Free Pretrial Memorandum - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

_ Case 1 :05-cv—00059-JHR Document 48-2 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 1 of 2
Page I
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16590, *
LEXSEE 2002 US DIST LEXIS 16590
IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI); This
Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS
CIVIL ACTION NO. MDL 875 (Including MARDOC, FELA, and TIREWORKER
cases)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16590
January 14, 2002, Decided
January 15, 2002, Filed; January 16, 2002, Entered
g§;g§;T‘°N’ [*1] Casas adminismtively Furthermore, the position of the moving panics, that
' ' the screening cases have [*2] been filed without a
COUNSED For FRANCIS E MCGOVERN SPECIAL doctonpatient medical report setting forth an asbestos
MASTER ' FRANCIS E ' MC GOVEi{N THE related disease, has not been refuted. The basis of each
UNIVERSITY OF ALAB TUSCALOO§A AL tiling, according to the evidence of the moving parties, is
USA ’ ’ a report to the attorney from the screening company
' which states that the potential plaintiff has an x-ray
F I STEPHEN B BURBANK SPECIAL MASTER reading 'consistent with' an asbestos related disease.
SSEPHEN B EIURBANK GNN OF PA LAW Because this report may set in motion the running of any
SCHOOL PHfLA PA USA ’ applicable statutes of limitations, a suit is then
’ ’ ' commenced without further verification. Oftentimes
_ . these suits are brought on behalf of individuals who are
JUDGES` Charles R' Wcmcn S`J' asymptomatic as to an asbestos—related illness and may
OPINIONBY Cha1_lcSR Weiner not suffer any symptoms in the iiiture. Filing fees are
` ' paid, service costs incurred, and defense files are opened
OPINION and processed. Substantial transaction costs are expended
` and therefore unavailable for compensation to truly
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 8 ascertained asbestos victims.
THE COURT, has previously received the Motion The Court has the responsibility to administratively
For Case Management Order Concerning Mass manage these cases so as to protect the rights of all ofthe
Litigation Screenings, and has held a hearing thereon and parties, yet preserve and maintain any funds available for
reviewed the briefs and comments from counsel compensation to victims.
regarding the issue. The Court notes that a similar .
situation regarding the massive MARDOC filings was SCi_c;lI;lE C§S2E?”{an;Hl:?uit ga; rg; tngqzgcozithngasg
resolved by an administrative order dismissing those and has §hG cf, ci {[*3] dg mm f gs Omg lr gg
cases without prejudice and tolling the applicable statutes stretched to fhg cumin Wigch §NO‘;§d cthcrwz 8 bi
of limitations while retaining those actions in a special avaiiabi for com ensafm {0 de € . ia,_1t,4,fS B
active status category. The Court feels that this B P 1 S Wing p ” " `
administrative process has worked well with the Court‘s IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS
continued supervision as well as counsel monitoring the COURT:
cases that become ready for trial or disposition.
. . . . . 1. All non-malignant, asbestos related,
i Priority will be given to the malignancy and other personamnjury cases assigned to MDL
serious health cases over the asymptomatic claims
' 875 which were initiated through a mass

_ Case 1:05-cv—00059-JHR Document 48-2 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 2 of 2
Page2
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16590, *
screening shall be subject to previously served or not) and any party
administrative dismissal without prejudice may within ten (10) days request a
and with the tolling of all applicable hearing on the motion. The burden at any
statutes of limitations. A dismissal order hearing to reinstate shall be upon the
may be prompted by motion of any party plaintiff to show some evidence of
and, upon request, shall be subject to a asbestos exposure and evidence of an
y hearing at which time the Court may asbestos-related disease. Exposure to
receive evidence that such case does or specific products shall not be a
does not qualify for administrative requirement for reinstatement.
dismissal hereunder.
4. Following reinstatement, counsel shall have thirty (30)
2. Once a case is administratively days to complete initial service of process and answers
dismissed, the case will remain active for will be due twenty (20) days following service.
the Coun {0. comme to cnmdam The Court encourages the parties to work informally
settlement motions and orders, motions d. d I fm d .
for amendments to the pleadings, upqnd lsiovzry sc? cmgptq lcsc gascsfu urmg ally
substitutions, and other murine matter-S pcm ° ;‘“‘“‘S“”“"°. ‘S‘“‘SS§a mh °“‘°“"““
mtmquiringa formalhcaringt necessary rscovery motronslto ci itate t e process.
The Court will also be available to convene all the
. necessary parties and to facilitate the progress of the
3' Any party may request rcuismmicm to cases that are ready for early settlement decisions, setting
active status of a msc by ming with the of trial dates and! or remand if desired
Court a request for reinstatement together ’ `
with an affidavit setting forth the facts BY THE COURT
that qualify the case for active processing. .
The motion for reinstatement shall be Charles R` Weiner S'J‘
served by [*4] mail (known counsel of _
record for a particular defendant shall Dam 1/14/O2
suffice) upon all parties (whether