plaintiffs' memorandum in support of motion for asbestos case consolidaiton and adoption of trial...

7/31/2019 Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Asbestos Case Consolidaiton and Adoption of Trial Plan

1/21

1The number of docketed asbestos-related cases includes cases of non-malignant

asbestosis and pleural disease, as well as cases of respiratory system cancer, upper and lower

gastrointestinal system cancer, head, neck and throat cancer, pancreatic cancer and kidney

cancer.

IN RE: BALTIMORE CITY

PERSONAL INJURY

ASBESTOS CASES

PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURT

FOR

BALTIMORE CITY

CT-1, CT-2, CT-4, CT-5 CASES

CASE NO.: 24X87048500

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION FOR ASBESTOS CASE CONSOLIDATION AND

ADOPTION OF TRIAL PLAN

CONSOLIDATION III

Plaintiffs, represented by the Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C. (Angelos), present this

Memorandum in Support of their Motion for Consolidation and Adoption of Trial Plan. The

resulting consolidation will here be referred to as Consolidation III.

Introduction

There are more than 13,000 non-mesothelioma personal injury asbestos cases docketed and

pending in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City that are represented by the Law Offices of Peter G.

Angelos, P.C.1 Many of these asbestos cases have been on the docket since the mid-1990s (some,

since the mid-1980s) and, based on experience, it is likely that the present asbestos case docket will

not be resolved in the near future.

Consolidation is particularly appropriate in the instant circumstances, where an expeditious


2/21

2

disposition of thousands of common issue cases will be accomplished. Maryland Rule 2-503

authorizes the requested Consolidation:

Rule 2-503. Consolidation; separate trials

(a) Consolidation: (1) When Permitted. When actions involve a

common question of law or fact or a common subject matter, the

court, on motion or on its own initiative, may order a joint hearing or

trial or consolidation of any or all of the claims, issues or actions.

*** The court may enter any order regarding the proceeding,

including the filing and serving of papers, that will tend to avoid

unnecessary costs or delay.

The Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C. has litigated, settled and, when necessary, tried

to verdict and judgment thousands of personal injury asbestos cases that were consolidated for

litigation and trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Previous consolidated groups of Angelos

asbestos cases have resulted in the final resolution of docketed cases that individually would have

required many additional years to resolve.

The History

In 1989, the Baltimore City Circuit Court estimated that the Court system was then capable

of resolving up to 200 asbestos cases per year. The influx of asbestos case filings by the Law

Offices of Peter G. Angelos and other Plaintiffs counsel far exceeded the ability of the Court to

resolve the cases in a timely fashion, resulting in an increasingly large backlog of asbestos cases that

could not be scheduled for trial and were incapable of resolution. Baltimore City Administrative

Judge Joseph Kaplan deemed the increasing backlog of asbestos cases to be unacceptable.

The Court conducted hearings to determine an appropriate and fair procedure to timely

resolve the asbestos docket. Initially, a Special Master was appointed to preside over a Court-

sponsored ADR system, which was ultimately unsuccessful. Judge Kaplan requested that the Law


3/21

2 Plaintiffs proposal for consolidation of these cases comports with the elements of

consolidation of mass tort asbestos personal injury cases described by the United States District

Court for the District of Maryland. That Maryland Court long-ago established factors for

3

Offices of Peter G. Angelos propose a method to consolidate the Angelos asbestos cases for

litigation and trial on common issues pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-503(a)(1).

By Motion and Supporting Memorandum, the Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos moved to

consolidate all of the Angelos asbestos cases for litigation and trial on certain common issues. The

Angelos proposal was extended to all cases docketed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

including those docketed cases represented by other Plaintiffs counsel. The Baltimore City Circuit

Court invited transfer of asbestos cases docketed in the various Maryland counties, and ultimately

8,549 personal injury asbestos cases involving six Defendants were consolidated for litigation and

trial in what became known as Consolidation I.

To provide the trier of fact with a basis to understand how and why the asbestos case

common issues relate to the parties, the Circuit Court ordered selection of six illustrative trial

Plaintiff cases to be tried to verdict on all issues, including asbestos exposure, medical causation and

damages. Inclusion of individual cases tried to verdict on all issues within a common issues trial

is a consolidation trial format that has been utilized and affirmed by Appellate Courts in Maryland

and elsewhere. See ACandS, Inc. v. Godwin, supra, 340 Md. 334, 395-403; 667 (1995);ACandS,

Inc. v. Abate, 121 Md. App. 590 (1998) abrogated on other grounds by John Crane, Inc. v. Scribner,

369 Md. 369 (2002);In re E. & S. Districts Asbestos Litig., 772 F.Supp. 1380 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) affd

in part, revd in part on other groundssub nom., In re Brooklyn Navy Yard Asbestos Litig., 971

F.2d 831 (2d Cir. 1992);Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281 (2nd Cir), cert. denied, 498 U.S.

920 (1990).2


4/21

consolidation of asbestos personal injury cases to determine whether the consolidated cases

involve sufficiently common questions of law, fact or subject matter pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

42 (Consolidation; Separate Trials) (the guidelines include: common exposure sites and

occupations, similar defendants, similar impact, same counsel). SeeIn re: All Asbestos Cases

Pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, (D.Md., December 16,

1983)(en banc). Federal Rule 42 is consistent with Md. R. Civ. P. 2-503(a).

4

By design, Consolidation I did not resolve all of the numerous asbestos defendant

derivative deemed cross-claims, third-party claims and claims for indemnification among the

litigated issues, because most of these were severed for a later resolution that ultimately required a

second consolidated trial.

Consolidation I generated consolidated settlements between Plaintiffs and nine asbestos

Defendants. The case was tried to verdict on common issues related to all of the Plaintiffs, and six

Defendants, while the six trial Plaintiffs cases were tried to verdict on all issues, including

compensatory and punitive damages. Consolidation I jury findings and compensatory damages

awards were announced after a 6 month trial. The consolidated common issue, trial plaintiff format

was upheld by the Court of Appeals inACandS, Inc. v. Godwin, supra;seeRagin v. Porter Hayden

Co., 133 Md. App. 116, 124 (2000). The punitive damages verdicts and multiplier format were

reversed.

The Circuit Court imposed a case-inclusion cutoff date in Consolidation I. Most of the

asbestos cases docketed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on or before October 1, 1990 were

included in Consolidation I. The Angelos firm filed hundreds of additional personal injury asbestos

cases during the months following the Consolidation I cut-off date, as did other Plaintiff law firms

with the result that more than 1,200 after-filed asbestos cases were docketed in the Circuit Court

for Baltimore City by mid-1993.


5/21

3 Defendant Westinghouse removed 534 cases to Federal Court, including four of the ten

trial Plaintiff cases. One trial Plaintiff case was settled as the Consolidation II trial began.

These five were not replaced.

5

Upon completion of Consolidation I, the Circuit Court sought a procedure to resolve the

Consolidation I derivative cross, third-party and indemnification claims as well as the after-filed

asbestos cases. On motion of the Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, the Circuit Court ordered all

Consolidation I derivative, cross, third-party and indemnity claims and the after-filed cases to

be consolidated for discovery, litigation and trial on common issues. This resulting consolidated

litigation was assigned to the Honorable Richard T. Rombro and became known as Consolidation

II. The Circuit Court Trial Plan included selection by Plaintiffs counsel of ten trial Plaintiff cases

to be tried to verdict on all issues, including compensatory and punitive damages. Consolidation

II went to trial with five trial Plaintiff cases tried to verdict on all issues.3

The Circuit Court

imposed an October 1, 1993 case-inclusion cut-off date. The Consolidation II trial, that began on

June 20, 1994, ended on February 19, 1995 with jury resolution of all of the direct and derivative

common issues related to nearly 10,000 asbestos personal injury claims. The Consolidation II

common issue, trial plaintiff and mini trial format was upheld by the Maryland Court of Special

Appeal in

ACandS, Inc. v. Abate, 121 Md. App. 590 (1998), cert. denied, 350 Md. 487 (1998), cert. denied, 525

U.S. 1171, 119 S.Ct. 1096 (1999); seealsoRagin, supra, 133 Md. App. 116, 124. Punitive damages

multipliers awarded against two Defendants were stricken by Judge Rombro on Motions J.N.O.V.;

the punitive damages multiplier awarded against Defendant Rapid American Corporation was

affirmed by the trial court after arguments post-trial. A number of consolidated settlements were

reached before, and as the result of trial of cases in mini-trial groupings. Some Plaintiff and


6/21

4See also In re Asbestos Personal Injury Cases, Abrams et al. (Jackson Co, Cir.

Ct., 19th Jud. Dist. Miss. 1993) (9,600 Plaintiff cases); Turley v. Owens-Corning

Fiberglas In re Asbestos Case, Nos. 84-C-3321 (Cir. Ct., Kanawha Co., W. Va., Feb. 15,

1989) (thousands of Plaintiff cases in multiple groupings).

6

Defendant verdicts were reached by jurors in mini-trials.

Assuming the need of litigation and trial, it would have required nearly 35 years to resolve

the asbestos docket that Consol I and II resolved via consolidated settlements and trial in less than

ten years. Other jurisdictions have successes with consolidation of personal injury asbestos cases.

See, e.g., Cimino, et al. v. Raymark Industries, Inc., et al., 151 F.3d 297 (5th Cir. 1998) (900 Plaintiff

cases);Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 782 F.2d. 468 (5th Cir. 1986) (3,000 Plaintiff cases);E.

& S. Districts Asbestos Litig. supra;Johnson, supra.4

In the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, the Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos recently

litigated and tried to verdict on all issues, including punitive damages, the consolidated case of

Allison, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, Case No. 03-C-07-003809. Though not a common issues

consolidated trial,Allison included 160 households and business entities among which were 472

individual Plaintiff property damage-based claims. Individually, the issues would have required

many years to litigate and to try to verdict requiring transactional expenses that would have been

prohibitive. TheAllison consolidated trial required six months to try to verdict. Post-trial filings and

arguments required an additional five months to resolve. Judgments are now final and Exxon Mobil

Corporation has noted its intent to appeal. The Maryland Court of Appeals has accepted certiorari

and will hear arguments in November. Other Angelos multi-Plaintiff consolidated groundwater

contamination cases are pending in Maryland U.S. District and Circuit Courts.

Consistent with practice followed in Consolidation II, Consolidation III should include


7/21

5 See also theMemorandum Opinion and Order of Consolidation of the Hon. Marshall A.

Levin that created Consol I at pg. 12: [t]his court finds that there are common issues to each one

of the Baltimore City cases, namely, the issues of state of the art, product identification, product

defectiveness, tort liability defenses, and punitive damages... Judge Levins Order laid out the

7

a group of illustrative cases from among the group of more than 13,000 Consolidation III cases,

that will be tried to verdict and final judgment on all issues, including compensatory and punitive

damages. Given the number of cases and the broad spectrum of asbestos-related disease processes

of the cases, fifteen illustrative trial Plaintiff cases should be selected, and the Consolidation II trial

Plaintiff selection procedure that was incorporated by Judge Rombro should be followed in

Consolidation III. The trial Plaintiff cases should be selected by Plaintiffs counsel based on the

asbestos product exposures, jobsites and disease processes of the Consolidation III cases.

Consistent with past practice, then available trial Plaintiff medical, jobsite, and product identification

information will be provided to defense counsel for each of the trial Plaintiff cases.

The Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos is experienced and effective in the art of mass tort

litigation, trial and settlement via consolidation. Individual Angelos attorneys responsible for

Consolidation I, Consolidation II andAllison are counsel of record in the captioned Motion.

Common Issues

In asbestos litigation, there are several issues that are common to every case. SeeJenkins,

supra, 782 F.2d 468 (1986) (affirming class certification in asbestos litigation). InJenkins, the 5th

Circuit agreed with the trial judge, who observed:

[e]vidence concerning state of the art varies little as to individual

plaintiffs and consumes a major part of the time for its presentation.

Considerable savings both for the court and the litigants could be

gained by resolving this and other defense-related questions including

product identification, product defectiveness, conspiracy, fraud, gross

negligence and punitive damages in one class trial.5


8/21

consolidation procedures that were followed in Consol I and II.

8

It is well established through asbestos litigation that certain trades worked regularly with and around

certain asbestos-containing products at certain types of job sites. It is well established that, at these

job sites, there was frequent exposure to respirable asbestos fibers released from asbestos-containing

products that regularly exposed those in the area to asbestos fiber. SeeScapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v.

Saville, 418 Md. 496, 511 (2011);Roehling v. National Gypsum Co., 786 F.2d 1225, 1228 (4th Cir.

1986); Lohrman v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156, 1162-3 (4th Cir 1986). Asbestos

product identification and asbestos product fiber release are therefore subject to resolution in this

consolidated format. Degree of Plaintiff exposure has been established by the combination of job site

and employment records, fact witness testimony and expert testimony. Individual Plaintiff injuries

and causation are established by medical opinion testimony. A consolidated trial including

presentation of medical evidence in all of the consolidated cases would be impracticable. Evidence

adduced in the trial Plaintiff cases will illustrate the ways in which the common issues relate to

individual causation and damages.

TRIAL PLAN


9/21

9

Procedure

The present Motion contemplates limited additional discovery among the parties. The

common issues/trial Plaintiff trial should be heard by a single jury in two phases. All other cases

should be heard by separate juries in separate phases:

A. Phase I - common issues and defenses; tort liability and defenses; illustrative trial

Plaintiff exposure, injury, causation and damages; derivative claims and defenses;

punitive liability and defenses; and

B. Phase II - punitive damages amounts, in the illustrative trial Plaintiff cases.

C. Phase III - Mini-trials will be heard by separate juries to resolve individual

product exposure, medical causation, individual damages and contribution claims in

the consolidated non-trial Plaintiff cases.

Discovery

Plaintiffs propose uniform discovery and that certain basic rules and definitions apply to the

discovery for the consolidated action. Plaintiff-specific discovery will be restricted to the illustrative

trial Plaintiff cases. All other Plaintiff-specific discovery will be conducted in conjunction with

mini-trial consolidations. Plaintiffs refer the Court to the Discovery Guidelines of the Maryland

State Bar Association, 1 Md. Rules at 252 et seq. (2011) and ask the Court to adopt the following

DISCOVERY RULES:

1. Angelos will provide to all parties a listing of all of the Consolidation III case

numbers; copies of illustrative trial Plaintiff medical records, jobsite work history,

Social Security print out, and settlement background.

2. Duplication of existing discovery shall be avoided.


10/21

10

3. Discovery is hereby permitted in Consolidation III to the following extent:

A. The parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which

is relevant to the common issues and illustrative trial Plaintiff cases

consolidated for trial.

B. Defendants may jointly serve on the Plaintiffs a defendants master set of

interrogatories not to exceed 30 in number concerning the illustrative trial

Plaintiff cases.

C. Each defendant may serve a set of supplemental interrogatories not to exceed

15 in number specifically dealing with the common issues.

D. Each defendant asserting derivative cross-claims, third-party claims and/or

indemnity claims may serve up to 15 interrogatories on each derivative

defendant.

E. Each derivative defendant may serve up to 15 interrogatories on each

derivative claimant.

F. Plaintiffs may serve a Plaintiffs master set of interrogatories on each

defendant that has not participated in prior asbestos litigation in the Baltimore

City Circuit Court, not to exceed 30 in number concerning the common issues

consolidated for trial.

G. Each trial Plaintiff may serve, on each defendant regardless of participation

in prior asbestos litigation in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, a set of

supplemental interrogatories not to exceed 15 in number specifically dealing

with issues as they relate to the trial Plaintiff.


11/21

11

H. No part of an interrogatory shall be left unanswered merely because an

objection is interposed to another part of the interrogatory. In addition, all

parties shall provide detailed and specific answers to the interrogatories

propounded.

I. All experts who testify at trial shall be identified consistent with the Courts

Pre-trial Scheduling Order. Identification of an expert shall include an up-to-

date curriculum vitae, a list of relevant publications authored or co-authored

by the expert, a copy of any report prepared by the expert in Consolidation

III or in any of the Consolidation III case(s) and/or a 2-402 statement of

the experts opinions and grounds and a list of prior trial and deposition

testimony of the expert. Each identified expert shall be subject to deposition,

and the party who intends to call such expert at trial shall ensure the experts

attendance at the deposition without the necessity of a subpoena.

J. An expert who is deposed shall be subject to cross-examination on the

following matters, without limitation:

(1) The names, jurisdictions, case numbers and remuneration of all cases

in which the expert has testified or consulted during the 36 months

preceding the deposition;

(2) The background, education, experience and qualifications of the

expert to render any expert opinion;

(3) Opinions and grounds; and

(4) Remuneration.


12/21

12

K. Genuine copies of all documents that are to be offered as exhibits at trial,

including demonstrative exhibits, shall be subject to production upon request

and pursuant to the Maryland Rules of Procedure.

L. All documents to be offered as trial exhibits, produced in response to a

Request for Production or in conjunction with a Request for Admission shall

be assigned specific numbers under the Bates numbering system clearly

identifying each and every document to be offered and/or produced.

M. Up to 100 Requests for Substantive Fact Admissions may be filed by each

party on any other party in accordance with the applicable Pre-Trial Milestone

Schedule.

N. Responses to Requests for Admissions shall be filed in accordance with the

Maryland Rules. Responses on common issues shall apply in all

Consolidation III cases.

O. A party requesting an admission from another party in the case concerning

specific documents shall serve with the request a single set of such documents.

This set need be served only upon the party to whom the request is directed,

which shall make the documents available for inspection and/or copying by

the other defendants in the case.

P. A party requesting an admission concerning a document shall Bates number

the document (and any service or inspection copies of the document) and shall

specifically identify the document by its Bates number in each request for

admission concerning that document.


13/21

13

Q. Tangible evidence of a non-documentary nature, such as product samples,

shall be subject to production, inspection and non-destructive testing upon

request.

R. Parties shall not identify any expert whom they do not, in good faith, expect

to call at trial, subject to the sanction of an order precluding the testimony of

each of that partys experts.

Discovery other than that provided for herein shall be permitted only upon a showing of good

cause.

THE TRIAL

Phase I of the consolidated common issue trial will adjudicate common issues and the

illustrative trial Plaintiff cases:

PHASE I

Common Issues

A. Whether a defendants product was asbestos-containing;

B. Whether a defendants asbestos-containing product produced respirable and/or

ingestable asbestos fibers sufficient to cause harm when handled, removed and/or

used;

C. At which types of jobsites did a defendants asbestos-containing product substantially

contribute dust that contained respirable and/or ingestable asbestos fibers;

D. Whether a defendants asbestos-containing product was capable of causing and/or

contributing to the cause of an asbestos-related injury and/or disease in its handling,

removal and/or use;


14/21

14

E. State of the Art - when a defendant knew, or should have known, that end-product

users, bystanders, and their household members were at risk of contracting an

asbestos-related injury and/or disease from the handling, removal or use of asbestos-

containing products;

F. Whether a defendants asbestos-containing product was defective and unreasonably

dangerous;

G. Common issue claim defenses;

H. Derivative deemed cross-claims, third-party claims and indemnity claims and

defenses;

Fifteen Illustrative Trial Plaintiff Cases

I. Whether a trial Plaintiff contracted an asbestos-related injury and/or disease;

J. Whether exposure to a defendants product was a substantial contributing factor in the

cause of a particular trial Plaintiffs asbestos-related injury and/or disease and/or

death;

K. Individual trial Plaintiff defenses;

L. The amount of compensation in economic and/or non-economic damages to be

awarded in a trial Plaintiffs case;

M. Derivative deemed cross-claim, third-party claim and indemnity claim resolution

in each trial Plaintiff case;

N. Whether the conduct of a defendant warrants an award of punitive damages;

PHASE II

Punitive Damages Awards


15/21

15

O. The amount of punitive damages to be awarded in an individual trial Plaintiff case.

PHASE III

Mini-Trials

P. In all remaining Consolidation III cases, consistent with the procedure

adopted by this Court in Consol I and II, individual issues of Plaintiff

product exposure, Plaintiff medical injury, defendant causation, individual

defenses, damage amounts and derivative claim resolution will be dealt with

in mini-trial consolidated groupings of up to 25 cases.

Plaintiffs submit that the common issues (Phase I, A-G) have been adjudicated and

resolved to the extent that Collateral Estoppel (and/orRes Judicata) apply in the cases of

particular Defendants. See Culver v. Maryland Ins. Commr, 175 Md. App. 645, 654 (2007).

Trial Date

Plaintiffs propose an October 7, 2013 trial date for Consolidation III. A Pre-Trial

and Trial Scheduling Order will govern the litigation and trial of Consolidation III.

Plaintiffs Proposed Milestone Scheduling Order, consistent with Circuit Court practice in

Baltimore City asbestos litigation, is attached hereto. See Exhibit 1.


16/21

16

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Peter G. Angelos

____________________

Peter G. Angelos

Ronald E. RichardsonTheodore M. Flerlage

LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS, P.C.

One Charles Center

100 N. Charles Street, 22nd Floor

Baltimore, Maryland 21201

(410) 649-2000

Attorney for Plaintiffs


17/21

EXHIBIT 1


18/21

IN RE: BALTIMORE CITY * ASBESTOS LITIGATION

PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL CLUSTER

ASBESTOS CASES * CONSOLIDATION NO.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION * IN THE

* CIRCUIT COURT

* FOR

* BALTIMORE CITY

* CT-1, CT-2, CT-4, CT-5 CASES

* CASE NO.: 24X87048500

**************************************

CONSOLIDATION ORDER AND PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULE

It is this _______ day of ____________________, 2012, by the Circuit Court for Baltimore

City, ORDERED, that the above listed cases are consolidated for trial and the Pre-Trial Schedule

shall be as follows, subject to further order of the Court.

________ Cases identified for trial. Plaintiffs identify the defendants

they have served with process. Plaintiffs identify the parties

with whom they have settled.

Defendants shall notify Plaintiffs within ten (10) days of any

case in which service is contested.

12/11/2012 Plaintiffs produce all claim forms and any exposure affidavits or

statements submitted to any bankruptcy entity or trust, and

supplement such information as necessary every sixty (60) days

thereafter.


19/21

12/11/2012 Plaintiffs provide executed answers to interrogatories which

identify each worksite where plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent

worked, dates at each site, co-workers at each site, asbestos-

containing products (both type and manufacturer) at each site,

and contractors installing asbestos products at each site.

Plaintiffs respond to requests for production of documentsand tangible things (including medical records plaintiffs have

had possession of). Plaintiffs produce authorization for

records. Plaintiffs produce Social Security print-out if in

Plaintiffs possession. Defendants must give notice to

Plaintiffs of any dispute contesting the adequacy of discovery

within seven (7) days of receipt of discovery.

Defendants must file any motions contesting the adequacy of

discovery within fifteen (15) days of receipt of discovery.

Plaintiffs shall respond within five (5) days. Any request(s)

for conference with the Court shall be filed with the motion(s)or response(s).

1/15/2013 Direct defendants identify parties against whom

contribution/set-off, and indemnity claims will be pursued.

Claims against any party not so identified are hereby

dismissed.

1/29/2013 Last day for direct defendants to serve third-party complaints.

2/12/2013 Cross and third-party defendants identify parties against

whom contribution/set-off, and indemnity claims will bepursued. Claims against any party not so identified are

hereby dismissed.

2/22/2013 Last day for cross-and-third party defendants to serve

complaints.

Plaintiffs identify fact witnesses who may testify at trial.

Plaintiffs provide addresses for witnesses who they cannot

voluntarily produce for deposition without a subpoena from

defendants.


20/21

3/6/2013 Plaintiffs name expert witnesses, provide Rule 2-402(e)(1)

statements, and state available dates for deposition of expert

witnesses. Plaintiffs produce imaging and pathology which

plaintiffs have had possession of and provide plaintiff-

specific reports.

6/4/2013 Last day for deposition of plaintiffs fact witnesses who

plaintiffs are able to voluntarily produce for deposition

without subpoena by defendants. (Product Identification

Witnesses)

6/21/2013 Plaintiffs name their most likely to use general product

identification fact witnesses from the original fact witness list

who have been previously deposed. Plaintiffs may

supplement this list with names of any additional witnesses

(1) who are specified as being made in substitution for an

earlier-named witness who has become unavailable to testifyat trial. The substituted witness must come from the original

fact witness list or (2) whose testimony concerns job sites

newly disclosed in documents or deposition testimony during

the remaining time for depositions of fact witnesses.

7/8/2013 Last day for deposition of plaintiffs fact witnesses who

plaintiffs are unable to voluntarily produce for deposition

without a subpoena by defendants.

8/5/2013 Defendants and third-party defendants name all witnesses

who may testify at trial, provide Rule 2-402(e)(1) statements,and state available dates for deposition of expert witnesses.

Defendants produce/return imaging and pathology which

defendants have had possession of and provide plaintiff-

specific reports. Defendants provide addresses of fact

witnesses they cannot voluntarily produce for deposition.

Defendants provide executed answer to interrogatories which

identify each worksite where plaintiff or plaintiffs decedent

worked, dates at each site, co-workers at each site, and

contractors installing asbestos products at each site.

Defendants respond to requests for production of documents

and tangible things (including medical records defendantshave had possession of).


21/21

Plaintiffs must file any motions contesting the adequacy of

discovery. Defendants shall respond within five (5) days.

Any request(s) for conference with the Court shall be filed

with the motion(s) or response(s).

8/5/2013 Last day for deposition of defense fact witnesses other thanwitnesses not subject to deposition under Judge Levins Order

dated April 16, 1990.

8/12/2013 Defendants name their most likely to use, general product

identification fact witnesses from the original fact witness list

who have been previously deposed. Defendants may

supplement this list with names of any additional witnesses

(1) who are specified as being made in substitution for an

earlier-named witness who has become unavailable to testify

at trial. The substituted witness must come from the original

fact witness list or (2) whose testimony concerns job sitesnewly disclosed in documents or deposition testimony during

the remaining time for depositions of fact witnesses.

8/19/2013 File mandatory pre-trial motions, if any. Any such motion

serve on adversaries by hand, fax or e-filing. Copy provided

to Judges chambers on this date.

9/9/2013 Respond to pre-trial motions. Responses served on

adversaries by hand, fax, or e-filing. Copy provided to

Judges chambers on this date. Plaintiffs' counsel provide

copies of signed releases given to Bankruptcy Trusts withsettlement amounts redacted.

9/16/2013 Complete all expert depositions.

9/16/2013 Pre-trial conference, 9:30. Pre-trial motions hearing. File

voir dire.

10/7/2013 Jury selection and trial.

SO ORDERED:

________________________________

Judge, Circuit Court for Baltimore City

plaintiffs' memorandum in support of motion for asbestos case consolidaiton and adoption of trial...

Documents