Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 07 DECEMBER 2012

Lone Pine Order Forces Plaintiffs To Ante Up

Morrison Foerster
Morrison Foerster
Contributor
Morrison Foerster

Morrison Foerster

With approximately 1,000 lawyers in 19 offices, Morrison & Foerster is a preeminent global law firm...

View firm profile
Explore more from Morrison Foerster

Last week, the court in In re: Fosamax Products Liability Litigation granted Defendant Merck & Co.’s motion for a Lone Pine order. No. 06 MD 1789 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2012). Lone Pine orders are valuable tools in defending mass tort and product liability litigation, forcing each plaintiff to demonstrate evidence of scientific proof of their claim before their claim is allowed to progress.

United StatesConsumer Protection

Last week, the court in In re: Fosamax Products Liability Litigation granted Defendant Merck & Co.'s motion for a Lone Pine order. No. 06 MD 1789 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2012). Lone Pine orders are valuable tools in defending mass tort and product liability litigation, forcing each plaintiff to demonstrate evidence of scientific proof of their claim before their claim is allowed to progress.

Lone Pine orders originate from a 1986 New Jersey state court case, Lore v. Lone Pine Corporation, No. L-33606-85 (N.J. Sup. Ct. Law Div.) . There, the court issued a case management order requiring plaintiffs to provide expert reports supporting a causal link between their claimed injuries and exposure to defendant's landfill. See Lone Pine Corp., No. L-33606-85, 1986 WL 637507 (N.J. Sup. Ct. Law Div. Nov. 18, 1986) (dismissing plaintiffs' cases where they had failed to provide adequate expert evidence for their claims).

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from