From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re "AGENT ORANGE" Product Liability Litigation

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Mar 19, 2004
MDL 381, 04 CV 400 (JBW), 99 CV 3056 (JBW), 98 CV 6383 (JBW) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2004)

Opinion

MDL 381, 04 CV 400 (JBW), 99 CV 3056 (JBW), 98 CV 6383 (JBW)

March 19, 2004

Constantine P. Kokkoris, Esq., William H. Goodman Jonathan C. Moore, Moore Goodman, New York, New York, Shelby Roden LLC, By: Robert B, Roden, John E. Norris, Law Offices of Davis Norris, LLP, Birmingham, Alabama, For Plaintiffs The Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin, et al.,

Gerson Smoger, Smoger Associates, Oakland, California, Mark Cuker; Dean Bencivenga, Williams Cuker Berezofsky, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, For Plaintiffs Joe Isaacson and Phillis Lisa Isaacson

James Boanerges, Lueders Boanerges, Houston, Texas, For Plaintiff Chas T. Andeson

Stephen Murray, Jr., The Murray Law Firm, New Orleans, Louisiana, For Plaintiffs Daniel Raymond Stephenson, et al.

Robert Skinner, Pro se Mississippi, For Plaintiff Robert I. Skinner, Steven Brock, James V. Aosia, Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale, New York, For Defendant Dow Chemical Company

James E. Tyrrell, Latham Watkins One Newark Center Newark, NJ, John C. Sabetta; Andrew T. Hahn, Sr. Scyfarth Shaw LLP, New York, NY, For Defendant Monsanto Company,

Lawrence T. D'Aloise, Clark, Gagliardi Miller White Plains, NY, For Defendants T.H. Agriculture Nutrition Co.,

William A. Krohley; Willam C. Heck, Kelley Drye Warren LLP, New York, NY, For Defendant Hercules, Inc.,

Michael M. Gordon, Cadwalader, Wickersham Taft LLP, New York, NY, For Defendant Occidental Chemical Corporation,

Debevoise Plimpton LLP, New York, New York, For Defendant Hooker Chemical,

Kathleen Mahoney, Assistant United States Attorney, Brooklyn, New York, For the United States of America


ORDER


Pursuant to oral orders at the hearing of March 18, 2004, all discovery except that dealing with causation of alleged injuries will be completed expeditiously. Causation discovery is stayed to avoid what may prove to be unnecessary expense. See, e.g., In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 2004 WL 231180 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) ("[I]t is useful to minimize the burden of a litigation by resolving it on a theory requiring the least expense and consumption of time even though another theory could be established by the available proof.").

All preliminary motions directed at the pleadings or for summary judgment will be returnable on or before September 10, 2004. It is the intention to have vital preliminary issues, except for causation, before the Court of Appeals in six months by certification or appeal.

In response to plaintiffs Isaacsons' request, defendants and the United States shall cooperate with plaintiffs in supplying up to six complete deposition transcripts utilized in non-MDL 381 cases claimed by plaintiffs to shed light on relevant knowledge of defendants. The magistrate judge shall intervene if the parties cannot accommodate each other.

The magistrate judge's order of March 2, 2004 limiting discovery is otherwise affirmed with the understanding that it can be modified to assist the parties to meet the accelerated discovery process.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

In re "AGENT ORANGE" Product Liability Litigation

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Mar 19, 2004
MDL 381, 04 CV 400 (JBW), 99 CV 3056 (JBW), 98 CV 6383 (JBW) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2004)
Case details for

In re "AGENT ORANGE" Product Liability Litigation

Case Details

Full title:In re: "AGENT ORANGE" PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION; THE VIETNAM…

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

Date published: Mar 19, 2004

Citations

MDL 381, 04 CV 400 (JBW), 99 CV 3056 (JBW), 98 CV 6383 (JBW) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2004)

Citing Cases

In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation

It was ordered that, upon the expiration of a six-month discovery period, the parties submit preliminary…