Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. Vi)

November 16, 2012


The opinion of the court was delivered by: David R. Strawbridge, Usmj

This Document Relates to: E.D. Pa. No: FERGUSON v. A.C. AND S., INC. as well as the other cases on the attached list (all CVLO cases):


Presently before this Court are (1) Defendant CBS Corporation's ("CBS") Motions for Sanctions (10-68073 Doc. 153; 08-90234 Doc. 73) , (2) Defendant Duke Energy Indiana, Inc's ("Duke Energy") Motion to Strike (08-89340 Doc. 96), (3) General Electric Company's ("GE") Motions to Strike (08-90058 Doc. 106; 08-90263 Doc. 96; 08-90132 Doc. 102; 08-90122 Doc. 112; 08-90063 Doc. 97; 08-90166 Doc. 110), and (4) Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s ("OI") Motions to Strike (09-60552 Doc. 93; 10-67814 Doc. 114; 09-60256 Doc. 82; 09-61026 Doc. 106; 10-67443 Doc. 175; 11-63501 Doc. 155; 08-90058 Doc. 104; 08-90132 Doc. 101; 08-90263 Doc. 95; 08-90166 Doc. 107; 10-67555 Doc. 116; 11-66746 Doc. 176; 11-63483 Doc. 352). These motions are now fully briefed. The Defendants request that we strike certain interrogatory responses asserting that they were not properly verified and that Plaintiffs failed to timely and adequately disclose the identities and circumstances of those who may be expected to offer evidence to support Plaintiff's cases, leaving Defendants unable to determine who should be investigated and deposed. Defendants also ask us to preclude any use of evidence that is struck.

As discussed within, the motions will be granted in part and denied in part with the exception of CBS's two motions which will be denied in full. Responses which are not verified by the party will be struck. Responses which are only partially verified by the party will be struck in part. We will not, however, strike properly verified interrogatory responses as untimely, insufficient, or improper as we deem these requests to be premature. We discuss within the background and late history of this litigation and the reasoning for our ruling.


These motions arise out of the discovery proceedings in some of the approximately 194 remaining asbestos related cases transferred to MDL-875 in which Plaintiffs are represented by Cascino Vaughan Law Offices ("CVLO"). On June 9, 2011, Judge Robreno referred these cases to us in order "to conduct pretrial procedures, supervision of discovery, settlement conferences, and preparation for trial."*fn1 See e.g. (Ahnert v. CBS Corp., 10-67443 Doc. 34). We began placing these cases on scheduling orders on July 15, 2011 and continued to amend the scheduling orders and redistribute the cases, at the parties' urging, culminating in the current scheduling orders entered on April 11, 2012.*fn2 Fact discovery has now closed in all cases.

A. The Unique Character of Multi-District Ligation

The purpose of multi-district litigation ("MDL") is to "promote the just and efficient conduct" of "civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact" that "are pending in different districts." 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). MDLs are unique in that the court must maintain a balance between the individual character of each case, including the need to adjudicate each on its own merits, and the necessity for efficiency and uniformity in managing the aggregated whole. Indeed, "'multidistrict litigation is a special breed of complex litigation where the whole is bigger than the sum of its parts.'" In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 278 F.R.D. 126, 129 (E.D. Pa. 2011) quoting In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1229 (9th Cir. 2006). Creating and adhering to scheduling and discovery orders is essential in balancing these needs. "The district court needs to have broad discretion to administer the [MDL] proceeding as a whole, which necessarily includes keeping the parts in line. Case management orders are the engine that drives disposition on the merits." Id. Certain levels of leniency and flexibility regarding discovery and scheduling matters, which would be acceptable in individual cases, can have the capacity to unhinge, or at the very least severely delay, a group of cases tied together in an MDL. See Id. at 130 (providing that "Scheduling Orders are issued in each case as a roadmap to reaching the merits of a claim in a crowded docket. However, if Plaintiffs' counsel fails to comply with the Court's roadmap without justification, as in this case, not only will the Court not reach the merits in a timely fashion, but the progress of other cases waiting in the queue will also be delayed"); Morgan v. 3M Co., 10-84925, 2011 WL 7573811 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2011) (same); In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation, 98-5055, 2004 WL 966236, at *2 (E.D. Pa. May 4, 2004) (providing that the district court must have broad discretion in coordinating and administering multi-district litigation so that it can promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions).

With respect to these CVLO cases, the presiding judge, the Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno, directed that they be given special attention as early as May 4, 2009 when he appointed Senior District Court Judge Lowell A. Reed as the court annexed Mediator and authorized him to "utilize such powers and procedures set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 53.3" and to resolve "[a]ny necessary discovery dispute[s]."*fn3 Judge Reed managed the cases until April 18, 2011 when they were re-assigned to us in light of his retirement. During Judge Reed's tenure, he organized numerous telephone conferences and held as many as seven in-person conferences with counsel. He also designated a defense liaison committee to provide coordination among the numerous defendants and counsel from CVLO. Among the matters confronted were: (1) the collection of third-party discovery; (2) the collection and exchange of medical records; (3) the deposing of certain "ill or going witnesses" and identifying "for which plaintiffs each witnesses' testimony will be used, the defendant against which each witnesses' testimony will be used [and] the relevant time periods involved"; (4) the likelihood of Daubert challenges; and (5) importantly for our purposes, the service and response of standard interrogatories. A standard set of interrogatories was proposed and agreed to by all counsel. It is our understanding that this set is one which had been developed and successfully utilized by counsel in the Wisconsin state court cases in which so many of them have been involved. Under the agreement, these interrogatories were deemed served upon plaintiffs by October 1, 2010. Critically, as relates to these particular motions, the interrogatories sought evidence that each Plaintiff felt he or she was going to be able to present in order to establish the essential elements of their cases. Judge Reed ordered CVLO to "answer each of the interrogatories and serve answers upon the Mediator and all defendants herein no later than February 21, 2011."*fn4

The standard interrogatories concern the critical topics of: the asbestos-related diseases with which the Plaintiff was diagnosed and when (Interrogatories 4-5), the identity of Plaintiff's medical providers (Interrogatories 6 & 8-9), the damages claimed by Plaintiff (Interrogatory 12), Plaintiff's smoking history (Interrogatory 15), the identity of the Plaintiff's employers, relevant job sites, Plaintiff's forman and co-workers at each job site, the asbestos-containing products at each job site, and co-workers with knowledge of those products (Interrogatories 16-21), the identity of all causation witnesses for the Plaintiff (Interrogatory 26), and the identity of any statements from individuals who claim to have relevant knowledge about Plaintiff's alleged exposures (Interrogatories 28-30).

At the heart of Judge Reed's effort was the concern about the need for the parties to exchange information such that they would be able to efficiently evaluate their cases and could reduce the number of cases in dispute by effectuating settlements or dismissals. We assume this process had a salutary effect as the number of open cases dropped from approximately 5,000 to about 1,700 by April 2011 when the matters were first referred to us.

Like Judge Reed, Judge Robreno and we have repeatedly emphasized to the parties the importance of complying with discovery deadlines in these cases. See e.g. (Pray v. A.C. & S, 08-91884 Doc. 94) (Robreno, J. (1) rejecting CVLO's argument that the "sheer number of cases they have brought have made it impossible for them to comply with all of the Court's scheduling orders",

(2) reminding the parties of the importance of adhering to the scheduling orders so that "litigation of this scope [can] be efficiently administered", and (3) concluding that "[i]f counsel's resources do not permit adequate representation in all cases before the Court" then "counsel may need to either withdraw from representation of some of the plaintiffs or seek additional help.") (emphasis original); (Quist v. The Anaconda Co., 08-88398 Doc. 104) (Robreno, J. rejecting "the idea that a law firm's decision to represent a high number of clients constitutes 'good cause'" for extending deadlines, and concluding that "administrative challenges were clearly foreseeable when CVLO originally chose to file more than 5,000 cases in this litigation"). We must consider these motions in this context.

B. The Importance of Initial Disclosures and the Parties' Discovery Obligations

Defendants contend that the underlying problem which has generated these motions is that Plaintiffs have not fulfilled their discovery obligations. Plaintiffs have essentially conceded that they did not comply with certain discovery requirements imposed by Judge Reed including fully responding to the standard interrogatories within the time allotted to do so. After the cases were put on the litigation track, Plaintiffs also failed to uphold their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) obligations or their continued obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 to respond to both the standard and product specific interrogatories propounded upon them in a timely manner. According to Defendants, Plaintiffs have been unwilling or unable to provide the Defendants with proper discovery particularly with respect to causation in these remaining cases.

In addition to the obligation to answer interrogatories within the time set out in Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 (or by court order), Plaintiffs also had an affirmative obligation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a), without waiting for a request or order to do so, to provide, inter alia, "the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information--along with the subjects of that information--that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i). Plaintiffs have conceded that they often did not timely provide these initial witness disclosures, in part because (1) they believed they had no such obligation to do so since they were not specifically so ordered in any scheduling order and (2) there was no Rule 26(f) scheduling conference after which their obligation would arise.*fn5

As Rule 26 provides, parties are obligated to provide initial disclosures unless otherwise ordered by the court, not until they are ordered to do so, as advocated by the Plaintiffs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). Moreover, the parties have participated in numerous conferences reasonably satisfying the Rule 26(f) requirements even if not specifically designated as such. Since before the first scheduling orders were entered in these cases, the parties have discussed numerous times how the cases should be scheduled and have presented to the Court proposed scheduling orders. This type of conference speaks to the very essence of Rule 26(f). After such discussions between the parties, we have engaged in in-person conferences, and innumerable telephone conferences, to discuss the new scheduling proposals. Simply, Plaintiffs have no valid underpinning to their proposition that their duty to provide initial disclosures has not yet arisen. We should not have to remind Plaintiffs that the "discovery rules' requirements are mandatory, not optional." Saria v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 228 F.R.D. 536, 539 (S.D. W. Va. 2005); Walls v. Paulson, 250 F.R.D. 48, 52 (D.D.C. 2008) (explaining that "[t]he plaintiff apparently misinterprets the Federal Rules as optional. They are not.").

C. The Timeliness of Interrogatory Responses

Plaintiffs contend that because no scheduling order set deadlines for interrogatory responses, their responses would be timely as long as they were filed before the end of discovery. We rejected this same argument in Unzicker, and we do so again here. 2012 WL 1966028, at *3. Plaintiffs' argument ignores the requirement in Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2) that parties must respond to interrogatories within 30 days (or such other time as the court may determine) after being served. It also ignores the question of what effect untimely served interrogatory responses may have upon other parties who may, inter alia, want to consider taking depositions of witnesses whose testimony might expose their clients to liability. We have admonished Plaintiffs for their failure to provide timely interrogatory responses in the past. See e.g. (Akey v. A.C. & S., 09-60286 Doc. 142) (explaining that at the very least, Plaintiffs should have answered all standard interrogatories within thirty days after the most recent April 11, 2012 scheduling orders were issued and that, previously, Judge Reed had ordered all standard interrogatories be answered by February 21, 2011).

We also note, as we did in our Unzicker opinion, that Plaintiffs' position is contradicted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) which provides that by presenting its complaint to the court: counsel has certified . . . that "to the best of the [Plaintiff's] knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances . . . the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery." (emphasis added.) Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3). 2012 WL 1966028, at *3. While we do not suggest that it is necessary for Plaintiffs to have all of their evidence available before filing the complaint, Rule 11 establishes that Plaintiffs' obligations to investigate their cases and support them with evidence starts before their initial filing. The development of Plaintiffs' factual and causal support for their cases should certainly be fully developed by the end of discovery. By providing the basic information requested in the standard interrogatories only at the very close of discovery, Plaintiffs seriously call into question the diligence with which they investigated their claims.

1. The Deposition Protocol

The specific importance of timely discovery responses in these cases was made even more clear on August 4, 2011, when we issued the "Protocol for Plaintiff and Co-Worker depositions to be taken in Cascino Vaughan Law Offices MDL 875 cases assigned to Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge" ("Protocol"). The Protocol was jointly drafted by the parties, approved by the court, and has been in place with minor modifications for over fifteen months. It was designed to give Plaintiffs the opportunity to preserve testimony for trial in an orderly manner such that Plaintiffs would not have to produce their witnesses more than once while at the same time giving Defendants the opportunity to properly prepare for depositions.

To accomplish these objectives, the Protocol provided that the deposition notices "must be served upon all counsel of record in the case(s) listed in the caption at least 14 days before the proposed date." (Protocol, ¶ 2). The Protocol further provided that "no deposition may be noticed until . . . plaintiff's complete verified answers to standard interrogatories and complete fact witness disclosures" are served on the relevant parties.*fn6 (Id., ¶ 13). This provision directly addresses Defendants' concerns regarding the need for background discovery before deposing a Plaintiff or co-worker.

The parties recognized that the consequence of failing to provide complete interrogatory answers and other relevant discovery more than fourteen days before a deposition would be the likely imposition of prejudice upon Defendants. It is against this background that we consider Plaintiffs' explanation for its long delayeddiscovery responses.

2. Plaintiffs Flawed Reliance upon Schneck v. I.B.M.

Plaintiffs also contend that their failures to provide timely interrogatory response supplements was due to their realization in April 2012 that they were obligated to produce evidence critical to their cases that was not just based on personal knowledge of the Plaintiff, but also upon information gathered by them as Plaintiffs' counsel. Plaintiffs assert that they reached this conclusion after they came upon the unreported case of Schneck v. I.B.M., 92-4370, 1993 WL 765638 (D.N.J. July 27, 1993). In Schneck, the plaintiffs failed to respond to certain aspects of the defendants' interrogatories claiming a lack of personal knowledge. 1993 WL 765638, at *5. The court rejected this conclusion and noted that "[a] Party may not limit her answers to discovery to her own personal knowledge. She must answer with any and all information available to her, including information held by her attorneys or others assisting in the litigation." Id., at * 5-6.

We find Plaintiffs' surprising explanation unworthy of serious consideration. Schneck does not stand for a new proposition. It is difficult to accept Plaintiffs' counsel's claim that, prior to their reading of Schneck, they somehow believed that they would not be obligated to disclose witnesses with relevant information because individual Plaintiffs did not have personal knowledge. We know of no authority that would support such a proposition. The "[a]ssistance of counsel is clearly contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" when a party is completing discovery responses. Exxon Corp. v. F. T. C., 384 F. Supp. 755, 758 n.3 (D.D.C. 1974); Leumi Fin. Corp. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 295 F. Supp. 539, 543 (D.N.Y. 1969)(finding that "it is unrealistic to suppose that a party draws answers to interrogatories himself"). We could well understand Defendants' substantial suspicions that it was Plaintiffs' strategy to disclose critical witnesses at the very last moment in an attempt to prejudice Defendants. Such behavior would certainly be unacceptable.

D. The Appropriate Remedy for Issues Regarding Untimely Served Interrogatory Responses We cannot over emphasize the importance of providing full and complete interrogatory responses and other basic supportive evidence in a timely manner such as to provide Defendants with the opportunity to investigate and depose witnesses who may provide causal evidence. As discussed in Unzicker, we are fully aware of the prejudice to Defendants when, due to untimely or incomplete responses, they have not had the opportunity to depose witnesses since those witnesses were: (1) disclosed too late; or (2) timely disclosed but without sufficient detail to alert Defendants to their relevance. See 2012 WL 1966028, at *4. As the parties will recall, the circumstances in Unzicker were extreme. Defendants were confronted with "an untimely, non-specific information dump" which disclosed "some 800 alleged co-worker witnesses divulged two days before the end of discovery, who might have information pertaining to the question of Mr. Unzicker's exposure." Id. The defendants there were also presented with 180 deposition transcripts in reference to some 17 additional job sites where exposure may have occurred.

In dealing with the Defendants' request in Unzicker that we impose a sanction permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1), which provides that a party who fails to timely supplement an earlier response "is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence . . . unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless," we rejected Plaintiffs' argument that supplementation is timely simply because it was served prior to the close of discovery. We hold the same position today, but where the extent and circumstances of the untimely disclosure differs from case to case, as in the motions currently before us, we deem it inappropriate to engage in the process of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.