Case 2:14-md EEF-MBN Document 8717 Filed 02/27/18 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Similar documents
Case 2:14-md EEF-MBN Document 2351 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 2:14-md EEF-MBN Document 212 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 2:14-md EEF-MBN Document 3755 Filed 08/02/16 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 2:14-md EEF-MBN Document 6232 Filed 04/17/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 2:12-md CMR Document 437 Filed 04/01/13 Page 1 of 6

Case 1:15-md FDS Document 1006 Filed 05/17/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 1:12-md JG-VVP Document 273 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 4938 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Case 1:14-md JMF Document 875 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 8

CASE 0:15-cv JRT Document 17 Filed 02/12/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA INTRODUCTION

PART 24. MANDATORY ARBITRATION

Case MDL No Document 52 Filed 07/28/15 Page 1 of 3 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Case 2:12-md CMR Document 806 Filed 04/24/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 1:14-md JMF Document 3703 Filed 02/17/17 Page 1 of 5

FILED: NIAGARA COUNTY CLERK 08/15/ :34 AM INDEX NO. E157285/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 42 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/15/2017 EXHIBIT F

Case 1:11-cv JEM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2011 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:14-md EEF-MBN Document Filed 01/11/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 3:16-cv CRS-CHL Document 36 Filed 06/29/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 423

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION TRANSFER ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO: CHET MORRISON CONTRACTORS, LLC ORDER AND REASONS

Case 1:15-md RBK-JS Document 179 Filed 10/27/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID: 5027 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 1:08-cv EGS Document 19 Filed 12/12/08 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. MDL No SCHEDULING ORDER NO. 2

Case 2:17-cv EEF-MBN Document 66 Filed 11/07/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 2:09-md EEF-JCW Document Filed 03/05/12 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 1:14-md JMF Document 3081 Filed 07/07/16 Page 1 of 8

Case ID: Control No.: JUN :34 am

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. ORDER This matter came before the Court on the Plaintiffs Motion for Modification of

Notice and and The response deadline is September 22, effect not

LOCAL RULES SUPERIOR COURT of CALIFORNIA, COUNTY of ORANGE DIVISION 3 CIVIL RULES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ERNEST TAYLOR CIVIL ACTION THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE, ET AL. NO.

EXPLANATION OF FLOW CHART: CASE FILED (Case Inactive) (Month 0)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION NO.

Adopted November 10, 2000, by Chief District Court Judge John W. Smith. See Separate Section on Rules governing Criminal and Juvenile Courts Rule

Gwinn & Roby Attorneys and Counselors

Case MDL No Document 1-1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 9 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Case 1:11-cv MGC Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2011 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO: FORECLOSURE SCHEDULING ORDER. 1. Any prior order referring this case to Senior Judge Sandra Taylor is hereby VACATED.

MASS TORTS MARKETING UPDATE: SUMMER LawLytics Phone: (800) Website:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT Title 3. Civil Rules Division 8. Alternative Dispute Resolution Chapter 1. General Provisions

Case 1:14-cv JMF Document 198 Filed 04/12/18 Page 1 of 8

TEXAS DISCOVERY. Brock C. Akers CHAPTER 1 LAW REVISIONS TO TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE GOVERNING DISCOVERY

Case 2:10-md CJB-SS Document 2 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

GENERAL ORDER FOR LUCAS COUNTY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. damages for alleged exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products; that many of the

Case 2:10-md CJB-SS Document Filed 07/26/13 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Your legal rights may be affected even if you do not act. Please read this Notice carefully. YOUR RIGHTS AND CHOICES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNIFORM PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER. Civil No. 1:13-CV-1211 vs. GLS/TWD Andrew Cuomo, et al.

JURISDICTION AND LOCAL RULES. Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C.A This is called federal

COPYRIGHT 2009 THE LAW PROFESSOR

S10A0994. BAKER et al. v. WELLSTAR HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. et al. This action originated with a medical malpractice complaint filed on

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NOS.

Case 2:18-cv KOB Document 49 Filed 02/12/19 Page 1 of 7

Case 4:04-cv RAS Document 41 Filed 12/09/2004 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NOS.

Litigation ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONS GENERAL PROCEDURES & PRACTICE. continued on page 2

Case 2:10-md CJB-SS Document Filed 10/18/13 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

BLAKE ROBERTSON NO CA-0975 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL LAFAYETTE INSURANCE COMPANY FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * *

CASE NUMBER: DIV 71. It appearing that this case is at issue and can be set for trial, it is ORDERED as follows:

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Case 2:09-md EEF-JCW Document Filed 12/11/12 Page 1 of 83 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA : : : : :

THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN MDL 875: A PRACTITIONER S EXPERIENCE

Medina County Court of Common Pleas. Rules of the General Division

Conducting Effective Motion Practice

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Local Rules 29.0 ARBITRATION

It is hereby STIPULATED by and between all parties to the within action that disclosure shall proceed and be completed as follows:

Case 2:14-md EEF-MBN Document Filed 09/15/17 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. No. 13-CR Hon. Gerald E. Rosen Magistrate Judge Mona K.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA NO JWD-RLB ORDER

RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 6:4. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TRIAL

A Look At The Modern MDL: The Lexecon Decision and Bellwether Trials

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Case 2:12-md Document 174 Filed 06/14/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1222

Goldfarb v Romano 2016 NY Slip Op 31224(U) June 27, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2015 Judge: Eileen Bransten Cases

Mastering Civil Procedure Checklist

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE. JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE (For Offenses Committed On or After November 1, 1987)

CLEFL1 >' SO. DtT. OF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GENERAL ORDER

CHAPTER 36. MEDICAID FRAUD PREVENTION SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER #1

ERITREA ETHIOPIA CLAIMS COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE CHAPTER ONE: RULES APPLICABLE TO ALL PROCEEDINGS

If you are a current or former paying member of Angie s List, Inc., you may get a payment or benefit from a proposed Class Action Settlement.

IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION., ) Plaintiff, ) ) CONSENT STIPULATIONS FOR v. ) ARBITRATION PROCEDURES ), ) Defendant.

Dodge County. 1) Rules of Decorum. (Sixth Judicial District)

It appearing that the civil actions listed on Schedule A, attached hereto -- which were

ACCORD COMPLAINT PROCEDURES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY FAMILY DIVISION. Differentiated Case Management Plan

LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION LAWYER DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAM RULES (Prev. Rev. 10/06/00) Effective May 1, Preamble

1.2 Holdover Agreement to the Shreveport PSA, effective July 1, 2017;

Case 2:17-cv EEF-MBN Document 1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 50 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

~/

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:10 cv 00071

Case 2:17-cv EEF-MBN Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 1 of 56 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 2:12-cv PM-KK Document 31-1 Filed 05/22/14 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 242 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 2:05-cv TJW Document 212 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 5

Police Officer Minimum Requirements

Transcription:

Case 2:14-md-02592-EEF-MBN Document 8717 Filed 02/27/18 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IN RE: XARELTO (RIVAROXABAN) * MDL 2592 PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION * * SECTION L THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: * ALL CASES * JUDGE ELDON E. FALLON * * MAGISTRATE JUDGE NORTH * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 6 This Order shall govern the selection and discovery for 1200 cases to comprise Wave 1 and Wave 2 cases. Wave 1 Case Selection Wave 1 shall consist of 600 cases: 200 cases selected by PSC, 200 cases selected by Defendants, and 200 cases selected by the Court by random selection. 1. Selection Dates. On April 16, 2018, the Plaintiffs and Defendants shall each select 200 cases for inclusion in the first wave of individual case discovery. After an opportunity to review the party-selected cases, the parties shall meet and confer to determine the criteria for eligibility to be included in the random selection pool. These criteria shall take into consideration the age of the plaintiff, the injury alleged by the plaintiff, the indication for which the plaintiff was prescribed Xarelto, the venue of the plaintiff and any appropriate other criteria. The meet-and-confer shall be conducted such that the Court can make its random selections on April 30, 2018. There will be reasonable variety and balance regarding the types of cases selected by the parties. Each party reserves the right to challenge the opposing party s selections on this basis. Any challenges shall be submitted to this Court and the Court s decision shall be final and not subject to appeal. 1

Case 2:14-md-02592-EEF-MBN Document 8717 Filed 02/27/18 Page 2 of 5 2. Eligibility. Plaintiffs who have met the core requirements for the Plaintiff Fact Sheet on or before January 31, 2018, are eligible for Wave 1 selection. a. On March 16, 2018, MDL Centrality data will be assessed to determine the percentage of cases alleging an Intracranial Hemorrhage as an injury. No more than double this percentage shall be eligible for PSC-selected cases in Wave 1. b. On March 16, 2018, MDL Centrality data will be assessed to determine the percentage of cases where plaintiff s alleged injury involves less than one-day hospitalization. No more than double this percentage shall be eligible for Defendants-selected cases in Wave 1. Wave 2 Case Selection Wave 2 shall consist of 600 cases: 200 cases selected by PSC, 200 cases selected by Defendants, and 200 cases selected by the Court by random selection. 3. Selection Dates. On August 16, 2018, the Plaintiffs and Defendants shall each select 200 cases for inclusion in the second wave of individual case discovery. After an opportunity to review the party selected cases, the parties shall meet and confer to determine the criteria for eligibility to be included in the random selection pool. These criteria shall take into consideration the age of the plaintiff, the injury alleged by the plaintiff, the indication for which the plaintiff was prescribed Xarelto, the venue of the plaintiff and any appropriate other criteria. The meet and confer shall be conducted such that the Court can make its random selections on August 30, 2018. There will be reasonable variety and balance regarding the types of cases selected by the parties. Each party reserves the 2

Case 2:14-md-02592-EEF-MBN Document 8717 Filed 02/27/18 Page 3 of 5 right to challenge the opposing party s selections on this basis. Any challenges shall be submitted to this Court and the Court s decision shall be final and not subject to appeal. 4. Eligibility. Plaintiffs who have met the core requirements for the Plaintiff Fact Sheet on or before March 30, 2018, are eligible for Wave 2 selection. a. On July 16, 2018, MDL Centrality data will be assessed to determine the percentage of cases alleging an Intracranial Hemorrhage as an injury. No more than double this percentage shall be eligible for PSC selected cases in Wave 2. b. On July 16, 2018, MDL Centrality data will be assessed to determine the percentage of cases where plaintiff s alleged injury involves less than one-day hospitalization. No more than double this percentage shall be eligible for Defendants selected cases in Wave 2. Wave 1 and Wave 2 Discovery 5. Discovery in the selected Wave 1 and Wave 2 individual cases shall consist of: a. An updated Plaintiff Fact Sheet. Selected plaintiffs must complete all sections of the Plaintiff Fact Sheet pursuant to Pretrial Order 13 within 30 days of selection. b. An updated Defendant Fact Sheet. Subject to paragraph 6, Defendants must serve a completed Defendant Fact Sheet pursuant to Pretrial Order 14 within 60 days of selection. c. Revision of Pretrial Order 27. Pretrial Order 27 revising the scope of the Plaintiff Fact Sheet and suspending the Defendant Fact Sheet shall no longer apply to 3

Case 2:14-md-02592-EEF-MBN Document 8717 Filed 02/27/18 Page 4 of 5 cases selected in Wave 1 and Wave 2. Cases not selected in Wave 1 or Wave 2 shall continue to be governed by Pretrial Order 27. d. Depositions. Four depositions in each case shall be allowed Plaintiff or Plaintiff representative, Plaintiff s prescribing physician, Plaintiff s treating physician and one detail representative from the Defendants who called on the Plaintiff s prescribing physician. e. Order of examination. The plaintiff shall be allowed to examine half the doctors first and the Defendants shall be allowed to examine half the doctors first as was the protocol for the original discovery pool cases. f. Physician Depositions: Pretrial Order 28 regarding ex parte physician communications is hereby modified to require joint scheduling of physician depositions, i.e. both parties will contact physician s office together for purpose of scheduling a date for deposition. Unilateral contact by defendants counsel remains prohibited. Unilateral contact by plaintiffs counsel remains permissible. Pretrial Order 28 s record-keeping and disclosure provisions are extended to all Wave 1 and Wave 2 selected cases. All parties prior objections to Pretrial Order 28 are expressly preserved. 6. Deadlines: Provided the plaintiff timely completes all sections of the Plaintiff Fact Sheet in compliance with Pretrial Order 13 within 30 days of selection, the deposition discovery set forth in paragraph 5(d) must be completed no later than seven months after the due date for the Defendant Fact Sheet. An individual plaintiff s failure to timely complete all sections of the Plaintiff Fact Sheet in compliance with Pretrial Order 13 within 30 days of selection shall toll all 4

Case 2:14-md-02592-EEF-MBN Document 8717 Filed 02/27/18 Page 5 of 5 deadlines in this Case Management Order with respect to that plaintiffs case until the plaintiff has complied or the case is dismissed. The deadlines in this order may be extended in a particular plaintiffs case by agreement of the parties or by the Court due to circumstances beyond the parties control such as the failure of a third party medical provider to timely produce medical records or the failure of a third party physician to timely appear for deposition. Filing Fees and Dismissals 7. For Wave 1 and Wave 2 selected cases, any unpaid filing fee must be paid within 45 days from selection. 8. If the plaintiff moves to dismiss with prejudice within 45 days from the date of selection, an unpaid filing fee is waived. 9. All dismissals of Wave 1 and Wave 2 selected cases shall be with prejudice. For partyselected cases that are dismissed, each party reserves the right to request or oppose a replacement case being selected. For random selection cases that may be dismissed, there will be no replacement selection. Scope of the Order 10. This order governs only those cases selected in Wave 1 and Wave 2, and is neither binding nor precedential with respect to how the Court will proceed with respect to cases that are not selected in Wave 1 or Wave 2. NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA this 27th day of February 2018. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE