Case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Document 203 Filed 04/04/18 Page 1 of 3

1 JEROME C. ROTH (State Bar No. 159483)
jerome.roth@mto.com
2 ELIZABETH A. KIM (State Bar No. 295277)
elizabeth.kim@mto.com
3 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
560 Mission Street
4 Twenty-Seventh Floor
San Francisco, California 94105-2907
5 Telephone:
(415) 512-4000
Facsimile:
(415) 512-4077
6 DANIEL P. COLLINS (State Bar No. 139164)
7 daniel.collins@mto.com
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
8 Los
Angeles, California 90071-3426
Telephone:
(213) 683-9100
9 Facsimile:
(213) 683-3702
10 Attorneys for Defendant ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

13
14 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, acting by and through
15 Oakland City Attorney BARBARA J.
PARKER,
16
Plaintiff,
17
vs.
18
BP P.L.C., et al.,
19
Defendants.
20

Case No. 17-06011 WHA

21 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, acting by and through acting
22 by and through San Francisco City Attorney
DENNIS J. HERRERA,
23
Plaintiff,
24
vs.
25
BP P.L.C., et al.,
26
Defendants.
27

Case No. 17-06012 WHA

RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF
DEFENDANT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL
PLC TO COURT’S MARCH 21, 2018
ORDER
Judge: Hon. William Alsup

28
Nos. 17-06011 WHA; 17-06012 WHA
RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC TO COURT’S MARCH 21, 2018
ORDER

 Case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Document 203 Filed 04/04/18 Page 2 of 3

1

On February 27, 2018, this Court “invite[d] counsel to conduct a two-part tutorial on the

2 subject of global warming and climate change,” to be held on March 21, 2018. (Dkt. #135, 17-cv3 6011; Dkt. #117, 17-cv-6012.) On March 20, all defendants moved to dismiss the complaints in
4 this action under FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Royal Dutch Shell plc (“RDS”) is a
5 foreign corporation with no operations in the United States. As such, RDS also moved to dismiss
6 the complaints under FRCP 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction (as did three other
7 defendants) and under 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process. Those motions are currently
8 pending.
9

In light of its pending jurisdiction and service-related motions, RDS did not participate in

10 the March 21 tutorial; the tutorial was conducted by Chevron. The Court stated that it would treat
11 statements in connection with the tutorial as a “special appearance” that would not waive personal
12 jurisdiction defenses. (March 21, 2018 Transcript of Proceedings at 6:9-13). At the conclusion of
13 the tutorial, the Court ordered the non-participating defendants to submit a statement within two
14 weeks “explaining any disagreements with the statements made by counsel for” Chevron during
15 the tutorial. (Dkt.# 178). RDS submits the following statement in response to that Order:
16 1.

This statement is not intended to waive and is made subject to RDS’s objections to

17

personal jurisdiction and service. It is submitted pursuant to the Court’s March 21, 2018

18

Order and subject to the Court’s statements at the hearing regarding non-waiver; this

19

statement is also informed by the Court’s indication that the purpose of the tutorial was so

20

the Court could learn more about the applicable science. 1

21 2.

In conducting the tutorial, Chevron relied upon the reports issued by the Intergovernmental

22

Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), primarily the AR5, as the basis for its presentation to

23

the Court. The IPCC reports collect and assess information from a wide variety of sources

24

including thousands of scientists around the globe and present a broad-based consensus

25
26

1

This is consistent with the view of other courts in this district concerning the purpose of tutorials,
which is “to allow each party to inform the Court about the background of the technical
27 information which is involved in the case and the nature of the dispute.” U.S. Ethernet
28 Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc., No. C 10-03724 JW, 2010 WL 9934741, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21,
2010). Statements concerning a tutorial, such as this statement, are not judicial admissions. Id.
Nos. 17-06011 WHA; 17-06012 WHA
-1RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL TO COURT’S MARCH 21, 2018 ORDER

 Case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Document 203 Filed 04/04/18 Page 3 of 3

1

view regarding climate change science as it has evolved since the IPCC issued its first

2

assessment in 1990 until the time of the most recent AR5 report. Although RDS does not

3

necessarily adopt each statement contained in the various IPCC reports, RDS agrees that

4

those reports are an appropriate source of information for the Court to consider to further

5

its understanding of the timeline and science surrounding climate change, and RDS does

6

not disagree with Chevron’s presentation of that material.

7
Respectfully submitted,

8
9
10
11

DATED: April 4, 2018

By:

/s/ Jerome C. Roth

Attorneys for Defendant ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Nos. 17-06011 WHA; 17-06012 WHA
-2RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL TO COURT’S MARCH 21, 2018 ORDER