UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
May 4, 2006
IN RE MASTER VITAMIN C ANTITRUST LITIGATION
The opinion of the court was delivered by: James Orenstein, Magistrate Judge
This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS PRETRIAL ORDER
I. Pretrial Consolidation
All putative class actions filed in or transferred to this District which arise out of the same operative facts as alleged in the cases subject to the Transfer Order of February 14, 2006 of the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ("the MDL Order"), In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, MDL 06-1738, will be consolidated for all pretrial purposes under this Order. All non-class cases filed in or transferred to this District which arise out of the same operative facts as alleged in the MDL Order will be coordinated for all pretrial purposes under this Order. This Order does not constitute a determination that these actions should be consolidated for trial, nor does it have the effect of making any entity a party to an action in which it has not been joined and served in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
II. Caption Of Cases
Every pleading filed in this proceeding, or in any separate action included herein, shall bear the following caption:
If a submission is generally applicable to all consolidated actions, the caption should include the notation that the document relates to "ALL CASES" and the submission should be filed and docketed only in 06-MD-1738 (the "Master File"). If a submission is applicable only to particular cases, the caption should include the case number of the case(s) to which it applies.
III. Attorney Admissions
Pursuant to Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, each attorney acting as counsel for any party herein who is a member of good standing of the bar of any United States District Court shall be deemed admitted pro hac vice before this court, without further action, upon payment of the admission fee, in connection with these proceedings.
IV. Electronic Filing And Electronic Service Of Process
All counsel representing parties in actions consolidated in 06-MD-1738 shall comply with this District's mandatory electronic case filing rule. See Administrative Order 2004--08. All submissions should be filed using the electronic case filing system ("ECF") and should be filed only in the Master File. To avoid duplicate filings and notice of filings, counsel are instructed to select NO when prompted whether to spread text.*fn1
All counsel who have registered for ECF and filed a notice of appearance in 06-MD-1738 will be deemed served with any document that has been electronically filed in the Master File. Counsel need not include a service of process list with court submissions. Liaison counsel, once appointed, shall bear responsibility for serving ECF-filed documents on any counsel designated for service of process that is not registered for ECF.
V. Newly Filed Or Transferred Actions
When a case which, according to this Order, should be consolidated or coordinated with In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation is hereafter filed in this Court or transferred here from another court and assigned to Judge Trager, the Clerk of the Court shall make an appropriate entry in the 06-MD-1738 docket. Counsel shall promptly register for ECF and file a notice of appearance in the Master File. Thereafter, counsel will be deemed served with all documents and orders filed in the Master File, including this Order. The Court requests the assistance of counsel in calling to the attention of the Clerk of this Court the filing or transfer of any case that might properly be consolidated with the In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation.
VI. Application Of This Order To Subsequently Filed Cases
This Order shall apply to each In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation case subsequently filed in this Court, unless a party objecting to the consolidation or coordination of such case or to any other provision of this Order, within 20 days of service with this Order, moves for relief from this Order or any provision herein, and this Court deems it appropriate to grant such motion. Defendants are entitled to object to consolidation or coordination of any future-filed case, and similarly are entitled to respond to any motion by plaintiff(s) to seek relief from this Order. Further, if any new defendant is added by any new plaintiff, such defendant may object to consolidation or coordination according to the same procedure applicable to new plaintiffs.
JAMES ORENSTEIN U.S. Magistrate Judge