In Re: Asbestos (MDL No. 875)
IMPORTANT

PLEASE SEE Comprehensive MDL 875 Calendar. On this calendar are all currently scheduled Settlement Conferences, Motions Hearings, and Status and Scheduling Conferences.

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: 10/19/09. This flow chart illustrates the Court's case management scheme.

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.

PLEASE SEE MDL 875 Casewide Statistical Breakdown. This is the best available statistical overview of the progress made in administering MDL 875 as well as the number of remaining cases in the MDL as of September 30, 2009. This information will be updated on a monthly basis.

NOTICE: Updates made on November 10, 2009. See Updates link below for details. The Document Tips describe how to access Excel (XLS) files.

Updates
Information for Cases in the Maritime Docket (MARDOC)
Case Administration & Contact Information
Steering Committees
Settlement Conference Procedures
Settlement Conference Schedule
Motion Procedure
Motions Schedule
Trial Procedure
Information for Cases Originally Filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Information for Cases Referred to Magistrate Judge Hey
Administrative Orders
Administrative Order No. 12A
Comprehensive MDL 875 Calendar
Opinions
Statistics
INTRODUCTION

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 60,000 cases and 3,500,000 claims 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.

As Chief Judge Becker described it, asbestos “is a tale of danger known about in the 1930s, [with] exposure inflicted upon millions of Americans in the 1940s and 1950s, [with] injuries that began to take their toll in the 1960s, and [with] 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 will commence in January, 2009. The procedures can be found by clicking on the links above.

Documents may require Adobe Reader. Please read the Document Tips before accessing documents!


[1] Georgine v. Amchem Products, Inc., 83 F.3d 610, 618 (3rd Cir. 1996).
[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).

PLEASE NOTE Judicial Disclosure Notice from Presiding Judge Eduardo C. Robreno.