The present case was a toxic tort action brought by a family alleging “health injuries” stemming from the operation of three nearby natural gas wells in Silt, Colorado. The complaint alleged the family’s injuries were due to exposure to air and water contaminated by defendants with “hazardous gases, chemicals and industrial wastes. The judge granted the companies’ motion to dismiss based on plaintiffs’ failure to make a prima facie case with respect to both exposure and causation. This case is significant because the court put the initial burden of production on the plaintiff to make threshold showings before allowing full-blown discovery. In part, the court was "cognizant of the significant discovery and cost burdens presented by a case of this nature". In placing the initial burden on the plaintiffs, the judge determined they would not be prejudiced because "ultimately they would need to come forward with this data and expert opinions in order to establish their claims". The court also relied on findings of an investigation by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission that the family’s well had not been contaminated by oil and gas operations. Also credited was the companies’ sworn testimony that they conducted operations in compliance with all “applicable laws and regulations designed to protect human health and the environment.” Defendants had supplied empirical evidence that the facilities’ air emission control equipment and prevailing winds “made it unlikely that Plaintiffs or their property were exposed to harmful levels of chemicals from Defendants’ activities.” In essence, defendants brought forth enough initial evidence to cast doubt on the claims, enabling the court to avoid a protracted and expensive discovery process.