Attorneys representing a group of residents and businesses seeking damages related to TCE pollution plan to file claims against IBM Corp. this morning in State Supreme Court in Binghamton.

The 43-page document, representing 94 plaintiffs, will be the first in a series of complaints collectively representing nearly 1,000 people to be filed in coming months related to pollution from the former microelectronics plant on North Street, attorneys for the plaintiffs said late Wednesday afternoon.

Attorneys are asking to meet with a judge within the next 60 days to develop a schedule for the case, said Philip Johnson, a lawyer with Levene Gouldin & Thompson, a Vestal law firm and part of a legal team that includes five firms from New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Attorneys would not guess when the case will go to trial, but typically large complicated toxic tort cases can last years and sometimes decades, with the possibility of a settlement anywhere along the way.

Michael Maloney, a spokesman for IBM, said late Wednesday afternoon he could not comment on claims until they were filed.

The claims stem from a subterranean plume of trichloroethylene (TCE) found in 2003 to be creating vapors wafting into homes and buildings near the sprawling North Street plant, now owned by Huron Real Estate Associates. Exposure to the chemical is linked to illnesses ranging from cancer to brain damage, but the amount posing calculable risks is debatable.

The state Department of Health has documented a significant elevation of certain cancers and heart defects in areas affected by pollution south and southwest of the plant. Health officials have been unable to pinpoint a cause for the illnesses.

Claims in the document to be filed this morning include a range of hardships related to the pollution, including illnesses such as heart defects and kidney cancer, property devaluation, loss of business, medical expenses and related monitoring, and hassles of dealing with the pollution and installing systems to vent fumes from under properties.

Because of the size and complexity of the case, attorneys are organizing the plaintiffs into groups representing a cross section of claims, said Gerald Williams, of Williams, Cuker & Berezofsky of Philadelphia, part of the legal team. Claims of the remaining plaintiffs will be filed in six or seven more groups in coming months, he said.

Plaintiffs began negotiating with IBM in 2004 behind closed doors and were optimistic of reaching a settlement. Their expectations were dashed in November when IBM offered $3 million to settle more than $100 million in claims.

Attorneys said Wednesday they are prepared to take the case to trial, even against a company with deep pockets and extensive legal wherewithal like IBM. Plaintiffs' attorneys also cited the possibility of a settlement once the legal process develops.

"We're used to this type of litigation, and we're prepared for it, with all its advantages and disadvantages," Williams said. "We can't really put a fixed time schedule on this. ... It will take as long as it takes."

A time-consuming but crucial aspect of developing and defending the case will involve a process called discovery, which allows each side to gather information. The plaintiffs will pursue IBM records and witnesses to document the history of the pollution and IBM's role. The defendants typically gather exhaustive health histories on people making claims in an effort to prove their illnesses could be caused by other things.

While a conclusion to the case may be in the distant future, the legal process could yield relevant information prior to that, as documents enter the courts through the discovery process, said Stephen G. Schwarz, a lawyer with the Rochester firm of Faraci & Lange, a member of the plaintiff's legal team.