NEW JERSEY MASS TORT (Non-Asbestos) RESOURCE BOOK

Third Edition November 2007

Stuart Rabner, Chief Justice Philip S. Carchman, P.J.A.D., Acting Administrative Director of the Courts

Third Edition November 2007

NOTICE

This Mass Tort (Non-Asbestos) Resource Book is intended to provide procedural and operational guidance to New Jersey judges and Judiciary staff in the management of cases within their area of responsibility. The Resource Book was prepared by the designated mass tort judges and the Civil Practice Division of the Administrative Office of the Courts and has been reviewed and endorsed by the Conference of Civil Presiding Judges. It is intended to embody Judiciary policies adopted by the New Jersey Supreme Court, the Judicial Council, and the Administrative Director of the Courts, but does not itself establish case management policy. It has been approved by the Judicial Council, on the recommendation of the Conference of Civil Presiding Judges. While the Resource Book reflects Judiciary policies existing as of the date of its preparation, in the event there is a conflict between the Resource Book and any statement of policy issued by the Supreme Court, the Judicial Council, or the Administrative Director of the Courts, that statement of policy, rather than the provision in the Resource Book, will be controlling.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A number of individuals have contributed to the preparation of this manual, including the Hon. Carol E. Higbee, the Hon. Charles J. Walsh (deceased) and Michelle V. Perone, Esq., who organized and edited the materials covered, but most especially, the Hon. Marina Corodemus, now retired, who developed or refined many of the procedures discussed herein. Many of these procedures are being used in New Jersey and in state and federal jurisdictions throughout the country.

(Click any line to learn more)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Definition of a Mass Tort ............................................................................................................ 1 Mass Torts and Class Actions ......................................................................................................... 2 Procedure for Requesting Designation of a Case as a Mass Tort for Centralized Management .... 2 Criteria to be Applied in Determining Whether Designation as a Mass Tort is Warranted ........... 3 Choice of Site for Centralized Management................................................................................... 4 Pending and Subsequent Related Actions....................................................................................... 4 Issuance of Case Type Number....................................................................................................... 4 Notice to the Bar and Initial Case Management Order................................................................... 4 Severance of Issues ......................................................................................................................... 5 Meeting with Counsel ..................................................................................................................... 6 Ongoing Case Management ............................................................................................................ 6 Pro Hac Vice Motions..................................................................................................................... 9 Appearance by New Jersey Licensed Counsel with Out-of-State Bona Fide Offices.................. 10 Maintenance of Counsel and Case Lists ....................................................................................... 10 Litigation Plan............................................................................................................................... 10 Appointment of Counsel ............................................................................................................... 11 Role of Counsel............................................................................................................................. 12 Coordination of Counsel in Related Litigation ............................................................................. 12 Appointment of Special Masters or Referral to Mediators ........................................................... 12 Settlement...................................................................................................................................... 13 Coordination with Other Courts.................................................................................................... 13 Addition of New Parties................................................................................................................ 14 Pleadings, Master Files and the Master Docket............................................................................ 15 Factual and Legal Issues ............................................................................................................... 15 Motion Practice ............................................................................................................................. 16 Motion Filing Fees ........................................................................................................................ 16 Deeming Motions.......................................................................................................................... 16 Use of Telephone Conferencing.................................................................................................... 17 Privilege Claims and Protective Orders ........................................................................................ 17 Discovery ...................................................................................................................................... 17 HIPAA - Compliant Authorization for Release of Medical Records ........................................... 21 Depositions.................................................................................................................................... 21 Commissions to Take Out-of-State Depositions........................................................................... 21 Interrogatories and Document Production Requests..................................................................... 21 Use of Sampling Techniques ........................................................................................................ 22 Expert Reports............................................................................................................................... 22 Trial ............................................................................................................................................... 22 Bifurcating Trials .......................................................................................................................... 23 Trifurcating or Further Dividing Trials......................................................................................... 24 Use of Special Verdicts and Interrogatories ................................................................................. 24 Subsequent Related Actions.......................................................................................................... 24 Severance ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Termination of Centralized Management ..................................................................................... 24 APPENDICES

Introduction
This manual covers all litigation, other than that involving asbestos, that the New Jersey Supreme Court has designated as a mass tort.

Definition of a Mass Tort

The definition of a mass tort in New Jersey derives from an identification of certain common case characteristics. Each group of cases designated as a mass tort do exhibit many, if not all, of these characteristics. Thus far, there have been three general classes of cases determined to be mass torts. These include: large numbers of claims associated with a single product - - for example, diet drugs or other large products liability cases such as tobacco, Norplant, breast implant, Propulsid, Rezulin, PPA and latex litigation. mass disasters: these cases are characterized by common technical and legal issues. The Durham Woods pipeline explosion litigation is a good example of this type of case. complex environmental cases and toxic torts: these cases are characterized by a large number of parties with claims arising from a common event. An example of this type of case is the Ciba-Geigy litigation, alleging air, water and soil pollution.

Some of the possible characteristics of a mass tort include: sheer number of parties involved; many claims involving common, recurrent issues of law and fact that are associated with a single product, mass disaster, or very complex environmental or toxic tort; geographical dispersement of parties; common injuries or damages incurred; value interdependence between different claims where the perceived strength or weakness of the causation and liability aspects are often dependent upon the success or failure of similar lawsuits in other jurisdictions; and degree of remoteness between the court and actual decision-makers in the litigation - - i.e., the fact that the simplest of decisions often must pass through layers of local, regional, national, general and house counsel.

Mass Torts and Class Actions

There is often great confusion regarding the term mass tort on the one hand and class action on the other, to the extent that the terms are commonly misused interchangeably. Mass torts are governed by R. 4:38A and are subject to a different procedure for their designation, as previously discussed. Class actions are governed by R. 4:32. In a typical R. 4:32 situation, a complaint may be filed on behalf of a small number of named parties alleging an injury and asserting a putative class action on behalf of themselves and similarly situated others whose identities are yet unknown. In a mass tort scenario, by contrast, separate complaints are brought by separate, allegedly injured parties and those matters if designated as a mass tort by the Supreme Court, will be coordinated and handled by a single judge, as also previously discussed. Although arguably containing many similar attributes, mass torts and class actions are different. This is not to say, however, that a portion of a large mass tort may not present a class action. For example, in the initial diet drug mass tort, the court certified a class action on behalf of asymptomatic users of diet drugs who required medical monitoring.

Procedure for Requesting Designation of a Case as a Mass Tort for Centralized Management
The Supreme Court in 2003 adopted and promulgated mass tort guidelines as provided for in Rule 4:38A. Those guidelines prescribe the procedures to be followed in seeking designation of a new mass tort for centralized management. In October 2007 the Court promulgated revised guidelines in Administrative Directive #10-07, with the revisions establishing a parallel process for seeking the termination of a previous mass tort designation. The Assignment Judge of any vicinage or an attorney involved in a case or cases that may constitute a mass tort may apply to the Supreme Court, through the Administrative Director of the Courts, to have the case(s) classified as a mass tort, and assigned for centralized management in one county and by one judge as the court may designate. The Assignment Judge or attorney making such an application must give notice to all parties then involved in the case(s), advising that the application has been made and that a Notice to the Bar will appear in the legal newspapers and in the Mass Tort Information Center on the Judiciarys Internet website providing information on where and within what time period comments on and objections to the application may be made. The Administrative Director of the Courts will present the application, along with a compilation of any comments and objections received, to the Supreme Court for its review and determination.
2

If the Supreme Court determines that the case(s) should be classified as a mass tort and assigned to a designated judge for centralized management and, in that judges discretion, trial, the Court will enter an Order so providing. The Administrative Director (or designee) will send the order to all Assignment Judges and Civil Presiding Judges, will publish it in the legal newspapers, and will post it in the Mass Tort Information Center on the Judiciarys Internet website. See R. 4:38 and Administrative Directive #10-07, a copy of which appears in the appendix.

Criteria to be Applied in Determining Whether Designation as a Mass Tort is Warranted

In determining whether designation as a mass tort is warranted, the following factors, among others, will be considered: whether the case(s) possess(es) all or many of the characteristics enumerated above; whether there is a risk that centralization may unreasonably delay the progress, increase the expense of complicate the processing of any action, or otherwise prejudice a party; whether centralized management is fair and convenient to the parties, witnesses and counsel; whether there is a risk of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders or judgments if the cases are not managed in a coordinated fashion; whether coordinated discovery would be advantageous; whether the cases require specialized expertise and case processing as provided by the dedicated mass tort judge and staff; whether centralization would result in the efficient utilization of judicial resources and the facilities and personnel of the court.

Choice of Site for Centralized Management

Issues of fairness, geographical location of parties and attorneys, and the existing civil and mass tort caseload in the vicinage will be considered in determining to which vicinage a particular mass tort will be assigned for centralized management. This decision will be made by the Supreme Court.

Pending and Subsequent Related Actions

The initial Order of the Supreme Court denominating a particular category of cases as a mass tort and referring those cases to a particular county for centralized management may specify that all currently pending actions are to be transferred from the counties in which they are filed to the designated mass tort county and judge without further application to the Supreme Court, and that all subsequent related actions are to be filed in the designated mass tort county.

Issuance of Case Type Number

Upon designation of a case type as a mass tort, the AOC will assign a unique case type code to the litigation. This code will subsequently be used on all pleadings and added to the codes appearing on the Civil Case Information Statement (CIS) when it is amended. The mass tort judges initial case management order will typically require pleadings in all future cases of this type to use the designated case type code.

Notice to the Bar and Initial Case Management Order

Immediately following the designation by the Supreme Court of a case as a mass tort, a Notice to the Bar is distributed to the bench, bar and court staff and is published in The New Jersey Lawyer and The New Jersey Law Journal for several weeks advising that the litigation has been designated as a mass tort, has been transferred to a particular judge for centralized management and that all future new cases of this type should be filed in the county to which the matter was transferred. Samples of the Order and Notice to the Bar appear in the appendix. Accompanying the Notice is a copy of the Supreme Court Order (a sample is also attached) as well as the mass tort judges initial case management order. These items are also immediately posted on the Judiciarys Internet Mass Tort Information Center located at www.judiciary.state.nj.us/masstort/index.htm. A sample of the mass tort judges initial case management order also appears in the appendix. This order may contain the following provisions:
4

requiring all future complaints to be limited to a single plaintiff or household (this provision is intended to ensure that the court can easily ascertain the true number of claims pending before it and provides for statistical accuracy); requiring all future complaints and accompanying CIS filings to use the designated case type code to allow ease in identification of such cases and automated tracking; requiring all papers filed with the court to include MT following the docket number; providing that all future complaints be filed and venued in the county handling the centralized management and directed to the mass tort team in that county; providing that all previously pending cases be transferred from the original counties of venue and sent to the mass tort team in that county; staying the filing of all responsive pleadings and motions until further order and requiring defense counsel in receipt of process or retained by any defendant to immediately notify the court and plaintiffs counsel by letter as to the name of the party represented and the names of all cases involved in that representation; setting a date, time and place for the first case management conference; creating a master file for the litigation to eliminate multiple filings of similar documents; precluding or suspending discovery requests; ordering that files, records, and documents not be destroyed; and providing for counsel to confer.

Upon receipt of all of the necessary files and information, the court will review the materials and prepare a counsel list for all the cases comprising the mass tort. Once the list is prepared the court will schedule the first case management conference in the litigation (if such conference has not already been scheduled). All known counsel in the pending cases will be noticed to attend. The judge may also want to consider including in the case management order resulting from the conference, a provision directing all defense counsel to assemble lists of the similar cases involving their clients and pending in other jurisdictions, including the name, address and telephone number of the judges handling such cases and the status of each case. This can be helpful to the court in later coordinating with courts in other jurisdictions.

Severance of Issues
Upon review of the cases designated as a mass tort and assigned for centralized management, the mass tort judge may sever and return to the original county(ies) of venue
5

any that do not appear to warrant centralization.

Meeting with Counsel

Some judges prefer to meet informally with counsel before scheduling the first case management conference, at which the terms of a case management order are determined. This initial conference is to orient the judge to the litigation and to discuss some preliminary matters that may later become part of the case management order. It is helpful to use this informal meeting to order counsel to confer before the meeting to prepare a joint proposed agenda and to designate the issues in the case to be covered by the formal order. Other judges simply prefer to issue an order scheduling the initial conference and include in the order some preliminary matters that need to be addressed. Alexander B. Aikman, Managing Mass Tort Cases: A Resource Book For State Trial Court Judges at 39 (1995).

Ongoing Case Management

Case management plans and orders must be promptly developed, updated, and modified as the litigation unfolds. Samples appear in the appendix. The initial case management order should, among other things, help organize the cases and counsel, preserve evidence, set priorities for pretrial pleadings and other activity, defer unnecessary pleadings, preliminarily identify legal and factual issues, outline preliminary discovery and motions, and direct counsel to coordinate the implementation of the order. The order should take into account the proposals of counsel and should encourage collaboration among counsel and the parties. See The Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth Edition at 403. With respect to the responsibilities of counsel, the following are examples of provisions contained in typical case management orders entered in various mass torts: directing all defense attorneys in receipt of process or retained by any defendant to notify the court and plaintiffs immediately in writing as to the identity of the party represented and the name of every case involved in that representation; advising all counsel to notify the court in writing as to the particulars of all past and pending motions filed in any of the cases; appointing liaison and lead counsel or scheduling conference and directing parties with similar interests to agree on a single attorney to act on their joint behalf and inviting other interested persons not named as parties in the

litigation who may later be joined in the litigation or in related litigation in other jurisdictions to attend; directing counsel to familiarize themselves with The Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth Edition and be prepared to suggest procedures that will facilitate the just, speedy and inexpensive resolution of the litigation; directing counsel to confer and seek consensus with respect to items on the agenda, including a proposed discovery plan and a suggested schedule for the joinder of parties, amendment of pleadings, consideration of any class action allegations, motions and trial; requiring counsel to submit statements of facts and legal issues or completed Excel or Access spreadsheets, or patient profile sheets, a list of affiliated companies and counsel to assist the court in identifying any conflict, recusal or disqualification issues, and a list of all related cases pending in any other court, including the status of each case; directing all attorneys to monitor all notices on the Judiciarys mass tort website; requiring counsel for the plaintiffs to provide the court with an official service list including among other things fax numbers and e-mail addresses and include the dates of admission of all counsel admitted pro hac vice, and to update the list monthly; including provisions respecting pro hac vice admissions, including but not limited to, restricting such admission to no more than four counsel per party, requiring compliance with R. 1:21-2, allowing pro hac vice counsel to try the case but not be listed as designated trial counsel, providing for no adjournments due to the unavailability of pro hac vice counsel and requiring all papers submitted to the court to be provided to New Jersey counsel unless waived, to foster settlements; and appointing liaison counsel for those parties with similar interests to coordinate all pretrial activities of each such group, including determining, after consultation with other counsel, each groups position and preparing joint interrogatories and requests for depositions and for the production of documents.

Typical provisions in case management orders regarding pleadings may include: advising that all future complaints shall be filed with the CIS identifying the case type with the number assigned by the AOC; advising that all future complaints are limited to a single plaintiff or a related household of plaintiffs (as noted earlier, this is intended to allow the court to track the actual umber of aggrieved parties); requiring all future complaints to carry the designation of MT to assist in the identification of these cases;
7

requiring parties filing amended and subsequent pleadings with the court to simply send a cover letter to existing parties copying the court and identifying all new claims and newly added parties; providing that a partys last filed answer is deemed an answer to all future amended pleadings unless a new claim is asserted against the particular party; providing that all cross-claims for contribution and indemnification are deemed filed without the necessity for any pleadings to be filed; providing that counsel lists shall be incorporated by reference on all papers filed with the court rather than having to be physically appended to the papers; and setting deadlines for the addition of new parties.

The following are examples of provisions in typical case management orders addressing responsibilities of the parties: requiring each party to preserve all documents and other records containing information that is potentially relevant to the litigation and all physical evidence or potential evidence; providing that upon receipt of a copy of a petition in bankruptcy or Order of a U.S. Bankruptcy judge implicating a new defendant, the defendant is automatically severed from all cases until further ordered from the U.S. Bankruptcy judge to reinstate; and providing that parties represented by more than one attorney of record must designate a single lead counsel who shall be the sole recipient of all notices and who shall be responsible for notifying all other co-counsel; Typical provisions in case management orders relating to motion practice may include the following: prescribing procedures for motion practice; scheduling return dates for pending dismissal motions; noting that all deadlines previously set by the original counties of venue are superseded, that all pending motions are stayed and the filing of new motions is stayed; and prohibiting the filing of motions without leave of court unless such motions include a certification that counsel conferred and made a good faith attempt to resolve the matter. The following are some miscellaneous provisions regarding discovery and case management that may be included in a typical case management order: staying all outstanding discovery but not precluding consensual discovery or prohibiting a party from gathering information in anticipation of responding to a discovery request;requiring advance notice to opposing counsel and their
8

consent or the courts permission before any tests may be conducted on physical evidence; prohibiting destruction of automated data of the parties; establishing a master docket and a case file caption to organize the voluminous filings for the entire litigation; establishing a master docket and a case file caption to organize the voluminous filings for the entire litigation; advising that all orders, notices and other documents filed with the court and common to the entire litigation will be posted on the Judiciarys Internet website and providing the website address, to allow for electronic notice of such papers on all interested parties; setting up procedures that apply if a special master is appointed; and providing for the scheduling of periodic scheduling and status conferences and prescribing procedures for transcription of the conferences.

Pro Hac Vice Motions

Pro hac vice appearances are governed by R. 1:21-2. Once a Notice to the Bar is published indicating that litigation has been designated as a mass tort, the court will begin to receive a number of motions from out-of-state attorneys seeking pro hac vice admission. Sample forms appear in the appendix. Accordingly, it is recommended that the following provisions be included in one of the early case management orders: requiring counsel to abide by the New Jersey Court Rules, including all disciplinary rules, R. 1:20-1 and R. 1:28-2; providing that counsel consent to the appointment of the Clerk of the Supreme Court as an agent upon whom service of process may be made for all actions against his/her firm that may arise out of participation in the matter; requiring counsel to notify the court immediately of any matter affecting his/her standing at the bar of any other court; prohibiting the pro hac vice attorney from being designated as trial counsel; providing that no delay in discovery, motions, trial, or any other proceeding shall occur or be requested by reason of the inability of the attorney to be in attendance; requiring the attorney, within 10 days, to pay the fees required by R. 1:20-1(b) and R. 1:28-2 and to submit affidavits of compliance; providing that automatic termination of pro hac vice admission will occur for failure to make the required annual payment to the Ethics Financial Committee and the New Jersey Lawyers Fund for Client Protection. After filing proof of the initial payment, continuing proof of payment shall be made no later than February of
9

each year; providing that noncompliance with any of these requirements shall constitute grounds for removal; and requiring service of copy of the Order on all parties.

Appearance by New Jersey Licensed Counsel with Out-of-State Bona Fide Offices
Attached is a notice and certification form for use by New Jersey counsel having out of state bona fide offices to ensure that they have fulfilled the applicable rule requirements. In accordance with Rules 1:20-1(b), 1:28-2 and 1:28B-1(e), all counsel practicing in New Jersey are required to pay an annual fee to the New Jersey Lawyers Fund for Client Protection and file annual registration statements. Moreover, pursuant to R. 1:21-1 (a), a power of attorney must be filed designating the Clerk of the Supreme Court as agent upon whom service of process may be made for all actions, including disciplinary actions. See Rules 1:20-1(b), 1:28-2, 1:28B-1(e) and 1:21-1(a).

Maintenance of Counsel and Case Lists

The mass tort team is responsible for keeping the judge informed as to the number of suits pending, the number settled or resolved, the issues common to all or some, and the names of counsel representing the various parties. Counsel lists are posted on the automated Mass Tort Info Center. Staff have developed databases to assist in this effort. In an effort to avoid staff having to reenter data provided by counsel relating to case characteristics, Atlantic county requires counsel to submit completed spread sheets to the court. A sample appears in the appendix. The use of such a database assists the court in culling similarities or differences and ultimately in identifying bellwether cases for trial. One device that is useful for assisting the court in discerning similarities in issues is the use of short form pleadings as will be discussed. Furthermore, the mass tort team leader is the contact person for new filers, alerting them to the procedures and to the names of liaison counsel from whom they may obtain counsel lists, case management orders and other documents.

Litigation Plan
Early in the litigation, the mass tort judge will usually prepare a plan for the handling of the litigation. The plan must take into consideration the nature of the litigation, the legal issues involved, the number of parties, the number of counsel, the designation of parties by type of industry (e.g., manufacturer, distributor/supplier, trade association), the existence of
10

threshold matters (e.g., class certification, product identification), the number of similar cases outside the jurisdiction, whether a multi-district case is proceeding in the federal courts and whether counsel have organized a steering committee to pursue the matter. To enable the court to gather the necessary information, the court should consider requiring counsel to file concise statements of facts and issues, short form pleadings and/or patient profile sheets. Samples appear in the appendix.

Appointment of Counsel
Mass torts often involve numerous parties with common or similar interests but separate counsel. Traditional procedures in which all papers and documents are served on all attorneys and each attorney files motions, presents arguments, and conducts witness examinations, may result in a waste of time and money, in confusion and in unnecessary burden on the court. Special procedures for coordination of counsel are therefore needed and should be instituted early in the litigation to avoid unnecessary costs and duplicative activity. In some cases, the attorneys coordinate their activities without the courts assistance to eliminate duplication of effort and they should be encouraged to do so. More often, however, the court will need to institute procedures under which one or more attorneys are selected and authorized to act on behalf of other counsel and their clients with respect to specified aspects of the litigation. To do so, the court may invite submissions and suggestions from all counsel and conduct an independent review (usually a hearing is advisable) to ensure that counsel appointed to leading roles are qualified and responsible, that they will fairly and adequately represent all of the parties on their side, and that their fees for doing so will be reasonable. Counsel designated by the court should be reminded of their responsibility to the court and their obligation to act fairly, efficiently, and economically in the interests of all parties and their counsel. See The Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth Edition at 26. After approval and/or modification of a litigation plan, the court implements the plan by organizing counsel into groups, setting forth simplified procedures for filing and for service on existing parties, for the drafting of abbreviated pleadings, for generic discovery and for the submission of motions. The court will designate liaison counsel and appoint various committees of attorneys, such as a discovery steering committee or a technology committee. Sometimes liaison and lead counsel will be designated earlier by the court and memorialized in the initial case management order.

11

Role of Counsel
The Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth Edition, speaks in terms of liaison, lead and trial counsel. For reference: liaison counsel primarily are administrative managers for each side, charged with sharing documents, orders and other information and with maintaining close communication with the court; lead counsel are the primary spokespeople for their side in formulating and presenting arguments and positions; and trial counsel, as the name implies, serve as the principal attorneys at trial. Id. at 24-25.

Coordination of Counsel in Related Litigation

If related litigation is pending in federal or other state courts, the judge should consider the feasibility of coordination among counsel in the various cases. It may be possible through consultation with other judges to bring about the designation of common committees or of counsel and to enter joint or parallel orders governing their function and compensation. Where this is not feasible, the judge may direct counsel to coordinate with the attorneys involved in the other cases to reduce duplication and potential conflicts and to further efficiency and economy through coordination and sharing of resources. In any event, it is desirable for the judges involved to exchange information and copies of orders that might affect proceedings in their courts. In approaching these matters, the court will want to consider the status of the respective actions (some may be close to trial while others are in their early stages), as well as the possibility that some later filed actions may have been filed in other courts by counsel seeking to gain a more prominent and lucrative role. See The Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth Edition at 229-241.

Appointment of Special Masters or Referral to Mediators

Mass torts often require complex fact finding during pretrial, in preparation for trial, or in aid of settlement. Referrals to a neutral may at times be helpful, either by relieving the judge of time-consuming proceedings or by bringing special expertise to bear on specific issues in dispute. In addition to or in the absence of the full-time court employed masters, the mass tort judge has discretion, with the approval of the Chief Justice, to appoint special masters in accordance with R. 4:41 et seq. The judge may also decide to refer all or portions
12

of the litigation to a mediator. Referral of the litigation to mediators is governed by R. 1:40 et seq. It is worth noting that the mass tort judge is prohibited from appointing retired judges as either special masters or mediators. The only exception to this proscription is when the decision to select the retired judge originates with the attorneys rather than the judge. In such cases, after obtaining the approval of the Assignment Judge, the mass tort judge may sign an order memorializing the attorneys choice. See Administrative Directive # 7-04, a copy of which appears in the appendix.

Settlement
Settlement activity in mass tort litigation tends to parallel pretrial and trial organization. Consolidated cases tend to generate settlement-related information at the same time and follow a settlement timetable driven by pretrial and trial deadlines. In general, organization of cases along individual plaintiff lines can be expected to lead to individual settlements, and organization along aggregated lines can be expected to produce aggregated settlements. See The Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth Edition at 167-182.

Coordination with Other Courts

Because many cases involving the same mass tort may be filed in several state and federal jurisdictions, it is vital that the judges handling these matters coordinate their efforts in order to maximize efficiency and economy. Initial contact between judges is usually to discuss the litigation and is generally informal. This initial communication does not commit judges to extensive coordination. However, in some situations the exchange of ideas may lead to further coordination/cooperation as the cases mature and benefits of coordination become clear. See generally Federal Judicial Center, Judicial Federalism In Action: Coordination of Litigation in State and Federal Courts, reprinted in 78 Virginia Law Review 1689, 1733-1736 (1992). Frequently, New Jersey designated mass torts are also the subject of parallel litigation pending in the federal courts. This litigation is frequently coordinated nationally and assigned to a single Federal District Court judge via the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, known informally as the MDL panel. See 28 U.S.C. 1407. New Jersey mass tort judges have found coordination with the designated MDL judge to be an effective means of avoiding duplication of efforts, coordinating discovery, conserving resources and facilitating global settlements.
13

The judges initial conversations tend to focus on general perspectives of the litigation, case management strategies, and areas appropriate for statefederal cooperation. As the cases progress, the judges need to maintain contact on a range of matters including scheduling, simply keeping abreast of cases in the other system(s), preparing for joint hearings, making joint rulings, or consulting on matters of procedure or substantive law. Id. To a certain extent, the amount and frequency of contact is a matter of individual preference, although much of it is tied to the stage the litigation is in, the extent of state federal coordination, and other particulars of the case. For the majority of judges, monthly or bi-monthly contact will suffice; constant communication is far less necessary than might be thought. Id. Maintaining ongoing contact and sharing information yields other benefits as well. Action taken in one court such as settlement or dismissal can directly affect the tactics of litigants in the other courts cases. Remaining aware of the courts action in related cases helps avoid surprises. A situation where a judge is unaware of the action taken in another court is something to be avoided under any circumstances. Id. Coordination can achieve major gains in efficiency and economy. Significant sharing of human and material resources was demonstrated in eleven (11) mass torts cases studied and reviewed in the aforementioned article. Id. at 1700-1706. Reduction in litigation costs, delay, and judicial time and effort were also demonstrated. Id. at 1732. Judges also benefited from each others expertise, ideas, information and techniques Id.

Addition of New Parties

Management of mass tort cases may be complicated by the addition of new parties. New actions may be commenced throughout the course of the litigation, particularly in cases involving latent toxic torts. Moreover, as discovery progresses additional defendants may be joined by amendments to plaintiffs complaints or by a succession of third-party complaints. See The Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth Edition at 408-409. The court may establish at the initial management conference a schedule for joinder of additional parties and amendment of pleadings. The parties should be afforded a reasonable opportunity for discovery before the deadline for adding parties or amending pleadings, but the schedule should not be modified without a showing of good cause. The court may establish a presumptive period for later-added parties to join other parties, e.g., sixty days from service, subject to their right to seek additional time. Id. The court may also develop a system for incorporating new plaintiffs into the structure of the litigation. For example, if prior cases are consolidated into clusters by worksite, disease, or some other feature, a system needs to be devised for assigning new cases to
14

appropriate groups or for creating new groups. Such a system may entail the collection of information about the characteristics of each new case. Necessary data could be collected at filing and could be used to create a database that would provide a continuous flow of the type of information needed to manage the litigation. Id. The court may also wish to consider directing the defendants to compile information, such as the dates on which, and areas in which, each defendant marketed a particular product, so that plaintiffs can determine the appropriate defendants to sue. Such records might forestall claims against the entire universe of possible defendants. Id. Discovery should not ordinarily be postponed until all parties have been joined; indeed, some discovery often will be needed before all potential parties can be identified. Interrogatories may be served on the existing parties; their answers will be available to, and usable by, any parties later added to the litigation. Similarly, new parties may use documents produced in response to requests by others and should ordinarily be given access to document depositories. Id.

Pleadings, Master Files and the Master Docket

The court should consider establishing a master docket number and a master file which should contain standard pleadings, motions, and orders. The master docket number will not represent an actual case, but rather serves as an administrative index of all cases within a particular mass tort. To conserve space and resources, counsel with duplicate pleadings could be permitted, for instance, to file one complete copy of a lengthy pleading, with separate caption and signature pages, fees and Civil Case Information Statement (CIS) forms submitted for each separate case. In such situations, the complete complaint can be maintained in the master file with the caption and signature pages and CIS forms placed in the separate file maintained for each docket number. Answers, third-party complaints, and motions contained in the master file may be deemed automatically filed in each new case to the extent applicable. Similarly, rulings on motions may be deemed to apply in the new cases, as may a pretrial order establishing a standard plan and schedule for discovery. These procedures will expedite proceedings in the later-filed cases, while preserving the parties rights to claim error from adverse rulings. The parties should not, however, be precluded from presenting special issues or requests in individual cases by supplemental pleadings, motions, and arguments. See The Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth Edition at 409.

Factual and Legal Issues

15

Factual and legal issues should be identified as early as possible, starting in most cases at the initial pretrial conference. Legal issues should be resolved as soon as feasible and matters not in factual dispute should be identified and put aside. Examples of candidates for early resolution include jurisdictional issues and assuring proper parties are before the court (often related to product identification issues). Alexander B. Aikman, Managing Mass Tort Cases: A Resource Book For State Trial Court Judges 53 (1995). A sample statement of facts form appears in the appendix.

Motion Practice
Some judges have attempted to streamline motion practice by using several techniques: deemed filings, telephone conference call arguments, rulings banks for prior decisions and abbreviated briefing. Furthermore, timely rulings and immediate access to a judicial decisionmaker can greatly reduce discovery disputes and practice.

Motion Filing Fees

The fee for motions is $30 per docket number unless a motion is filed and granted permitting counsel to file an omnibus motion. If such a motion is granted, a single $30 fee will be charged and counsel must attach a list of affected cases, including docket numbers, to the motion papers. Staff encountering objections to payment of the $30 docket number should advise counsel to file a motion seeking leave to file an omnibus motion. Finally, in appropriate cases, the judge has discretion to interpret the application of this policy.

Deeming Motions
Motions should be decided once. Parties should not be allowed to file the same motions repeatedly. The easiest way to assure this seems to be deeming. As part of the case management order or otherwise, the judge can order that already-filed motions are deemed to have been filed by subsequent parties and the judge's rulings already made are deemed to have been made for subsequent parties. There is limited support among judges for parties being able to opt-out of these deeming orders, but most judges seem to favor them and to make them binding. Associated with this idea of deeming would be the idea of a rulings bank for subsequent parties so they can learn how the court has previously ruled. See The Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth Edition at 409.

16

Use of Telephone Conferencing

Telephone conference call arguments are favored to alleviate the burden on geographically dispersed counsel having to travel to the mass tort judges chambers, thus saving costs.

Privilege Claims and Protective Orders

Attention should be given at an early conference, preferably before discovery begins, to the possible need for procedures to accommodate claims of privilege or for protection of materials from discovery as trial preparation materials, as trade secrets, or on privacy grounds. If not addressed early, these matters may later disrupt the discovery schedule. Consideration will need to be given not only to the rights and needs of the parties but also to the existing or potential interests of those not involved in the litigation. See The Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth Edition at 62.

Discovery
A discovery plan can facilitate the orderly and cost-effective exchange of discovery and expeditious resolution of discovery disputes. The plan should reflect the nature of the litigation and should be developed in collaboration with counsel. As the Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth Edition, points out, although the judge should initially solicit counsels proposal for a plan, the court should scrutinize the plan as limits may be appropriate on even the tentative discovery plan agreed to by counsel. Regular contact with counsel through periodic conferences will help monitor and ensure the progress of discovery and enable the court to adjust the plan, if necessary. Id. at 51. According to The Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth Edition, the following are examples of discovery limits that a judge might consider: Time limits and schedules. The discovery plan should include a schedule for the completion of specified discovery, affording a basis for judicial monitoring of progress. To prevent time limits from being frustrated, the judge should rule promptly on disputes so that further discovery is not delayed or hampered while a ruling is pending. Limits on quantity. Time limits may be complemented by limits on the number and length of depositions, on the number of interrogatories, and on the volume of requests for production. Imposing such limitations only after hearing from the attorneys makes possible a reasonably informed judgment about the needs of the case. Phased, sequenced, or targeted discovery. Counsel and the judge will rarely be
17

able to determine conclusively early in the litigation what discovery will be necessary; some discovery of potential relevance at the outset may be rendered irrelevant as the litigation proceeds, and the need for other discovery may become known only through later developments. For effective discovery control, initial discovery should focus on matters witnesses, documents, information that appear pivotal. As the litigation process, this initial discovery may render other discovery unnecessary or provide leads for further necessary discovery. Initial discovery may also be targeted at information that might facilitate settlement negotiations or provide the foundation for a dispositive motion; a discovery plan may call for limited discovery to lay the foundation for early settlement discussions. Targeted discovery may be nonexhaustive, conducted to produce critical information rapidly on one or more specific issues. In permitting this kind of discovery, it is important to balance the potential savings against the risk of later duplicative discovery should it be necessary to resume the deposition of a witness or the production of documents. Targeted discovery may, in some cases, be appropriate in connection with a motion for class certification; however, matters relevant to such a motion may be so intertwined with the merits that targeting discovery would be inefficient. Subject-matter priorities. Where the scope of the litigation is in doubt at the outset, the court may consider limiting discovery to particular time periods or geographical areas, until the relevance of expanded discovery has been established. Sequencing by parties. Although discovery by all parties ordinarily proceeds concurrently, sometimes one or more parties should be allowed to proceed first. For example, if a party needs discovery to respond to an early summary judgment motion, that party may be given priority. Sometimes judges order common discovery to proceed in a specified sequence, without similarly limiting individual discovery in the various cases. Forms of discovery. Some judges prescribe a sequence for particular types of discovery for example, interrogatories may be used to identify needed discovery and documents, followed by requests for production of documents, depositions, and finally requests for admission. If the court directs that discovery be conducted in a specified sequence, it may nonetheless grant leave to vary the order for good cause, as when emergency depositions are needed for witnesses in ill health or about to leave the country. Various other practices can help minimize the cost, delay and burden associated with discovery. The judge may consider reminding counsel of the following: Stipulations. The parties can facilitate discovery by stipulating with respect to notice and manner of taking depositions and adopting various informal procedures. The court may, however, require that it be kept advised of such agreements to ensure compliance with the discovery plan. Informal discovery. The court may encourage counsel to exchange
18

information, particularly relevant documents, without resort to formal discovery. Automatic disclosure. Many orders require the parties to identify relevant witnesses and categories of documents early in the litigation, without waiting for discovery requests. By stipulation or court order, the timing and content of this disclosure may be tailored to the needs of the particular case. Reduction of deposition costs. Depositions taken by telephone, videoconference, electronic recording devices, or having deponents come to central locations sometimes save money. Likewise, parties may forgo attending a deposition in which they have only a minor interest if a procedure is established for supplemental questions by telephone, videoconference, written questions, or resumption of examination in person in the event that, after a review of the transcript, they find further inquiry necessary. Information from other litigation and sources. When information is available from public records (such as government studies or reports), from other litigation, or from discovery conducted by others in the same litigation, the courts may consider requiring the parties to review those materials before undertaking additional discovery. The court may limit the parties to supplemental discovery if those materials will be usable as evidence in the present litigation. Interrogatory answers, depositions, and testimony given in another action ordinarily are admissible if made by and offered against a party in the current action. Coordination of common discovery in related litigation may also save costs, even if the litigation is pending in other courts. If related cases are pending in more than one court, coordinated common discovery can prevent duplication and conflicts. Modified discovery responses. When a response to a discovery request can be provided in a form somewhat different from that requested, but with substantially the same information and with less time and expense, the responding party should make that fact known and seek agreement from the requesting party. Phased or sequenced discovery of computerized data. Computerized data are often not accessible by date, author, addressee, or subject matter without costly review and indexing. Therefore, it may be appropriate for the court to phase or sequence discovery of computerized data by accessibility. At the outset, allowing discovery of relevant, nonprivileged data available to the respondent in the routine course of business is appropriate and should be treated as a conventional document request. If the requesting party requests more computerized data, the court may consider additional sources in ascending order of cost and burden to the responding party. The judge may encourage the parties to agree to phased discovery of computerized data as part or the discovery plan. Computerized data produced in agreed on formats. Information subject to discovery increasingly exists in digital or computer-readable form. The judge may encourage counsel to produce requested data in formats and on media that reduce transport and conversion costs and maximize the ability of all parties to organize and analyze the data during pretrial preparation. Sampling of computer data. Parties may have vast collections of computerized data, such as stored e-mail messages or backup files containing routine business information
19

kept for disaster recovery purposes. Unlike collections of paper documents, these data are not normally organized for retrieval by date, author, addressee, or subject matter and may be very costly and time-consuming to investigate thoroughly. Under such circumstances, judges have ordered that random samples of data storage media can be restored and analyzed to determine if further discovery is warranted under benefit versus burden considerations. Combined discovery requests. Several forms of discovery can be combined into a single request. Ordinarily, more time should be allowed for parties responding to a combined discovery request, even though such responses sometimes consume less overall time than do responses to traditional separate discovery requests. Conference depositions. If knowledge of a subject is divided among several people and credibility is not an issue, a conference deposition may be feasible. Each witness is sworn, and the questions are then directed to the group or those having the information sought. Persons in other locations who may also be needed to provide information may be scheduled to be on call during the conference deposition. This procedure may be useful in obtaining background information, identifying and explaining documents, and examining reports compiled by several persons. Id. at 54-59. The circumstance of each case will control decisions relating to the timing of discovery. As previously discussed, therefore, the court may consider: starting with discovery minimally necessary to allow evaluation of claims and a possible early settlement effort or diversion into CDR/ADR; focusing discovery on specific causation and damages for mature torts, since much of the early, largely voluntary discovery in a particular case and discovery in earlier cases is directed to liability; directing discovery on legal or factual issues that may be dispositive before other discovery is started; focusing discovery on certain issues for a defined number of weeks or months, with possibly overlapping time frames for different issues (e.g., discovery on issue X from months 3-6 and discovery on issue Y from months 5-9); and limiting discovery to a few "bellwether" cases while staying discovery in other cases (a problem in some states because of prejudgment interest if plaintiffs prevail in a later trial). Id. at 435-436.

Discovery in mass tort cases frequently has two distinct dimensions: that involving the conduct of the defendants, and that relating to the individual plaintiffs activities and injuries. Sometimes the court directs that discovery first be conducted regarding those matters that bear on the defendants liability to all plaintiffs, deferring discovery into the details of each plaintiffs unique claims. In other cases, however, recognizing the need to obtain plaintiffspecific information for settlement purposes, the court may order that such discovery be conducted concurrently with, or even preceding, discovery from the defendants. Id.
20

HIPAA - Compliant Authorization for Release of Medical Records

A form that complies with the provisions of 45 C.F.R. 164.508, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) has been developed by the mass tort judges to enable counsel to secure needed medical records. A sample appears in the appendix.

Depositions
Several courts have attempted to reduce the number of depositions taken. Some courts allow use of depositions from prior cases in the same or other jurisdictions. Others have authorized state, regional, or national depositions that can then preempt further discovery. There has also been an increasing use of video, telephone, and abbreviated depositions. One video deposition, for example, can be used in repeated standardized trials. Updates can be conducted by telephone, if necessary. Courts are also limiting the duration of depositions and the number of questions permitted. See id. at 83-89, 438-439.

Commissions to Take Out-of-State Depositions

Sometimes, plaintiffs involved in New Jersey mass tort litigation reside in other states. Because of this, treating doctors and other witnesses are often physically located outside New Jersey. To enable counsel to secure the depositions or the production of documents from out-of-state witnesses, counsel must bring motions seeking orders issuing commissions to compel discovery in the other states.

Interrogatories and Document Production Requests

To avoid multiple requests for the same information, the court may encourage or require parties with similar interests to meet and fashion joint standard interrogatories and document requests. Answers to interrogatories should generally be made available to other litigants, who in turn should generally be permitted to ask only supplemental questions. In lieu of interrogatories, questionnaires directed to individual plaintiffs in standard, agreedupon forms have been used successfully. Id.at 438.

21

Use of Sampling Techniques

In cases that involve a massive number of claims for damages for similar injuries, sampling techniques can streamline discovery relating to individual plaintiffs activities and injuries. Sampling and surveying can be used to obtain information useful both for settlement and for bellwether trials of the sample cases or for a class trial. Whether the aim is settlement or trial, the court should ensure that the sample is representative of all claims encompassed in the particular proceeding with respect to relevant factors, such as the severity of the injuries, the circumstances of exposure to the product or accident, applicable state law, and the products and defendants alleged to be responsible. Id. at 436-437.

Expert Reports
Expert opinions play a vital role in many mass tort cases, both during the discovery process and at trial. The court will ordinarily establish early in the litigation a schedule for disclosing expert opinions in the form of a written report and for deposing the experts. An early deadline for the experts final opinions may be needed to avoid the confusion that often results if opinions are altered as trial approaches. An early deadline also permits the court to rule timely on admissibility and decide whether an independent expert should be appointed. Id. at 440-445.

Trial
According to The Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth Edition, firm trial settings are as critical for disposing of mass tort cases as they are for other types of civil cases. See The Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth Edition at 169. In deciding which cases to set for trial, the filing-date order is as reasonable and fair a basis as any, since normal filing patterns will produce cases with a mix of claimed damages on a roughly random basis. A mix of claimed damages being set for trial contemporaneously is important because experience indicates that all parties' interests are well served by having a mix of serious and not-soserious damage claims being set for trial at the same time. Most of the cases set for trial will settle rather than be tried, just as with the general civil trial calendar; settlement prospects are enhanced if the parties are able to settle a mix of cases. See State Justice Institute (SJI), Megatorts, The Lessons of Asbestos Litigation 11 (1992). In mass tort cases involving large numbers of plaintiffs, a single trial of all issues before a single jury may be impractical, at least in the absence of special procedures. See id. Courts have, however, experimented with various approaches to structuring trials to achieve greater efficiency and expedition in the resolution of mass tort cases. The approaches include: (1) a series of traditional trials, each with an individual plaintiff against an individual defendant on all issues, tried with the expectation that a few verdicts will establish parameters for the settlement or trial of all remaining cases; (2) a series of consolidated trials on all issues,
22

each with groups of plaintiffs against an individual defendant or multiple defendants; (3) a consolidated trial with all or most plaintiffs against all or most defendants on common issues only, reserving the individual issues for individual or smaller consolidated trials; (4) a consolidated trial on common issues followed by a stipulated binding procedure (e.g., arbitration) to resolve individual issues or by some other approach to the individual issues (e.g., bellwether trials, extrapolation, special master); (5) a consolidated trial of all issues of a representative sample of cases in which the trier of fact establishes a lump sum damage award for all plaintiffs; and (6) bellwether trials on all issues of a limited number of selected cases representative of the total mix, to establish a foundation for resolving the balance. See The Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth Edition at 466-468. Bellwether trials can be combined with one of the following procedures to resolve the remaining claims: (1) extrapolation of the average of the verdicts to all similar cases; (2) referral to a special master for application of the liability and damages verdicts; (3) consolidated follow-up trial or trials; or (4) a stipulated procedure to resolve individual claims according to a formula or by a hearing before an arbitrator, special master, or magistrate judge. See The Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth Edition at 330. In pursuing traditional or bellwether trials, the court will need to decide whether to have a unitary trial, or to bifurcate liability and damages, or to trifurcate liability, general causation, and individual causation. Reverse bifurcation or trifurcation, starting with damages, has been used when the court determines that degree of injury and the amount of damages are the primary issues in dispute. Traditional or bellwether trials of mass torts can benefit from many of the standard practices for managing trials of complex litigation. Similarities among the cases tried and cases awaiting trial may make feasible the development and use of a standard pretrial order, including generally applicable rulings on evidentiary and trial issues. The repetitive presentation of the same evidence may be streamlined by the use, for example, of videotaped expert testimony and standard exhibits. Id.

Bifurcating Trials
A common technique used in mass tort has been bifurcating liability from damages. For the mature mass torts, Judges may reverse bifurcate, trying damages first which involves a shorter trial and defines defendants' exposure. It often will resolve the entire case. That, of course, is the goal when cases are divided: to divide the trial in such a way that the issue(s) or matter(s) tried first will produce a result that will enable the parties to settle the remaining issues without additional trial time. But this will work against settlement if the dollar award is very high or very low. Reverse bifurcation probably is more effective for mature mass torts than for emerging ones. When liability is hotly contested, especially for emerging mass torts, trying the liability issues separate from damages in some early benchmark cases may not be effective. Id.

23

Trifurcating or Further Dividing Trials

The principle in dividing a case into three or even more pieces is the same as dividing it in two: trying to find a way to resolve critical, possibly dispositive issues without trying all issues, and thus shorten the time required in trial. The circumstance in which subdividing a trial into three or more stages might be appropriate, for example, is two hotly disputed issues or sets of facts, either one or both of which could result in disposing of the entire case without trying all the remaining issues. The issues separated out must be discrete and reasonably independent of the others. If there is too much intertwining of facts, time might be saved in the first trial, but the time spent in the second and third trials retrying the original, intertwined facts may result in more total trial time--and hence delay--than if the case had just been tried in its entirety from start to finish. Id. at 109.

Use of Special Verdicts and Interrogatories

Special verdicts can be very helpful in mass tort cases. In consolidated trials, in particular, special verdicts and interrogatories may be helpful to both the parties and the jurors to isolate key questions and issues. Id. at 110.

Subsequent Related Actions

The initial order of the Supreme Court denominating a particular category of cases as a mass tort and referring those cases to a particular county for centralized management may specify that subsequent related actions are to be transferred from the counties in which they are filed to the designated mass tort county and judge without further application to the Supreme Court.

Severance
The mass tort judge may thereafter review the cases designated as a mass tort and assigned for centralized management, and may sever and return to the original county(ies) of venue any that no longer warrant centralization.

Termination of Centralized Management

When the mass tort judge determines that centralized management is no longer necessary or appropriate under the circumstances, he or she will send a written report to the Administrative Director, with copies to the Assignment Judge, Civil Presiding Judge, Trial Court Administrator, Civil Division Manager of his or her vicinage and all counsel of record in any pending cases. The report shall provide details of matters resolved as well as the particulars concerning any unresolved matters including whether the latter will be
24

returned to their original county(ies) of venue or will continue to be handled until resolution by the mass tort judge. This report will be presented to the Supreme Court for review. Thereafter, a Notice to the Bar advising of the request and requesting comments or objections will be sent to all Assignment Judges and Civil Presiding Judges, will be published by the Administrative Director in the legal newspapers and will be posted on the Judiciarys Internet website both in the Notices section and in the Mass Tort Information Center. Once the comment period has closed, the Administrative Director of the Courts will present the termination request, along with a compilation of any comments and objections received, to the Supreme Court for its review and determination. If the Supreme Court determines that the mass tort designation should be terminated, it may terminate the centralized management or determine that continuing the centralized management of any pending and future such cases by the designated mass tort judge is warranted. Following the Supreme Courts determination, an appropriate order will be entered. The order will be sent to all Assignment Judges and Civil Presiding Judges, will be published in the legal newspapers and will be posted on the Judiciarys Internet website both in the Notices section and in the Mass Tort Information Center.

25

TABLE OF APPENDICES
DIRECTIVE #10-07 MASS TORT GUIDELINES RULE 4:38; CONSOLIDATION; SEPARATE TRIALS SAMPLE NOTICE TO THE BAR AND SUPREME COURT ORDER SAMPLE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER SAMPLE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 3 SAMPLE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 5 SAMPLE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 7 SAMPLE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 9 SAMPLE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ISSUES SAMPLE SHORT FORM COMPLAINT AND PATIENT PROFILE RULE 4:41 RULE 1:40 DIRECTIVE #7-04 SAMPLE HIPAA COMPLIANT AUTHORIZATION NOTICE AND CERTIFICATION FOR N.J. LICENSED OUT-OF-STATE COUNSEL SAMPLE CASE PROFILE SPREADSHEET VIOXX

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PHILIP S. CARCHMAN, P.J.A.D. ACTING ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS RICHARD J. HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX PO BOX 037 TRENTON, NEW JERSEY 08625-0037

Directive # 10-07
(Supersedes Directive #11-03) TO: ASSIGNMENT JUDGES CIVIL PRESIDING JUDGES PHILIP S. CARCHMAN, P.J.A.D. MASS TORTS REVISED GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION OCTOBER 25, 2007
[Questions or comments may be directed to 609-292-8471.]

FROM: SUBJ: DATE:

Pursuant to Rule 4:38A Centralized Management of Mass Torts the Supreme Court has approved the attached revised Mass Tort Guidelines and Criteria for Designation (Mass Tort Guidelines). Effective immediately, these revised Mass Tort Guidelines replace those promulgated by Directive # 11-03, which Directive thus is superseded. The Court revised the Mass Tort Guidelines so as to include a detailed procedure to be followed for the termination of a mass tort designation. The termination procedure follows the approach already used for mass tort designation applications, e.g., publication of a notice seeking comment before the Court acts on the request. Questions or comments regarding this revision or regarding the Mass Tort Guidelines in general may be directed to Michelle V. Perone, Esq., Chief, Civil Court Programs, in the AOCs Civil Practice Division at 609-292-8471. P.S.C.
Attachment cc: Chief Justice Stuart Rabner Hon. Jamie D. Happas, J.S.C. Hon. Jonathan N. Harris, J.S.C. Hon. Carol E. Higbee, P.J.Cv. Hon. Ann Graf McCormick, J.S.C. Theodore J. Fetter, Deputy Administrative Director Stephen W. Townsend, Clerk, Supreme Court AOC Directors and Assistant Directors Trial Court Administrators Civil Division Managers Arbitration Administrators Michelle V. Perone, Chief, Civil Court Programs Steven D. Bonville, Special Assistant Francis W. Hoeber, Special Assistant

MASS TORT GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION

[As Promulgated by Directive # 10-07 Pursuant to Rule 4:38A]

Procedure for Requesting Designation of a Case as a Mass Tort for Centralized Management The Assignment Judge of any vicinage or an attorney involved in a case or cases that may constitute a mass tort may apply to the Supreme Court, through the Administrative Director of the Courts, to have the case(s) classified as a mass tort, and assigned to a designated judge for centralized management. The Assignment Judge or attorney making such an application must give notice to all parties then involved in the case(s), advising that the application has been made and that a Notice to the Bar will appear in the legal newspapers and in the Mass Tort Information Center on the Judiciarys Internet website providing information on where and within what time period comments on and objections to the application may be made. Such Notice advising of the application and requesting comments or objections will be sent by the Administrative Director to all Assignment Judges and Civil Presiding Judges, will be published by the Administrative Director in the legal newspapers, and will be posted on the Judiciarys Internet website both in the Notices section and in the Mass Tort Information Center. Once the comment period has closed, the Administrative Director of the Courts will present the application, along with a compilation of any comments and objections received, to the Supreme Court for its review and determination. If the Supreme Court determines that the case(s) should be classified as a mass tort and assigned to a designated judge for centralized management and, in that judges discretion, trial, an appropriate Order will be entered. The Order will be sent to all Assignment Judges and Civil Presiding Judges, will be published in the legal newspapers, and will be posted in the Mass Tort Information Center on the Judiciarys Internet website.

Criteria to be Applied in Determining Whether Designation as a Mass Tort is Warranted In determining whether designation as a mass tort is warranted, the following factors, among others, will be considered: whether the case(s) possess(es) the following characteristics: it involves large numbers of parties;it involves many claims with common, recurrent issues of law and fact that are associated with a single product, mass disaster, or complex environmental or toxic tort; there is geographical dispersement of parties;

there is a high degree of commonality of injury or damages among plaintiffs; there is a value interdependence between different claims, that is, the perceived strength or weakness of the causation and liability aspects of the case(s) are often dependent upon the success or failure of similar lawsuits in other jurisdictions; and there is a degree of remoteness between the court and actual decision-makers in the litigation, that is, even the simplest of decisions may be required to pass through layers of local, regional, national, general and house counsel.

whether there is a risk that centralization may unreasonably delay the progress, increase the expense, or complicate the processing of any action, or otherwise prejudice a party; whether centralized management is fair and convenient to the parties, witnesses and counsel; whether there is a risk of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders or judgments if the cases are not managed in a coordinated fashion; whether coordinated discovery would be advantageous; whether the cases require specialized expertise and case processing as provided by the dedicated mass tort judge and staff; whether centralization would result in the efficient utilization of judicial resources and the facilities and personnel of the court; whether issues of insurance, limits on assets and potential bankruptcy can be best addressed in coordinated proceedings; and whether there are related matters pending in Federal court or in other state courts that require coordination with a single New Jersey judge.

Choice of Site for Centralized Management Issues of fairness, geographical location of parties and attorneys, and the existing civil and mass tort caseload in the vicinage will be considered in determining to which vicinage a particular mass tort will be assigned for centralized management. This decision will be made by the Supreme Court.

Subsequent Related Actions The initial order of the Supreme Court denominating a particular category of cases as a mass tort and referring those cases to a particular county for centralized management may specify that subsequent related actions are to be transferred from the counties in which they are filed to the designated mass tort county and judge without further application to the Supreme Court.

Severance The mass tort judge may thereafter review the cases designated as a mass tort and assigned for centralized management, and may sever and return to the original county(ies) of venue any that no longer warrant centralization.

Termination of Centralized Management When the mass tort judge determines that centralized management is no longer necessary or appropriate under the circumstances, he or she will send a written report to the Administrative Director, with copies to the Assignment Judge, Civil Presiding Judge, Trial Court Administrator, Civil Division Manager of his or her vicinage and all counsel of record in any pending cases. The report shall provide details of matters resolved as well as the particulars concerning any unresolved matters including whether the latter will be returned to their original county(ies) of venue or will continue to be handled until resolution by the mass tort judge. This report will be presented to the Supreme Court for review. Thereafter, a Notice to the Bar advising of the request and requesting comments or objections will be sent to all Assignment Judges and Civil Presiding Judges, will be published by the Administrative Director in the legal newspapers and will be posted on the Judiciarys Internet website both in the Notices section and in the Mass Tort Information Center. Once the comment period has closed, the Administrative Director of the Courts will present the termination request, along with a compilation of any comments and objections received, to the Supreme Court for its review and determination. If the Supreme Court determines that the mass tort designation should be terminated, it may terminate the centralized management or determine that continuing the centralized management of any pending and future such cases by the designated mass tort judge is warranted. Following the Supreme Courts determination, an appropriate order will be entered. The order will be sent to all Assignment Judges and Civil Presiding Judges, will be published in the legal newspapers and will be posted on the Judiciarys Internet website both in the Notices section and in the Mass Tort Information Center.

RULE 4:38. CONSOLIDATION; SEPARATE TRIALS 4:38-1. Consolidation (a) Actions in the Superior Court. When actions involving a common question of law or fact arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are pending in the Superior Court, the court on a party's or its own motion may order the actions consolidated. If the actions are not triable in the same county or vicinage, the order shall be made by the Assignment Judge of the county in which the venue is laid in the action first instituted on motion, the judge's own initiative, or on certification of the matter to the judge by a judge of the Law or Chancery Division. (b) Actions in the Superior and Other Courts. When an action is pending in the Superior Court, and another action involving a common question of law or fact arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is pending in any other court, the Superior Court on a party's or its own motion may remove the action from the other court and consolidate it with the action in the Superior Court. (c) Order; Further Proceedings. Unless the court otherwise directs in the order of consolidation, all papers thereafter filed in the consolidated action shall (1) include the caption and docket number of each separate action, that of the earliest instituted action to be listed first, and (2) state with specificity the pleading or motion to which the paper is responsive. If actions pending in different venues are consolidated, the order shall specify the venue in which the consolidated action shall proceed and the party having the responsibility to file a copy of the order with the deputy clerk of the Superior Court in each county from which an action is being transferred. The order of consolidation may also include such terms as the court may prescribe to expedite further proceedings. In addition to the filing required by R. 1:6-4, a copy of the order of consolidation shall be included in the deputy clerk of the Superior Court's file of each separate action. Note: Source-R.R. 4:43-1(a)(b)(c)(d)(e); paragraph (b) amended, paragraphs (c) and (d) deleted and former paragraph (e) redesignated as paragraph (c) July 26, 1984 effective September 10, 1984; paragraph (c) amended June 29, 1990 to be effective September 4, 1990; paragraph (a) amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994; paragraph (c) amended June 28, 1996 to be effective September 1, 1996. 4:38-2. Separate Trials (a) Severance of Claims. The court, for the convenience of the parties or to avoid prejudice, may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, third-party claim, or separate issue, or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, thirdparty claims, or issues. (b) Separation of Liability and Damage Claims. Whenever multiple parties, issues orclaims are presented in individual or consolidated actions and the nature of the action or actions is such that a trial of all issues as to liability and damages may be complex and confusing, or whenever the court finds that a substantial saving of time would result from trial of the issue of liability in the first instance, the court may on a party's or its own

motion, direct that the issues of liability and damages be separately tried. Except in extraordinary circumstances, the issue of liability shall be tried first, and if the order of bifurcation otherwise directs, the reasons therefor shall be explicitly stated therein. Note: Source-R.R. 4:43-2(a)(b). Caption of paragraph (b) amended November 5, 1986 to be effective January 1, 1987; paragraph (b) amended January 19, 1989 to be effective February 1, 1989.

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

NOTICE RE: Designation of phenylpropanolamine ('PPA') Litigation as a Mass Tort
Accompanying the publication of this Notice to the Bar is a copy of the Supreme Courts September 17, 2001 Order designating all pending and future litigation statewide involving the drug phenylpropanolamine ('PPA') as a mass tort and transferring the pretrial management of all such cases to Middlesex County to be handled on a coordinated basis by the Honorable Marina Corodemus. Richard J. Williams, J.A.D. Administrative Director of the Courts Dated: September 25, 2001 ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that, in the matter of all pending and future litigation seeking damages or other relief arising out of the use of phenylpropanolamine ('PPA'), all complaints that have been filed in the various counties and that are under case management or in discovery or awaiting case management and discovery are transferred from the county of venue to Superior Court, Law Division, Middlesex County (Vicinage No. 8), and assigned for management to the Honorable Marina Corodemus; It is FURTHER ORDERED that venue in all existing such litigation as specified above is transferred to Middlesex County (Vicinage No. 8); and It is FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to N.J. Const. (1947), Art.VI, sec.2, par.3, Rule 4:3-2 governing venue in the Superior Court is supplemented and relaxed so that all future complaints seeking damages or other relief arising out of the use of PPA, no matter where they might be venued, shall be transferred to Middlesex County (Vicinage No. 8) and assigned for management to Judge Corodemus; and It is FURTHER ORDERED that Judge Corodemus, with the assistance of a Special Master previously appointed with approval of the Chief Justice, shall oversee all pretrial case management and discovery for such cases as are governed by this Order and shall determine when such cases are ready for trial whereupon such cases shall be returned to the original county of venue for trial; and It is FURTHER ORDERED that no Special Master may be appointed in this litigation without the express approval of the Chief Justice. For the Court Deborah T. Poritz Chief Justice
Dated: September 17, 2001

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION:MIDDLESEX COUNTY IN RE: REZULIN LITIGATION CASE NO. 246 CIVIL ACTION CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 3

THIS MATTER having been conferenced before Special Master Honorable Peter Ciolino (retired) on December 12, 2000 in the presence of Arthur Penn, Esq., Jamie L. Sheller, Esq., Seth Lesser, Esq. and Esther E. Berezofsky, Esq.; And it appearing that counsel desire to address the motion filed by Jamie L. Sheller, Esq., entitled "Plaintiff's Motion to Appeal Case Management Recommendation No. 1 of the Special Master"; And it further appearing that a resolution of the motion at issue be resolved by an amendment to Case Management Recommendation No. 1, dated November 13, 2000; and therefore IT IS ON THIS _13th_ day of January, 2001, ORDERED as follows: 1. Section IV.5 shall state the following: 5. Liaison Counsel for each side shall:

a) coordinate the position of co-counsel on all matters arising during pretrial proceedings and to coordinate to avoid duplication such positions to the Court by way of brief or oral argument; b) co-chair the discovery steering committee and coordinate the initiation and conduct of discovery, including the preparation of joint interrogatories and requests for the production of documents; scheduling the examination of deposition witnesses; serving notices of such depositions; c) coordinate specific tasks among other counsel in a manner to insure that pre-trial preparation is conducted effectively, efficiently and economically; d) entered into stipulations with opposing counsel with coordination and consent of all plaintiffs' counsel, necessary for the conduct of the litigation;

e) prepare and distribute to the parties periodic status reports; f) perform such other duties as may be incidental to proper coordination of pre-trial activities or authorized by further Order of the Court; g) schedule, meet and confer sessions between counsel;

h) prepare and maintain an up-to-date list of all counsel for the coordinated litigation. 2. Section VI. 3 of Recommendation No. 1, dated November 13, 2000, shall now state: 2. Liaison Counsel shall coordinate the filing of any Motion that is applicable to more than one party in a case.

_____Judge Corodemus___________ Honorable Marina Corodemus

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION:MIDDLESEX COUNTY IN RE: REZULIN LITIGATION CASE NO. 246 CIVIL ACTION CASE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION NO. 5 THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court by Special Master Hon. Peter Ciolino (retired) And it appearing that liaison counsel have reached an agreement on the following discovery matters; and, therefore; IT IS ON THIS _____ day of March, 2001, ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiffs have leave to serve the attached interrogatories, demand for production of documents by category, and demand for production of specific documents. 2. These interrogatories and document demands shall constitute generic liability discovery. Plaintiffs may supplement this generic liability discovery on good cause shown. 3. Plaintiffs shall have the right to file case specific discovery in a form approved by the Special Master and the court. 4. Defendants shall serve their answers to plaintiffs' interrogatories and demand for production of documents within 60 days from the date of order of the court adopting this recommendation. The response to the document demand shall be in electronic form and will be made in a manner reasonably designed to identify documents or ranges of document that respond to each of the document demands. 5. If plaintiffs have any objections to the answers to interrogatories or document demands, they shall advise the defendants of these objections within 30 days of plaintiffs' receipt of defendants' responses. Defendant shall then have 30 days from the date they receive plaintiffs' objections to respond to these objections. Thereafter, plaintiffs may move the Special Master for any relief plaintiffs deem appropriate.
932594-1 PCIOLINO

6. After the answers to interrogatories are final, defendants shall serve their interrogatory answers upon plaintiffs' liaison counsel. 7. Counsel for plaintiffs and defendants will confer and attempt to agree on dates for the depositions of doctors Delaiglesa, Ballina and Green, at a time and place agreeable to the parties, assuming such witnesses are within defendants' control. Once agreement has been reached as to the date, place and time of depositions, the witnesses may be deposed on 30 days notice to all counsel. If an agreement cannot be reached as to the date, time or location of the depositions, the parties shall contact the Special Master to resolve any disputes. 8. Plaintiffs' liaison counsel shall serve cross notices of the depositions on all attorneys of record in Rezulin cases in New Jersey. ___________________________________________ Peter Ciolino, Special Master Rezulin Litigation

932594-1 PCIOLINO

RULE 4:41. REFERENCES 4:41-1. Reference The reference for the hearing of a matter by a judge of the Superior Court shall be made to a master only upon approval by the Assignment Judge, and then only when all parties consent or under extraordinary circumstances. The order of reference shall state whether the reference is consensual and, if not, shall recite the extraordinary circumstances justifying the reference. 4:41-2. Compensation The master's compensation shall be fixed by the court and charged upon such of the parties or paid out of any fund or property as the court directs. The master is entitled to a writ of execution against a party failing to comply with an order for compensation. Note: Source-R.R. 4:54-2; amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994. 4:41-3. Powers The order of reference may specify or limit the master's powers and may direct the master to report only upon particular issues or to do particular acts or to receive and report evidence only. Subject to such specifications and limitations, the master has and shall exercise the power to regulate all proceedings in every hearing, to pass upon the admissibility of the evidence and to do all acts necessary or proper for the efficient performance of the duties directed by the order. The master may require the production of testimonial and documentary evidence upon all matters within the scope of the reference and shall have the authority to put witnesses on oath and call the parties to the action and examine them on oath. Unless the order of reference otherwise directs, the master shall cause the proceedings to be recorded verbatim, shall rule upon the admissibility of evidence, and shall make a record of evidence offered and excluded as provided by R. 1:7-3 for a court sitting without a jury. No objection to the admission or exclusion of evidence may be made before the court unless it was made before the master. Note: Source-R.R. 4:54-3; amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994. 4:41-4. Proceedings (a) Meetings. Upon the entry of an order of reference the court shall forthwith transmit a copy thereof to the master who shall, unless the order otherwise provides, forthwith set a time and place for the first meeting of the parties or their attorneys to be held within 10 days after the date of the order and notify the parties or their attorneys thereof. The hearings shall thereafter be held continuously on all regular court days unless otherwise ordered by the court due to unusual circumstances stated at length in the order. Any party, on notice to the parties and master, may apply to the court for an order requiring the master to expedite the proceedings and to make a report. If a party fails to appear at the time and place appointed, the master may proceed ex parte or adjourn the proceedings to a future day, giving notice to the absent party of the adjournment. (b) Witnesses. The parties may compel the attendance of witnesses before the master by the issuance and service of subpoenas as provided by R. 1:9. A witness failing to appear or give evidence may be punished as for a contempt and subjected to the sanctions provided by R. 1:9 and R. 4:23-1 to 4:23-4, inclusive.

(c) Statement of Accounts. When matters of accounting are in issue, the master may prescribe the form in which the accounts shall be submitted and may require or receive in evidence a statement by a certified public accountant who is called as a witness. Upon objection of a party to any of the items thus submitted or upon a showing that the form of statement is insufficient, the master may require a different form of statement to be furnished, or the accounts or specific items thereof to be proved by oral examination of the accounting parties or upon written interrogatories or in such other manner as the master directs. Note: Source-R.R. 4:54-4(a)(b)(c); paragraphs (a) and (c) amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994; paragraph (a) amended June 28, 1996 to be effective e September 1, 1996. (a) Contents and Filing. The master shall prepare a report upon the matters submitted including any findings of fact and conclusions of law required by the order. The master shall file the report with the court within 10 days after the conclusion of the hearings, unless the court extends the time within such 10-day period by order reciting the unusual circumstances requiring such extension. The court shall forthwith notify all parties by mail of the filing of the report. Unless otherwise ordered, the master shall file the original transcript of the proceedings and the original exhibits with the deputy clerk of the Superior Court in the county where the case is to be tried, who shall, if the reference was made in an action pending in the Superior Court, transmit them to the Clerk of the Superior Court 3 years after the filing of the complaint, unless the court otherwise directs. (b) In Non-jury Actions. In an action to be tried without a jury the court shall accept the master's findings of fact unless contrary to the weight of the evidence. Within 10 days after being served with notice of the filing of the report any party may serve written objections thereto upon the other parties and may move the court for action upon the report and the objections thereto. The court after hearing on the motion may adopt the report, modify or reject it in whole or in part, receive further evidence, or recommit it with instructions. A party failing to object in the trial court to the master's findings shall be precluded from raising objections to the findings on appeal. (c) In Jury Actions. In an action to be tried by a jury the findings of the master upon the issues submitted are admissible as evidence of the matters found, and may together with the evidence taken before the master be read to the jury, subject to the ruling of the court upon objections to the report or the evidence. (d) Stipulation as to Findings. The effect of a master's report is the same whether or not the parties have consented to the reference; but when the parties stipulate that a master's findings of fact shall be final, only questions of law arising upon the report may thereafter be considered. (e) Draft Report. Before filing the report a master may submit a draft thereof to the attorneys for all parties for the purpose of receiving their suggestions.

RULE 1:40. COMPLEMENTARY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAMS

1:40-1. Purpose, Goals Complementary Dispute Resolution Programs (CDR) provided for by these rules are available in the Superior Court and Municipal Courts and constitute an integral part of the judicial process, intended to enhance its quality and efficacy. Attorneys have a responsibility to become familiar with available CDR programs and inform their clients of them.

1:40-2. Modes and Definitions of Complementary Dispute Resolution Complementary Dispute Resolution Programs (CDR) conducted under judicial supervision in accordance with these rules, as well as guidelines and directives of the Supreme Court, and the persons who provide the services to these programs are as follows: (a) "Adjudicative Processes" means and includes the following: (1) Arbitration: A process by which each party and/or its counsel presents its case to a neutral third party, who then renders a specific award. The parties may stipulate in advance of the arbitration that the award shall be binding. If not so stipulated, the provisions of Rule 4:21A-6 (Entry of Judgment; Trial De Novo) shall be applicable. (2) Settlement Proceedings: A process by which the parties appear before a neutral third party or panel of such neutrals, who assists them in attempting to resolve their dispute by voluntary agreement. (3) Summary Jury Trial: A process by which the parties present summaries of their respective positions to a panel of jurors, which may then issue a nonbinding advisory opinion as to liability, damages, or both. (b) "Evaluative Processes" means and includes the following: (1) Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE): A pre-discovery process by which the attorneys, in the presence of their respective clients, present their factual and legal contentions to a neutral evaluator, who then provides an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of each position and, if settlement does not ensue, assists in narrowing the dispute and proposing discovery guidelines. (2) Neutral Fact Finding: A process by which a neutral, agreed upon by the parties, investigates and analyzes a dispute involving complex or technical issues, and who then makes non-binding findings and recommendations.

(c) "Facilitative Process" means and includes mediation, which is a process by which a mediator facilitates communication between parties in an effort to promote settlement without imposition of the mediator's own judgment regarding the issues in dispute. (d) "Hybrid Process" means and includes: (1) Mediation-arbitration: A process by which, after an initial mediation, unresolved issues are then arbitrated. (2) Mini-trial: A process by which the parties present their legal and factual conditions to either a panel of representatives selected by each party, or a neutral third party, or both, in an effort to define the issues in dispute and to assist settlement negotiations. A neutral third party may issue an advisory opinion, which shall not, however, be binding, unless the parties have so stipulated in writing in advance. (e) "Other CDR Programs" means and includes any other method or technique of complementary dispute resolution permitted by guideline or directive of the Supreme Court. (f) "Neutral": A "neutral" is an individual who provides a CDR process. A "qualified neutral" is an individual included on any roster of neutrals maintained by the Administrative Office of the Courts or an Assignment Judge. Neutral evaluators, neutral fact finders, and settlement program panelists are not required to comply with the training requirements of Rule 1:40-12 or to be on any roster of neutrals maintained by the Administrative Office of the Courts or an Assignment Judge.

1:40-3. Organization and Management (a) Vicinage Organization and Management. Pursuant to these rules and Supreme Court guidelines, the Assignment Judge of each vicinage shall have overall responsibility for CDR programs, including their development and oversight, continuing relations with the Bar to secure the effectiveness of these programs, and mechanisms to educate judges, attorneys, staff, and the public on the benefits of CDR. The Assignment Judge shall appoint a CDR coordinator to assist in the oversight, coordination and management of the vicinage CDR programs. The Assignment Judge shall maintain, pursuant to these rules, all required rosters of neutrals except the roster of statewide civil, general equity, and probate action mediators. (b) Statewide Organization and Management. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall have the responsibility (1) to promote uniformity and quality of CDR programs in all vicinages, (2) to monitor and evaluate vicinage CDR programs and assist CDR Coordinators in implementing 7them; (3) to serve as a clearinghouse for ideas, issues, and new trends relating to CDR, both in New Jersey and in other jurisdictions; (4) to develop CDR pilot projects to meet new needs; (5) to monitor training and continuing education programs for neutrals; and (6) to institutionalize relationships relating to CDR with the bar, universities, the Marie L. Garibaldi ADR Inn of Court, and private providers

of CDR services. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall maintain the statewide roster of civil, general equity, and probate action mediators. 1:40-4. Mediation - General Rules (a) Referral to Mediation. Except as otherwise provided by these rules, a Superior Court or Municipal Court judge may require the parties to attend a mediation session at any time following the filing of a complaint. (b) Compensation and Payment of Mediators. Parties in Superior Court, except the Special Civil Part, assigned to mediation pursuant to this rule shall equally share the fees and expenses of the mediator on an ongoing basis, subject to court review and allocation to create equity. Any fee or expense of the mediator shall be waived in cases, as to those parties exempt, pursuant to Rule 1:13-2(a). A party may opt out of the mediation process after the mediator has expended two hours of service, which shall be allocated equally between preparation and the first mediation session, and which shall be at no cost to the parties. Fees shall be as determined by the mediator and the parties. Failure to pay the mediator may result in an order by the court to pay and imposing appropriate sanctions. (c) Evidentiary Privilege. A mediation communication is not subject to discovery or admissible in evidence in any subsequent proceeding except as provided by the New Jersey Uniform Mediation Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:23C-1 to -13. A party may, however, establish the substance of the mediation communication in any such proceeding by independent evidence. (d) Confidentiality. Unless the participants in a mediation agree otherwise or to the extent disclosure is permitted by this rule, no party, mediator, or other participant in a mediation may disclose any mediation communication to anyone who was not a participant in the mediation. A mediator may disclose a mediation communication to prevent harm to others to the extent such mediation communication would be admissible in a court proceeding. A mediator has the duty to disclose to a proper authority information obtained at a mediation session if required by law or if the mediator has a reasonable belief that such disclosure will prevent a participant from committing a criminal or illegal act likely to result in death or serious bodily harm. No mediator may appear as counsel for any person in the same or any related matter. A lawyer representing a client at a mediation session shall be governed by the provisions of RPC 1.6. (e) Limitations on Service as a Mediator (1) Mediators shall be qualified and trained in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1:40-12. (2) No one holding a public office or position or any candidate for a public office or position shall serve as a court approved mediator in a matter directly or indirectly involving the governmental entity in which that individual serves or is seeking to serve.

(3) The approval of the Assignment Judge is required for service as a mediator by any of the following: (A) police or other law enforcement officers employed by the State or any local unit of government; (B) employees of any court; or (C) government officials or employees whose duties involve regular contact with the court in which they serve. (4) The Assignment Judge shall also have the discretion to require prior review and approval of the Supreme Court of prospective mediators whose employment or position appears to the Assignment Judge to require such review and approval. (f) Mediator Disclosure of Conflict of Interest (1) Before accepting a mediation, a person who is requested to serve as a shall:

mediator

(A) make an inquiry that is reasonable under the circumstances to determine whether there are any known facts that a reasonable person would consider likely to affect the impartiality of the mediator, including a financial or personal interest in the outcome of the mediation or an existing or past relationship with a mediation party or foreseeable participant in the mediation; and (B) disclose any such known fact to the mediation parties as soon as is practicable before accepting a mediation. (2) If a mediator learns any fact described in subparagraph (f)(1)(A) after accepting a mediation, the mediator shall disclose it as soon as is practicable. (g) Conduct of Mediation Proceedings. Mediation proceedings shall commence with an opening statement by the mediator describing the purpose and procedures of the process. Mediators may require the participation of persons with negotiating authority. An attorney or other individual designated by a party may accompany the party to and participate in a mediation. A waiver of representation or participation given before the mediation may be rescinded. Non-party witnesses may be heard in the discretion of the mediator, and other non-parties shall be permitted to attend only with the consent of the parties and the mediator. Multiple sessions may be scheduled. Attorneys and parties have an obligation to participate in the mediation process in good faith in accordance with program guidelines.

(h) Termination of Mediation (1) The mediator or a participant may terminate the session if (A) there is an imbalance of power between the parties that the mediator cannot overcome, (B) a party challenges the impartiality of the mediator, (C) there is abusive behavior that the mediator cannot control, or (D) a party continuously resists the mediation process or the mediator.

(2) The mediator shall terminate the session if (A) there is a failure of communication that seriously impedes effective discussion, (B) the mediator believes a party is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or (C) the mediator believes continued mediation is inappropriate or inadvisable for any reason. (i) Final Disposition. If the mediation results in the parties' total or partial agreement, it shall be reduced to writing and a copy thereof furnished to each party. The agreement need not be filed with the court, but if formal proceedings have been stayed pending mediation, the mediator shall report to the court whether agreement has been reached. If an agreement is not reached, the matter shall be referred back to court for formal disposition. 1:40-6. Mediation of Civil, Probate, and General Equity Matters The CDR program of each vicinage shall include mediation of civil, probate, and general equity matters, pursuant to rules and guidelines approved by the Supreme Court. (a) Referral to Mediation. The court may, sua sponte and by written order, refer any civil, general equity, or probate action to mediation for an initial two hours, which shall include an organizational telephone conference, preparation by the mediator, and the first mediation session. In addition, the parties to an action may request an order of referral to mediation and may either select the mediator or request the court to designate a mediator from the court-approved roster. (b) Designation of Mediator. If the parties have not selected the mediator prior to entry of the mediation referral order, the court shall in its referral order designate a mediator from the court-approved roster. The parties may, however, within 14 days after entry of the mediation referral order stipulate in writing to the designation of a different mediator. Within that fourteen-day period, the stipulation shall be filed with the Civil CDR Coordinator and a copy thereof served upon the mediator designated by the mediation referral order. A mediator designated by such stipulation shall comply with all terms and conditions set forth in the mediation referral order. (c) Stay of Proceedings. The court may, in the mediation referral order, stay discovery for a specific or an indeterminate period. (d) Withdrawal and Removal from Mediation. A motion for removal from mediation shall be filed and served upon all parties within 10 days after the entry of the mediation referral order and shall be granted only for good cause. Any party may withdraw from mediation after the initial three hours provided for by paragraph (a) of this rule. The mediation may, however, continue with the consent of the mediator and the remaining parties if they determine that it may be productive even without participation by the withdrawing party. (e) Mediation Statement. The mediator shall fix a date following the telephonic conference for the exchange by the parties and service upon the mediator of a brief statement of facts and proposals for settlement not exceeding ten pages. All documents prepared for mediation shall be confidential and subject to Rule 1:40-4(c) and (d).

(f) Procedure Following Mediation. Promptly upon termination of the mediation process, the mediator shall report to the court in writing as to whether or not the action or any severable claim therein has been settled. (g) Compensation of Mediators. Mediators shall be compensated as provided by Rule 1:40-4(b) and Appendix XXVI (Guidelines for the Compensation of Mediators Serving in the Civil Mediation Program).

1:40-7. Mediation of Special Civil Part Matters The CDR program of each vicinage shall include a program for mediating small claims actions and, in the discretion of the Assignment Judge, for mediating landlord-tenant disputes and other such matters as are within guidelines approved by the Supreme Court.

1:40-10. Relaxation of Court Rules and Program Guidelines These rules, and any program guidelines may be relaxed or modified by the court in its discretion if it determines that injustice or inequity would otherwise result. Factors to be considered in making that determination include but are not limited to (1) the incapacity of one or more parties to participate in the process, (2) the unwillingness of one or more parties to participate in good faith, (3) the previous participation by the parties in a CDR program involving the same issue, and (4) any factor warranting termination of the program pursuant to Rule 1:40-4(h).

1:40-11. Non-Court Dispute Resolution With the approval of the Assignment Judge or the Assignment Judge's designee, the court, while retaining jurisdiction, may refer a matter to a non-court administered dispute resolution process on the condition that any such mediation process will be subject to the privilege and confidentiality provisions of Rule 1:40-4(c) and (d). The Assignment Judge or designee may approve such referral upon the finding that it will not prejudice the interests of the parties.

1:40-12. Qualification and Training of Mediators and Arbitrators (a) Mediator Qualifications (1) Generally. Unless otherwise specified by these rules, no special occupational status or educational degree is required for mediator service and mediation training. An applicant for listing on a roster of mediators maintained by either the Administrative Office of the Courts or the Assignment Judge shall, however, certify to

good professional standing. An applicant whose professional license has been revoked shall not be placed on the roster, or if already on the roster shall be removed therefrom. (2) Custody and Parenting Time Mediators. The Assignment Judge, upon recommendation of the Presiding Judge of the Family Part, may approve persons or agencies to provide mediation services in custody and parenting time disputes if the mediator meets the following minimum qualifications: (A) a graduate degree or certification of advanced training in a behavioral or social science; (B) training in mediation techniques and as prescribed by these rules; and (C) supervised clinical experience in mediation, preferably with families. In the discretion of the Assignment Judge relevant experience may be substituted for either a graduate degree or certification, or clinical experience, or both. (3) Civil, General Equity, and Probate Action Mediators. Mediator applicants for civil, general equity, and probate actions shall have at least five years of professional experience in the field of their expertise, as well as either an advanced degree or an undergraduate degree, coupled in both cases with mediation experience. For purposes of this rule, an advanced degree means a juris doctor or equivalent; an advanced degree in business, finance, or accounting, an advanced degree in the field of expertise in which the applicant will practice mediation, for example, engineering, architecture, or mental health; or state licensure in the field of expertise, for example, certified public accountant, architect, or engineer. For purposes of this rule, mediation experience which, together with an advanced degree, will qualify an applicant means evidence of successful mediation of a minimum of two cases within the last year, provided however that mediation experience is waived if mediation training was completed within the last five years. For purposes of this rule, mediation experience which, together with an undergraduate degree, will qualify an applicant means evidence of successful mediation of a minimum of ten cases involving subject matter otherwise cognizable in the Superior Court within the last five years. (4) Special Civil Part Mediators/Settlors. In addition to qualified neutrals on the civil roster, those judicial law clerks, court staff, and volunteers who have completed a course of mediation training approved by the Administrative Office of the Courts may mediate/settle Small Claims actions. In the discretion of the Assignment Judge, such persons may also mediate/settle landlord-tenant disputes and other Special Civil Part actions, provided that they complete additional substantive and procedural training in landlord-tenant law of at least three and one-half hours for law clerks and attorneys and at least seven hours for all others, with such training to be approved by the Administrative Office of the Courts. (5) Municipal Court Mediators. Municipal Court mediators shall be approved for that position by the Assignment Judge for the vicinage in which they intend to serve on recommendation of the Municipal Court judge, stating the applicants qualifications. In considering the recommendation, the Assignment Judge shall review the applicants general background, suitability for service as a mediator, and any mediation training the applicant may have completed. (b) Mediator Training Requirements

(1) General Provisions. Unless waived pursuant to subparagraph (2), all persons serving as mediators shall have completed the basic dispute resolution training course as prescribed by these rules and approved by the Administrative Office of the Courts. Volunteer mediators in the Special Civil Part and Municipal Court mediators shall have completed 18 classroom hours of basic mediation skills complying with the requirements of subparagraph (4) of this rule. Mediators on the civil, general equity, and probate roster of the Superior Court shall have completed 18 classroom hours of basic mediation skills complying with the requirements of subparagraph (4) of this rule and at least five hours being mentored by an experienced mediator on the roster in accordance with guidelines promulgated by the Administrative Office of the Courts in at least two cases in the Superior Court. Individuals may obtain a waiver of thementoring requirement from the Administrative Office of the Courts on the successful demonstration that they have previously served as a mediator in at least five cases under R. 1:40-4 or comparable mediation program or have satisfactorily completed at least 10 hours in an approved advanced mediation course. Family Part mediators shall have completed a 40-hour training program complying with the requirements of subparagraph (5) of this rule; and; and judicial law clerks shall have successfully completed 12 classroom hours of basic mediation skills complying with the requirements of subparagraph (6) of this rule. (2) Consideration of Prior Training. The Administrative Office of the Courts or the Assignment Judge, as appropriate, may waive these basic training requirements for mediators already serving prior to the effective date of this rule upon a determination that the mediator is qualified to continue to serve by reason of background, training, relevant educational and professional experience, and any other relevant factor. (3) Continuing Training. Commencing in the year following the completion of the basic training course or the waiver thereof, all mediators shall annually attend four hours of continuing education and shall file with the Administrative Office of the Courts or the Assignment Judge, as appropriate, an annual certification of compliance. To meet the requirement, this continuing education should cover at least one of the following: (A) reinforcing and enhancing mediation and negotiation concepts and skills, (B) ethical issues associated with mediation practice, or (C) other professional matters related to mediation. Mediators who have been approved to serve as mentors under subsection (b)(1) of this Rule may apply the time spent mentoring to satisfy this requirement. (4) Mediation Course Content - Basic Skills. The 18-hour classroom course in basic mediation skills shall, by lectures, demonstrations, exercises and role plays, teach the skills necessary for mediation practice, including but not limited to conflict management, communication and negotiation skills, the mediation process, and addressing problems encountered in mediation. (5) Mediation Course Content - Family Part Actions. The 40-hour classroom course for family action mediators shall include basic mediation skills as well as at least 22 hours of specialized family mediation training, which should cover family and child development, family law, divorce procedures, family finances, and community resources. In special circumstances and at the request of the Assignment Judge, the Administrative Office of the Courts may temporarily approve for a one-year period an

applicant who has not yet completed the specialized family mediation training, provided the applicant has at least three years of experience as a mediator or a combination of mediation experience and service in the Family Part, has co-mediated in a CDR program with an experienced family mediator, and certifies to the intention to complete the specialized training within one year following the temporary approval. (6) Training Requirements for Judicial Law Clerks. Judicial law clerks serving as mediators shall first have completed either a 12-hour training course prescribed by the Administrative Office of the Courts, an approved course conducted by another institution or agency, or other comparable training. Proof of completion of any training other than the prescribed 12-hour course shall be submitted to the Administrative Office of the Courts for adetermination of suitability. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall work with other institutions and agencies to encourage their provision of judicial law clerk mediation training and shall either approve or evaluate that training. (7) Co-mediation; mentoring; training evaluation. In order to reinforce mediator training, the vicinage CDR coordinator shall, insofar as practical and for a reasonable period following initial training, assign any new mediator who is either an employee or a volunteer to co-mediate with an experienced mediator and shall assign an experienced mediator to mentor a new mediator. Using evaluation forms prescribed by the Administrative Office of the Courts, the vicinage CDR coordinator shall also evaluate the training needs of each new mediator during the first year of the mediator's qualifications and shall periodically assess the training needs of all mediators. (c) Arbitrator Qualification and Training. Arbitrators serving in judicial arbitration programs shall have the minimum qualifications prescribed by Rule 4:21A-2 and must be annually recommended for inclusion on the approved roster by the local arbitrator selection committee and approved by the Assignment Judge or designee. All arbitrators shall attend initial training of at least four classroom hours and continuing training every two years in courses approved by the Administrative Office of the Courts. (1) Arbitration Course Content Initial Training. The three-hour classroom course shall teach the skills necessary for arbitration, including applicable statutes, court rules and administrative directives and policies, the standards of conduct, applicable uniform procedures as reflected in the approved procedures manual and other relevant information. (2) Arbitration Course Content Continuing Training. The two-hour biennial training course should cover at least one of the following: (a) reinforcing and enhancing relevant arbitration skills and procedures, (b) ethical issues associated with arbitration, or (c) other matters related to court-annexed arbitration. (d) Training Program Evaluation. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall conduct periodic assessments and evaluations of the CDR training programs to ensure their continued effectiveness and to identify any needed improvements.

Guidelines on the Practice of Law by Retired Judges (Revised)

Directive #7-04 (Supersedes #2-97) Issued by: May 17, 2004 Richard J. Williams Administrative Director

This Directive supersedes Directive #2-97 (issued March 19, 1997) and promulgates the revised Guidelines on the Practice of Law by Retired Judges. This updated version of the Guidelines reflects revisions to Guidelines 1 and 7. The Supreme Court has authorized issuance of these guidelines, which illustrate the extent of the restriction upon the practice of law by a retired judge who has retired under the provisions of the Judicial Retirement System Act (N.J.S.A. 43:6A-1 et seq.). Guideline 1. A retired judge may be associated in the practice of law with other attorneys. A retired judges name may appear on the letterhead, on the office door, but not in the firm name. A retired judge may not sign any papers filed in court, including pleadings. In any cases tried by the firm before a jury, the retired judges name should not be referred to in the presence of the jury. The restrictions on the practice of law by the retired judge are personal and do not extend to those with whom the judge may be associated in the practice of law; R. 1:15-4 does not apply to retired judges. Retired judges should be aware of N.J.S.A. 52:13D-17.2c, which prohibits any representation of, appearance for, or negotiation on behalf of a casino licensee or an applicant to be a casino licensee by a firm, partnership, or corporation with which a retired judge is associated for a period of two years from the date of retirement unless (a) the retired judge is associated with the firm, partnership or corporation in a position considered of counsel that does not entail any equity interest in the firm, partnership, or corporation; and (b) the retired judge is screened for that two-year period from personal participation in any such representation, appearance, or negotiation. Guideline 2. A retired judge may not serve as an attorney in any contested matter in any court of the State of New Jersey. This prohibition includes participating in the actual conduct of any proceeding before the court, appearing at counsel table during the course of a court proceeding, and serving therein either as associate counsel or counsel of record. Office work in connection with pending or proposed litigation is not prohibited. Thus, pleadings may be drafted, interrogatories framed and answered, and briefs, motions and other papers may be prepared. It is not permissible, however, for the retired judge's name to appear on any papers, including any indication that the judge is "of counsel," "on the brief," or is

connected in any way with the litigation. Similarly, a retired judge may participate in out-of-court settlement discussions, or in the taking of depositions prior to trial, but may not participate in any settlement conference before the court (whether in open court or in chambers), nor should reference be made in any courthouse conferences to the fact that the judge has personally been involved in such negotiations, nor should the judge participate in any court proceeding with regard to any depositions that he or she may have taken. Guideline 3. Subject to the provisions of Guideline 7 infra, a retired judge is not precluded from serving as attorney for a decedent's estate or as an executor, guardian, trustee, or in any other fiduciary capacity, provided that in any litigation that may develop in the course of the performance of such duties the judge is represented by other counsel, who may be a member of the firm with which the judge is associated. A retired judge may not handle any other uncontested matters in any court, including those that require only approval of ex parte orders or other papers which may be considered pro forma and require little if any exercise of judicial discretion. Guideline 4. A retired judge may not serve as attorney in any contested or uncontested matters before either State or local administrative agencies, boards, or tribunals exercising a discretionary or quasi-judicial function, except before the Transfer Inheritance Tax Bureau when acting as attorney for the estate and not specially retained. A retired judge may not represent parties before auto arbitration panels. Guideline 5. A retired judge may not serve as attorney for any person before a District Ethics Committee, a Committee on Character, or any other committee or body appointed by the Supreme Court. Guideline 6. A retired judge may practice before the federal courts or federal agencies, whether within or without the State. Guideline 7. A retired judge may not accept fee-generating courtinitiated appointments, e.g., appointments to serve as a receiver, condemnation commissioner, guardian ad litem, mediator, arbitrator, or discovery master except as set forth below. A retired judge may accept fee-generating court-initiated appointments in the following circumstances only: (a) as an arbitrator in the statutory or Court-approved arbitration programs, as set forth in R. 4:21A-1 et seq.; (b) as a mediator in the Statewide Civil Mediation Program, and in the Court-approved presumptive mediation pilot program, provided that the retired judge meets the experiential and

training requirements set forth in Rules 1:40-12(a), 1:404(d)(1) and 1:40-4-12(b) and provided that the retired judge agrees to be subject to the same conditions that are applicable to all other mediators in the program, e.g., providing the first three hours of mediation at no cost to the litigants pursuant to R. 1:40-4(b) and the Court-approved Mediator Compensation Guidelines. This guideline is not intended to preclude a retired judge from accepting a fee-generating position as a mediator, arbitrator, or discovery master where the parties to the case initiate the appointment, select the retired judge who is to be appointed, establish the fee arrangement, and the court's only participation is to memorialize their agreement in an appropriate order. Such memorialization shall be by the Assignment Judge. A retired judge may accept fiduciary appointments at the specific request of interested family members (e.g., Administrator C.T.A.) provided such appointments do not contravene any of the other restrictions set forth in this Directive. Guideline 8. It is improper for a retired judge to appear in a New Jersey court as an expert witness (such as to testify as to reasonableness of attorney fees) or in any court as a character witness. Guideline 9. It is improper for a retired judge to appear in court to testify as an expert witness in legal malpractice cases or as to a standard of conduct by a lawyer in related matters. Guideline 10. A retired judge may serve as legal adviser to a public agency, if the duties and responsibilities of such position do not contravene these Guidelines. Generally, the role of a retired judge associated with a public agency should be of the same nature as that of a retired judge acting as "of counsel" to a law firm. A retired judge should not act as chief counsel to a public agency (e.g. county counsel), since such a role would directly involve the judge in the conduct of litigation involving the agency. Further, it would be inappropriate for a retired judge to appear at a public meeting as an adviser to a public agency. Such an appearance may give rise to a suspicion that the judge is attempting to use the judge's status to advance the position of the agency.

SAMPLE HIPAA COMPLIANT AUTHORIZATION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION: ATLANTIC COUNTY

Case No. 619 In re: VIOXX LITIGATION AUTHORIZATION FOR RELEASE OF MEDICAL RECORDS PURSUANT TO 45 C.F.R. 164.508 (HIPAA) Name: Date of Birth: Social Security Number: I hereby authorize to release all existing medical records regarding the above-named persons medical care, treatment, physical condition, and/or medical expenses to the law firm of: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ or their designated agent(s) (Receiving Parties). These records shall be used or disclosed solely in connection with the currently pending VIOXX litigation involving the person named above. This authorization shall cease to be effective as of the date on which the above-named persons VIOXX litigation concludes. The Receiving Parties shall return or destroy the
protected health information (including all copies made) at the end of the above-named persons litigation or proceeding.

I understand that the health information being used/disclosed may include information relating to the diagnosis and treatment of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), sexually transmitted disease and drug and alcohol disorders. This authorization also may include x-ray reports, CT scan reports, MRI scans, EEGs, EKGs, sonograms, arteriograms, discharge summaries, photographs, surgery consent forms, admission and discharge records, operation records, doctors and nurses notes (excluding psychotherapy notes maintained separately from the individual's medical record that document or analyze the contents of conversation during a private counseling session or a group, joint, or family counseling session by referring to something other than medication prescription and monitoring, counseling session start and stop times, the modalities and frequencies of treatment

furnished, results of clinical tests, and any summary of the following items: diagnosis, functional status, the treatment plan, symptoms, prognosis and progress), prescriptions, medical bills, invoices, histories, diagnoses, narratives, and any correspondence/memoranda and billing information. It also includes, to the extent such records currently exist and are in your possession, insurance records, including Medicare/Medicaid and other public assistance claims, applications, statements, eligibility material, claims or claim disputes, resolutions and payments, medical records provided as evidence of services provided, and any other documents or things pertaining to services furnished under Title XVII of the Social Security Act or other forms of public assistance (federal, state, local, etc.). This listing is not meant to be exclusive. This will further authorize you to provide updated medical records, x-rays, reports or copies thereof to the above attorney until the conclusion of the litigation. I understand that I have the right to revoke in writing my consent to this disclosure at any time, except to the extent that the above-named facility or provider already has taken action in reliance upon this authorization, or if this authorization was obtained as a condition of obtaining insurance coverage. I further understand that the above-named facility or provider cannot condition the provision of treatment, payment, enrollment in a health plan or eligibility for benefits on my provision of this authorization. I further understand that information disclosed pursuant to this authorization may be subject to redisclosure by the recipient to its clients, agents, employees, consultants, experts, the court, and others deemed necessary by the recipient to assist in this litigation. I further reserve the right to request the return or redaction of sensitive or embarrassing information, not germane to the litigation, that is disclosed to the Receiving Parties. This authorization is being forward by, or on behalf of, attorneys for the defendant. You are not authorized to discuss any aspect of the above-named persons medical history, care, treatment, diagnosis, prognosis, information revealed by or in the medical records, or any other matter bearing on his or her medical or physical condition. Any photostatic copy of this document shall have the same authority as the original, and may be substituted in its place. Copies of these materials are to be provided at the expense of _________________________________________________________. Dated this __ day of ________, 200__ ______________________________ [PLAINTIFF OR REPRESENTATIVE] If a representative, please describe your relationship to the plaintiff and your authority to act on his/her behalf: ____________________________________ __________________________________________ __________________________________________ ______________________________________________

Notice to Out-of-State Counsel Licensed in New Jersey With an initial mass tort pleading and every year thereafter as long as the case in which you are involved is pending, a certification (in the form attached) must be filed with the court indicating: (1) that you are an attorney-at-law holding a plenary license to practice in the State of New Jersey; (2) the address of your bona fide out-of-state office; (3) that pursuant to Rules 1:201(b), 1:28-2 and 1:28B-1(e), all annual fees have been paid to the New Jersey Lawyers Fund for Client Protection and all required registration statements have been filed; (4) that in accordance with Rule 1:21-1(a), a power of attorney has been filed designating the Clerk of the Supreme Court as agent upon whom service of process may be made for all actions, including disciplinary actions; and (5) that there are no disciplinary proceedings affecting your standing as a member of the bar in New Jersey or in any other jurisdiction. The following resources may be useful: Clerk of the Supreme Court of New Jersey (Supreme Court Clerk designation form) P.O. Box 970 Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 W. Market St., 8th Floor, NorthWing Trenton, NJ 08625-0970 Telephone Number: (609) 292-4837 New Jersey Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (annual assessment and registration) P.O. Box 961 Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 W. Market St., 5th Floor, NorthWing Trenton, NJ 08625-0961 Telephone Number: (609) 292-8079 Clerk of the Superior Court (civil practice attorney database) P.O. Box 971 Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 W. Market St., 6th Floor, NorthWing Trenton, NJ 08625-0971 Telephone Number: (609) 943-5155.

[N. J. Licensed Attorneys Maintaining out-of-state Bona Fide Offices] Certification _____________________________, hereby certifies as follows: 1 I am an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey and my bona fide office is located at:

2. I have paid my annual fee to the New Jersey Lawyers Fund for Client Protections and have filed my annual registration statements pursuant to Rules 1:20-1(b), 1:28-2, 1:28B-1(e). 3. In accordance with Rule 1:21-1(a), I have filed a power of attorney designating the Clerk of the Supreme Court as agent upon whom service of process may be made for all actions, There are no disciplinary actions affecting my standing as a member of the bar in New Jersey or in any other jurisdiction. I certify that the foregoing statements are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. Date ;_______________________ Signature:____________________ Please Print Name______________

SAMPLE SPREADSHEET
VIOXX DATA INPUT
Docket No. Docket Year New Filing? Update? Parties Names Other Defendants Law Firm Name Filing Date Injury Type Date of Diagnosis PreEvent Time Span Medication Time Span Claim Type Smoker Age at Injury Gender Country State Comments