August 3, 2020

Volume X, Number 216

July 31, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Cook IVC Court’s Utilization of Case Management Plans and Case Management Orders to Guide and Control Multidistrict Litigation

On October 15, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) designated the Cook IVC Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. That Court has issued multiple Case Management Plans and Case Management Orders to guide and control the MDL.

On November 25, 2014, the MDL Court issued a comprehensive Case Management Plan, which designated Plaintiffs’ leadership structure (including lead counsel, liaison counsel, Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee, and Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee) and Defendants’ counsel. The MDL Court further set forth a description of the claims and defenses at issue and procedures for: pretrial pleadings and disclosures, general case discovery, bellwether selection criteria, case-specific discovery, motion practice and trial. Shortly thereafter, a form of Master Consolidated Complaint and a form of Short-Form Complaint were agreed upon and issued.

On February 20, 2015, the MDL Court issued Case Management Order #1, which set the protocol for the preservation and handling of medical materials (such as IVC filters removed from Plaintiffs).

On March 4, 2015, the MDL Court issued Case Management Order #2, which set forth deposition protocol. On April 17, 2015, the MDL Court issued Case Management Orders #3 and #4, which, respectively: set forth the protocol for dismissing certain Defendants, and set forth the protocol and forms of Plaintiffs’ Profile Forms and Plaintiffs’ Fact Sheets.

Also on April 17, 2015, the MDL Court issued Case Management Orders #5 and #6, which, respectively: amended the Case Management Plan, revised and further clarified the structure for bellwether selection criteria, case-specific discovery, motion practice and trial, and clarified the protocol for service of Short Form Complaints, Plaintiffs’ Profile Forms, Plaintiffs’ Fact Sheets, and other responsive documents.

On June 5, 2015, the MDL Court issued Case Management Orders #7 and #8, which, respectively, effectuated: the parties’ Agreed Qualified Protective Order Regarding Protected Health Information, and the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order on Confidential Information.

On July 10, 2015, the MDL Court issued Case Management Order #9, which again amended the Case Management Plan, revised and further clarified the structure for bellwether selection criteria, case-specific discovery, motion practice and trial. Also on July 10, 2015, the MDL Court issued Case Management Orders #10 and #11, which, respectively, set forth the protocol for: claims of privilege and work product, and electronically stored information and document production.

On December 3, 2015, the MDL Court issued Case Management Order #12, which again amended the Case Management Plan, revised and further clarified the structure for Plaintiffs’ leadership structure (including lead counsel, liaison counsel, Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee and Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee), and Defendants’ Counsel. The Court again set forth a description of the claims and defenses at issue and revised procedures for: pretrial pleadings and disclosures, general case discovery, bellwether selection criteria, case-specific discovery, motion practice, and trial.

All of the above and future Case Management Plans and Case Management Orders will be examined more closely in related blogs in the next several weeks.

COPYRIGHT © 2020, STARK & STARKNational Law Review, Volume VI, Number 89

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Martin P. Schrama, Stark Law, Intellectual Property and Litigation Law Attorney
Shareholder

Martin P. Schrama is a Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Commercial Litigation, Mass Tort, Intellectual Property and Green Litigation Groups. Mr. Schrama has extensive experience litigating on both the trial and appellate levels of the federal and state courts of New Jersey and New York, as well as numerous other jurisdictions throughout the nation in a pro hac vice capacity. This experience also extends to regular practice before AAA, JAMS and various other alternate dispute resolution fora.

The primary focus of Mr. Schrama’s practice is...

609-895-7334