Caiola v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. et al

Filing 333

Order granting in part and denying in part 1236 Motion for entry of a lone pine type case management order. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas Rawles Jones, Jr. 1/3/2018. Associated Cases: 1:15-md-02627-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02 628-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02630-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02631-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02634-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02635-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02637-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02638-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02643-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02644-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02645-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02647-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv -02648-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02649-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02652-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02653-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02654-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02657-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02658-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02660-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02661-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02663-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02664-AJT-TRJ, 1:15 -cv-02665-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02666-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02667-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02668-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02670-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02671-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02673-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02674-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02675-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02676-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02679-AJT-TRJ, 1 :15-cv-02681-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02682-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02683-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02684-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02685-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02688-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02689-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02691-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02693-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02694-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02696-AJT-TRJ , 1:15-cv-02697-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02698-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02699-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02700-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02702-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02704-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02705-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02706-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02707-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02708-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02709-AJT- TRJ, 1:15-cv-02710-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02711-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02714-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02719-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02720-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02721-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02724-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02725-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02726-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02730-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02731-A JT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02734-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02735-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02736-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02740-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02741-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02742-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02745-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02746-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02747-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02749-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-0275 0-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02751-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02752-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02756-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02757-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02759-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02761-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02762-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02763-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02765-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02766-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-0 2767-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02768-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02769-AJT-TRJ, 1:15-cv-02770-AJT-TRJ, 1:16-cv-02771-AJT-TRJ, 1:16-cv-02772-AJT-TRJ, 1:16-cv-02773-AJT-TRJ, 1:16-cv-02774-AJT-TRJ, 1:16-cv-02775-AJT-TRJ, 1:16-cv-02776-AJT-TRJ, 1:16-cv-02777-AJT-TRJ, 1:16-c v-02778-AJT-TRJ, 1:16-cv-02779-AJT-TRJ, 1:16-cv-02780-AJT-TRJ, 1:16-cv-02781-AJT-TRJ, 1:16-cv-02782-AJT-TRJ, 1:16-cv-02783-AJT-TRJ, 1:16-cv-02784-AJT-TRJ, 1:16-cv-02785-AJT-TRJ, 1:16-cv-02786-AJT-TRJ, 1:16-cv-02788-AJT-TRJ, 1:16-cv-02790-AJT-TRJ, 1:1 6-cv-02791-AJT-TRJ, 1:16-cv-02792-AJT-TRJ, 1:16-cv-02793-AJT-TRJ, 1:16-cv-02794-AJT-TRJ, 1:17-cv-02795-AJT-TRJ, 1:17-cv-02797-AJT-TRJ, 1:17-cv-02798-AJT-TRJ, 1:17-cv-02800-AJT-TRJ, 1:17-cv-02802-AJT-TRJ, 1:17-cv-02803-AJT-TRJ, 1:17-cv-02804-AJT-TRJ, 1:17-cv-02805-AJT-TRJ, 1:17-cv-02806-AJT-TRJ, 1:17-cv-02807-AJT-TRJ, 1:17-cv-02808-AJT-TRJ, 1:17-cv-02809-AJT-TRJ, 1:17-cv-02811-AJT-TRJ, 1:17-cv-02812-AJT-TRJ, 1:17-cv-02813-AJT-TRJ(rban, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
IN RE: LUMBER LIQUIDATORS CHINESEMANUFACTURED FLOORING PRODUCTS
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

)
)
)
)
)

MDL No. 1:15-md-2627 (AJT/TRJ)

This Document Relates to ALL Cases
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant filed a motion (ECF no. 1236) for entry of a “Lone Pine” type case
management order (see Lore v. Lone Pine, L-33606-85, 1986 WL 637507 (N.J. Super. Ct. Div.
Nov. 18, 1986), and I heard it by telephone on December 28, 2017.
What constitutes a “Lone Pine” order is a matter of characterization. The issue before the
Court is whether, in the circumstances of this MDL at this stage, as more personal injury claims
are pled, Defendant and the Court need prompt discovery of the existence of medical support for
the claims. I find that such need does exist, to the extent required by Section 6 of the First
Supplemental Rule 16(b) Order entered today. To that extent Defendant’s motion is GRANTED
IN PART and otherwise DENIED IN PART.
Plaintiffs’ counsel’s suggestion that the order calls for forensic and toxicology studies is
mistaken. Nor does the order jump start a summary judgment process. The informal report from
a treating physician or other expert required by Section 6 calls for little more than would be
required by an early interrogatory. It is not too much to expect that a plaintiff filing a personal
injury claim in this MDL will have consulted a health care provider and that the information
called for will be available. Finally, counsel’s concerns about depositions have been dealt with
by clarifying language in the order as entered.

Authority to require the report, and early, is clear under Rule 16(b)(3)(B)(ii) and Rule
16(c)(2)(F, L, and P); the need is clear; and the burden is justified.
Accordingly, it is so ORDERED.

January 3, 2018
Alexandria, Virginia
_______________/s/__________________
THOMAS RAWLES JONES, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE