In re: Acetaminophen - ASD-ADHD Products Liability Litigation
Filing 56
ORDER: PLAINTIFF FACT SHEETS: Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the PFS attached to this Order shall be used in this MDL, subject to stylistic and formatting changes intended to facilitate electronic completion and transmission of the PFS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following instructions shall govern use of the PFS. I. COMPLETION OF PLAINTIFF FACT SHEET, DOCUMENT PRODUCTION, AND AUTHORIZATIONS: 1. In accordance with the schedule set forth in Section II, each plaint iff in each current and future Member Case shall, as further set forth herein. 2. Substantial Completeness: All PFS submissions must be substantially complete, which means a plaintiff must: a. Answer all questions in the PFS to the best of the ir ability and/or recollection, as further set forth herein. 3. A plaintiff's responses to the PFS shall be treated as answers to interrogatories under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and responses to requests for production of documents under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, and shall be supplemented in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. 4. The defendants' use of the PFS, document productions, and Authorization Forms shall be without prejudice to defendants' right to serve additional, non-duplicative discovery as part of a bellwether process. Otherwise, the defendants shall not serve any additional discovery without either consent of a plaintiff or prior authorization from the Court. 5. Nothing in the PFS shall limit the scope of inquiry at depositions or the admissibility of evidence at trial. 6. All objections to the admissibility of information contained in the PFS are reserved; therefore, no objections shall be lodged in the responses to the questions an d requests contained therein. 7. A plaintiff may withhold or redact information requested in the PFS based upon the attorney-client privilege. Information or Responsive Documents withheld or redacted on the basis of such privilege shall be record ed in a privilege log provided to the defendants within thirty (30) days of the service of the completed PFS and production of Responsive Documents. II. TIMING AND SERVICE OF PLAINTIFF FACT SHEETS: 8. Currently Pending Cases: Plaintiffs who ha ve already filed a Short Form Complaint shall have sixty (60) days from the entry of this Order to complete, verify, and serve their PFS upon counsel for each defendant named in their Member Case, in the manner prescribed herein. 9. Future C ases: Any future plaintiff who files directly in this MDL pursuant to this Court's Order: Direct Filing (22MC3043: ECF No. 25), or whose case is otherwise removed or transferred into this MDL from another jurisdiction, is required to complet e, verify, and serve his or her PFS, in the manner prescribed herein, within sixty (60) days of filing his or her Short Form Complaint. a. In the event this 60-day period is not sufficient for a specific plaintiffs' law firm to comply wi th this deadline in any given month, counsel from that firm shall contact the defendants' leadership via email at DEC-APAP@btlaw.com to request consent for an extension, and if consent is not forthcoming, may request an extension from t he Court. b. In the event an individual plaintiff requires an extension to file their PFS, plaintiff's counsel shall meet and confer with defense counsel for the defendants named in his or her Member Case, and if consent for an extens ion is not forthcoming, may request an extension from the Court. III. REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF FACT SHEETS FOR DEFICIENCIES: 10. For those plaintiffs who serve their PFS in accordance with this Order, the defendants shall have forty-five (45) days to review and notify the plaintiff of any deficiencies with their PFS. In the event that this 45-day period is not sufficient for a defendant's law firm in any given month, defense counsel shall contact plaintiffs' leadership v ia email at APAP-Co-Leads@wattsguerra.com, and if consent for an extension is not forthcoming, may request an extension from the Court. 11. The failure of a physician, healthcare provider, federal, state, and/or local government agency, or any other entity asked to produce records relating to a plaintiff ("Entity") to accept an Authorization Form will not be considered a deficiency for purposes of this Order. To the extent an Entity fails to accept an Authorization Form, the parties must meet and confer in good faith in an effort to resolve the issue so that the records may be collected. Those efforts may include the plaintiff executing a new authorization form that meets the Entity's requirements. 12. Defici ency Notice Process: a. Failure to timely serve a PFS: In the event a plaintiff misses the deadline to timely complete and serve a PFS, defendants shall serve a Notice of Overdue PFS on that plaintiff's counsel of the failure to comply with this Order. The plaintiff shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of notice to timely complete, verify, file, and serve the PFS. A plaintiff who fails to do so by the deadline to cure shall be subject to process set forth in Section IV, as furth er set forth herein. IV. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PROCESS: 13. If a plaintiff fails to complete and serve a PFS following Notice of Overdue PFS or to cure any deficiencies in his or her PFS pursuant to the Notice of Deficient PFS, a defendant may s eek relief from the Court, including a request that the Court issue an Order to Show Cause why the Member Case should not be dismissed with prejudice. 14. A defendant may raise multiple Member Cases' deficiencies in a single application to the Court. V. CONFIDENTIALITY OF DATA: 15. Information any plaintiff provides pursuant to a PFS is deemed confidential, will only be used for purposes related to this litigation, and may be disclosed only as permitted by the Protective Order (22MC3043: ECF No. 41). (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 3/23/2023) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (vfr)
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.
