NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL IN MDL 875: If a plaintiff has been assigned an E.D. Pa. case number, all documents must be filed electronically via CM/ECF in that docket number. It is NOT necessary to send a courtesy copy to chambers if a document is filed electronically. If counsel feels that they wish to send a courtesy copy, please clearly indicate that it is a courtesy copy so duplicate docket entries are not made. Also, on proposed orders, please include "Presiding Judge Eduardo C. Robreno" under the signature line.

For Cases in which a Rule 26(f) Conference is ordered, PLEASE SEE Discovery Plan Template. This template includes the Court's presumptive deadlines for completing the necessary steps of trial preparation.

PLEASE SEE case management flow chart updated 03/08/10. This flow chart illustrates the Court's case management scheme.

Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) contains related information.

PLEASE NOTE this Judicial Disclosure Notice from Presiding Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, updated April, 2015.

About

Overview of MDL 875

	Description
	The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has issued an Order adopting Judge Robreno's Fourth Suggestion regarding future tag-along transfers. Asbestos cases from the Northern District of California will no longer be transferred to MDL 875.
	The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has issued an Order adopting Judge Robreno's Third Suggestion regarding future tag-along transfers. Asbestos cases from the Eastern District of Virginia will no longer be transferred to MDL 875.
	Judge Robreno's Presentation regarding MDL-875: Past, Present, and Future (updated November 10, 2016)
	The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has issued an Order adopting Judge Robreno's Second Suggestion regarding future tag-along transfers.
	The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has issued an Order adopting Judge Robreno's Suggestion regarding future tag-along transfers. Most asbestos cases will cease to be transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
	An Overview of MDL 875 In Re: Asbestos
	Judge Robreno's Presentation for the "Cutting Edge Issues in Asbestos Litigation" Conference, March 3-4, 2011
	Ten Steps to the Resolution of MDL 875 (updated 10.2.12)

About MDL 875

MDL 875, In Re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI), involves issues relating to personal injury damages caused by asbestos products. It currently consists of about 3,000 cases transferred by the Judicial Panel on MultiDistrict Litigation to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 1991. Each case typically consists of claims by multiple plaintiffs against multiple defendants.

A United States Judicial Conference Ad Hoc Committee on Asbestos Litigation appointed by the Chief Justice described the social effects of asbestos in a 1991 report, saying the use of asbestos "is a tale of danger known about in the 1930s, [with] exposure inflicted upon millions of Americans in the 1940s and 1950s, injuries that began to take their toll in the 1960s, and a flood of lawsuits beginning in the 1970s." ^[1] Asbestos related diseases may have a latency period of 40-50 years, resulting in a continuous stream of claims that has continued through the present. One of the purposes of transferring all the federal asbestos litigation into a single district was to "facilitate global settlements, and allow the transferee court to fully explore ... national disposition techniques such as classes and sub-classes under Rule 23".^[2] In early 1993, a class action was commenced which sought to settle the claims of between 25,000 and 2,000,000 individuals who had been exposed to asbestos products. The settlement was between the proposed class of individuals and a group of 20 companies known as the Center for Claims Resolution (CCR). The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, in Georgine v. Amchem Products (83 F. 3d. 610), ruled that the class did not satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. In 1997, the Supreme Court subsequently affirmed this ruling in Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor (521 U.S. 591).

After the Supreme Court ruled that the proposed settlement class should be decertified, the next opportunity for a mass settlement was through legislative action. There have been several attempts at legislative action to facilitate the resolution of asbestos claims, but none have received the support necessary to become law. These attempts are the Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1999^[3], the Asbestos Compensation Act of 2000^[4], the Asbestos Claims Criteria and Compensation Act of 2003^[5], and the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution (FAIR) Act of 2006^[6]. The FAIR act was sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, was introduced in the Senate and was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was never voted on by the Senate.

Since the Supreme Court decision in Windsor, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has approached MDL 875 under a "one plaintiff, one claim" policy. Beginning with Administrative Order No. 12, the Court has initiated an aggressive, pro-active policy in setting cases for settlement conferences, motion hearings and trials. Presiding Judge Robreno has devised further procedures for resolving these actions which commenced in January, 2009. The procedures can be found by clicking on the links above.

^[1] Report of The Judicial Conference Ad Hoc Committee on Asbestos Litigation 2-3 (Mar. 1991)
^[2] See Id. at 619.
^[3] S. 758, 106th Cong. (1999).
^[4] H.R. 1283, 106th Cong. (2000).
^[5] S. 413, 108th Cong. (2003).
^[6] S. 3274. 109th Cong. (2006).

Updates

Current Updates

Date	Description
07/08/2021	An opinion has been added to the Opinions section. See Opinions.

Previous Recent Updates

Date	Description
07/03/2019	The Statistics section has been updated to include the June 2019 MDL-875 statistics. See Statistics. An opinion has been added to the Opinions section. See Opinions.
04/05/2019	The Statistics section has been updated to include the March 2019 MDL-875 statistics. See Statistics. An opinion has been added to the Opinions section. See Opinions.
08/05/2018	The Statistics section has been updated to include the July, 2018 MDL-875 statistics. See Statistics.
09/13/2017	The Statistics section has been updated to include the August 2017 MDL-875 statistics. See Statistics. An opinion has been added to the Opinions section. See Opinions.
03/08/2017	The Statistics section has been updated to include the January and February, 2017 MDL-875 statistics. See Statistics. An opinion has been added to the Opinions section. See Opinions.
01/11/2017	The Statistics section has been updated to include the December, 2016 MDL-875 statistics. See Statistics. Two opinions have been added to the Opinions section. See Opinions.
11/16/2016	The About section has been updated to include the latest version of Judge Robreno's presentation entitled "MDL-875: Past, Present, and Future." See About. The Statistics section has been updated to include the October 2016 MDL-875 statistics. See Statistics.
10/26/2016	The About section has been updated to include the latest version of Judge Robreno's presentation entitled "MDL-875: Past, Present, and Future." See About. The Statistics section has been updated to include the September, 2016 MDL-875 statistics. See Statistics.
09/15/2016	The Statistics section has been updated to include the August, 2016 MDL-875 statistics. See Statistics.
08/05/2016	The Statistics section has been updated to include the July, 2016 MDL-875 statistics. See Statistics. An order has been added to the Opinions section. See Opinions.
07/11/2016	The Statistics section has been updated to include the June, 2016 MDL-875 statistics. See Statistics.
06/13/2016	The Statistics section has been updated to include the May, 2016 MDL-875 statistics. See Statistics. An opinion has been added to the Opinions section. See Opinions.
05/10/2016	The Statistics section has been updated to include the April, 2016 MDL-875 statistics. See Statistics.
04/08/2016	The About section has been updated to include the latest version of Judge Robreno's presentation entitled "MDL-875: Past, Present, and Future." See About. The Statistics section has been updated to include the March, 2016 MDL-875 statistics. See Statistics.
03/10/2016	The Statistics section has been updated to include the February, 2016 MDL-875 statistics. See Statistics.
02/25/2016	The Statistics section has been updated to include the January, 2016 MDL-875 statistics. See Statistics.
01/07/2016	The Statistics section has been updated to include the December, 2015 MDL-875 statistics. See Statistics.

Procedures

Settlement Conference Procedures

A party wishing to have a settlement conference, should follow the following procedures:

1. Any party may request a settlement conference in their case.

2. In order to obtain a date for your settlement conference, please write or call Judge Robreno's MDL 875 law clerk and inform her of your request for a settlement conference.

3. The MDL 875 law clerk will assign the case to a Magistrate Judge, and the Magistrate Judge will set a settlement conference date.

4. Plaintiff shall give notice of this conference to each viable defendant in each case no less than thirty (30) days before the conference is scheduled. A Certificate of Notification of this notice shall be forwarded to the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case prior to the conference.

5. Plaintiff shall provide to each viable defendant a copy of plaintiff's most current medical report relied upon and a synopsis of the exposure evidence against that defendant. Plaintiff is directed to make a reasonable demand upon each of the defendants, and the parties must attempt in good faith to negotiate settlement of the case(s) prior to the conference date.

6. In preparation for the conference, parties must exchange information and complete such discovery as is necessary to be in a posture to negotiate settlement.

7. Parties to all unresolved claims in the case shall appear at the conference with necessary authority to settle the case(s) with their principals present or immediately available to them by phone.

8. The Magistrate Judge has the authority to require the principals to be present, to continue the conference for additional days or to postpone the conference with or without costs assessed.

9. In the event that a claim is settled in full as to any individual claim or defendant, the Magistrate Judge shall dismiss that claim or the claim against the settled defendant with prejudice pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 41.1(b).

10. In the event that a claim is not settled, the Magistrate Judge shall determine whether further settlement conferences will be helpful. If not, the Magistrate Judge shall inform the Presiding Judge whether the parties have negotiated in good faith and whether the parties are ready for trial or remand.

Contested Motion Procedures

If you wish to be heard on a contested motion, please follow the following procedure:

1. Any substantive, contested motion will be scheduled for a hearing date upon order of the Court. The Court will attempt to schedule hearings at the earliest possible date. When a hearing is scheduled, an order will be entered in each affected E.D. Pa. docket number.

2. In the Court's discretion, any motion may be continued to a different date.

3. All motions must be accompanied by a memorandum of law citing to the substantive or procedural rule which governs the motion.

4. If factual materials are relevant to the determination of the motion, they shall be appended to the motion.

5. Any party opposing the motion shall have fourteen (14) days within which to file and serve a response upon the moving party. This response must include all relevant factual information in opposition to the motion and cite to the substantive or procedural rule relied upon for opposition. See E.D. Pa. Loc. R. Civ. P. 7.1(c).

6. No reply to the opposing party's response shall be filed without leave of court, which shall be sparingly granted. However, parties have a right to file a reply regarding motions for summary judgment. See E.D. Pa. Loc. R. Civ. P. 7.1(c).

7. There will be a strict limit of one continuance granted per party per motion.

Administrative Motion Procedures

1. Any matter concerning scheduling or any administrative issue may be brought to the Court by motion.

2. All motions must indicate whether the opposing side has consented and attach a sample formal order stating the relief sought.

3. An administrative motion may be decided by the Court based on the papers without scheduling a hearing.

Trial Procedures

Parties wishing to proceed to trial, either jury or non-jury^[7], shall comply with the following procedures:

NOTE: This is the trial procedure for parties that wish to have a trial before an Article I judge (with consent of the parties) or before an Article III judge. In either case, for cases where the transferor court is other than the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, parties must waive any venue objections in order for the case to be tried in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See Administrative Order No. 22.

1. Write or call the MDL 875 law clerk.

2. Certify that all discovery has been completed and that the parties are ready to try the case within thirty (30) days.

3. Notify the MDL 875 law clerk whether parties will consent to trial before an Article I judge and whether parties have complied with Administrative Order No. 22.

4. The trial judge will hold a scheduling conference promptly and assign a trial date within thirty (30) days.

^[7] Punitive damages in this case have been bifurcated and will not be subject to trial at this time.

Remand Procedures

Please see Administrative Order No. 18.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for Newly Transferred Cases

1. What is required now that the case has been transferred to MDL 875?

All counsel must be registered on the Electronic Case Filing ("ECF") system for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("EDPA"). Details on how to register can be found on the MDL 875 Website. See http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/MDL/MDL875/875-Revised%20A.O.%2023.pdf.

Plaintiff's counsel must also comply with Administrative Order No. 12, providing preliminary information about the case, within thirty (30) days of a case transfer to MDL 875. See http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/MDL/MDL875/adord12.pdf. Administrative Order No. 12 submissions should be filed on the case's Eastern District of Pennsylvania docket. There is no longer an online database for submissions.

Additionally, all counsel must become familiar with the local and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the procedures and administrative orders on the MDL 875 website. The MDL 875 website address is: http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents2/mdl/mdl875.

2. What is the procedure for Pro Hac Vice admission to the EDPA?: To be admitted Pro Hac Vice for purposes of MDL 875, no formal motion is required. However, to be admitted Pro Hac Vice for purposes of MDL 875, each attorney must register on ECF (see above). See also Amended Administrative Order No. 23, and Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 1.4 ("Any attorney of record in any action transferred under Section 1407 may continue to represent his or her client in any district court of the United States to which such action is transferred. Parties to any action transferred under Section 1407 are not required to obtain local counsel in the district to which such action is transferred.")

3. What happens after my case is transferred to the EDPA?: A status and scheduling conference will be promptly set, and a scheduling order will be subsequently entered.

4. What occurs at the status and scheduling conference?

The status and scheduling conference is an informal administrative meeting. The MDL 875 law clerk will call all of the cases listed and inform counsel present of the status of each case.

The cases will fall into one of three categories:

(1) The case will be issued Judge Robreno's standard scheduling order.

(2) The case will be referred to one of four (4) Magistrate Judges that are involved in MDL 875.

(3) Plaintiff's counsel has informed the Court that the case can be dismissed to the "bankruptcy only" docket (meaning only claims against bankrupt defendants will be pursued) or that the case has been settled in its entirety and can be marked "closed".

The status of all of the cases will be posted on the MDL 875 website shortly after the hearing.

5. Do I need to appear at the status and scheduling conference?: No. If you represent Plaintiff and provide the Court with the information required in the Order scheduling the status conference, appearance at the conference is excused. Defense counsel does not have to appear, and Defense counsel does not have to provide any information to the Court prior to the conference.

6. May I appear telephonically?: No. Telephonic appearance is not available.

7. There were motions pending in my case prior to transfer. What is the status of these motions?: All motions pending at the time of transfer that have not been granted or denied by the transferor court are denied without prejudice. Motions must be re-filed on the EDPA docket. If the motion was timely filed in the transferor court, it will be considered timely by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See Administrative Order No. 11, at 2; http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/MDL/MDL875/Amended_AO11.pdf.

8. How and when will the case get remanded back to the transferor court?

A suggestion of remand will be automatically entered in each case within thirty (30) days of the final summary judgment hearing and pre-remand conference. The date of this conference is the last date listed in the scheduling order.

Parties may file a Motion for Suggestion of Remand prior to that date. If the case complies with all of the requirements of Administrative Order No. 18 a suggestion of remand will be entered. See http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/MDL/MDL875/Administrative_Order_18.pdf.

9. What is the procedure after Suggestion of Remand has been filed?: The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") is the best resource for procedures after the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has filed a Suggestion of Remand. See http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov. Once a Conditional Remand Order from the JPML is filed on the EDPA docket, the EDPA no longer has jurisdiction over the case and remand is effectuated.

Summary Judgment Procedures

Date	Description
-	Summary Judgment Flow Chart
12/23/2010	Summary Judgment Timeline with Magistrate Judge Hearing Dates Included
03/29/2011	Jurisdictional Breakdown of all Cases Remanded after Summary Judgment Hearings
07/11/2011	Results of all Summary Judgment Hearings

Calendar

MDL 875 Calendar

Cases Referred to Judge Hey

Date	Description
07/31/2009	See Social Security Consent Release Form, Department of Veteran Affairs Records Release Consent form, Request for Copy of Tax Return Form, Tax Information Authorization Form, Authorization to Release Health Care Records, Authorization for Disclosure of Protected Health Information(1), Authorization for the Release of Protected Health Information(2), Information for SF 180, Request Pertaining to Medical Records, Authorization form to Release Medical Records from DVA.
09/09/2009	See Judge Hey's Schedule for Settlement Conferences in Wallace and Graham Cases.
10/19/2009	See Standard Interrogatories and Document Requests Propounded by Defendants.
10/19/2009	See Standard Interrogatories Propounded by Plaintiffs.
10/19/2009	See Standard Document Requests Propounded by Plaintiffs.
09/17/2010	Mississippi - Authorization for Release of Payroll and Personnel Records.
09/17/2010	Mississippi - Defendants' Master Interrogatories.
09/17/2010	Mississippi - Defendants' Master Requests for Production of Documents.
09/17/2010	Mississippi - Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories, Request for Disclosures and Requests For Production to All Defendants.

Information for Cases Represented by Cascino Vaughan Law Offices

The Honorable David R. Strawbridge, United States Magistrate Judge, is handling the mediation and settlement of approximately 1,655 cases from Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana in which Plaintiff is represented by Cascino Vaughan Law Offices. Below are selected orders from the mediation.

Date	Description
12/05/2013	Plaintiff's Standard Interrogatories and RPD's to Product Liability and Nuisance Defendants.
12/05/2013	Plaintiff's Standard Interrogatories and RPD's to Premises Owener Defendants.
11/06/2013	Scheduling Order to Streamline and Re-Organize CVLO Discovery in Various Cases, dated September 17, 2013.
08/29/2013	Rule to Show Cause Order regarding issuance of new scheduling orders.
05/22/2013	Order granting defendant's motion to strike.
03/11/2013	Order denying motions to perpetuate testimony.
03/01/2013	Order regarding reconsideration in Ferguson.
03/01/2013	Order regarding the December 4, 2012 Order regarding reconsideration.
03/01/2013	Memorandum regarding the motion for reconsideration in Ferguson.
03/01/2013	Judge Strawbridge's Order denying the motion to reconsider the December 27, 2012 order.
03/01/2013	Judge Strawbridge's Order denying the motion to alter the November 16, 2012 Order.
01/07/2013	**The searchable master list of CVLO cases (UPDATED December 13, 2012) can be found here.** Please disregard prior lists.
01/07/2013	Judge Strawbridge's order granting in part OI's motions to strike interrogatories.
01/07/2013	Judge Strawbridge's order granting in part Georgia Pacific's motions to strike interrogatories.
01/07/2013	Judge Strawbridge's memorandum on global interrogatory supplements.
01/07/2013	Judge Strawbridge's order regardingglobal interrogatory supplements.
01/07/2013	Judge Strawbridge's Order denying the motion to purpetuate the testimony of Wineman.
01/07/2013	Judge Strawbridge's Order regarding CBS's motion to strike in the Lewis case.
11/30/2012	The searchable master list of CVLO cases (UPDATED November 26, 2012) can be found here.
11/26/2012	The searchable master list of CVLO cases (UPDATED November 15, 2012) can be found here.
11/26/2012	Judge Strawbridge's Order denying GE's motion to bar a late-disclosed witness.
11/26/2012	Judge Strawbridge's Order extending the reply daye in CVLO 3B cases.
11/26/2012	Judge Strawbridge's Order granting the motion to perpetuate the Hoopengarner testimony.
11/26/2012	Judge Strawbridge's memorandum opinion and order regarding supplemental interrogatories.
11/26/2012	Judge Strawbridge's order regarding supplemental interrogatory motions.
11/26/2012	Judge Strawbridge's order revising motion for summary judgment deadlines.
11/26/2012	Judge Strawbridge's order subdividing CVLO3 for motions for summary judgment.
10/18/2012	The searchable master list of CVLO cases (UPDATED October 18, 2012) can be found here.
10/18/2012	Judge Strawbridge's Order denying the motion to add a switchgear expert.
10/18/2012	Judge Strawbridge's Order denying the motion to move items to CVLO-7.
10/18/2012	Judge Strawbridge's Order denying Denying Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of Judge Strawbridge's Sept. 18 order.
10/18/2012	Judge Strawbridge's Order denying Denying Denying Plaintiff's motion to extend expert discovery in Czajkoski.
10/18/2012	Judge Strawbridge's Order regarding IO's motion for reconsideration.
10/18/2012	Judge Strawbridge's Order granting defendant's motion to strike in part.
10/18/2012	Judge Strawbridge's Order regarding motions to extent discovery.
10/18/2012	Judge Strawbridge's Order regarding motion to replace expert in O'Mullane.
10/18/2012	Judge Strawbridge's order setting response deadlines for expert extension.
09/13/2012	Judge Strawbridge's August 24, 2012 order granting CBS Corp.'s Motion for Reconsideration.
09/13/2012	Judge Strawbridge's August 22, 2012 order ruling on Georgia-Pacific's motions to compel.
08/08/2012	Judge Strawbridge's August 3, 2012 order vacating the SAS Orders.
08/08/2012	Judge Strawbridge's August 3, 2012 order denying the motion to compel of asbestos screenings packets.
08/08/2012	Judge Strawbridge's August 3, 2012 order denying Plaintiffs' discovery consolidation request.
08/08/2012	Judge Strawbridge's July 27, 2012 order granting in part Mobil's motion to strike in the Nordberg case.
08/08/2012	Judge Strawbridge's July 26, 2012 order granting the motion to quash the subpoena of Dr. Henry can be found here.****
07/20/2012	Judge Strawbridge's recent Order regarding interrogatory supplements is available here.
07/20/2012	Judge Strawbridge's recent Order regarding Motions in Limine is available here.
07/20/2012	The searchable master list of CVLO cases (UPDATED JULY 20, 2012) can be found here. (SEE UPDATED LIST ABOVE)
07/10/2012	Below, please find various CVLO orders and information (starting with the most recent documents at the top):
	Expert deposition protocol.
	Order regarding expert deposition protocol.
	Summary judgment stayed pending SAS decision.
	Westinghouse motion to compel.
	Amended: Defendants' protective order regarding Schonfeld documents.
	GE motion to compel 30(b)(6) deposition.
	Unzicker: Granting in part GE's motion for sanctions.
	Unzicker: GE's motion for sanctions ORDER.
	Defendants' Schonfeld protective order.
	Pleaugh: spoilation sanctions.
	Malone / Cooper sanctions -- Exhibit A.
	Malone / Cooper sanctions.
	Bankruptcy issues from letters.
	Announcing expert witness cancellation policy.
	Case list order.
06/21/2012	The searchable master list of CVLO cases (UPDATED JUNE 21, 2012) can be found here.
04/16/2012	The most recent CVLO Case Management and Scheduling Orders are posted below:
	Third Amended Scheduling Order for "Top Ten" group.
	Scheduling Order for Groups 1 & 2
	Scheduling Order for Group 3
	Scheduling Order for Group 4
	Scheduling Order for Group 5
	Scheduling Order for Group 6
	Scheduling Order for Group 7
	Scheduling Order for Schonfeld, Anderson & Sedak
02/09/2012	Judge Strawbridge's Order regarding accessing the updated CVLO case list on this section.
02/09/2012	Judge Strawbridge's Order regarding "Top Ten" Motions in Limine.
02/09/2012	Judge Strawbridge's Order regarding future Motions in Limine.
01/25/2012	Judge Strawbridge's Bankruptcy Records Order is available for download.
	Exhibit A: Bankruptcy Authorization Form
	Exhibit B: Bankruptcy Discovery
01/25/2012	Judge Strawbridge's Order regarding filing documents in multiple (more than 10) cases is available for download.
01/25/2012	Judge Strawbridge's Order regarding deposition protocol is available for download.
01/25/2012	Judge Strawbridge's Rule to Show Cause regarding ECF registration and withdrawal can be found here.
01/25/2012	Judge Strawbridge's Order regarding Medical Records Collection Protocol.
01/25/2012	Judge Strawbridge's Omnibus Order regarding Shonfeld, Anderson and Sadek discovery is available here.
01/25/2012	Judge Strawbridge's Memorandum Opinion concerning his Omnibus Order regarding Shonfeld, Anderson and Sadek discovery is available here.
01/25/2012	Judge Strawbridge's Order regarding Positive-Negative rate documents (from 12/20/11) is available here.
11/23/2011	Judge Robreno's 11/14/2011 Memorandum Opinion regarding AO 12 in CVLO cases.
	First Order.
	Second Order.
	Third Order.
09/14/2011	Second Scheduling Order in CVLO cases Now outdated -- please see above for most recent scheduling orders and amendments
08/16/2011	Procedures for Motion Filing
08/14/2011	Bankruptcy Trust Interrogatories
08/04/2011	Deposition Protocol -- Final
08/04/2011	AMENDED Scheduling Order for CVLO-1. Now outdated -- please see above for most recent scheduling orders and amendments
07/15/2011	Scheduling Order for Approx. 200 Cases (CVLO-1) Now outdated -- please see above for most recent scheduling orders and amendments
07/15/2011	Owens Illinois Briefing Schedule Re: Settlement Agreement.
07/15/2011	Order Re: Mr. Setter Providing Requested X-rays to Plaintiffs' Counsel.
07/07/2011	Amendment to "Top Ten" Scheduling Order. Now outdated -- please see above for most recent scheduling orders and amendments
06/27/2011	Letter Order Re: Certain Discovery Deadlines. Now outdated -- please see above for most recent scheduling orders and amendments
06/19/2011	Scheduling Order for Certain Cases. Now outdated -- please see above for most recent scheduling orders and amendments
06/17/2011	Order Regarding Certain Discovery Issues.
05/03/2011	Judge Strawbridge Order regarding deposition protocol.
05/02/2011	Judge Strawbridge Letter Order regarding the results of the April 27, 2011 mediation conference.
04/18/2011	Order Transferring the Cases from Judge Reed to Magistrate Judge David Strawbridge
03/28/2011	Order Regarding IKON Depository.
02/27/2011	Letter Order regarding medical records requests and discovery subpoenas.
01/31/2011	Letter Regarding Items set at the January 26, 2011 Mediation Mangement Planning Conference
01/13/2011	Letter Order staying certain subpoenas.
01/13/2011	Letter Order Staying Certain Subpoenas
01/06/2011	Order Referring Two Newly Transferred Cases to Judge Reed
12/16/2010	Order Regarding Mediation Management Conference set for Wednesday, January 26, 2011
11/22/2010	Order Regarding Withdraw of Counsel in cases in which Client would Like the Case to Proceed
11/22/2010	Order Dismissing Cases in which Plaintiff Cannot be Located
11/15/2010	Order Regarding Discovery Deadlines for Answers to Interrogatories (December 15, 2010) and Third Party Discovery (January 15, 2010)
10/21/2010	Order Dismissing Selected Cases
10/12/2010	UPDATED Cascino Vaughan defendant list
10/05/2010	Standard Interrogatories Adopted
10/05/2010	Order Regarding Standard Interrogatories
09/09/2010	Cascino Vaughan defendant list
08/25/2010	Progress report and case management order
08/17/2010	Order Dismissing Selected Cases
08/15/2010	Order Referring Additional Cases
07/15/2010	Order Scheduling Status Conference for August 17, 2010
05/10/2010	Progress report and case management order
03/31/2010	Policy on communication
03/31/2010	Letter regarding communication policy
03/29/2010	Progress report and case management order
11/23/2009	Progress report and case management order
10/02/2009	Defense liason committee designation
09/03/2009	Progress report and case management order
06/30/2009	Order scheduling mediation
05/04/2009	Order Referring Cases to Judge Reed

Information for Cases in the Maritime Docket (MARDOC)

Judge Hey has issued a Notice reminding counsel of the filing procedures in Section (A)(4) of Administrative Order No. 25, which apply to identical filings to be made in ten or more cases. Filing a motion or document on the 02-md-875 docket alone does not ensure that that filing will be deemed to have been made in each MARDOC case. Following these important procedures ensures that the docket for each case is complete and correct. ****UPDATE as of 6/27/2013: Please refer to the Amended Administrative Order No. 25 from now on. This Amended AO slightly alters the filing procedures.****

MARDOC Administrative Orders

Administrative Orders 1 (MARDOC) and 25 (MARDOC) are the only administrative orders that apply exclusively to MARDOC cases (and not to land-based cases). All other administrative orders that have applied exclusively to MARDOC in the past, have been vacated.

Date	Order Title or Topic
06/27/2013	Amended Administrative Order No. 25 (MARDOC) applies only to MARDOC cases, and outlines the procedures that the parties in these cases are to follow.
11/03/2009	Administrative Order No. 1 (MARDOC), establishing a MARDOC steering committee.

Updates

Date	Description
07/31/2015	In July 2015, the Court issued suggestions of remand in various MARDOC cases. See here, here, here, here, and here.
05/22/2015	In May 2015, the Court issued suggestions of remand in various MARDOC cases. See here, here, here, here, here, and here.
04/30/2015	In April 2015, the Court issued suggestions of remand in various MARDOC cases. See here and here.
03/09/2015	The Northern District of Ohio issued an order pertaining to the minutes of the March 4, 2015 phone conference. See here.
02/26/2015	In February 2015, the Court issued suggestions of remand in various MARDOC cases. See here, here, and here.
02/19/2015	The Northern District of Ohio issued an order pertaining to a telephone conference for selected parties. The phone conference will be held on March 4, 2015. See here.
02/06/2015	On February 5, 2015, the Northern District of Ohio issued an order pertaining to a settlement conference for selected parties. The conference will be held in Cleveland, Ohio on March 16, 2015. See here.
01/29/2015	In January 2015, the Court issued suggestions of remand in various MARDOC cases. See here, here, here, here, here, and here.
01/20/2015	On January 15, 2015 the Court issued orders pertaining to a summary judgment hearing and a pre-remand conference. See SJ Hearing and Pre-Remand Conference.
01/20/2015	In January 2015, the Court issued suggestions of remand in various MARDOC cases. See here, here, here, and here.
12/18/2014	In December 2014, the Court issued suggestions of remand in various MARDOC cases. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
12/03/2014	On December 1, 2014 and December 2, 2014, the Court issued suggestions of remand in certain MARDOC cases. See here, here and here.
11/25/2014	On November 24, 2014, the Court issued suggestions of remand in 100 MARDOC cases. See here and here.
11/25/2014	On November 21, 2014, the Court issued an order pertaining to a summary judgment hearing on January 13, 2015. See here.
11/03/2014	On October 23, 2014, the Court granted thirty-two motions to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction under Virgin Islands law. See here.
08/21/2014	On August 20, 2014 the Court issued three orders pertaining to a summary judgment hearing, a pre-remand conference, and a rule to show cause in the MARDOC litigation. See SJ Hearing, Pre-Remand Conference, Rule to Show Cause.
08/13/2014	On August 12, 2014 the Court issued an order pertaining to punitive damages in the MARDOC litigation. See here.
07/10/2014	On July 9, 2014 the Court issued an opinion pertaining to punitive damages in the MARDOC litigation. See here.
03/20/2014	Judge Hey's March 19, 2014 Report and Recommendation pertaining to the production of green cards and service of process. See here.
	The exhibits to Judge Hey's Report and Recommendation can be found here.
03/12/2014	On March 11, 2014, 5,974 Motions to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction were granted; 293 Motions to Dismiss for improper service were denied. See Order.
02/05/2014	Judge Robreno's February 5, 2014 Order setting oral argument for certain motions for February 27, 2014. See Order.
	A sortable, searchable Excel sheet of the exhibit can be found here.
11/06/2013	The list of cases in MARDOC Groups 1-7 has been UPDATED as of October 30, 2013. See here.
08/29/2013	Order granting previously dissolved Delaware corportions motions to dismiss in various cases. See Order.
08/27/2013	On August 26, 2013, 418 Motions to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction were granted; 168 Motions to Dismiss for improper service were denied. See Order.
07/26/2013	**The list of cases in MARDOC Groups 1-7 has been UPDATED as of July 16, 2013 to reflect that some cases have been dismissed. Please refer to this list and disregard previous lists.** See updated MARDOC Groups 1-7 list (as of 07/16/13).
06/27/2013	Administrative Order 25 has been amended to reflect updated filing procedures for idential motions. See Order.
06/04/2013	Judge Hey's 5/29/13 order regarding motions to extend response times. See Order.
05/22/2013	Judge Hey's order regarding motions to preclude. See Order.
05/22/2013	Judge Robreno's order regarding the Group 5 dismissal lists. See Order.
05/03/2013	The list of cases in MARDOC Groups 1-7 has been UPDATED as of May 3, 2013 to reflect that some cases have been dismissed. Please refer to this list and disregard previous lists. See updated MARDOC Groups 1-7 list (as of 05/03/13).
05/03/2013	Judge Hey's May 3, 2013 Order amending certain deadlines for discovery and for the filing of Daubert and dispositive motions. See Order.
04/19/2013	Judge Robreno's April 17, 2013 Order setting oral argument for certain motions for June 20, 2013. See Order.
	A sortable, searchable Excel sheet of the exhibit can be found here.
03/27/2013	Judge Hey's March 26, 2013 Order regarding unopposed motions. See Order.
03/06/2013	Judge Hey's March 4, 2013 Order regarding 39(b)(6) depositions and dispositive motions. See Order.
02/22/2013	Judge Hey's Order adjusting certain motion deadlines. See Order.
02/08/2013	The list of cases in MARDOC Groups 1-7 has been UPDATED as of February 6, 2013 to reflect that some cases have been dismissed. Please refer to this list and disregard previous lists. See updated MARDOC Groups 1-7 list (as of 02/06/13).
01/09/2013	Judge Hey's Order regarding responses to motions to dismiss based on personal jurisdiction (updated 02/04/13). See Order.
01/09/2013	Judge Hey's Order regarding dismissal lists of Group 4-7 cases. See Order.
01/02/2013	The list of cases in MARDOC Groups 1-7 has been UPDATED as of January 2, 2013 to reflect that some cases have been dismissed. See updated MARDOC Groups 1-7 list (as of 01/02/13).
12/20/2012	Judge Hey's Order regarding Group 1 response deadlines. See Group 1 Order.
12/20/2012	Judge Hey's Order extending the dedaline for Group 2 dispositive motions. See Group 2 Order.
12/07/2012	The list of cases in MARDOC Groups 1-7 has been UPDATED as of December 5, 2012 to reflect that some cases have been dismissed. See updated MARDOC Groups 1-7 list (as of 12/05/12).
12/05/2012	Judge Hey's Order of December 5, 2012 is available here.
11/14/2012	The list of cases in MARDOC Groups 1-7 has been UPDATED as of November 14, 2012 to reflect that some cases have been dismissed. See updated MARDOC Groups 1-7 list (as of 11/14/12).
11/06/2012	The list of cases in MARDOC Groups 1-7 has been UPDATED as of November 6, 2012 to reflect that some cases have been dismissed. See updated MARDOC Groups 1-7 list (as of 11/06/12).
11/01/2012	In light of Hurricane Sandy, the MARDOC settlement conferences are rescheduled to Tuesday, Nov. 13, 2012 and Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2012. Judge Hey's order indicating as such will be issued shortly.
10/26/2012	In light of the storm expected to hit the Philadelphia region early next week, and in the interests of counsel's safety and convenience in traveling to Philadelphia, Judge Hey has decided to postpone MARDOC settlement conferences until the week of Nov. 12, 2012. An order will be issued next week.
10/22/2012	Judge Hey's Order of October 19, 2012, denying Plaintiffs' motion to strike, is available here.
10/10/2012	The list of cases in MARDOC Groups 1-7 has been UPDATED as of October 10, 2012 to reflect that some cases have been dismissed. See updated MARDOC Groups 1-7 list (as of 10/10/12).
09/24/2012	Judge Hey's Amended Order of September 24, 2012, setting a settlement conference for Group 3, is available here.
09/21/2012	Judge Hey's Order of September 21, 2012, setting a settlement conference for Group 3, is available here.
09/17/2012	Judge Hey's Order of September 17, 2012 is available here.
09/14/2012	Judge Robreno's Order of September 14, 2012 is available here.
	Exhibit A is available here.
09/04/2012	Please see a recently-filed Notice regarding filing procedures here.
08/30/2012	Judge Hey's Order setting a teleconference for September 6, 2012 to discuss various issues is available here.
08/28/2012	Judge Robreno's order regarding plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and to vacate can be found here.
	A PDF of the exhibit is here.
	A sortable, searchable Excel sheet of the exhibit can be found here.
08/14/2012	Judge Robreno's Corrected Memorandum Opinion regarding motions to dismiss in the MARDOC cases can be found here.
	The Order that accompanies the Opinion is here.
	A PDF of the Exhibits is here.
	A sortable, searchable Excel sheet of the case lists (Exhibits) can be found here.
07/23/2012	Various Plaintiffs' Motions to Compel have been ruled on. See Order and see also Exhibit A.
07/23/2012	Judge Hey's Order pertaining to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel regarding IMO is available here. See Order.
07/20/2012	Judge Hey's Order pertaining to emergency motions to quash is available here. See Order.
07/16/2012	Judge Hey has ordered, inter alia, that no discovery shall be filed with the Court. See Order.
07/11/2012	The list of cases in MARDOC Groups 1-7 has been UPDATED as of July 11, 2012 to reflect that some cases have been dismissed. See updated MARDOC Groups 1-7 list (as of 07/11/12).
06/28/2012	Judge Hey has issued an order following the June 26, 2012 teleconference. See order.
06/18/2012	Judge Hey has issued an order scheduling a June 26, 2012 teleconference. See order.
06/18/2012	Judge Hey has issued an order regarding supplemental witness discovery in Groups 1 and 2. See order.
06/18/2012	Judge Hey has issued an order regarding a motion for extension of time to provide verifications and authorizations. See order.
06/18/2012	Judge Hey has issued an order regarding coworker depositions in Group 1. See order.
05/02/2012	On April 30, 2012, Judge Hey issued another order relating to discovery (specifically, Rule 30(b)(6) depositions) in the Group 1 MARDOC cases. See order.
04/23/2012	Judge Hey has issued an order relating to discovery in the Group 1 MARDOC cases. See order.
04/19/2012	Judge Hey has issued an order relating to discovery in the MARDOC cases. See memorandum opinion and order.
04/19/2012	The MARDOC scheduling orders have been updated. See the Excel sheet and the order.
04/16/2012	The list of cases in MARDOC Groups 1-7 has been UPDATED as of April 13, 2012 to correct certain incorrect case numbers. This updated Excel sheet highlights these corrections in yellow. See updated MARDOC Groups 1-7 list (as of 03/02/12).
04/03/2012	A hearing on motions to dismiss in the MARDOC litigation has been scheduled for April 26, 2012 in Philadelphia. See the order and the Excel sheet listing the affected cases.
03/02/2012	Judge Hey has signed an order rescheduling the settlement conference in Group 2. See the Order here.
03/28/2012	Judge Hey's order relating to a telephone conference is available here.
03/27/2012	Judge Hey has signed an order extending certain discovery deadlines. The order is available here.
02/27/2012	[THIS ORDER HAS BEEN VACATED. Please see 03/02/2012 update, above.] Judge Hey has signed an order rescheduling the settlement conference in Group 2. See the Order, and the Group 2 case list.
01/27/2012	Judge Hey has signed an order regarding bankruptcy claims. See Order.
01/19/2012	Group 1 of the MARDOC groups case list has been updated to reflect that there are two (rather than one) cases with the Plaintiff's name of Robert N. Cain. The updated Excel sheet (containing all groups) is available for download, with the changes highlighted in yellow. See UPDATED GROUPS 1-7 LIST.
01/12/2012	Judge Hey has signed an order regarding authorizations. See Order.
01/10/2012	Plaintiffs have issued a Notice of the Availability of Authorizations. See Order.
01/04/2012	Judge Hey has issued an Order clarifying the MARDOC scheduling orders. See Order.
12/16/2011	The list of cases in MARDOC Groups 1-7 has been updated to correct certain incorrect case numbers. This updated Excel sheet highlights these corrections in yellow. See updated MARDOC Groups 1-7 list.
12/16/2011	Results of the December 13, 2011 status and scheduling conference for certain MARDOC cases have been posted. See Results.
	The Excel sheet listing the case numbers subject to the Dec. 13 conference can be found here.
11/30/2011	Judge Hey has issued an Order setting a deadline for amending complaints in MARDOC litigation. See the Order here.
11/30/2011	Judge Hey has issued Orders regarding the following motions to dismiss based upon lack of personal jurisdiction.
	The Order regarding the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Anuszewski is posted here.
	The Order regarding the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Coester is posted here.
	The Order regarding the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Findahl is posted here.
	The Order regarding the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Florence is posted here.
	The Order regarding the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Gelfgren is posted here.
	The Order regarding the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant McElroy is posted here.
	The Order regarding the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant O'Hanlon is posted here.
	The Order regarding the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Shannon is posted here.
	The Order regarding the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Whittaker is posted here.
11/29/2011	Judge Hey has issued Orders scheduling settlement conferences in the first two MARDOC groups.
	The Order setting the settlement conference for Group 1 can be found here.
	The Order setting the settlement conference for Group 2 can be found here.
11/29/2011	Judge Hey has issued scheduling orders in the various groups of MARDOC cases. An Excel sheet that lists which cases are in which groups (updated 11.30.11) can be found here.
	The scheduling order for Group 1 can be found here.
	The scheduling order for Group 2 can be found here.
	The scheduling order for Group 3 can be found here.
	The scheduling order for Group 4 can be found here.
	The scheduling order for Group 5 can be found here.
	The scheduling order for Group 6 can be found here.
	The scheduling order for Group 7 can be found here.
11/04/2011	An Order has been issued setting a Dec. 13 status and scheduling conference for 5,000 MARDOC cases that were recently opened in E.D. Pa. See Dec. 13 MARDOC Stat. & Sched. Conf. Order.
10/19/2011	Judge Hey has issued an Order regarding previously closed cases in MARDOC. See 10.19.11 Order regarding previously closed cases.
10/18/2011	UPDATED final list of all MARDOC cases that will proceed, sortable by Plaintiff's last name and E.D. Pa. case number. See Updated Final List of MARDOC Cases (10.18.11).
09/29/2011	Magistrate Judge Hey has issued an Order requiring all MARDOC counsel to submit a pro hac vice admission fee and ECF registration form by October 8, 2011. See Pro Hac Vice / ECF Order.
09/28/2011	Christopher Lyding, Esq. is now the MARDOC Case Administrator. See Contacts for his contact information.
08/11/2011	Excel spreadsheet of Plaintiffs' submission of a list of all Defendants in each case, pursuant to Magistrate Judge Hey's Order (below). A pdf version can be found at 02-875 (doc. no. 470). MARDOC Defendants spreadsheet.
08/01/2011	Order setting preliminary deadlines, grouping cases and setting a status and scheduling conference for September 28, 2011. Status and Scheduling Conference Order.
08/01/2011	Excel version of Exhibit "A" attached to Judge Hey's Order (above). Please see Spreadsheet of Case Groups.
07/26/2011	Order Appointing Magistrate Judge Hey to oversee the MARDOC docket and enter orders as necessary. Please see Order Appointing Judge Hey.
06/20/2011	UPDATED final list of all cases that will proceed, including individual plaintiffs' names and a few non OH-N cases that were exlcuded from the last list. Please see Updated Final Case List.
06/20/2011	Order scheduling June 21, 2011 hearing. Please see Order Scheduling Hearing.
05/03/2011	FINAL LIST OF ALL MARDOC CASES THAT WILL PROCEED. Please see Final Case List.
05/03/2011	Memorandum regarding June 21, 2011 meeting. Please see June Meeting Memo.
04/14/2011	Comprehensive list of all active MARDOC cases in the EDPA as of 4.14. Please note that these include ALL cases for each plaintiff opened currently, many of which will eventually be consolidated so that there is one plaintiff-one case number. The three recent transfer orders (below) clarify which number will be the lead case for each Plaintiff, and which cases will be closed. Please see Updated List of all Cases as of 4.14.
04/14/2011	Transfer orders designating the lead plaintiff case number. Please see Transfer Order #35, Transfer Order #36, Transfer Order #37.
03/30/2011	The previously-discussed shipowner meeting to be held on April 7, 2011 is CANCELLED and will be rescheduled at a later date.
03/17/2011	UPDATED comprehensive list of all cases that the clerk's office has assigned case numbers to by the individual plaintiff's name as of 3.17.11. This list INCLUDES the cases from the list posted on 2.25 (below). A total of 1,744 are now open in the system. Please see Updated List of Cases.
02/25/2011	List of all cases that the clerk's office has assigned case numbers to by the individual plaintiff's name. Please see List of Plaintiffs.
02/14/2011	Memo Regarding February MARDOC Meetings to be Held. Please see Meeting Memo.
01/29/2011	The meeting previously scheduled to be held in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Wednesday, February 2, 2011, has been CANCELED due to inclement weather forecasts.
01/03/2010	Plaintiffs' Counsel has Provided a List of all Cases Sorted by Defendant. See List by Defendant.
12/17/2010	List of Cases Generated by the Clerk of the Court that Plaintiff's Counsel is Moving Forward With. After consolidation of same-plaintiff cases under one number, the total will be 3,384 cases. Please see List in Excel Format and List in PDF Format.
12/02/2010	Memo Regarding December MARDOC Meetings to be Held. Please see Meeting Memo.
12/02/2010	List of approximately 2,000 cases to be dismissed to the bankruptcy only docket by Plaintiffs' counsel. The clerk's office is in the process of dismissing these cases. Please see November 29 dismissal list.
12/02/2010	List of approximately 5,000 cases to be dismissed to the bankruptcy only docket by Plaintiffs' counsel. The clerk's office is in the process of dismissing these cases. Please see November 23 dismissal list.
12/02/2010	List of approximately 5,000 cases to be dismissed to the bankruptcy only docket by Plaintiffs' counsel. The clerk's office is in the process of dismissing these cases. Please see November 22 dismissal list.
11/22/2010	List of approximately 6,000 cases to be dismissed to the bankruptcy only docket by Plaintiffs' counsel. The clerk's office is in the process of dismissing these cases. Please see November 16 dismissal list.
10/01/2010	Memorandum regarding information provided by plaintiffs' counsel in September 2010. Please see October 1, 2010 memorandum.
10/01/2010	Memorandum regarding remaining manufacturing defendants. Please see remaining manufacturing defendants.
10/01/2010	Lists of cases provided by plaintiffs' counsel in September 2010. Please see list of previously transferred cases.
10/01/2010	Lists of cases provided by plaintiffs' counsel in September 2010. Please see E.D. Michigan case list.
10/01/2010	Lists of cases provided by plaintiffs' counsel in September 2010. Please see U.S. Virgin Islands case list.
10/01/2010	Lists of cases provided by plaintiffs' counsel in September 2010. Please see N.D. Ohio case list 1 of 4.
10/01/2010	Lists of cases provided by plaintiffs' counsel in September 2010. Please see N.D. Ohio case list 2 of 4.
10/01/2010	Lists of cases provided by plaintiffs' counsel in September 2010. Please see N.D. Ohio case list 3 of 4.
10/01/2010	Lists of cases provided by plaintiffs' counsel in September 2010. Please see N.D. Ohio case list 4 of 4.
10/01/2010	Lists of cases provided by plaintiffs' counsel in September 2010. Please see one additional N.D. Ohio plaintiff.
10/01/2010	Lists of cases provided by plaintiffs' counsel in September 2010. Please see 39 withdrawn cases.
03/24/2010	Cases scheduled for a status and scheduling conference on Thursday, April 15, 2010. Please see fifth set of MARDOC cases scheduled.
03/24/2010	Cases scheduled for a status and scheduling conference on Thursday, March 25, 2010. Please see fourth set of MARDOC cases scheduled.
03/24/2010	Cases rescheduled for a status and scheduling conference on Thursday, March 25, 2010. Please see third set of MARDOC cases scheduled.
02/08/2010	Cases listed in the third group of MARDOC cases. Please see cases which are active and will be going forward from Group 3, with a list of active defendants in each case.
02/08/2010	Cases to be dismissed from the third group of MARDOC cases. Please see cases which will be dismissed and sent to the bankruptcy only docket or which will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).
02/08/2010	Cases scheduled for a status and scheduling conference on Thursday, February 25, 2010. Please see third set of MARDOC cases scheduled.
01/07/2010	Cases to be dismissed from the first two groups of MARDOC cases. Please see cases which will be dismissed and sent to the bankruptcy only docket and cases that were dismissed for lack of prosecution from the first groups of MARDOC cases.
01/07/2010	Cases from the first two groups of MARDOC cases. Please see cases which are active and will be going forward from Group 1, with a list of active defendants in each case. See also cases which are active and will be going forward from Group 2, with a list of active defendants for each case.
11/24/2009	Cases scheduled for a status and scheduling conference on Thursday, December 17, 2009. Please see first set of MARDOC cases scheduled.
11/24/2009	Cases scheduled for a status and scheduling conference on Thursday, January 14, 2010. Please see second set of MARDOC cases scheduled.

Court Administration

Magistrate Judge: Elizabeth T. Hey: United States District Court
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Room 3038
James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (267) 299-7670

MDL 875 Law Clerk: Joel Lang, Esq.: Email: joel_lang@paed.uscourts.gov
Telephone: (267) 299-7422

Case Administrator for MARDOC cases: Christopher Lyding, Esq.: Email: christopher_lyding@paed.uscourts.gov
Telephone: (267) 299-7562

MARDOC Steering Committee

Please see MARDOC Administrative Order No. 1 (Amended).

Administrative Orders

Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) contains related information.

Administrative Orders Currently in Effect

Note: Administrative Order 1 (MARDOC) and Amended Order No. 25 (MARDOC) are the only administrative orders that apply exclusively to MARDOC cases (and not to land-based cases).

Date	Order Title or Topic
07/08/2013	Amended Administrative Order No. 23 (pro hac vice procedures) reflects a change in Court policy that no longer requires a $40 fee to gain pro hac vice admission to practice in MDL 875.
06/27/2013	Amended Administrative Order No. 25 (MARDOC) applies only to MARDOC cases, and outlines the procedures that the parties in these cases are to follow.
10/05/2011	Administrative Order No. 25 (MARDOC) applies only to MARDOC cases, and outlines the procedures that the parties in these cases are to follow. UPDATE as of 6/27/2013: Please refer to the Amended Administrative Order No. 25 (posted above) from now on.
08/11/2011	Administrative Order No. 24 - Vacating Certain Administrative Orders (Robreno, J.)
02/11/2011	Administrative Order No. 23 - Procedures Regarding Pro Hac Vice Admission for Purposes of MDL 875 (Robreno, J.). UPDATE as of 7/8/2013: Please refer to the Amended Administrative Order No. 23 (posted above) from now on.
12/10/2010	Administrative Order No. 22 - Consent to Trial in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Robreno, J.)
03/08/2010	Administrative Order No. 21 - Order Regarding Final Payment of Fees to Intercom, Inc. (Robreno, J.)
03/08/2010	Administrative Order No. 20 - Online Submission Database Suspended, Administrative Order 12 Submissions to be Served Directly on Defendants (Robreno, J.)
11/03/2009	Administrative Order No. 1 (MARDOC), establishing a MARDOC steering committee.
09/03/2009	Amended Administrative Order No. 12, As Amended - Required Submissions by Plaintiffs (Robreno, J.)
05/04/2009	Administrative Order No. 18 - Requirements for Filing a Motion for Suggestion of Remand (Robreno, J.)
03/16/2009	Administrative Order No. 11, As Amended Effective March 16, 2009 - Transfer of Dockets to the Eastern District of PA - See No. 2 (all pending motions upon transfer and denied without prejudice with leave to refile in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
12/23/2008	Administrative Order No. 12A - Defendants may seek a Rule to Show Cause for Insufficient Administrative Order 12 Submissions (Robreno, J.)
07/10/2006	Administrative Order No. 10 - Appointment of a Joint Steering Committee (Giles, J.)

Administrative Orders No Longer in Effect

Date	Order Title or Topic
12/20/1991	Administrative Order No. 1 - Filing of Documents in MDL 875 (Weiner, J.) -- VACATED by Administrative Order No. 24
02/20/1992	Administrative Order No. 2 - Information to be Provided Prior to a Settlement Conference (Weiner, J.) -- VACATED by Administrative Order No. 24
09/08/1992	Administrative Order No. 3 - More Information Regarding Mediation of Cases (Wiener, J.) -- VACATED by Administrative Order No. 24
04/26/1994	Administrative Order No. 4 - Paper Files not to be Maintained in the EDPA (Weiner, J.) -- VACATED by Administrative Order No. 24
02/06/1995	Administrative Order No. 5 (MARDOC - Pending Motions Denied without Prejudice) -- VACATED by Administrative Order No. 24
02/28/1995	Administrative Order No. 6 (MARDOC - Appointment of co-lead Defense Counsel) -- VACATED by Administrative Order No. 24
03/10/2000	Administrative Order No. 6 - Requirements for Filing Documents in the EDPA (Weiner, J.) -- VACATED by Administrative Order No. 24
07/17/1996	Administrative Order No. 7 - Indiana Defendants must Response to a Demand with a Good Faith Offer under Indiana Law (Weiner, J.) -- VACATED by Administrative Order No. 24
01/14/2002	Administrative Order No. 8 - Dismissal of Screened Cases (Weiner, J.) - VACATED by Administrative Order 19
01/29/2008	Administrative Order No. 13 - Initiation of a Database for AO 12 Submissions (Robreno, J.) - VACATED by Administrative Order 20
01/29/2008	Administrative Order No. 14 - Requirements for Database Submissions (Robreno, J.) - VACATED by Administrative Order 20
01/29/2008	Administrative Order No. 15 - Selecting Intercom, Inc. to Manage Online Submissions (Robreno, J.) -- VACATED by Administrative Order No. 24
10/03/2008	Administrative Order No. 16 - Payment of Intercom, Inc. (Robreno, J.) -- VACATED by Administrative Order No. 24
02/11/2009	Administrative Order No. 17 - Scheduling Hearings Through September 2009 (Robreno, J.) -- VACATED by Administrative Order No. 24
07/17/2009	Administrative Order No. 19 - Returning Cases Dismissed under Administrative Order No. 8 to the Active Docket (Robreno, J.) -- VACATED by Administrative Order No. 24

Administrative Orders that Apply only to MARDOC

Opinions

Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) contains related information.

MDL 875 Opinions Issued by Judge Robreno

Date	Description
09/13/2017	Spreadsheet of MDL 875 Opinions Issued by Judge Robreno
12/08/2011	Westlaw and LexisNexis have added the vast majority of decisions, footnote orders and opinions issued in MDL-875 to their searchable databases. This PDF contains information about how to search for such rulings.

MDL 875 Opinions (by Judge Robreno unless otherwise indicated)

Date	Opinion Title or Topic
07/08/2021	An opinion granting two motions for summary judgment and holding that under the Supreme Court’s newly formulated test for determining the viability of the bare metal defense in a maritime case, plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence that the turbines in this case required the incorporation of asbestos insulation.
07/03/2019	An opinion granting the dismissal of a foreign corporate defendant for lack of general personal jurisdiction after finding unconstitutional Pennsylvania's foreign business registration scheme conditioning the right to do business in the state upon consent to general personal jurisdiction.
04/05/2019	An opinion granting in part and denying in part motions for summary judgment regarding preemption under the Locomotive Inspection Act and the Safety Appliance Act. Only claims regarding equipment that was physically attached to the locomotives are preempted under the LIA, but the SAA did not preempt the plaintiff's claims because the equipment at issue was not specifically listed in the statute.
09/13/2017	An opinion granting a motion for summary judgment based on a lack of causation evidence - Defendant is not tasked with producing evidence to meet its summary judgment burden but must only point to an absence of evidence in the record. Although the Jones Act causation standard is "featherweight," Plaintiff must still produce some evidence that he was exposed to asbestos aboard the vessel in question.
09/13/2017	An opinion granting a motion for summary judgment based on a lack of causation evidence - Plaintiff's supporting evidence was hearsay.
03/08/2017	An opinion denying a motion for summary judgment based on the Pennsylvania statute of limitations regarding discovery of asbestos-related injuries.
01/05/2017	An opinion denying a motion for summary judgment based upon the lack of a statutory beneficiary.
12/21/2016	An order denying remand in a case transferred from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
08/05/2016	An order summarizing the state of the remaining MDL-875 cases was filed on July 14, 2016.
08/05/2016	The case spreadsheet for the July 14, 2016 order.
05/18/2016	A clarifying opinion was filed regarding the applicability of the so called "bare metal" defense to strict liability and negligence claims under maritime law.
11/06/2015	Summary judgment granted due to the deceased plaintiffs' cases being nullities ab initio
10/27/2015	Summary judgment denied regarding judicial estoppel in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case
10/23/2015	Motion to exclude expert testimony denied in part and granted in part. The experts may offer opinions regarding general causation but not specific causation.
10/01/2015	Summary judgment denied regarding judicial estoppel
09/28/2015	Summary judgment denied regarding judicial estoppel
09/28/2015	Summary judgment denied regarding judicial estoppel
09/28/2015	Summary judgment denied regarding judicial estoppel
09/04/2015	Summary judgment denied regarding judicial estoppel
09/02/2015	Summary judgment granted regarding exposure to insulation but denied regarding exposure to radar equipment
08/31/2015	Summary judgment granted due to insufficient evidence of exposure
08/31/2015	Summary judgment granted regarding exposure to insulation, but denied regarding exposure to breaker boxes and radarscopes
08/31/2015	Summary judgment granted regarding exposure to gaskets but denied regarding exposure to radar equipment
08/31/2015	Motion to dismiss due to improper service of process denied
08/11/2015	Summary judgment granted on the grounds that the defendant did not own the ships at issue but denied on the grounds that it was not plaintiff's employer
08/11/2015	Summary judgment granted on the grounds that the defendant did not own the ships at issue but denied on the grounds that it was not plaintiff's employer
08/5/2015	Summary judgment granted in part and denied in part on the grounds that the defendant did not own the ships at issue and that it was not plaintiff's employer
08/5/2015	Summary judgment denied on the grounds that the defendant did not own the ships at issue and that it was not plaintiff's employer
08/4/2015	Summary judgment granted in part and denied in part on the grounds that the defendant did not own the ships at issue and that it was not plaintiff's employer
08/3/2015	Summary judgment denied on the grounds that the defendant did not own the ships at issue and that it was not plaintiff's employer
07/09/2015	Memorandum opinion addressing judicial estoppel in a MARDOC case.
06/05/2015	Memorandum opinion addressing the bare metal defense under Pennsylvania law.
04/21/2015	Memorandum opinion addressing preemption pursuant to the Labor Management Relations Act.
04/21/2015	Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was granted following the Court's exclusion of certain expert testimony at a Daubert hearing.
04/21/2015	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under maritime law.
04/21/2015	Summary judgment was granted as to Plaintiffs' product liability claims and denied as to Plaintiffs' common law negligence claims.
04/21/2015	Plaintiff's motion to remand was granted following removal by a defendant pursuant to the Labor Management Relations Act because Defendant failed to include the collective bargaining agreement in question.
01/12/2015	Summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. The MDL Court also suggested that the transferor court sever and transfer to a district court in Illinois the issue of the "bare metal defense" under Illinois law.
01/12/2015	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation.
11/03/2014	On October 23, 2014, the Court granted thirty-two motions to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction under Virgin Islands law.
11/03/2014	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under Pennsylvania law.
11/03/2014	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under New York law.
11/03/2014	Summary judgment on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under maritime law was denied.
11/03/2014	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under maritime law.
09/09/2014	On August 26, 2014, the Court issued an opinion pertaining to "take-home exposure" to asbestos under Pennsylvania law.
08/08/2014	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of the LWCA because the only evidence of alleged exposure was from after the 1975 broadening of the statute.
08/08/2014	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant as to Plaintiff's wrongful death claims on grounds of the statute of limitations; granted in favor of Defendant as to Plaintiff's survival claims on grounds of insufficient product identification/causation evidence under Louisiana law.
07/10/2014	On July 9, 2014, the Court issued an opinion pertaining to punitive damages in the MARDOC litigation.
03/12/2014	On March 11, 2014, 5,974 MARDOC Motions to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction were granted; 293 Motions to Dismiss for improper service were denied."
02/05/2014	Summary judgment granted in part and denied in part in a "CVLO" case subject to the Court's renewed scheduling order. Summary judgment was granted as to turbine insulation on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under Illinois law. Summary judgment was denied as to switchgear because an Illinois court is better situated to determine whether Illinois recognizes the "bare metal defense."
02/05/2014	Summary judgment granted in part and denied in part. Summary judgment was granted regarding strict liability claims because a Navy ship is not a "product." Summary judgment was denied regarding the remaining negligence claims.
02/05/2014	Summary judgment granted in part and denied in part. Summary judgment was granted regarding strict liability claims because a Navy ship is not a "product." Summary judgment was denied regarding the remaining negligence claims.
02/05/2014	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under maritime law.
02/05/2014	Memorandum opinion addressing a Navy shipbuilder's liability under a negligence theory.
02/05/2014	Summary judgment in favor of Defendant was denied because Defendant could not show that a locomotive was not "in use" as contemplated by the LIA.
12/05/2013	Motion to Dismiss granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of preemption under the Locomotive Inspection Act.
12/05/2013	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under North Carolina law.
12/05/2013	Plaintiffs' federal common law maritime claims were not barred by the South Carolina door-closing statute (because of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution); summary judgment was granted in favor of defendant on grounds of insufficient exposure / causation evidence under maritime law.
12/05/2013	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under North Carolina law.
12/05/2013	Plaintiffs' federal common law maritime claims were not barred by the South Carolina door-closing statute (because of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution); summary judgment was granted in favor of defendant on grounds of insufficient exposure / causation evidence under maritime law.
12/05/2013	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under North Carolina law.
12/05/2013	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under California law.
12/05/2013	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under California law.
12/05/2013	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under California law.
12/05/2013	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under California law.
12/05/2013	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under California law.
08/28/2013	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under North Carolina law.
08/28/2013	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation under North Carolina law.
08/28/2013	Summary judgment in favor of Defendant was denied because Defendant failed to establish that it did not owe a duty to Decedent regarding "take-home" exposure, Plaintiff did not have a duty to preserve Dedent's lung tissue, and Plaintiff identified sufficient evidence of product identification/causation to support her claim for "take-home" exposure under Tennessee law.
08/28/2013	Under New York law, summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient evidence of product identification/causation.
08/27/2013	MARDOC: 418 Motions to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction were granted; 168 Motions to Dismiss for improper service were denied.
06/14/2013	The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of certain cases due to failure to comply with AO 12.
06/04/2013	Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required to prevail on the defense under maritime law.
06/04/2013	Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product identification evidence.
06/04/2013	Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product identification evidence.
06/04/2013	Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product identification evidence.
06/04/2013	Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product identification evidence.
06/04/2013	Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product identification evidence.
06/04/2013	Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product identification evidence.
05/03/2013	Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product identification evidence.
05/03/2013	Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product identification evidence.
05/03/2013	Summary judgment denied, as their was sufficient product ID / causation evidence.
05/03/2013	Summary judgment granted due to lack of product ID / causation evidence.
05/03/2013	Summary judgment granted in part and denied in part. Summary judgment was granted regarding strict liability claims because a ship is not a "product." Summary judgment was denied regarding the remaining negligence claims.
05/03/2013	Summary judgment granted due to lack of product ID / causation evidence; Plaintiff's expert report was excluded because it was unsworn.
05/03/2013	Summary judgment denied; there was sufficient product ID / causation evidence.
05/03/2013	Summary judgment granted; there was insufficient product ID / causation evidence.
05/03/2013	Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product ID / causation evidence.
05/03/2013	Summary judgment granted; unsufficient product ID / causation evidence.
05/03/2013	Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product ID / causation evidence.
05/03/2013	Summary judgment granted; insufficient product ID / causation evidence.
05/03/2013	Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product ID / causation evidence.
05/03/2013	Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product ID / causation evidence.
05/03/2013	Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product ID / causation evidence.
05/03/2013	Summary judgment granted due to insufficient product ID / causation evidence.
03/25/2013	Summary judgment in favor of defendant on grounds of the Indiana statutute of repose was denied because the Court determined (as Plaintiff argued) that Illinois law applied.
03/25/2013	Partial summary judgment was granted in favor of Defendant with respect to plaintiff's second diagnosis, as Plaintiff failied to amend complaint to add claim for second diagnosis within the two year period provided by the statute of limitations, and did not show "good cause" for an amendment at the summary judgment stage.
03/25/2013	Partial summary judgment was granted in favor of Defendant with respect to plaintiff's second diagnosis, as Plaintiff failied to amend complaint to add claim for second diagnosis within the two year period provided by the statute of limitations, and did not show "good cause" for an amendment at the summary judgment stage.
03/25/2013	Partial summary judgment was granted in favor of Defendant with respect to plaintiff's second diagnosis, as Plaintiff failied to amend complaint to add claim for second diagnosis within the two year period provided by the statute of limitations, and did not show "good cause" for an amendment at the summary judgment stage.
03/25/2013	Partial summary judgment was granted in favor of Defendant with respect to plaintiff's second diagnosis, as Plaintiff failied to amend complaint to add claim for second diagnosis within the two year period provided by the statute of limitations, and did not show "good cause" for an amendment at the summary judgment stage.
03/08/2013	Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required to prevail on the defense under maritime law.
03/08/2013	Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the government contractor defense because Plaintiff identified a genuine dispute of material fact.
03/08/2013	Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required to prevail on the defense under maritime law.
02/21/2013	Summary judgment in favor of Defendant granted under New Jersey law on grounds of insufficient product identification evidence.
02/21/2013	Summary judgment in favor of Defendant granted under New Jersey law on grounds of insufficient product identification evidence.
02/20/2013	Summary judgment in favor of Defendant granted under New Jersey law on grounds of insufficient product identification evidence.
02/19/2013	Summary judgment in favor of Defendant granted in part under New Jersey law on grounds of insufficient product identification evidence.
02/19/2013	The case was remanded for consideration by the transferor court (with a suggestion to transfer to the district of New Jersey), as the Court determined that the "bare metal defense" is an unsettled issue under New Jersey law.
02/14/2013	Summary judgment in favor of Defendant is granted because Plaintiff is seeking liability on a premises owner liability theory but Plaintiff failed to identify any evidence of a breach of duty by Defendant as a premises owner.
02/08/2013	Defendant Goulds could only potentially face liability in this action if New Jersey law holds Defendant liable for alleged exposure to asbestos arising from asbetsos components used with its products that were not manufactured or supplied by the defendant. This needs to be determined by a New Jersey court since there is no precedent for "bare metal" in that state.
02/08/2013	Summary judgment in favor of Defendant is granted under New Jersey law with respect to alleged asbestos in connection with pumps because Plaintiff has failed to identify sufficient product identification / causation evidence. Summary judgment in favor of Defendant is denied under New Jersey law with respect to alleged asbestos in connection with compressors.
02/07/2013	No reasonable jury could conclude from the evidence that Decedent was exposed to asbestos from gaskets supplied by Defendant (or Joy) such that it was a substantial factor in the development of his illness. Summary judgment was granted under New Jersey law.
02/07/2013	No reasonable jury could conclude from the evidence that Decedent was exposed to asbestos from gaskets supplied by Defendant (or Joy) such that it was a substantial factor in the development of his illness. Summary judgment was granted under New Jersey law.
02/07/2013	Defendant Warren could only potentially face liability in this action if New Jersey law holds Defendant liable for alleged exposure to asbestos arising from packing that was used with Warren pumps but were not manufactured or supplied by Warren, such as replacement packing. This needs to be determined by a New Jersey court since there is no precedent for "bare metal" in that state.
01/22/2013	The case was remanded for consideration by the transferor court, as it involved numerous complicated and interrelated issues, some of which were unsettled issues of state law.
12/10/2012	Summary judgment in favor of defendant was granted with respect to strict product liability claims because a ship is not a "product" within the meaning of strict product liability law. With respect to the remaining negligence-based claims, summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the government contractor defense because Plaintiff identified a genuine dispute of material fact; summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required to prevail on the defense under maritime law.
12/10/2012	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient product identification/causation evidence under maritime law.
12/03/2012	Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required to prevail on the defense under maritime law.
12/03/2012	Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the government contractor defense because Plaintiff identified a genuine dispute of material fact. Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required to prevail on the defense under maritime law.
12/03/2012	Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required to prevail on the defense under maritime law.
11/26/2012	Summary judgment in favor of Defendant is granted with respect to claims arising from alleged asbestos exposure occurring prior to May 19, 1980 because they are barred by the Alabama statute of limitations.
11/09/2012	Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required to prevail on the defense under maritime law.
11/09/2012	Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required to prevail on the defense under maritime law.
11/08/2012	Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the government contractor defense because Plaintiff identified a genuine dispute of material fact. Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required to prevail on the defense under maritime law.
11/07/2012	Summary judgment in favor of defendant was granted with respect to strict product liability claims because a ship is not a "product" within the meaning of strict product liability law. With respect to the remaining negligence-based claims, summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied because Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that it was an "employee" of the government as defined in the Federal Tort Claims Act such that it would be entitled to immunity on that basis; also, Defendant has failed to identify the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact with respect to Plaintiff's negligence claim.
10/19/2012	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient product identification/causation evidence under maritime law.
10/19/2012	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient product identification/causation evidence under maritime law.
10/19/2012	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient product identification/causation evidence under maritime law.
10/18/2012	Summary judgment granted on grounds of the government contractor defense because plaintiff failed to identify evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact.
10/17/2012	Summary judgment in favor of Defendant denied because Plaintiff presented evidence that Decedent was exposed to asbestos-containing gasket and packing that were original to the pumps at issue and supplied by Defendant.
10/17/2012	Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient product identification/causation evidence under maritime law.
10/16/2012	Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted as to the C-97 aircrafts since Defendant presented evidence that Goodyear brakes were not used on this aircraft and Plaintiff failed to controvert this evidence.
10/12/2012	Plaintiff's expert report deemed inadmissible as it was produced in an "unsworn" form; without expert report, Plaintiff lacked sufficient product identification to withstand summary judgment as there was no evidence in the record that the insulation at issue was manufactured by defendant CBS Corporation / Westinghouse.
10/12/2012	Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant on grounds of insufficient product identification/exposure/causation evidence under maritime law.
10/10/2012	Judge Robreno's opinion regarding the motions to dismiss pending in the Eastern Distric of Virginia cases.
10/10/2012	Judge Robreno's opinion regarding the sophisticated user defense in maritime law.
10/08/2012	Plaintiff has pointed to evidence that contradicts (or at least appears to be inconsistent with) Foster Wheeler's evidence pertaining to the availability to Foster Wheeler of the government contractor defense.
10/08/2012	Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant on grounds of insufficient product identification/exposure/causation evidence under maritime law.
08/14/2012	Corrected Memorandum Opinion regarding Motions to Dismiss in the MARDOC cases. Please see the MARDOC section for a complete list of exhibits.
08/06/2012	Motion for Summary Judgment granted under Louisiana law. (07/24/2012 hearing).
08/06/2012	Motion for Summary Judgment granted when Plaintiff had no produce ID evidence. (07/24/2012 hearing).
08/06/2012	Motion for Summary Judgment granted when Plaintiff had failed to disclose witnesses. (07/24/2012 hearing).
08/06/2012	Motion for Summary Judgment denied under Louisiana law. (07/24/2012 hearing).
08/06/2012	Motion for Summary Judgment granted when Plaintiffs had no product ID evidence. (07/24/2012 hearing).
08/06/2012	Motion for Summary Judgment denied under maritime law. (07/24/2012 hearing).
08/06/2012	Motion for Summary Judgment granted under maritime law. (07/24/2012 hearing).
08/06/2012	Motion for Summary Judgment granted when Plaintiffs' witness' testimony was speculative. (07/13/2012 hearing).
08/06/2012	Motion for Summary Judgment as to punitive damages denied. (07/13/2012 hearing).
08/06/2012	Motion for Summary Judgment denied under maritime and California law. (07/13/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012	Motion for Summary Judgment granted under maritime law. (06/28/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012	Motion for Summary Judgment denied under California law. (06/28/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012	Motion for Summary Judgment granted under maritime law. (06/26/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012	Motion for Summary Judgment denied under New York law. (06/26/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012	Motion for Summary Judgment denied under maritime law; maritime time has not adopted the sophisticated user defense (06/19/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012	Motion for Summary Judgment denied under maritime law; maritime time has not adopted the sophisticated user defense (06/19/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012	Motion for Summary Judgment denied under maritime law (06/19/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012	Motion for Summary Judgment granted under maritime law (06/19/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012	Motion for Summary Judgment granted under maritime law (06/19/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012	Motion for Summary Judgment granted under maritime law (06/19/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012	Motion for Summary Judgment granted under maritime law (06/19/2012 hearing).
07/05/2012	Motion for Summary Judgment granted under maritime law (06/19/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012	MSJ granted under maritime law (06/12/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012	MSJ denied because maritime law has not recognized the sophisticated user defense when an intermediary such as the Navy is involved (06/12/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012	MSJ denied under Pennsylvania law (06/05/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012	MSJ denied under Pennsylvania law (06/05/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012	Plaintiff's claims barred by the Indiana statute of repose (05/22/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012	MSJ granted regarding claims governed by maritime law (05/22/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012	MSJ granted under maritime law (05/22/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012	Some of Plaintiff's claims were barred by the Indiana Statute of Repose; others were governed by maritime law (05/22/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012	MSJ and Motion to Compel granted in part, denied in part (05/22/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012	MSJ granted; Defendant asserted government contractor defense, and Plaintiff had no expert to rebut (05/22/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012	MSJ denied under Pennsylvania law (05/22/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012	Most of Plaintiff's claims governed by Indiana Statute of Repose; other, maritime law claims will go to trial (05/22/2012 hearing).
06/18/2012	MSJ denied under maritime law (05/22/2012 hearing).
05/22/2012	MSJ denied; but Defendant's motion to strike declaration as "sham affidavit" is granted.
05/22/2012	MSJ denied when Illinois (rather than Indiana) law applied; second MSJ that made product ID argument denied as untimely (from May 11, 2012 hearing).
05/22/2012	MSJ denied on all grounds (from May 11, 2012 hearing).
05/22/2012	MSJ denied under Illinois law (from May 11, 2012 hearing).
05/22/2012	MSJ granted under maritime law; motion to strike affidavit denied (from May 11, 2012 hearing).
05/22/2012	MSJ granted under maritime law due to insufficient product identification (from May 8, 2012 hearing).
05/22/2012	MSJ granted under maritime law due to insufficient product identification (from May 8, 2012 hearing).
05/22/2012	MSJ denied under Kansas law based on product ID and causation grounds (from May 8, 2012 hearing).
04/20/2012	Judge Angell's opinion regarding certain discovery issues in Wallace and Graham North Carolina cases.
04/16/2012	MSJ denied in part in CVLO "top ten" case, under Illinois law (from March 27, 2012 hearing).
04/16/2012	MSJ granted in part and denied in part in CVLO "top ten" case, based upon product identification (from March 27, 2012 hearing).
04/16/2012	MSJ denied in CVLO "top ten" case, and certain issues will be remanded to the court sitting in Wisconsin to adjudicate (from March 27, 2012 hearing).
04/16/2012	Memorandum opinion addressing "five representative" MSJs in many N.D. California cases (from March 20, 2012 hearing).
04/16/2012	Summary judgment granted when plaintiffs' expert testimony stricken (from March 20, 2012 hearing).
04/16/2012	Summary judgment granted when plaintiff failed to respond to defendant's arguments (from March 20, 2012 hearing).
04/16/2012	Summary judgment denied when defendant first raised product identification evidence in their reply brief (from March 20, 2012 hearing).
04/16/2012	Motion for summary judgment granted on product identification grounds (from March 20, 2012 hearing).
03/16/2012	Judge Robreno overruled objections to two of Magistrate Judge Strawbridge's orders regarding motions in limine and a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
03/05/2012	Summary judgment granted in part and denied in part based on product identification, expert witness challenges, and the "bare metal defense."
03/05/2012	Summary judgment granted in part and denied in part based on product identification and the "bare metal defense."
03/05/2012	Summary judgment granted in part and denied in part based on product identification and the government contractor defense.
03/05/2012	Summary judgment granted on product identification grounds under maritime law.
03/05/2012	Summary judgment granted to Defendant Foster Wheeler under North Dakota law on product identification / causation grounds.
03/05/2012	Summary judgment granted when Plaintiff failed to contradict Defendant's evidence.
03/05/2012	Summary judgment granted when there was no evidence that Defendant worked with asbestos-containing products.
03/05/2012	Summary judgment granted because of "bare metal defense."
03/05/2012	Summary judgment granted because of "bare metal defense."
03/05/2012	Summary judgment granted because the "bare metal defense" applies under maritime law.
03/05/2012	Summary judgment granted when there was no evidence that Defendant worked with asbestos-containing products.
03/05/2012	Summary judgment granted because the "bare metal defense" applies under maritime law.
03/05/2012	Summary judgment granted because the "bare metal defense" applies under maritime law.
03/05/2012	Summary judgment granted after unsworn expert report excluded.
03/05/2012	Summary judgment granted because of "bare metal defense."
03/05/2012	Summary judgment granted because of "bare metal defense."
03/05/2012	Summary judgment denied when there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Boyle test was met.
03/05/2012	Summary judgment granted when Plaintiff's declaration was unsigned and unsworn.
02/03/2012	Judge Robreno's opinion addressing the "bare metal defense" under maritime law.
02/03/2012	Judge Robreno's opinion addressing Defendants' motions to dismiss based on preemption and political question.
01/27/2012	Judge Hey's order regarding sharing costs of production; plaintiff's motion granted in part and denied in part.
01/27/2012	Judge Hey's order regarding defendant's costs of production.
01/27/2012	Judge Hey's opinion denying denfendat's motion for a protective order and granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion to compel.
01/27/2012	Judge Hey's opinion denying defendant's motion to quash a subpoena.
01/27/2012	Judge Hey's opinion granting defendant's motion to compel; plaintiff must produce information regarding other asbestos claims, including against bankruptcy trusts.
01/27/2012	Judge Hey's opinion granting in part and denying in part various discovery motions.
01/25/2012	Judge Strawbridge's decision denying certain defendants' motions in limine in an E.D. Pa. case.
01/19/2012	Summary judgment in favor of defendant denied because, under Wisconsin's liberal standard for product identification, there was sufficient evidence (primarily in the form of co-worker testimony) from which a reasonable jury could conclude that decedent was exposed to asbestos from defendant's product such that it was a substantial factor in the development of his mesothelioma.
01/19/2012	Summary judgment in favor of defendant denied because under Wisconsin's liberal standard for product identification, a reasonable jury could conclude that plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from defendant's product in connection with one (of twelve) contracts identified on a contract ledger maintained by defendant, such that this exposure was a substantial factor in the development of the decedent' mesothelioma; summary judgment in favor of defendant was granted as to all other allegations of exposure in connection with the remaining eleven contracts, as there was no indication of the location of the product within the employer's facility and/or no indication that the product supplied and/or installed by defendant in connection with those contracts contained asbestos.
01/19/2012	Summary judgment denied because genuine issue of material fact existed as to when plaintiff had notice that he may have a cause of action; plaintiff was told of a spot on his lung in November of 2006 as a result of an x-ray for an unrelated injury; plaintiff's diagnostic report was dated April 19, 2007. Plaintiff filed suit on April 12, 2010. Although plaintiff testified in 2011 that he learned of his lung cancer at Thanksgiving of 2006, the testimony was ambiguous and subject to multiple reasonable interpretations, such that the Court could not determine as a matter of law whether the action was timely filed.
12/16/2011	Partial summary judgment granted in favor of defendant on basis of sophisticated user defense under California law, where plaintiff's alleged exposure occurred aboard three (3) Navy ships over the course of three (3) decades, defendants presented expert testimony that Navy was aware of hazards of asbestos at time of alleged exposure aboard two (2) of the three (3) ships (and that Navy had state-of-the-art knowledge of asbestos hazards), and Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to contradict Defendant's evidence re: sophisticated user.
12/16/2011	Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant on basis of sophisticated user defense under California law, where plaintiff's alleged exposure occurred aboard Navy ships, defendants presented expert testimony that Navy was aware of hazards of asbestos at time of alleged exposure (and that Navy had state-of-the-art knowledge of asbestos hazards) and Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to contradict Defendant's evidence re: sophisticated user; Court rejected argument that California law did not permit the defense because the Navy was an intermediary.
12/16/2011	Summary judgment is denied for Defendant. Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that, under maritime law, Decedent was exposed to asbestos attributable to Defendant and that it was a substantial factor in causing his disease. Additionally, Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether Defendant is entitled to the government contractor defense.
12/08/2011	Westlaw and LexisNexis have added the vast majority of decisions, footnote orders and opinions issued in MSL-875 to their searchable databases. This PDF contains information about how to search for such rulings.
12/07/2011	Plaintiff's expert report deemed inadmissible against Warren Pumps as it was produced in an "unsworn" form; without expert report, Plaintiff lacked sufficient product identification to withstand summary judgment.
12/07/2011	Plaintiff's expert report deemed inadmissible against Crane Co. as it was produced in an "unsworn" form; without expert report, Plaintiff lacked sufficient product identification to withstand summary judgment.
12/07/2011	Musselman case is remanded to the transferor court (District of Delaware), with a recommendation that it be transferred to the Eastern District of Arkansas for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.
12/07/2011	Plaintiff's product identification evidence against New England Insulatoin deemed sufficient to withstand summary judgment; case remanded to the transferor court (District of Maine) because the issue of liability for bystander and/or "take-home" exposure has not been addressed by any court in Maine.
12/07/2011	Plaintiff's product identification evidence against Kimberly Clark deemed sufficient to withstand summary judgment; case remanded to the transferor court (District of Maine) because the issue of liability for bystander and/or "take-home" exposure has not been addressed by any court in Maine.
12/02/2011	As the LIA does not preclude plaintiffs from bringing federal FELA claims, summary judgment is denied for LIRR regarding Plaintiff's FELA claims.
12/02/2011	Granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment when Plaintiffs have presented no evidence of product identification.
12/02/2011	Denying Defendant's motion for summary judgment when Plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find, under California law, that Decedent had some threshold exposure to asbestos attributable to Defendant, and that the exposure was a substantial factor in contributing to Decedent's risk of developing mesothelioma.
12/01/2011	Denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment when Defendant's expert testimony regarding government prohibitions on warnings was not unduly speculative.
12/01/2011	Denying summary judgment when Plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant was entitled to the government contractor defense.
12/01/2011	Denying summary judgment when, under Florida law, a reasonable juror could conclude that Honeywell valves were a substantial contributing factor to Plaintiff's mesothelioma.
11/23/2011	Judge Robreno's 11/14/2011 Memorandum Opinion regarding AO 12 in CVLO cases.
10/03/2011	Judge Hey's Memorandum and Order partially granting non-party's request for fees and costs associated with the production of documents subpoenaed by Plaintiffs.
09/22/2011	Denying summary judgment as there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant's asbestos-containing products substantially caused Plaintiff's injury. (E.D. La.).
09/22/2011	Denying summary judgment in part, where joint compound contained Defendant's asbestos exclusively; and granting in part, when another joint compound contained asbestos from many manufacturers. (E.D. La.).
09/22/2011	Denying summary judgment as there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whethere Defendant's asbestos-containing roofing products were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm. (E.D. La.).
09/22/2011	Denying summary judgment in part, where Plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to whether Defendant's asbestos-containing products were a substantial factor in causing his harm; and granting summary judgment in part, where Plaintiff could not identify any specific products or brands for a given time period. (E.D. La.).
08/30/2011	Denying summary judgment as there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant is entitled to the government contractor defense. (Fed).
08/11/2011	Denying summary judgment as there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant's asbestos-containing clutches were a substantial contributing factor to Plaintiff's asbestos-related disease (PA).
08/11/2011	Granting summary judgment in favor of various brake pad manufacturers because Pennsylvania law requires product identification evidence with respect to each individual Defendant (PA).
08/11/2011	Denying summary judgment because there remains a genuine issue of material fact as to the application of Mississippi's learned intermediary defense with respect to the Navy (MS).
08/11/2011	Denying summary judgment because Defendant had a duty to warn of the hazards of asbestos-containing brakes incorporated into its vehicles (PA).
08/11/2011	Granting summary judgment because the product line exception does not apply (PA).
08/11/2011	Denying summary judgment as there is a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the application of the sophisticated user defense in a premises liability claim (PA).
08/11/2011	Denying summary judgment on the government contractor defense, as there is a genuine issue of material fact with respect to reasonably precise warnings for military vehicles (Fed).
08/11/2011	Applying the "heeding presumption" under New Jersey law and denying summary judgment on that basis (NJ).
08/11/2011	Denying Asbestos Corporation Limited's Motion to Dismiss as New Jersey has personal jurisdiction over Defendant (NJ).
08/11/2011	Denying Summary Judgment on the issue of whether Defendant had undertaken a duty to inspect the premises and did so negligently under Alabama law (AL).
07/26/2011	Memorandum Opinion regarding whether state or maritime law should apply to cases where plaintiff was exposed to asbestos while working on Naval ships.
07/26/2011	Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Georgia Pacific on product identification grounds (NC).
07/26/2011	Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Goulds Pumps on product identification grounds (NC).
07/26/2011	Denying Summary Judgment under the North Carolina statute of limitations (NC).
07/11/2011	Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Foster Wheeler because expert testimony alone is insufficient to establish causation. (maritime law)
07/11/2011	Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Union Carbide because insufficient evidence that the product at issue was asbestos-containing. (VA)
07/11/2011	Denying Honeywell's Motion for Summary Judgment on product identification grounds. (VA)
07/11/2011	Granting various Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment because expert testimony was not sworn to, and therefore not admissible under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). (MS)
06/30/2011	Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Foster Wheeler on Product Identification Grounds. (ND)
06/30/2011	Granting Summary Judgment in favor of General Electric on the Government Contractor Defense.
06/30/2011	Granting Summary Judgment in favor of S.O.S. Products Company on Product Identification Grounds (ND).
06/30/2011	Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) as Plaintiff failed to show excusable neglect.
06/03/2011	Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Certainteed on Product Identification Grounds. (MS)
06/03/2011	Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas because the "voluntary rule" requires that a voluntary act of plaintiff give rise to diversity jurisdiction; grant of summary judgment in favor of non-diverse defendant is not a basis for removal.
06/03/2011	Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to California state court because Defendant's notice of removal under the federal officer removal statute was not timely filed.
06/03/2011	Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to Oregon state court because the Court chooses to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the case in the absence of the removing government contractor defendant.
05/10/2011	Granting partial, but not full, summary judgment in favor of Defendant on the basis that Mississippi follows the two-diease rule, and the statute of limitations periods are separate, regardless of the order of diagnoses. (MS)
05/06/2011	Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant because even under FELA's relaxed summary judgment standard, there must be some specific evidence of exposure; it is not enough simply to place both Plaintiff and asbestos at the worksite. (FELA)
05/06/2011	Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant because Plaintiff's own interrogatories cannot be reduced to an admissible form and therefore cannot be used to create a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of surviving summary judgment. (FELA)
05/06/2011	Denying Motion for Reconsideration on the determination that Virginia is a one-disease state. (Virginia)
05/06/2011	Denying Defendant's Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification. (Florida)
05/06/2011	Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on product identification, and examining the effect of leading questions by Plaintiff's attorney during a deposition under Federal Rule of Evidence 611(c). (Utah)
05/06/2011	Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on product identification, but denying that a previous New York court decision regarding corporate liability precluded Plaintiff's claim. (Utah)
05/06/2011	Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment despite a deposition transcript error that misspelled Defendant's name. (Utah)
05/06/2011	Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment due to lack of evidence that Defendant actually manufactured the type of product described by Plaintiff. (Utah)
04/14/2011	Denying Defendant Premises Owner's Motion for Summary Judgment as the question of whether asbestos was an inherently dangerous condition in this case should go to the jury. (North Carolina)
04/14/2011	Granting in part and Denying in part Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on affirmative defenses (North Carolina)
03/18/2011	Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss based on the Statute of Limitations as Virginia has not Adopted the "Two-Disease" Rule (VA)
03/17/2011	Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Remand based on Timeliness of Removal, Disclaimer of Federal Officer claims, and the Presence of a Colorable Government Contractor Defense (CA)
03/08/2011	Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment because the North Carolina statute of repose does not apply to latent disease cases (NC)
03/08/2011	Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's intentional tort claim against employer for asbestos exposure (OH-S)
03/08/2011	Granting Defendant Viacom's Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that maritime law recognizes the "bare metal" defense (FL-N)
02/25/2011	Granting Partial Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant on the Issue of a Duty of Inquiry for Statute of Limitations Purposes in FELA Claims (Illinois)
02/25/2011	Denying Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion based on Boilerplate Language in Release Agreement (Illinois)
02/11/2011	Applying the "Nerve Center" Test to a Small Corporation to Determine Citizenship (California)
02/11/2011	Denial of the Application of the Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine (Illinois)
02/11/2011	Texas Worker's Compensation Law does not bar tort claims for pre-1971 exposures, when Mesothelioma was not compensable under the statute (Texas)
01/28/2011	Texas Worker's Compensation Law does not bar tort claims for pre-1971 exposures, when Mesothelioma was not compensable under the statute (Texas)
01/28/2011	Denial of Crane Co.'s Motion for Summary Judgment on Product Identification/Causation Grounds(Delaware)
01/03/2011	Decision Regarding use of Depositions when Defendant was not Present under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1)(Maryland)
01/03/2011	Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on the Grounds that the Insurer of an Independent Contractor does not Undertake a Duty to Protect Non-Employees (Florida)
01/03/2011	Application of the Sham Affidavit Doctrine Precluding the use of Plaintiff's Product Identification Evidence (Idaho)
01/03/2011	Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Product Identification based on Son's Testimony regarding Father's Brakework (Florida)
12/10/2010	Decision Granting Summary Judgment for Defendant based on Product Identification (Maryland)
12/10/2010	Decision Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment based on Product Identification (West Virginia)
12/02/2010	Please Note that Punitive Damages are Severed from MDL 875 and the Court will not Consider any Motions on the Issue of Punitive Damages. See In Re Collins, 233 F.3d 809 (3d Cir. 2000).
11/22/2010	Memorandum Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment based on Premises Liability (Washington)
11/22/2010	Memorandum Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment based on Premises Liability (Pennsylvania)
11/08/2010	Memorandum Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in Happel v. Yarway Corp. (Delaware)
11/08/2010	Memorandum Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in Happel v. GE (Delaware)
11/08/2010	Order Denying Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert from Testifying that Every Asbestos Exposure Contributes to Mesothelioma (Schumacher v. American Biltrite, E.D. Pa)
10/29/2010	Memorandum Overruling Defendant CBS Corporation's Objections in Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps(Florida)
10/29/2010	Memorandum Overruling Defendant General Electric's Objections but Granting Summary Judgment on the Government Contractor Defense in Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps(Florida)
10/29/2010	Memorandum Overruling Defendant Warren Pumps LLC's Objections in Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps(Florida)
10/20/2010	Memorandum Overruling Defendant Leslie Controls, Inc.'s Objections in Constantinides v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (Florida)
10/20/2010	Magistrate Judge Rueter Memorandum Opinion Denying Defendant's Motion to Compel Settlement Agreements
10/01/2010	Decision denying remand to state court when removal is based on the federal officer defense
09/10/2010	Third Circuit decision in Kurns v. Chesterton, Inc. holding that the Locomotive Inspection Act preempts state law claims
08/01/2010	Memorandum overruling Crane Co.'s objections to the R&R in Gitto v. A.W. Chesterton et al.
08/01/2010	Memorandum granting defendant's motion to dismiss in Texas cases for failure to file Chapter 90 reports
07/01/2010	Footnote order issued by Judge Robreno denying a motion to certify a remand order for appeal
06/08/2010	Memorandum issued by Magistrate Judge Hey denying a motion to quash a deposition subpoena served on Plaintiff's diagnosing physician in the case of Fellows v. Allied Glove (N.D. Oh., June 7, 2010)
06/08/2010	Memorandum issued by Magistrate Judge Angell ruling on motions in limine and Daubert challenges in the case of Larson v. Bondex International (D. Utah, May 26, 2010)
06/08/2010	Report and Recommendation denying GE's motion for summary judgment in the case of Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps (S.D. Fl., June 2, 2010)
06/08/2010	Report and Recommendation denying Leslie Control's motion for summary judgment in the case of Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps (S.D. Fl., May 21, 2010)
06/08/2010	Report and Recommendation denying CBS' motion for summary judgment in the case of Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps (S.D. Fl., April 30, 2010)
06/08/2010	Report and Recommendation granting Elliot Turbomachinery's motion for summary judgment in the case of Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps (S.D. Fl., April 26, 2010)
06/08/2010	Report and Recommendation granting in part and denying in part Warren Pumps' motion for summary judgment in the case of Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps (S.D. Fl., April 26, 2010)
06/08/2010	Report and Recommendation denying Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment in the case of Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps (S.D. Fl., April 23, 2010)
06/08/2010	Report and Recommendation granting Elliot Turbomachinery's motion for summary judgment in the case of Constantinides v. Alfa Laval (S.D. Fl., April 27, 2010)
06/08/2010	Report and Recommendation granting Viad Corp.'s motion for summary judgment in the case of Constantinides v. Alfa Laval (S.D. Fl., April 27, 2010)
06/08/2010	Report and Recommendation denying Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment in the case of Constantinides v. Alfa Laval (S.D. Fl., April 27, 2010)
06/08/2010	Report and Recommendation denying CBS' motion for summary judgment in the case of Constantinides v. Alfa Laval (S.D. Fl., April 27, 2010)
04/06/2010	Order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in the Anderson v. Alfa Laval case
04/05/2010	Memorandum and Order granting defendants' motion to dimiss on the New Jersey "dual capacity" doctrine for workers' compensation claims
02/12/2010	Order denying plaintiffs' motion to remand in a group of cases from North Dakota
02/12/2010	Order granting defendant Georgia Pacific's motion for summary judgment in a S.D. Fl. case
12/21/2009	Order granting defendant Atlas Turner's motion for summary judgment in an E.D. Pa. case [Phillips 00-6359] for January Trial Pool
12/10/2009	Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion to remand in a group of Southern District of Mississippi cases
12/03/2009	Memorandum and Order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment in an E.D. Va. case
11/19/2009	Order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment in an E.D. Pa. case
08/17/2009	Memorandum and Order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment in a N.D. Ga. premises liability case
06/22/2009	Order remanding Illinois case directly to Illinois state court for lack of Federal subject matter jurisdiction
04/30/2009	Memorandum and order denying certain plaintiffs motion to alter or amend Administrative Orders 3, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16
03/11/2009	Order regarding jurisdiction over a federal enclave
02/24/2009	Memorandum and order on subpoenas issued to various doctors
12/18/2008	Memorandum and order on rules to show cause for failure to comply with Administrative Order No. 12

Contacts

All Inquiries regarding MDL 875 should be directed to the MDL 875 Law Clerk at joel_lang@paed.uscourts.gov. Do not contact judicial officers unless otherwise directed to do so.

Court Administration

Kate Barkman, Clerk of Court: United States District Court
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Room 2609
James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 597-7704

MDL 875 Law Clerk: Joel Lang, Esq.: Email: joel_lang@paed.uscourts.gov
Telephone: (267) 299-7422

Judicial Officers

Presiding Judge: The Honorable Judge Eduardo C. Robreno: United States District Court
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Room 15614
James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 597-4073; Judge Robreno's MDL 875 Policies and Procedures

Chief Magistrate Judge: Thomas J. Rueter: United States District Court
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Room 3000
James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 597-0048

Magistrate Judge: David R. Strawbridge: United States District Court
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Room 3030
James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (267) 299-7790

Magistrate Judge: Elizabeth T. Hey: United States District Court
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Room 3038
James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (267) 299-7670

Plaintiffs' Land-Based Steering Committee

Peter Angelos, Esq.: 100 North Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (800) 556-5522

Janet Ward Black, Esq.: Ward Black Law
208 West Wendover Avenue
Greensboro, NC 27401
Telephone: (504) 581-9056, (336) 273-3812

Roger Lane, Esq.: 1601 Reynolds Street
Brunswick, GA 31520
Telephone: (912) 264-8296

John Cooney, Esq.: Cooney & Conway
Suite 3000
120 N. LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60602

Steven Kazan, Esq.: Kazan, McClain, Abrams, Lyons, Greenwood & Harley, PLC
171 Twelfth Street, 3rd Floor
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 302-1000

Peter Kraus, Esq.: Waters & Kraus
3219 McKinney Avenue
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (214) 357-6244

Joseph Rice, Esq.: Motley Rice
28 Bridgeside Boulevard
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 216-9159

Russell Budd, Esq.: Baron & Budd
The Centrum, Suite 1100
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 521-3605

Michael Thornton, Esq.: Thornton & Naumes
30th Floor
100 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 720-2445

Defendant's Land-Based Steering Committee

Kevin Jordan, Esq.: Baker Botts, L.L.P.
One Shell Plaza
910 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002-4995

William Mahoney, Esq.: Segal, McCambridge, Singer & Mahoney
1 IBM Plaza, Suite 200
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (312) 645-7806

W.G. Watkins, Esq.: Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy
City Centre, Suite 100
200 South Lamar Street
Jackson, MS 39201
Telephone: (601) 960-8600

David Landin, Esq.: Hunton & Williams
951 East Byrd Street
P.O. Box 1535
Richmond, VA 23218-1535
Telephone: (804) 788-8387

John McShea, Esq.: McShea Tecce
Bell Atlantic Tower
1717 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 599-0800

Thomas Packer, Esq.: Gordon & Rees
Embarcadero Center West, Suite 2000
275 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 986-5900

Philip McWeeny, Esq.: Owens-Illinois, Inc.
Legal Department, 8-OSG
One Seagate
Toledo OH, 43666
Telephone: (419) 247-1004

Robert Malaby, Esq.: Malaby, Carlisle & Bradley
Suite 600
150 Broadway
New York City, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 791-0285

Paul Kalish, Esq.: Cromwell & Moring
1001 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20004-2595
Telephone: (202) 624-2644

Statistics

Date	Description
07/03/2019	June 2019 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
04/05/2019	March 2019 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
08/05/2018	July 2018 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
09/13/2017	August 2017 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
03/08/2017	February 2017 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
03/08/2017	January 2017 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
01/11/2017	December 2016 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
11/16/2016	October 2016 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
10/26/2016	September 2016 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
09/15/2016	August 2016 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
08/05/2016	July 2016 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
07/11/2016	June 2016 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
06/13/2016	May 2016 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
05/10/2016	April 2016 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
04/08/2016	March 2016 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
03/10/2016	February 2016 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
02/25/2016	January 2016 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
01/07/2016	December 2015 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
12/04/2015	November 2015 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
11/09/2015	October 2015 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
10/07/2015	September 2015 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
09/09/2015	August 2015 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
08/10/2015	July 2015 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
07/09/2015	June 2015 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
06/05/2015	May 2015 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
05/19/2015	April 2015 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
04/14/2015	March 2015 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
03/09/2015	February 2015 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
02/06/2015	January 2015 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
01/12/2015	December 2014 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
12/03/2014	November 2014 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
11/03/2014	October 2014 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
10/14/2014	September 2014 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
09/09/2014	August 2014 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
08/08/2014	July 2014 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
07/10/2014	June 2014 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
06/12/2014	May 2014 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
05/12/2014	April 2014 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
04/15/2014	March 2014 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
03/12/2014	February 2014 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
02/05/2014	January 2014 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
01/16/2014	December 2013 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
12/05/2013	November 2013 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
11/06/2013	October 2013 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
10/08/2013	September 2013 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
09/09/2013	August 2013 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
08/28/2013	July 2013 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
07/26/2013	June 2013 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
06/11/2013	May 2013 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
05/03/2013	April 2013 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
04/23/2013	March 2013 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
03/11/2013	February 2013 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
02/08/2013	January 2013 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
01/07/2013	December 2012 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
12/11/2012	November 2012 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
11/06/2012	October 2012 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
11/06/2012	September 2012 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
09/04/2012	August 2012 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
08/06/2012	July 2012 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
07/05/2012	June 2012 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
06/18/2012	May 2012 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
05/02/2012	April 2012 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
04/03/2012	March 2012 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
03/05/2012	February 2012 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
02/03/2012	January 2012 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
01/04/2012	December 2011 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown, including MARDOC
12/01/2011	November 2011 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown, including MARDOC
11/01/2011	October 2011 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
09/06/2011	August 2011 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
08/05/2011	July 2011 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
07/11/2011	June 2011 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
06/03/2011	May 2011 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
05/06/2011	April 2011 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
04/05/2011	March 2011 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
03/04/2011	February 2011 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
02/04/2011	January 2011 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
01/03/2011	December 2010 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
12/02/2010	November 2010 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
11/08/2010	October 2010 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
09/30/2010	September 2010 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
08/30/2010	August 2010 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
07/30/2010	July 2010 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
06/30/2010	June 2010 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
05/30/2010	May 2010 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
04/30/2010	April 2010 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown
03/31/2010	March 2010 MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Search form

You are here

MDL 875 In Re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI)

The Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno, Presiding