Please update your links! Our new website url is http://masglp.olemiss.edu . This old website will soon cease to exist!

Special Masters Play Vital Role in Environmental Suits

Roy A. Nowell, Jr., 3L

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for the appointment of a “special master” in cases in which the issues are extremely difficult, the computation of damages is complicated, or when there are exceptional circumstances associated with a case. Circumstances sometimes demand the expertise of a special master in the environmental law setting.

A “special master” is a representative of the court appointed to hear a case involving difficult or specialized issues. The role of a special master in a lawsuit is similar to that of a judge, in that she hears from both parties, examines evidence, is presented with witness testimony, and makes recommendations to the court on the resolution of the case. In non-jury trials, the court must accept the master’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. In cases tried by a jury, the master’s findings are admissible as evidence and may be submitted to the jury. While environmental cases seem especially suited for the appointment of a special master because of the complexity of the issues and the variety of environmental regulations and statutes, the appointment of a special master must meet stringent standards. Appellate courts have consistently held that the appointment of a special master should be reserved for unique and special situations, and can deem that appointment inappropriate. Most recently, the Fifth Circuit made this determination in Sierra Club v. Clifford regarding the setting of Total Maximum Daily Loads, or TMDLs, for Louisiana. (See page 6 for the case analysis).

Appointment of a Special Master
The authority for the appointment of a special master is provided by Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 The rule states that the designation of a special master to a case should not be a common occurrence, but rather is an exception to the typical resolution of a case. Any court may appoint a special master if the circumstances of the case meet the requirements of Rule 53, but the consensus among courts clearly indicates that these requirements are stringent.
In a jury case, appointment of a special master should only be made if the issues are complicated, and in cases to be tried without a jury, the designation of a special master should only be made if the computation of damages is difficult. If the computation of damages is not difficult, deference to a special master requires a showing of an “exceptional condition.” This requirement has resulted in the most scrutiny by appellate courts; although not entirely impossible, a showing of an exceptional condition has proven to be a difficult burden for many courts to meet.
Case Law and Special Masters
The leading case regarding special masters is La Buy v. Howes Leather Company.2 La Buy was an anti-trust lawsuit, which was appointed to a special master by a district court judge. The appellate court, and subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court, analyzed Rule 53 in great detail and specifically addressed the kinds of circumstances that constitute an exceptional condition under Rule 53. The court held that congestion of the court docket, general complexity of a field of law, and extended length of time for a trial were not sufficient to constitute exceptional conditions.

Many courts have applied the approach taken in La Buy and have applied a strict standard for using a special master. One such environmental case, United States v. State of Washington, involved a dispute over the rights to shellfish, which was brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).3 A special master was appointed to hear the case, and a petition was presented to revoke the authority of the special master to preside at trial and recommend liability. The court determined that appointment a special master to determine the merits of the case was inappropriate. However, that court held that the master had broad authority to determine pretrial matters, such as discovery and stipulations of fact and, in the case of liability, has the authority to determine the extent of the damages.

Several other courts have also used La Buy as a basis for restricting the discretion of lower courts to appoint a special master. In the recent case of Sierra Club v. Clifford, the court determined that the district court abused its discretion by appointing a special master in a case involving the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.4 The district court listed several reasons for referring the case to a special master, which included the length of the case reaching over two years and the presence of a high number of technical documents. However, the court ruled that these conditions were not sufficient to warrant exceptional conditions. In fact, the court stated that voluminous documents and lengthy trial were the norm for modern federal litigation, rather than exceptional conditions.

Although the standards for the appointment of special masters are rigorous, meeting the requirements is not impossible. The case of Cronin v. Browner listed several situations in which referral to a special master is appropriate, including enforcement of a judicial decree, assistance in settlement negotiations, and determining the validity of a preliminary injunction and complex litigation over a technical regulation concerning thousands of industrial facilities.5
Finally, in the case of Active Products Corporation v. Choitz, the court reaffirmed the position that special masters were appropriate to handle settlement matters in a case involving CERCLA.6 In addition, the court held that the appointment of a panel of special masters in that case was appropriate because of the large number of parties involved.

Conclusion
The appointment of a special master to a case serves as a valuable tool in complicated situations, but the consensus among the courts is that such appointment should be reserved for exceptional cases. Environ-mental cases often involve complicated legal scenarios, primarily because of the extensive legislative requirements involved in environmental litigation but the stringent requirements for appointing a special master must be met, or the referral to the master will be deemed inappropriate.

ENDNOTES
1. FED. R. CIV. P. 53.
2. La Buy v. Howes Leather Company, 352 U.S. 249 (1957).
3. United States v. Washington, 135 F.3d 618 (9th Cir. 1998).
4. Sierra Club v. Clifford, 257 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2001).
5. Cronin v. Browner, 90 F.Supp.2d 364 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
6. Active Products v. Choitz, 163 F.R.D. 274 (1995).

University of Mississippi