http://ow.ly/7Fubw
An article on the drug and device law blog posted by "Bexis".
This article discusses a Federal case involving a mass tort claim, in which a parallel proceeding was taking place in New Jersey State Court.
The article states that certain plaintiff's in the State proceeding objected to the form of eDiscovery production that was agreed to in the Federal proceeding. The plaintiff's objections would have resulted in 7 figures of additional costs to the defendants, and the State court rejected the plaintiff's requests, stating the Federal court form of production was acceptable. The referenced case is In re DePuy ASR™ Hip Implants Litigation, No. BER-L-3971-11, slip op. (N.J. Super. Oct. 18, 2011). A link to the slip opinion is provided in the article.
The article provides quotes from the court's opinion, which cited the Manual for Complex Litigation, and also stated, "It is clear that the MDL Protocol is the result of a "give and take" by and between highly skilled counsel in the MDL and other State court jurisdictions. The MDL Protocol is not the format initially proposed by defense counsel but, as indicated above, presents a reasonable accommodation after negotiations by and between counsel, all of whom were on equal footing. . . . To permit or otherwise Order a format unique to New Jersey would cause an undue hardship on the Defendants."
No comments:
Post a Comment