Coordinating Discovery — Examples

In the Yaz litigation, the state and federal courts coordinated closely to minimize duplicative depositions.

  • Pennsylvania state court order on expert depositions: Yaz PA state CMO16. See especially page 4, ‘Coordination with State Court Actions/Cross-Noticing of Depositions.’
  • Corresponding federal order: Yaz MDL CMO38. See page 9 on coordination.

Baycol PTO5: Protective order for confidential information; discovery material will be used only in MDL, or related litigation if the parties agree to be governed by the order.

Baycol PTO22: Related state depositions may be used in MDL. Defendants agree to permit MDL plaintiffs’ representative to observe state depositions without need for cross-noticing; if cross-noticed, MDL plaintiffs may not take another deposition of that witness.

Vioxx Texas state MDL CMO2 (modified by PTO3). See especially:

  • p. 10, § 23.a., requiring parties to “use their best efforts to coordinate discovery in the Texas VIOXX Litigation with the Federal MDL proceedings”;
  • p. 12, § 28, regarding coordinating depositions and ensuring Texas attorneys have the opportunity to ask questions;
  • p. 18, § 30, regarding use of depositions taken in related proceedings.

Sample schedule for mass tort case management, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

Sample deposition guidelines, Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 40.29: Requiring deposing counsel to “provide all known state liaison counsel at least __ days notice of all depositions filed ….”

Next section: Settlement