In re: Welding Fume Products Liability Litigation

Filing 2578

Memorandum and Order On May 30, 2012, the Court met with lead counsel to address issues related to the winding down of this MDL. The parties reported that the great majority of cases pending in the MDL have been resolved,and the parties were in the process of filing stipulated case dismissals. In light of these circumstances the court issues this order. Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley on 7/20/12. (S,R)

03cv17000zcd-ord(Wrapup).wpd

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
IN RE: WELDING FUME PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:03-CV-17000
(MDL Docket No. 1535)
JUDGE O’MALLEY
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On May 30, 2012, the Court met with lead counsel to address issues related to the winding down
of this MDL. The parties reported that the great majority of cases pending in the MDL have been resolved,
and the parties were in the process of filing stipulated case dismissals. While at one time there were
thousands of MDL cases, there now remain only three. Of these, only one case, known as Baxter, is being
actively litigated.1 In light of these circumstances, the Court now orders as follows.
•

On December 9, 2003, the Court entered the MDL Case Management Order (“CMO”). In the
CMO, the Court appointed Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel, Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel, and Plaintiffs’
Executive Committee, and set out their duties. See docket no. 63 at 4-6. The Court thanks all of
these individuals for their service. All individuals so appointed are now relieved of their duties.

•

On November 10, 2004, the Court appointed a Special Master and set out his duties. See docket
no. 612. The Court also thanks the Special Master for his service. The Special Master is now
relieved of his duties. As noted in the Court’s Trial Template Order, however, the Special Master
retains a vast amount of invaluable “‘institutional knowledge,’ such as . . . familiarity with the
1

The other two are pro se cases. As has every pro se Welding Fume case, it appears likely these
two cases will eventually also be dismissed.

parties and with the complicated issues that arise recurringly in Welding Fume trials.” See docket
no. 2389 at 9. Accordingly, this MDL Court urges any Judge who presides over Baxter going
forward to consider appointment of the Special Master to assist with pretrial motions and trial
oversight.
•

During the course of discovery, the Court and the parties agreed that defendants would supplement
their responses to MDL requests for production every six months, by producing any newly-created
responsive documents and also an updated privilege log. Over the last several years, none of the
documents so produced have been used by any plaintiff at trial or for any other reason; rather,
plaintiffs have always and only relied upon: (1) MDL core documents produced several years ago;
and (2) documents produced pursuant to case-specific requests. Accordingly, the Court hereby
relieves defendants from their semi-annual obligation to supplement their responses to plaintiffs’
MDL requests for production. Defendants shall respond to case-specific discovery requests (if
any) in Baxter in the normal course.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Kathleen M. O’Malley
KATHLEEN McDONALD O’MALLEY
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, SITTING BY
DESIGNATION
DATED: July 20, 2012

2