The first day of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) v. Feldon bench trial was largely devoted to establishing the factual record surrounding Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (SB 582) and the structure, governance, and implementation of the state’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program. A bench trial is held before a judge, who serves as fact-finder and decision-maker; there is no jury. Rather than focusing on the constitutional and administrative law issues that ultimately will decide the case, the testimony centered on how the program operates in practice and the respective roles of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Circular Action Alliance (CAA).
NAW brought three witnesses to lay the factual foundation. Highlights from each witnesses’ testimony are discussed below.
Kim Holmes, Executive Director, CAA Oregon
NAW’s first witness of the day was Kim Holmes, Executive Director of CAA Oregon. On direct examination, counsel for NAW established Holmes’ background and experience before walking through the creation and operation of CAA as Oregon’s designated Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO). Holmes testified regarding CAA National’s formation, CAA Oregon’s governance structure, its Board of Directors, and the relationship between the national organization and the Oregon program. Holmes also described CAA’s role in administering the producer responsibility program, including development of the Producer Responsibility Program Plan, fee-setting methodologies, producer compliance, reporting obligations, and implementation of the program.
A significant portion of Holmes’ testimony focused on the relationship between CAA and DEQ. The examination explored how responsibilities are divided between the two organizations, including rule implementation, compliance activities, delinquency procedures, and administration of the program. One notable area of testimony involved the producer delinquency process, where the testimony suggested that DEQ determines when a producer is delinquent, while CAA carries out administrative functions such as publishing the delinquency list. If that characterization remains consistent throughout the trial, it could become an important factual point regarding the extent of state oversight.
Holmes was also questioned extensively on aspects of the Producer Responsibility Program Plan, including Appendix G, that NAW appeared to characterize as making substantive implementation decisions after enactment of the statute. Related questioning addressed public participation during development of implementation documents and the evolution of the program over time. Additional testimony addressed producer participation agreements, contractual relationships between producers and CAA, dispute resolution provisions, arbitration requirements, and the financial structure supporting the program. Holmes’ testimony served primarily as a factual overview of how Oregon’s EPR system functions and established the operational framework for the remainder of the trial.
Brian Wild, Chief Government Relations Officer, NAW
Brian Wild, NAW’s Chief Government Relations Officer and NAW’s second witness, next explained NAW’s concerns with Oregon’s implementation of the EPR program from the perspective of regulated industry. Wild discussed the practical effects of the program on producers, including compliance obligations, implementation timelines, uncertainty associated with evolving requirements, and concerns regarding fee development and producer participation. The testimony also emphasized that many of the program’s operational details were developed through implementation rather than appearing directly in the statute itself.
On cross-examination, Oregon shifted Wild’s focus away from the substance of the EPR program and instead challenged NAW’s conduct leading up to the litigation. Oregon repeatedly questioned whether NAW had meaningfully participated in the legislative process, rulemaking, and implementation of the program before filing suit. The cross-examination suggested that NAW may have failed to engage extensively in opportunities to influence the program administratively, giving rise to the inference that NAW approached the process with litigation already in mind. The questioning also challenged whether NAW had conducted sufficient due diligence regarding how the program actually operates before bringing its claims.
Cory Rodriguez, Vice President of Sales — West, R.J. Schinner Co., Inc.
NAW’s final witness of the day, Cory Rodriguez, focused on the mechanics of implementing Oregon’s EPR program. Rodriguez, Vice President of Sales — West at R.J. Schinner Co., Inc., provided testimony that concentrated on the development of the Producer Responsibility Program Plan, fee-setting methodology, implementation documents, and the practical operation of the PRO.
Rodriguez discussed the process by which the Producer Responsibility Program Plan was developed and reviewed, the methodology used to establish producer fees, and the relationship between CAA and DEQ during implementation. Rodriguez’s testimony also addressed Appendix G and other implementation materials that NAW contends materially affect producer obligations. Additional testimony examined the contractual framework governing producer participation in the program, including agreements between producers and CAA, dispute resolution mechanisms, and arbitration provisions.
Tuesday’s testimony will pick back up with the plaintiff resuming direct examination of Mr. Rodriguez.
To dial-in and listen to live proceedings, expected to continue daily beginning at 9:00 a.m. (PDT) through July 17, 2026, dial +1 (571) 353-2301, ID 812980324#. Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. will be providing daily summaries on our Product Stewardship BlogTM. Subscribe here.