City of Winter Haven v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Company Limited Partnership

Filing 204

Download PDF
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA IN RE ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC., SILZONE HEART VALVES PRODUCTS : LIABILITY LITIGATION : : MDL DOCKET NO. 1396 PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 20 The parties having stipulated thereto, the Court orders: I. CASE-SPECIFIC FACT DISCOVERY A. Governing Law: Case-specific fact discovery shall be governed by applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules except as otherwise provided herein or in any other Pretrial Order. Nothing in this order shall be construed to modify or amend previously entered orders concerning merits discovery or expert discovery. B. Discovery Initiation Date: For purposes of this Order and for purposes of discovery in MDL 1396, the Court establishes a "case-specific discovery initiation date" ("DID") which is: 1. September 1, 2002 for those civil actions that were originally filed in or transferred to and docketed in the District of Minnesota on or before September 1, 2002; -1 - 96 2. the first day of the month following the date that a civil action is filed in or transferred to and docketed in the District of Minnesota to the extent such an event occurs after September 1, 2002. 3. The Court may extend the deadlines established by this Order for good cause shown. C. Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures: Within one (1) month of the entry of this order or one (1) month of the DID, whichever is later, each plaintiff shall deliver to defendants (a) the disclosures required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f), (b) hard copies of all documents identified in the Rule 26(f) disclosure and (c) a completed Plaintiff's Initial Disclosure in the form attached as Exhibit 1 to Pretrial Order No. 2. To the extent such information has been previously provided to defendants pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 2, each plaintiff is obligated to provide all later acquired information and/or documents bearing on all disclosures previously made by such plaintiff to the extent required by Rule 26(e). D. Medical Examinations. Within six (6) months of the DID (i.e., by March 1, 2003 for cases with a DID of September 1, 2002), Defendants may move for orders scheduling medical examinations of plaintiffs pursuant to and in accordance with the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 35, except that a plaintiff shall not be required to travel an unreasonable distance for medical examinations. In the event that a medical examination is to take place requiring plaintiff to travel more than fifty (50) miles, the party requesting the examination shall tender to plaintiff's counsel five (5) calendar days in advance of such examination a sum equal to the -2 - 97 reasonable round-trip travel and lodging expenses to be incurred by plaintiff, and one attorney for plaintiff, to attend the examination. E. Completion of Case Specific Fact Discovery: Case specific fact discovery shall be completed within seven (7) months of the DID (i.e., by April 1, 2003 for cases with a DID of September 1, 2002). F. Mandatory Mediation: Within (10) months of the DID (i.e., by July 1, 2003 for cases with a DID of September 1, 2002), the parties shall stipulate to a mediator or establish an order for mediation of the individual cases. If the parties are unable to agree, the court shall appoint a mediator. All such mediations will be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. G. Disclosure of Plaintiff's Experts: Within eight (8) months of the DID (i.e., by May 1, 2003 for cases with a DID of September 1, 2002), plaintiff shall identify duly-qualified generic and case-specific experts and provide the disclosures required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(A). H. Disclosure of Defendants' Experts: Within nine (9) months of the DID (i.e., by June 1, 2003 for cases with a DID of September 1, 2002), defendants shall identify duly-qualified generic and case-specific experts and provide the disclosures required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(A). I. Disclosure of Supplemental Experts: Within ten (10) months of the DID, plaintiff shall identify any supplemental experts who will offer expert opinions on topics for which defendants have identified an expert, but for which plaintiff has -3 - 98 not yet identified an expert, and provide the disclosures required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(A). J. Depositions of Generic Experts: Depositions of the parties' generic experts shall be governed by the terms of Pretrial Order No. 21. K. Depositions of Case Specific Experts: Within forty-five (45) days of the identification of case-specific experts hereunder, the parties may take the deposition of such case-specific experts. It is understood and agreed between the parties that unless otherwise agreed or ordered by the Court, the depositions of plaintiff's experts shall proceed first followed by the depositions of defendants' experts. II. REMAND PROCEDURES A. Remand Report In order to monitor the completeness of discovery in cases where all discovery deadlines are expired, within twelve (12) months of the DID (i.e., by September 1, 2003 for cases with a DID of September 1, 2002), the parties are required to complete and submit a joint report to the Court containing information about remaining discovery, if any, and disputes between the parties. The purpose of the report is to facilitate the completion of each parties' pretrial efforts prior to remand. Upon receipt of a Remand Report from the parties, the Court may either order the case remanded to its home jurisdiction or make such orders so as to allow the completion of discovery -4 - 99 B. Record on Remand: Once the Court has ordered that a particular case be remanded, the parties shall stipulate to this Court the portions of the record that are to be returned to the transferor court. That portion of the record can then be combined with the record that already exists in the transferor court, providing the transferor court with the entire file necessary for the ultimate disposition of the case C. Discovery After Remand: In the event there is a significant delay between the date of remand and the trial date in a particular case, for good cause shown, any party may petition the transferor court for additional case-specific discovery. IT IS SO ORDERED: Honorable John R. Tunheim ENTERED: September 9, 2002 -5 - 100 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------x In re: REZULIN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 1348) This Document Relates to: All Cases --------------------------------x MASTER FILE 00 Civ. 2843 AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 2 (Pretrial Schedule) LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge. 1 Conduct of discovery on behalf of plaintiffs All discovery directed against defendants and non-party witnesses on behalf of plaintiffs shall be undertaken by or under the direction of Plaintiffs' Executive Committee ("PEC") on behalf of all plaintiffs with cases in this MDL as well as on behalf of all plaintiffs in state court cases that are coordinated with this MDL or as to which there is an agreement or order to utilize discovery generated herein. 2 Discovery 2.1 Completion date Unless otherwise ordered, all discovery in these consolidated cases shall be completed on or before January 31, 2002. Although the Court will consider any application for an extension, the parties should assume that no extension will be granted. 101 2 2.2 Defendants' document production 2.2.1 Warner-Lambert has represented to the Court that it has been collecting and placing relevant documents in a depository, which documents will be made available also in the form of electronic images on CD-ROM, that most of the roughly 3.5 million documents collected from originally targeted custodians will be in the depository by January 2, 2001, and that the detail force documents gathered in its Roanoke warehouse will be made available by February 1, 2001. To the extent, if any, that it has not done so previously, Warner-Lambert shall make these documents available to plaintiffs on a rolling basis. 2.2.2 The PEC may serve a Rule 34 request on defendants on or before November 17, 2000. 2.2.3 All documents requested by the PEC on or before November 17, 2000, and all documents that Warner-Lambert has represented it will produce (see 2.2.1) shall be placed in its depository no later than February 1, 2001. 2.2.4 Warner-Lambert shall provide logs of materials withheld from any document production on privilege, work product or other grounds no later than 45 days after the groups of documents from which the materials were withheld are placed in the depository. 2.2.5 Subject to compliance with the confidentiality order entered this date, the PEC, at its own expense, may establish and regulate access to its own depository containing copies or images of documents produced by Warner-Lambert. 2.3 Plaintiffs' depositions of defendants 102 3 2.3.1 Plaintiffs may commence Rule 30(b)(6) depositions relating to the organization of Warner-Lambert and the identification of potential deposition witnesses immediately. 2.3.2 Subject to paragraph 2.3.3 hereof, plaintiffs may commence non-party fact depositions of witnesses believed to have testimony relevant to Warner-Lambert's conduct immediately. 2.3.3 The PEC and defendants promptly shall confer and attempt to agree upon a comprehensive deposition schedule providing for the completion of fact depositions of defendants' present and former employees and agents, and any other persons under defendants' control, by September 30, 2001. Any such schedule shall comply with paragraph 2.1 hereof. If the parties fail to agree upon such a schedule, they shall so report to the Court no later than February 1, 2001, including in their report the reasons for their inability to agree and the extent of any partial agreement. 2.3.4 Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel ("PLC") shall give at least two weeks' notice of each deposition scheduled in this case that is expected to deal with material common to other Rezulin cases to counsel of record in and judges presiding over Rezulin cases pending in state courts. 2.4 Interrogatories 2.4.1 Interrogatories shall be served by the PEC on defendants only if the information sought cannot practically be obtained by a review of documents or through depositions. The limitation on the number of interrogatories provided in the third sentence of Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a) shall not apply. 103 4 2.4.2 The PEC immediately may serve initial interrogatories pursuant to S.D.N.Y. Civ. R. 33.3 relating to the identity of witnesses and the location of documents. 2.4.3 The PEC may serve additional interrogatories until August 2, 2001. Within fifteen days after service of such interrogatories, counsel shall meet and confer to resolve any objections defendants may have thereto. Insofar as objections are not interposed, or if revised interrogatories are agreed upon, the defendants shall answer the interrogatories within the time provided by Rule 33 or within twenty days after such conference, whichever is longer, unless the parties otherwise agree or the Court otherwise orders. 2.4.4 Contention interrogatories may not be served absent leave of Court. 2.5 Fact discovery against plaintiffs 2.5.1 Fact discovery against plaintiffs shall take place concurrently with the PEC's discovery against defendants. 2.5.2 Plaintiffs with claims of personal injury Defendants have provided the PEC with a proposed plaintiff questionnaire, including requests for medical, employment and insurance authorizations and other pertinent documents, to be completed under oath by all plaintiffs. The parties shall agree upon the content of such a questionnaire and the form of authorizations by November 17, 2000, failing which they shall submit their respective positions to the Court by November 21, 2000 for determination. The sworn responses to the questionnaire shall be treated as interrogatory answers. To the extent that any documents or 104 5 responses are withheld on the grounds of privilege, plaintiffs shall provide a privilege log. By January 2, 2001 or forty days after a questionnaire is approved by the Court, whichever is later, completed sworn questionnaires with the required documents and duly executed authorizations shall be served on defendants' counsel by each plaintiff in each case included in this MDL that was docketed in this Court on or before the date of this order. Plaintiffs in MDL 1348 cases subsequently docketed in this Court shall be served such materials no later than forty days after the date of such docketing or the date required for cases docketed prior to the date of this order, whichever is later. In the event a plaintiff fails to serve a timely and sufficient response to the questionnaire, including all necessary documents and authorizations, defendants may send a warning letter to the plaintiff's counsel of record (with a copy to the PLC) identifying the deficiencies in that plaintiff's response and warning that the failure to provide all of the required information within thirty days of the date of the letter may result in the dismissal of that plaintiff's action. Any such letter shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. Following receipt of a response to the questionnaire, defendants may seek additional discovery with respect to the claim of the responding plaintiff from that plaintiff and from non-party witnesses by means provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 105 6 In exigent circumstances, the parties may agree and, absent agreement, any party may apply for leave to conduct an expedited deposition to preserve testimony. The service of any such motion by a plaintiff shall follow or be accompanied by a completed questionnaire and all required authorizations and copies of all medical, employment and/or insurance records in the possession of the moving plaintiff or that may be obtained by that plaintiff through reasonable efforts. 2.5.3 Class action and other plaintiffs The PEC and defendants' counsel will propose to the Court procedures for discovery against plaintiffs who assert class action or other claims, in lieu of or in addition to claims of existing or potential personal injury, on or before December 15, 2000. 3 Class actions 3.1 The PEC shall file a consolidated amended class action complaint no later than December 15, 2000. 3.2 Defendants may commence discovery of class representatives on January 16, 2001. The PEC shall use its best efforts to expedite completion and service of questionnaires and authorizations by class representatives. 3.3 The PEC shall serve plaintiffs' motion for class certification and supporting papers on or before January 16, 2001. 3.4 The parties shall meet and confer about a schedule for class related discovery and 106 7 briefing and report to the Court no later than January 31, 2001. 4 Experts 4.1 The PEC shall provide expert disclosures pursuant to Rule 26 no later than October 30, 2001, whereupon defendants may commence depositions of plaintiffs' experts.. 4.2 Defendants shall provide their expert disclosures within thirty days after receiving PEC's disclosures, whereupon the PEC may commence depositions of defendants' experts. 4.3 4.4 All expert discovery shall be completed on or before January 31, 2002. The parties shall attempt to agree and shall confer with the Court concerning scheduling of motions relating to the admissibility of expert testimony, including the scheduling of motions in limine, Daubert submissions and evidentiary hearings, after the expert depositions are completed and on or before December 15, 2001. 5 Dispositive and Summary Judgment Motions Because the parties may not be in a position to make all potential summary judgement motions until after the last decision by this Court with respect to the admissibility of any expert testimony, the last day for summary judgment motions, given the discovery that needs to be completed, shall be on January 31, 2002 or the thirtieth day after the last decision by this Court with respect to the admissibility of any expert testimony. 6 Final report regarding pretrial proceedings to be completed prior to remand. 107 8 On or before January 31, 2002, the parties shall meet, confer and report to the Court concerning any other pretrial proceedings, including dispositive motions and/or motions in limine, or any discovery, that remains to be completed in any of the then pending cases, so that this Court can determine whether each is ready for trial and remand to its respective transferor court. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 13, 2000 _______________________________________ Lewis A. Kaplan United States District Judge 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This case management order replaces and supercedes Case UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE IN RE: PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE (PPA) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, ____________________________ This document relates to all actions. The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein MDL NO. 1407 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 17C REMAND OF CASES Management Order ("CMO") Nos. 17, 17A and 17B. I. INTRODUCTION Proceedings in this MDL 1407 began in earnest with the Order re Initial Conference dated November 1, 2001, requiring plaintiffs and defendants to submit proposed committee rosters, and scheduling the initial conference in this MDL for November 16, 2001. Since then: (1) generic fact discovery (including written discovery, document production and review, discovery depositions, and requests for admissions) has been completed or substantially completed as to most MDL defendants for which "common benefit" discovery is being undertaken by the Plaintiffs; (2) a procedure for case-specific ORDER Page - 1 - 135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 fact discovery in each case has been implemented, and discovery pursuant thereto in cases subject to these MDL proceedings has been underway since 2002; (3) Rule 26 disclosures of generic experts have been made, discovery depositions of those experts are complete; and a process has been established to permit the adoption of those experts' opinions in other cases transferred or being transferred to this MDL; (4) trial preservation depositions of several of plaintiffs' and defendants' generic experts are underway or have been taken; (5) and Daubert motions have been filed challenging plaintiffs' generic medical experts' opinions as to general causation, briefing, and hearings on said motions have been completed, and the Court has issued its Decision on said motions. Given the foregoing, the Court is satisfied that this MultiDistrict Litigation has sufficiently matured, such that, subject to the following procedures and conditions, qualified cases may now be considered by the Court for purposes of issuing a Suggestion of Remand Order to facilitate their remand by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to their transferor courts for further case-specific proceedings and final disposition. II. REMAND CRITERIA- RIPENESS Generic fact discovery of defendants was required to be completed within specific time periods, as set forth in CMO No. 1, subject to certain extensions of time. general causation, and issues of Discovery as to experts on applicability, was general required to be completed by no later than March 10, 2003, with subsequently transferred cases subject to the provisions of CMO No. ORDER Page - 2 - 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 9, providing for the adoption of or designation of experts on issues of general applicability. Case-specific fact discovery of plaintiffs in each case subject to these MDL proceedings was required to be completed within specific time periods depending on when each case was docketed in these proceedings, as set forth in CMO Nos. 6 and 6A. In any case docketed in this MDL, a case will only be considered ripe for remand if the case is in compliance with CMOs Nos. 1, 6, 6A, 10, 13, 13A, 15, and any additional orders entered by this Court. have been Specifically, all of the following criteria must and/or fulfilled before a case will be completed considered ripe for remand: Plaintiff's fact sheet must be substantially complete per CMO Nos. 6 and 6A and all identified deficiencies must be corrected per CMO Nos. 6, 6A and 10; Plaintiff must have executed all appropriate authorizations, including new HIPAA-compliant authorizations if requested by defendants, as required by CMO Nos. 6 and 6A; Any permitted and timely filed discovery propounded by defendant(s) pursuant to CMO Nos. 6, 6A, or 10 must have been completed with no discovery disputes remaining unresolved; The deadline, as the same may have been extended by stipulation or Court order, for case-specific fact discovery must have passed and not be subject to any extensions under CMO Nos. 6, 6A or 10; If applicable to the case, plaintiff must have complied with the requirements of CMO No. 15 and any additional orders entered by this Court; The deadline for adopting or identifying generic experts per CMO No. 9 must have passed; Any summary judgment motion arising from the Court's Daubert Order entered June 18, 2003, applicable to the case must have been ruled upon. ORDER Page - 3 - 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 III. REMAND PROCEDURE A. Spreadsheet of Cases Ripe for Remand On July 1, 2004, liaison counsel for defendants shall provide to the court and to liaison counsel for plaintiffs a spreadsheet listing all cases deemed ripe for remand as of June 1, 2004, using the criteria set forth in Section II of this order. This spreadsheet shall include the following information as to each case: case caption, MDL cause number, transferor court, identity of all defendants, and fact discovery deadline. Defense liaison counsel shall provide this spreadsheet to the court and to liaison counsel for plaintiffs in electronic form. Counsel shall provide similar spreadsheets on August 2, 2004, September 1, 2004, October 1, 2004, and thereafter as directed by the court. Each of these subsequent spreadsheets shall identify cases that are considered ripe for remand as of the date of the previous spreadsheet, but shall not include any cases that were included on a previous spreadsheet. (For example, the spreadsheet filed on August 2, 2004, will identify those cases that are considered ripe for remand as of July 1, 2004, but not those cases that were included on the July 1, 2004 spreadsheet.) While it shall be the responsibility of defense liaison counsel to provide the spreadsheets, any party to a case may file a notice of ripeness for remand on the monthly dates specified by the court. B. Orders to Show Cause The court will issue orders to show cause why each case ORDER Page - 4 - 138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 designated as ripe for remand should not be remanded. The orders will set forth the dates by which objections and replies shall be filed, together with noting dates. C. Objections and Responses Any party to a case may submit an objection to the remand of a particular case as directed in the court's orders to show cause. Objections shall be limited to ten (10) double-spaced pages, and responses shall be limited to five (5) pages. Objections and responses must be served on liaison counsel, as well as counsel of record in the case to be remanded. To the extent possible, service upon liaison counsel should be electronic. There shall be no hearings permitted on any given show cause order except by leave of court. D. Eligibility for Remand The court has appointed Magistrate Judge Theiler to consider and rule on objections filed pursuant to Section III(c), above. Any case in which a show cause order has issued will be deemed eligible for remand if (a) no written objection is filed by the date specified in the court's order, or (b) upon Magistrate judge Theiler overruling all objections to remand of that case. A party whose case has been deemed not eligible for remand as a result of a successful objection may resubmit the case on the dates set forth herein, after curing the grounds on which the objection was sustained. E. Suggestion of Remand Order Following Magistrate Judge Theiler's determination ORDER Page - 5 - 139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 regarding eligibility, the court will issue a Suggestion of Remand Order to be forwarded to the JPML, containing the names of the cases the court views as appropriate for remand. Issuance of a Suggestion of Remand Order triggers the Alternative Dispute Resolution requirements contained in CMO 18B for the cases listed in that order. F. Conditional Remand Order from the JPML Within seven (7) days of the date that a Conditional Remand Order is filed by the JPML with this transferee court, the parties will submit a joint proposed Final MDL Pretrial Order for the Court's signature. Such order will describe the events that have taken place in MDL 1407 and those items that require further action by the transferor court. A copy of the Final MDL Pretrial Order, along with the case file and materials, will be provided to the transferor court. IV. CONCLUSION As the remand process progresses, it may become clear that aspects of this procedure could benefit from modification in order to make improvements or to lessen the burden on any participant in this process. Such participants may include the JPML, the parties, this court, any of the transferor courts, the Special Master Francis McGovern, or Magistrate Judge Theiler. The parties are instructed to confer prior to proposing changes to this procedure. ORDER Page - 6 - 140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER Page - 7 - DATED this 23rd day of June, 2004. s/ Barbara Jacobs Rothstein Barbara Jacobs Rothstein United States District Court Judge 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150

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?