The opinion of the court was delivered by: John F. Keenan, United States District Judge:
This document relates to all actions.
Before the Court is Defendant's motion for the Court to enter an order pursuant to Lore v. Lone Pine Corp., 1986 WL 637507 (N.J. Sup. Ct. Law Div. Nov. 18, 1986), requiring all plaintiffs in this MDL to provide facts and materials in support of their claims through expert reports. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted, with limitations.
Merck has written to the Court on two prior occasions seeking a Lone Pine order. On February 1, 2010, Merck asked the Court to consider entering the order with respect to all "nonONJ [and non-osteomyellitis] cases," meaning those cases in which Plaintiffs allege a variety of maladies (such as sore and swollen gums, lost and broken teeth, and jaw pain), but not osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"). In its second request, dated January 3, 2011, Merck reiterated its grounds for a Lone Pine order. Merck again suggested that the order should pertain to all plaintiffs who do not allege ONJ or osteomyellitis, which represented 40% of the docket as of January 2011. Until now, the Court has declined to entertain a motion for a Lone Pine order.
By letter dated September 20, 2012, Merck made its third request for a Lone Pine order. Merck no longer limits its proposed order to plaintiffs who do not allege ONJ or osteomyellitis, but suggests that the Court require every plaintiff to provide (1) a completed Plaintiff Profile Form along with records and an execution of release of medical records; (2) a case-specific expert discovery report from a qualified medical expert attesting that the injury Plaintiff suffered was caused by Fosamax; and (3) a signed statement from Plaintiff that he or she is willing to proceed with the case upon remand.
Merck argues that given the fact that cases in this MDL are more likely to be dismissed by Plaintiff as they undergo closer scrutiny, a Lone Pine order will ensure that only those cases with qualified plaintiffs remain in this MDL. Merck notes that of the 1,094 cases in this MDL, 138 (13%) have been dismissed. Merck further represents that 11 (31%) of the 35 cases set for case-specific discovery have been dismissed. Finally, Merck states that of the cases that were set for trial, 7 of 12 (58%) were dismissed. (Def. Mem. at 10-11.)
In opposing Merck's motion, the Plaintiff's Steering Committee ("PSC") responds that the Court has fulfilled its mission in this MDL, and rather than initiating "ceaseless adjudication of case-specific issues" through entering a Lone Pine order, the Court should conclude this MDL. (Pl. Opp. at 14.) The PSC urges that this Court should adopt an "exit plan," since the pre-trial proceedings are complete and Merck "has made it clear that it will not fund adequately a global resolution." (Pl. Opp. at 15.)
Lone Pine orders derive from a 1986 decision of the New Jersey Superior Court in Lore v. Lone Pine Corp., 1986 WL 637507 (N.J. Sup. Ct. Law Div. Nov. 18, 1986). In Lone Pine, the New Jersey court entered a pretrial order that required the plaintiffs to provide facts in support of their claims through expert reports, or risk having their case dismissed. Id., 1986 WL 637507, at *1--*3. As one federal court of appeals has noted, "Lone Pine orders are designed to handle the complex issues and potential burdens of defendants and the court in mass tort litigation." Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir. 2000).
With increasing frequency, courts overseeing complex pharmaceutical MDLs are using Lone Pine orders to streamline the docket. See In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Practices and Prods.
Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1871 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2010); In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1596 (E.D.N.Y. June 2, 2010); In re Bextra and Celebrex Mktg. Sales Practices and Prod. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1699 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2008); In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1657 (E.D. La. Nov. 9, 2007, July 6, 2009); In re Rezulin Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1348 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2005); In re Baycol Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1431 (D. Minn. Mar. 18, 2004).
Although no federal rule expressly authorizes the use of Lone Pine orders, federal courts have interpreted Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to give the authority to enter Lone Pine orders in complex litigation. See McManaway v. KBR, Inc., 265 F.R.D. 384, 385 (S.D. Ind. 2009) ("Lone Pine orders are permitted by Rule 16(c)(2)(L) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provides that a court may take several actions during a pretrial conference, including 'adopting special procedures for managing potentially difficult or protracted actions that may involve complex issues, multiple parties, difficult legal questions, or unusual proof problems.'" (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(L))); 35B C.J.S. Federal Civil Procedure § 911 (2009) ("So-called 'Lone Pine orders' are . . . issued under the wide discretion afforded district judges over the management of discovery."); 6A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1525 (2d ed. 1990). Additionally, the Manual for Complex Litigation notes that these orders are "widely used." David F. Herr, Ann. Manual for Complex Lit. § 11.34 (4th ed. 2012).
In evaluating requests for Lone Pine or modified case management orders, courts have found that a number of factors may be relevant, ...