From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Phenylpropanolamine

United States District Court, W.D. Washington
Jan 21, 2004
No. MDL 1407 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 21, 2004)

Opinion

No. MDL 1407

January 21, 2004

D. Joseph Hurson, LANE POWELL SPEARS LUBERSKY LLP, for the PPA Manufacturer — Defendants

Douglas A. Hofmann, WILLIAMS, KASTNER GIBBS PLLC, for the PPA Manufactuer — Defendants

Lance Palmer, LEVINSON FRIEDMAN, for Plaintiff


SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER RE USE OF CASE MANAGEMENT ELECTRONIC CASE FILING SYSTEM AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS


On October 30, 2003, the Court entered an order entitled "Order Regarding Use Of Case Management/Electronic Case Filing System" ("the October 30 Order"), Since the entry of the October 30 Order, there has been some dispute regarding whether the use of this electronic filing system eliminates the need to serve opposing counsel with hard copies of pleadings. This Order is intended to end any dispute in that regard,

1. The Court still expects that counsel will file alt pleadings with the Court using the Electronic Case Filing System, and that all counsel will comply with the terms of the October 30 Order. Counsel are expected to file pleadings electronically because doing so streamlines the filing and administrative burdens on the Court, and makes the PPA MDL operate more efficiently.

2. Filing pleadings electronically does not, however, satisfy service requirements on opposing counsel Despite filing a pleading using the Electronic Case filing System, counsel are still required to serve hard copies of pleadings on all parties. Therefore, counsel are expected to follow the procedure set forth below when filing pleadings with the Court and serving those pleadings on all parties:

a. Counsel will file all pleadings with the Court using the Electronic Case Filing System. All counsel will comply with the terms of the October 30 Order,
b. Counsel will still serve hard copies of pleadings on all parties to their particular cases. Plaintiffs will also serve hard copies of plaintiffs' fact sheets on opposing counsel and defense co-liaison counsel Douglas hofmann.
c. If there are multiple law firms representing a party, service of a hard copy of a pleading, plaintiffs' fact sheet and plaintiffs' warning letter can be made on any firm representing that party, unless that party requests in writing (or by e-mail) that opposing parties serve pleadings, plaintiffs' fact sheet and plaintiffs' warning letter on a particular designated law firm ("designated law firm"). Such requests must be sent to all other local counsel of record or whoever signed the original pleadings, and an electronic copy sent to liaison counsel Doug Hofmann (e-mail. dhofinann@wkg.com) Once such a request is made, it will not go into effect for 20 days from the date of the request
d. Once a party designates a particular law firm for purposes of accepting service on its behalf of hard copy pleadings, plaintiffs' fact sheet and plaintiffs' warning letter, opposing parties must serve hard copies of those documents on that designated law firm (and service on another firm also representing the designating party will not suffice).
e. If a party is responding to a motion, a response must also be served on the counsel who filed the motion. Similarly, a reply to a motion must also be served on. the counsel who filed a response to the motion
f. If there are multiple law firms representing a party, non-designated law firms will receive notice of the filing of pleadings via the Electronic Case Filing System,
g. If a non-designated plaintiffs' law firm wants to receive electronic copies of any plaintiffs' fact sheet and plaintiffs' fart sheet warning letter, it is the responsibility of the non-designated law firm to make such a request and provide its e-mail address to opposing counsel and defense co-liaison counsel Doug Hofmann (e-mail. dhofmann@wkg.com). Once such notification is given, plaintiffs' fact sheet and plaintiffs1 fact sheet warning letter in a particular case will also be sent to the plaintiffs' counsel requesting electronic notification

3. With regard to service of CMO IS new individual complaints, plaintiffs must serve new individual complaints on all defendants in the original multiple-plaintiffs complaints (even if some of the defendants have been dropped from the lawsuit) so defendants will be able to track whether they have been dropped from a lawsuit.

4. This Order does not apply to service by plaintiffs' liaison counsel on plaintiffs or then" counsel, nor does it apply to service by defendants' liaison counsel on defendants or their counsel.


Summaries of

In re Phenylpropanolamine

United States District Court, W.D. Washington
Jan 21, 2004
No. MDL 1407 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 21, 2004)
Case details for

In re Phenylpropanolamine

Case Details

Full title:IN RE Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation This…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Washington

Date published: Jan 21, 2004

Citations

No. MDL 1407 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 21, 2004)