Here is the brief filed last week by the plaintiffs in opposition to the amicus brief filed by West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin. The plaintiffs’ brief attaches as exhibits documents received from the Governor’s office through a Freedom of Information Act request, which the plaintiffs contend show an inappropriate relationship between the Governor and DuPont:
In conclusion, the "Governor’s filing" is, in truth, the product of an orchestrated scheme by DuPont to further argue its position on the issue of punitive damages from a respected and supposed neutral party when in reality the filing is a feigned pleading that parrots the arguments that DuPont has put forth in its petition for appeal.
As I discussed in my post earlier today, Manchin’s brief asks the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia to grant DuPont’s petition for appeal in order to address the question of the level of appellate review required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for a punitive damages award.
In other words, does DuPont receive due process if the Supreme Court of Appeals considers DuPont’s petition for appeal from the award (among other issues), but rejects it, thus precluding any further appellate review in West Virginia? Or does DuPont’s appeal have to be considered on its merits, even if such review results in an affirmance?