, Esq. Stephen R. Lancaster, Esq. Edwin L. Lowther, Jr., Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 On this 27th day of October, 2014. Thomas P. Thrash