The second day of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) v. Feldon bench trial shifted from establishing the structure of Oregon’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program to examining how Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) potentially impacts interstate supply chains. Much of the day’s testimony focused on the practical challenges associated with producer identification, packaging design, fee calculation, and regional distribution networks. Through both fact and expert testimony, NAW continued building its factual record that Oregon’s implementation of the RMA affects business operations extending well beyond Oregon’s borders, while Oregon sought to demonstrate that many of the asserted burdens reflect business decisions or implementation issues rather than deficiencies in the statute itself.
NAW concluded examination of Cory Rodriguez and brought four new witnesses to provide further factual foundation. Highlights from each witnesses’ testimony are discussed below.
Cory Rodriguez, Vice President of Sales — West, R.J. Schinner Co., Inc.
NAW resumed its direct examination of Cory Rodriguez, who continued describing the practical process of complying with Oregon’s EPR program. Rodriguez testified regarding the substantial effort required to identify and weigh multiple layers of packaging, assign material-specific fee rates, and trace products through complex distribution systems. Rodriquez estimated that R.J. Schinner Co., Inc. devoted approximately 1,000 hours to developing systems necessary to comply with Oregon’s reporting requirements. On cross-examination, Oregon emphasized that many of these efforts represented initial implementation work that would diminish over time as the compliance process became established.
James Winkle, Chief Financial Officer, Harbor Wholesale Foods
James Winkle, representing Harbor Wholesale Foods (Harbor), described Harbor’s efforts to understand and comply with the RMA. Winkle testified that Harbor reviewed product information, communicated extensively with suppliers and manufacturers, and participated in educational webinars to prepare for implementation. Winkle also testified that Harbor initially received approximately $230,000 in fees that the company believed were improperly assessed and was instructed to pay those fees pending the possibility of future credits. On cross-examination, Oregon highlighted Harbor’s participation in the implementation process, including agreements with certain customers regarding EPR fees, and established that the RMA did not require Harbor to change its packaging. Additionally, Oregon emphasized that Harbor did not go through the proper process established by the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) to correct fees that were incorrectly charged to producers.
Edward Allen, President, WCP Solutions
Edward Allen of WCP Solutions (WCP) testified regarding the challenges distributors face in determining which entities qualify as producers responsible for EPR obligations. Allen explained that WCP distributes thousands of products from numerous suppliers, making it difficult to determine whether packaging fees have already been paid elsewhere in the supply chain. Allen also described the impact of unexpected fee increases on businesses operating with narrow margins and expressed concerns regarding the transparency of changing fee schedules. During cross-examination, Oregon questioned Allen regarding supplier price increase notices and sought to narrow portions of his testimony regarding supplier communications.
Rick Tomlinson, President, California Strawberry Commission
Rick Tomlinson of the California Strawberry Commission provided testimony explaining why California strawberries are overwhelmingly packaged in plastic clamshell containers. According to Tomlinson, the packaging serves multiple critical functions, including protecting product quality during transportation, maintaining food safety, and supporting efficient harvesting and distribution. Tomlinson also described industry efforts to improve the environmental performance of berry packaging through increased recycled content and improved recyclability. Tomlinson testified that California’s EPR program differs substantially from Oregon’s, noting that California relies on detailed performance standards and source reduction requirements, while Oregon’s program currently provides limited incentives for recycled content. Judge Michael H. Simon questioned Tomlinson regarding the practical differences between the California and Oregon programs and broader trends in packaging EPR legislation.
Douglas Thomas, Ph.D., Henry E. McWane Professor of Business Administration, University of Virginia Darden School of Business
The day’s final witness, Dr. Douglas Thomas, Professor of Business Administration at the University of Virginia Darden School of Business, provided expert testimony on supply chain management and economics. Thomas explained how regional distribution networks are designed to maximize efficiency across multiple states rather than around individual state boundaries. Thomas testified regarding the importance of standardized packaging, economies of scale, warehouse operations, and transportation logistics in modern supply chains. Thomas also introduced the economic principles underlying EPR programs and explained how state-specific regulatory requirements may affect interstate distribution networks. Thomas’ testimony will continue into the third day of the bench trial.
Proceedings will resume July 15, 2026. 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#. Daily summaries of the proceedings can be reviewed on Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.’s Product Stewardship BlogTM.