Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

<b><i>Practice Tip</b></i> Lone Pine Orders Increase Judicial Efficiency

By Beth L. Kaufman and David Black
June 27, 2008

In recent years, an increasing number of state and federal courts nationwide have issued 'Lone Pine orders' ' case management orders that require plaintiffs in mass tort litigation to substantiate their claims early in the litigation. Jurisdictions are split on whether to permit Lone Pine orders, which typically require plaintiffs to submit evidence, often in the form of expert affidavits or reports, of each plaintiff's exposure to toxic substances, each plaintiff's claim of illness, personal injury or property damage, and a causation link between the exposure and the injury. Simeone v. Girard City Bd. of Ed., 171 Ohio App.3d 633, 640-641, 872 N.E.2d 344, 349 (Ct. App., 11th Dist. 2007) ('Under such an order, plaintiffs are required to submit reports or affidavits that identify the chemical or substance causing the injury, the specific disease, illness or injury caused by the substance, and the causal link between the exposure and injury in order to substantiate their health and property-value claims to a reasonable degree of probability or certainty').

On the one hand, some jurisdictions have permitted Lone Pine orders because these orders expedite a mass tort case. Defendants are eager to obtain the entry of such orders because plaintiffs' claims will be dismissed if they are unable to substantiate their injuries, even though plaintiffs have not had full discovery. On the other hand, some jurisdictions have refused to issue Lone Pine orders on the grounds that such orders improperly limit plaintiffs' right to discovery and place an unfair burden upon the plaintiffs, akin to summary judgment. Upon analysis, we believe a Lone Pine order is an excellent tool to protect against the waste of time, money, and judicial resources, because plaintiffs in mass tort litigation should be prepared to substantiate their claims to a reasonable degree at the time they commence a lawsuit. See FRCP 11.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Blockchain Domains: New Developments for Brand Owners Image

Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.