12-23-97

0001

Re: Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine Products Liability Litigation)

It is ORDERED that a status conference is scheduled for the above captioned case on January 15, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 17-B, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Phila., PA 19106

1-9-98

0002

Re: This order changes the duties of a transferor court under Rule 19(a), (b) and C) of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on MDL as follows:

For the purposes of MDL 1203 and until further notice of the transferee court, this order changes the duties of a transferor court under Rule 19(a), (b) and C)of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation as follows:

Upon receipt of a certified copy of a transfer order from the clerk of the transferee district court, the clerk of the transferor court shall retain the entire original file and forward to the clerk of the transferee district court only a certified copy of both the docket sheet and the complaints together with amendments, if any. The clerk of the transferor court shall mark the case closed upon transfer to the transferee court. Following the docketing of a transfer order in the transferee court, any papers to be filed regarding any civil action covered by that transfer order are to be filed in the transferee court.

1-9-98

0003

Re: Levin is appointed as interim liaison counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs

It is ordered that Arnold Levin is appointed as interim liaison counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs.

He shall receive copies of all Orders concerning this litigation and shall be responsible for distribution to the parties for whom he serves as liaison counsel, including Orders.

1-16-98

0004

Re: motions for class certification

It is hereby Ordered that the operation of Local Rule 23.18 insofar as it requires plaintiffs to file motions for class certification within 90 days of the date of filing their complaints is hereby SUSPENDED and that plaintiffs shall not file any motions for class certification until further order of the Court.

1-21-98

0005

Re: Hearing held on January 15, 1998 (1-15-98)

At a hearing held on January 15, 1998 the court ruled as follows:

1.) Any attorney who wishes to serve on Plaintiffs= Management Committee (PMC) shall send a resume to the court within ten days.

2.) Edward S. Weltman, Esq., and Peter L. Resnick, Esq. Will serve as co-lead counsel on behalf of the Phentermine defendants.

3.) Michael T. Scott, Esq. Will serve as Liaison Counsel for Fenfluramine & Dexfenfluramine Manufacturers.

4.) Edward Madeira, Esq. And Nina Gussack, Esq. Will serve as Liaison Counsel for Phentermine Manufacturers and Suppliers.

5.) The next status conference will be held on March 4, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 17-B, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106

2-5-98

0006

Re: In The Matter of the Plaintiffs= Management Committee

The court has received a number of applications in response to it=s request for attorneys to apply for positions on a court-appointed committee to assist plaintiffs in this case. The court has reviewed each application and by this Order appoints the committee.

I. Composition of the Plaintiffs= Management Committee

A. Membership

The Committee shall be designated the APlaintiffs Management Committee@ (APMC@) and shall consist of eleven (11) persons. By this Order the court will fill nine (9) of those positions as follows:

(1) Roger P. Brosnahan, Esq., Minneapolis, MN

(2) Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. San Francisco, CA.

(3) Stanley M. Chesley, Esq. Cincinnati, OH

(4) John J. Cummings, III, Esq. New Orleans, LA

cont...

No. 6

(5) Michael D. Hausfield, Esq. Washington, DC

(6) Will Kemp, Esq. Las Vegas, NV

(7) Arnold Levin, Esq., Philadelphia, PA

(8) Dianne M. Nast, Esq. Lancaster, PA

(9) Darryl J. Tschirn, Esq. LaJolla, CA.

B. Co-Chairpersons

Stanley M. Chesley, Esq., John J. Cummings, III, Esq. and Arnold Levin, Esq. Are appointed co-chairpersons of the PMC.

C. Plaintiffs= Liaison Counsel

Arnold Levin, Esq. Shall continue to serve as Plaintiffs= Liaison Counsel.

D. Term

The persons named above, who accept the appointment to serve, agree to serve for the duration of this litigation or until such time as the court determines that a change in the duration of service or other terms of service shall be made. The court may decide from time to time to enlarge or reduce the size of the PMC depending upon such need brought on by the litigation.

E. Personal Appointment

The court has appointed the named persons because of the expectation of their personal contribution to the work of the PMC and to the furtherance of the completion of the MDL portion of the litigation. For this reason, the court will look to the individual members to satisfy the goals that the court expects the PMC to achieve. The court will likewise consider the contribution of each of the PMC members when the court is called upon to determine appropriate compensation for service on the PMC. While the court contemplates that each of the PMC members will require the assistance of colleagues, paralegals, support staff, and others in the fulfillment of their committee assignments, the court will expect the individual members to be responsible for the ultimate outcome of the activities performed by the PMC.

II. Duties and Responsibilities

A. As soon as practicable following the filing of this Order, the committee members shall convene and organize the committee as a functioning unit guided by the leadership of the co-chairpersons.

B. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, the committee shall file with the court a report. That report shall include a description of the organization of the committee, together with a suggestion as to the sub-committees or advisory panels that will function to assist the committee=s contemplated principal activities. The report should provide a description of how the committee intends to delegate certain duties, including: The preparation and completion of pleadings; the filing of, and responses to, motions; ; pretrial preparation; settlement; and administration of the PMC as it pertains to discovery, docket management, exhibit and discovery depository, communication with individual plaintiffs and individual plaintiffs= counsel, liaison with defendants, and the division of work respecting court appearances. In this regard, the court will require that a document depository be established and located in Philadelphia, PA.

C. The committee=s report shall also include suggested procedures for the maintenance of committee minutes, books, records, and files, including the standards and manner in which the committee expects to function regarding expenditures of sums for necessary litigation costs for service, space and supplies, as well as costs and expenses for other necessary functions of the committee, with particular emphasis on periodic financial reports to the court and a means of ongoing auditing of the financial activities of the committee.

D. The report shall also include the committee=s estimates and expression of needs concerning space, equipment and facilities for the committee to function.

SO ORDERED.

2-5-98

0007

Re: Extension to answer in response to plaintiff=s complaints (amended complaints)

Notwithstanding any Order, Consent or Stipulation to the contrary, any defendant in any Civil Action docketed in MDL No. 1203 is hereby granted an extension until March 16, 1998 to answer or otherwise move in response to any plaintiff=s Complaint or Amended Complaint.

Any answer or response by any defendant to any plaintiff=s Complaint or Amended Complaint that is required to be filed on March 17, 1998, or thereafter, shall be filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of PA.

SO ORDERED.

2-13-98

0008

Re: Kathleen Troxel V. American Home Products Corp., et al. 98-20004

Upon consideration of plaintiff Kathleen Troxel=s Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File Petition for Class Certification, IT IS ORDERED that said motion is DENIED as moot for the reasons set forth in PTO No. 4, dated January 16, 1998.

3-6-98

0009

Re: Jon Dane Blankenship; Jess David Blankenship, Jamie Deanne Shelton, and Janet Dee Briley V. American Home Products Corp., and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co.

Came on to be heard the Notice of Dismissal of the above entitled and numbered cause and the court having considered the Notice of Dismissal is of the opinion that the Notice is proper and appropriate under applicable rules of procedure and accordingly: IT IS ORDERED that this cause be and the same is hereby in all things dismissed without prejudice to the refiling of same.

3-6-98

0010

Re: Dorita Resnick, et al. V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, et al. (98-20069) It is Ordered that the unopposed motion to extend time to answer is DENIED as moot pursuant to PTO #7

3-6-98

0011

Re: Melinda Hazelton, et al. V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, et al. (98-20098) It is ORDERED that the motion of Jeffrey Brinker and David Bohrer to withdraw as counsel for Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Is GRANTED.

3-6-98

0012

Re: Vicki Mertzig, Lee Skinner, Theresa Muth, Dorene Phillips, and Marcia Bloom V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co. Division of American Home Products Corp.; SmithKline Beecham Corp; Ion Laboratories, Inc.; A.H. Robins Co., Inc. And Camall Co.

STIPULATION ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS SETTING FORTH A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT OF PLAINTIFF=S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION

THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon this stipulated order agreed to after service of SmithKline Beecham Corporation=s motion to dismiss, the Court having found that the stipulation will result in the withdrawal of SmithKline Beecham=s motion to dismiss and is otherwise in the interests of justice, and being otherwise fully advised in the matter finds that there is good cause for the entry of this stipulated order.

IT IS NOW THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:

1.) Plaintiffs Mertzig, Skinner, Phillips and Bloom do not make claims against SmithKline Beecham Corporation herein because of the absence of current evidence that these Plaintiffs used the SmithKline Beecham product which is the subject of this suit.

2.) Plaintiff Muth=s claims against SmithKline Beecham Corp. will go forward without prejudice to SmithKline Beecham Corp=s right to assert any other objection or defense, procedural or substantive, to Muth=s allegations, the sufficiency of which are not adjudicated by this order.

3.) Plaintiffs Mertzig, Skinner, Phillips and Bloom may seek leave to amend to assert claims against SmithKline Beecham=s right to oppose any such motion.

4.) SmithKline Beecham=s motion to dismiss served on December 31, 1997 is deemed withdrawn.

3-6-98

0013

Re: Dorothy S. Smith V. A.H. Robins Co. Inc., et al. Consent Order to Amend Defendant Fisions Corporation=s Answer to Amended Complaint

It appearing unto the Court that the Defendant, Fisions Corporation, has moved to have its answer to the Amended Complaint amended and that the Plaintiff, Dorothy S. Smith, has consented to the amendment of the answer of Fisions Corporation. It is hereby,

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Defendant, fisions Corporation, be granted leave to amend the answer to the Amended Complaint.

3-6-98

0014

Re: Sandra Cherry V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, et al. (98-20044)

It is ORDERED that plaintiff=s motion to substitute a party is GRANTED. Debra Cherry is hereby substituted as Administrator of the Estate of Sandra Cherry.

3-13-98

0015

Re: Defense request for extension

Notwithstanding any Order, Consent or Stipulation to the contrary, any defendant in any Civil Action docketed in MDL No. 1203 is hereby granted an extension until April 15, 1998 to answer or otherwise move in response to any plaintiff=s Complaint or Amended Complaint.

Any answer or response by any defendant to any plaintiff=s Complaint or Amended Complaint that is required to be filed on April 16, 1998, or thereafter, shall be filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. SO ORDERED.

3-13-98

0016

Re: (All Cases) Guidelines for Diet Drug MDL 1203 Plaintiffs= Counsel Common Benefit Time and Expense Reporting

In accordance with the provisions set forth in the Report of the Plaintiffs= Management Committee Submitted in Compliance with PTO No. 6, the Court is in agreement with the following guidelines.

A. The PMC recognizes that common benefit expense items reported must be reasonable and necessary for the collective prosecution of this case and must be for the benefit of the PMC and plaintiffs as a whole and not for individual clients. The Guidelines for Common Expense Reporting set forth herein have been developed with these principles in mind. The PMC hereby adopts the following guidelines:

B. Reporting Guidelines:

1) Receipts:

Each expense claimed must be properly documented by a receipt or some other form of proof of payment. Receipts do not need to be submitted on a monthly basis, but must be available for production upon request. Cash advances will not be considered for reimbursement without evidence of payments made with the case.

2) Miscellaneous Cash Expenses:

Miscellaneous cash expenses for which receipts generally are not available (tips, luggage handling, pay telephone, etc.), will be allowed up to a maximum of $50.00 per trip, providing those expenses are properly itemized.

3) Airfare:

First class airfare will not be fully reimbursed. If first class travel is selected, the difference between coach rate and first class rate must be shown on the expense claim, and only the coach airfare shall be claimed.

4) Hotel:

Luxury accommodations will not be fully reimbursed. If luxury hotels and suites are selected, the regular room rate must be indicated on the expense claim and only the regular room rate will be claimed. Charges for movies, laundry , toiletries or liquor will not be reimbursed.

5) Meals:

A copy of the restaurant receipt must be submitted. Charges for alcoholic beverages will not be reimbursed.

6) Rental Automobiles:

Luxury automobile rentals will not be fully reimbursed, unless satisfactory evidence is submitted that only luxury automobiles were available. If luxury automobiles are selected, where ordinary vehicles are available, the difference between the luxury and ordinary vehicle rates must be indicated on the expense claim and only the ordinary vehicle rate will be claimed.

7) Mileage:

Mileage claims must be documented by stating origination point; destination, total actual miles for each trip, and the rate per mile paid by the individual=s firm. The maximum allowable rate is $0.30 per mile (which is the current allowable rate set by the I.R.S.).

8) Long Distance:

Long distance telephone expenses must be documented. Copies of telephone bills must be submitted with notation as to which charges are related to MDL No. 1203. Only actual charges are reimbursable.

9) Federal Express, Local Courier Service, or other Courier:

All claimed expenses must be documented with bills showing the sender, origin of the package, recipient and destination of the package.

cont...

0016

10) Postage Charges:

A contemporaneous postage log or other supporting documentation must be maintained and submitted. Postage charges are to be reported at actual cost.

11) Telefax Charges:

Contemporaneous records should be maintained and submitted showing faxes sent and received. The per-fax charge should be $1.00 per page.

12) In-House Photocopy:

A contemporaneous photocopy log or other supporting documentation must be maintained and submitted. The maximum copy charge is $0.25 per page.

13) Secretarial and Clerical Overtime:

An itemized description of the task and time spent must be submitted for secretarial and clerical time. All such overtime for secretarial and clerical assistance shall be approved by PMC members or the employee=s supervising attorney, who shall review and approve such overtime prior to submission.

14) Lexis / Westlaw:

Claims for expenses relating to computerized legal research, i.e. LEXIX or WESTLAW, should be in the exact amount charged to your rim for these research services.

15) Deposition Costs, Expert Witness Fees, and Exhibit Costs:

Fees and Costs associated with pretrial discovery that are authorized by the PMC will generally be paid directly by the PMC. No party will be reimbursed for obtaining his or her own personal copy of a deposition transcript.

16) Equipment Purchases:

Purchases of equipment are not to be claimed, absent special circumstances approved by the PMC. Laptop computers purchased for and utilized by the individual attorneys and their staff, even if used primarily for this case, are not reimbursable

17) Monetary Sanctions:

No monetary sanction levied by the Court on any PMC member shall be reported as an expense.

C. Exceptions:

The only exceptions to these guidelines shall be as specifically approved by the PMC.(E.g., payment of transportation and lodging in connection with expert witness consultation or depositions subject to approval of the PMC or its authorized designee.)

D. The procedures set forth herein will apply to PMC members and those to whom the PMC has assigned a specific case related task.

E. Each attorney submitting a time and expense statement shall be considered as representing to the Court, under oath, that the time and expense submitted meets the criteria set forth herein.

F. PMC Authorization Forms:

In order to avoid unnecessary or duplicative work, PMC members will be required to submit a APMC Authorization Form@ signed by the Chairpersons for any person not an employee of a PMC member=s firm who undertakes to perform common benefit work on behalf of the PMC. Common benefit work may be assigned to counsel of record in any state or federal action.

IT IS ORDERED that you must fully comply with the provisions set forth above in order to be compensated for any and all time and expense submissions. The forms which are attached hereto as AExhibit A@ must be used when submitting your time and expenses. Non-Compliance with this Order will result in a denial of same.

(***ATTACHED*** Exhibit A - Common Benefit Time Category Codes & report sheets)

3-13-98

0017

Re: Sebie Douglas, et al. V. A.H. Robins Company, et al. (98-20261)

It is hereby ORDERED that the above captioned case is dismissed as a duplicate filing of Civil Action Number 98-20324. Counsel is hereby directed to file all future pleadings for this action in 98-CV-20324

3-13-98

0018

Re: Cheryl Denise Russel, et al. V. A.H. Robins Company, et al. (98-20260)

It is hereby ORDERED that the above captioned case is dismissed as a duplicate filing of Civil Action Number 98-20323. Counsel is hereby directed to file all future pleadings for this action in 98-CV-20323

3-13-98

0019

Re: Service of Complaints and Other Pleadings: Service List

1.) SERVICE OF COMPLAINTS AND SUMMONS

A) Designation of persons to Accept Service of Process. American Home Products Corporation. A.H. Robins, Inc., Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. And each of the Phentermine Defendants listed on the Rule 4 Schedule described below shall designate a person authorized to accept service of the summons and complaint in any newly filed case. Defendants have stipulated that service of process by certified mail upon such designated person shall be deemed proper service for the purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4

B) Rule 4 Schedule Within 15 days of the entry of this Order, Defendants= Liaison Counsel shall file with the Court and serve on the Plaintiffs= Liaison Counsel a Schedule of the persons designated pursuant to paragraph 1(A) (ARule 4 Schedule@). The designations set forth in the Rule 4 Schedule shall be effective immediately upon filing and service thereof upon Plaintiffs= Liaison Counsel.

C) Changes to Rule 4 Schedule. If a party at any time wishes to change the designation made pursuant paragraph 1(B), such party shall notify their Liaison Counsel. Within 15 days of notice of the revised designation, Defendants= Liaison Counsel shall file with the Court and serve on Plaintiffs= Liaison Counsel a revised Rule 4 Schedule, and such revision shall be effective 15 days after filing and service of the revised Rule 4 Schedule upon Plaintiffs= Liaison Counsel.

D) Time Period for Service of Process. For those civil actions that were originally filed in or transferred to and docketed in the Eastern District of PA before April 1, 1998, plaintiffs shall make service of their Complaint and a Summons on each defendant named therein no later than May 1, 1998. For all civil actions that were originally filed in or transferred and docketed in the Eastern District of PA after April 1, 1998, plaintiffs shall serve their Complaint and a Summons on each defendant not served previously no later than 30 days after the date on which their action is docketed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Nothing here is intended to enlarge the time for service of Complaints and Summonses which is provided for in Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).

E) Service of Process on Foreign Defendants The preceding paragraph shall not apply to service on a foreign defendant to the extent that service on such a defendant is required under the provisions of the Hague Convention.

2.) SERVICE LIST; SERVICE OF OTHER DOCUMENTS

A) Contents of the Service List The Service List shall contain the name, address, and telephone number of one (1) attorney (or in the case of a pro se party, a person) who will be deemed to be the person upon whom valid service is to be made by any other party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.

B) Special Master It is contemplated that the Court will appoint a Special Master with respect to discovery and other matters pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 53 (hereinafter Athe Special Master@).

C) Preparation, Administration and Filing of the Service List The Special Master appointed by the court shall prepare and administer the Service List. Each Service List and any supplement thereto which is prepared pursuant to this Order shall be filed of record with the Clerk on the docket applicable to all actions in MDL 1203.

D) Title of Service List and Designation of Dates Covered by the List The service List shall be entitled AMDL 1203 --- Diet Drug Litigation --- Service List.@ The Service List heading shall also state: AThis Service List shall govern all service made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 for the period ____________ to ___________, inclusive.@ The Service List shall be filed on or before the first of each month covered by that list.

Any supplements to the Service List as provided for the Paragraph 2(F) of this Order, shall be identified as a ASupplement@ to a previously existing Service List and shall likewise show the dates being the first and last day of the month to which the Supplement applies.

E) Changes to the Service List Any party desiring to make a change in the Service List shall notify the Special Master in writing at least 15 days before the month that the change is to be published in the Service List or a Supplement thereto. All parties can rely upon, and will be deemed to be bound by, the contents of any Service List or Supplement, and for these purposes, no change in status concerning service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 will be considered to have taken effect until the change is published in the Service List or a supplement in accordance with the provisions of this section.

F) Procedure for Filing of the Service List and Any Changes If at the time the Special Master receives any written notice of proposed changes in accordance wit Paragraph 2(E) above, it is determined by the Special Master that the changes are not so numerous as to warrant reprinting of the entire Service List for the next succeeding month, the Special Master may simply file a ASupplement to the Service List@ which will be filed prior to, and be effective the first of, the succeeding month. The Supplement will itemize the changes and note in its heading that the Service List for the month covered by the Supplement will consist of the Supplement or Supplements identified and which contain the necessary changes to the last identified full Service List filed by the Special Master.

At such time as the Special Master believes that a number of Supplement warrant the preparation of a new full Service List, the Special Master shall cause the same to be prepared and filed on or before the first of the next succeeding month. Under any circumstances, however, a full Service List shall be published at least once every six (6) months and shall contain all of the changes from previous Supplements.

(F) Use of The Service List

1. Court Orders

(a) Defendants= Liaison Counsel shall be responsible for serving upon each member of their group, all Orders signed by the court.

(b) The PMC is responsible for serving all Orders signed by the court to all plaintiffs= counsel and plaintiffs who are unrepresented.

2. Motions, Briefs, and Any Other Papers Required to Be Served Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5

(a) Except as provided below, the moving party or party who is required to serve any document shall be responsible for serving the document upon all persons or other parties required to be served under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5, or other provision of law including any court Order expressly requiring that service be made in a particular circumstance.

(b) Regardless of any other provisions governing service, all documents filed in any action in MDL 1203 shall be served on all liaison counsel, each Co-Chairman of the PMC, and on the office of the PMC which is presently located at 325 Chestnut Street, Phila, PA 19106

(c) In any filing relating to an individual action or group of individual actions, service shall be made on each party of record in each such action as reflected on the service list in addition to those persons on whom service is required by paragraph 2(F)(2)(b) of this Order.

(d) With respect to documents filed by defendants which apply to all actions in MDL 1203, it shall be sufficient to serve all Liaison Counsel, each Co-Chairman of PMC, and the office of PMC. PMC shall not be required to serve such documents on all plaintiffs. However, at least twice a month Plaintiffs= Liaison counsel shall prepare a list of all documents which have been filed and served by defendants in MDL 1203 during the period following the date of the last such lit and shall furnish a copy of the list to one attorney for each plaintiff separately represented. On request, the PMC shall furnish copies of any of the documents reflected on such lists to a plaintiff at a price not to exceed the per page rate charge by the Clerk of Court for making copies of publicly filed documents which is in the effect at the time of the request. The PMC may, at its election, require that copying charge be paid in advance.

(e) Any motion filed on behalf of any plaintiff shall be filed through the PMC with the endorsement of one or more of the co-chairs of the PMC attesting to the fact that the motion satisfies all applicable requirements of the Court. Any such endorsement hall not constitute a representation or affirmation with respect to the substance or merit of any such motion.

(G) Disputes Regarding Content of Service List

All Disputes regarding the service list shall promptly be brought to the attention of the court for resolution.

(H) Certificates of Service

When service of pleading, motion, brief, or other document is made, it shall be sufficient to attach a Certificate of service to any such document stating that the document has been served on the persons entitled to be served as shown on the service list in effect on the date service was made. This certificate will allow any person to determine the identity of the persons served in regard to any pleading, motion, brief, or other document. Therefore, no party making service should attache to their paper a lit of all of the names, addresses and phone numbers of persons served. Reference in the Certificate of Service to the service list will reduce the substantial burdens associated with the parties reproducing and attaching voluminous lists of names,

cont...

0019

addresses and phone numbers that are already of record and easily accessible on the service lit in the Clerk= office

Any need to certify service in another manner shall only be permitted by separate Court Order, for cause shown. Further, the Clerk of Court is directed to reject for filing any document that does not comply with this procedure and that has as its Certificates of Service a list of all individuals served.

3-13-98

0020

Re: Order for Preservation of Documents

This Order governs the preservation of documents in all cases that are part of this coordinated proceeding.

1) Definitions

a.) ADocument@ is defined to be synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage of this term in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a), including, without limitation, electronic or computerized data complications. A nonidentical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term.

b.) ADiet Drugs@ shall mean Fenfluaramine, Dexfenfluarmine and/or Phentermine, whether known as Pondimin, Redux or by any other brand or generic name.

2) Scope

a.) This Order covers all Documents in the possession, custody or control of a party that contain information that is relevant to any claim or defense at issue in any case consolidated under MDL 1203 or appears reasonably calculated to led to the discovery of evidence admissible in any case consolidated under MDL 1203.

b.) The persons subject to this Order shall be all parties and attorneys n any action consolidated herein, as well as their respective officers, agents, servants and employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise (collectively ASubject Persons@)

3.) Preservation.

a.) During the pendency of this litigation and for thirty (30) days after entry of a final order closing all cases, all Subject Persons are restrained and enjoined from altering,

destroying or permitting the destruction of any Document within the scope of this Order that is in the possession, custody or control of a party, wherever such Document is located.

b.) The injunction set forth in paragraph 3(a) hereof shall not preclude the movement or change of location of any Document within the scope of this Order, provided, that such Document or an identical copy thereof remains in the possession, custody or control of a party and can be produced in response to a proper discovery request in this litigation.

c.) Counsel are directed to confer to resolve questions as to what documents are outside the scope of this Order or otherwise need not be preserved and as to an earlier date for permissible destruction of particular categories of documents. If counsel are unable to agree, any party may apply to the court for clarification or relief from this Order upon reasonable notice. A party failing to object in writing within 45 days after receiving written notice from another party that specified documents will be destroyed or otherwise altered pursuant to routine policies and programs shall be deemed to have agreed to such destruction

4) Exemptions.

a.) Multiple identical copies of a Document, including photocopies and electronically-stored data, are not covered by this Order so long as the original Document or an identical copy thereof remains in the possession, custody or control of a party.

b.) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Order, Subject Persons may generate Documents in the future without preserving dictation, drafts, interim versions, or other temporary complications of information that would not be preserved in the ordinary course of business.

c.) This Order shall not cover briefs, motions, legal or factual memoranda, notes, or other similar materials created in anticipation of or during the course of any litigation concerning any of the Diet Drugs by or for any attorney representing any party to any case in this proceeding. Scientific or medical studies, whether conducted in anticipation of litigation or not, shall not be subject to the exemption of this paragraph 4(c).

d.) Nothing in paragraph 4(b) or 48 shall exempt any plaintiff=s medical or diagnostic records from the scope of this Order.

cont..

0020

5) Implementation

Liaison counsel shall deliver a copy of this Order to counsel for all parties of record. Thereupon, counsel for each plaintiff or defendant shall provide written notice of this Order to each corporate or individual client whom counsel now or hereafter represents in any case which becomes part of the proceedings consolidated under MDL 1203. Such notice shall include a copy of this Order.

6) Discoverability and Admissibility

Nothing in this Order shall be construed to affect the discoverability or admissibility of any Document within the scope of this Order.

3-13-98

0021

Re: Deposition Guidelines

IT IS ORDERED that all depositions in the above-entitled matter be conducted in accordance with the following rules:

1) Cooperation - Counsel are expected to cooperate with, and be courteous to, each other and deponents.

2) Attendance

(a) Who May be Present. Unless otherwise ordered under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), depositions may be attended by counsel of record, members and employees of their firms,

attorneys specially engaged by a party for purposes of the deposition, the parties or the representative of a party, counsel for the deponent, and potential witnesses. While the deponent is being examined about any stamped confidential document or the confidential information contained therein, persons to whom disclosure is not authorized under the Confidentiality Order shall be excluded

(b) Unnecessary Attendance. Unnecessary attendance by counsel is discouraged. Counsel who have only marginal interest in a proposed deposition or who expect their interest to be adequately represented by other counsel should elect not to attend.

3) Conduct

(a) Scheduling. Depositions should ordinarily be noticed 30 calendar days in advance of the date on which the deposition is to take place and counsel shall use their best efforts to cooperate in scheduling depositions.

(b) Examination. In conducting depositions, the parties shall use their best efforts to avoid duplicative examination of the witness and shall cooperate in the allocation of time so that the limits set or expected to be honored by the court are complied with.

(c) Objections and Directions Not to Answer. Counsel shall comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(1). When a privilege is claimed, the witness should nevertheless answer questions relevant to the existence, extent or waiver of the privilege, such as the date of a communication, who made the statement, to whom and in whose presence the statement was made, other persons to whom the contents of the statement have been disclosed, and the general subject matter of the statement, unless such information is itself privileged. Any objection made at a deposition shall be deemed to have been made on behalf of all other parties. All objections, except those as to form, agree preserved.

(d) Private Consultation. Private conferences between deponents and their attorneys in the course of interrogation are improper except for the purpose of determining whether a privilege should be asserted. Unless prohibited by the court for good cause shown, such conferences may be held during normal recesses and adjournments.

(e) Furnishing Documents in Advance of Deposition. Deposing counsel, shall, ten calendar days prior to the deposition, furnish deponent=s counsel with a copy of all of the documents he or she, in good faith, expects to question the deponent about during the deposition. Where the deponent is an employee of a defendant, the deposing counsel may furnish the deponent=s counsel with a list designating the Bates numbers of all the documents he or she expects to question the deponent about during the deposition I lieu of furnishing deponent=s counsel with the actual documents. Deponent=s counsel may prepare the deponent for the deposition in keeping with all professional and ethical rules of practice (i.e., deponent shall answer all questions fully and truthfully). In addition to providing documents to the deponent=s counsel ten days prior to the deposition (or furnishing the deponent=s counsel with a list of Bates numbers of documents) pursuant to this paragraph, extra copies of documents about which counsel expect to examine the deponent should ordinarily be provided to the deponent at the deposition.

cont..

0021

Pursuant to Rule (30)(c), deposing counsel may notify deponent=s counsel that he or she is withholding particular documents about which the deponent will be questioned if such documents may be withheld under F.R.E 613(a).

4) Documents.

(a) Production of Documents. Witnesses subpoenaed to produce documents should ordinarily be served at least 30 calendar days before the scheduled deposition. Arrangements should be made to permit inspection of the documents before the interrogation commences.

(b) Confidentiality Order. A copy of the Confidentiality Order shall be provided to the deponent before the deposition commences if the deponent is to produce or may be asked about documents that contain confidential information.

(c) Marking of Deposition Exhibits. Documents shall be referred to by the Bates-stamped number assigned to the document in this litigation.

5) Deposition of Witnesses Who Have No Knowledge of the Facts.

An officer, director, or managing agent of a corporation or a government official served with a notice of a deposition or subpoena regarding a matter about which such person has no

knowledge may submit to the noticing party a reasonable time before the date noticed an affidavit so stating and identifying a person or persons within the corporation or government entity believed to have such knowledge. Notwithstanding such affidavit, the noticing party may proceed with the deposition, subject to the right of the witness to seek a protective order 6) Videotaped Depositions.

By so indicating in its notice of a deposition, a party at its expense may record the deposition by videotape pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(2) and (3) subject to the following rules.

(a) Video Operator. The operator(s) of the videotape recording equipment shall be subject to the provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 28(c). At the commencement of the deposition the operator(s) shall swear or affirm to record the proceedings fairly and accurately.

(b) Attendance. Each witness, attorney, and other person attending the deposition shall be identified on camera at the commencement of the deposition. Thereafter, only the deponent (and demonstrative materials used during the deposition) will be videotaped.

(c) Standards. The deposition will be conducted in a manner to replicate, to the extent feasible, the presentation of evidence at a trial. Unless physically incapacitated, the deponent shall be seated at a table or in a witness box except when reviewing or presenting demonstrative materials for which a change in position is needed. To the extent practicable, the deposition will be conducted in a neutral setting, against a solid background with only such lighting as is required for accurate video recording. Lighting, camera angle, lens setting, and field of view will be changed only as necessary to record accurately the natural body movements of the deponent or to portray exhibits and materials used during the deposition. Sound levels will be altered only as necessary to record satisfactorily the voices of counsel and the deponent. Eating and smoking by deponents or counsel during the deposition will not be permitted.

(d) Filing. The operator shall preserve custody of the original videotape in its original condition until further order of the court. No part of the video or audio record of a videotaped deposition shall be released or made available to any member of the public unless authorized by the Court.

7) Telephonic Depositions. By indicating in its notice of deposition that it wishes to conduct the deposition by telephone, a party shall be deemed to have moved for such an order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(7). Unless an objection is filed and served within ten calendar days after such notice is received, the court shall be deemed to have granted the motion. Other parties may examine the deponent telephonically on in person. However, all persons present with the deponent shall be identified in the deposition and shall not by word, sign, or otherwise coach or suggest answers to the deponent.

8) Use; Supplemental Depositions.

(a) Depositions may, under the conditions prescribed in Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(a)(1)-(4) or as otherwise permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence, be used against any party including parties later added and parties in cases subsequently filed in, removed to, or transferred to this Court as part of this litigation --

cont..

0021

(1) Who was present or represented at the deposition

(2) Who had reasonable notice thereof; or

(3) Who, within 30 calendar days after the transcription of the deposition (or, if later, within 60 calendar days after becoming a party in this court in any action that is part of this litigation), fails to show cause why such deposition should not be usable against such party.

(a) Supplemental Depositions Parties added after the date on which a deposition has been taken and parties in cases filed, removed to, or transferred to this Court after the taking of a deposition may, within 30 calendar days after the transcription of the deposition (or, if later, within 60 calendar days after becoming a party in this court in any action that is part of this litigation), request permission from the Court for good cause shown to conduct a supplemental deposition of the deponent, including the right to take such deposition telephonically. If permitted by the Court, the deposition shall be treated as the resumption of the deposition originally noticed. Such examination shall not be repetitive of the prior examinations of the witness.

3-13-98

0022

Re: First Wave Discovery

This Order applies to all civil actions which are or become consolidated in MDL 1203, including those which are originally filed in or transferred to and docketed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407.

(1) Discovery Initiation Date.

For purposes of this Order and for purposes of discovery in MDL 1203, the Court establishes a Adiscovery initiation date@ (ADID@) which is

1. April 1, 1998 for those civil actions that were originally filed in or transferred to and docketed in the Eastern District of PA before April 1, 1998. Or

2. The first day of the month following the date that a civil action is filed in or transferred to and docketed in the Eastern District of PA to the extent that such an event occurs on or after April 1, 1998.

(2) Plaintiffs= Fact Sheets and Medical Authorizations

(A) Within 45 days of the DID, each plaintiff shall deliver to each defendant named in that plaintiff=s complaint and to the PMC a completed Fact Sheet, copies of each document to be furnished along with the completed Fact Sheet as specified in Part VIII of the Fact Sheet, a completed List of Medical Providers and Other Sources of Information, completed authorizations all in the forms which are attached to this Order, and a list of any medical providers as to which plaintiff objects to use of such an authorization.

(B) Prior to using any authorization furnished pursuant to the preceding paragraph in order to obtain medical records or other documents with respect to a plaintiff, the person using any such authorization shall provide the plaintiff=s counsel or the plaintiff, if unrepresented, with the names of the persons to whom the authorizations will be addressed. In addition, if defendants propose to address an authorization to a medical provider or other third party not listed in a plaintiff=s List of Medical Providers, plaintiff shall have ten (10) days in which to object to use of the authorization. In the event that a party has objected to the use of an authorization to obtain records from any medical providers or third parties, the authorization shall not be used to request records from such medical provider or third party until the objection is resolved. Upon request of plaintiff=s counsel, defendants= counsel shall provide copies of the records requested to plaintiff=s counsel at a reasonable cost. Authorizations may not be used to obtain information other than documents and records.

C) Plaintiffs= completion of the Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers, and Authorizations and production of documents pursuant to this Order shall be under oath and shall be considered to be responses to interrogatories and requests for the production of documents under Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but shall not preclude defendants from obtaining discovery from plaintiffs of a non-duplicative nature. Plaintiffs= counsel reserve the right to object to defendants= future discovery requests on any proper ground.

3) First Wave Discovery Addressed to Defendants

(A) The PMC, on behalf of all plaintiffs, has served on set of comprehensive interrogatories and requests for production of documents on each defendant who is alleged to have manufactured, marketed or sold the diet drugs which are the subject of this litigation (other than medical providers, clinics, diet centers, and the like).

(B) Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order, defendants shall serve any objections to such discovery requests.

cont...

0022

(C) Thereafter, the parties shall meet and confer in a good faith effort to resolve Defendants= Objections to Plaintiffs= Interrogatories and Document Production Requests.

(D) A hearing is scheduled to take place before the Court on April 21, 1998 at 11:00 a.m. to resolve any

objections which have been made to plaintiffs= first wave discovery requests which the parties have been unable to resolve.

(E) Within 45 days of the 4-1-98 DID, each defendant shall answer each of the plaintiffs= interrogatories which were not subject to objection. Interrogatories to which

objections are raised and overruled shall be answered at such time as shall be determined by the Court.

(F) Within 30 days of the 4-1-98 DID, each defendant shall make a substantial production to Plaintiffs= Document Depository of documents responsive to plaintiffs= Document Production Requests. Within 30 days of such initial production, each defendant shall make a second substantial production of responsive documents. Within 30 days of the second production, defendants shall make their final production of documents which are responsive to Plaintiffs= Document Production Requests. 15 Days thereafter, each defendant shall provide a privilege log listing any documents withheld on a claim of attorney-client privilege and/or work product protection. For good cause shown, defendants may seek extensions of the dates in the preceding two sentences from the Court. Documents which are subject to a claim of privilege which is overruled or denied shall be produced at such time as shall be determined by the Court.

(G) Any plaintiff who wishes to serve interrogatories and document production requests on any defendant who is a medical provider, diet center, clinic, or the like, may do so at any time provided that such requests are coordinated with and through the PMC which shall assure that discovery requests directed to such defendants are not duplicative. Any defendant may likewise save such discovery.

(H) Defendants= Response to Plaintiffs= Interrogatories and Document Production Requests and the production of documents pursuant to the Self-Executing Disclosure Provisions of this Order shall not preclude plaintiffs from obtaining additional discovery from defendants of a non-duplicative nature. Defendants= counsel reserve the right to object to plaintiffs= future discovery requests on any proper ground.

4) Self-Executing Disclosures

(A) Within 30 days of 4-1-98 DID, defendants shall provide the PMC with a copy of each and every document previously produced in any civil action involving fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine, and/or phentermine. This includes all discovery responses produced, all transcripts or records of any testimony given by way of affidavit, deposition, at a hearing or at trial, and all documents tendered for inspection and copying, which shall include all documents delivered to opposing parties in such litigation.

(B) Within 30 days of the 4-1-98 DID, defendants shall provide plaintiffs with the documents and other information described in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(D).

5) Third Party Document Production Requests

Any party may request the production of documents by a third party through a Subpoena Duces Tecum. The party initiating such discovery shall ensure that the documents produced are given a distinct identifying number in the manner set forth in paragraph 6(c) of this Order and that a copy of all such documents are provided to Arnold Levin on behalf of plaintiffs and to Michael T. Scott for the defendants.

6) Plaintiffs= Document Depository

(A) The PMC is hereby authorized to establish and maintain a document depository and office at 414 Walnut Street,

(B) With respect to any documents which defendants are required to produce pursuant to the terms of this Order or in response to a request for production of documents, one copy of the documents shall be delivered to the PMC=s document depository and shall be maintained there pending further order of the court.

(C) All documents produced by any defendant to the PMC depository shall be uniquely identified with an alpha numeric designation which shall be indelibly stamped on the documents in such a way as not to obliterate any text. This designation shall contain an alpha prefix followed by whole numbers assigned in numerical sequence for each document produced.

(D) The detailed provisions concerning the operation of, and access to, the PMC depository will be the subject of a future Order of the Court. The Court=s Order will assure, inter alia , that plaintiffs= attorneys in state court actions involving fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine, and/or phentermine will be entitled to review documents in the PMC depository at no cost to the reviewing attorney and will be able to obtain copies of such documents at a price which will not exceed the reasonable costs of reproduction, provided that such plaintiffs=

cont...

0022

counsel agree to be bound by the terms of the Confidentiality Order governing MDL Docket No. 1203 or by the

terms of a Protective Order of comparable scope entered in the state court litigation.

7) Other Discovery

(A) Depositions may be taken in order to preserve testimony in the circumstances addressed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 27.

(B) Except as provided in this Order, no additional discovery, including depositions, shall be taken until further Order of the Court.

3-23-98

0023

Re: Deanna L. Watkins and Randall W. Watkins V. Gate Pharmaceuticals, et al. (98-20149)

Presently before the court is a Motion to Dismiss defendants SmithKline Beecham Corporation, Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Fison Corporation. The court expects there will be many motions filed either in a transferor court before a case is transferred here or in this transferee court, that essentially take the same position as the defendants take in the instant motion. Presumably, these motions will be somewhat uniform and the court intends that this Order apply to similar motions.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the transferor court on October 15, 1997 which was thereafter amended on 12-12-97. The amendment dropped a defendant and added certain others. On January 28, 1998, the case was transferred to this court, and shortly thereafter, the instant motion was filed. The essence of the plaintiff=s complaint is that she is a citizen of Arizona and her claim is against defendants who are citizens of states other than Arizona. She also claims a sum in excess of the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement. She alleges that, prior to April, 1997, she received prescriptions for and ingested phentermine. Plaintiff further alleges that as a direct or proximate result thereof in April, 1997 she experienced difficulty with dyspnea and sustained valvular damage that required open heart surgery. Plaintiff asserts that, as a result, she will require medication for the rest of her life. Her claims are based on legal theories of negligence, failure to warn and distribution of a defective product and/or a product that was a defective design. Plaintiff also alleges breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation and a violation of the Arizona Consumer Protection Act.

The moving defendants seek to have the case dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has only generally identified those defendants in the causes of action or allegations of causation. The defendants argue that the plaintiff does not allege which of the named fourteen defendants produced the product which she ingested. They assert that she simply alleges broadly that all defendants produce phentermine. Defendants Medeva and Fison state that they have not produced any products under the brand name Aphentermine@ but rather marketed a product under the trade name of Ionamin.@ SmithKline says that its product was marketed under the trade name of AFastin.@

It is true that the plaintiff generally identifies each defendant in the complaint and then alleges that all the defendants were engaged in the conduct about which she complains and that the product which she ingested, from whichever defendant or defendants it came, caused the injury for which she seeks damages. However, it should be perfectly plain to the defendants that the Motion is premature.

In the first place, the defendants allege facts which at this very early stage the court cannot consider. These facts may be true but this is neither the time now the method to raise them. Indeed, these types of facts, if they are as the defendants contend, are usually embodied in documents that, in this case, would presumably be very current and presumably unassailable. It is likely that the parties will eventually stipulate to such documents.

Respecting the plaintiff=s allegations of liability of and among the defendants she names, she must be considered to e on sound ground in doing so without the knowledge of precise facts that will follow reasonable discovery, provided, she has the evidentiary support for her

allegations as required by Rule 11 of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure.

The notion of notice pleading in the federal system envisions that a plaintiff does not need to have all of his/her proof at the time the complaint is prepared. Those facts that a plaintiff has an evidentiary basis to believe have merit, but insufficient to be deemed ultimate proof at the pleading stage, are permitted to be pled as a Ashort and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.@ Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The federal pleading scheme, looked at as a whole, envisions prompt notice pleading to be followed by the opportunity for discovery, which provides for a narrowing of the issues including the identification of which defendants plaintiff has a claim against.

In Conley V. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), the Supreme Court set forth the guiding principles of notice

cont...

0023

pleading. The Court stated that:

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he

bases his claim. To the contrary, all the Rules require is a short and plain statement of the claim that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff=s claim is and the ground upon which it rests...Such simplified notice pleading is made possible by the liberal opportunity for discovery and the other pretrial procedures established by the Rules to disclose more precisely the basis of both claim and defense and to define more narrowly the disputed facts and issues.

Id. At 47. The court further explained that A[t]he Federal rules [of Civil Procedure] reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits.@ Id. At 48; see also Leatherman V. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993)(quoting Gibson V. Conley); Klimes V. Stone, 84 F.3d1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996) (AAll that is required is that the complaint gives defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff=s claim is and the ground upon which it rests.@); Vector Research, Inc. V. Howard & Howard Attorneys P.C., 76 F.3d 692, 697 (stating same); Brownlee V. Conine, 957 F.2d 353, 354 (7th Cir. 1992) (explaining that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establish a system of notice pleading rather than fact pleading); Lone Star Indus., Inc. V. Horman Family Trust, 960 F.2d 917, 921-22 (10th Dir. 1992) (following notice pleading standard); Torres Ramirez V. Bermudez Garcia, 898 F.2d 224, 227 (1st Cir. 1990) (stating purpose of pleading is to give parties adequate notice of claims and ground on which they rest); Walker V. South Cent. Bell Tel Co. 904 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1990) (concluding that notice is toughstone by which motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) must be adjudicated); Gooding V. Warner-Lambert Co., 744 F.2d 354, 358 (3d Cir. 1984) (stating highly technical pleading rules, which only serve to trap the unwary practitioner, are eschewed in favor of a system of notice pleading; Seville Indus. Mach. Corp. V. Southmost Mach. Corp., 742 F.2d 786, 790 (3d Cir. 1984) (AUnder the modern federal rules, it is enough that a complaint put the defendant on notice of the claims against him. It is the function of discovery to fill in the details, and of trial to establish fully each element of the cause of action.@); Banco Continental V. Curtiss Nat=l Bank of Miami Springs, 406 F.2d 510 (5th Cir. 1969( (reversing district court because under notice pleading standard, record was not sufficiently developed to allow dismissal of any defendants); In re Boland, 79 F.R.D. 665, 668 (D.D.C. 1978) (AUnder the liberal pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a complaint need contain only the most basic grounds upon which the court=s jurisdiction is based and a short statement of the claim and the relief sought.... Concomitantly liberal discovery rules permit parties to flesh out their respective claims, defenses, and counterclaims@). Applying these principles, the court finds that each defendant has been put on notice as to the claims being asserted against them.

The parties know and understand that as of this date the court has approved a jointly prepared, extensive plaintiffs= fact sheet that will contain considerable information that should allow the parties to communicate with each other regarding the extent to which the facts upon which the plaintiff relies warrant either the dropping of a particular defendant or some other adjustment and the extent to which the plaintiff has made claims against the defendant seeking dismissal.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion is DENIED. The defendants may seek relief at a later time when the discovery process has matured enough to allow some degree of finality as to the decisions to be made concerning the merit of the plaintiff=s claims and the defendants= defense.

3-23-98

0024

Re: Melinda Hazelton, et al. V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, et al., (98-20098)

Plaintiffs and Defendants, Ion Labs, move this Court for an Order dismissing Ion Laboratories from this action without prejudice. The Court, after hearing statements of counsel and reviewing matters of record, finds that the motion should be granted.

It is therefore ordered that Ion Laboratories is dismissed from this action without prejudice. SO ORDERED.

3-23-98

0025

Re: Bobby Wayne Reynolds V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20169)

This cause coming to be heard on Plaintiff=s Motion to Dismiss, this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs. SO ORDERED.

3-30-98

0026

Re: Appointment of Special Discovery Master

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 the parties are ordered to show cause why Gregory P. Miller, Esquire should not be appointed as Special Discovery Master in MDL-1203. MDL-1203 IN RE: DIET DRUGS PHENTERMINE/FENFLUARMINE/DEXFENFLUARMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION was commenced by the docketing in this district of a transfer order under 28 U.S.C. 1407 on December 10, 1997 by the Judicial Panel on MDL covering 200 civil actions that were pending in federal district courts in 40 states and the District of Columbia. The filing of these actions was accompanied by a similar substantial filing in state courts in state courts throughout the country of the same sort of claim. The litigation involves allegation of defects in and related to three different diet drugs - known by the chemical names Fenfluramine, Dexfenfluramine, Phentermine and which had been widely prescribed in the treatment of obesity. These three diet drugs were presumably all dispensed in pill form and more commonly prescribed for women then for men. In September 1997 certain manufacturers and distributors of these products acting on a request from the FDA initiated a voluntary withdrawal from the market of those products sold under the trade names of Pondimin (Phenfluramine) and Redux (Dexfenfluramine). The estimates on the number of person taking these products and the number of prescriptions that have been written vary but it has been stated that an estimated 300,000 persons at about the time of the voluntary withdrawal from the market place were taking Fenfluramine and another 300,000 were taking Dexfenfluramine. The principle claim by the persons who are plaintiffs in these cases is that use of the products have caused or can cause heart valve injury, primary pulmonary hypertension and other closely related disorders. Since that first transfer of 200 cases to this district there have been an additional 200 cases transferred here and it is anticipated that additional large numbers of cases will arrive here through that process. Since the initial transfer this court has convened two hearings and following conference with assigned liaison counsel for plaintiffs and defendants has issued a number of orders governing the administration of these cases in the transferee district. See PTO=s 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 19, 10, 21 and 22.

In addition, PTO 22 has provided for a lengthy detailed plaintiff fact sheet to be completed by every plaintiff and filed together with executed information authorizations within 45 days of the plaintiff=s discovery initiation date. On February 5, 1998 by PTO 6 the court appointed a nine number Plaintiffs= Management Committee (PMC) and also

appointed several liaison counsel to represent manufacturers and others representing discrete defense interests. Substantial Rule 33 Interrogatories and Rule 34 Document Requests have recently been served on defendants and PTO 22 has directed that objections to those be

filed promptly. The court has noticed a hearing for April 21, 1998 to dispose of those objections. It is anticipated that the discovery process now will begin to proceed to a point where the taking of depositions in person, or by telephone will be soon underway. It is anticipated that at least 20 and as many as 40, or possibly more, tracks of deposition activity will be functioning simultaneously on any one day in order to assure that the MDL pretrial coordination will proceed promptly so that all parties will benefit from the opportunity to develop their respective claim and defense positions without unnecessary delay.

It is the court=s policy in regard to both discovery and non-discovery motion practice that the parties attempt to resolve their differences amicably before seeking judicial intervention which is costly and time consuming. (See Local Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.1(f)). Discovery is expected to continue at an increasing level and create discovery obligations in many places simultaneously throughout the United States. This circumstance is obviously the consequence of having consolidated in this district, cases that come from districts located in what may ultimately be every state in the United States for not only persons to be deposed and interviewed, but for the furnishing of many documents and other items of evidence as well.

With these thoughts in mind it is the court=s view that there are two major areas that warrant the participation as an adjunct resource to the parties and the court, of a Special Discovery Master. The first is in respect to the administration of a discovery schedule that will require the coordination of many attorneys and witnesses participating in the taking of depositions as well as responding to document requests and other discovery at many locations. While it is true that many of these depositions will not be lengthy, and though

many will be taken by telephone with the consent of the parties, the day to day administration of such efforts, and especially a multi-track deposition schedule will be complex even if it functions smoothly. The court finds that this deposition-discovery schedule can best be administered by a Special Discovery Master in cooperation with the court and the parties. Secondly, it is also likely that matters will develop from time to time

cont...

0026

concerning the content of discovery that will require the resolution of disputes. Much of this can be promptly resolved at the time and at the place of its occurrence if there is available a capable, competent and dedicated neutral party in the person of a Special Discovery Master.

While it is true that the parties can be expected to do their best to resolve these differences without judicial intervention, there will nevertheless be those instances when a more formal presentation to the court will appear to be the only avenue to resolve differences. It is the court=s belief that the introduction of a Special Master, who will be in a position to promptly and informally consider the views of the parties and attempt to mediate them, will be an invaluable aid to the overall administration of the case. If he is unable to succeed informally, he will be authorized to render a written decision and recommendation to the court forthwith. This more formal second step will allow the parties to secure a written decision from the master after a fair and full review of the parties respective positions, with either party thereafter having the right within seven (7) days to appeal such ruling to the court which will promptly consider the matter de novo.

1) Review and analyze all papers, affidavits and legal memoranda filed with the court bearing upon the parties= discovery disputes;

(2) Schedule, convene, preside over and otherwise conduct any meetings, hearings, conferences, disposition or proceedings deemed necessary to resolve these disputes; and

(3) Prepare and file decisions and recommendations and other necessary reports including a report every thirty (30) days on the progress of the activities under the jurisdiction and authority conferred by this Order.

(4) Incur necessary expenses and costs at reasonable levels to permit him to function fully in pursuance of the tasks covered by this reference. This poser shall include the authority to incur expenses and costs needed to engage the service of needed personnel, and to acquire office space, supplies and customary services associated therewith.

From time to time during the course of his stewardship, the Special Discovery Master shall submit to the court an application for counsel fees and costs associated with his service as Special Discovery Master and, in that respect, is authorized to incur only such fees and costs as many be reasonably necessary to fulfill his duties under this order, or such other orders as the court may issue from time to time hereafter. Upon receipt of such application, and to the extent that such application is approved, the court will allocate between and among the parties the approved sums that the court finds should be borne by each party. In this regard, the court will expect the Special Discovery Master to provide sufficient information and/or recommendations to assist the court in determining the manner in which fees and costs should be allocated. Fulfilling this task as Special Discovery Master should, among other things, take into account the extent to which any unresolved discovery request or response has been unnecessarily caused, unreasonably delayed or resisted, or improperly responded to.

All decisions and recommendations, reports and application for fees and costs should be served on the PMC and the defendants= liaison counsel at the time they are filed with the court.

In those instances where a ruling made by the Special Discovery Master is accepted by the parties, he shall confirm the same by letter to the PMC and affected liaison counsel (but not to the court) if a party requests such a written confirmation. All rulings made by the Special Discovery Master on disputes that are not accepted by any affected party shall be prepared by the Special Discovery Master as a ADecision and Recommendation@ sequentially numbered beginning with the first such determination and recommendation. It shall be served upon the PMC, the defendants= liaison counsel affected by the order, and the court.

The parties seeking to prevent the decision and recommendation from taking effect shall have seven (7) calendar days from the date it is filed with the court to appeal in the form of a motion with the court, accompanied by a copy of the decision and recommendation attached. The motion should set forth the relief requested. If no appeal is filed with the Clerk within the seven (7) day period the decision and recommendation will be deemed to be accepted by all parties, and the court will enter an order accordingly.

Since Mr. Miller=s service as a Lieutenant in the Navy and as senior trial counsel in the Judge Advocate

General=s Office in 1978 he commenced an active trial practice in the United States Attorney=s Office where he served from 1978 until 1984 concluding his career there as Chief of the Criminal Division. Since that time he has been in private practice first as an associate and then as a partner in Hoyle, Morris and Kerr from 1985 until 1989. Thereafter from 1989 to the present he has been a partner and currently a majority shareholder in

cont..

0026

Miller, Alfano and Raspanti, PC, here in Philadelphia. He has had a brisk and active trial practice. Much of his trial work has involved him in regulatory compliance litigation representing interests associated with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Insurance Department. This experience has brought him into that field and not only litigation but also in speaking to that industry at seminars and conferences in the area of compliance designed to avoid health care fraud and abuse. In this regard he has been asked to speak to a number of organizations and associations including the National Health Lawyers= Association, 1992; Health Care Providers Association of Delaware, 1995; Kent County Delaware Medical Society, 1995; Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association at its National Conference in Chicago, Illinois, 1995; National Health Care Fraud and Abuse Symposium n Los Angeles, CA, 1997; and others. He has also been a speaker at the Pennsylvania Bar Institute CLE Second Annual Lawyers= Business Institute, topic: Corporate Compliance and Internal Corporate Investigations, Philadelphia, PA 1996 and at the Pennsylvania Bar Association=s Annual Meeting on Corporate Compliance in Pittsburgh, PA, 1996. Mr. Miller was graduated from Mount Union College with a B.A. in 1972 and Case Western Reserve University where he received his J.D. in 1975.

The court believes that Gregory P. Miller, Esquire, possesses the requisite skills, experience and knowledge and other attributes which will be necessary to serve in the capacity as Special Discovery Master in this litigation. In summary Mr. Miller is known to the court and to the legal community in this region as an active, successful and highly regarded trial lawyer. He has represented plaintiffs and defendants in the private sector and the government in the Justice Department and Other Officials of State Government in his

wide practice. It is the court=s view t hat the parties to this litigation, counsel and the court will benefit from the high quality of professionalism that Mr. Miller has demonstrated in his 10 years of combined service in the United States Navy Judge Advocate General=s Corps. And the United States Department of Justice together with his 14 years of service in private practice.

Any party having a reason to show cause why this appointment should not be made shall file the same with the court within 10 days of the date of this order. SO ORDERED.

4-1-98

0027

Re: Confidentiality

WHEREAS, Rule 268 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the issuance of protective orders limiting the disclosure of discovered information in appropriate circumstances.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.) This Order applies to all documents and other products of discovery, all information derived therefrom and including, but not limited to, all copies, excerpts or summaries thereof, obtained by the plaintiffs or defendants pursuant to the requirements of any court order, the requirements of self-executing discovery, requests under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, answers to requests for admissions under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, answers to interrogatories under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, documents subpoenaed under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and transcripts of depositions under Rule 30 and Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (hereafter ADiscovery Material@). However, with respect to Discovery Material produced pursuant to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoena, only the person subpoenaed can made a confidentiality designation with respect to such Discovery Material.

2.) (a) Prior to giving access to any person to Discovery Material designated as confidential pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Order, counsel for the party intending to disclose such confidential Discovery Material shall furnish a copy of this Order to the person being given access. The person being given access shall execute an Agreement to Maintain Confidentiality in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit A. Counsel shall retain executed Agreements to Maintain Confidentiality during the pendency of this litigation, and upon the termination of this litigation, those Agreements shall be filed under seal with the Court. The requirement to execute an Agreement to Maintain Confidentiality shall not apply to the Court, counsel of record for a party, members or employees of counsel=s law firm, or in-house counsel for a party.

(b) The parties have agreed that Discovery Material designated as confidential under paragraph 3 hereof will be used only for the purposes of this litigation, and any state court litigation relating to the health effects of the Diet Drugs (phentermine, fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine), provided that the court and parties in any such state court litigation agree to be bound with respect to such Discovery Material by the terms of this Order or by the terms of a Protective Order of comparable scope entered in such state court litigation.

cont...

0027

3.) Persons producing Discovery Material may designate as confidential Discovery Material containing trade secrets or other confidential research, development or commercial information within the scope of Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (AConfidential Discovery Material@). Without prejudices to the right of the producing part to object to the production of the following information or of the requesting party to seek production, the information subject to such designation shall be limited to the producing party=s:

I. Customer names;

II. Proprietary licensing, distribution, marketing, design, development, research and

manufacturing information regarding products, whether previously or currently marketed or under development;

III. Clinical studies;

IV. Information concerning competitions;

V. Production information;

VI. Financial information not publicly filed with any federal or state regulatory authorities; and

VII. Information submitted to the FDA or other governmental agency, that under

application regulations is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act

4.) Confidential Discovery Material, if a writing, shall have the following language stamped on the face of the writing, or shall otherwise have such language clearly marked: Subject to Protective Order MDL No. 1203 (EDPA)

Such stamping or marking will take place prior to production by the producing person, or subsequent to selection by the receiving party for copying but prior to the actual copying of done expeditiously. The stamp shall be affixed in such manner as not to obliterate or obscure any written matter. In the case of deposition testimony, confidentiality designations shall be made within thirty (30) days after the transcript has been received by counsel for the deponent, and shall specify the testimony being designated confidential by page and line number(s). Until the expiration of such 30 day period, the entire text of the deposition, including all testimony therein, shall be treated as confidential under this Order. In the event that the producing person inadvertently fails to designate Discovery Material as confidential in this or any other litigation, it may make such a designation subsequently by notifying all parties to whom such Discovery Material was produced, in writing as soon as practicable. After receipt of such notification, the parties to whom production has been made will treat the designated Discovery Material as confidential, subject their right to dispute such designation in accordance with paragraphs 8 hereof.

5.) In the event that any question is asked at a deposition which a party or nonparty asserts calls for confidential information, such question shall nonetheless be answered by the witness fully and completely, to the extent required by law. Counsel for the deponent shall, either at the deposition or within 30 days after receipt of the transcript thereof by said counsel, notify all counsel on the record or in writing, that the information provided in such answer is confidential.

6.) Confidential Discovery Material may not be used by any person receiving such Discovery Material for any business or competitive purposes and shall be used solely for the purposes of this litigation, and such state court litigations as authorized by paragraph 2(b) hereof, and for no other purpose without prior written approval from the Court or the prior written consent of the producing person. All persons receiving or given access to Confidential Discovery Material in accordance with the terms of this Order consent to the continuing jurisdiction of the Court for the purposes of enforcing this Order and remedying any violations thereof.

7.) (a) Subject to subparagraph (b) and 8 below, Confidential Discovery Material shall not be disclosed to anyone other than the outside and in-house attorneys engaged in the conduct of the litigation described in paragraph 2(b) hereof, and to the employees of such outside attorneys directly involved in the conduct of such litigation. In particular, given the fact that co-defendants may be commercial competitors, defense attorneys shall not disclose to their clients, or to any of their clients= employees except in-house counsel, any Discovery Material produced by any other defendant and designated as confidential, without first obtaining the consent of the producing party or leave of Court for good cause shown.

(b) For purposes of this litigation, outside attorneys may disclose Confidential Discovery Material to retained experts (including persons directly employed by such experts and to any

cont...

0027

person expected to testify at trial or at a deposition to the extent that the Discovery Material relates to his/her proposed testimony. When so doing, the disclosing outside attorneys and the recipients of the Confidential Discovery Material shall comply with the terms of paragraph 2(a) hereof.

8 All outside and in-house counsel and the employees and assistants of outside counsel receiving discovery shall take all steps reasonably necessary to prevent the disclosure of Confidential Discovery Material other than in accordance with the terms of this Order. Such Confidential Discovery Material shall be made available only to those persons outside counsel deems necessary in the conduct of the litigation

(d) Disclosure of Confidential Discovery Material other than in accordance with the deem appropriate. terms of this Order may subject the disclosing person to such sanctions and remedies as the court may

8.) (a) If at any time a party wishes for any reason to dispute a designation of Discovery Material as confidential hereunder, such party shall notify the designating party of such dispute in writing, specifying the Discovery Material in dispute and the nature of the dispute. If the parties are unable amicably to resolve the dispute, the disputing party may apply by motion to the Court for a ruling as to whether the designated Discovery Material may, in accordance with Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Order, properly be treated as confidential. The designating party shall have the burden proof on such motion to establish the propriety of its confidentiality designation.

(b) All Discovery Material designated as confidential under this Order, whether or not such designation is in dispute pursuant to subparagraph 8(a) above, shall retain that designation and be treated as confidential in accordance with the terms hereof unless and until:

(I.) The producing party agrees in writing, that the material is no longer confidential and subject to the terms of this Order; or

(II) A Federal District Court enters an Order that the matter shall not be entitled to confidential status and that Order is not subject to an appellate stay within twenty (20) days after it is issued.

8 The parties shall negotiate in good faith before filing any motion relating to this Order.

9.) This Order shall not prevent any persons bound hereby from making use of information or documents without the restrictions of this Order if the information or documents are lawfully in their possession and/or lawfully obtained through discovery in this litigation or in any other litigation in which such information was not designated as Aconfidential@ or subject to confidential treatment.

10.) Any Confidential Discovery Material that is filed with the Court, and any pleading, motion or other paper filed with the Court containing or disclosing any such Confidential Discovery Material shall be filed under seal and shall bear the legend: ATHIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION COVERED BY A PROTECTIVE ORDER OF THE COURT AND IS SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO THAT PROTECTIVE ORDER. THE CONFIDENTIAL CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE DISCLOSED WITHOUT EXPRESS ORDER OF THE COURT.@

Said Confidential Discovery Material and/or other papers shall be kept under seal until further order of the court; however, said Confidential Discovery Material and other papers filed under seal shall be available to the Court and counsel of record, and to all other persons entitled to receive the confidential information contained therein under the terms of this Order.

11.) (a) Nothing in this Order shall prevent or restrict counsel for any party in any way from inspecting, reviewing, using or disclosing any Discovery Material produced or provided by that party, including Discovery Material designated as confidential.

(b) Nothing shall prevent disclosure beyond that required under this Order if the producing party consents in writing to such disclosure, or if the Court, after notice to all affected parties, orders such disclosure.

C.) No disclosure pursuant to this paragraph 11 shall waive any rights or privileges of any party granted by this Order.

12.) This Order shall not enlarge or affect the proper scope of discovery in this or any other litigation, now shall this Order imply that Discovery Material designated as confidential under the terms of this Order is properly discoverable, relevant or admissible in this or any other litigation.

13.) The entry of this Order shall be without prejudice to the rights of the parties, or any one of them, or of any non-party to assert or apply for additional or different protection at their discretion.

cont..

0027

14.) All counsel of record in this litigation shall make a good faith effort to comply with the provisions of this Order and to ensure that their clients do so. In the event of a change in counsel, retiring counsel shall fully instruct new counsel of their responsibilities under this Order.

15.) The terms of this Order shall survive and remain in effect after the termination of

MDL No. 1203 and all lawsuits which now or hereafter are consolidated therein. The parties shall take such measures as are necessary and appropriate to prevent the public disclosure of Confidential Discovery Material, through inadvertence or otherwise, after the conclusion of MDL No. 1203.

16.) This Order does not restrict or limit the use of Confidential Discovery Material at any hearing or trial. Nothing in this Order, however, shall prevent any party from seeking an appropriate protective order to govern such use of Confidential Discovery Material at a hearing or trial.

Attached is : Agreement to Maintain Confidentiality.

3-30-98

0028

Re: Motions denied for reasons set forth in PTO NO. 23

IT IS ORDERED that the motions listed below are denied for the reasons set forth in PTO No. 23:

1.) Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.=s motion for a more definite statement in 98-20138, #200003;

2.) SmithKline Beecham=s motion to dismiss 98-20158, #200013;

3.) SmithKline Beecham=s motion to dismiss 98-20157, #200017;

4.) SmithKline Beecham=s motion to dismiss 98-20150, #200011;

5.) Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.=s motion to dismiss 98-20150, #200029;

6.) SmithKline Beecham=s motion to dismiss 98-20156, #200010;

7.) Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.=s motion to dismiss 98-20156, #200026;

8.) SmithKline Beecham=s motion to dismiss 98-20153, #200012;

9.) Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.=s motion to dismiss 98-20153, #200028;

10.) SmithKline Beecham=s motion to dismiss 98-20160, #200015;

11.) SmithKline Beecham=s motion to dismiss 98-20154, #200016;

12.) SmithKline Beecham=s motion to dismiss 98-20151, #200018;

13.) SmithKline Beecham=s motion to dismiss 98-20159, #200014;

14.) ION Laboratories Inc.=s motion to dismiss 98-20251, #4;

15.) SmithKline Beecham=s motion to dismiss 98-20251, #2;

16.) ION Laboratories Inc.=s motion to dismiss 98-20269, #200049;

17.) ION Laboratories, Inc.=s motion to dismiss 98-20089, #200032;

18.) SmithKline Beecham=s motion to dismiss 98-20060, #200019; and

19.) SmithKline Beecham=s motion to dismiss 98-20318, #200048;

3-30-98

0029

Re: Providencia Cave and James C. Cave V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, et al. (98-20328)

It is ORDERED that plaintiff=s application for voluntary discontinuance without prejudice is GRANTED. This discontinuance is without prejudice to refile in New York Supreme Court.

4-1-98

0030

Re: Tema Riley V. A.H. Robbins, et al (transferred from the U.S. D.C. for the District of Columbia) (98-20087). It is hereby stipulated and agreed between the Plaintiff and Defendant ION Laboratories that Plaintiffs= claims against Defendant ION Laboratories are hereby dismissed without prejudice from the above-captioned case. 

4-1-98

0031

Re: Monique Hernandez V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, (a division of American Home Products Corporation, et al. (98-20122)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the attorneys for the undersigned parties, that Defendant Ion Laboratories, Inc. shall be dismissed without prejudice from the above-captioned matter.

4-1-98

0032

Re: Tracy Williams V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, a division of AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, et al. (98-20012)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the attorneys for the undersigned parties, that Defendant Ion Laboratories, Inc. shall be dismissed without prejudice from the above-captioned matter.

4-9-98

0033

Re: Sharon Perez and Joseph Perez V. Shire Richwood, Inc., et al. (98-20026)

Presently before the court is a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal wherein plaintiffs and Ion Laboratories, Inc. By their counsel seek the court=s approval of this Joint Stipulation. For the reasons provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) the Motion is DENIED.

4-10-98

0034

Re: Hearing Held on April 8, 1998 At a hearing held on 4-8-98 the court ruled the following:

1.) All motions shall be accompanied by a proposed order.

2.) Counsel shall advise the court, one week before a scheduled conference, of any items to be put on the agenda.

3.) A hearing is scheduled on objections to First Wave Discovery on April 21, 1998 at 11:00 a.m.

4.) The next status conference will be held on May 11, 1998 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 17-B

4-15-98

0035

Re: Kim Keithline and Robert Keithline V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., et al. (98-20089)

The Motion to Dismiss of Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Is based upon the motion that this defendant was named in an original complaint but this defendant was not named in the amended complaint. To the extent that defendant Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Can be deemed to be a defendant party in Civil Action No. 98-20089 the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. SO ORDERED.

4-14-98

0036

Re: Order designating Gregory P. Miller, Esq. As Special Discovery Master in MDL 1203

The court has received no objection pursuant to PTO No. 26, dated March 30, 1998 and so IT IS ORDERED that Gregory P. Miller, Esq. of Miller, Alfano & Raspantini, PC; 1818 Market Street, Suite 3402; Philadelphia, PA 19103; (215) 972-6400 fax: (215) 981-0082; is hereby formally designated Special Discovery Master in MDL 1203 for the reasons set forth in PTO No. 26 and he shall enter upon his duties forthwith.

4-16-98

0037

Re: Norma Martin (98-20034) V. American Home Products Corp., et al. & Joy Audibert (98-20077), et al. V. American Home Products, et al.

STATE COURT REMANDS

Presently before the court are motions to remand filed in Norma Martin V. American Home Products Corp., et al. Civ. No. 98-20034 and Joy Audibert V. American Home Products Corp., et al., Civ. No. 98-20077. These civil actions were filed in state courts and subsequently removed by defendants to the appropriate federal courts. The actions were then transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to this transferee district court for inclusion in MDL 1203. These civil actions have a number of common issues and

will be dealt with in this single Order.

In both civil actions, the removing defendants contend that the action was properly removed from state court to federal court because, excluding fraudulently joined defendants, complete diversity of citizenship exists. The plaintiffs in both actions argue that the actions should be remanded because federal courts, including this transferee court, have no federal question jurisdiction of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.

The court has reviewed the parties= moving papers and responses, together with the record of each case as presented to this court, and makes the following general and specific findings.

I. GENERAL FINDINGS

A. Removal

The removing party bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Wilson V. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921); Boyer V. Snap-On Tools Corp, 913 F.2d 108, 111(3d Cir. Cert. Denied, 498 U.S. 1085 (1991). The removal statute is Astrictly construed against removal@ and all doubts are resolved in favor of remand. Id. AAny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or defendants, to the district court for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.@ 28 U.S.C. 1441(a). An action based upon diversity shall be removable Aonly if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the state in which such action is brought.@ 28 U.S.C 1441(b). Thus, only if an action could originally have been brought in federal court may it be removed from state court to federal court.

cont..

0037

B. 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1332

Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction that may hear only those cases and controversies authorized by Congress or the Constitution. The original jurisdiction of the United States district courts includes actions involving federal questions and those in which complete diversity of citizenship exists. 28 .U.S.C. 1331, 1332.

AThe district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.@ 28 U.S.C. 1331. Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff=s properly pleaded complaint. Neither the complaints, nor the notices of removal rely on federal question jurisdiction. The court does not see a basis for federal question jurisdiction. Therefore, only if there is complete diversity of citizenship, or Adiversity jurisdiction,@ may this court exercise subject matter jurisdiction over these actions.

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between -

(1) citizens of different States;

(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state;

(3) Citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are

additional parties; and

(4) A foreign state, defined in Section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff and citizens of a

State or of different States. 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). If there is no federal question presented and a non-diverse defendant is named, the only way that a removed defendant can avoid remand to state court is to prove that the non-diverse defendant was fraudulently joined.

C. Fraudulent Joinder

In both actions presently before the court, the removed defendants argue that diversity of citizenship exists because the joinder of the non-diverse defendants was fraudulent -- that is the non-diverse defendants were named solely for the purpose of destroying diversity. Therefore, they urge the court to disregard the citizenship of those parties, and find that diversity jurisdiction exists.

A defendant=s right of removal Acannot be defeated by a fraudulent joinder of a resident defendant having no real connection with the controversy.@ Wilson, 257 U.S. at 97.

However, the defendant claiming fraudulent joinder bears a heavy burden of persuasion in demonstrating that the resident defendant was fraudulently joined. Batoff V. State Farm Ins. Co., 977 F.2d 848, 851, 853 (3d Cir. 1992). Joinder is fraudulent where Athere is no reasonable basis in fact or colorable ground supporting the claim against the joined [non-diverse] defendants, or no real intention in good faith to prosecute the action against the defendant ....@ Id. At 851 (quoting Boyer, 913 F.2d at 111); see also McCabe V. General Foods Corp. 811 F. 2d 1336, 1339 (9th Cir. 1987) (fraudulent joinder is Aa term of art [meaning] the plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against a resident defendant, and the failure is obvious according to the settled rules of the state, the joinder of the resident defendant is fraudulent.@).

To avoid remand, the defendant must prove that the claims against the non-diverse defendant are Awholly insubstantial and frivolous,@ because Aif there is even a possibility that a state court would find that the complaint states a cause of action against any one of the resident defendants, the federal court must find that joinder was proper and remand the case to state court.@ Batoff at 852. Although the existence of jurisdiction is normally determined from the plaintiff=s pleadings, when fraudulent joinder is alleged, the court looks beyond the plaintiff=s pleadings because the defendant seeking removal is entitled to present the facts showing the joinder to be fraudulent. See Wilson, 257 U.S. 92, 97-99.

D. Remand

A motion to remand Aon the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a).@ 28 U.S.C. 1447(a). However, Aif at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.@ 28 U.S.C. 1447(c).

II. SPECIFIC FINDINGS

In light of the foregoing, the court makes the following specific findings:

Norma Martin V. American Home Products Corp., et al. 98-20034 On September 30, 1997, Norma Martin

cont..

0037

(AMartin@) filed this action in the District Court of Hennepin County, Fourth Judicial District for the state of Minnesota. Martin is a citizen of Minnesota. In her second amended complaint, she named Robin Drug, d/b/a Merwyn Drug Co., a Minnesota Corporation, as a defendant. In the only count naming Robin Drug, Count Nine, she alleges that Robin Drug breached its implied warranty of merchantability. The allegations are that Robin Drug Aimpliedly warranted to prospective purchasers and users, including the plaintiff, that the drug fenfluramine was safe, merchantable, and fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used.@ She further alleges that this breach Ahas directly resulted in the plaintiff=s damages and injuries set forth above.@ (2d Am. Compl. 9th Cause of Action.)

On October 27, 1997, the defendants removed this action to federal court. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to remand. Defendants, in opposition to that motion, argue that Robin Drug was fraudulently joined to defeat jurisdiction. They cite Minnesota case law that states that there is no instance in which a distributor or includes claims of strict liability against non-manufacturers. (Def.s= Mem. Opp. Remand at 1.) Under Minnesota strict liability in tort law, the liability of non-manufacturers is limited, and if the manufacturer of a product is named, the non-manufacturer shall be dismissed unless one of the statutory exceptions can be proven. Those exceptions include: significant control over the design or manufacturer, providing instructions or warnings to the manufacturer, actual knowledge of the defect, or creation of the defect. Minn. Stat 5541. Plaintiff has alleged no facts under which a court could find that defendant fell under an exception. Therefore, Robin Drug could not be sued under this statute.

Martin maintains that she does not rely on strict liability in tort, but instead on a viable breach of implied warranty theory. However, in Minnesota, strict liability has effectively preempted implied warranty claims where personal injury is involved. See, e.g., Continental Ins. Co. V. Locite Corp., 352 N.W.2d 460, 463 (Minn. App. 1984). Thus, neither cause of action states a colorable claim against Robin Drug. Defendant have shown that there is no possibility that a state court could find that a cause of action exists against Robin Drug. Defendants have also shown that the amount in controversy requirement has been met. Therefore the court will deny the motion to remand.

Audibert V. American Home Products Corp., et al. 98-20077

On September 18, 1997, Joy Audibert (AAudibert@) filed this proposed class action in the Civil District Court for the Parish or Orleans, State of Louisiana. Audibert, the named plaintiff, is a citizen of Louisiana. Among the defendants she named were Ciolino=s Pharmacy d/b/a C&G, Inc. And K&B Louisiana Corporation. These corporations are Louisiana corporations with principal places of business in the state of Louisiana. (Pl.s= Mot. Rem. 18.)

On October 20, 1997, Defendants removed this action to federal court. Defendants argue that diversity of citizenship exists because joinder of Ciolino=s Pharmacy and K&B is fraudulent for two reasons. First they argue that no recovery can be had against the two corporations and, second, they argue that Audibert=s individual claims against these pharmacies are not representative of class claims, and are improperly included in this action. (Mem. Opp. Remand at 6) Therefore, defendants ask the court to disregard the citizenship of these two defendants and to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the non-diverse claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367. The court will disregard the citizenship of the pharmacies but will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims.

Ciolino=s Pharmacy went out of business in 1977. Last year K&B sold its interest to a large national pharmacy chain, Rite Aid, which is of diverse citizenship. Defendants assert that Ciolino=s Pharmacy sold very few diet drugs prior to closing and because of the nature of its business it is highly unlikely any plaintiff in this action other than Audibert could have purchased the drugs from Ciolino=s Pharmacy. They further assert that because K&B sold its interest to Rite Aid, and Rite Aid assumed Amost of@ K&B=s liabilities, there can be no recovery against K&B.

The court agrees that Ciolino=s Pharmacy and K&B are improper defendants in this action. The Claims against these two pharmacies are tenuous at best and appear to be unique to Audibert=s claim. Coincidentally, Audibert is the named party and it is her citizenship the court scrutinizes. In this purported nationwide class action, the claims against a small local pharmacy that went out of business eleven years ago and another local pharmacy that was acquired by a large national pharmacy chain one year ago are improper at best and fraudulent at worst. From the evidence submitted, it appears that these defendants were fraudulently joined

cont..

0037

and included in the action for the purpose of destroying diversity of citizenship. Therefore, the court will disregard their citizenship, and find that diversity jurisdiction exists. The court will also sever Audibert=s claims against the pharmacies and remand them to the state court from whence they came. Defendants have shown that the statutory amound in controversy is met with regard to each plaintiff. The court will retain jurisdiction over the remaining claims. AND NOW, TO WIT, IT IS ORDERED:

1.) Plaintiff Norma Martin=s motion to remand Norma Martin V. American Home Products Corp ., et al., Civ. No. 98-20034, to state court is DENIED.

2.) Plaintiff Joy Audibert=s motion to remand Joy Audibert, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., et al. Civ. No. 98-20077, is DENIED.

3.) Plaintiff Joy Audibert=s claims against K&B and Ciolino=s Pharmacy are SERVED and REMANDED to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.

4.) Plaintiff Joy Audibert=s request for attorney=s fees and costs in Joy Audibert, et al. V. American Home Products, et al. Civ. No. 98-20077, is DENIED.

4-21-98

0038

Re: Facilitate discovery in this Multi-District Litigation:

1.) The Plaintiffs= Management Committee (APMC@) shall establish a Discovery Committee to be co-chaired by PMC members Arnold Levin and Roger Brosnahan.

2.) The other members of the Discovery Committee shall consist of John Cummings, Stanley Chesley, Elizabeth Cabraser, Dianne Nast, Will Kemp, Michael Hausfeld, Darryl Tschirn, John Restaino, Michael Williams, Michael Slack, Michelle Parfitt, Alex MacDonald, John Hornbeck, and Andrew Hutton.

3.) The Discovery Committee shall have the authority and responsibility to conduct general liability discovery by propounding written discovery to defendants; establishing a document depository; reviewing, organizing and computerizing (as appropriate) documents and written discovery materials produced by defendants; briefing and arguing any motions pertaining to general liability discovery of defendants; scheduling and conducting general liability depositions of defendants and third parties; and coordinating general liability discovery with plaintiffs= attorneys involved in related state court proceedings.

4.) The Discovery Committee may recommend that plaintiffs= attorneys other than members of that Committee to perform discovery on behalf of the PMC. All work done by or on behalf of the Discovery Committee shall first be assigned by its Co-Chairs subject to the approval and written authorization of the Co-Chairs of the PMC.

5.) Membership on the MDL Discovery Committee shall not preclude or in anyway restrict the right or ability of any plaintiffs= attorney from conducting discovery or otherwise prosecuting diet pill litigation in any state court proceedings.

4-21-98

0039

Re: Plaintiffs= State Liaison Committee

Upon consideration of the foregoing Plaintiffs= Management Committee=s Motion to Establish Plaintiffs= State Liaison Committee and a Technical Advisor, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the below named counsel shall be appointed to Plaintiffs= State Liaison Committee:

Co-Chairs

Daniel Becnel (Louisiana) Martin Greitzer (Pennsylvania)

Members

Marvin Blount (North Carolina)

Margaret Branch (New Mexico)

John Climaco (Ohio)

Walter Dumas (Louisiana)

Michael Gallagher (Texas)

Wendell Gauthier (Louisiana)

Andrew Hutton (Kansas)

Alexander MacDonald (Massachusetts)

Michelle Parfitt (Washington, D.C.)

Joseph Messa (Pennsylvania)

John Restaino (California)

Mark Robinson (California)

cont...

0039

Lynn Sarko (Washington)

Sybil Shainwald (New York)

Michael Slack (Texas)

Duane Smith (Louisiana)

Marcus Viles (Florida)

Michael Williams (Oregon)

It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED THAT Michael Rediker of Alabama shall be appointed Technical Advisor to the Plaintiffs= Management Committee

4-21-98

0040

Re: Malcolm Alexander V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co., American Home, Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. And A.H. Robbins, Inc.

Upon consideration of the Motion of Plaintiff for Leave of Court to Take Video Deposition of Plaintiff, Malcolm Alexander, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that said motion is GRANTED:

Malcolm Alexander is granted leave to schedule his video/stenographic deposition on April 28, 1998.

4-22-98

0041

Re: Rule 268 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the issuance of protective orders limiting the disclosure of discovered information in appropriate circumstances.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The inadvertent production or disclosure of an attorney-client privileged or protected work product document shall not be deemed either a general waiver of privilege or work product protection by the producing party or a waiver of privilege or work product protection as to the document inadvertently produced or disclosed. In the event of inadvertent disclosure of an attorney-client privileged or protected work product document, promptly upon discovery of such inadvertent disclosure, the producing party may move the Court for a protective order with respect thereto. Upon finding that the document is privileged or otherwise protected and that its production was inadvertent, the court may direct the return of the document and all copies thereof to the producing party, preclude the use of the document and any information contained therein for any purpose in this litigation, and order such other relief as the Court deems necessary and appropriate. Before making application to the Court for such relief, the producing party shall confer with the PMC and with Lead Counsel for all defendants in an attempt consensual to resolve any dispute regarding the inadvertent producing.

4-28-98

0042

Re: Treasa Towns and Cecil Towns V. A.H. robins Company, Inc., et al. (98-20068)

for good cause shown, this action is dismissed as to Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which was identified as a defendant in the original Complaint, but which is not a defendant in the Amended Complaint.

4-28-98

0043

Re: Carol Caso, etc. V. Laboratories Servier, SA, et al. (98-20006)

Presently before the court is a stipulation for extension of time to respond to the complaint. Since the stipulation does not list any reasons for the extension, the stipulation is DENIED.

4-28-98

0044

Re: Motions listed for extensions

It is ORDERED that defendants= motions listed below for extension to respond to plaintiff=s complaints are GRANTED:

1.) Robert Eller V. A.H. Robins, et al., 98-20188, #200081;

2.) Wilda N. Carter Nevill V. A.H. Robins, et al. 98-20269, #20080;

3.) Sara Carter V. A.H. Robins, et al. 98-20267, #200079;

4.) Dianna L. Rhodes V. A.H. Robins, et al., 98-20263, #200078;

5.) Teresa Wray Teaster V. Gate Pharmaceuticals, et al., 98-20251, #200077; and

6.) Treasa Towns V. A.H. Robins, et al., 98-20068, #200076.

4-28-98

0045

Re: James A. Windell V. Gate Pharmaceuticals, et al.

Stipulation of Dismissal: It appearing unto the Court that the Plaintiff has agreed to DISMISS his Complaint against Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Defendant in the above-entitled matter.

IT IS ORDERED that the above captioned Complaint be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice as against Defendant Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

4-28-98

0046

Re: Mary Ann Knight & Johnny W. Knight V. Gate Pharmaceuticals, et al.

Stipulation of Dismissal: It appearing unto the Court that the Plaintiff has agreed to DISMISS his Complaint against Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Defendant in the above-entitled matter.

IT IS ORDERED that the above captioned Complaint be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice as against Defendant Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

4-28-98

0047

Re: Bonnie Massa and Anthony Massa V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, et al. (98-20365)

It is ORDERED that plaintiffs= request to voluntarily discontinue the above captioned case is GRANTED. This case is dismissed without prejudice to refile in New York Supreme Court.

4-29-98

0048

Re: Consolidation and coordination of all pretrial matters in civil actions transferred here

In order that there be no impediment to the progress the parties and the court expect to be made hereafter in order to conform to schedules established and to be established by this court for the consolidation and coordination of all pretrial matters in civil actions transferred here, it is ORDERED as follows:

Any Order heretofore entered in any State or Federal Court in any civil action transferred here under 28 U.S.C. 1407, or otherwise included in MDL-1203 that has the effect of staying or otherwise affecting in any manner any discovery right or obligation of any party in any such civil action is by this order VACATED.

4-29-98

0049

Re: Carol Lindsey V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc.& Fisions Corp (98-20114)

Presently before the court is a Stipulation by the parties to this proceeding asking the court to enter an Order staying the application of certain Michigan Court Rules (hereinafter MCR) more specifically identified in the Motion of the Defendant seeking an Extension of Time to comply, to which the plaintiffs have stipulated that an Order be entered.

In summary the Michigan law, as more particularly described in the Defendants= Motion provides for the identification of non-parties who may be found responsible in whole or in part for a plaintiffs= claimed injuries. Under this state procedure a defendant seeking to have a jury allocate damages among named as well as non-named parties how may be at fault must identify those parties with a notice filed within 91 days after the parties seeking such allocation files its= first responsive pleading. The same statute of MCR allows the court to approve a later filing of such notice when a showing of the facts on which the notice was based would not and could not with reasonable diligence been known to the moving party earlier, provided that the late notice does not result in unfair prejudice to the opposing party. The parties to this Stipulation further advise the court that the Michigan State Court has entered a Stay of Discovery in a similar case against the same defendants and has accompanied that Stay with an Order extending the deadline for filing the non-party fault notices until further order of that court and only after the lifting of the Stay of Discovery. (See Exhibit A to Defendants= Motion.) The parties to the proceeding here in MDL-1203 should understand by this Order that any stay that has been expressed or implied in this Civil Action prior to its= transfer here should by this Order be deemed vacated in as much as discovery is proceeding here on all cases including those presently before the court (see PTO 48 entered this date).

With the foregoing understanding in mind the court approves the Stipulation of the parties extending the time when defendants are required to file a Notice of Non-Party Fault until further Order of this court, or following remand to State Court a similar notice entered by that court.

The parties to the Stipulation should also understand that the Order entered approving the Stipulation in part presumes no prejudice to any other party as of the date of this Order or hereafter until such prejudice is shown following Motion and Order.

The parties should further understand that this court will not monitor the various steps under Michigan State Law that may take place over the course of this MDL-1203 proceeding that, but for this MDL-1203

proceeding, would have the effect of either required

a party entitled to serve such Notice of Non-Party Fault to do so, or establishing prejudice to any other party that could effect the right of a party to file such Notice. An appropriate Order will be entered.

ORDER

Based upon the grounds set forth in the accompanying Memorandum this court approves the Stipulation of the parties to postpone the time when a party entitled to file a Notice of Non-Party Fault under MCR 2.112(K) (3) (a), et seq. to such later time that shall be determined by the plaintiff(s) and the defendant claiming the

cont..

0049

right to file such Notice, or upon Motion by such party entitled to file such Notice, or upon Motion by such party entitled to file such Notice and appropriate Order by any court of competent jurisdiction, for cause shown.

It will be the obligation of the parties to this proceeding to monitor the progress of this case during its course in MDL-1203 in order to apply to this or subsequent court for a further ruling, if necessary, pertinent to the filing of any such Notice under applicable Michigan law. SO ORDERED

4-29-98

0050

Re: Mona F. Karadshi, Versia G. Dillard V. Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc., A.H. Robins Company Inc. Et al. (98-20041)

Presently before the court is a Stipulation by the parties to this proceeding asking the court to enter an Order staying the application of certain Michigan Court Rules (hereinafter MCR) more specifically identified in the Motion of the Defendant seeking an Extension of Time to Comply, to which the plaintiffs have stipulated that an Order be entered.

In summary the Michigan law, as more particularly described in the Defendants= Motion, provides for the identification of non-parties who may be found responsible in whole or in part for a plaintiffs= claimed injuries. Under this state procedure a defendant seeking to have a jury allocate damages among named as well as non-named panties who may be at fault must identify those parties with a notice filed within 91 days after the parties seeking such allocation files its= first responsive pleading. The same statute of MCR allows the court to approve a later filing of such notice when a showing of the facts on which the notice was based would not and could not with reasonable diligence been known to the moving party earlier, provided that the late notice does not result in unfair prejudice to the opposing party. The parties to this Stipulation further advise the court that the Michigan State Court has entered a Stay of Discovery in a similar case against the same defendants and has accompanied that Stay with an Order extending the deadline for filing the non-party fault notices until further order of that court and only after the lifting of the Stay of Discovery. (See Exhibit A to Defendants= Motion.)

The parties to the proceeding here in MDL-1203 should understand by this Order that any stay that has been expressed or implied in this Civil Action prior to its= transfer here should by this Order be deemed vacated in as much as discovery is proceeding here on all cases including those presently before the court (see PTO 48 entered this date).

With the foregoing understanding in mind the court approves the Stipulation of the parties extending the time when defendants are required to file a Notice of Non-Party Fault until further Order of this court, or following remand to State Court a similar notice entered by that court.

The parties to the Stipulation should also understand that the Order entered approving the Stipulation in part presumes no prejudice to any other party as of the date of this Order or hereafter until such prejudice is shown following Motion and Order.

The parties should further understanding that this court will not monitor the various steps under Michigan State Law that may take place over the course of this MDL-1203 proceeding that, but for this MDL-1203 proceeding, would have the effect of either requiring a party entitled to serve such Notice of Non-Party Fault to do so, or establishing prejudice to any other party that could effect the right of a party to file such Notice. An appropriate Order will be entered. Order:

AND NOW, TO WIT, based upon the grounds set forth in the accompanying

Memorandum this court approves the Stipulation of the parties to postpone the time when a party entitled to file a Notice off Non-Party Fault under MCR 2.112(K) (3) (a), et seq. to such later time that shall be determined by the plaintiff9s0 and the defendant claiming the right to file such Notice, or upon Motion by such party entitled to file such Notice and appropriate Order by any court of competent jurisdiction, for cause shown.

It will be the obligation of the parties to this proceeding to monitor the progress of this case during its course in MDL-1203 in order to apply to this or subsequent court for a further ruling, if necessary, pertinent to the filing of any such Notice under applicable Michigan law. SO ORDERED.

4-30-98

0051

Re: Louis Goodwin V. Gate Pharmaceuticals, et al.

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

It appearing unto the Court that the Plaintiff has agreed to DISMISS his Complaint against Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Defendant in the above-entitled matter.

cont...

0051

IT IS ORDERED that the above captioned Complaint be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice as against Defendant Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

4-30-98

0052

Re: Michael H. Goldstein and Barbara Rifon V. Shire Richwood, Inc.,e t al. (98-20066) And Sharon Perez and Joseph Perez v. Shire Richwood, Inc., et al.(98-20026)

Presently before the court are stipulations of dismissal for the above captioned cases. The court cannot approve these stipulations because the phrase A... on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situation@ appears in the captions of the complaints. That language connotates a class action which can only be dismissed in accordance with F.R.C.P. 23.

5-6-98

0053

Re: Barbara J. Clark V. American Home Products Corp. et. al. (98-20359)

This matter having come before the Court by consent of Plaintiff, Barbara J. Clark, and Defendant Shire Richwood Inc. for an order granting Defendant Shire Richwood Inc. Leave to file and serve and amended answer, pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised;

IT IS SO ORDERED that defendant Shire Richwood Inc. Is granted leave to file and serve an amended answer in the above-captioned matter.

5-6-98

0054

Re: Application by Special Master for leave to Employ an Administrator

Upon consideration of Application by Special Discovery Master for Leave to Employ an Administrator, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application is hereby GRANTED and it is hereby, ordered that the Special Discovery Master is Permitted to employ Ms. Margaret Ann Kirkpatrick as an administrator and that the time spent by Ms. Kirkpatrick may be the basis for a petition to the Court for reimbursement at a rate of $70.00 per hour as may be reasonably necessary in the administration of the MDL matter.

5-7-98

0055

Re: Michael H. Goldstein & Barbara Rifon (98-20066); Sharon Perez & Joseph Perez

(98-20026); Maria Antonopoulos, et al. V. Wyeth Ayerst Laboratories, et al. (9/8-20001

Presently before the court are stipulations of dismissal for the above captioned cases. The court cannot approve these stipulations because the phrase A...on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated@ appears in the captions of the complaints. That language connotates a class action which can only be dismissed in accordance with F.R.C.P. 23. -Stipulations attached-

5-7-98

0056

Re: Barbara A. Pembroke V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20211)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0057

Re: Robert Eller V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20188)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0058

Re: Treasa Towns & Cecil Towns V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20068)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0059

Re: Jeanne S. Juliano & Nicholas Juliano V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20211)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY and INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own cost

5-7-98

0060

Re: Kim Keithline & Robert Keithline V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20211) This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) GATE PHARMACEUTICALS, a division of Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, inc.; ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ABANA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; SHIRE RICHWOOD INC.; ION LABORATORIES, INC.; MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and CAMALL COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0061

Re: Cruz M. Rodriguez V. . A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20211)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ABANA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; SHIRE RICHWOOD INC.; ION LABORATORIES, INC.; MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and CAMALL COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0062

Re: Marsha L. Rawls V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20153)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC and THE UPJOHN CORPORATION should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0063

Re: Joan M. Pacheco & Michael W. Pacheco V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20152)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) GATE PHARMACEUTICALS, a Division of Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc.; ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ABANA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, INC.; RICHWOOD PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, INC.; ION LABORATORIES, INC.; MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and CAMALL COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0064

Re: Mary Ann Knight & Johnny W. Knight (98-20109)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) GATE PHARMACEUTICALS, a division of Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA INC.; ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ABANA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; SHIRE RICHWOOD PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANY, INC.; ION LABORATORIES, INC.; MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, and CAMALL COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0065

Re: James A. Windell V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20110)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) GATE PHARMACEUTICALS, a division of Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA INC.; ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ABANA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; SHIRE RICHWOOD PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANY, INC.; ION LABORATORIES, INC.; MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC; SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION,; and CAMALL COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0066

Re: Louise Goodwin V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20108)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) GATE PHARMACEUTICALS, a division of Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA INC.; ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ABANA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; SHIRE RICHWOOD PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANY, INC.; ION LABORATORIES, INC.; MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, and CAMALL COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0067

Re: Leslie Ann Byram V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20196)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ABANA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; a subsidiary of JONES MEDICAL INDUSTRIES, INC.; SHIRE RICHWOOD, INC.; ION LABORATORIES, INC.; MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., CAMALL COMPANY, GATE PHARMACEUTICALS, a division of Teva Pharmaceuticals and INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0068

Re: Dorothy S. Smith V. A.H. Robins, et al.

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0069

Re: Mavis J. Walker V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20061)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ABANA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; SHIRE RICHWOOD, INC.; ION LABORATORIES, INC.; MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., CAMALL COMPANY, should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0070

Re: Arlie Bartholomew and Mary Jane Bartholomew V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20063)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) GATE PHARMACEUTICALS, a division of Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA INC.; ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ABANA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; SHIRE RICHWOOD PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANY, INC.; MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC; SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION,; and CAMALL COMPANY

cont...

0070

should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98-

0071

Re: Michaela Brown and Walter Ray Brown, Sr., V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20181)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0072

Re: Jose Cuevas V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20183)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) GATE PHARMACEUTICALS, a division of Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA INC.; ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ABANA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; SHIRE RICHWOOD PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANY, INC.; MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC; INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; CAMALL COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0073

Re: Jacqueline Devaughn V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20175)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0074

Re: Leisa D. Frierson V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20184)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0075

Re: Christy Renee George V. A.H. Robins, et al., (98-20273)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0076

Re: Monica Holloway V. A.H. Robins, et al., (98-20177)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION; ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ABANA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; SHIRE RICHWOOD INC.; ION LABORATORIES, INC.; MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; CAMALL COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0077

Re: Karin Huey V. A.H. Robins, eta l. (98-20175)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION; ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ABANA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; SHIRE RICHWOOD INC.; ION LABORATORIES, INC.; MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; CAMALL COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0078

Re: Robert G. Ladnier and Susan Ladnier V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20174)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0079

Re: Charlotte Miller V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20178)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) GATE PHARMACEUTICALS, a Division of Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc., ; ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ABANA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; SHIRE RICHWOOD INC.; ION LABORATORIES, INC.; MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; CAMALL COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

5-7-98

0080

Re: Margaret Reynolds V. A.H. Robins, et al., (98-20185)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0081

Re: Lisa Wheelwright V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20179)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0082

Re: Blanca St. Clair & Glen A. St. Clair V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20150)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0083

Re: Deanna L. Watkins and Randall W. Watkins V. A.H. Robins (98-20149)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

cont...

0083

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0084

Re: Fabiola Arguelles V. A.H. Robins, et. al. (98-20180)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0085

Re: Debra Barnett and John T. Barnett, II V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20274)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0086

Re: Gloretta Starks V. A.H. Robins, et al., (98-20156)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0087

Re: Dianna L. Ruiz and Reynaldo N. Ruiz V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20303)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0088

Re: Mary Kathern Putman and Mack C. Putman V. A.H. Robins, et al., (98-2.305)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0089

Re: Vicki Parra and Francisco L. Parra V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20311)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0090

Re: Kattie B. Parsons & Johnnie E. Parsons V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20314)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0091

Re: Cynthia A. Hurt and William F. Hurt V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20154)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC and THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0092

Re: Mary V. Ker and Nick C. Buchholz V. A.H. Robins, et al., (98-20160)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC and THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0093

Re: Sally A. Chandler V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20159)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC and THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0094

Re: Jeanie Cogdill and Barry Cogdill V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20157)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC and THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0095

Re: Jackie Dawson and Benjamin C. Dawson V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20310)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0096

Re: Diane A. Faetini and Daniel S. Faetini V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20151)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC and THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0097

Re: Debra Denton V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20158)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC and THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0098

Re: Patricia Arnett and Scott Wayne Arnett V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20165)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0099

Re: Joni L.H. Ridgell and Jerry R. Ridgell V. A.H. Robins, et al., (98-20168)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0100

Re: John H. Davis and Lillian M. Davis V. A.H. Robins, et al., (98-20167)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0101

Re: Rahna d. Carr V. A.H. Robins, et al., (98-20304)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0102

Re: Corina S. Pace, V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20199)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC and THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0103

Re: Judy C. Velarde V. A.H. Robins, et al., (98-20200)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC and THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0104

Re: Maria E. Escobar-Manthie V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20206)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC and THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0105

Re: Primus Miller V. A.H. Robins, et al., (98-20217)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC and THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0106

Re: Ellen Shellhammer & Mark Shellhammerr V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20016)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC and THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0107

Re: Carolyn Moore V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20029)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC and THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0108

Re: Louise G. Ferkins V. A.H. Robins, et al., (98-20204)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0109

Re: Lorraine D. Hutchings, V. A.H. Robins, et al.,

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0110

Re: Diane C. Kelley V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20203)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0111

Re: Phyllis Eliason Morse, V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20207)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0112

Re: Sue I. Ward V. A.H. Robins, et al., (98-20201)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0113

Re: Susan G. Mitchell and Gill M. Mitchell V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20205)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0114

Re: Karen E. Clarke and Lynn M. Clarke V. A.H. Robins, et al., (98-20197)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC and THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0115

Re: Arlene D. Armantrout V. A.H. Robins, et al (98-20202)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC and THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0116

Re: Tina R. Holcomb and Timothy C. Holcomb V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20054)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0117

Re: Lisa A. Brumfield and Anthony g. Brumfield et al. (98-20028)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0118

Re: Martha R. Burdette and Steven C. Burdette V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20029)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0119

Re: Lisa Rappold, Robert Rappold & Bailey Rappold V. A.H. Robins, et al., (98-20015)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC and THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0120

Re: Wilda N. Carter-Neville & Johnson H. Neville V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20269)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0121

Re: Regina B. Randolph V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20241)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0122

Re: Edwin O. DeJesus and Brenda G. Young-DeJesus V. A.H. Robins, et al., (98-20247)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0123

Re: Marian T. Jones and Griffen Jones (98-20283)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0124

Re: Cheryl Denise Russell and Darrell Wayne Russell V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20260)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0125

Re: Judy Faye Craddock V. A.H. Robins, et al. (98-20027)

This cause coming to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court having considered the matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court that the Defendant(s) THE UPJOHN COMPANY should be dismissed from this action as a named defendant.

It is hereby, ORDERED that the above-named defendant(s) be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.

5-7-98

0126

Re: Designation of Defendants= retailers= liaison counsel

The court by this Order designates:

Robert Spinelli, Esq.

Kelly, Jasons, McGuire & Spinelli

1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1400

One Penn Center

Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 854-0658

to serve as defendants= liaison counsel for those defendants named in the within multidistrict litigation and included in MDL 1203 whose activity is known or alleged to be that of a retailer of a type of diet substances that are central to this multidistrict litigation. Counsel will be designated as Aretailers= liaison counsel@. The duties of liaison counsel will be to receive, and as appropriate, distribute to counsel of record for other present and future parties who are assigned by the court to liaison counsel=s group Orders from the court, and if necessary from time to time, other documents or information.

At such time as a party becomes identified with a civil action number in MDL-1203, the court notifies counsel of record of the civil action number assigned in this district. The communication from the court will include a list of liaison counsel and the group they are representing. Liaison counsel will receive a copy of each notice sent to counsel of record. In order to assure that a party receives a copy of all court orders to be distributed by liaison counsel, it is each party=s responsibility to notify the appropriate liaison counsel of their entry into MDL-1203 as soon as that party receives notice from the court that a civil action number has been assigned to that party=s case in this district for MDL 1203. In the case of retailers the party will be advised that Mr. Spinelli is liaison counsel for the retailers group.

Liaison counsel appointed by this Order is entitled to be compensated for the fair and reasonable fees and costs that may be incurred by him in fulfilling his duties hereunder. The court will leave it to liaison counsel at this time to develop the most satisfactory means of achieving that entitlement by reason of this appointment. The court stands ready to assist liaison counsel in that regard at such time and in such manner as would be necessary. SO ORDERED.

5-7-98

0127

Re: Designation of Defendants= diet center liaison counsel

The court by this Order designates:

J. Allen Schreiber, Esq.

Lloyd, Schreiber & Gray

2 Perimeter Park South, Suite 100

Birmingham, AL 35243 (205) 967-8822

to serve as defendants= liaison counsel for those defendants named in the within multidistrict litigation had included in MDL 1203 whose activity is known or alleged to be associated with centers or entities that have as one of their major objectives the offering of services related to weight control, reduction, or management. They could be functioning as a clinic or a center or other similar enterprise. They have been referred to generically in this litigation as Adiet centers@ and this court will adopt that simplified designation in formulating this liaison group. Counsel will be designated as Adiet center liaison counsel@.

The duties of liaison counsel will be to receive, and as appropriate, distribute to counsel of record for other present and future parties who are assigned by the court to liaison counsel=s group Orders from the court, and if necessary from time to time, other documents or information.

At such time as a party becomes identified with a civil action number in MDL-1203, the court notifies counsel of record of the civil action number assigned in this district. The communication from the court will include a list of liaison counsel and the group they are representing. Liaison counsel will receive a copy of each notice sent to counsel of record. In order to assure that a party receives a copy of all court orders to be distributed by liaison counsel, it is each party=s responsibility to notify the appropriate liaison counsel of their entry into MDL 1203 as soon as that party receives notice from the court that a civil action number has been assigned to that party=s case in this district for MDL 12203. In the case of diet centers the party will advised that Mr. Schreiber is liaison counsel for the diet centers group.

cont..

0127

Liaison counsel appointed by this Order is entitled to be compensated for the fair and reasonable fees and costs that may be incurred by him in fulfilling his duties hereunder. The court will leave it to liaison counsel at this time to develop the most satisfactory means of achieving that entitlement by reason of this appointment. The court stands ready to assist liaison counsel in that regard at such time and in such manner as would be necessary.

SO ORDERED

5-7-98

0128

Re: Designation of physicians= liaison counsel (defendants)

the court

John Fitzpatrick, Esq.

Leclair and Ryan

707 East Main Street, 11th Floor

Richmond, VA 23219

(804) 783-2003

to serve as defendants= liaison counsel for those defendants named in the within multidistrict litigation and included in MDL 1203 whose function has been known or alleged to be that of a physician in relation to the type of diet substances that are central to this multidistrict litigation. Counsel will be designated as Aphysicians= liaison counsel@.

The duties of liaison counsel will be to receive, and as appropriate, distribute to counsel of record for other present and future parties who are assigned by the court to liaison counsel=s group Orders from the court, and if necessary from time to time, other documents or information.

At such time as a party becomes identified with a civil action number in MDL 1203, the court notifies counsel of record of the civil action number assigned in this district. The communication from the court will include a list of liaison counsel and the group they are representing. Liaison counsel will receive a copy of each notice sent to counsel of record. In order to assure that a party receives a copy of all court orders to be distributed by liaison counsel, it is each party=s responsibility to notify the appropriate liaison counsel of their entry into MDL 1203 as soon as that party receives notice from the court that a civil action number has been assigned to that party=s case in this district for MDL 1203. In the case of physicians the party will be advised that Mr. Fitzpartick is liaison counsel for the physicians group.

Liaison counsel appointed by this Order is entitled to be compensated for the fair and reasonable fees and costs that may be incurred by him in fulfilling his duties hereunder. The court will leave it to liaison counsel at this time to develop the most satisfactory means of achieving that entitlement by reason of this appointment. The court stands ready to assist liaison counsel in that regard at such time and in such manner as would be necessary. SO ORDERED.

5-12-98

0129

Re: change in status conference

It is ORDERED that at the request of counsel, that date for the next status conference is changed from June 11, 1998 to June 9, 1998 at 10:00.

5-13-98

0130

Re: Motion of defendant Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.=s

Upon consideration of defendant Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.=s motions for relief from Local rule 26.06 in Civil Action Nos. 98-20169 (dkt #200054); 98-20168 (#200055); 98-20104(#200056); and 98-20105 (#200057); IT IS ORDERED that said motions are DENIED AS MOOT. PTO No. 22 sets forth the court=s ruling relating to discovery in MDL No. 1203 and PTO No. 48 vacates transferor court orders that affect any discovery right or obligation.

5-13-98

0131

Re: Motions of defendant Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.=s

Upon consideration of defendant Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.=s motions to dismiss Civil Action Nos. 98-20018 (#200084); 98-20061 (#200085) and 98-20063 (#200086) and defendant ION Laboratories, Inc.=s motion to dismiss 98-20188 (#200058), IT IS ORDERED said motions are DENIED for the reasons set forth by the court in PTO 23.

5-13-98

0132

Re: Motions of defendant Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.=s

Upon consideration of defendant Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.=s motions to dismiss Civil Action Nos. 98-20108 (#200060) and 98-20109 (#200061), IT IS ORDERED that said motions are DENIED AS MOOT. The court dismissed said cases as to Medeva in PTO 51 and PTO 46, respectively.

5-13-98

0133

Re: Linda Moreno, et al. V. American Home Products Corporation, et al. (98-20357)

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs= motion for leave to file an amended class action complaint in Civil Action No. 98-20357 (docket entry #200067), IT IS ORDERED that said motion is DENIED.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, A[a] class action shall Not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court, and notice of the proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given to all members of the class in such manner as the court directs.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Rule 23(e). Rule 23(e) applies to pre-certification class action complaint. The Third Circuit has noted that Aa suit brought as a class action should be treated as such for purposes of dismissal or compromise, until there is a full determination that the class action is not proper.@ Kahan V. Rosenstiel, 424 F.2d 161, 169 (3rd Cir. 1970). See also Phillips V. Allegheny County, 869 F.2d 234, 237 (3rd Cir. 1989) (AWe reiterate that even though an action has not been certified as a class action, an action filed as a class action should be treated as if certification has been granted for the purposes of settlement until certification is denied.@) (citing Kahan); Baker V. America=s Mortgage Servicing, Inc., 58 F.3d 321, 324 (7th Cir. 1995) (ARule 23(e) >presumptively applies to all complaints containing class allegation,= including proposed class actions not yet certified by the district court.@).

Plaintiffs request that they be permitted to amend their class action Complaint in order to dismiss two of the four named plaintiffs. The effect of the Amended Complaint would be to dismiss class action claims of actual injury and to restrict the class action to claims for medical monitoring. However, Plaintiffs have not complied with the requirements of Rule 23(e) and the court has not yet addressed the issue of class certification. Thus, the court may not grant the motion.

5-13-98

0134

Re: Motions to dismiss filed by ION Laboratories, Inc.

Upon consideration of defendant ION Laboratories, Inc.=s motions to dismiss Civil Action Nos. 98-20175 (docket entry #200064) and 98-20181 (#200065) and defendants Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corp., American Home Products Corp. And A.H. Robins Company, Inc.=s motion to dismiss 98-20240 (#200082), IT IS ORDERED that said motions are GRANTED. Civil Actions 98-20175, 98-20181 and 98-20240 are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Under 28 U.S.C. 1332, a federal district court has Aoriginal jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between... citizens of different States.@ 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1). See also, Owen Equipment & Erection Co. V. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978) (Adiversity jurisdiction does not exist unless each defendant is a citizen of a different State from each plaintiff@). Furthermore, Aa corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.@ 28 U.S.C 1332 8 (1).

The complaints in the above actions do not conform with the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. All three complaints allege that there is diversity jurisdiction. However, each complaint alleges that the plaintiff is a citizen of a particular state in which one or more of the defendants is incorporated or has its principal place of business. Therefore, on the face of the complaints, the court lacks diversity jurisdiction over these cases.

5-13-98

0135

Re: Motions to dismiss filed by Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corp., Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., and A.H. Robins Company, Inc.

Upon consideration of defendants Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories division of American Home Products Corp. (AWALD@), Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. And A.H. Robins Company, Inc.=s motion to dismiss Civil Action No. 98-20006 (Carol Caso) (docket entry #200083), IT IS ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED. Civil Action No. 98-20006 is DISMISSED for lack of diversity jurisdiction.

Plaintiff has filed a class action complaint alleging diversity jurisdiction. Under Federal rule of Civil Procedure 12, a court must dismiss an action A(w)henever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter . . .@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (h) (3). Under 28 U.S.C. 1332, a federal district court has Aoriginal jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States.@ 28

cont...

0135

U.S. C. 1332 (a) (1). The citizenship of a corporation is of Aany State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business. A 28 U.S.C. 1332 (c)(1) . The Third Circuit has stated that Ain a federal class action only the citizenship of the named class representatives must be diverse from that of the defendants.@ In re School Asbestos Litigation, 921 F.2d 1310, 1317 (3d Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a citizen of New Jersey. Plaintiff=s class is defined as similarly situated State of New Jersey residents. The Complaint alleges that WALD is a citizen of Delaware by incorporation and Pennsylvania by its principal place of business. However, defendant has included in its motion an affidavit that WALD is actually an unincorporated division of American Home Products Corp. (AAHP@). The affidavit states that AHP is incorporated in Delaware and its principal place of business is New Jersey. Because WALD is an unincorporated division of a corporate citizen of New Jersey, it is a citizen of New Jersey. See, e.g., Mount Olivet Tabernacle Church v. Emerson Elec. Co., No. 96-8529, 1997 WL 898118 nat *1 n.1 (E.D. Pa. Feb 26, 1997) (quoting Breitman v. May Co. of California, 37 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 1994) ). Plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as defendant WALD. Accordingly, the court does not have diversity jurisdiction and must dismiss this case.

5-13-98

0136

Re: Eileen S. Collins and William Collins v. American Home Products Corporation, et.al. (#98-20299)

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs= motion to amend the Complaint in Civil Action No.98-20299 (docket entry #200069), IT IS ORDERED said motion is GRANTED.

5-13-98

0137

Re: Motions to dismiss filed by American Home Products Corp. and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corp. (#98-20357)

Upon consideration of Defendants American Home Products Corp. and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corp.=s motion to dismiss Civil Action No. 98-20146 (filed in transferor court), IT IS ORDERED said motion is DENIED.

Defendant argues that plaintiff William Kaufman=s class action complaint does not state a cognizable claim under Idaho state law. For the purpose of a motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations of fact in the plaintiff=s complaint, construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and determine whether Aunder any reasonable reading of the pleadings, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.@ Colburn v. Upper Darby Township, 838 F. 2d 663, 665-66 (3d Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). Plaintiff=s claim requests relief for the expenses of past and future medical monitoring related to the ingestion of the diet drugs at issue in this litigation. It would be premature for the court to rule on the validity of such medical monitoring at this time.

5-22-98

0138

Re: First Application by Special Master for Reimbursement of Expenses

Upon consideration of the First Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (3/23-98) through (4-30-98), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any party objecting to the application shall show cause why it should not be granted by filing a detailed objection by June 4, 1998

5-22-98

0139

Re: Shirlene A. Olsen; Suzette Allen; Gloria Balisteri; Sharon Boradway & Neal R. Broadway, Donna Doucette & James Doucette, Janice L. Gensler & Patrick A. Gensler & Patrick A. Gensler, Beverly Lewis-Moses; Kathleen Kerry Neupert; Theresa Pirk; Clarice S. Zees; and all others similarly situated V. Gate Pharmaceuticals, et al.

Stipulation and order substituting a Party Defendant - IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the undersigned parties by their attorneys that:

Jones Medical Industries, Inc as successor to Albana Pharmaceuticals, Inc. as successor (hereinafter Jones Medical) may be substituted in place of the maned defendant, Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc., nunc pro tunc with the original filing of the complaint and amended complaint; that AAbana Pharmaceuticals, Inc.=s@ answer and affirmative defense shall stand as Jones Medical=s answer and affirmative defense nunc pro tunc with its filing; that Jones Medical hereby withdraws affirmative defense #12 with respect to the plaintiff=s purported failure to properly serve the summons and complaint; and that the caption may be modified to substitute the proper name of the defendant from Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to Jones Medical.

cont...

0139

BASED UPON the foregoing stipulation by and between the above signed parties by their attorneys that Jones Medical Industries, Inc. as successor to Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc. as successor (hereinafter Jones Medical) be and the same is hereby substituted as the named defendant in place of Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc. nunc pro tunc with its filing; that Jones Medical hereby withdraws affirmative defense #12 with respect to the plaintiff=s purported failure to properly serve the summons and complaint and the same is hereby withdrawn; and that the caption is hereby modified to substitute the proper name of the defendant from Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to Jones Medical.

5-27-98

0140

Re: Ilona Abraham, M.D., V. Gate Pharmaceuticals (98-20130)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiff ILONA ABRAHAM, M.D. and defendant MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., through their designated counsel, that the above-captioned action be and hereby is dismissed as to defendant MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., without prejudice

5-27-98

0141

Re: Shari Altmark V. Gate Pharmaceuticals (98-20230)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiff SHARI ALTMARK, and defendant MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., through their designated counsel, that the above-captioned action be and hereby is dismissed as to defendant MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., without prejudice.

5-27-98

0142

Re: Brigette Gilbert V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20009)

Upon consideration of Plaintiff=s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the following Defendants are dismissed without prejudice:

- Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

- Jones Medical Industries, Inc. (formerly known as Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc.)

- Shire Richwood, Inc. (improperly identified in Plaintiff=s Complaint as (1) Richwood Pharmaceutical Co.,

Inc. (a division of Rexar Pharmacal) and (2) Shirer Richwood, Inc. (formerly known as Richwood Pharmaceutical Co, Inc.)

- SmithKline Beecham Corp.

5-29-98

0143

Re: Betty Koritzke V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (98-20236)

The undersigned hereby mutually agree and stipulate for an on behalf of the parties represented by them that:

(1) They are each authorized to enter into this stipulation;

(2) This stipulation represents the stipulation of all parties to the action within the meaning of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a); and

(3) Plaintiff dismisses the action without prejudice to refile in federal court only, each party to bear her or its own costs and attorneys= fees. The clerk is requested to enter the dismissal accordingly.

5-29-98

0144

Re: Katie Gasparovic V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc.

The undersigned hereby mutually agree and stipulate for an on behalf of the parties represented by them that:

(1) They are each authorized to enter into this stipulation;

(2) This stipulation represents the stipulation of all parties to the action within the meaning of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a); and

(3) Plaintiff dismisses the action without prejudice to refile in federal court only, each party to bear her or its own costs and attorneys= fees. The clerk is requested to enter the dismissal accordingly.

5-29-98

0145

Re: Steven Cole V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (98-20217)

The undersigned hereby mutually agree and stipulate for an on behalf of the parties represented by them that:

(1) They are each authorized to enter into this stipulation;

(2) This stipulation represents the stipulation of all parties to the action within the meaning of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a); and

(3) Plaintiff dismisses the action without prejudice to refile in federal court only, each party to bear her or its own costs and attorneys= fees. The clerk is requested to enter the dismissal accordingly.

5-29-98

0146

Re: Don Holmes, . A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (98-20354)

The undersigned hereby mutually agree and stipulate for an on behalf of the parties represented by them that:

(1) They are each authorized to enter into this stipulation;

(2) This stipulation represents the stipulation of all parties to the action within the meaning of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a); and

(3) Plaintiff dismisses the action without prejudice to refile in federal court only, each party to bear her or its own costs and attorneys= fees. The clerk is requested to enter the dismissal accordingly.

5-29-98

0147

Re: Neena Pasricha V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (98-20287)

The undersigned hereby mutually agree and stipulate for an on behalf of the parties represented by them that:

(1) They are each authorized to enter into this stipulation;

(2) This stipulation represents the stipulation of all parties to the action within the meaning of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a); and

(3) Plaintiff dismisses the action without prejudice to refile in federal court only, each party to bear her or its own costs and attorneys= fees. The clerk is requested to enter the dismissal accordingly.

5-29-98

0148

Re: Noemi Simon V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (98-20332)

The undersigned hereby mutually agree and stipulate for an on behalf of the parties represented by them that:

(1) They are each authorized to enter into this stipulation;

(2) This stipulation represents the stipulation of all parties to the action within the meaning of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a); and

(3) Plaintiff dismisses the action without prejudice to refile in federal court only, each party to bear her or its own costs and attorneys= fees. The clerk is requested to enter the dismissal accordingly.

5-29-98

0149

Re: Marie Antoinette Johnson V. Gate Pharmaceuticals, et al. (98-20118)

COME NOW the respective attorneys for plaintiff, Marie Antoinette Johnson and defendant, Abana Pharmaceuticals Company, Inc., and hereby stipulate to a dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims filed by plaintiff against defendant Abana Pharmaceuticals Company, Inc., and, accordingly, request that the court sign this order.

6-4-98

0150

Re: Jane Doe, et al. V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, et al. (98-20286)

Order permitting substitution of Counsel

Upon consideration of the Stipulation of the parties, it is hereby, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Robert M. Montgomery, Jr., of the law firm of Montgomery & Larmoyeux, is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiffs, JANE DOE, et al., and that John H. Ruiz, of the law firm of John H. Ruiz, P.A., and Jorge E. Silva, of the law firm of Silva & Silva, P.A. are permitted to be substituted as counsel of record for Plaintiffs, JANE DOE, et al. and said withdrawal and appearance is hereby approved as of the date and entry of this Order.

6-15-98

0151

Re: Hearing held on June 9, 1998

At a hearing held on June 9, 1998, the court ruled as follows:

1.) Stipulation of Dismissal of 98-20006 is dismissed as moot.

2.) Motion of defendant Les Laboratories Servier for extension of time in 98-20006 is dismissed as moot.

3.) Motion of plaintiff for extension of time to file fact sheet in 98-20325 is dismissed as moot.

4.) Motion for admission of visiting attorney in 98-20327 is DENIED as moot pursuant to MDL Rule 6

5.) The next status conference will be held on July 8, 1998 at 10:00 am

6-17-98

0152

Re: Hearing scheduled on Plaintiff=s motion to compel Camall Co.

It is ORDERED that a hearing is scheduled on plaintiffs= motion to compel defendant, Camall Company, to produce documents. The hearing will be held on June 24, 1998 at 3:30 pm in Courtroom 17-B, 17^{th Floor,}

^6-19-98

⁰¹⁵³

^{Re: Margaret Brannan V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co., American Home Products Corp; Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. A.H. Robins Co., Inc.; Gate Pharmaceuticals, USA Inc. Smith Kline Beecham Consumer Brands, L.P. Smith Kline Beecham, Inc.; Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ion Laboratories, Inc. Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.}

^{Stipulated Notice of Voluntary Dismissal : COME NOW the parties and file this their stipulated notice of voluntary dismissal, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby voluntarily dismissing this action against GATE PHARMACEUTICALS, a division of Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA Inc., without prejudice.}

^6-23-98

⁰¹⁵⁴

^{Re: Eileen S. Collins, et al. V. American Home Products Corporation, et al. (98-20299)}

^{On May 1, 1998 the American Home Products Corporation defendants (AHPC) filed a Motion to Dismiss on Count VII (Fraud) of plaintiffs= Second Amended Complaint for failure to satisfy the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). In response to this Motion plaintiffs= Eileen S. Collins and William Collins on May 19th filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint to Withdraw Count VII (Fraud) without Prejudice.}

^{Since Discovery is in the early stages it is not likely the court would have granted the defendants= Motion with prejudice.}

^{For the foregoing reasons the court will deny defendants= Motion to Dismiss Count VII (Fraud) of the plaintiffs= Complaint for the reason that the court will be granting the plaintiffs= Motion to Dismiss Count VII (Fraud) without prejudice. SO ORDERED.}

^6-23-98

⁰¹⁵⁵

^{Re: Revised Authorization form}

^{Attached to this Order is a revised Authorization Form which should be substituted for the Authorization Form originally attached to Pretrial Order No. 22.}

^{This Authorization Form has been modified to conform to the language in paragraph 2(B) of Pretrial Order No. 22}

^{Plaintiffs shall use the revised Authorization Form for all cases with a Discovery Initiation Date of July 1, 1998 and thereafter.}

^6-23-98

⁰¹⁵⁶

^{Re: Melinda Hazelton, et al. V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, et al. (98-20098)}

^{Having considered the Motion to Withdraw submitted by counsel for Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and having taken notice that Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is no longer a party to this lawsuit, this Court hereby grants counsels= Motion to Withdraw. IT IS SO ORDERED}

^7-6-98

⁰¹⁵⁷

^{Re: Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses}

^{Upon consideration of the Second Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (5-1-98 through 5-31-98), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any party objecting to the application shall show cause why it should not be granted by filing a detailed objections by July 6, 1998.}

^6-23-98

⁰¹⁵⁸

^{Re: John Rentner V. American Home Products corp. (98-20049)}

^{IT IS STIPULATED by Plaintiff John Rentner and Defendant American Home Products Corporation, by and through their respective attorneys, that this action is dismissed without prejudice and without costs to either party pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.}

^6-23-98

⁰¹⁵⁹

^{Re: Donna Larsen V. American Home Products Corporation (98-20030)}

^{IT IS STIPULATED by Plaintiff Donna Larsen and Defendant American Home Products Corporation, by and through their respective attorneys, that this action is dismissed without prejudice and without costs to either party pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.}

^6-29-98

⁰¹⁶⁰

^{Re: Melissa Jensen V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20013)}

^{IT IS STIPULATED by Plaintiff Melissa Jensen and Defendant American Home Products Corporation, by and through their respective attorneys, that this action is dismissed without prejudice and without costs to either party pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.}

^6-23-98

⁰¹⁶¹

^{Re: Pamela Harvey V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20024)}

^{IT IS STIPULATED by Plaintiff Pamela Harvey and Defendant American Home Products Corporation, by and through their respective attorneys, that this action is dismissed without prejudice and without costs to either party pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.}

^6-23-98

⁰¹⁶²

^{Re: Amy Goodlund V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20023)}

^{IT IS STIPULATED by Plaintiff Amy Goodlund and Defendant American Home Products Corporation, by and through their respective attorneys, that this action is dismissed without prejudice and without costs to either party pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.}

^6-23-98

⁰¹⁶³

^{Re: Eileen S. Collins & William Collins V. American Home Products Corp.,e t al. (98-20299)}

^{Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of Count XVII of Plaintiff=s Complaint Against Defendant Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc.}

^{Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs and Defendant Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc., stipulate to the voluntary dismissal of Count XVII (Fraud -Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) without prejudice.}

^6-23-98

⁰¹⁶⁴

^{Re: Ciambriello V. Wyeth Ayerst, et al. (98-20327)}

^{The foregoing unopposed Motion to Amend having been heard, it is hereby ORDERED: GRANTED}

^6-29-98

⁰¹⁶⁵

^{Re: Jennifer Eades and Darryl Brooks V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co. (98-20285)}

^{Presently before the court is a Motion of Barbara Mathenia to intervene as an additional plaintiff in this civil action. The Motion is DENIED for the reason that the moving party has failed to attach to its Motion a form of Order that if signed would grant the requested relief as required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(a) of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. SO ORDERED.}

^6-29-98

⁰¹⁶⁶

^{Re: Motion of plaintiffs to compel production of documents of Camall Company}

^{It is ORDERED that the motion of plaintiffs to compel production of documents of Camall Company is GRANTED, as set forth at a hearing held in open court on June 24, 1998.}

^7-7-98

⁰¹⁶⁷

^{Re: Donae Dupont, et al. V. Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (98-20362)}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between plaintiffs in the above-captioned action and defendant Gate Pharmaceuticals, a division of Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. (AGate@), by and through their respective counsel, as shown below, that gate may file its Appearance and Answer, instance, in the above action on or before June 25, 1998. It is hereby further stipulated that plaintiffs do not object to the Court vacating any technical defaults that may have been entered against Gate in the above action, and that any and all such technical defaults are hereby waivered.}

^7-7-98

⁰¹⁶⁸

^{Re: Margaret Brannan V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co., et al. (98-20413)}

^{COME NOW the parties and file this their stipulated notice of voluntary dismissal, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby voluntarily dismissing this action against SmithKline Beecham Consumer Brands, L.P., a unit of SmithKline Beecham, Inc.,; SmithKline Beecham, Inc.; and SmithKline Beecham Corporation, without prejudice.}

^7-7-98

⁰¹⁶⁹

^{Re: Alfredo Quinonez V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20431)}

^{Plaintiff ALFREDO QUINONEZ and defendant MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (AMDEVA@), by and through their respective attorneys, hereby stipulate that defendant MEDEVA shall have up to and including July 6, 1998 to answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff=s complaint.}

^7-10-98

⁰¹⁷⁰

^{Re: Gwendalyn Ford V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Interneuron Pharmaceuticals}

^{The undersigned hereby mutually agree and stipulate for an on behalf of the parties represented by them that:}

^{1.) They are each authorized to enter into this stipulation;}

^{2.) This stipulation represents the stipulation of all parties to the action within the meaning of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a); and}

^{3.) Plaintiff dismisses the action without prejudice to file in federal court only, each party to bear her or its own costs and attorneys= fees. The Clerk is requested to enter the dismissal accordingly.}

^7-10-98

⁰¹⁷¹

^{Re: Sandra Elena Gutierrez V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company.}

^{The undersigned hereby mutually agree and stipulate for an on behalf of the parties represented by them that:}

^{1.) They are each authorized to enter into this stipulation;}

^{2.) This stipulation represents the stipulation of all parties to the action within the meaning of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a); and}

^{3.) Plaintiff dismisses the action without prejudice to file in federal court only, each party to bear her or its own costs and attorneys= fees. The Clerk is requested to enter the dismissal accordingly.}

^7-8-98

⁰¹⁷²

^{Re: Hearing held on July 8, 1998}

^{At a hearing held on July 8, 1998, the court ruled as follows:}

^{1.) Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(a) for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania requires that every motion and any response thereto shall be accompanied by a form of order. Motions failing to comply with this rule will be denied.}

^{2.) The MDL 1203 Website is Online. The Website address is} http://www.fenphen.cilp.org .

3.) The next status conference will be held on August 12, 1998 at 10:00 a.m.

^7-13-98

⁰¹⁷³

^{Re: Internet - Phenfen website.}

^{1.) Effective immediately, all members of the public, including parties to this litigation and their counsel, are granted access to the site on the Internet=s World Wide Web that the court will use to facilitate information delivery in this litigation. The address of the home page of this site (Athe MDL No. 1203 web site@) is} http://www.fenphen.cilp.org

2.) The MDL No. 1203 web site will be maintained by the Center for Information Law and Policy (ACILP@), located at Villanova Law School.

3.) Users of the MDL No. 1203 web site will be able to retrieve docket sheets for all MDL No. 1203 civil actions, as well as all documents filed by the court and/or the Special Master. The MDL No. 1203 web site will also contain those documents filed by the parties that relate to 100 or more individual MDL No. 1203 civil actions (Aparty internet documents@). Party internet documents shall include all responses and replies to a

document that relates to 100 or more individual MDL No. 1203 civil actions. Detailed instructions for how to use the MDL No. 1203 Web site to find and search this information can be found on the MDL No. 1203 web site.

4.) The existence of the MDL No. 1203 web site, as well as the provisions in this Order governing the submission of party internet documents in electronic form to the MDL No. 1203 web site, shall have no effect on the parties, obligations to file and serve traditional paper versions of party internet documents in accordance with established practice. The MDL No. 1203 web site is a supplement to, and not a replacement for, traditional filing and service requirements.

Accordingly, posting of a document on the MDL No. 1203 web site shall not be deemed sufficient to satisfy any requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, other rules established by this court for service of process, or the fulfilment of any other legal obligation.

5.) In light of the continued availability of paper-based MDL No. 1203 documents, any difficulties associated with any of the information on the MDL No. 1203 web site, whether such difficulties are the fault of the web site administrators, an attorney, or some other person or entity, shall be of no legal significance in the MDL No. 1203 litigation. Any argument made to this court that is based on difficulties encountered in using the MDL No. 1203 web site will not be a basis to secure relief from obligations or duties otherwise due.

^cont...

⁰¹⁷³

^{6.) Documents filed by pro se litigants need not be posted on the MDL No. 1203 web site and are therefore exempt from the provisions in paragraph 8 of this Order (governing the submission of party internet documents to the MDL No. 1203 web site). Pro se litigants who wish to post documents to the MDL No. 1203 web site may do so, if they choose, according to the provisions of this Order.}

^{7.) Documents filed under seal shall not be posted on the MDL No. 1203 web site and are therefore exempt from the provisions in paragraph 8 of this Order (governing the submission of party internet documents to the MDL No. 1203 web site.).}

^{8.) Except as provided in paragraphs 6 & 7 of this Order, submission of party internet documents to the MDL No. 1203 web site shall conform to the following rules:}

^{a.) Party internet documents, like all documents filed by parties, may consist of two parts:}

^{1) The Abody@ of the document that is generated by the filing party=s counsel and}

^{2) Any exhibits attached to the document body.}

^{b.) Document bodies of party internet documents filed on behalf of any plaintiff will be uploaded to the MDL No. 1203 web site by the PMC. Document bodies of party internet documents filed on behalf of any defendant will be uploaded to the MDL No. 1203 web site by a designee of the Defendants= Web- Site Committee (ADWC@). The court hereby appoints Nina Gussack, Esq. Of Pepper Hamilton, Philadelphia, PA and Michael T. Scott, Esq. of Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Philadelphia, PA to serve on the DWC. CILP will work with the PMC and the DWC to make the technological arrangements necessary to allow the PMC and the DWC to upload documents to the MDL No. 1203 web site.}

^{c.) From this date forward, counsel for parties who file party internet documents must deliver an electronic version of the body of the document to the PMC or the DWC, whichever is appropriate, before filing the paper version of the document with the Clerk=s office. Placing a floppy disk containing an electronic version of the document body in the regular U.S. mail before the paper document is filed satisfies this requirement. Other acceptable methods of delivery of the electronic versions, including e- mail delivery, may be established for the plaintiffs and defendants by the PMC and the DWC, specific DWC representative to which the defendants should deliver the electronic versions of party internet documents, along}

^{respectively. The DWC shall inform the defendants of the specific DWC representative to which the defendants should deliver the electronic versions of party internet documents, along with the mailing address of the representative. The filing party may, but need not, include in the electronic version of the document body various certifications, service lists, and other attachments that are not exhibits.}

^{d.) The hard copy version of the party internet document that is filed with the Clerk=s office and served on other parties shall contain the following Internet Document Certification, which shall be signed by the filing attorney:}

^{I hereby certify that this document applies to 100 or more individual MDL No. 1203 civil actions and that I have delivered an electronic version of this document to the [PMC / DWC]. The computer file that I have forwarded is an identical copy of the computer file I used to print the hard copy version of this document.}

^{e.) Exhibits to party internet documents will be imaged by the PMC using the PMC=s document imaging equipment. The PMC will upload the resulting image files to the MDL No. 1203 web site, according to procedures established by CILP. Paper versions of party internet documents with exhibits shall, when served on the PMC and other parties, include a cover letter that contains the following text in boldface as the first paragraph of the letter:}

^{The document attached to this letter relates to 100 or more individual MDL No. 1203 civil actions and contains exhibits that must be imaged by the PMC.}

^{f.) To summarize, when filing a party internet document, all parties must take three additional steps that they do not take when filing a document that is not a party internet document. These steps are:}

^{I. Append an Internet Document Certification to the end of the document, as described in paragraph 8(d) of this Order.}

^{ii. If the document has exhibits, include the text referred to in paragraph 8(e) of this Order in the cover letter of the hard copy version of the document that is served on the PMC.}

^cont...

⁰¹⁷³

^{iii. Forward an electronic version of the document body to the PMC or the DWC, whichever is appropriate, as described in paragraph 8(c) of this Order.}

^{g.) The court may, from time to time, find it necessary to add to or modify the procedures set forth herein.}

^7-14-98

⁰¹⁷⁴

^{Jean Witt V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20393)}

^{Presently before the court are plaintiff Jean Witt=s (APlaintiff@) motions to remand Jean Witt V. American Home Products Corp., Civ. No. 98-20393 to the state court from whence it was removed and for leave to amend to add a defendant. For the following reasons, the court will deny the motions.}

^{I. BACKGROUND}

^{On October 24, 1997, Plaintiff filed this civil action in the District Court of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. On November 24, 1997, defendant American Home Products d/b/a Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories (ADefendant@) filed a timely notice of removal to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The removal was based upon complete diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. 1332. On December 3, 1997, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to state court. On December 30, 1997, the action was transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to this transferee district court for inclusion in MDL No. 1203. On February 9, 1998, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend, seeking to add the prescribing physician as a defendant. This court now considers both the motion to remand and the motion for leave to amend.}

^{II. DISCUSSION}

^{A[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or defendants, to the district court for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.@ 28 U.S.C. 1441(a). An action based upon diversity shall be removable Aonly if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the state in which such action is brought.@ 28 U.S.C. 1441(b). Thus, only if an action could originally have been brought in federal court may it be removed from state court to federal court. The removing party bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921); Boyer V. Snap-On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d cir. 1990) cert. Denied, 498 U.S. 1085 (1991). The removal statute is Astrictly construed against removal@ and all doubts are resolved in favor of remand. Id.}

^{Plaintiff asks the court to remand this action to state court because the matter in controversy does not exceed $75,000.00 and because Plaintiff now seeks to join the prescribing physician, a citizen of the same state as Plaintiff, whose joinder will divest this court of jurisdiction. (Mot. Remand at 1.)}

^{A. Amount in Controversy}

^{Plaintiff attempts to argue that the value her claim is in excess of ten thousand dollars, but not in excess of the $75,000.00 threshold for federal diversity jurisdiction. She acknowledges that it may, at some point exceed $75,000.00. (Mot. Remand at 1.) The amount in controversy is determined at the time of removal by looking at the allegations contained in the complaint. Laughlin V. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir.), cert. Denied, 116 S.Ct. 174 (1995). In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she has suffered Asignificant heart valve damage@ and that she is permanently disabled by the condition. Plaintiff seeks Aadditional advanced medical treatment@ and compensatory damages for Aextreme pain and suffering.@ (Compl. 4-6) The allegations, which are controlling over Plaintiff=s assertions in her motion, set forth a claim for damages that exceeds $75,000.00. The court finds that the jurisdictional amount has been satisfied and it will not remand the case on that ground.}

^{B. Joinder of Dr. Johnson}

^{Plaintiff argues that Dr. Johnson is an indispensable party under the Federal Rules of civil Procedure and that the court must grant leave to amend so that she may join the doctor as a defendant. Because such joinder would divest the court of jurisdiction, she argues that the court must also grant her motion to remand. (Mem. Amend at 4.)}

^{When this case was commenced, federal diversity jurisdiction existed. As a general rule, subsequent events cannot divest a federal district court of jurisdiction. Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. V. KN Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 428 (1991). However, joinder of a non-diverse indispensable party may divest a federal district court of subject}

^{matter jurisdiction. In order to determine whether the party sought to be joined is necessary and indispensable, the court must engage in a two-step analysis. Under rule 19(a), the court must determine}

^cont...

⁰¹⁷⁴

^{whether the party sought to be joined is necessary and then under Rule 19(b), the court must determine whether that party is indispensable. Angst v. Royal Maccabees Life Ins. Co., 77 F. 3d 701, 705-06 (3d Cir. 1996). Federal Rule of civil Procedure 19(a) provides that a person}

^{Whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in the person=s absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the persons absence may ... impair or impede the person=s ability to protect that interest ... or leave any of the persons already parties subject to substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest.}

^{Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a). If joinder of a person described above would destroy diversity, the court must then determine whether that party is indispensable B that is whether the action may fairly proceed in his or her absence or whether it should be dismissed. In the court=s determination, it must consider (1) to what extent a judgment rendered in the person=s absence might be prejudicial to that person or the parties; (2) the extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, prejudice can be lessened or avoided; (3) whether judgment entered in the person=s absence will be adequate; and (4) whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(b).}

^{Joinder of Dr. Johnson would destroy diversity. However, complete relief can be accorded in her absence, her interests will not be impaired and Defendant will not be subject to multiple liability if the action proceeds in her absence. Plaintiff may file a separate suit against Dr. Johnson in another forum. See, e.g., Temple V. Synthes Corp., Ltd., 498 U.S. 5 (1990) (holding that operating physician and hospital where surgery was performed were not necessary and indispensable parties in a product liability action against the device manufacturer). Therefore, Dr. Johnson is not a necessary and indispensable party under Rule 19.}

^{Plaintiff also references Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in her motion. (Mot. Amend at 4.) Rule 20 provides for permissive joinder of defendants Aif there is asserted against them jointly, severally or in the alternative, any right of relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all defendants will aries in the action.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). While both causes of action relate to Plaintiff=s ingestion of a diet drug, the claims are not asserted jointly or in the alternative. Plaintiff=s suit against American Home Products is a products liability action and the action she seeks to pursue against Dr. Johnson is grounded in negligence. While there may be some overlapping facts, the elements of proof in each claim are different and the two}

^{are only tangentially related. Therefore, the court will not permit the joinder under Rule 20. See State Distributors, Inc. V. Glenmore Distillers Co., 738 F.2d 405 (10th Cir. 1984) (finding that district court did not abuse discretion by refusing to permit Plaintiff to amend to add defendant whose joinder would destroy diversity where different elements of proof were required and no rights would be prejudiced).}

^{III. Conclusion}

^{For the foregoing reasons, the court will deny Plaintiff=s motions for leave to amend and to remand.}

^{IT IS ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF JEAN WITT=S MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE COURT IS DENIED. It is further Ordered that Plaintiff=s motion for leave to amend is DENIED.}

^4-14-98

⁰¹⁷⁵

^{Re: Liaison Counsel}

^{It is hereby ordered as follows:}

^{The purpose of this Order is to outline the duties as well as the authority of Liaison Counsel representing defense interests in this MDL litigation.}

^{Within the last several weeks the court has completed the acceptance of either the request or the consent of certain attorneys to function as liaison counsel for defense interests in this case. Although those persons have been identified in previous court Orders, for purposes of this Order the court will list them again as follows:}

^{PLAINTIFFS= MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (PMC)}

^{Arnold Levin, Esquire}

^{Plaintiffs= Management Committee}

^{325 Chestnut Street, Suite 200}

^{Philadelphia, PA 19106}

^4-14-98

⁰¹⁷⁵

^{LIAISON COUNSEL FOR PHENTERMINE MANUFACTURERS AND SUPPLIERS}

^{Edward W. Madeira, Jr., Esquire}

^{Nina Gussack, Esquire}

^{Pepper Hamilton LLP}

^{3000 Two Logan Square}

^{18th & Arch Streets}

^{Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799}

^{LIAISON COUNSEL FOR FENFLURAMINE / DEXFENFLURAMINE MANUFACTURERS AND SUPPLIERS}

^{Michael T. Scott, Esquire}

^{Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay}

^{2500 One Liberty Place}

^{Philadelphia, PA 19103}

^{RETAILERS= LIAISON COUNSEL}

^{Robert Spinelli, Esquire}

^{Kelley, Jasons, McGuire & Spinelli}

^{1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1400}

^{One Penn Center}

^{Philadelphia, PA 19103}

^{DIET CENTER LIAISON COUNSEL}

^{J. Allen Schreiber, Esquire}

^{Lloyd, Schreiber & Gray}

^{2 Perimeter Park South, Suite 100}

^{Birmingham, AL 35243}

^{PHYSICIAN LIAISON COUNSEL}

^{John Fitzpatrick, Esquire}

^{LeClair & Ryan}

^{707 East Main Street, 11th Floor}

^{Richmond, VA 23219}

^{The duties of liaison counsel will be to perform essentially administrative matters. This would include communication between the court and other counsel (including receiving and distributing notices, pleadings, Orders, Motions and Briefs on behalf of the group represented by a particular liaison counsel as set forth in PTO 19), convening and participating in meetings of counsel where it is appropriate in representation of the group, advising parties within the group of developments in the case and otherwise assisting the coordination of activities and positions. Such counsel may act for the group in communicating with the document depository resolving scheduling conflicts, and participating in discovery scheduling matters. Liaison counsel should work closely with the Special Discovery Master and where necessary will communicate with the representatives of the PMC regarding concerns associated with the group represented by that liaison counsel.}

^{Authority of Liaison Counsel}

^{The authority of liaison counsel functioning in this limited roll is to speak on behalf of the members of his group as it relates to the administrative functions to be performed including those associated with scheduling, identifying members or new members within the group including their counsel. While personnel in the Court Clerk=s Office will do their best, upon inquiry, to notify a party or new party in the case who liaison counsel is, it is suggested that liaison counsel from time to time check the docket in order to determine as nearly as can be determined by that means the presence of new parties here in MDL 1203 that should be within the liaison counsel=s group. Contact should be made with each party as soon as possible after docketing commences in MDL 1203 in order to assure prompt and adequate communication.}

^cont...

⁰¹⁷⁵

^{Additional Duties}

^{Nothing in this Order will prevent the parties within any group from agreeing with liaison counsel to perform additional duties from time to time under terms agreed to by the group and liaison counsel.}

^{The court may from time to time add additional duties to the function of liaison counsel but only after an opportunity is provided for the court and liaison counsel to confer about the prospect about such additional duties being necessary and counsel=s consent to such additional duties as proposed or modified.}

^Compensation

^{Expenses incurred and fees earned by liaison counsel acting in that capacity are not expected to be born solely by that counsel=s clients but are to be shared equitably by all parties benefitting from the services. The preferable procedure would be for the terms and procedures for payment to be established by agreement among counsel representing the parties within a group and that groups= liaison counsel. If the parties cannot arrive at the terms and procedures for payment the court will exercise its authority to order reimbursement and compensation including the obligation to insure that the amounts are reasonable.}

^{Liaison counsel shall advise the court within 30 days of the date of this Order whether or not the court should take up the question of establishing a procedure to assure the payment of expenses and fees earned by liaison counsel in fulfillment of their duties. In discussing this with the members of the group represented by liaison counsel it should be understood that the court expects liaison counsel to render services as economically as possible under the circumstances and that the court=s authority to direct the payment of expenses and fees is limited to those falling within that category.}

^{SO ORDERED}

^7-15-98

⁰¹⁷⁶

^{Re: Second Application for Reimbursement}

^{Upon consideration of the Second Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (5-1-98 through 5-31-98), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application is hereby GRANTED and it is directed that the parties reimburse the Special Discovery Master for disbursements and compensation for legal fees in the amount of $2, 561.00 for the period from 5-1-98 through 5-31-98, in accordance with the procedure established by the Court.}

^7-21-98

⁰¹⁷⁷

^{Re: Rojas, et al. V. Gate Pharmaceuticals, et al. (98-20452)}

^{Presently before the court is a Motion for an Extension of Time to Designate Non-parties Negligent or at Fault Pursuant to C.R.S. 13-21-11.5 and District Court of Colorado Local Rule 7.1.}

^{The parties shall file with the court within 15 days a copy of the pertinent rules and statutes upon which this Motion is based otherwise the Motion thereafter shall be DENIED. SO ORDERED.}

^7-22-98

⁰¹⁷⁸

^{Re: Tina Arnold, Lana Harris, Joanne Pakbaz V. American Home Products Corp, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, Inc, and Interneuron Pharmaceutical (98-20250)}

^{The motion to dismiss Tina Arnold as a named plaintiff and case representative that was filed}

^{June ___, 1998 in the above-style action is granted. It is ordered that Tina Arnold be dismissed as a class representative.}

^7-22-98

⁰¹⁷⁹

^{Re: Mary Keenan, Rosalie Rose, and Patricia Devlin V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., et al. (98-20040)}

^{Come Now plaintiffs Patricia Devlin and Rosalie Rose, by their undersigned attorneys, and request leave of court to withdraw as a plaintiff in this cause, and in support thereof state:}

^{1.) While class action certification is sought, certification has not been entered, and accordingly, they have not been designated by the court as a class representatives.}

^{2.) There remains one other class representative of record at this time and other individuals have advised plaintiffs attorneys that they are willing to become class representatives should there be a need for them to do so. Order}

^{This cause coming on to be heard on the foregoing Motion to Withdraw by Patricia Devlin and Rosalie Rose, and the court being fully advised in the premises, finds that said motion should be allowed.}

^{ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint as to Plaintiffs Patricia Devlin and Rosalie Rose are dismissed without prejudice. Cause remains pending as to other plaintiff and as to class action claims.}

^7-22-98

⁰¹⁸⁰

^{Re: Deborah A. Howard V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc. American Home Products, Inc., and Wyeth Labs, Inc.}

^{It is ordered that plaintiffs= motion to substitute a party is GRANTED. Cora Jean Farthing is hereby substituted as Administrator os the Estate of Deborah A. Howard.}

^7-21-98

⁰¹⁸¹

^{Re: Joann Yager V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20439)}

^{The undersigned hereby mutually agree and stipulate for and on behalf of the parties represented by them that:}

^{(1) They are each authorized to enter into this stipulation;}

^{(2) This stipulation represents the stipulation of all parties to the action within the meaning of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a); and}

^{(3) Plaintiff dismisses the action with prejudice, each party to bear her or its own costs and attorney=s fees. The clerk is requested to enter the dismissal accordingly.}

^7-21-98

⁰¹⁸²

^{Re: Margaret Brannan V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co. et al. (98-20413)}

^{COME NOW the parties and file this their stipulated notice of voluntary dismissal, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby voluntarily dismissing this action against Ion Laboratories, Inc., without prejudice}

^7-22-98

⁰¹⁸³

^{Re: Dawn Hartman and Donald C. Hartman V. American Home Products Corporation, et al. (98-20491)}

^{Stipulation for Extension of Time}

^{Plaintiffs, Dawn Hartman and Donald C. Hartman and Defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation, by their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree that the time within which Defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation may answer, plead, or otherwise respond to the Complaint in the above-captioned matter shall be extended to and including Tuesday, July 28, 1998. No prior extensions have been requested or granted in this matter.}

^8-4-98

⁰¹⁸⁴

^{Re: First (1st) Application by Special Master for Reimbursement of Expenses}

^{Upon consideration of the First Application by Special Discovery master for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (3-23-98 through 4-30-98) and upon representation that the parties do not oppose the application, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application is hereby GRANTED and it is directed that the parties reimburse the Special Discovery Master for disbursements and compensation for legal fees in the amount of $9, 652.00 for the period from 3-23-98 through 4-30-98, in accordance with the procedure established by the Court.}

^8-5-98

⁰¹⁸⁵

^{Re: Shirley M. Perkins V. American Home Products Corp, et al. (98-20418)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corporation as an additional defendant.}

^8-5-98

⁰¹⁸⁶

^{Re: Shirley M. Perkins V. American Home Products Corp, et al. (98-20418)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed an Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: see PTO}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved}

^8-5-98

⁰¹⁸⁷

^{Re: Sall Ann Grant, et ux. V. Gate Pharm. (a division of Teva Pharm., U.S.A., et al) (98-20280)}

^{Upon consideration of the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and any response, it is hereby ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED.}

^8-5-98

⁰¹⁸⁸

^{Re: Joyce Hortensia Migliore V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20317)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corporation as an additional defendants.}

^8-5-98

⁰¹⁸⁹

^{Re: Alma Neal V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20337)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corporation as an additional defendant.}

^8-5-98

⁰¹⁹⁰

^{Re: Joyce Morton V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20414)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corporation as an additional defendant.}

^8-5-98

⁰¹⁹¹

^{Re: Vicky A. Mitchell V. American Home Products Corp, et al. (98-20420)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corporation as an additional defendant.}

^8-5-98

⁰¹⁹²

^{Re: Irene M. Daniels V. American Home Products, Corp., et al. (98-20428)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corporation as an additional defendant.}

^8-5-98

⁰¹⁹³

^{Re: Selina Borne V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20429)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corporation as an additional defendant.}

^8-5-98

⁰¹⁹⁴

^{Re: Selina Borne V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20429)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰¹⁹⁵

^{Re: Alma Neal V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20337)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰¹⁹⁶

^{Re: Anita Gail Phenix V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20352)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰¹⁹⁷

^{Re: Coriaie Ridley V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20315)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰¹⁹⁸

^{Re: Patrick Waguespack V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20426)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰¹⁹⁹

^{Re: Zandra Davenport V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20318)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰²⁰⁰

^{Re: Herman Granier V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20319)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰²⁰¹

^{Re: Terry J. Guidry V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20326)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰²⁰²

^{Re: Clementine A. Jones V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20421)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved}

^8-5-98

⁰²⁰³

^{Re: Sharlene P. Kelley V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20322)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰²⁰⁴

^{Re: Deborah Renee Kula V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20351)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰²⁰⁵

^{Re: Irene M. Daniels V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20428)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰²⁰⁶

^{Re: Sandra Ann Louis V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20320)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰²⁰⁷

^{Re: Madelleine B. Masson V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20419)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰²⁰⁸

^{Re: Joyce Hortensia Migliore V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20317)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰²⁰⁹

^{Re: Vicky A. Mitchell V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20420)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰²¹⁰

^{Re: Joyce Pierre Morton V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20414)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰²¹¹

^{Re: Debra Richard Williams V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20338)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰²¹²

^{Re: Denise Hatty Zeringue V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20421)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰²¹³

^{Re: Loretta Doell Hubert V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20336)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰²¹⁴

^{Re: Angela Marie Williams V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20427)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰²¹⁵

^{Re: Teale G. Washington V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20430)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰²¹⁶

^{Re: Anna Warfield V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20316)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰²¹⁷

^{Re: Marian B. Askegren V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20321)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰²¹⁸

^{Re: Ida K. Wilson V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20171)}

^{Plaintiff in this civil action, having filed and Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant Seatrace Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and a Memorandum in Support thereof, and the Court having considered such Motion and Memorandum, the Court now accepts the Motion to Dismiss Defendant Seatrace Pharmaceuticals, Inc.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of plaintiff in this civil action against Seatrace Pharmaceuticals, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this action be amended to read as follows: (see PTO)}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff=s rights against any and all other defendants or parties whether named or to be named are expressly reserved.}

^8-5-98

⁰²¹⁹

^{Re: Herman Granier V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20319}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corporation as an additional defendant.}

^8-5-98

⁰²²⁰

^{Re: Terry J. Guidry V. American Home Products, Corp.,et al. (98-20326)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corporation as an additional defendant.}

^8-5-98

⁰²²¹

^{Re: Loretta Doell Hubert V. American home Products Corp. (98-20336)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corporation as an additional defendant.}

^8-5-98

⁰²²²

^{Re: Clementine A. Jones V. American home Products Corp. (98-20421)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corporation as an additional defendant..}

^8-5-98

⁰²²³

^{Re: Sharlene P. Kelley V. American home Products Corp. (98-20322)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corporation as an additional defendant..}

^8-5-98

⁰²²⁴

^{Re: Sandra Ann Louis V. American home Products Corp. (98-20320)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corporation as an additional defendant..}

^8-5-98

⁰²²⁵

^{Re: Madeleine B. Masson V. American home Products Corp. (98-20419)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corporation as an additional defendant..}

^8-5-98

⁰²²⁶

^{Re: Teale G. Washington V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20430)}

^{Considering the Motion to Delete as Counsel of Record;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that David C. Fawley is deleted as counsel of record for Ion Laboratories, Inc. in the above-captioned matter;}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk delete David C. Fawley=s name from the mailing matrix in the above-captioned matter.}

^8-5-98

⁰²²⁷

^{Re: Anna Warfield V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20316)}

^{Considering the Motion to Delete as Counsel of Record;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that David C. Fawley is deleted as counsel of record for Ion Laboratories, Inc. in the above-captioned matter;}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk delete David C. Fawley=s name from the mailing matrix in the above-captioned matter.}

^8-5-98

⁰²²⁸

^{Re: Bonae Dupont, Deborah Darazs, Uhura Gram, Annie Lou Pruitt and Roxann C. Rymek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. V. Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (98-20362)}

^{Plaintiff, UHURA GRAM, moves this Court for an Order dismissing all Defendants from her cause of action without prejudice and with each party bearing its own costs. The Court finds that the motion should be granted.}

^{It is therefore ordered that all Defendants are dismissed from this action as to Plaintiff Uhura Gram, without prejudice and without costs.}

^8-5-98

⁰²²⁹

^{Re: Anita Lee Shook and Mary Jeffrey H. Shook V. A.H. Robins Company (98-20271)}

^{Plaintiffs stipulate that they do not oppose the filing of an Amended Answer to Plaintiffs= Complaint in the above-captioned action on behalf of Defendants A.H. Robins Company, Inc., American Home Products Corporation, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corporation more than 20 days after the original Answer was filed.}

^8-5-98

⁰²³⁰

^{Re: Robert Canzonieri V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20461)}

^{The parties to this action, through their respective attorneys of record, stipulate and agree as follow:}

^{1.) Plaintiff attests that the proper name of plaintiff in this action is: Joseph Charles Canzoneri;}

^{2.) Due to a computer/clerical error, Joseph Charles Canzoneri was mistakenly named as Robert Canzonieri in the complaint.}

^{3.) Plaintiff may amend his complaint in the form attached hereto so that Joseph Charles Canzoneri appears in place and instead of the name Robert Canzonieri.}

^8-5-98

⁰²³¹

^{Re: Ann L. Thomson, Loraine Burski and Janna Pederson V. American Home Products Corp.,et al. (98-20284)}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiffs, Ann L. Thomson, Loraine Burski, and defendants, American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst laboratories Company, Interneuron pharmaceuticals, Inc. and A.H. Robins Co., Inc.., through their designated counsel, that the complaints of ANN L. THOMSON and LORAINE BURSKI, only, with respect to the above-captioned action be and hereby are dismissed, with prejudice, as to all defendants, each party to bear their own costs}

^8-5-98

⁰²³²

^{Re: Margaret Brannan V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., et al. (98-20413)}

^{COME NOW the parties and file this their stipulated notice of voluntary dismissal, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby voluntarily dismissing this action against MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., without prejudice.}

^8-5-98

⁰²³³

^{Re: Debra Richard Williams V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20338)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corp. as an additional defendant.}

^8-5-98

⁰²³⁴

^{Re: Angela Marie Williams V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20427)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corp. as an additional defendant.}

^8-5-98

⁰²³⁵

^{Re: Deniese Hatty Zeringue V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20421)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corp. as an additional defendant.}

^8-5-98

⁰²³⁶

^{Re: Anna Warfield V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20316)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corp. as an additional defendant.}

^8-5-98

⁰²³⁷

^{Re: Teale G. Washington V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20430)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corp. as an additional defendant.}

^8-5-98

⁰²³⁸

^{Re: Anita Gail Phenix V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20352)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corp. as an additional defendant.}

^8-5-98

⁰²³⁹

^{Re: Patrick Waguespack V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20426)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corp. as an additional defendant.}

^8-5-98

⁰²⁴⁰

^{Re: Marian B. Askegren V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20338)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corp. as an additional defendant.}

^8-5-98

⁰²⁴¹

^{Re: Coriaie Ridley V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20315)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corp. as an additional defendant.}

^8-5-98

⁰²⁴²

^{Re: Gonzales, Cook & Dryer V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (97-552)}

^{Plaintiff Nell Gonzales= has requested her dismissal as a class representative in the above-captioned action. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 the Court grants the motion. The claims of Nell Gonzales are dismissed without prejudice to the claims of the remaining proposed class representatives.}

^8-5-98

⁰²⁴³

^{Re: Third Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation for Reimbursement of Expenses}

^{Upon consideration of the Third Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (6-1-98 through 6-30-98), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any party objecting to the application shall show cause why it should not be granted by filing a detailed objection by August 14, 1998}

^8-10-98

⁰²⁴⁴

^{Re: Wilfredo Melgar V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., et al. (98-20224)}

^{Upon consideration of the motion of the law firms of Cotchett, Pitre & Simon and Gancedo & Nieves LLP to withdraw as counsel for the above captioned plaintiff (docket #200133), IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted subject to the following conditions: (See PTO for conditions)}

^8-10-98

⁰²⁴⁵

^{Re: Bobbiejo Stiles V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co., et al. (98-20172)}

^{Upon consideration of the motion of the law firms of Cotchett, Pitre & Simon and Hinton & Alfert to withdraw as counsel for the above captioned plaintiff (docket #200149), IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted subject to the following conditions: (See PTO for conditions)}

^8-10-98

⁰²⁴⁶

^{Re: Jesus Melgar V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., et al. (98-20226)}

^{Upon consideration of the motion of the law firms of Cotchett, Pitre & Simon and Gancedo Nieves LLP to withdraw as counsel for the above captioned plaintiff (docket #200134), IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted subject to the following conditions: (See PTO for conditions)}

^8-10-98

⁰²⁴⁷

^{Re: Crystal DiStefano V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., et al.}

^{Upon consideration of the motion of the law firms of Cotchett, Pitre & Simon and Gancedo & Nieves LLP to withdraw as counsel for the above captioned plaintiff (docket #200136), IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted subject to the following conditions: (See PTO for conditions)}

8-10-98

0248

Re: Rosa Melgar V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., et al. (98-20227)

Upon consideration of the motion of the law firms of Cotchett, Pitre & Simon and Gancedo & Nieves LLP to withdraw as counsel for the above captioned plaintiff (docket #200135), IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted subject to the following conditions: (See PTO for conditions)

^8-10-98

⁰²⁴⁹

^{Re: Zandra Davenport V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20318)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corporation as an additional defendant.}

^8-10-98

⁰²⁵⁰

^{Re: Deborah Renee Kula V. American Home Products Corp (98-20351)}

^{This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, and on good cause stated in the motion as grounds for granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs may name SmithKline Beecham Corporation as an additional defendants.}

8-10-98

0251

Re: Joseph Di Benedetto, et al. V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, et al. (98-20255)

It is ORDERED that plaintiff, Joseph DiBenedetto=s petition (#200124) to withdraw his complaint is GRANTED. This order does not affect the status of the complaint of Sally Forstadt.

^8-13-98

⁰²⁵²