From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Agent Orange, Product Liability Litigation

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Jun 9, 1980
506 F. Supp. 756 (E.D.N.Y. 1980)

Summary

establishing agenda for status conference

Summary of this case from In re "AGENT ORANGE" Product Liability Litigation

Opinion

MDL No. 381.

June 9, 1980.

Victor J. Yannacone, Jr., Yannacone Yannacone, Patchogue, N Y, Schlegel Trafelet, Ltd., L. Steven Platt, Daniel C. Sullivan, Sullivan Associates, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., Hy Mayerson, Spring City, Pa., David Jaroslawicz, New York City, Newton B. Schwartz, P.C., Benton Musslewhite, Inc., Houston, Tex., Melvin Block, Brooklyn, N.Y., Marshall A. Bernstein, Bernstein, Bernstein Harrison, Philadelphia, Pa., Louis B. Merhige, New Orleans, La., Dennis M. O'Malley, Grant Artesani, Boston, Mass., Dorothy Thompson, Los Angeles, Cal., W.T. McMillan, W.T. McMillan Co., associated counsel for Australian plaintiffs, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, Jerry G. Wieslander, Frank G. Wieslander, Altoona, Iowa, Lewis A. Royal, Samuel Zelden, Des Moines, Iowa, David C. Anson, Deconcini, McDonald, Brammer, Yetwin Lacy, Tucson, Ariz., Phillip E. Brown, Hoberg, Finger, Brown, Cox Molliga, San Francisco, Cal., Leslie Hulnick, Wichita, Kan., Sidney W. Gilreath, Knoxville, Tenn., Stephen J. Cavanaugh, Bellaire, Tex., Robert P. Schuster, Spence, Moriarty Schuster, Jackson, Wyo., Alton C. Todd, Brown Todd, Alvin, Tex., Jules B. Olsman, Southfield, Mich., Gerald J. Adler, Crow, Lytle, Gilwee, Donoghue Adler Weninger, Sacramento, Cal., Jack E. London, Miami, Fla., David J. Ghilardi, Madison, Wis., William G. Morgan, William A. Cohan, Denver, Colo., William J. Risner, Tucson, Ariz., James L. Witzel, McKelvey, Cottom Witzel, East Lansing, Mich., Robert I.P. Pasternak, Jane R. Kaplan, Berkeley, Cal., Norton Frickey, Denver, Colo., Dante Mattioni, Philadelphia, Pa., Elgin L. Crull, Louisville, Ky., Charles J. Traylor, Grand Junction, Colo., Victor L. Marcello, Talbot, Sotile, Carmouche Waquespach Marchand, Donaldsonville, La., Janet T. Phillips, Rodgers, Monsley, Woodbury Berggreen, Las Vegas, Nev., William D. Nelsch, Denver, Colo., Robert C. Huntley, Jr., Racine, Huntley Olson, Pocatello, Idaho, Jacque B. Pucheu, Pucheu Pucheu, Eunice, La., Jeffrey M. Stopford, Litvin, Blumberg, Matusow Young, Philadelphia, Pa., Joseph D. Jamail, Jamail Kolius, Houston, Tex., Leonard W. Schroeter, J. Kathleen Learned, Schroeter, Goldmark Bender, P.S., Seattle, Wash., for plaintiffs.

Leonard L. Rivkin, Rivkin, Leff Sherman, Garden City, N.Y., for Dow Chemical.

Morton B. Silberman, Clark, Gagliardi Miller, White Plains, N Y, Baker McKenzie, Chicago, Ill., for Thompson-Hayward.

Wendell B. Alcorn, Jr., Cadwalader, Wickersham Taft, New York City, for Diamond Shamrock.

Townley Updike, New York City, for Monsanto.

Bud Holman and William Krohley, Kelley, Drye Warren, New York City, for Hercules, Inc.

William H. Sanders, William A. Lynch and Paul G. Lane, Blackwell, Sanders, Matheny, Weary Lombardi, Kansas City, Mo., for N.A. Phillips.

John M. Fitzpatrick, Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish, Lelvy Kauffman, Philadelphia, Pa., for Hooker Chemical Co.

Joan Bernott, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for third-party defendant U.S.

Roy L. Reardon, James P. Barrett and Michael V. Corrigan, Simpson, Thacher Bartlett, New York City, for Ansul Co.

Damien T. Wren, Lewis, Overbeck Furman, Chicago, Ill., for Riverdale Chemical Co.


The court will hold a status conference on July 2, 1980 at 3:00 p.m. to discuss the impact of McMillan et al. v. Dow Chemical Co. et al., CV-80-1241, the case brought by Australian veterans who allege injuries arising from their exposure to Agent Orange during their service in Vietnam. Counsel for the Australian plaintiffs, the corporate defendants and the United States are directed to submit briefs addressing the following issues: (1) the applicability of the defenses asserted by the corporate defendants and the United States to the claims of the Australian veterans; (2) the relationship between this action and other currently pending actions with respect to discovery, existing orders, possible class action treatment, and trial; and (3) any other special problems and issues that may result from plaintiffs' status as Australian veterans.

These briefs are to be exchanged and submitted by June 20, 1980; reply papers, if any, shall be submitted by June 27, 1980. The agenda at the July 2, 1980 conference shall be limited to the above listed issues.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

In re Agent Orange, Product Liability Litigation

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Jun 9, 1980
506 F. Supp. 756 (E.D.N.Y. 1980)

establishing agenda for status conference

Summary of this case from In re "AGENT ORANGE" Product Liability Litigation

establishing agenda for status conference

Summary of this case from In re "AGENT ORANGE" Product Liability Litigation

establishing agenda for status conference

Summary of this case from In re "AGENT ORANGE" Product Liability Litigation

establishing agenda for status conference

Summary of this case from Ryan v. Dow Chemical Co.

scheduling a status conference

Summary of this case from In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation
Case details for

In re Agent Orange, Product Liability Litigation

Case Details

Full title:In re "AGENT ORANGE" PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION

Court:United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date published: Jun 9, 1980

Citations

506 F. Supp. 756 (E.D.N.Y. 1980)

Citing Cases

Ryan v. Dow Chemical Co.

tory claims, reserving possible federal common law claims, denying motion to limit communications to third…

In re "AGENT ORANGE" Product Liability Litigation

Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 93 F.R.D. 514 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) (allowing defendant to proceed with scheduled…