From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Prempro Products Liability Litigation

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Mar 16, 2004
MDL Docket No. 4:03CV1507 WRW (E.D. Ark. Mar. 16, 2004)

Opinion

MDL Docket No. 4:03CV1507 WRW

March 16, 2004


FOLLOW-UP ORDER


The following are orders necessitated by pending motions, the hearing held February 13, 2004, and the March 11, 2004 telephone conference.

I. OBJECTIVE INDEXES

Pending is Plaintiffs' Motion for Production of Defendants' Document Indexes (Doc. No. 102). Defendants are to provide Plaintiffs copies of their objective indexes. However, Defendants are not required to provide Plaintiffs copies of subjective indexes, because they are work product. In sum, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED in its request for objective indexes and DENIED in its request for subjective indexes.

II. DISCOVERY TRACT

Pending are Plaintiffs' Motion for Discovery Track and Committee Structure for Personal Injury Claimants (Doc. No. 106), Notice by Plaintiffs of Proposed Order Re Discovery (Doc. No. 155), and Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Proposed Order for "Two Track" Discovery (Doc. No. 156). In my opinion, the proposed two-track discovery defeats the purpose of MDL and integrated discovery. Plaintiffs' Motion and Proposed Order are DENIED.

III. HIPAA MEDICAL AUTHORIZATION

Pending is Plaintiffs' Motion for Restrictive Language to be Added to HIPAA Medical Authorization and Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Review Period for Highly Confidential Information (Doc. No. 107). This Motion is DENIED as moot considering the March 12, 2004 Order (Doc. No. 176).

IV. DOCUMENT PRODUCTION SCHEDULE

Pending is Plaintiffs' Motion for Schedule of Wyeth's Document Production (Doc. No. 101). This motion is DENIED and, if necessary, should be re-filed, taking into consideration the discussion held during the March 11, 2004 telephone conference, requiring scheduling in which counsel working on class issues and counsel working on individual plaintiffs personal injury issues may both be present.

V. DATES FOR 30(b)(6) DEPOSITIONS

Pending is Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel a Date Certain for Informational Depositions on Rule 30(b)(6) Topics (Doc. No. 171). This motion is DENIED and, if necessary, should be re-filed, taking into consideration the discussion held during the March 11, 2004 telephone — conference, requiring scheduling in which counsel working on class issues and counsel working on individual plaintiffs personal injury issues may both be present.

VI. FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS RE PRESERVATION OF DOCUMENTS

Pending is Defendant's Motion For Further Instructions Re Preservation of Documents (Doc. No. 65). This Motion is DENIED as moot considering Defendant's Motion to Clarify Preservation Policies (Doc. No. 85), the March 9, 2004 Order Regarding Preservation of Data Changes (Doc. No. 161), and Superceding Preservation of Data Directive (Doc. No. 162).

VII. MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO DISCLOSE EXPERT WITNESSES

Pending is Plaintiff Motion to Extend Time to Disclose Expert Witnesses (Doc. No. 116). This Motion is DENIED as moot considering Consumer Class Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Time to Disclose Expert Witnesses (Doc. No. 149) and the Order dated March 9, 2004 (Doc. No. 165).

VIII. PREVIOUS COSTS ORDERS

All previous Orders regarding costs are VACATED. Specifically, this includes the Order dated January 27, 2004 (Doc. No. 98) and the Supplemental Order dated January 28, 2004 (Doc. No. 99). I will file a Cost Order within 10 days if practicable.

CONCLUSION

In sum:

1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Production of Defendants' Document Indexes (Doc. No. 102) is GRANTED in its request for objective indexes and DENIED in its request for subjective indexes.

2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Discovery Track and Committee Structure for Personal Injury Claimants (Doc. No. 106), and Notice by Plaintiffs of Proposed Order Re Discovery (Doc. No. 155) are DENIED.

3. Plaintiffs' Motion for Restrictive Language to be Added to HIPAA Medical Authorization and Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Review Period for Highly Confidential Information (Doc. No. 107) is DENIED as moot considering the March 16, 2004 Order (Doc. No. 176).

4. Plaintiffs' Motion for Schedule of Wyeth's Document Production (Doc. No. 101) is DENIED.

5. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel a Date Certain for Informational Depositions on Rule 30(b)(6) topics (Doc. No. 171) is DENIED.

6. Defendant's Motion For Further Instructions Re Preservation of Documents (Doc. No. 65) is DENIED as moot.

7. Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Time to Disclose Expert Witnesses (Doc. No. 116) is DENIED as moot.

8. All previous Orders regarding costs, including the January 27, 2004 Order (Doc. No. 98) and the January 28, 2004 Supplemental Order (Doc. No. 99) are VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

In re Prempro Products Liability Litigation

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Mar 16, 2004
MDL Docket No. 4:03CV1507 WRW (E.D. Ark. Mar. 16, 2004)
Case details for

In re Prempro Products Liability Litigation

Case Details

Full title:In re: PREMPRO PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, ALL CASES

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas

Date published: Mar 16, 2004

Citations

MDL Docket No. 4:03CV1507 WRW (E.D. Ark. Mar. 16, 2004)