In a trial, time is never neutral. It either builds a case or erodes one. For large corporations facing significant claims, delay isn’t just a legal tactic; it’s a business strategy.
The recent order in Leon v. Exxon Mobil Corporation highlights what happens when that strategy hits a wall. The defendants, a group of the world’s largest energy companies, asked for a stay of proceedings. They wanted to pause the clock for upwards of fourteen months while they waited for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide a separate case, Suncor Energy v. Commissioners of Boulder County. They argued that a ruling from D.C. might preempt the state-law claims brought by the estate of Juliana Leon.
What’s really happening here is a search for a “get out of jail free” card from a higher court. The defendants were banking on the possibility that the Supreme Court would wipe out the plaintiff’s claims before discovery even began.
But King County Superior Court Judge Matthew Lapin saw through the noise. In denying the stay, he made several things clear:
- Uncertainty isn’t a reason to wait. The outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings is “far from certain,” and there is no guarantee they will resolve the specific issues in the Leon case, particularly the “Failure to Warn” claims under the Washington Product Liability Act.
- Time costs the injured. A fourteen month delay is not a harmless pause. It prejudices the plaintiff’s ability to conduct discovery and risks the loss of evidence and witness testimony.
- The public interest matters. The court found that the public interest in making informed the choice to use fossil fuels weighs against granting a stay. Cases that involve public safety and corporate responsibility deserve to move forward, not sit on a shelf.
The defendants claimed that moving forward would be too costly and prejudicial to them. The court disagreed, noting that since similar litigation has been active in other jurisdictions for years, many documents are already preserved, and much discovery has already been completed. The “burden” of producing documents they already have is a weak excuse for stopping a lawsuit.
There is a quiet truth in litigation: Time doesn’t absolve responsibility. It compounds it.
Exxon and its co-defendants are currently facing allegations of deceptive promotion and failing to warn the public about the risks of their products. These are serious claims that belong in front of a jury.
If you’re trying to understand why this matters, look at the “failure to warn” claim under the Washington Product Liability Act. While the defendants want to talk about global emissions and federal preemption, the heart of the case is simpler: Did these companies know their products were dangerous and fail to tell the people using them? The plaintiff has alleged that Big Oil knew for more than 70 years that fossil fuel products caused significant changes in the atmosphere that impacting severe weather.
Responsibility isn’t something you can pause. The court’s refusal to grant a stay ensures that, for now, the search for the truth will continue without waiting.
