Opinion
00 Civ. 2843 (LAK); This Document Relates to: All Cases
January 18, 2002
PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 48 (Confidentiality and Redactions for Clinical Investigators)
Pretrial Order No. 44 resolved all remaining substantive issues relating to this subject and directed the counsel concerned to submit, on or before January 17, 2002, agreed forms of orders implementing the Court's decision and the partial agreements of the litigants.
Counsel have not complied with that direction. Instead, the Court on January 17 received (a) a proposed order and a letter from Ms. Smith which complained that she had received no input from plaintiffs' counsel, Ms. La Polla and Mr. Tisi, "despite efforts to prepare an agreed order," and (b) a different proposed order and another letter from Ms. La Polla complaining that Ms. Smith had "acted unilaterally" and had submitted a form of order that Ms. Smith had been informed was unacceptable to the plaintiffs. Thus, it is far from clear whether the attorneys in fact conferred, let alone made any reasonable effort to comply with Pretrial Order No. 44. Indeed, without a line by line comparison of two multipage proposed orders, it is impossible to identify all the differences between the two proposed orders.
This sort of behavior is unacceptable. Ms. LaPolla, Mr. Tisi and Ms. Smith shall conduct a conference call together no later than January 22, 2002. They are to submit an agreed form of order, if possible, on or before January 23, 2002. In the event that they cannot agree fully, they are to submit, on or before January 23, 2002, one proposed form of order with their alternate proposals for any points on which they disagree set off in brackets and clearly identified as to the proponent along with a diskette in WordPerfect 6.1 for Windows format containing the text. In that event, each side may submit simultaneously with the proposed form of order a letter, not to exceed two single spaced pages, setting forth its position on the disputed issues.
In the event counsel do not comply with this order, the Court will issue an order to show cause why counsel should not be sanctioned, which sanctions may include removal from participation on any committees and, in the case of attorneys admitted pro hac vice, revocation of leave so to appear in this matter.
SO ORDERED.