A Note to My Readers and Subscribers:

July 2, 2004

Dear Readers:

In June 2003, I last substantively updated calprop65.com. Heading off to what was anticipated to be a 2-3 week trial in DiPirro v. J.C. Penney Co./Macy's West, I had high hopes that my hiatus would be short-lived, and the website and the rest of my life would be quickly back on track. Needless to say, it was quite surprising when we found ourselves still in trial (and just finished the first phase of the case) at the end of August. The trial finally ended a grueling 4 1/2 months later (although we have continued to be involved in post-trial briefing).

Well, between that and other pressing business, switching firms earlier this year, and changes in my personal life, the website (and the long-anticipated update to The Proposition 65 Handbook) have unfortunately fallen to the back burner. I'm reconsidering the whole concept of the website (maybe even going to a weblog), and am open to suggestions as to what works best for those who use the site. In the interim I have begun the process of updating the current site (see the homepage for new stories), and will be doing the following, while I move both of these projects back into the top of the priority list:

A Focus on Stories--and Litigation

Given the backlog of stories to write about, and the explosition of litigation and reported decisions, I am going to focus on writing about litigation. This seems to be the topic that is of the most importance to the subscriber base and, unlike the regulatory information available elsewhere, it can be hard to find online.

I will try to keep the headlines on the homepage of the website up to date, but the amount of backdated and newly-developing material may mean posting a headline and a link to download content in an advance of actually writing the article (and that's mostly what is now on the website). For the time being, I will be trying to update the site at least weekly with new content on litigation.

The Future of Litigation Filings

Many users of the site have found the enforcement filings reports to be very useful in tracking who is suing and who has been sued. These reports are spotty, at best, since I need to review daily filings, and only do that for the major venues (LA, SF, Orange County, and Alameda). It's also a fairly time-consuming process, and I continue to look at ways that it can be done efficiently and thoroughly. At least since the new filing reporting obligation has been in play, the California Attorney General's office has received copies of every Prop 65 enforcement action. They have put the 60-day notices from Day 1 in a searchable database accessible from the web, and I remain hopeful that they will ultimately do the same with the complaints since 2001 (and I won't need to duplicate their efforts). In the interim, I am going to hold off updating the enforcement filings reports until I can either find a better way to do them, or am convinced that I need to do them the same way (if anyone out there wants to volunteer to help ... let me know by email).

The Regulatory Update

In the days before OEHHA was live on the web, the regulatory update served an important function for those who were looking for regulatory information. However, in the last few years, I've found that much of the work on the regulatory side has simply been duplicating the efforts of Laurie Monserrat on the OEHHA website. In light of Laurie's excellent work, I will only report here on unsual aspects of the regulatory aspect of Prop 65. This means that I will discontinue reporting on most listing issues and regulatory MADL/NOEL settings. In keeping with my focus in litigation, I will continue to report substantive regulatory amendments (such as the recent proposed revision to 22 CCR 12901--the "methods of detection" regulation) and regulatory litigation (such as the decision in Baxter v. Denton) that have potential impact on the litigation world.

The Last Word?

I hope that you will all can bear with me, and be rewarded for your patience with a more vibrant web site that gets out information more quickly than the quarterly updates I had been doing before mid-2003. I always welcome input and suggestions on how to make this a better site, and look forward to hearing from you with great ideas.

Thanks!

Jeff