Saturday, February 18, 2012

The Upcoming Trial in the Deep Horizon Litigation

NPR has a story with lots of interesting quotes. My favorite:

"There's only one place where a waitress or a shrimper can be on equal footing with a company the size of BP, and that's a courtroom," says Rhon Jones, with the Montgomery, Ala., law firm Beasley Allen. Jones is part of the plaintiffs' steering committee, a group of lawyers coordinating the case.

The story raises a series of important questions about the purpose of litigation and settlement.  Is it best for society to funnel cases outside that system as in the BP and 9/11 cases? What is the use of a trial - to apportion liability? get to the truth? allocate damages? figure out difficult causation questions?  Are different plaintiffs to be treated differently - for example the waitress and the shrimper above as opposed to the attorneys general of the affected states?

Edited to add: I just saw the blog post by George Conk about the potential ineligibility of many plaintiffs who did not file claims with the compensation fund.  See here for more analysis.

ADL

February 18, 2012 in Environmental Torts, Settlement, Trial | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, February 17, 2012

Philly Court Issues New Mass Tort Protocol

Mark Behrens sent me a new mass tort protocol issued by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.   Here are some highlights:

 

  1. There shall be no reverse bifurcation of any mass tort case, including asbestos, unless agreed upon by all counsel involved.
  2. Consolidation of mass tort cases shall not occur absent an agreement of all parties, except in the asbestos program in accordance with the protocols set forth herein below.
  3. All punitive damage claims in mass tort claims shall be deferred.
  4. Pro hoc vice counsel shall be limited to no more than two (2) trials per year, but otherwise will not be limited on pre-trial appearances.  The Court encourages non-Pennsylvania counsel to pass its Bar Examination and thereby become familiar with Pennsylvania law, rules and procedures.
  5. Unless otherwise agreed by defense counsel or upon showing of exigent circumstances, all discovery shall take place in Philadelphia.
  6. Except for those cases already scheduled for trial through February 29, 2012, asbestos cases thereafter shall be grouped in groups of a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 10 and counsel shall be required to propose cases for consolidation considering the following criteria:
    1. Same law.  Cases that involve application of the law of different states will not be tried together;
    2. Same disease.  The disease category for each case in a group must be identical.  The disease categories of cases to be grouped for trial are mesotheliomas, lung cancers, other cancers and non-malignancy cases;
    3. Same plaintiff’s law firm.  Primary trial counsel for all cases in each group will be from a single plaintiff firm.  Cases where Philadelphia plaintiff firms serve as local counsel for out-of-state counsel will not be grouped with cases from the local firm;
    4. Fair Share Act cases will not be consolidated with non-Fair Share Act cases;
    5. Pleural mesothelioma is a disease that is distinct from mesotheliomas originating in other parts of the body, and will not be tried on a consolidated basis with non-pleural mesothelioma cases and not necessarily tried on a consolidated basis.  Non-pleural mesothelioma cases will be further classified for trial, so that non-pleural mesothelioma cases allegedly caused by occupational exposure will not be tried on a consolidated basis with non-pleural mesothelioma cases allegedly caused by para-occupational (bystander) exposure;
    6. And such other factors as determined appropriate in weighing whether all parties to the litigation can receive a prompt and just trial.  The Court’s present backlog of asbestos cases shall not be an overriding factor in the consolidation determination.
  7. Any grouping of cases less than 8-10 in number shall not receive a trial date until a group is formed of 8-10 cases.  A maximum of 3 of these 8-10 cases may be tried, with the other 5-7 cases either resolving through settlement or returned to the Coordinating Judge for regrouping and relisting for trial.
  8. Mediation:  Once grouped, assigned a trial date and after Motions for Summary Judgment have been decided by the Court, counsel are urged to seek mediation from a special panel of former judges named herein below.  Either side may request mediation.  The mediator selected by the parties shall advise the Court whether the plaintiff firm’s participation was in good faith or not.  In the discretion of the Coordinating Judge, any plaintiff firm’s failure to proceed in good faith in mediation may constitute just cause to remove that group of cases from the trial list and any defendant’s failure to proceed in good faith may result in an increase of the maximum 3 cases consolidated for trial.  Since no more than 3 cases may be consolidated and proceed to trial in any group of 8-10, the remaining 5-7 cases should be resolved and settled.  Otherwise, those unresolved cases shall be relisted for trial.  All parties will share the expense of mediation.

*****

11.    Immediately prior to trial of up to 3 consolidated asbestos cases, the assigned trial judge shall independently determine whether the cases will be tried in a consolidated manner based on the criteria herein above set forth and any other factors deemed relevant to the issue of consolidation and a fair trial.

12. Expediting of Cases.  There shall be no expediting of cases based on exigent medical or financial reasons until the backlog of pending cases has been resolved, unless otherwise agreed by a majority of the defendants.  When this Program achieves 80% of all asbestos cases resolved in 24-25 months, advanced listings based on exigent medical circumstances will be considered for plaintiffs with Pennsylvania exposure only.

 

ADL

February 17, 2012 in Aggregate Litigation Procedures | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Hermann on Aggressive Lawyering

A great post on Above the Law by Mark Hermann (formerly of Drug and Device Law Blog & Jones Day) today explains why a blowhard isn't necessarily the best lawyer.

ADL

February 17, 2012 in Ethics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)