Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Mirena Iud Products Liability Litigation

United States District Court, Second Circuit

May 3, 2013

IN RE: MIRENA IUD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Document Relates To All Actions.

ORDER NO. 2

CATHY SEIBEL, District Judge.

The Court has received a letter dated April 30, 2013 from Diogenes P. Kekatos of Seeger Weiss LLP (attached hereto as "Exhibit A"), written "on behalf of the organizing Plaintiffs, " requesting that the Court, in advance of the May 17, 2013 conference, appoint Mr. Kekatos as Liaison Counsel, and appoint the following attorneys as Co-Lead Counsel: Fred Thompson of Motley Rice LLC, James R. Ronca of Anapol Schwartz, and Matthew McCauley of Parker Waichman LLP. Mr. Kekatos requests immediate appointment "so as to allow us to use the intervening two weeks to negotiate substantively with Defendants on the issues that the Court has directed."

The Court will consider Mr. Kekatos's proposal upon receipt of the following additional information:

§ Whether the "organizing Plaintiffs" include all known Plaintiffs (or their counsel), and if not, on behalf of which of the Plaintiffs Mr. Kekatos's proposal is presented, and whether other Plaintiffs (or their counsel) have objected to this proposal or wish to make alternative proposals;
§ If the proposal does not represent a consensus of all Plaintiffs' counsel, an explanation as to why three recommendations for each position were not made, ( see Order No. 1 (Doc. 8), § VII.D);
§ An explanation as to why three Co-Lead Counsels are proposed, [1] what the proposed division of responsibility and authority among the three would be, why a Plaintiffs' Steering Committee and Plaintiffs' Executive Committee would also be necessary, and what their roles would be;
§ Certificates of good standing from the courts where the proposed Liaison and Co-Lead Counsels are admitted to practice, ( see Order No. 1, § VII.D); and
§ A description of the proposed compensation arrangements as to Liaison and Co-Lead Counsels, and the extent to which remaining Plaintiffs' counsel have concurred in or consented to such arrangements.

SO ORDERED.

EXHIBIT A

This Document Relates to All Actions

Dear Judge Seibel:

I am writing on behalf of the organizing Plaintiffs. In accordance with the Court's Order No. 1, we have reached out to all known Plaintiffs' counsel and invited them into dialogue relating to organizational matters, in order to comply with the Court's requirement of providing certain information, to facilitate meet-and-confer discussions with Defendants' counsel, and to submit proposals for leadership and liaison positions. We are pleased to advise the Court that we have had cordial and collegial meetings among our fellow Plaintiffs' attorneys, having called face-to-face meetings in two locations, having created a list-serve, and having had many group telephone calls, with respect to which all known interested persons have been included in our discussions. In addition, we are pleased to report that we have had a series of meet-and-confers with Defendants' counsel that have been productive in meeting the Court's directive.

At the same time, however, we are writing the Court because many of the "nuts-and-bolts" issues that that the Plaintiffs' side needs to take up with Defendants-relating to agreements on discovery and pre-trial issues, as well as administrative issues-can be undertaken on a binding basis only after ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.