You are here

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

About

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).

Notices

  • 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.

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

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 here.

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 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: MDL875.

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.")

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.

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.

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. 

May I appear telephonically?

No. Telephonic appearance is not available.

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 Amended_AO11.

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 Administrative Order 18.

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.

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