Lamkin v. Johnson & Johnson et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. This matter is before the Court on review of the file following remand by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation from consolidated pretrial proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Minn esota. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, meet, prepare, and file a joint written response which shall set forth the items included herein. (See Full Order.) As the docket does not refle ct that any attorney has entered an appearance for defendants, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's counsel shall serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order on defendants' counsel, and defense counsel are reminded of their obligation to timely enter an appearance in this case. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 7/24/2015. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
WALTER LAMKIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4: 10 CV 1139 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of the file following remand by the Judicial Panel
on Multi-District Litigation from consolidated pretrial proceedings before the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of
this Order, meet, prepare, and file a joint written response which shall set forth:
(a) An agreed-upon statement of the facts and procedural history of this case, including
significant actions taken in consolidated pretrial proceedings before the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota;
(b) whether the parties have taken all necessary actions to cause the relevant portions of the
record to be furnished to this Court;
(c) the issues remaining for determination;
(d) the potential for settlement, and the status, though not the content, of any offers of
settlement;
(e) whether referral to court-sponsored alternative dispute resolution could advance the
ultimate resolution of this case;

(f) whether the parties request a Rule 16 scheduling conference;
(g) the nature and extent of any remaining discovery needed before this case is ready to
proceed to trial;
(h) when it is reasonably likely this case would be ready to proceed to trial and the estimated
length of trial; and
(i) whether the parties anticipate the filing of dispositive or expert motions.
As the docket does not reflect that any attorney has entered an appearance for defendants,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s counsel shall serve a copy of this
Memorandum and Order on defendants’ counsel, and defense counsel are reminded of their
obligation to timely enter an appearance in this case.

_________________________________
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 24th day of July, 2015.

-2-