Bain et al v. AstraZeneca LP et al
Filing
76
ORDER ADDRESSING FUTURE FILINGS AND DATES AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW. Further Case Management Conference set for 1/9/2013 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/14/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2012)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
LISA BAIN, et al.,
5
6
Plaintiffs,
v.
7
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
8
Defendants.
________________________________/
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
LISA SAUNDERS, et al.,
13
ORDER ADDRESSING
FUTURE FILINGS AND
DATES AND GRANTING
LEAVE TO FILE
CERTAIN DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL FOR IN
CAMERA REVIEW
No. C 09-4148 CW
Plaintiffs,
11
12
No. C 09-4147 CW
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
14
Defendants.
________________________________/
15
KIMBERLY KESSLER, et al.,
16
17
No. C 09-4149 CW
Plaintiffs,
v.
18
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
19
Defendants.
________________________________/
20
21
CYNTHIA ARNOLD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
No. C 09-4157 CW
1
ANGEL COLON, et al.,
2
3
Plaintiffs,
v.
4
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
5
Defendants.
________________________________/
6
7
MARK COFFEY, et al.,
9
10
No. C 09-4161 CW
Plaintiffs,
8
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
No. C 09-4158 CW
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
11
Defendants.
________________________________/
12
SHARON DISTON, et al.,
13
14
No. C 09-4165 CW
Plaintiffs,
v.
15
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
16
Defendants.
________________________________/
17
18
DAMON BROWN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
19
20
21
No. C 10-0288 CW
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
22
Defendants.
________________________________/
23
DENNIS O’BRIEN, et al.,
24
25
No. C 10-0289 CW
Plaintiffs,
v.
26
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
27
Defendants.
________________________________/
28
2
1
DONALD BATES, et al.,
2
Plaintiffs,
3
4
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
5
Defendants.
6
________________________________/
7
CAROLYN HARRISON, et al.,
8
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
No. C 09-4150 CW
No. C 09-4151 CW
Plaintiffs,
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
________________________________/
13
TODD BOGGIS, et al.,
14
15
16
No. C 09-4159 CW
Plaintiffs,
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
17
Defendants.
18
________________________________/
19
ANTONIO BURTON, et al.,
20
21
22
23
24
No. C 09-4162 CW
Plaintiffs,
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
25
26
27
28
3
1
GLORIA MILLER, et al.,
2
3
4
No. C 09-4163 CW
Plaintiffs,
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
5
Defendants.
6
________________________________/
7
BONG NGYUEN, et al.,
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Plaintiffs,
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
11
12
No. C 09-4166 CW
Defendants.
________________________________/
13
On December 12, 2012, the Court held a case management
14
conference and hearing on various motions to withdraw as counsel
15
in the above-captioned cases.
16
management conference for Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 2:00 p.m.
17
The Court previously extended the deadline for certain
18
Plaintiffs represented by the Miller Firm to finalize their
19
participation in the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) until
20
January 7, 2013.
21
remaining Plaintiffs represented by the Mulligan Law Firm, Bobby
22
Gott, Pamela Hoard and Michael Debelis, until January 7, 2013 to
23
finalize their participation in the MSA or otherwise resolve their
24
claims.
25
this deadline.
26
The Court set a further case
The Court now extends the deadline for the
If needed, counsel may file a further motion to extend
Prior to finalizing the settlements or otherwise dismissing
27
the claims of any remaining Plaintiff represented by either firm,
28
the Court directs the Miller Firm and the Mulligan Law Firm to
4
1
advise the Plaintiff in writing of certain inaccuracies in prior
2
communications discussed at the case management conference.
3
Before providing this letter to any of these Plaintiffs, the
4
Miller Firm and the Mulligan Law Firm shall submit it for the
5
Court’s review and approval.
6
letters under seal for in camera review.
7
They are granted leave to file the
By January 10, 2013, the Miller Firm and the Mulligan Law
8
Firm shall file sworn declarations from each of their past or
9
present employees who communicated with the Plaintiffs for whom
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
stipulations of dismissal have already been filed.
11
declarations, the declarant shall address the matters specified by
12
the Court at the case management conference.
13
to obtain declarations from certain employees by that date,
14
counsel shall file a declaration stating the names of these
15
employees and what efforts were made to obtain a declaration.
16
Counsel is granted leave to file each of these declarations under
17
seal for in camera review.
18
legal brief addressing the propriety of the communications that
19
counsel and the Garretson Resolution Group sent.
20
In these
If counsel is unable
By that date, counsel may also file a
At the hearing, the Court granted the motions to withdraw as
21
counsel for Plaintiffs Bevelon Johnson through her survivors,
22
Maxine Roark and Carol Scaramuzza.
23
11-5, withdrawal is subject to the condition that papers may
24
continue to be served on counsel for forwarding purposes, unless
25
and until these Plaintiffs appear by other counsel or pro se.
26
Court directs their former counsel to provide a copy of this
27
order, and notice to these Plaintiffs or their survivors that the
28
Court has granted the motion to withdraw, subject to the condition
5
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule
The
1
specified above, that a case management conference will be held
2
before this Court on January 9, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. and that these
3
Plaintiffs must attend in person or through new counsel, or their
4
cases will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
5
serve this notice on these Plaintiffs within three days of the
6
date of this Order and shall file a declaration attesting that
7
they have done by that date.
8
9
Counsel shall
At the hearing, the Court deferred ruling on the Miller
Firm’s motion to withdraw as counsel for Lynus Stewart.
The Court
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
noted that, from the evidence attached to the declaration of David
11
Dickens regarding Mr. Stewart, it appeared that counsel had served
12
Mr. Stewart with notice of the motion at an address counsel had in
13
October 2012, but did not send a copy to a new physical address
14
for Mr. Stewart that counsel located in early November 2012.
15
Court sets Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. for a further
16
hearing on the Miller Firm’s motion to withdraw as counsel and
17
January 7, 2013 as the deadline for Mr. Stewart to file any
18
opposition or other response to the motion.
19
Miller Firm to serve further notice of the motion on Mr. Stewart
20
at all addresses that it has for him within three days of the date
21
of this Order and to file proof of service with the Court.
22
The
The Court directs the
By Wednesday, December 19, 2013, the parties shall notify the
23
Court if they have agreed to private mediation with the previous
24
mediator.
25
Judge for a settlement conference regarding the claims made by
26
Plaintiff Eric Negray and any other Plaintiffs who may wish to
27
proceed with litigation.
If they do not, they will be referred to a Magistrate
28
6
1
The Miller Firm, the Mulligan Law Firm and counsel for
2
Defendants are granted leave to appear by telephone at the January
3
9, 2013 case management conference and motion hearing.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
7
Dated: 12/14/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?