11-29-99

1000

Re: Sheila Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)

WHEREAS, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the above-captioned case (ABROWN@) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332; and

WHEREAS, this Court has acquired personal jurisdiction over the parties in the case entitled Burch V. American Home Products Corp., Civil Action No. 97-C-204(1-11), pending in the Circuit Court of Brook County, West Virginia, (ABurch@); and

WHEREAS, Movant American Home Products Corporation has demonstrated at a hearing held this 29^{th day of November, 1999, that the continued prosecution of the Burch action interferes with this Court=s jurisdiction over the Brown action and the national diet drug settlement; and}

^{WHEREAS, this Court finds that a Temporary Restraining Order against prosecution of the Burch action is necessary to protect said jurisdiction;}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651 and the Anti-Injunction Action, 28 U.S.C. 2283, effective 11-29-99 at 5:45 p.m. E.S.T. to 12-8-99 at 4:00 p.m. EST, the parties in the Burch case, and any other class member, person, representative, or entity acting on their behalf or in concert with such parties, including but not limited to the attorneys for such parties, are (1) temporarily restrained from prosecuting, continuing to prosecute, commending, litigating, intervening in or participating in a class action in any other court based on or relating to the facts and circumstances underlying the claims and causes of action that are alleged in the Brown complaint or that are sought to be released in connection with the settlement of that case, and (2) are temporarily restrained from producing any further notice to any members of the class which has been certified pursuant to PTO No. 997.}

^{It is further ORDERED that a hearing shall take place on Thursday, December 2, 1999, in Courtroom 17B of the United States District Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, at 4:00 p.m., at which time and restrained parties may appear and present evidence and argument as to why this Court should not enter a preliminary injunction indefinitely extending the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the instant Order.}

^11-30-99

¹⁰⁰¹

^{Re: Sheila Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of a hearing to show cause why PTO No. 997 should not remain in effect, IT IS ORDERED that no such cause has been shown and that PTO No. 997 shall remain in effect.}

^{On November 30, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 17B at the United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia PA 19106, the court invited all parties of record in this MDL No. 1203 to present their positions regarding the court=s preliminary approval of the nationwide class action settlement agreement presently before this court. Based on the presentations made to this Court and the statements and objections made therein, the court finds that no cause has been shown to vacate PTO No. 997. The court will file its written Memorandum accompanying this Order on Friday, December 2, 1999.}

^12-2-99

¹⁰⁰²

^{Re: Margaret Droessler V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., et al. (99-20644)}

^{It is ORDERED that the above captioned case is hereby marked CLOSED, pursuant to an order entered by the Judicial Panel on MDL on November 16, 1999.}

^12-3-99

¹⁰⁰³

^{Re: Sheila Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{IT IS ORDERED that the Memorandum below shall supplement the court=s order in PTO No. 1001.}

^{In PTO No. 1001, this court ruled that based on a hearing held on 11-30-99, no cause was shown to vacate PTO No. 997, which preliminarily approved the nationwide settlement in this action. The court=s opinion as to preliminary approval is as follows.}

^{I. BACKGROUND}

^{At the show cause hearing held on 11-30-99, several parties of record in this MDL No. 1203 addressed the court concerning preliminary approval of the settlement. First, the PMC addressed the court on, among other things, the background of the diet drug litigation and this MDL No. 1203, the major elements of the Settlement agreement before the court and an outline of the notice program contemplated by the Settlement Agreement. (Tr. At 7-19}

^{Several representatives who negotiated the Settlement Agreement addressed the court regarding their negotiations and the discovery conducted in MDL No. 1203 and the state court actions in this diet drug litigation. According to these representatives, settlement negotiations with AHP began in April 1999. (Tr. At 21, 24, & 26-27.) A number of attorn3eys were involved from the start, including the PMC, working in liaison with representatives of other states, and another group led by Gene Locks, Esq., class counsel in New Jersey and New York, working in liaison with other states. (Tr. At 22.) Counsel for AHP indicated that although the original plaintiffs= negotiating group was larger, AHP requested that plaintiffs return with a smaller group that was representative of the larger group, in order to make negotiations more manageable. (Tr. At 27) Throughout the negotiations, the parties met on a consistent basis, and devoted substantial amounts of time and effort to achieving the Settlement Agreement. (Tr. At 22 & 24.) Throughout May, for example, negotiations were held on a daily basis. (Tr. At 22.) At the negotiations, each of the subclasses in the Brown Complaint was independently represented. (Tr. At 22-23.) Beginning in August, the parties began drafting the Memorandum of Understanding (AMOU@). These efforts involved around-the-clock negotiations. (Tr. At 23.l) Once the MOU was drafted those same parties drafted the Settlement Agreement presently before the court. (Tr. At 23.) Throughout the negotiations, input was requested from all interested parties to the Settlement, and advice and counsel was taken from several attorneys involved in the diet drug litigation, as well as from scholars and other experts. (Tr. At 23-24, 25 & 40) The parties represented to the court that negotiations were hard fought. (Tr. At 24-28 & 35.) In fact, the Settlement Agreement achieved is the first of its kind in that it has incorporated into it three opt out opportunities for class members. (Tr. At 26.)}

^{The representatives who attended the show cause hearing also addressed the court on the progress of discovery within the diet drug litigation. In MDL No. 1203, this court has issued over 1000 pretrial orders involving several discovery issues. The PMC stated that it has examined over 6 million documents and stored them in a database. (Tr. At 28.) The PMC represented that virtually every significant possible member of AHP has been deposed. (Tr. At 28-29.) Several discovery issues have been explored and either were or are being resolved, including issues involving AHP records of E-Mail communications and issues involving AHP=s privilege log. (Tr. At 29.) Almost all generic expert witnesses of the PMC have been deposed and the PMC is currently completing depositions of defense expert witnesses. (Tr. At 29.) The PMC=s work product has been throughly analyzed, put into usable form and disseminated to those participating in MDL No. 1203.}

^cont...

¹⁰⁰³

^{(Tr. At 29.) With regard to individual plaintiffs, discovery has been completed through fact sheets and depositions of experts. (Tr. At 30-31) Almost two years of extensive discovery have been conducted in this MDL No. 1203. (Tr. At 31.)}

^{Representatives at the show cause hearing also addressed the court on the progress of discovery in various state courts. (Tr. At 32.) For example, in New Jersey, over a year of discovery had been conducted, must of which overlapped with discovery in MDL No. 1203 and other state courts. (Tr. At 32-33). Also, in Texas, discovery had also proceeded far, as evidenced by the cases settled and tried in the state and the in depth evidentiary hearing held in the Texas state court medical monitoring class action. (Tr. At 34.) Further, seven states, including New Jersey and Texas, have certified classes in this diet drug litigation.}

^{Other representatives at the hearing addressed the court on the Settlement Agreement=s contemplation of federal-state coordination. Specifically, a concern was expressed that in order to maintain the adversarial nature of the settlement proceedings, increased coordination and participation by class counsel and the judges in states where classes have been certified was necessary. (Tr. At 35-39, 41, 52-55 & 60.) Still other representatives voiced their concerns over the Settlement Agreement=s effect on issues particular to their state or client=s interests. For example, concerns were expressed about extending the notice period, reimbursement rights in Illinois and subroati9on interests. (Tr. At 45-49, 50-57 and 64-71.)}

^{II. LEGAL STANDARD}

^{Prior to a fairness hearing, a district court=s first step in reviewing a class action settlement proposal is to hold a Apreliminary, pre-notification hearing to determine whether the proposed settlement is >within the range of possible approval.=@ Armstrong V. Board of Sch. Directors of the City of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305, 314 (7th Cir. 1980). In a class action settlement, the Third Circuit requires that A[before sending notice of [a] settlement to the class, the court will usually approve the settlement preliminarily. This preliminary determination establishes an initial presumption of fairness when the court finds that: (1) the negotiations occurred at arm=s length; (2) there was sufficient discovery; (3) the proponents of the settlement are experienced in similar litigation; and (4) only a small fraction of the class objected.@ In re General Motors Corp. Pick-up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig., 55 F. 3d 768, 785 (3d Cir. 1995).}

^{III. DISCUSSION}

^{The court finds that the Settlement Agreement meets the legal standard for preliminary approval. The court will address each element of the standard separately.}

^{A. Arms Length Negotiations}

^{The court is satisfied that the Settlement Agreement was negotiated at arm=s length. Statements made at the November 30, 1999 hearing confirm that six months of steady and almost constant negotiation went into the Settlement Agreement. Those statements also confirm that the negotiations were conducted by several plaintiff representatives on behalf of several states and also that each subclass in Brown was represented independently in the negotiations. Furthermore, the statements confirm that the negotiations were hard fought and were the product of substantial expenditures of time, effort and compromise. Thus, at this stage of the proceedings, the court concludes that these negotiations were conducted at arm=s length.}

^{While some concerns were raised at the hearing regarding the continued adversarial nature of the development of this settlement class and the Settlement Agreement=s omission of certain provisions, such concerns are squarely addressed by the Settlement Agreement. Specifically, the implementation plan of the Settlement Agreement provides that:}

^{[t]he Parties recommend that the Court establish an Advisory Committee of Class Counsel, which would consist of counsel actively involved in State and Federal Diet Drug Litigation. The purpose of the Advisory Committee of Class Counsel would be to advise the Trustees concerning the proper operation and implementation of the Settlement Agreement.}

^{(Settlement Agreement, VIII (A)(2), at 125.) The implementation plan of the Settlement Agreement further provides that:}

^{[a] State Court Judicial Advisory Committee will be established within 15 days of Preliminary Approval and will consist of the judges from the State Courts which, as of October 7, 1999, had issued any order certifying state-wide class actions...}

^{[t]he State Court Judicial Advisory Committee shall provide advice and counsel to the Federal District Court on all matters pertinent to the Settlement, including approval of the Settlement, which affect Class Members residing in the States of each committee member.}

Cont...

1003

(Settlement Agreement VIII (B)(3) & (4), at 125.) The court expects that through these Committees, several objections raise at the show cause hearing will be addressed and resolved in the time from now until the May 1 scheduled date for the fairness hearing, such as preservation of the adversarial nature of the nationwide settlement and individual issues affecting particular states or subrogation interests. Moreover, to the extent that changes in the Settlement Agreement are brought about through work in these Committees, supplemental notices to the class may be disseminated. As such, while the court recognizes that the objections raise by the representatives at the show cause hearing Express valid concerns, they do not affect preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement.

B. Sufficient Discovery

The court is satisfied that a substantial amount of discovery has been conducted in this litigation such that the Settlement Agreement reached by the parties is the product of a thorough understanding of the legal and factual issues which have grown to maturity in this litigation. In the past two years, discovery in this MDL N. 1203 has progressed to a point nearing completion. N addition, discovery conducted in several states has also progressed substantially, even to point of readiness for trial in some circumstances.

C. Experience of Settlement Proponents.

The Court is satisfied that the proponents of this settlement are experienced in similar litigation. This is confirmed by the credentials of the negotiating attorneys and previous Orders of this Court. See PTO No. 6 (order appointing PMC members and stating that their resumes will be filed with the court); PTO No. 865 (stating that PMC attorneys are both experienced and qualified in handling mass tort cases); PTO No. 884 (stating same).

D. Objectors

At this stage, the court is not aware of any objectors to the nationwide class before this court. While the court expects objectors to voice their concerns at the fairness hearing scheduled to begin on May 1, 2000, no evidence exists at this stage for the court to conclude anything other than that only a small fraction of the class has objected..

IV. Conclusions

For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement in Brown is appropriate and that no cause has been shown for the court to vacate its PTO No. 997.

12-3-99

1004

Re: Decision and Recommendation No. 37

It is hereby ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation NO. 37 of the Special Discovery Master (as to Dismissal of Various Defendants from Cases for Lack of Product ID) is AFFIRMED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the noted plaintiffs shall file conforming captions within thirty 30 days; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants listed on Exhibit A are DISMISSED from the cases listed on Exhibits B through L of Decision and Recommendation No. 37.

12-3-99

1005

Re: Celia Sue Kelly and Christy Schenato v. American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., Inc., and A.H Robins Company, Inc. (98-20111)

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs= Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, and any response submitted by Defendants, it is

ORDERED that the foregoing motion be, and the same hereby, is GRANTED, and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Complaint attached to the foregoing motion be and the same hereby is, deemed filed as of the date the Motion was filed; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants serve their responsive pleadings within 30 days of the date of this Order.

12-3-99

1006

Re: Sheila Brown, et al. V. American Home Products, et al. (99-20593)

It is ORDERED as follows:

1. The Temporary Restraining Order is lifted. Should the court in West Virginia notify this court that it will resume proceedings, then this court will revisit the circumstances pertaining to the Temporary Restraining Order; and

2. All document pertaining to the Temporary Restraining Order, including all motion papers and exhibits attached thereto, are hereby sealed until further order of court.

12-6-99

1007

Re: Marjorie Jones (98-20503); Bertha Junior (98-20504); Valerie McMiller (98-20505); Gwendolyn Milton (98-20506); Elizabeth Strickland (98-20507); Lynette Palmer (98-20508); Doris Gardner (98-20532) V. American Home Products, et al.

In all of the above cases defendant has filed a motion requiring compliance by the plaintiffs with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 or in the alternative to dismiss. These above motions have to do with plaintiffs= experts (Thomas N. Tiedt, Ph.D.; Charles P. Riley, M.D.; and Dennis Bowsher, M.D.) Who have not complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. The court has examined the motions and agrees that there are deficiencies in the experts= submissions in regard to these matters.

These matters are referred to Special Discovery Master Gregory P. Miller so that he may call the parties before him after which he should make the appropriate recommendation to the court whether that be the imposition of a sanction, including a recommendation that the matters be dismissed, or such other sanction as the circumstances may suggest. SO ORDERED.

12-6-99

1008

Re: Sheila Brown, Sharon Gaddie, Jose Gaddie, Vivian Naugle, Quentin Layer, Joan S. Layer, Joby Jackson-Reid, and Harvey E. Reid, (Blue Cross and Blue Shield United of Wisconsin) V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)

Local Rule 7.4 (b)(2) Stipulation of Extension of Time

Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.4(b)(2), all parties hereby stipulate to extend for a period of thirty (30) days the time to answer, plead, move, or otherwise respond to Blue Cross and Blue Shield United of Wisconsin=s Motion to Intervene in Settlement Class Action, which was filed on November 19, 1999.

No such prior extension has been granted.

12-6-99

1009

Re: Sally Ann Grant and Reverend Paul Grant V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20280)

Upon consideration of the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and any response. It is hereby ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED and the Second Amended Complaint is to be filed by the Clerk of Court.

12-6-99

1010

Re: Sheila Brown, Sharon Gaddie, Vivian Naugle, Quintin Layer and Joby Jackson-Reid V. American Home Products (99-20593)

Order Authorizing Execution of Interim Escrow Agreement

Upon consideration of the Joint Application of the parties in the above matter it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Interim Escrow Agreement with PNC Bank, National Association, in the form attached to this Order as Exhibit AA@, is approved and the Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Interim Escrow Agreement and the interim escrow established thereby.

Attached: Interim Escrow Agreement

12-6-99

1011

Re: Deborah Kostelnik

Upon consideration of plaintiff Deborah Kostelnik=s Motion to Amend Complaint And to Extend Time for Service and any responses thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that such motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff Deborah Kostelnik shall file her Amended Complaint within ten (10) days, and may have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to effectuate service.

12-7-99

¹⁰¹²

^{Re: Carol and Armond Aserinsky, h/w V. A.H. Robins, Inc. and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, (div. of AHPC) (98-20000)}

^{Upon consideration of plaintiffs= motion and the response of the PMC the court will deny the plaintiffs= motion.}

^{The question of an equitable contribution by those who benefit from the services of others is a well established doctrine especially applicable to aggregated civil actions like those assembled in a transferee court under 28 U.S.C. 1407. The court=s pretrial orders 467 and 517 were based upon that doctrine.}

^{The plaintiffs= motion is DENIED. SO ORDERED.}

^12-7-99

¹⁰¹³

^{Re: Carol Aserinsky, et al. V. A.H. Robins, Inc., et al. (98-20000)}

^{IT IS ORDERED that the above captioned case is hereby transferred to Judge Marvin Katz. All discovery has been completed with the exception of a deposition of Dr. Burger, plaintiff=s treating cardiologist, which is scheduled for December 15, 1999.}

^12-7-99

¹⁰¹⁴

^{Re: Designation of Jurists in which their states were admitted to the Union as the State Court Judicial Advisory Committee:}

^{In accordance with Section VIII. B. 3. Of the Settlement Agreement the following jurists are designated, in the order of which their respective states were admitted to the Union, as the State Court Judicial Advisory Committee in regard to the MDL - 1203 Diet Drug Litigation Proposed Settlement:}

^{The Honorable Stephen Levin - Pennsylvania (December 12, 1787)}

^{The Honorable Marina Corodemus - New Jersey (December 18, 1787)}

^{The Honorable Helen E. Freedman - New York (1788)}

^{The Honorable Fred Edwards - Texas (1845)}

^{The Honorable Fred Risovich, II - West Virginia (1863)}

^{The Honorable Richard J. Schroeder - Washington (1889)}

^{This committee shall function in accordance with the direction provided in Section VIII of the Settlement Agreement and as specifically provided for in Section VI.A.2.}

^{So Ordered}

^12-7-99

¹⁰¹⁵

^{Re: Cindy Brown V. A.H. Robins Company, et al. (98-20530)}

^{The purpose of this Order is to suggest to the Judicial Panel on MDL (JPML) that the case of Cindy Brown V. A.H. Robbins, et al. be remanded to the United States District Court of Montana, from which it was transferred to this district under 28 U.S.C. 1407. All pre-trial proceedings have been completed as respect pleadings, discovery and motions that the transferee court determined could and should be considered in the transferee court. The motions that remain to be considered, when filed in the transferor court, are those that are both case and fact specific as opposed to motions that would effect the issues that apply to either substantial numbers of cases or all cases in MDL No. 1203.}

^{The Court=s reference in this Order to discovery being Acompleted@ should be understood to mean that discovery is concluded except for the deposition of Curt Brown, which will be taken in the remand court, pursuant to the agreement of the parties as set forth in the attached chart, which is marked as Exhibit AA@, and supplementation of discovery responses as contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (e). It is the opinion of the transferee court that these remaining discovery tasks can be completed within thirty (30) to sixty (60) days from the date the civil action is docketed in the transferor court following remand. Whether any additional discovery will be permitted will, of course, be left for determination by the transferor court.}

^{Accordingly, this court suggests that the JPML remand the above captioned case, to the United States District Court for the District of Montana, under Civil Action No.: 98-00054.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:}

^{1. Any case specific motions related to this case, in this transferee court, are hereby DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and may be reasserted in the appropriate transferor district court; and}

^{2. Motion practice in regard to this case is hereby STAYED, in this transferee court.}

^{SO ORDERED.}

^12-10-99

¹⁰¹⁶

^{Re: Rose T. Pearson and Steven D. Pearson V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., et al. (98-20403)}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned counsel that the time within which defendants Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co. and American Home Products Corp. may answer, move against or otherwise respond to the Cross-Claims of Walgreen Eastern Co. in the above-captioned matter is extended to and including December 15, 1999.}

^12-10-99

¹⁰¹⁷

^{Re: Tasha Blanchard, Debra Brown, Vanessa Johnson, Welton Johnson, Corey Moore, Sheila Morris, Wanda Roberson and Karen Snyder v. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20779)}

^{Considering the foregoing Motion, let defendant, Gate Pharm., a Division of Teva Pharm., U.S.A., Inc., be and is hereby granted an extension of time to plead in this matter of twenty (20) days or until December 20, 1999.}

^12-10-99

¹⁰¹⁸

^{Re: Nineteenth Application (19th) Application by Special Discovery Master for compensation}

^{Upon consideration of the Nineteenth Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (10-1-99 through 10-31-99), 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 $34, 367.31 for the period from 10-1-99 through 10-31-99, in accordance with the procedure established by the Court.}

^12-16-99

¹⁰¹⁹

^{Re: Melvin Todd, Justin Todd, Crystel Todd & Linda Todd V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20553)}

^{On this day came on to be heard the Plaintiffs= Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, and the Court, after hearing the argument and evidence thereon is of the opinion that said Motion should be GRANTED.}

^{It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that Plaintiffs= Motion for Leave to file Amended Complaint be granted and Plaintiffs= Second Amended Complaint is deemed filed.}

^12-16-99

¹⁰²⁰

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation NO. 38}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation No. 38 of the Special Discovery Master (as to the Dispute between Plaintiff Christine Golson and Defendant American Home Products Corp.) is AFFIRMED.}

^12-21-99

¹⁰²¹

^{Re: Joanne Dignan V. Gate Pharm., Inc., et al. (98-20279)}

^{It is ORDERED that American Home Products Corporation=s First Motion in Limine and Motion for Summary Judgment are DENIED AS MOOT.}

^12-28-99

¹⁰²²

^{Re: Lloyd S. List (99-20331) & Barbara Naumann (99-20345) V. American Home Products., et al.}

^{Upon consideration of defendants American Home Products Corporation=s Motions to Dismiss and for Extension of Time to Answer Remaining Counts in Lloyd s. List, Civ. No. 99-20331 and Barbara Naumann, Civ. No. 99-20345 and the responses thereto, IT IS ORDERED that said motions are GRANTED as follows:}

^{1. Plaintiff Lloyd S. List=s (Civ. No. 99-20331) and plaintiff Barbara Naumann=s (Civ. No. 99-20345) claims for breach of implied and express warranty are hereby DISMISSED.}

^{2. Plaintiff Lloyd S. List=s (Civ. No. 99-20331) and plaintiff Barbara Naumann=s (Civ. No. 99-20345) claims for negligence per se are hereby DISMISSED; and}

^{3. Defendants American Home Products Corporation shall have 20 days from the date of this Order within in which to respond to the remaining allegations in the Complaints in the above captioned civil actions.}

^12-28-99

¹⁰²³

^{Re: Hearing scheduled for January 6, 2000}

^{IT IS ORDERED that the show cause hearings scheduled for January 6, 2000 at 2 p.m. pursuant to PTO No. 995 and 996 are rescheduled to take place on February 10, 2000 at 2 p.m. SO ORDERED.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰²⁴

^{Re: Wade Moss, et aux V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (998-20302)}

^{Notice of Dismissal of Third-Party Complaint of Defendant Walgreen Eastern Co., against Third-party defendant Rosemont Pharmaceutical Co.}

^{Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(3), defendant Walgreen Eastern Co., hereby dismisses its Third-Party Complaint against Third-Party Defendant Rosemont Pharm. Corp., without prejudice. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a)(3), a responsive pleading has not been served by Third-Party Defendant Rosemont Pharm. Corp.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰²⁵

^{Re: Brenda Netto & Malcolm Alexander V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., et al. (98-20124)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Fed. Rule of Civ. Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Plaintiff Brenda Netto in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, that should Plaintiff decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, she shall file said case in federal court.}

^{The parties hereby certify that Plaintiff Brenda Netto has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing to defendants a fact sheet, medical authorizations, and a list of medical providers.}

^Cont...

¹⁰²⁵

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., American Home Products Corp.; Interneuron Pharmaceutical, Inc.; and A.H. Robins Company, Inc., against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰²⁶

^{Re: Elizabeth Siebe V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20649)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint of the Plaintiff, Elizabeth Siebe, in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named Defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{The above-listed Plaintiff hereby certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing to Defendants a fact sheet, medical authorization and list of medical providers.}

^{Further, the above listed Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drugs litigation, Plaintiff shall file such case in federal court.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp..; A.H. Robins Company, Inc.; and Medeva Pharm., Inc., f/k/a Fisons Corp, against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰²⁷

^{Re: Sylvia Debruler and Victoria Cotton V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20074)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Fed. Rule of Civ. Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Plaintiff in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, that should Plaintiff decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, she shall file said case in federal court. Plaintiffs have complied with the requirements of PTO No. 22 by completing a Plaintiff=s Fact Sheet and providing the List of Medical Providers and executed Medical Authorization forms.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp..; Wyeth-Ayerst Labs.; Interneuron Pharm., Inc. Quick Trim Weight Loss Clinic and Dr. George McCaskey against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰²⁸

^{Re: Emily M. Bogin V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-5385)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Fed. Rule of Civ. Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Plaintiff in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being American Home Products Co., A.H. Robins Co., Inc.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, a division of American Home Products Corp., against whom te claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰²⁹

^{Re: Harold Weisman V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20511)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Fed. Rule of Civ. Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Plaintiff in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to American Home Products Corp.; Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Division of American Home products Corp., Wyeth Labs, Inc. and Interneuron Pharm., Inc. with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the plaintiff agrees that should he decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to the diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that he has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed fact sheet, list of medical providers and properly executed authorization forms.}

^cont...

¹⁰²⁹

^{This stipulation is filed on behalf of plaintiff and each of the defendants who have been named in this case and who have appeared in this matter, that being American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Division of American Home products Corp., Wyeth Labs, Inc. and Interneuron Pharm., Inc. against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this stipulation.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰³⁰

^{Re: Carol D. Lore and Pasquale Lore V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20663) (98-20769)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that action Civ. 98-20633 (EDPA) be dismissed without prejudice as a duplicate filing as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees. Counsel are hereby directed to file all further pleadings in action Civ. 98-20769 (EDPA).}

^{It is hereby further STIPULATED, ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the firm of Rheingold, Valet, Rheingold & Shkolnik, P.C., be substituted as counsel to represent the plaintiffs in the surviving action civ. 98-20769.}

^{This stipulation is filed on behalf of all parties who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Co., Inc. and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, division of American Home Products Corp.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰³¹

^{Re: Noreen Chappita and Lisa Colby V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20070)}

^{Considering the Joining Stipulation of Dismissal filed by the parties herein;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal be GRANTED, and JUDGMENT is hereby rendered dismissing the plaintiffs= claims against the parties listed in the Joint Stipulations, with prejudice.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (division of American Home Products Corp. Wyeth Labs-Inc., EON Labs Manufacturing, Inc. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Camall Co., against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in there entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰³²

^{Re: Carolyn A. Pirtle and Irwin R. Pirtle V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, et al. (98-20258)}

^{Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is hereby stipulated between all parties hereto, by and through their undersigned attorneys, that the Third Party Complaint of AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORP. and Wyeth Ayerst Labs a division of American Home Products Corp (AAHP@) is dismissed without prejudice.}

^{All parties to the entire action that have entered an appearance and those that remain in the action have executed this dismissal through the undersigned counsel of record. This stipulation dismisses the Third-Party Complaint in its entirety. This stipulation does not affect the status of any other party and does not affect the First-Party Action.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰³³

^{Re: Linda Horne V. American Home Prod. Corp., et al. (98-20497)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed with prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. (div. of American Home Products Corp.,) A.H. Robins Company, Inc., SmithKline Beecham Crop., Abana Pharm., Inc., Camall Company, Inc., Zenith Goldline Pharm., Inc., Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc. and R.C. Holtzclaw, M.D., against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰³⁴

^{Re: Kimberly Seipp V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20616)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint of the Plaintiff, Kimberly Seipp, in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed with prejudice as to all named Defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. (div. of American Home Products Corp.,) A.H. Robins Company, Inc., SmithKline Beecham Crop., Medeva Pharm., Inc, Fisons Corp., Bariatrics, Inc. of Kentucky, P.S.C. and Rex Duff, M.D., against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰³⁵

^{Re: Tema Riley V. A.H. Robins Co., American Home Products Corp., (98-20087)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Co. and American Home Products Corp., against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰³⁶

^{Re: Joseph DiBenedetto and Sally Forstadt V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., (Div. of American Home Products Corp) (98-20255)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint of the Plaintiff, in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named Defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court}

^{Defendants certify that plaintiff has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a fact sheet, medical authorizations and list of medical providers to defendants.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who are named as defendants or have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, Division of American Home Products Corp., incorrectly sued herein as Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. (Div. of American Home Products Corp.), Interneuron Pharm., Inc., Gate Pharm., (div of Teva Pharm, USA, Inc., ) SmithKline Beecham Corp., Abana Pharm. Inc., Richwood Pharm. Co., Inc., Ion Labs., Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc. A.H. Robins Co., Inc. against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰³⁷

^{Re: Landa Daniels V. Eon Labs., Inc., et al. (98-20633)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all}

^cont...

¹⁰³⁷

^{defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (Div. of American Home products Corp) Wyeth Laboratories - Inc., EON Labs Manufacturing, Inc. Zenith Goldline Pharm., Inc., and Camall Company, against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰³⁸

^{Re: Janet Johnson V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20400)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under Pretrial Order 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing completed Fact Sheet, list of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who are named as defendants or have appeared in the above captioned matter, that being A.H. Robins Co., American Home Products Corp and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, and against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰³⁹

^{Re: Marilyn Axelrod V. A.H. Robins Company, et al. (98-20588)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under Pretrial Order 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing completed Fact Sheet, list of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who are named as defendants or have appeared in the above captioned matter, that being A.H. Robins Co., American Home Products Corp, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company and Gate Pharmaceuticals, and against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰⁴⁰

^{Re: Dione M. Camblin V. Gate Pharm., (div. of Teva Pharm., USA, Inc., et al.) (98-20397)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under Pretrial Order 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing completed Fact Sheet, list of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who are named as defendants or have appeared in the above captioned matter, that being A.H. Robins Co., American Home Products Corp and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, Eon Labs Manufacturers, Inc. and Allscrips Pharm., Inc. and against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰⁴¹

^{Re: Cynthia A. Foy; Dorothy Ferrand; Rae Ann Dimaggio; Frank Palmisano V. American Home Product, et al. (98-20078)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court. Plaintiffs have complied with the requirements of PTO #22 by completing a Plaintiffs= Fact Sheet and providing the List of Medical Providers and executed Medical Authorization forms.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who are named as defendants or have appeared in the above captioned matter, that being American Home Products Corp and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Interneuron Pharm., Alpha Clinic and Dr. David Meyers against whom claims in this complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰⁴²

^{Re: Brenda K. Ayers, Dorothy Lakes, Patriocia Rawert, Dixie Thompson and Robert McPeek V. American Home Products, et al. (98-20661)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{The above-listed Plaintiff hereby certifies that he has complied with PTO 22 by producing to defendants a fact sheet, medical authorization and list of medical providers.}

^{Further, the above-listed Plaintiff agrees that should he decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiff shall file such case in federal court.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiff and all remaining Defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corporation, A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Interneuron Pharm., Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc., Camall Company, Inc., Goldline Laboratories, Inc., Eon Laboratory Manufacturers, Inc. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc. and Fisons Corporation, against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰⁴³

^{Re: Traci James V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., et al. (98-20373)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the above-listed Plaintiff agrees that should he decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiff shall file such case in federal court. Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of PTO #22 by completing a Plaintiffs= Fact Sheet and the List of Health Providers and executed Medical Authorization forms.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiff and all remaining Defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being, A.H. Robins Co., Inc., and Gate Pharm., (a div. Of Teva Pharm., USA, Inc., against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed of Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., , against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰⁴⁴

^{Re: Donna Jarrell V. Eon Labs, Inc. (98-20490)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d), (e) and 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the complaint in the above captioned matter, including the claims for Alimited fund@ class action relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(B), are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to Eon Labs, Inc., the only named defendant in the case, with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the complaint. Plaintiff=s counsel certifies to the Court, pursuant to PTO No. 266 relating to the dismissals of a putative class action case, that based on the present state of the record, the allegation that this case proceed as a Alimited fund@ class c cannot succeed pursuant to the requirements set forth in Ortiz V. Fireboard Corp., 119 S. Ct. 2295 (1999), and as discussed in this Court=s}

^cont...

¹⁰⁴⁴

^{Pretrial Order No. 884 relating to the proposed limited fund class action in the case of Wish V. Interneuron Pharm., Inc., Civil Action NO. 98-20594. Plaintiff=s counsel certifies that at present it does not appear that the total of the aggregated liquidated claims against defendant Eon Labs, Inc. and the funds available for satisfying them, demonstrate the inadequacy of the fund to pay all the claims. Plaintiff=s counsel makes this certification without prejudice to the right to renew the request for a limited fund class action in the event new facts and/or information develops that would support class certification.}

^{Further, the plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to the diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed fact sheet, list of medical providers and properly executed authorization forms.}

^{This stipulation is filed on behalf of plaintiff and the only defendant who has been named in this case and who has appeared in this matter, that being Eon Labs., Inc., against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this stipulation.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰⁴⁵

^{Re: Barbara Craig V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20329)}

^{Order of Dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff=s action against Camall Company. Having Considered Plaintiff=s Stipulation of Dismissal with prejudice of here action against Camall Company.}

^{It is Ordered that Plaintiff=s action against Camall Company is hereby dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii).}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰⁴⁶

^{Re: Linda Colvin & Clarence Colvin V. A.H. Robins, et al. & SmithKline Beecham Corp.,et al. (98-20441)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Third-Party Complaint of the Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs, American Home Products Corp. and Wyeth Labs., Inc., in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed in their entirety without prejudice as to Third-Party Defendant SmithKline Beecham Corp., only, with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{This Stipulation of Dismissal is based on a current lack of evidence to indicate that the plaintiff ingested SmithKline Beecham Corp., phentermine product and is filed on behalf of the above-named Defendants / Third-Party Plaintiffs and all other parties in the above-captioned matter, those being Linda and Clarence Colvin, SmithKline Beecham Corporation, Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., and United Research Laboratories, Inc. Nothing herein should be construed as in any manner affecting the remaining third-party claims of Defendants/third-Party Plaintiffs as against the remaining Third-Party Defendants, Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc. and United Research Labs., Inc. and does not affect the First Party action.}

^1-3-2000

¹⁰⁴⁷

^{Re: Deborah Ervin V. American Home Products, Corp., et al. (98-20163)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Deborah Ervin as alleged in the Complaint Against all named Defendants in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to these defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Plaintiff has complied with PTO NO. 22 by producing a Fact Sheet, Medical Authorization and a list of Medical Providers to Defendants.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{This stipulation is filed on behalf of the following Defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp., A.H. Robins Company Inc., Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. and Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^1-4-2000

¹⁰⁴⁸

^{Re: Sheila Brown, Sharon Gaddie, Vivian Naugle, Quintin Layer, Joby Jackson-Reid V. American Home Products Corp., (99-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of the Joint Motion for an Order authorizing Reimbursement of Certain Notice Related Expenses, it is hereby}

^{ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Class Counsel and Counsel for American Home Products Corp. are authorized and directed to cause the Interim Escrow Agent to pay the following bills for services performed in providing notice to the class pursuant to PTO No. 997:}

^{(A) Invoice of Tierney & Partners dated December 16, 1999 in the amount of $1,909,422.69; and}

^{(B) Invoice of Smith-Edwards-Dunlap Co. dated December 16, 1999 in the amount of $1,098,600.00}

^1-6-2000

¹⁰⁴⁹

^{Re: Daubert Hearing: to exclude the testimony of the generic experts Paul J. Wellman, Ph.D. and Timothy Maher, Ph.D.}

^{The Court adopts the following schedule with regard to the request by the Phentermine Defendants for a Daubert hearing to exclude the testimony of the generic experts, Paul J. Wellman, Ph.D. and Timothy Maher, Ph.D., who have been identified in certain cases as generic experts for plaintiffs against the Phentermine Defendants.}

^{1. The Phentermine Defendants shall file their joint motion in limine, with brief and supporting declarations, by January 10, 2000.}

^{2. Plaintiffs who have adopted Drs. Wellman and/or Maher as experts witnesses shall file their joint response to the Phentermine Defendants motion and brief on or before February 18, 2000.}

^{3. The Phentermine Defendants may file a joint reply brief on or before March 3, 2000.}

^{4. The parties will confer with the Special Master to discuss the nature and extent of the hearing, if any, which the Court may hold.}

^{5. Any such Daubert hearing held by the court shall be set for March 7, 2000 at 10a.m. in the United States District Court, United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA , Courtroom 17B, 17th Floor}

^{6. The Phentermine Defendants and plaintiffs may submit declarations of experts who will testify in support of their respective Daubert papers. For any expert who submits a declaration, the party offering that expert=s declaration shall, ten days prior to the deposition of that expert, provide to the other parties the documents responsive to the requests contained in the letter of Michael L. Williams, Esquire, dated November 11, 1999 (the AWilliams Letter,@ pertinent portions of which are attached as Exhibit AA@), and shall make that expert available for deposition no later than thirty (30) days after service of the expert=s Daubert declaration. The parties will make a good faith effort to complete an expert=s deposition within thirty (30) days after service of the expert=s Daubert declaration, subject to trial commitments and the expert=s schedule}

^{7. All proceedings with regard to depositions of or documentary discovery from the Phentermine Defendants= generic experts not otherwise referred to herein are deferred with the Court rules on the Phentermine Defendants= Daubert motions.}

^{8. The terms of the instant PTO shall also apply to Defendant American Home Products Corp (AAHP@). See Exhibit AB@ (AHP=s December 17, 1999 , letter). AHP shall have the opportunity to file a separate motion and participate in all Daubert proceedings with respect to Drs. Wellman and Maher.}

^{Exhibit A & letter attached}

^1-10-2000

¹⁰⁵⁰

^{Re: Sheila Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of the Second Joint Motion for an Order Supplementing Pretrial Order No. 997 (the ASecond Joint Motion@), it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that:}

^{1. The Pink Form to be disseminated in connection with the Nationwide Class Action Settlement with American Home Products Corp. (AThe Settlement@) shall be in the form attached as Exhibit A to the Second Joint Motion rather than the form attached as Exhibit 9 to the Nationwide Class Action Settlement with American Home Products Corp (the ASettlement Agreement@);}

^{2. The Class Members= Guide to >Settlement Benefits to be disseminated in connection with the Settlement shall be in the form of the notice attached as Exhibit B to the Second Joint Motion rather than the form of notice attached as Exhibit 12 to the Settlement Agreement;}

^cont...

¹⁰⁵⁰

^{3. The Official Court Notice to be disseminated in connection with the Settlement shall be in the form of the notice attached as Exhibit C to the Second Joint Motion rather than the form of notice attached as Exhibit 13 to the Settlement Agreement;}

^{4. The Publication Notice to be disseminated in connection with the Settlement shall be in the form of the notice attached as Exhibit D to the Second Joint Motion rather than the form of notice attached as Exhibit 15 to the Settlement Agreement;}

^{5. The White Form to be disseminated in connection with the Settlement shall be in the form attached as Exhibit E to the Second Joint Motion rather than the form attached as Exhibit 19 to the Settlement Agreement;}

^{6. The Blue Form to be disseminated in connection with the Settlement shall be in the form attached as Exhibit F to the Second Joint Motion rather than the form attached as Exhibit 21 to the Settlement Agreement;}

^{7. The Brown Form to be disseminated in connection with the Settlement shall be in the form attached as Exhibit G to the Second Joint Motion rather than the form attached s Exhibit 23 to the Settlement Agreement;}

^{8. The summary notice to be disseminated in trade publications in connection with the Settlement shall be in the form of the notice attached as Exhibit H to the Second Joint Motion rather than the form of notice approved by the Court in PTO No. 998 and attached thereto as Exhibit A..}

^{See Attached - 115 pages.}

^1-10-2000

¹⁰⁵¹

^{Re: Jennifer Carter V. American Home Products Corp., & Interneuron Pharm., (99-20083)}

^{Upon consideration of the unopposed motion of Charles R. Mindlin and Fenstersheib & Fox to withdraw as counsel for Jennifer Carter (docket # 201309), IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions.:}

^{See PTO for conditions}

^1-10-2000

¹⁰⁵²

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation No. 39}

^{It is hereby ORDERED the Amended Decision and Recommendation No. 39 of Special Discovery Master (as to Non-Compliant Plaintiffs) is AFFIRMED.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED the Plaintiffs listed on Exhibit A appear before this Court to show cause why their cases should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution on February 10, 2000 at 2:00 p.m..}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED the Plaintiffs listed on Exhibit B hereto appear before this Court to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for failure to fully comply with the fact sheet requirements of PTO No. 22.}

^1-10-2000

¹⁰⁵³

^{Re: William Joseph Mitchell, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20498)}

^{Upon consideration of the motion of Russ M. Herman, Maury A. Herman and Stephen J. Herman to withdraw as counsel for William J. and Mavis D. Mitchell (docket #201314), IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions:}

^{See PTO for conditions.}

^1-10-2000

¹⁰⁵⁴

^{Re: Hearing held on January 6, 2000}

^{At a hearing held on January 6, 2000, the court ruled as follows:}

^{1. Plaintiff=s motion (#201288) to set aside Special Master Decision and Recommendation #38 and to approve plaintiff=s petition to substitute expert in Golson, CA 98-20005 is WITHDRAWN.}

^{2. AHP=s oral motion to file a more specific complaint in Ball, CA 98-20623 is GRANTED. Plaintiff has 15 days to file a more specific complaint, setting forth fact specific allegations as to defendant Innovative Health.}

^{3. AHP=s motion (#201107) to file second amended answer in Ellis, CA 98-20331 is GRANTED.}

^{4. Plaintiff=s motion (#201104) to amend the complaint in Ellis, CA 98-20331, is GRANTED.}

^{5. Plaintiff=s motion to amend (#200606) Williams, CA 98-20593 is WITHDRAWN as to defendant Zenith Goldline. In other respects the motion is GRANTED. EON shall have an additional 45 days of discovery.}

^{6. Plaintiff=s motion (#200986) for voluntary dismissal in Snipes, CA 98-20767 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE}

^cont...

¹⁰⁵⁴

^{7. The hearing on delinquent fact sheets will be held on February 10, 2000}

^{8. The next status conference will be held on February 10. 2000; 10:00 a.m.; Courtroom 17-B}

^1-10-2000

¹⁰⁵⁵

^{Re: Hearing on the following motions is scheduled for Friday, January 14, 2000}

^{IT IS ORDERED that a hearing on the following motions is scheduled for Friday, January 14, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. in the US DC, 17-B.}

^{1. Plaintiffs= Motion to hold a hearing to determine Appropriate Steps in relation to the side agreement letter (document #201302) in Fuller, Civil Action No. 98-20363;}

^{2. Plaintiffs= Motion for an Order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be entered against Paul D. Rheingold, Esq. and his law firm, why an Order to protect the Class from Un-authorized and Improper Notice should not be entered, and why other relief should not be Granted to protect the class (Document #201323) in Brown, Civil Action No. 99-20593; and}

^{3. Plaintiffs= Motions for Reconsideration of PTO Nos. 997 and 1001 (Document #201301) and for Reconsideration of PTO No. 1003 (document #201316) in Brown, C.A. No. 99-20593.}

^{So Ordered.}

^1-11-2000

¹⁰⁵⁶

^{Re: Melody Davoust & Leslie Massaro V. Wyeth Ayerst Labs Co., (Div. of AHP, Corp), et al. (98-20558)}

^{Bonnie Hughes V. American Home Products Corp.,et al. (98-20501)}

^{Thomas Howard V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20219)}

^{Jimmie Fenton and Steven Fenton V. American Home Products Corp.,et al. (98-20454)}

^{Upon consideration of plaintiffs= motion to amend in Davoust, Civil Action No. 98-20558, defendant Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc.=s motion for reconsideration of PTO No. 869 in Hughes, Civil Action No. 98-20501, defendant Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc.=s motion for reconsideration of PTO No. 873, or in the alternative, motion to dismiss in Howard, Civil Action No. 98-20219 and defendants Fisons Corporation=s, Medea Pharm., Inc.=s and SmithKline Beecham=s motion for reconsideration of PTO NO. 868 in Fenton, Civil Action No. 98-20454 and the responses thereto, IT IS ORDERED that:}

^{1. Plaintiff=s motion to amend in Davoust, Civil Action No. 98-20558 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED in as much as it seeks to delete the Class Action Injunctive and Equitable Relief Claims and DENIED in as much as it seeks to add defendant Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc.;}

^{2. Defendant Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc.=s motion for reconsideration of PTO No. 869 in Hughes, C.A. No. 98-20501 is GRANTED. PTO No. 869 is hereby VACATED. Upon reconsideration, plaintiff=s Motion for leave to amend complaint adding defendant Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., is DENIED;}

^{3. Defendant Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc.=s motion for reconsideration of PTO No. 873, or in the alternative, motion to dismiss in Howard, C.A. No. 98-20219 is GRANTED. The claims against defendant Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to plaintiff=s failure to timely serve defendant Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc. pursuant to PTO No. 19; and}

^{4. Defendants Fisons Corp.,=s , Medeva Pharm., Inc.=s and SmithKline Beecham=s motion for reconsideration of PTO No. 868 in Fenton, Civil Action No. 98-20454 is GRANTED. Upon reconsideration, plaintiffs= Motion to File and Amended Complaint adding defendants Fisons Corporation, Medeva Pharm., Inc. and SmithKline Beecham is DENIED.}

^1-12-2000

¹⁰⁵⁷

^{Re: Sheila Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:}

^{1. Christopher Placitella and Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer are hereby permitted to withdraw as Class Counsel in this litigation.}

^1-12-2000

¹⁰⁵⁸

^{Re: Sheila Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of Plaintiffs= Emergency Motion for Protective Order and Supplemental Emergency Motion for Protective Order and Su9pplemental Emergency Motion for Protective Order, IT IS ORDER that said motions are GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the prohibitions on discovery imposed by PTO No. 22 shall remain in effect until further order of the court.}

^{The discovery requests filed on the Brown class representatives and class counsel that are the subject of the instant motions were initiated by ANew York Intervenors,@ ANew York Plaintiffs@ and ATexas Plaintiffs.@}

^cont...

¹⁰⁵⁸

^{Although the discovery is signed by various counsel from New York and Texas, none of the counsel identify the plaintiffs they purport to represent. Consequently, the court is unable to determine whether these parties have standing to file papers and seek discovery in this action. Prior to initiating any discovery, these parties must identify themselves and establish their right to intervene for the challenged discovery, either by formally objecting to the settlement or by seeking intervention pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. Because these parties have not donee so, the court grants the Brown Plaintiffs= motion for a protective order.}

^1-14-2000

¹⁰⁵⁹

^{Re: Sheila Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of American Home Products Corporation=s Emergency Motion for Protection Order, IT IS ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the prohibitions on discovery imposed by Pretrial Order No. 22 shall remain in effect until further order of the court.}

^{The discovery requests filed on American Home Proudcts Corporation that are the subject of the instant motion was initiated by ANew York Intervenors,@ ANew York Plaintiffs@ and ATexas Plaintiffs.@ Although the discovery is signed by various counsel from New York and Texas, none of the counsel identify the plaintiffs they purport to represent. Consequently, the court is unable to determine whether these parties have standing to file papers and seek discovery in this action. Prior to initiating any discovery, these parties must identify themselves and establish their right to intervene for the challenged discovery, either by formally objecting to the settlement or by seeking intervention pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. Because these parties have not done so, the court grants the Brown motion for a protective order.}

^1-14-2000

¹⁰⁶⁰

^{Re: Sheila Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of Plaintiffs= Motion for an Order to Show Cause why a Preliminary Injunction should not be entered against Paul D. Rheingold, Esq. and his law firm, Why an Order to Protect the Class from Unauthorized and Improper Notice should Not be Entered, and Why Other Relief Should not be Granted to Protect the Class (Document # 201323) in Brown, Civil Action No. 99-20596, IT IS ORDERED that said motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.}

^{This PTO clarifies the record made before the court at a hearing held at 10 a.m. on Friday, January 14, 2000. Plaintiffs= sought an injunction against an advertisement published by Paul D. Rheingold, Esq. and his firm, Rheingold, Valet, Rheingold & Shkolnik, P.C.. Based on the arguments and submission at the hearing, the court denied the motion. However, the court notes that it denied said motion in the shadow of a finding that the court is disturbed by the advertisement=s timing and linkage to the court-approved notices that were disseminated pursuant to the federal settlement preliminary approved in the Brown action. Nevertheless, at this juncture, the court finds that the relief requested by Plaintiffs shall not be provided at this time. The court further notes that at the hearing held on January 14, 2000, some mention was made of requiring any future advertisements sought to be published by Rheingold or his firm to be first reported to the court. Upon reflection, the court clarifies that no such order is made at this time.}

^1-14-2000

¹⁰⁶¹

^{Re: Sheila Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of Plaintiffs= Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order to be entered against Paul Napoli, Esquire, Marc Bern, Esq., individually and as principals in the law firm of Napoli, Kaiser & Bern, LLP and against all other principals and employees of Napoli, Kaiser & Bern, LLP and the Law firm of Napoli, Kaiser & Bern, LLP (collectively ANapoli@)_, and for the reasons stated at a hearing held on January 14, 2000 at 3 p.m., IT IS ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.}

^{It is further ordered that:}

^{1. Napoli is temporarily restrained from the use of any form of the phrase AORANGE OPT-OUT FORM - protect your rights to obtain a money award - mail in an Orange Opt-out pursuant to the Court=s Order by March 30, 1999 or lose your rights= or any substantially similar phrase on the Internet or otherwise until a hearing;}

^{2. The court finds that unless this restraint is imposed, Plaintiffs will be irreparable injured;}

^{3. A hearing to determine whether a preliminary injunction should be issued will be held on Thursday, January 20, 2000, in the Unite States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA}

^{4. Plaintiff shall post security of $1,000.00; and}

^{5. The within Order and security is hereby deemed filed with the court at 4:50 p.m. on Friday, 1-14-2000}

^1-19-2000

¹⁰⁶²

^{Re: Sheila Brown, Sharon Gaddie, Vivian Naugle, Quintin Layer, and Joby Jackson-Reid V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that upon consideration of the Motion of Class Counsel (Messers. Levin, Fishbein, Cummings, Chesley, Locks and Weiss) Charles R. Parker, Esquire, is hereby designated class counsel as a replacement for prior class counsel Christopher Placietlla, Esquire.}

^1-19-2000

¹⁰⁶³

^{Re: Terri Lynn Finsley v. American Home Products Corporation (98-20376)}

^{Came Monty L. Preiser, counsel for the plaintiff, and moved to withdraw for medical reasons. It is hereby ORDERED that Monty L. Preiser is permitted to withdraw from this case.}

^1-19-2000

¹⁰⁶⁴

^{Re: Hearing held on January 14, 2000}

^{At a hearing held on January 14, 2000, the court ruled as follows:}

^{1. Plaintiffs= Motion to hold a hearing to determine appropriate steps in Relation to the side Agreement Letter (#201302) in Fuller, Civil Action No. 98-20363 is DENIED.}

^{2. Plaintiffs= Motions for Reconsideration of Pretrial Orders Nos. 997 and 1001 (#201316) in Brown, Civil Action No. 99-20593 are DENIED.}

^{3. Plaintiffs= oral motion to convert the motion regarding Paul Napoli and the law firm of Napoli, Kaiser & Bern, LLP to a motion for Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED. The hearing will be held on 1-14-00 at 3:00 p.m.}

^{4. AHP=s motion #201357) for protective order is GRANTED.}

^1-21-2000

¹⁰⁶⁵

^{Re: Reasons set forth at a hearing held on January 20, 2000}

^{For the reasons set forth at a hearing held on January 20, 2000, IT IS ORDERED that:}

^{1. In Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., Civil Action No. 99-20593, the parties stipulate that the Temporary Restraining Order in place pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 1061 shall remain in effect.}

^{2. In Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., Civil Action No. 99-20593, the bond required pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 1061 shall be reduced to $100.00.}

^{3. Plaintiffs in Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., Civil Action No. 99-20593, shall join in American Home Products Corp.=s motion for a preliminary injunction (Document #201373) and the parties shall be allowed to factually supplement their briefing as needed. The law firm of Napoli, Kaiser & Bern, LLP shall file its response to the joint motion by Wednesday, January 26, 2000.}

^{4. The Motion of Paul J. Napoli, Marc Jay Bern, and Napoli, Kaiser & Bern for an Order Striking Plaintiffs= Motion for an Order to show cause, Their ASupplement@ to this Motion, and Their Oral Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, and to Have This Court Issue an Order Reiterating the Limited Scope of the Preliminary Injunction Hearing filed on January 20, 2000 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.}

^{5. Plaintiffs= Motion for leave to Take Discovery of SiteLogic Corporation (Document #201372) is GRANTED.}

^1-27-2000

¹⁰⁶⁶

^{Re: United States Motion for Extension of Time to respond to PMC=s order Compelling the U.S. FDA}

^{Upon consideration of the United States= Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Motion of the PMC for an Order Compelling the United States Food and Drug Administration to Produce Certain Documents, and it appearing that there is no opposition thereto, it is hereby}

^{ORDERED and DECREED that the United States, motion is GRANTED and that the United States shall have until February 1, 2000, to respond to the motion of the PMC.}

^1-27-2000

¹⁰⁶⁷

^{Re: Ted Oscarson individually and on behalf of the Estate of Jane Louis Oscarson V. Professional Compounding Centers of America, et al. (99-20056)}

^{The Court, having considered Plaintiff=s Motion for Order Granting Leave to File Amended Complaint and the accompanying Memorandum submitted in support thereof, and good cause appearing, it is therefore,}

^{ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the plaintiff=s motion is granted and Plaintiff=s Second Amended Complaint may be filed and summons for service thereof on the new defendants be issued.}

^1-27-2000

¹⁰⁶⁸

^{Re: Darlene Broussard, et al. V. Gate Pharm. Inc., et al.,}

^{Considering the foregoing Motion to Substitute Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs,}

^{IT IS ORDERED by the Court that James L. Doyle and Rand P. Nolen be substituted as counsel for Plaintiffs in place of Michelle alt Hazlet of the law firm of LeBlanc, Maples & Waddell, LLC, who will be and is hereby allowed to withdraw as counsel of record for the plaintiffs in the above numbered and entitled matter.}

^1-27-2000

¹⁰⁶⁹

^{Re: 20th Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation}

^{Upon consideration of the Twentieth Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (11/01/99 through 11/30/99), 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 $25,050.70 for the period from 11/1/99 through 11/30/99, in accordance with the procedure established by the Court.}

^1-27-2000

¹⁰⁷⁰

^{Re: Kim Christopher V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20231)}

^{On this day came Stuart Bernstein, Costello, Shea & Gaffney LLP, and moved this Court to substitute Kral, Clertin, Redmond, Ryan, Perry & Girvan as counsel for WAL-MART STORES, INC.}

^{For good cause shown the Court hereby ORDERS and GRANTS the substitution of Costello, Shea & Faffney LLP for Kral, Clertin, Redmond, Ryan, Perry & Girvan, and further directs all parties and their respective counsel to reflect this change in all future pleadings, correspondence, and certificates of service.}

^{The clerk is directed to send certified copies of this Order to all counsel of record.}

^1-28-2000

¹⁰⁷¹

^{Re: Special Discovery Court (shall be established)}

^{IT IS ORDERED that a Special Discovery Court shall be established. The Special Discovery Court (ASDC@) is to function temporarily for the limited and exclusive purpose of promptly administering discovery requirements and resolving discovery disputes applicable to the proceedings before the court regarding consideration of judicial approval of the Nationwide Class Action Settlement Agreement in Brown, Civil Action No. 99-20593, in this MDL 1203. The goal of the SDC is to reduce the time segments and procedural requirements normally associated with discovery rules embodied in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the SDC will function as follows:}

^{1. Commencing on Wednesday, February 2, 2000, and every Wednesday thereafter at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 17B of the United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA or at such other time and place as the court may be separate Order provide, the court will hold an SDC session and hear applications, by parties with standing, regarding discovery matters, including requirements and disputes, that are in need of court intervention. The parties will be required to certify at the time of presentation to the SDC that they cannot resolve the mater between them despite good faith efforts to do so.}

^{2. The form in which these discovery matters shall be submitted to the SDC will be by a motion, not to exceed five (5) pages, that will set forth the requested relief and the grounds upon which the requested relief is sought. THIS MOTION IS NOT TO BE FIELD WITH THE CLERK OF COURT PRIOR TO THE HEARING. At least one full business day prior to the presentation by the moving party of the unfiled motion to the SDC, that party shall provide the party in opposition with a copy of that motion.}

^{3. The court expects that any matter requiring attention by the SDC under this procedure will be brought to the court at the next session of the SDC following the date when the parties have determined that they cannot resolve the matters between them without court intervention.}

^{4. To the extent that the differences between the parties, or other requirements needing court attention are resolved at an SDC session, they shall be ruled upon from the bench at that time. As to any matter in the unfiled motion that is not determined by the court, the moving party shall preserve its position by filing the proposed motion with the Clerk. The responding party shall file an answer to the filed motion in respect to the undecided matters that have been preserved. The answer shall be served at least one full business day before the next regular weekly session of the SDC, where that matter and any new or like matters shall be heard.}

^cont...

¹⁰⁷¹

^{5. It is contemplated that the undersigned shall preside at all SDC sessions. In the event that the undersigned is unable to preside, another judicial officer including a United States Magistrate Judge designated in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636 (b)(1) shall preside over such session(s) in accordance with the within procedure, including the entry of appropriate orders that the judicial officer determines are necessary to be entered.}

^{SO ORDERED.}

^2-1-2000

¹⁰⁷²

^{Re: Sheila Brown, Sharon Gaddie, Vivian Naugle, Quintin Layer, and Joby Jackson-Reid V. American Home Products Corp., (99-20593)}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to issue a check in the amount of $900.00 to Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500, Philadelphia, PA 19106}

^2-1-2000

¹⁰⁷³

^{Re: Sheila Brown, Sharon Gaddie, Vivian Naugle, Quintin Layer, and Joby Jackson-Reid V. American Home Products Corp., (99-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of the application if the Interim Claims Administrators (ICAs@), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Class Counsel and Counsel for American Home Products Corp are authorized and directed to cause the Interim Escrow Agent to disburse the following funds:}

^{A. Three million three hundred and forty-six thousand dollars ($3,346,000.00) to Seabury & Smith, Inc. (ASeabury@), as a deposit against anticipated expenses to be incurred in connection with the claims administrative services to be provided by Seabury.}

^{B. Ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) to the account of the ICAs, maintained at PNC Bank for expenses associated with the performance of their responsibilities as ICAs. These expenses include, but are not limited to, the following:}

^{1. Costs associated with opening and maintaining a post office box;}

^{2. Costs associated with maintaining an operator assisted 800 number service;}

^{3. Services provided by computer consultants.}

^{4. Fees for courier services;}

^{5. Expenses related to leasing space, including insurance premiums and charges for utilities;}

^{6. Charges for temporary employees}

^{7. Expenses for office supplies, stationery, and office equipment;}

^{8. Charges related to the maintenance of the web site; and}

^{9. Travel related expenses.}

^{This account shall be replenished, as needed, upon request of the ICAs with the appropriate notice served on Class Counsel and Counsel for American Home Products, without further Order of this Court}

^2-2-2000

¹⁰⁷⁴

^{Re: Re: Sheila Brown, Sharon Gaddie, Vivian Naugle, Quintin Layer, and Joby Jackson-Reid V. American Home Products Corp., (99-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of the Joint Motion for an Order authorizing Reimbursement of Certain Notice Related Expenses, it is hereby}

^{ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Class Counsel and Counsel for American Home Products Corp. are authorized and directed to cause the Interim Escrow Agent to pay the following bill for services in connection with providing notice to the class pursuant to PTO No. 997: Invoice of Smith-Edwards-Dunlap Co. dated January 11, 2000 in the amount of $4,007,200.00 for postage.}

^2-2-2000

¹⁰⁷⁵

^{Re: Sheila Brown, Sharon Gaddie, Vivian Naugle, Quintin Layer, and Joby Jackson-Reid V. American Home Products Corp., (99-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of the Joint Motion for an Order Authorizing Reimbursement of Certain Notice Related Expenses, it is hereby,}

^{ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED, that class counsel and counsel for American Home Products Corporation are authorized and directed to cause the interim escrow agent to pay the following bill for service in connection with providing notice to the class pursuant to PTO No. 997: Invoice of Tierney & Partners, dated January 21, 2000 in the amount of $3,105,215.62 for the costs of publishing notice in consumer magazines, trad magazines, newspapers, internet, and cable television.}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁷⁶

^{Re: Susan Minko V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., et al. (98-20228)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41 (a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all remaining defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees. Nothing in this stipulation shall be construed to preclude plaintiff from participating as an absent class member in a medical monitoring class and under the Memorandum of Understanding if she becomes eligible.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff SUSAN MINKO agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorizing forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all remaining defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Interneuron Pharm., Inc. and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., (div of American Home Products), again who the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in the entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to Stipulations of Dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁷⁷

^{Re: Hobert Bartley (dismissed), Donald L. Johnson, Jewell Salyers, Barbara Slone, Bettina Jean Stumbo, Sandra Kaye Young V. American Home Products, et al. (98-20605)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint of the Plaintiffs, Donald L. Johnson, Jewell Salyers, Barbara Slone, Bettina Jean Stumbo and Sandra Kaye Young, in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named Defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{The above-listed Plaintiffs hereby certify that they have each complied with PTO No. 22 by producing to Defendants a fact sheet, medical authorization and list of medical providers.}

^{Further, the above-listed Plaintiffs agree that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiffs shall file such case in federal court.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiffs and all Defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp., Wyeth Ayerst Labs (div of American Home Products Corp), A.H. Robins co., Inc., Interneuron Pharm., Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corp., Ion Labs., Inc., Abana Pharm., Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc., Gate Pharm., (div of Teva Pharm., USA Inc., ) Camall Co., Inc., Goldline labs., Inc. and Eon Lab Manuf., Inc. against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁷⁸

^{Re: Celia Sue Kelly and Christy Schenato V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-2011)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that all of Christy Schenato=s claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), in favor of all named defendants with all parties to bear their own costs and counsel fees. This Stipulation is being submitted on behalf of all defendants named in the Complaint. An Answer has been filed by all three Defendants, Nevertheless, in accordance with Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) all Defendants have signed and agreed to this Stipulation. Provided however, that this Order shall have no res judicata effects with respect to the assertion of any personal injury claims in the future, and provided, that the plaintiff further agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for her personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in Federal Court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed authorization forms.}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁷⁹

^{Re: Sharon Adair V. Gate Pharm.( Div. Of Teva Pharm.), et al. (98-20081)}

^{Plaintiff in the above captioned action, Sharon Adair, has agreed, through her undersigned counsel, to dismiss her claims against Rugby Labs, Inc., without prejudice. Upon the dismissal of Plaintiff=s claims against Rugby Labs., Inc., Rugby Labs, Inc. further agrees to the dismissal of its cross-claim against Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., without prejudice. Should any claim dismiss herein be re-filed, it shall be re-filed in federal court.}

^{Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii) and the provisions of PTO No. 445, all parties who have appeared and not already been dismissed in the above-captioned case, through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to the dismissal of all individual claims against Rugby Labs. Inc., to the dismissal of Rugby Labs., Inc., from this action and to the dismissal of the cross-claim of Rugby Labs., Inc., against Eon Labs. Manufacturing, Inc. all without prejudice. Except as specifically set forth herein, this Stipulation shall not affect the remaining parties to this action. The parties shall bear their own costs.}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁸⁰

^{Re: Caren A. Gotha & Daniel N. Gotha V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20123)}

^{Upon the Motion of Defendant Rugby Labs. Inc, to approve the stipulation for voluntary dismissal of all claims asserted by all of the Plaintiffs against it in the above-captioned action, to dismiss all claims asserted against it without prejudice, to dismiss the crossclaims of Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. against it without prejudice and to dismiss the crossclaims of Rugby Labs. Inc., against Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc. without prejudice, and there being no opposition by any party who has appeared, it is hereby}

^{ORDERED that (1) the Stipulation of Dismissal of all Plaintiffs= claims in this action against Rugby Labs, Inc. be and hereby is approved, (2) Rugby Labs. Inc. be and hereby is DISMISSED from this action without prejudice, (3) the cross claims of Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. against Rugby Labs. Inc. be and hereby are DISMISSED from this action without prejudice, and (4) the crossclaims of Rugby Labs., Inc. against Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc. be and hereby are DISMISSED from this action without prejudice. Except as specifically set forth herein, this Order shall not affect the other parties to this action. Should any claim dismissed herein be re-filed, it shall be refile din federal court. The parties shall bear their own costs.}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁸¹

^{Re: Robyn Ostberg V. Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., et al. (98-20458)}

^{Upon the Motion of Defendant Rugby Labs. Inc, and Zenith Goldline Pharm., Inc. to approve the stipulation for voluntary dismissal of all claims asserted by the Plaintiffs against it in the above-captioned action, to dismiss all claims asserted against both Rugby Labs, Inc. and Zenith Goldline Pharm., Inc. without prejudice, and to dismiss the crossclaims of Rugby Labs. Inc. against Eon Labs Manufacturing Inc., without prejudice, and there being no opposition by any party who has appeared, it is hereby}

^{ORDERED that (1) the Stipulation of Dismissal of all Plaintiffs= claims in this action against Rugby Labs, Inc. and Zenith Goldline Pharm. Inc. are approved, (2) Rugby Labs. Inc. and Zenith Goldline Pharm. Inc. are DISMISSED from this action without prejudice, Except as specifically set forth herein, this order shall not affect the remaining parties to this action. Should any claim dismissed herein be re-filed, it shall be re-filed in federal court. The parties shall bear their own costs}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁸²

^{Re: Barbara Jeffers & Johnna Day V. American Home Products Corp (98-20626)}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, ORDERED AND AGREED, that third-party defendant DURAMED PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. shall be dismissed with prejudice from the above-captioned case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii). Duramed has not filed an Answer or Motion for Summary Judgment; however, Duramed has joined in several of the Motions to Dismiss filed by other third-party defendants. In compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), this Stipulation of Dismissal has been signed by attorneys for all parties who have appeared in this case, namely: Camall Co., Duramed Pharm. Inc., Eon Labs. Manu. Inc., Fisons Corp., Ion Labs. Inc., Jones Medical Industries Inc. f/k/a Abana Pharm. Inc., Medeva Pharm., Qualitest Products, Inc., Rugby Labs., Inc., and United Research Labs. Inc. PDRx Pharm., Inc. (incorrectly identified as RD-RX Pharm.) Was dismissed from this action by prior Order of this Court. This Stipulation is made by American Home Products Corp. based on the representation of Duramed Pharm., Inc. embodied in the Affidavit attached to and made a part hereof as Exhibit AA@, This Stipulation of Dismissal pertains to the dismissal of all claims against third-party defendant, Duramed Pharm., Inc. only and does not dismiss in whole or in part any claims against of the other parties.}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁸³

^{Re: Betty Whitaker and Robert Whitaker V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co. (div of AHP), et al. (98-20425)}

^{1. This Stipulation of Dismissal has been signed by all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii) and Pretrial Order 445;}

^{2. This Stipulation of Dismissal has been filed by the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter with the endorsement of one or more of the co-chairs of the PMC attesting that it satisfies all applicable requirements of the Court, as mandated in PTO No. 680 and 19(2)(F)(2)(e);}

^{3. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiffs and all Defendants who have appeared of record, as evidenced by the signatures of counsel for the respective parties, including American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, a division of American Home Products Corp., A.H. Robins Co., Inc. (improperly named in the Complaint as Teva Pharm., Inc.,) and Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. (improperly named in the Complaint as Teva Pharm. Inc.)}

^{4. The above-captioned matter does not involve any class allegations so as to trigger the requirements of PTO No. 266.}

^{5. All parties agree that the above-listed Plaintiffs have complied with the requirements of PTO No. 22 by producing a fact sheet, medical authorizations and a list of medical providers to Defendants; and}

^{6. The above-listed Plaintiffs further agree that they must file any case for personal injuries related to diet drug litigation that they might institute in the future in federal court and that such claim must be presented so that the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332.}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), that:}

^{1. The court approves the Stipulation of Dismissal;}

^{2. The Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter are dismissed without prejudice as to all named Defendants;}

^{3. The claim against the Defendant in the above-captioned matter is dismissed in its entirety}

^{4. The above-listed Plaintiffs must file any case for personal injuries related to diet drug litigation that they might institute in the future in federal court and must present such claims so that the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332;}

^{5. Each party is to bear its own costs and legal fees associated with the above-captioned matter; and}

^{6. The foregoing conditions must be satisfied or the dismissal included herein will be deemed to be Awith prejudice@.}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁸⁴

^{Re: Ingrid Harder-Tolar V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20473)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all remaining defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Compliant, as all allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff Ingrid Harder-Tolar agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiffs shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiffs certifies that she has complied with Pretrial Order No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all remaining defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS and DOES 1 through 100, against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁸⁵

^{Re: Dinah Borros and Diaanne J Solsky V. American Home Products, Inc. (dba Wyeth-Ayerst Labs.)}

^(98-20076)

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1(ii), that the claims of Plaintiff Dinah Borras (improperly designated as Dinah Borros@) in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to defendants American Home Products Corp. and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., and Interneuron Pharm., with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, because another plaintiff remains named as the proposed class representative.}

^{Further, Plaintiff Dinah Borros agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drugs, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court. Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of PTO #22 by completing a Plaintiffs= Fact Sheet and providing the List of Medical Providers and executed Medical Authorization forms.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of defendants American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Division of American Home Products Corp., and Interneuron Pharm., Inc., against whom the claims of Dinah Borras in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁸⁶

^{Re: Terrie Watts V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. (div. of American Home Products Corp.), et al. (98-20715)}

^{It appearing to the Court that:}

^{1. This Stipulation of Dismissal has been signed by all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii) and Pretrial Order 445;}

^{2. This Stipulation of Dismissal has been filed by the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter with the endorsement of one or more of the co-chairs of the PMC attesting that it satisfies all applicable requirements of the Court, as mandated in PTO No. 680 and 19(2)(F)(2)(e);}

^{3. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiff and all Defendants who have appeared of record, as evidenced by the signatures of counsel for the respective parties, including American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. (div of AHP Corp.), A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (improperly named in the Complaint as A.H. Robbins Co), Gate Pharmaceuticals, a division of Teva Pharm USA, Inc. (improperly named in the Complaint as Teva Pharm, Inc.) and Teva Pharm USA, Inc. (improperly named in the Complaint as Teva Pharm., Inc.).;}

^{4. The above-captioned matter does not involve any class allegations so as to trigger the requirements of PTO No. 266;}

^{5. All parties agree that the above-listed Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of PTO No. 22 by producing a fact sheet, medical authorizations and a list of medical providers to Defendants; and}

^{6. The above-listed Plaintiff further agrees that she must file any case for personal injuries related to diet drug litigation that she might institute in the future in federal court and that such claim must be presented so that the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332.}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), that:}

^{1. The Court approves the Stipulation of Dismissal;}

^{2. The Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter is dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants;}

^{3. The claims against the Defendants in the above-captioned matter is dismissed in its entirety;}

^{4. The above-listed Plaintiff must file any case for personal injuries related to diet drug litigation that she might institute in the future in federal court and must present such claims so that the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 13323;}

^{5. Each party is to bear its own costs and legal fees associated with the above-captioned matter; and}

^{6. The foregoing conditions must be satisfied or the dismissal included herein will be deemed to be Awith prejudice.@}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁸⁷

^{Re: Patricia A. Thompson V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20693)}

^{It is hereby stipulated, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii) that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed with prejudice only as to defendant, ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARM., INC. with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{This stipulation is filed on behalf of said defendants, ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARM., INC. who has appeared in the above-captioned matter against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this stipulation.}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁸⁸

^{Re: John Maienza V. Gate Pharm., (div. of Teva Pharm., USA, Inc.) et al. (98-20436)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all remaining defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff JOHN MAIENZA agrees that should he decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that he has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all remaining defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being GATE PHARM. (div. of Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.), SmithKline Beecham Corp. Seatrace Pharm., Inc., Abana Pharm., Inc.; Richwood Pharm. Co., Inc.; Ion Labs Inc. Medeva Pharm. Inc., A.H. Robins Co., Inc.; Interneuron Pharm., Inc.; Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co.,(div. of American Home Products Corp.); Fisons Corp., Geneva Pharm., Inc. Rugby Labs, California Pacific Medical Center; Morton Maxwell; and DOES 1 through 100, again whom the claim in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁸⁹

^{Re: Shirleen A. Olsen, Suzette Allen, Gloria Balistreri, Sharon Broadway & Neal Broadway, Donna Doucette & James Doucette, Janice L. Gensler & Patrick A. Gensler, Beveley Lewis-Moses, Kathleen Kerry Neupert, Theresa Pirk, Clarice S. Zess. V. Gate Pharm., (div. of Teva), et al. (98-20189)}

^{It si hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41 (a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter as to the following plaintiff, Suzette Allen, is hereby dismissed with prejudice, due to her failure to file a fact sheet, medical authorizations and a list of medical Providers, as required by PTO No. 22. The dismissal is as to all named defendants, Gate Pharm., (div. of Teva U.S.A., Inc.), SmithKline Beecham Corp., Jones Medical Industries, Inc., as successor to Abana Pharm., Inc., Richwood Pharm., Co., Inc. ION Labs., Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc., A.H. Robins, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., American Home Products Corp., and Interneuron Pharm., Inc. with each party to bear is own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as the class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{This stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being: Gate Pharm, (div. of Teva U.S.A., Inc.), SmithKline Beecham Corp., Jones Medical Industries, Inc., as successor to Abana Pharm., Inc., Richwood Pharm., Co., Inc. ION Labs., Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc., A.H. Robins, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., American Home Products Corp., and Interneuron Pharm., Inc against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁹⁰

^{Re: Guity Kathy Ghatan V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20356)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41 (a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all remaining defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff, Guity Kathy Ghatan, agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, she shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff Guity Kathy Ghatan certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all remaining defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Co., Inc., American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. (div of Am. Home Prod. Corp)., SmithKline Beecham Corp., and Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁹¹

^{Re: Ilona Abraham, M.D. V. Interneuron Pharm., et al. (98-20130)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41 (a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice and this case is dismissed without prejudice in favor of all named defendants with each side to bear their own costs and counsel fees, provided, however, that this Order is without prejudice to any claim for class action medical monitoring relief that any other plaintiff wishes to pursue, in state of federal court; any claims that the plaintiff in this case may have or acquire to recover for personal injuries by virtue of any of the conduct alleged in the Complaint; and the right of the plaintiff to participate as an absent class member of any class, including without limitation, a class for medical monitoring relief, and the Interneuron limited fund class action and class action settlement, that may be certified in any state or federal litigation, to the extent the plaintiff meets the class definition and eligibility requirements established by the court granting the class certification. Further, this Order shall have no res judicata effect with respect to the assertion of any personal injury claims in the future, provided however, that the Plaintiff further agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{This stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being Interneuron Pharm., Inc., A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., (div. of American Home Products), Wyeth Labs Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of American Home Products Corp., and Qualitest Products, Inc., against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^{Plaintiff has served a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and Medical Authorizations on all parties to this action on May 15, 1998.}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁹²

^{Re: Theresa Landin V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., (a subsidiary of American Home Prod Corp.) (98-20330)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all remaining defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees. Nothing in this stipulation shall be construed to preclude plaintiff from participating as an absent class member in a medical monitoring class and under the Memorandum of Understanding if she becomes eligible.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff Theresa Landin agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all remaining defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Co., Inc.,}

^cont...

¹⁰⁹²

^{Interneuron Pharm., Inc. and Wyeth-Ayerst labs. Co. (division of American Home Products Corp). Against whom the claims in the complaints shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Courts approval of this Stipulat9on. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron pharm., Inc. does not apply to Stipulations of Dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁹³

^{Re: Janet Helm V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc. (a subsidiary of American Home Products Corp), et al. (98-20232)}

^{AND NOW, this 15th day of November, 1999, it is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all remaining defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees. Nothing in this stipulation shall be construed to preclude plaintiff from participating as an absent class member in a medical monitoring class and under the Memorandum of Understanding if she becomes eligible.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff JANET HELM agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall filed said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all remaining defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. ROBINS COMPANY, INC. Interneuron Pharm., Inc. and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co.,( A div. Of American Home Products Corp.), against who the claims in the compliant shall be dismissed in the entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to Stipulations of Dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁹⁴

^{Re: Frankie Hicks and Delphus Hicks V. Wyeth-Ayerst labs.,(div.of American Home Prod.), et al. (98-20048)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the plaintiffs have complied with the provisions of PTO No. 22 and they agree that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiffs shall file the said case in Federal Court.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, that being, Wyeth-Ayerst labs Division of American Home Products Corp.; American Home Products Corporation; and A.H. Robins, Co., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁹⁵

^{Re: Connie Johnson V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (a subsidiary of AHP) (98-20218)}

^{AND NOW, this 15th Day of November, 1999 it is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all remaining defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees. Nothing in this stipulation shall be construed to preclude plaintiff from participating as an absent class member in a medical monitoring class anc under the Memorandum of Understanding if she becomes eligible.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff CONNIE JOHNSON agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all remaining defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Co., Inc. Interneuron Pharm. Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., (div. of American Home Products Org.); and Eon Labs Manufacturing again who the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in the entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to Stipulations of Dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁹⁶

^{Re: Amanda Jones V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., (subsidiary of Am. Home Prod. Corp.) (98-20341)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all remaining defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees. Nothing in this stipulation shall be construed to preclude plaintiff from participating as an absent class member in a medical monitoring class and under the Memorandum of Understanding if she becomes eligible.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff AMANDA JONES agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all remaining defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Interneuron Phar., Inc. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. (div. of Am. Home Prod.) and Camall Co. again who the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in the entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of Dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁹⁷

^{Re: Lolita Metscher V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc (subsidiary of AHP Corp), et al. (98-20342)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all remaining defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees. Nothing in this stipulation shall be construed to preclude plaintiff from participating as an absent class member in a medical monitoring class and under the Memorandum of Understanding if she becomes eligible.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff LOLITA METSCHER agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all remaining defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Interneuron Phar., Inc. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. (div. of Am. Home Prod.) and Medeva Pharm., again who the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in the entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of Dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁹⁸

^{Re: Paatricia Diane Luttrull & Nancy Aldridge V. American Home Products, et al. (98-20664)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of the Plaintiff, Patricia Diane Luttrull, in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all remaining defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{The above-listed Plaintiff hereby certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing to Defendants a fact sheet, medical authorization and list of medical providers.}

^{Further, the above-listed Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiff shall file such case in federal court.}

^{Attached hereto as Exhibit A is an amended case caption reflecting the dismissal of Patricia Diane Luttrull as well as the dismissal of various defendants pursuant to PTO 413 and 875.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiff and all remaining Defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Division of American Home Products Corp., A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Camall Company, Inc., and Goldline Laboratories, Inc. against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^2-3-2000

¹⁰⁹⁹

^{Re: Mark Morel V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., (subsidiary of American Home Products Corp) (98-20231)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all remaining defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees. Nothing in this stipulation shall be construed to preclude plaintiff from participating as an absent class member in a medical monitoring class and under the Memorandum of Understanding if she becomes eligible.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff MARK MOREL agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all remaining defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Interneuron Phar., Inc. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. (div. of Am. Home Prod.) again who the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in the entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of Dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^2-3-2000

¹¹⁰⁰

^{Re: Patricia Ontiveros V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., (A subsidiary of AHP Corp.), et al. (98-20234)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all remaining defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees. Nothing in this stipulation shall be construed to preclude plaintiff from participating as an absent class member in a medical monitoring class and under the Memorandum of Understanding if she becomes eligible.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff PATRICIA ONTIVEROS agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all remaining defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Interneuron Phar., Inc. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. (div. of Am. Home Prod.) again who the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in the entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of Dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^2-3-2000

¹¹⁰¹

^{Re: Lakesha Hicks Knight V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc. (98-20223)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all remaining defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees. Nothing in this stipulation shall be construed to preclude plaintiff from participating as an absent class member in a medical monitoring class and under the Memorandum of Understanding if she becomes eligible.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff LAKESHA HICKS KNIGHT agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all remaining defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Interneuron Phar., Inc. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. (div. of Am. Home Prod.) again who the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in the entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of Dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^2-3-2000

¹¹⁰²

^{Re: Beverly Lazzeri V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc. (a subsidiary of AHP Corp), et al. (98-20237)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all remaining defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees. Nothing in this stipulation shall be construed to preclude plaintiff from participating as an absent class member in a medical monitoring class and under the Memorandum of Understanding if she becomes eligible.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff BEVERLY LAZZERI agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all remaining defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Interneuron Phar., Inc. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. (div. of Am. Home Prod.) again who the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in the entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of Dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^2-3-2000

¹¹⁰³

^{Re: Anthony Robert Lopez V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. (Div. of American Home Prod. Corp), et al. (98-20297)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all remaining defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees. Nothing in this stipulation shall be construed to preclude plaintiff from participating as an absent class member in a medical monitoring class and under the Memorandum of Understanding if she becomes eligible.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff ANTHONY LOPEZ agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all remaining defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Interneuron Phar., Inc. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. (div. of Am. Home Prod.) again who the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in the entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of Dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^2-3-2000

¹¹⁰⁴

^{Re: Fran Friedman V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc.(subsidiary of AHP Corp.), et al. (98-20220)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all remaining defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees. Nothing in this stipulation shall be construed to preclude plaintiff from participating as an absent class member in a medical monitoring class and under the Memorandum of Understanding if she becomes eligible.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff FRANCINE FRIEDMAN agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all remaining defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Interneuron Phar., Inc. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. (div. of Am. Home Prod.) again who the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in the entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of Dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^2-3-2000

¹¹⁰⁵

^{Re: Brenda K. Ayers, Dorothy Lakes, Patricia Rawert, Dixie Thompson and Robert McPeek V. American Home Products, et al. (98-20661)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint of the Plaintiffs, Patricia Rawert & Dixie Thompson, in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all remaining Defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{The above-listed Plaintiffs hereby certify that they have complied with PTO 22 by producing to Defendants a fact sheet, medical authorization and list of medical providers.}

^{Further, the above-listed Plaintiffs agree that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiffs shall file such case in federal court.}

^{Attached hereto as Exhibit A is an amended case caption reflecting the dismissal of Patricia Rawert and Dixie Thompson as well as the dismissal of various defendants pursuant to PTO 413, 875 and 972.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiffs and all remaining Defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being AHP Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (div of AHP Corp) A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Camall Co., Inc., Eon Labs. Manufacturing, Inc., Interneuron Pharm., Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., Goldline Labs., Inc., SmithKline Beecham corp., and Fisons Corp., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^2-3-2000

¹¹⁰⁶

^{Re: Laurie Arter, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20191)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of , Laurie Arter and David Arter as alleged in the Complaint against all named Defendants in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to these defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Plaintiffs have complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a Fact Sheet, Medical Authorizations and a list of Medical Providers to Defendants.}

^{Further, the Plaintiffs agree that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiffs shall file said case in federal court.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the following Defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being AHP Corp., A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (div. of AHP Corp.), Fisons Corp. and Medeva Pharm., Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^2-3-2000

¹¹⁰⁷

^{Re: Richard Winn, Sr. & Alice Albrechinski V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20488)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed with prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450. This Stipulation does not preclude plaintiffs from participating in a medical monitoring action as absent class members or from participating in any settlements reached by any of the defendants.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all Defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp., Wyeth Labs. Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. (div of American Home Prod.), and A.H. Robins Co., Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^2-3-2000

¹¹⁰⁸

^{Re: Patricia Meyersfield V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20757)}

^{To all parties and their attorneys of record:}

^{Plaintiff Patricia Meyersfield, by and through her attorney of record, hereby dismisses defendant Medeva Pharm., Inc., without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i). No defendant has answered or served a motion for summary judgment in this action to date.}

^2-3-2000

¹¹⁰⁹

^{Re: Fairness Hearing - Discovery - Pre Hearing Disclosures}

^{In PTO No. 997 the court scheduled a Fairness Hearing on the Class Action Settlement to commence on May 1, 2000. In order that the hearing proceed as scheduled, it is the court=s intent that there be prompt, timely and orderly disclosures of the evidence to be offered at the hearing. Pursuant to PTO No. 997, the court has established March 30, 2000 as the time when a class member or other party determined by the Court to be an interested person in the settlement (hereinafter Aeligible person@), may file a formal written objection to the settlement with a request to appear at the Fairness Hearing or to merely file written comments regarding the settlement without a request to appear at the Fairness Hearing.}

^{It is the court=s intention that an eligible party have the opportunity to conduct, under reasonable terms and conditions: (1) discovery pertinent to the issues to be decided at the Fairness Hearing; or (2) discovery deemed important by the eligible person in order to make the decision whether or not to object to the settlement, appear at the Fairness hearing to object or provider the court with written comments without an appearance at the Fairness Hearing. This will require the court to ensure that such discovery be coordinated among persons having common interests, that it be conducted efficiently, and that it not be duplicative or prior discovery including merit discovery. Any eligible person who decides to serve discovery requests regarding the fairness or adequacy of the settlement shall promptly notify counsel for the class plaintiffs and the defendant in writing of the discovery sought and simultaneously confer with those counsel in an attempt to agree upon the appropriate scope regarding the time for response and content of such discovery requests. In the event the eligible party and counsel for the class and/or the defendant disagree on the scope of the discovery, the eligible party shall appear at the next session of the Special Discovery Court established by PTO No. 1071, for resolution of that dispute.}

^{Any document produced by the defendant or by the class counsel and made available to any eligible person shall be maintained in a document depository, located at the offices of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500, Philadelphia, PA 19106, and made available for examination by other eligible persons for the purpose of evaluating and/or objecting to the settlement as provided for in paragraphs 17 and 18 of PTO No. 997.}

^{On or before February 20, 2000 class counsel and the defendant shall file with the court: (i) a statement identifying all fact witnesses to be called to testify at the Fairness Hearing, together with a brief statement on the anticipated substance of the testimony of each witness; (ii) copies of all documents or other exhibits to be offered into evidence; and (iii) the identities of all expert witnesses to be called together with the information required in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). On or before April 10, 2000 any person or party who has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 17 of PTO No. 997 shall provide to class counsel and the defendant: (i) a statement identifying all fact witnesses to be called to testify at the Fairness hearing together with a brief statement on the anticipated subject of the testimony of each witness; (ii) copies of all documents or other exhibits to be offered into evidence; and (iii) the identities of all expert witnesses to be called, together with the information required in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B).}

^{Unless otherwise ordered by the court for cause shown, no person shall appear and offer evidence at the Fairness Hearing unless there has been strict compliance with PTO No. 997 and this Order.}

^{So Ordered.}

^2-3-2000

¹¹¹⁰

^{Re: Leslie Sue Bergman V. American Home Products Corp., (a DE Corp.,), et al. (99-20817)}

^{Presently before the court is this Diet Drug Litigation case that was originally filed in the E.D. of PA. This case, though filed here, has been transferred in accordance with the internal procedures of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of PA to the undersigned as the transferee judge designated to conduct coordinated pretrial proceedings in all federal cases in whatever district they are filed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1407.}

^{The motion before the court at this time seeks an Order from this court transferring this proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 1406(a) or 1404(a) to either the District of Alaska, as requested by the defendants, or to the District of Minnesota as urged by the plaintiffs.}

^{Since this civil action is part of the consolidated proceedings for coordinated pretrial discovery under the MDL-1203 Diet Drug Litigation, this motion is premature. At such time as the pretrial proceedings are concluded here the court will at that time entertain any motion seeking transfer under either of the statutory provisions advanced by the parties at this time. So Ordered.}

^2-3-2000

¹¹¹¹

^{Re: Hearing held on February 2, 2000}

^{At a hearing held on February 2, 2000, the court ruled as follows:}

^{1. The document repository for discovery regarding the proposed national settlement in Brown, 99-20593 will be at the offices of Levin Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500, Phila, PA 19106.}

^{2. Class Counsel and AHP will have all relevant documents ready for production by 12:00 p.m. on Friday, February 11, 2000.}

^{3. Plaintiffs=, Brown, et al., CA 99-20593, Bloom, et al., CA 98-20047, Norse, CA 98-20377 and Staten, CA 98-20460 motion to intervene (#201374), Brown V. American Home Products is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as it appears that plaintiffs= motion was brought for the purpose of seeking discovery of the proposed national settlement in Brown, such discovery shall be allowed}

^2-8-2000

¹¹¹²

^{Re: Meeting of the State Judges Advisory Committee in Chicago, IL on 2/10-2/11 - 2000.}

^{The court has been advised by the Honorable Ellis E. Reid, Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL, that there is to be a meeting of the State Judges Advisory Committee established pursuant to VIII.B.3 of the Settlement Agreement, which meeting is to take place in Chicago, IL on February 10 and 11, 2000.}

^{The purpose of this order is to authorize the reimbursement to such members of that Advisory Committee that are in attendance of their necessary travel and per diem expenses needed to attend the meeting. Reimbursement will be made from funds provided for in the preliminarily approved Settlement in MDL 1203 for necessary reasonable travel expenses plus per diem expenses not to exceed $275.00 per day.}

^2-9-2000

¹¹¹³

^{Re: Peggy Pauley V. AHP et al. (99-20806); Margaret Sandridge V. AHP , et al.(99-20807) & Lauri Deener V. AHP , (99-20808)}

^{In the above three civil actions each of the plaintiffs has instituted a civil action seeking recovery based on a claim arising out of the ingestion of diet drugs by the plaintiff and each of those cases has been transferred here in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1407 for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings. In each of the cases the plaintiff originally named as a defendant in addition to certain corporate defendants James Miller, M.D.. In each of these cases they began their course of pretrial proceedings in late 1999 and are still in the process of developing discovery. The plaintiff has filed an opposition to these motions contending that discovery is still in progress and that plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of discovery on this motion that seeks summary judgment because of the claim by the defendants of the expiration of the statute of limitations as respects the claims against Dr. Miller.}

^{The court agrees that the request for discovery in these instances is well founded and that accordingly the motions for summary judgment are Denied W/O Prejudice. Defendants may choose to reassert these motions by the filing of a motion at such time as the discovery on the present issues is completed and the defendant may incorporate by reference any portion of its present and supporting memorandum together with any supplement in the later motion that may be warranted by reason of facts developed in discovery So Ordered.}

^2-10-2000

¹¹¹⁴

^{Re: Settlement Agreement nominations for the Trustees}

^{In accordance with Section VI.2 of the MDL 1203 Settlement Agreement class counsel shall furnish to the court nominations for the Trustees by February 28, 200.}

^2-10-2000

¹¹¹⁵

^{Re: Sheila Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{WHEREAS, to expedite discovery with respect to the fairness of the proposed settlement filed in the above-captioned action, and to protect material entitled to be kept confidential, pursuant to the Court=s authority under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c),}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:}

^{1. This Order shall govern the use and dissemination of all information, documents or material relating to the proposed settlement filed in the above-captioned action that are produced pursuant to PTO No.s= 1109 and 1111, and all copies, excerpts, or summaries thereof, and any deposition testimony relating thereto.}

^{2. For purposes of this Order, the term Adocument@ means all written, electronically or otherwise recorded, or graphic material, whether produced pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 33, 34, 36 subpoena, by agreement, or otherwise.}

^{3. All persons producing documents governed by this Order as described in 1 above shall be entitled to the full protection of PTO No. 41, regarding the inadvertent production or disclosure of attorney-client privileged or protected work product documents.}

^{4. All information, documents or materials governed by this Order as described in 1 above, and all copies, excerpts, or summaries thereof, and any deposition testimony relating thereto, shall be disclosed only (a) to Aeligible persons@ as described in PTO No. 1109, including but not limited to members of the Brown class or counsel for the parties or objectors who are reasonably engaged in discovery relating to the fairness of the proposed Settlement; (b) to the partners, associates and employees of counsel for parties, objectors or other eligible persons to the extent reasonably necessary to render professional services in the litigation relating to the fairness of the proposed settlement; (c) to court official involved in this litigation (including court reporters or persons operating video recording equipment at depositions; (d) to any special master appointed by the court.; (e) to persons noticed for depositions or designated as witnesses at the Fairness Hearing to the extent reasonably necessary to prepare to testify; (f) to outside consultants or experts retained for the purpose of assisting counsel in connection with the fairness determination; and (g) to any person designated by the Court in the interest of justice, upon such terms as the Court may deem proper.}

^{5. Prior to giving access to any person of information, documents or materials governed by this Order, or any copies, excerpts or summaries thereof, counsel for the party intending to disclose such information, documents or materials shall furnish a copy of this Order and of Pretrial Order NO. 41. The person being given access shall execute a Confidentiality Agreement in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit A. Counsel obtaining the person=s signature on the Confidentiality Agreement shall retain the original signed agreement. The requirement to execute a Confidentiality Agreement shall not apply to the Court or to court officials as described in 4(c) and (d) above.}

^{6. Nothing in this Order shall be deemed to restrict in any manner the use by any party of any information in its own documents and materials.}

^{7. Nothing contained in this Order shall prejudice the right of any party to contest the alleged relevancy, admissibility, or discoverability of confidential documents or information, or of the right to claim the protections of any privilege, including the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.}

^{***** CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT ATTACHED *****}

^2-10-2000

¹¹¹⁶

^{Re: Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., No. (99-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of the presentation to the Special Discovery Court session held on February 9, 2000 it is hereby ORDERED that the request of class counsel to modify PTO No. 1109 is granted. The conditions set forth in PTO No. 1109 shall remain in effect as to the requirement that on or before February 20, 2000 class counsel and the defendant shall file with the Court: (i) a statement identifying all fact witnesses to be called to testify at the Fairness hearing, together with a brief statement on the anticipated substance of the testimony of each witness; and (ii) copies of all documents or other exhibits to be offered into evidence.}

^{PTO No. 1109 is modified to the effect that class proponents shall have until Monday February 28, 2000 to disclose the names of all their intended Expert Witnesses, provide a list of any prior case in which any of the experts have testified, and provide a summary of the expected subject area of each Expert testimony consistent with Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Also on that date, class counsel shall provide the completed disclosures for at least half of the expert witnesses identified. For any remaining Experts, full disclosures shall be completed on a rolling basis by March 20, 2000. The other terms of PTO No. 1109 shall remain in effect.}

^2-11-2000

¹¹¹⁷

^{Re: Barbara Bullock V. American Home Products Corp., A.H. Robins Co., & Ion Labs. Inc (98-20650)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint of the Plaintiff, Barbara Bullock, in the above=-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named Defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{The above-listed Plaintiff hereby certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing to Defendants a fact sheet, medical authorization and list of medical providers.}

^{Further, the above-listed Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiff shall file such case in federal court.}

^2-11-2000

¹¹¹⁸

^{Re: Carol Fletcher & James Fletcher V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., et al. (98-20686)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, that should plaintiffs decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiffs shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiffs certify that they have complied with PTO No. 22 by produced a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being WYETH-AYERST LABS CO., AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORP., against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^2-11-2000

¹¹¹⁹

^{Re: Lisa Foster V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20440)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all remaining defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff, Lisa Foster, agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, she shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff Lisa Foster certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all remaining defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORP., WYETH-AYERST LABS CO. (div. of AHP Corp.), WYETH LABS. INC., A.H. ROBINS CO.(div. of AHP corp.) INTERNEURON PHARM., INC. against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^2-11-2000

¹¹²⁰

^{Re: Yolanda Setaccioli V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20648)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint of the Plaintiff, Yolanda Setaccioli , in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named Defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{The above-listed Plaintiff hereby certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing to Defendants a fact sheet, medical authorization and list of medical providers.}

^{Further, the above-listed Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiff shall file such case in federal court.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp., A.H. Robins Co., Inc., and SmithKline Beecham Corp., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^2-11-2000

¹¹²¹

^{Re: Aimee L. Davis V. American Home Products Corp (a foreign corp) & Interneuron (99-20085)}

^{Upon consideration of the unopposed motion of Charles R. Mindlin and Fenstersheib & Fox to withdraw as counsel for Aimee L. Davis (docket #1203), IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions:(see PTO for conditions)}

^2-11-2000

¹¹²²

^{Re: Rosa Smith V. American Home products (a foreign Corp.) & Interneuron (99-20552)}

^{Upon consideration of the unopposed motion of Charles R. Mindlin and Fenstersheib & Fox to withdraw as counsel for Rosa smith (docket #1203), IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions:(see PTO for conditions)}

^2-11-2000

¹¹²³

^{Re: Parties arguments heard at a Fact Sheet show cause hearing}

^{The court ruled as follows:}

^{1. The following plaintiffs are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Decision and Recommendation NO. 30. Janie Sanford, 99-20079; Angie Scott 99-20079; Bennie Thorns 99-20063; Nancy Snipes 99-20767}

^{2. Plaintiff Loyce Williams, 99-20079 has 5 days to provide the address of her treating physician. Failure to comply will result in the case being dismissed with prejudice.}

^{3. The following plaintiffs are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Decision and Recommendation NO. 32: Brandy Janis , 99-20097; Elizabeth Leonard 99-20097; Lynnell Johnson, 99-20099}

^{4. Plaintiff Clariss Matthews, 99-20097 has 5 days to provide the address of the clinic. Failure to comply will result in the case being dismissed with prejudice.}

^{5. The following plaintiffs are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Decision and Recommendation NO. 39: Josephine Clark (99-20108), Pam Cradure (99-20108), Linda Dillard (99-20108); Alice Guillory (99-20108), Joe Malnerick (99-20108), Bonnie Marchantel (99-20108), Jawanna Mayo (99-20108), Elaine Metcalf (99-20108), Karen Meyers (99-20108), Chantell Orphey (99-20108), Jennifer Smith (99-20108), Kathleen Sonnier (99-20108), Veronica Washington (99-20108), Melissa Wilson (99-20108), Joy Wallace (99-20242), Peggy Clark (99-20325).}

^{6. The remaining plaintiffs on Decision and Recommendations No. 30, 32 and 39 have complied and defendant=s motion to dismiss said plaintiffs are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE}

^2-11-2000

¹¹²⁴

^{Re: hearing held on February 10, 2000}

^{At a hearing held on 2-10-2000, the court ruled as follows:}

^{1. AHP=s Motion to Dismiss Complaint in Cases where plaintiffs have failed to identify case specific expert witnesses as required by PTO No. 417 (documents #201364) is marked withdrawn as to the following:}

^{Bloom (98-20047); Norse (98-20377); Staten (98-20460); L. Gonzalez (98-20559); Sherbow (98-20487); Kelly (98-20111); Miller (98-20121); Hicks (98-20392); Quirit (98-20574); Farfour (98-20102); Olsen (98-20189); Evans (98-20476); Moore (98-20349); McCubbin-Remsbert (98-20599);}

^{2. Plaintiff Williams (98-20357) has 15 days to identify an expert.}

^{3. Plaintiff Moreno=s motion (document #201411) in CA 98-20357 for reconsideration of PTO No. 133 and for voluntary dismissal is GRANTED.}

^{4. AHP=s Motion to Strike Certain Expert Reports for Non-compliance with PTO No. 999 and Federal Rule of civil Procedure 26 in Silas, Civ No. 98-20325; Bell Civ. No. 98-20475 and Moon, Civ. No. 98-20536 is GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED.}

^{5. AHP=s, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. (div. of AHP Corp) and Wyeth-Ayerst Pharm., Inc.=s Motion for Extension of time in Which to comply with Court order (document #201365) in NaumanU, (99-20345) and List (99-20331) is WITHDRAWN AS MOOT.}

^{6. Plaintiffs= Motion to File Second Amended Complaint (Document #201328) in Burns, (99-20333) is GRANTED.}

^2-11-2000

¹¹²⁴

^{7. Plaintiffs= Motion to Amend (#201329) in Crandall, C.A. (98-20465) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint within 15 days.}

^{8. Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to file first Amended Complaint (#201307) and Amended Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint that conforms with the court=s ruling within 15 days.}

^{9. Motions of HMO Louisiana to Intervene (#201108, #201254, #201356) are GRANTED AS STATED.}

^{10. The court will review the documents that are subject to PMC;s Motion to Compel FDA to produce documents in camera.}

^{11. The next status conference will be held on March 22, 2000 at 10:00 a.m.m}

^2-15-2000

¹¹²⁵

^{Re: Rebecca Ann Ackison, Richard Adray, Miriam Beyers, Darlene Broussard, Nancy Jeanne rowning, Maggie Chaney, Karen Clarke, Clydette Clevenger, Eileen Collins, Linda Colvin, Diann Demarco, Betty Glaze, Sheryl Henning, Jan Hortman, Melina Johnson, Joyce Knox, Eileen Lenfest, Carol Lindsey, Julia R. Madole, Denna Mosley, Darlene Parry, Patricia Patzer, Anita Gail Phenix, Michelle pixton, Eleanora Roach, Kimberly Smith, Darlene and Roland Spencer, Pam Veron, Vickie Ann Walker}

^{Upon consideration of the attached Motion of the Phentermine Defendants and supporting memorandum of law, it is hereby ORDERED that each plaintiff in the above-captioned actions is precluded from presenting evidence at trial that phentermine was the cause or contributing factor to the injury alleged by each plaintiff.}

^2-15-2000

¹¹²⁶

^{Re: Lydia D. Gonzalez, Jo Ann Gorena, and Maria J. Smith V. Medeva Pharm., Inc. (98-20559)}

^{Upon consideration of plaintiffs= motion for remand and defendants Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company=s and A.H. Robins=s response thereto, IT IS ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED.}

^2-15-2000

¹¹²⁷

^{Re: Jane Sutliff V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc. et al. (98-20295)}

^{AND NOW, this 13th day of January 2000, it is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all remaining defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees. Nothing in this stipulation shall be construed to preclude plaintiff from participating as an absent class member in a medical monitoring class and under the Memorandum of Understanding if she becomes eligible.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff JANE SUTLIFF agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all remaining defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins, Inc., Interneuron Pharm., Inc., and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., (div. of AHP). Against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in the entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to Stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^2-15-2000

¹¹²⁸

^{Re: Christopher Shelby V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20293)}

^{it is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all remaining defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees. Nothing in this stipulation shall be construed to preclude plaintiff from participating as an absent class member in a medical monitoring class and under the Memorandum of Understanding if she becomes eligible.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all remaining defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins, Inc.,}

^{Interneuron Pharm., Inc., and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., (div. of AHP). Against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in the entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to}

^cont...

¹¹²⁸

^{proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to Stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^2-15-2000

¹¹²⁹

^{Re: Ronit Guedalia V. A.H. Robins Co., et al. (98-20583)}

^{it is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{Plaintiffs certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing completed Fact Sheet, list of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, that being A.H. Robins Company, American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, and against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^2-15-2000

¹¹³⁰

^{Re: Guadalupe B. Jaurequi V. A.H. Robins Company, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs co., et al (98-20591)}

^{it is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{Plaintiffs certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing completed Fact Sheet, list of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, that being A.H. Robins Company, American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, and against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^2-15-2000

¹¹³¹

^{Re: Lynn Frank V. American Home Products Corp. (div. of Wyeth-Ayerst Labs.,) et al. (98-20401)}

^{it is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to Defendants, AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORP., WYETH-AYERST LABS. CO., A.H. ROBINS COMPANY, ALLSCRIPTS, INC., and QUALITEST PHARM., INC., each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees and without the need for Plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class as allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiff shall file said case in federal court in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly plead.}

^{In addition, Plaintiff, Lynn Frank, has complied with this Court=s PTO No. 22 by producing a Fact Sheet, medical authorizations and a list of medical providers.}

^{This stipulation is filed on behalf of the Defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORP., WYETH-AYERST LABS. CO., A.H. ROBINS COMPANY, ALLSCRIPTS, INC., and QUALITEST PHARM., INC, against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. This Dismissal shall not prejudice Plaintiff=s rights pursuant to the nationwide class action settlement agreement with American Home products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. and A.H Robins Co.}

^2-15-2000

¹¹³²

^{Re: Stacy Elmore and Robert L. Elmore, Jr., V. A.H. Robins Co. Inc., & Rugby Labs., Inc., (98-20522)}

^{it is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court}

^{Plaintiffs certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing completed Fact Sheet, list of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, that being A.H. Robins Company Inc., Rugby Laboratories, Inc., and Eon Labs Manufacturing Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. This Stipulation may be signed in counter-parts.}

^2-15-2000

¹¹³³

^{Re: Dondra R. Gibson V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20101)}

^{Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(I), please take notice that the Plaintiff, Diondra R. Gibson, by and through counsel, hereby voluntarily dismisses her claims against Rugby Laboratories, Inc., in the above-referenced case, without prejudice. Pursuant to PTO No. 445, it is affirmatively stated that this dismissal occurs before Rugby Laboratories, Inc. has served an answer or motion for summary judgment in response to Plaintiff=s Complaint. The dismissal of Rugby Laboratories, Inc. shall not effect the claims or parties remaining in the case. If re-filed at anytime, Plaintiff=s claim against Rugby Laboratories, Inc., will be re-filed in federal court.}

^2-16-2000

¹¹³⁴

^{Re: Jose Abel Urias & Fermina S. Urias V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20182)}

^{ORDERED and DECREED that Margaret T. Brenner, Federal ID No. 9044, of the law firm Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C., 1200 Smith Street, 400 Two Allen Center, Houston, TX 77002, shall be and is hereby substituted as counsel of record and attorney-in charge for INTERNEURON PHARM., INC. a Defendant herein.}

^2-16-2000

¹¹³⁵

^{Re: Tami Denyse Bruner and husband James Ray Bruner V. American Home Products Corp., et al.}  

^{ORDERED and DECREED that Margaret T. Brenner, Federal ID No. 9044, of the law firm Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C., 1200 Smith Street, 400 Two Allen Center, Houston, TX 77002, shall be and is hereby substituted as counsel of record and attorney-in charge for INTERNEURON PHARM., INC. a Defendant herein}

^2-16-2000

¹¹³⁶

^{Re: Cruz M. Rodriguez V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20173)}

^{ORDERED and DECREED that Margaret T. Brenner, Federal ID No. 9044, of the law firm Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C., 1200 Smith Street, 400 Two Allen Center, Houston, TX 77002, shall be and is hereby substituted as counsel of record and attorney-in charge for INTERNEURON PHARM., INC. a Defendant herein}

^2-16-2000

¹¹³⁷

^{Re: Sheila Moss and Edward Moss V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20346)}

^{ORDERED and DECREED that Margaret T. Brenner, Federal ID No. 9044, of the law firm Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C., 1200 Smith Street, 400 Two Allen Center, Houston, TX 77002, shall be and is hereby substituted as counsel of record and attorney-in charge for INTERNEURON PHARM., INC. a Defendant herein}

^2-16-2000

¹¹³⁸

^{Re: Margaret Reynolds V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20185)}

^{ORDERED and DECREED that Margaret T. Brenner, Federal ID No. 9044, of the law firm Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C., 1200 Smith Street, 400 Two Allen Center, Houston, TX 77002, shall be and is hereby substituted as counsel of record and attorney-in charge for INTERNEURON PHARM., INC. a Defendant herein}

^2-16-2000

¹¹³⁹

^{Re: Dorita Resnick V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. (div. of AHP corp.,) et al. (98-20069)}

^{ORDERED and DECREED that Margaret T. Brenner, Federal ID No. 9044, of the law firm Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C., 1200 Smith Street, 400 Two Allen Center, Houston, TX 77002, shall be and is hereby substituted as counsel of record and attorney-in charge for INTERNEURON PHARM., INC. a Defendant herein}

^2-16-2000

¹¹⁴⁰

^{Re: Jacqueline DeVaughn V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20175)}

^{ORDERED and DECREED that Margaret T. Brenner, Federal ID No. 9044, of the law firm Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C., 1200 Smith Street, 400 Two Allen Center, Houston, TX 77002, shall be and is hereby substituted as counsel of record and attorney-in charge for INTERNEURON PHARM., INC. a Defendant herein}

^2-16-2000

¹¹⁴¹

^{Re: Lauraine J. Krick V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20276)}

^{ORDERED and DECREED that Margaret T. Brenner, Federal ID No. 9044, of the law firm Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C., 1200 Smith Street, 400 Two Allen Center, Houston, TX 77002, shall be and is hereby substituted as counsel of record and attorney-in charge for INTERNEURON PHARM., INC. a Defendant herein}

^2-16-2000

¹¹⁴²

^{Re: Leisa D. Frierson V. A.H. Robinson Company, Inc., et al. (98-20184)}

^{ORDERED and DECREED that Margaret T. Brenner, Federal ID No. 9044, of the law firm Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C., 1200 Smith Street, 400 Two Allen Center, Houston, TX 77002, shall be and is hereby substituted as counsel of record and attorney-in charge for INTERNEURON PHARM., INC. a Defendant herein}

^2-16-2000

¹¹⁴³

^{Re: Rickie Vincent and Billy Ray Vincent V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20277)}

^{ORDERED and DECREED that Margaret T. Brenner, Federal ID No. 9044, of the law firm Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C., 1200 Smith Street, 400 Two Allen Center, Houston, TX 77002, shall be and is hereby substituted as counsel of record and attorney-in charge for INTERNEURON PHARM., INC. a Defendant herein}

^2-16-2000

¹¹⁴⁴

^{Re: Paula M. Lang V. American Home Products Corp., et al.}

^{ORDERED and DECREED that Margaret T. Brenner, Federal ID No. 9044, of the law firm Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C., 1200 Smith Street, 400 Two Allen Center, Houston, TX 77002, shall be and is hereby substituted as counsel of record and attorney-in charge for INTERNEURON PHARM., INC. a Defendant herein}

^2-16-2000

¹¹⁴⁵

^{Re: Maryann Kroll V. American Home Products Corp. (00-20169)}

^{Come Now Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys of record, and Defendants American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, and Wyeth-Ayerst Pharm., Inc., by and through their attorneys of record, and stipulate and agree as follows:}

^{1. That Plaintiff=s Motion for Class Certification be stayed for a period of ninety (90) days from}

^{January 24, 2000.}

^2-17-2000

¹¹⁴⁶

^{Re: Increased amount of pay for Greg Miller}

^{In recent weeks the court has increased the duties of Special Discovery Master Miller as they relate to the MDL-1203 proposed Settlement with American Home Products. These duties are in addition to his already extensive duties in the administration of MDL 1203. Mr. Miller undertook this assignment with the court at a level of compensation that was below his normal billing rate that he regularly charges in his civil and criminal law practice with Miller, Alfano and Raspanti, P.C.}

^{The court has had the opportunity since Mr. Miller=s appointment to work very closely with him and to observe the manner in which he has fulfilled his duties and especially as they relate to his relationship with the court, counsel and all other persons and organizations that he comes in contact with in fulfillment of his duties. The court believes that a recent request from Mr. Miller for an increase from $220.00 per hour to $250.00 an hour is plainly justified and indeed at the lower end of the range of the compensation to which he is entitled.}

^{Accordingly, the court will, effective for all hours worked, commencing February 17, 2000, approve the requested increase which shall remain in place until further notice. In order to allow persons who have standing to object to this decision to do so, the court will, by this Order, allow such objection to be filed with the court in writing within the next ten(10) days of the date of this Order after which the court will rule upon any such objections. In the meantime, Mr. Miller should keep an accurate record of his hours from the time of commencement of the new proposed hourly rate until such time as the court rules upon any objections that any be filed. At that time the court will make its final ruling, with any objections considered, and the extent to which any hours logged by Mr. Miller in the interim are effected by that ruling, and appropriate adjustments can be made. SO ORDERED}

^{Pursuant to the accompanying Memorandum, any persons having standing to object to the proposed increase for the compensation of Special Discovery Master Gregory P. Miller, Esq. from $220.00 per hour to $250.00 per hour, effective for all hours worked, commencing on Thursday, February 17, 2000, shall file such objection in writing with the Clerk on or before 4:00 p.m., Monday, February 28, 2000.}

^2-17-2000

¹¹⁴⁷

^{Re: Lisa Colby V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20070)}

^{Considering the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed by the parties herein;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal be GRANTED, and JUDGMENT is hereby rendered dismissing the plaintiffs= claims against the parties listed in the Joint Stipulation, with prejudice.}

^2-18-2000

¹¹⁴⁸

^{Re: Betty Glaze, Mary C. Smith, Mindy Spurrier, and Cynthis LeBlanc V. Gate Pharm. (Div of Teva USA, Inc). Et al. (98-20278)}

^{ORDERED and DECREED that Margaret T. Brenner, Federal ID No. 9044, of the law firm Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering, P.C., 1200 Smith Street, 400 Two Allen Center, Houston, TX 77002, shall be and is hereby substituted as counsel of record and attorney-in-charge for INTERNEURON PHARM., INC., a Defendants herein.}

^2-18-2000

¹¹⁴⁹

^{Re: Elaine Ball, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20623)}

^{Plaintiffs Elaine Ball and Colleen Merrill (APlaintiffs@) respectfully request and additional sixty days to respond to pre-trial order no. 1054 and to file an amended complaint regarding Defendant Innovative health Care, Inc., (AInnovative@). Plaintiffs requests the additional time so as to issue discovery to innovative, limited to jurisdictional issues related to the pending motion to remand. The briefing on the motion to remand has been closed for over one and one half years; there was no reason to believe that Plaintiffs needed discovery regarding such jurisdictional issues.}

^2-18-2000

¹¹⁵⁰

^{Re: Sheila Brown, Sharon Gaddie, Vivian Naugle, Quintin Layer & Joby Jackson-Reid V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of the Joint Motion for an Order Authorizing Reimbursement of Certain Notice Related Expenses, it is hereby,}

^{ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that class counsel and counsel for American Home Products Corp. are authorized and directed to cause the interim escrow agent to pay the following bills for services in connection with providing notice to the class pursuant to PTO No. 997: Invoices of KSL Media Inc. dated 7ebruary 3, 2000 in the amount of $2,885,969.10, for the costs of advertising notice on Network Television.}

^2-18-2000

¹¹⁵¹

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation No. 40}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation No. 40 of the Special Discovery Master (as to Dismissal of Various Defendant from Cases for Lack of Product ID) is AFFIRMED;}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the noted plaintiffs shall file conforming captions within thirty (30) days; and}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants listed on Exhibit A are DISMISSED from the cases listed on Exhibits B through Q of Decision and Recommendation No. 40}

^2-18-2000

¹¹⁵²

^{Re: Sheila Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., (99-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of the Uncontested Motion of Class Counsel and Counsel for Subclass 1(a) for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED. The Second Amended Complaint in the form attached to said Motion may be filed of record with this Court.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sheila Brown is dismissed from this case without prejudice, and with a preservation of her rights as an absent class member of this case, and, in order to avoid confusion in light of the many court filings that have referred to this case as, inter alia, the Brown case, Sheila Brown, et al. or other similar captions utilizing the name ABrown@, this case and all captions for same shall continue to be styled as Sheila Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp.}

^2-18-2000

¹¹⁵³

^{Re: Sheila Brown, Sharon Gaddie, Vivian Naugle, Quintin Layer and Joby Jackson-Reid V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of the Plaintiff=s Motion for an Order Modifying the Form of Internet Notice to the Class Members, it is hereby}

^{ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED the form of Official Court Notice appended to the nationwide class action Settlement Agreement with American Home Products Corp., as Exhibit A13" which is available to members of the class on the internet shall be modified to state that the following are counsel for the PA certified class}

^{Anapol Schwartz Weiss Cohan Feldman & Smalley, P.C. Berger & Montague, P.C.}

^{Sol H. Weiss, Esq Russell D. Henkin, Esq.}

^{1900 Delancy Place 1622 Locust Street}

^{Philadelphia, PA 19103 Philadelphia, PA 19103}

^{215-735-1130 215-875-3000}

^{Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C.}

^{Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.}

^{Lawrence E. Feldman & Associates Levy Angstreich Finney Baldante Rubenstein & Coren, P.C.}

^{Lawrence E. Fledman, Esq. Michael Coren, Esq.}

^{Garwin Bronzaft Gerstein & Fisher, LLP Law Offices of Donald B. Lewis}

^{Scott W. Fisher, Esq. Donald B. Lewis, Esq.}

^{Greitzer & Locks Sheller Ludwid & Badey}

^{Martin Greitzer, Esq. Stephen A. Sheller, Esq.}

^2-18-2000

¹¹⁵⁴

^{Re: Dorita Resnick , Sharolyn Mercy & John Farrell V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., et al. (98-20069)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Plaintiff Dorita Resnick in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^2-18-2000

¹¹⁵⁵

^{Re: Gary L. Boland (deceased), et al. V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20762)}

^{Considering the foregoing Motion to Substitute Counsel and Plaintiffs and to Amend Complaint pursuant to Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:}

^{IT IS ORDERED that:}

^{1. Lee H. des Bordes, Jr., Esq., Boland Law Firm, L.L.C., 619 North St., Baton rouge, Louisiana 70802, is substituted as counsel for plaintiffs in this case.}

^{2. Lynn S. Boland, Ysonde K. Boland, and Kurt C. Boland are granted leave to substitute themselves and join themselves as plaintiffs in this case to assert survival and wrongful death actions pursuant to Louisiana law.}

^{3. Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend the caption of this case by changing the named plaintiffs from AGary L. Boland and Lynn S. Boland@ to Lynn S. Boland, Ysonde K. Boland, and Kurt C. boland}

^{4. Plaintiffs are granted leave, pursuant to Federal rule of Civil Procedure Rule 15, to file the Second Amended Complaint.}

^2-25-2000

¹¹⁵⁶

^{Re: Sheila Brown, Sharon Gaddie, Vivian Naugle, Quintin Layer & Joby Jackson-Reid V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{Based upon the agreement of class counsel and counsel for the Sheff Law Offices, P.C., the Motion for Leave to Take Discovery of Counsel Associated with the Phen-Fen Legal.com that the Sheff Law Offices, P.C. shall have until March 9, 2000 to respond or to reply to the instant Motion.}

^2-25-2000

¹¹⁵⁷

^{Re: 21st Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses}

^{Upon consideration of the Twenty-First Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (12/01/99 through 12/31/99), 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 $22.572.58 for the period from 12/01/99 through 12/31/99, in accordance with the procedure established by the Court.}

^2-25-2000

¹¹⁵⁸

^{Re: Sheila Brown, Sharon Gaddie, Vivian Naugle, Quintin Layer & Joby Jackson-Reid V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that class counsel shall disclose certain documents reviewed by this Court in camera subject to this Court=s PTO No. 1115 regarding confidentiality and without waiver of the attorney client privileges or work product privileges associated with these documents.}

^{At the February 16, 2000 Special Discovery Court hearing, this Court ordered that Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman make available its documents withheld on the grounds of privilege from the document production responsive to the Dunn objectors= document requests to be produced to chambers for inspection. Following a review of these documents, this Court agrees that internal memorandum regarding negotiations, strategies and mental impressions related to negotiations are and shall remain privileged and need not be produced. Further, this Court has inspected documents which comprise attorneys handwritten notes of negotiations, strategies and meetings which shall remain privileged and need not be produced. In addition, this Court has inspected copies of several drafts of settlement papers containing handwritten notes of counsel reflecting their mental impressions of the appropriateness of the document and they too shall remain privileged and need not be produced. Finally, correspondence between counsel and client regarding the merits of their claim are and shall remain privileged and not subject to production.}

^cont...

¹¹⁵⁸

^{Certain documents, however, shall be produced. In particular, this Court finds that correspondence between class and subclass counsel regarding the appropriateness of clients to act as class representatives, while privileged, shall be subject to production. In addition, this Court has directed that communications from counsel=s testifying experts to counsel shall be produced. The Court expects that the rulings set forth with respect to Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman=s documents shall be implemented and employed for those documents designated as privileged by class or subclass counsel.}

^{Any future disputes regarding attorney client privilege or work product privilege assertions shall be addressed at the Special Discovery Court and additional in camera document inspection may be in order.}

^2-25-2000

¹¹⁵⁹

^{Re: Nominees for appointment to the seven positions on the Board of Trustees}

^{In accordance with Section VI.A.2 of the Settlement Agreement and upon a thorough review of the supporting material provided regarding the qualifications of nominees for appointment to the seven positions on the Board of Trustees, with three of those nominees having been made by the parties and four of the nominees having been made by the State Judicial Committee established at Section VIII.B.3 of the Settlement Agreement, IT IS ORDERED that the court approves the nominations and appoints the following nominees as Trustees to serve in accordance with provisions of the Settlement Agreement and the Trust Agreement included therein or as otherwise ordered by the court:}

^{George A. Beller (Charlottesville, VA); Joseph L. Castle, II (Radnor PA); Ricahrd S. Cohen, Esq. (New Brunswick, NJ); Senator Chris Harris (Arlington, TX); Alison Overseth (NY, NY); Rose-Marie Robertson, M.D., FACC (Nashville, TN); Dean M. Trafelet, Esq. (Chicago, IL).}

^{The court designates Joseph L. Castle, II to serve as Chairman of the Board of Trustees until further Order of the court.}

^{The court directs the Chairman to communicate with the other members of the Board so that they may convene at a convenient time and place for the purpose of fulfilling necessary organization functions, including the adoption of by-laws, following which the Trustees shall enter upon their duties.}

^{SO ORDERED.}

^2-25-2000

¹¹⁶⁰

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

^{The PMC has moved in this Court for an Order directing defendant AHP (including its related entities) automatically to disclose certain case-specific information regarding AHP contacts or communications with individual plaintiffs= prescribing or treating physicians as well as other specific information. AHP has responded to the PMC=s motion and described the accessibility of some of the requested information and has opposed the PMC=s request for automatic disclosure of case-specific information. AHP has also asserted that it is precluded by FDA regulation from producing certain other information requested by the PMC.}

^{This Order applies to documents previously produced or that are to be produced in the future by AHP as part of the general document production it has made and is making in this MDL litigation. Those documents were produced by AHP in redacted form in accordance with AHP=s position that such redaction is required by FDA regulations.}

^{This order does not require the production or identification of any document withheld under the attorney client or attorney work product privilege, or other applicable privilege or immunity.}

^{Having considered the PMC=s application and motion, AHP=s reply and opposition, the arguments of counsel and the recommendations of the Special Master, it is this ___ day of ________ ordered that the PMC=s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:}

^{A) Communications between AHP and Plaintiffs= Treating and Prescribing Physicians and ADE Records}

^{The PMC has sought to compel AHP automatically to disclose all AHP communications concerning the individual plaintiffs= and which relate to their use of Pondimin (fenfluramine) or Redux (dexfenfluramine) without a request from any specific plaintiff. The communications sought also include communications between AHP and plaintiff=s treating or prescribing physician concerning the plaintiff, the drugs Pondimin or Redux, or Adverse Drug Events (AADE=s@) related to these drugs. AHP opposes automatic disclosure of this information and further argues that FDA regulations prohibit the identification of ADE=s related to personas other than plaintiff if disclosure would tend to identify the voluntary reporter or the subject of the report. See 21 CFR 20.63(f).}

^cont...

¹¹⁶⁰

^{Globaiolo Safety, Surveillance and Epidemogy) relating the}

^{The PMC=s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:}

^{(1) Except for ADE records which are addressed in A(3) or A(4) below, and records addressed in (B), (C) or (D) herein, AHP shall, upon request of counsel for a particular plaintiff, identify or disclose to that counsel, all documents in the MADIRA database which reflect communications regarding Pondimin or Redux between AHP and prescribing physicians identified in that plaintiff=s fact sheet at section VI(A) and which do not contain any information that would identify they physician as a voluntary reporter of an adverse event. (2) Except for ADE records which are addressed in A(3) and A(4) below and records addressed in (B), (C) or (D) herein, AHP shall, upon request of counsel for a particular plaintiff, identify or disclose to that counsel all documents in the MADIRA database which reflect communications regarding Pondimin and Redux between AHP and any physician identified in plaintiff=s fact sheet at Section VII (A3) as having advised plaintiff with respect to whether plaintiff=s condition is related to diet drugs and/or any physician identified in plaintiff=s fact sheet at Section V (R) as a treating physician and which do not contain any information that would identify the physician as a voluntary report of an adverse event. This disclosure may be made by reference to specific production numbers in AHP=s document production. Counsel for a particular plaintiff may make such request by interrogatory as follows:}

^{Please identify or produce each communication covered by PTO ___(A)(2) between AHP and the physicians identified in Section VII (A3) of the Plaintiffs Fact Sheet in this action.}

^{Please identify or produce each communication covered by PTO ____(A)(2) between AHP and the following physicians identified in Section V(R) of the Plaintiff=s Fact Sheet in this action. Name____________________________________________________________________________}

^{(3) AHP shall, upon request of counsel for a particular plaintiff, identify or disclose to that counsel any Pondimin or Redux ADE report (including the accompanying ADE file maintained by Wyeth-Ayerst}

^{Global Safety, Surveillance and Epidemiology) relating to that plaintiff. Use 21 CFR 20.63(f)1)(iii). This disclosure may be made with reference to specific production numbers in AHP=s document production. Counsel for a particular plaintiff may make such interrogatory as follows:}

^{Please identify or produce any Pondimin or Redux ADE report regarding plaintiff _____, including the accompanying ADE file maintained by Wyeth-Ayerst Global Safety, Surveillance and Epidemiology.}

^{(4) AHP has previously produced and continues to produce Pondimin and Redux ADE reports in the general document production it has made and is making in this case. Produced Pondimin and Redux ADE reports are redacted by AHP to eliminate any patient and reporter identifying information. AHP shall not be required to identify which Pondimin or Redux ADE report (including the accompanying ADE file maintained by Wyeth-Ayerst Global Safety, Surveillance and Epidemiology) made by a Plaintiff=s prescribing or treating physician relating to any person other than the Plaintiff, even if the identity of the subject is redacted, ad doing so might tend to identify the voluntary reporter which AHP believes would violate FDA regulatory requirements. With respect to Pondimin or Redux ADE reports made by a Plaintiff=s prescribing or treating physician relating to persons other than the Plaintiff, AHP, its agents and/or its counsel are precluded in any MDL action, other than an action involving that other person, from using such redacted information.}

^{(5) All disclosures which are required to be made pursuant to 1, 2 or 3 above shall be made within 30 days of receipt of plaintiff=s interrogatory.}

^{(B) Detailing Information}

^{The PMC has sought to compel AHP automatically to disclose communications between its Redux sales force and thee physician who prescribed or dispensed Pondimin or Redux to the Plaintiff, AHP objects to automatically disclosing this information, referred to herein as Adetailing information,@ stating that detailing information is contained primarily in the AHP-R and AHP-SC series of documents which have been produced to the PMC.}

^{The PMC=s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:}

^{(1) AHP shall not be required automatically to disclose detailing information as requested by PMC.}

^{(2) Counsel for a particular plaintiff may elect to propound individual interrogatories to AHP to obtain detailing information. The interrogatories that shall be permitted are as follows:}

^cont...

¹¹⁶⁰

^{1. Please identify each AHP Redux sales representative (stating the name of persons employed by AHP, and, if not employed by AHP, their last known address and phone number) who communicated with any of the following physicians who are alleged to have prescribed or dispensed Pondimin or Redux to the plaintiff: (LIST PRESCRIBING PHYSICIANS)}

^{2. If any physician who prescribed or dispensed Pondimin or Redux to plaintiff (Aprescribing physician@) was contacted by an AHP Redux sales representative, please identify by production number range in the AHP-R series or in any other AHP production, the series of documents that contains files maintained by that sales representative(s). In addition, please identify by production number range in the AHP-R series or in any other AHP production, the series of documents that contains files maintained by that sales representative=s supervisor.}

^{(3). Responses to these interrogatories shall be made within 30 days of receipt.}

^{(C) Dear Health Care Professional Information}

^{The PMC has requested an order compelling AHP automatically to disclose whether it sent one or more of the following ADear Health Care Professional@ letters regarding Redux and/or Pondimin to plaintiffs= prescribing physicians: April 30, 1996; August 22, 1996; December 1996; January 1997; July 24, 1997; September 15, 1997. These are the six ADear Health Care Professional@ letters sent by AHP to physicians regarding Redux and/or Pondimin. (AHP sent additional similar letters to pharmacists.) AHP opposes}

^{automatic disclosure contending that it has produced the requested information to the PMC in two formats. Specifically, AHP contends that it has provided the ADear Health Care Professional@ letter list (the AHP-DL series of documents) which disclose the names of those healthcare providers to whom such letters were sent. AHP has advised that these listings are organized by letter date and by zipcode which can be visually searched for the physician=s name. In addition, AHP has produced to the PMC a database from its vendor, St John=s Co., which can be electronically searched to determine whether such letters were sent. This information can be obtained from the PMC upon request, in writing, by counsel for a particular plaintiff.}

^{For the reasons stated by AHP, the PMC=s request for automatic disclosure of information showing whether ADear Health Care Professional@ letters were sent to prescribing physicians is DENIED.}

^{(D) Prescribing Physicians= Pondimin and Redux Prescription History}

^{The PMC also requests that AHP automatically disclose the prescription history for a plaintiff=s prescribing physicians. AHP opposes this request on the grounds that it has produced to the PMC the APOLLO database. This database provides October 1995 (Month 1) to September 1997 (Month 24) prescribing information which is sorted by physician name for Redux, Pondimin, Adipe, Fastin, ionamin, and Phentermine. For each month, the database reports total prescriptions and Anew@ prescriptions. This information may be obtained from the PMC upon request, in writing, by counsel for a particular plaintiff.}

^{For the reasons stated by AHP, the PMC=s request for automatic disclosure of prescribing history of a plaintiff=s prescribing physician is DENIED.}

2-28-2000

1161

Re: Elaine Ball, Melissa Tijerina, Maria S. Rodriguez, Mary W. Atkinson & Colleen Merrill V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20623)

It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiffs Colleen Merrill and Elaine all [APlaintiffs@] shall have an extension of time to respond, up and through March 16th, 2000, to the motion of Defendant American Home Products (AHP) to dismiss the above-entitled case. Said motion was field on January 31, 2000, and a response was originally due on February 17, 2000.

Plaintiffs and AHP have executed this stipulation for an extension of time through the undersigned counsel of record. This stipulation does not affect the status of any other party. This stipulation may be signed in counterparts.

2-28-2000

1162

Re: Designation of Treating Physicians As Case-Specific Experts

This Order will govern the designation of treating physicians as case specific experts in all cases that are part of this coordinated proceeding.

Pursuant to PTO No. 417, Plaintiffs are required to designate case-specific experts who are expected to testify as to any issue other than economic damages. In addition to identifying these experts, PTO No. 417 requires Plaintiffs to provide all expert disclosures in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2).

The Special Discovery Master has informed the Court that some Plaintiffs have failed to designate as experts treating physicians who intend to give opinion testimony regarding causation. Absent proper disclosures, Defendants are denied an adequate opportunity to prepare for the depositions of these experts. Although most Plaintiffs have identified treating physicians in their fact sheets, this identification does not meet the expert disclosure requirements of PTO No. 417 or Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2). As such, any Plaintiff who intends to rely upon a treating physician as a causation expert must designate the physician as a case-specific expert and provide all Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B) disclosures pursuant to the deadlines established by PTO No. 992.

In those cases where Plaintiffs have designated by name their treating physicians as case-specific experts within the established deadlines but have failed to provide the disclosures required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B),. Plaintiffs shall serve complete expert disclosures within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of this Order.

For those cases with DIDs up to and including October 1, 1998, where the deadlines for designating case-specific experts have expired, Plaintiffs may designate their treating physicians as case-specific experts in accordance with the following conditions:

1. Plaintiffs may designate as case-specific experts only those physicians previously identified in their fact sheets as treating physicians;

2. Plaintiffs must designate their treating physicians as case-specific experts within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of this Order;

3. Plaintiffs must provide all expert disclosures, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B), for those treating physicians designated as case-specific experts within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of this Order; and

4. In those situations where Defendants have exposed previously the treating physician who is now designated as Plaintiff=s case-specific expert pursuant to this Order, as a fact witness after the deadline for disclosure, Defendants may redepose this physician with Plaintiff to bear the costs, including reasonable expert fees, counsel fees and expenses. Plaintiffs shall not bear the costs for Defendants to depose a treating physician not yet deposed by the Defendants. The Special Discovery Master will establish deadlines in addition to those set forth herein for completing the depositions of all related case-specific experts and for Defendants to provide responsive experts and for Defendants to provide responsive expert designations and disclosures.

3-1-2000

1163

Re: Hearing held on March 1, 2000

At a hearing held on March 1, 2000, the court ruled as follows:

1.) The deposition of Jackson Reed shall go forward today or tomorrow unless Jackson Reed is withdrawn as a class representative.

2.) Plaintiff may, within five days, file a motion to substitute Jackson Reed and Sharon Gaddie as class representatives.

3.) Mr. Blizzard and Mr. Napoli shall file an affidavit, under oath, regarding Class Representative Sharon Gaddie and Class Representative Sheila Brown. Said affidavits shall be filed before the next Discovery Court, scheduled for March 8, 2000.

4.) AHP has until March 13, 2000 to name their legal expert.

^3-7-2000

¹¹⁶⁴

^{Re: Alan Winikur is hereby appointed auditory of PMC and Common Benefit Attorneys= time and expense}

^{It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Alan Winikur, C.P.A. is hereby appointed auditor of PMC and Common Benefit Attorneys= time and expense reports and is authorized to make periodic reports at the request of this Court or the PMC.}

^{It is Further Ordered that Mr. Winikur=s normal charges will be paid out of the PMC cost account upon presentation of the same.}

^3-7-2000

¹¹⁶⁵

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation No. 41}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation No. 41 of Special Discovery Master (as to Plaintiff=s objection to production of the SNAPH Study is AFFIRMED.}

^3-7-2000

¹¹⁶⁶

^{Re: Teresa Hayes V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20805)}

^{Upon consideration of the motion of defendant Arthur Miller, M.D. to dismiss the case against him by plaintiff Teresa Hayes, and service having been made of the motion and no answer having been filed the court upon consideration of the unopposed allegations in the complaint concludes that the motion should be granted as unopposed. SO ORDERED}

^3-8-2000

¹¹⁶⁷

^{Re: Jo H. Jordan V. Jury Demand (AHP, et al.) (99-20810)}

^{Pursuant to proper motion, plaintiff moved the court to amend her complaint as follows by substituting AMahmood Ali, M.D., individually and d/b/a A Lighter Weight Clinic, 841 Union Street, Shelbyville, TN 38107" in place of AAaliya Khanum Mahmood, M.D. individually and d/b/a A Lighter Weigh Clinic@ throughout the original complaint.}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint is amended to name the correct defendant in the above cause.}

^3-8-2000

¹¹⁶⁸

^{Re: Noree Chappita and Lisa Colby V. AHP., et al. (98-20070)}

^{Plaintiff and defendants, having stipulated for the dismissal of plaintiff, Noreen Chappita=s claims against defendants, Ciolino=s Pharmacy, Inc., d/b/a Ciolino and Gambino Discount Pharmacy and/or C&G Discount Pharmacy, with prejudice, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(ii), the Court approves such stipulation and plaintiff, Noreen Chappita=s claims against defendants, Ciolino=s Pharmacy, Inc., d/b/a/ Ciolino and Gambino Discount Pharmacy and/or C&G Discount Pharmacy, are dismissed, with prejudice each party to bear its own costs.}

^3-8-2000

¹¹⁶⁹

^{Re: Cynthia Foreman & Bradley Foreman V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (00-20056)}

^{Come Now William E. Lawton, Esq. of the law firm Dean, Ringers, Morgan and Lawton, P.A. P.O. Box 2928. Orlando, FL 32802 and H. Vance Smith, Esq. of the law firm of Smith, Clark, DeLesie, Bierly, Mueller & Kadyk, P.O. Box 2939, Tampa, FL 33602 and stipulate and agree that William E. Lawton, Esq. and the firm of Dean, Ringers, Morgan and Lawton, P.A., be substituted as counsel of record for Defendants AHP cor., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., A.H. Robins Co., Inc and Eckerd Crop. Of FL., Inc. and that copies of all pleadings be sent to him at the above-addressed.}

^3-8-2000

¹¹⁷⁰

^{Re: Tammie Alaine Register V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (99-20114)}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs= Motion to Substitute Counsel is hereby GRANTED, and that Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole shall be removed as the attorneys of record for Plaintiff in the above-captioned action and that Jones Martin Parris & Tessener Law Offices, PLLC shall be substituted as attorneys of record for Plaintiff, and that Gregory M. Martin shall be designated as the attorney in charge.}

^3-8-2000

¹¹⁷¹

^{Re: Diane Vail McClenny & James Andrew McClenny V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (99-20107)}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs= Motion to Substitute Counsel is hereby GRANTED, and that Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole shall be removed as the attorneys of record for Plaintiff in the above-captioned action and that Jones Martin Parris & Tessener Law Offices, PLLC shall be substituted as attorneys of record for Plaintiff, and that Gregory M. Martin shall be designated as the attorney in charge.}

^3-8-2000

¹¹⁷²

^{Re: Brenda Neal, et al. V. MCR/American Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (00-20196)}

^{It is ORDERED that defendant MCR/American Pharmaceuticals, Inc.=s motion (#201438) for summary judgment is DENIED AS MOOT.}

^{An order was filed by Myron H. Thompson, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama, Southern Division, that dismissed MCR/American Pharmaceuticals, Inc. without prejudice.}

^3-8-2000

¹¹⁷³

^{Re: Sheila rown, Sharon Gaddie, Vivian Naugle, Quintin Layer and Joby Jackson-Reid V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of the representations of Interim Claims Administrators that the matters herein described were negotiated in the marketplace and constitute fair and reasonable prices and further being advised that counsel for American Home Products Corp. and Class Counsel have agreed to these arrangements, it is hereby ORDERED that.}

^{1. The Court hereby approves the Claims Processing Agreement dated February 11, 2000, between Seabury & Smith, Inc. and Gregory P. Miller and C. Judson Hamlin, as Interim claims Administrators attached hereto as Exhibit A.}

^{2. The Court hereby approves the Sublease Agreement dated February 14, 2000 between the PLC, as sub-lessor, and Gregory P. Miller and C. Judson Hamlin, as Interim Claims Administrators, as sub-lessee, with respect to office space at 325 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA attached hereto as Exhibit B.}

^{3. The Court hereby approves the Interim Claims Administrators obtaining Errors and Omissions insurance coverage for a policy period of one year commencing February 29, 2000, with an endorsement for retroactive coverage to November 23, 12999. This professional liability policy is issued by Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Co. and covers the Interim Claims Administrators as well as the successors to the Interim Claims Administrators for professional liability associated with claims management. A copy of the Insurance Binder is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The Court directs Class Counsel and American Home Products Corp. to authorize the Interim Escrow Agent to disburse funds from the Interim Escrow Account to pay the premium for such insurance.}

^3-9-2000

¹¹⁷⁴

^{Re: Sheila Brown, Sharon Gaddie, Vivian Naugle, Quintin Layer, and Joby Jackson-Reid V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of the Joint Motion for an Order Authorizing Reimbursement of Certain Notice Related Expenses, it is hereby,}

^{ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that class counsel and counsel for American Home Products Corp. are authorized and directed to cause the interim escrow agent to pay the following bills for service in connection with providing notice to the class pursuant to PTO No. 997: Invoice of Tierney & Partners, dated February 28, 2000 in the amount of $1,419,660.65, for the costs of publishing notice in consumer magazines, trade magazines, newspapers, internet and cable television.}

^3-9-2000

¹¹⁷⁵

^{Re: Sheila Brown, Sharon Gaddie, Vivian Naugle, Quintin Layer, and Joby Jackson-Reid V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of the Joint Motion for an Order Authorizing Reimbursement of Certain Notice Related Expenses, it is hereby,}

^{ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that class counsel and counsel for American Home Products Corp. are authorized and directed to cause the interim escrow agent to pay the following bills for service in connection with providing notice to the class pursuant to PTO No. 997: Invoices of KSL Media Inc. dated March 3, 2000 in the amount of $1,519,772.05 for the costs of advertising notice on Network Television.}

^3-9-2000

¹¹⁷⁶

^{Re: Joetta Tucker V. American Home Products, et al. (99-20020)}

^{Upon consideration of the motion of Jennifer Martin-Frank and the law firm of Lewis Saul and Assoc. P.C. and John Robert Shelton and the law firm of Borowitz and Goldsmith to withdraw as counsel for Joetta Tucker (docket = 201448), IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted. Subject to the following conditions. SEE PTO for conditions.}

^3-9-2000

¹¹⁷⁷

^{Re: Kathryn A. Hamas and Richard Hamas V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (992085)}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs= Motion to Substitute Counsel is hereby GRANTED, and that Williams and McCarthy shall be removed as the attorneys of record for Plaintiff in the above-captioned action, and that Williams Merrick Dailey & O=Leary, P.C. shall be substituted as attorneys of record for Plaintiff, and that Michael L. Williams and Leslie W. O=Leary shall be designated as the attorneys in charge.}

^3-10-2000

¹¹⁷⁸

^{Re: Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., No. 99-20593}

^{Upon consideration of the Class Counsel=s Motion to File a Joint Response to the Various Objections to the Settlement Agreement by April 21, 2000, it is hereby ORDERED that said motion is granted.}

^3-10-2000

¹¹⁷⁹

^{Re: Tom and Karen Beasley V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (div. of AHP)., et al. (00-20064)}

^{On this day came on to be heard Plaintiffs= Motion for Remand to the state court. The Court notes that all counsel for all parties have agreed to Plaintiffs= Motion being granted. All parties have agreed to bear their own costs. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that there is no controversy concerning the Motion should be granted.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this entire case shall be remanded to the Circuit Court of Faulkner County, Arkansas.}

^3-14-2000

¹¹⁸⁰

^{Re: PMC=s Motion for Release and use of Funds from the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account (Escrow Acct.)}

^{Upon consideration of PMC=s Motion for Release and Use of Funds from the MDL 1203 Fee and Costs Account, established by Gregory Miller, Esq., Escrow Agent, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED and Gregory Miller, Esq., is directed to make payment on invoices totaling Two Hundred Eighteen Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Three Dollars and Ninety Cents ($218, 853.90) to PMC.}

^3-14-2000

¹¹⁸¹

^{Re: PMC Motion for Release and Use of Funds from Fee & Cost Account}

^{Upon consideration of the Motion of PMC=s motion for Release and Use of Funds, from MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account, to Reimburse a Portion of the Monies Paid by members of the PMC, as Assessments, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that distribution shall be made, in the amount of One Million Three Hundred Forty Four Seven Thousand Dollars and Thirty Two Cents ($1,344,447.32), from the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account, to the Plaintiff=s Legal Committee=s Cost Account, to be distributed to the Committee Members, as partial reimbursement for costs and expenses incurred in MDL 1203, as follows:}

^{Arnold Levin $150,000.00}

^{Diane Nast $150,000.00}

^{Elizabeth Cabraser $150,000.00}

^{J. Michael Papantonio $150,000.00}

^{John Cummings $150,000.00}

^{Michael Hausfeld $150,000.00}

^{Roger P. Brosnhan $150,000.00}

^{Stanley Chesley $125,000.00}

^{Darryl Tschirn $100,000.00}

^{John Restaino $ 69,447.32}

^3-15-2000

¹¹⁸²

^{Re: Perian Joiner & Clarence Jointer V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., et al.}

^{Upon consideration of the Motion Seeking a Determination of the Application of the PMC=s Common Fund Fee on Certain State Court Cases filed by Plaintiffs Perian Joiner and Clarence Joiner and the response of the PMC thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is granted. The Court accepts the representation of Paul D. Rheingold, Esq. that there has been no use of the PMC work product to date in any of Mr. Rheingold=s state court cases without prejudice of the PMC to pursue its rights against Mr. Rheingold should facts develop otherwise. Accordingly, the common fund set aside imposed by PTO Nos 467 and 517 is not applicable to this case.}

^3-15-2000

¹¹⁸³

^{Re: Clydette Clevenger & estate of Ronald Clevenger V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20412)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the plaintiff agrees that should she decide to initiate a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorizations Forms.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in above captioned matter, AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORP., A.H. ROBINS CO., INC. and EON LABS MANUFACTURING, INC. against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^3-15-2000

¹¹⁸⁴

^{Re: Eleanora Roach, Yvonne Lares and Marcia Bastian and Listed Involuntary Plaintiffs V. Wyeth Ayers Labs. Div of American Home Prod., Corp., et al. (98-20470)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter as to the plaintiff, Yvonne Lares, and the Involuntary Plaintiffs, Wisconsin Physicians= Service Insurance Corp. and Dean Health Plan, Inc. as its claims relate to Yvonne Lares, are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (Div. of American Home Products Corp., Gate Pharm, and Qualitest Pharm., Inc. with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being: Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Div. Of American Home products Crop., Gate Pharm., and Qualitest Pharm., Inc. against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^{Plaintiffs further certify that pursuant to PTO No. 22 the above-named plaintiff has produced a fact sheet, medical authorizations and a list of medical providers to the defendants.}

^3-15-2000

¹¹⁸⁵

^{Re: Kathy Darlene Ellis and Paul Ellis V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc. (98-20331)}

^{Upon the Plaintiffs= Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as to the defendant Camall Co. only, it appearing to the Court that Camall has filed Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGE AND DECREED that the amended complaint is hereby dismissed as to Camall Company only, without prejudice.}

^3-15-2000

¹¹⁸⁶

^{Re: Katherine Aina V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. (98-20112)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, AGREED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, that all claims in the above-captioned matter including, without limitations, any and all cross-claims, are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the Stipulating Parties with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiffs to provide notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class action allegations have been dismissed with prejudice pursuant to PTO No. 450.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of defendants Wyeth-Ayerst labs. Co. Div. Of American Home Products Corp., Interneuron Pharm., Inc. SmithKline Beecham Corp. and A.H. Robins Co., Inc., each of whom entered appearances and against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^3-15-2000

¹¹⁸⁷

^{Re: Mary Sue Riggan V. American Home Prod.,e to al. (98-20509)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGE and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear his own costs and counsel fees, ans without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Amended Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being, American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Div of American Home Products Corp., Wyeth Labs, Inc., Abana Pharm., Inc., and Camall Company, against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^3-15-2000

¹¹⁸⁸

^{Re: Bonnie Pace V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20046)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGE and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear his own costs and counsel fees, ans without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Amended Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp, Wyeth-Ayerst labs., Inc. and Interneuron Inc.,/Interneuron Pharm., Inc. against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^3-15-2000

¹¹⁸⁹

^{Re: Yvette Garduno and Linda Rea V. American Home Products, et al. (98-20143)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGE and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear his own costs and counsel fees, ans without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Amended Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being, American Home Products and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. and Interneuron Pharm against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^3-15-2000

¹¹⁹⁰

^{Re: Noree Chappita & Lisa Colby V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20070)}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGE AND DECREED, that K&B Louisiana Corp., (erroneously referred to as K&B Louisiana Corp. d/b/a K&B Drug) now known as Rite Aid Corp is hereby dismissed form this matter with prejudice with all parties bearing their own costs.}

^{Stipulation Attached}

^3-15-2000

¹¹⁹¹

^{Re: Noree Chappita & Lisa Colby V. American Home Prod. Corp., et al. (98-20070)}

^{Plaintiff and defendant, having stipulated for the dismissal of plaintiff, Noreen Chaappita=s claims against defendants, Ciolino=s Pharm., Inc., d/b/a/ Ciolino and Gambino Discount Pharmacy and/or C&G Discount Pharmacy, with prejudice, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(ii), the Court approves such stipulation and plaintiff, Noreen Chapptia=s claims against defendants, Ciolino=s Pharm., Inc., d/b/a/ Ciolino and Gambino Discount Pharm., and/or C&G Discount Pharm are dismissed, with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs.}

^3-16-2000

¹¹⁹²

^{Re: Sharon Evans V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (div. of AHP Corp.), et al. (98-1051)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Plaintiff, Sharon Evans, in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to Defendants, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. (div of AHP Corp. as manufacturer and ABC Distributor of the Medication ARedux@, XYZ Insurer), Dr. Christopher A. Bloom and EFG Insurer(s), with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, Plaintiff, Sharon Evans, agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drugs, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court. Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of PTO #22 by completing a Plaintiffs= Fact Sheet and providing the List of Medical Providers and executed Medical Authorization forms.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of Defendants, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (div of AHP Corp. as manufacturer and ABC Distributor of the Medication ARedux@, XYZ Insurer), Dr. Christopher A. Bloom and EFG Insurer(s), against whom the claims of Sharon Evans in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this stipulation.}

^3-16-2000

¹¹⁹³

^{Re: Edward Lindsey V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. (98-20086)}

^{Plaintiff Edward Lindsey filed a diet drug complaint in the Southern District of Mississippi on or about October 23, 1997, assertin individual claims for personal injury damages and naming as a Defendant: Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. The action was then transferred and consolidated in the Eastern District of PA, in MDL 1203.}

^{The defendant has answered the complaint. No party has filed any motion for summary judgment. No counterclaims or cross claims have been pleaded by the Defendant in this action. All parties to this action who have entered an appearance in this action have executed this dismissal through the undersigned counsel of record. Plaintiff Lindsey has submitted PTO No. 22 responses. Plaintiff Lindsey has been deposed. Plaintiff Lindsey now seeks to dismiss his claims without prejudice to protect plaintiffs= right to bring his claims in the context of the proposed global settlement. Plaintiff agrees that should he decide to institute a lawsuit in the future for personal injuries relating to consumption of a manufacturers= diet drug, plaintiff shall file his case in federal court.}

^{All parties now agree, pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 41(a)(1), to the dismissal of all of plaintiff Edward Lindsey=s claims against all defendants, without prejudice to his rights under the proposed global class action Settlement. This stipulation will result in the dismissal without prejudice of all claims against the sole defendant Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co. all parties to bear their own fees and costs.}

^3-16-2000

¹¹⁹⁴

^{Re: Cindy L. Coats V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co.. (98-20186)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGE and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear his own costs and counsel fees, ans without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Amended Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., Interneuron Pharm., Inc., A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Camall Labs, and Richwood Pharm. Co., Inc., against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc., does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^3-16-2000

¹¹⁹⁵

^{Re: Nancy G. Wolff and Philip Wolff V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20761)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGE and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc. (Eon@), with all parties to bear their own costs and counsel fees.}

^{This Stipulation is filed by the Defendant, Eon, which was appeared in the above-captioned matter, and against which the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the completion of this stipulation. The Plaintiffs agree that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiffs shall file said case in federal court.}

^{All parties presently in this action agree to this stipulation of dismissal and have signed below.}

^3-16-2000

¹¹⁹⁶

^{Re: Patsy Cosse and Leroy Cosse V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20725)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGE and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Plaintiffs Patsy Cosse and Leroy Cosse in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to defendant American Home products Corporation, and all other defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, Plaintiffs Patsy Cosse and Leroy Cosse agree that should either decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drugs, plaintiffs shall file said case in federal court. Plaintiffs have complied with the requirements of PTO #22 by completing a Plaintiffs Fact Sheet and providing the List of Medical Providers and executed Medical Authorization forms.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all named defendants against whom the claims of Patsy Cosse and Leroy Cosse in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this stipulation.}

^3-16-2000

¹¹⁹⁷

^{Re: Lane B. Griggs and Dana Griggs V. American Home Products, et al. (98-20525)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Lane B. Griggs and Dana Griggs as alleged in the Complaint against Defendants United Research Labs., Inc. and Qualitest Pharm. Corp., Inc., in the above captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to these Defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees. Plaintiffs have complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a Fact Sheet, Medical Authorizations and a list of Medical Providers to Defendants.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{This Stipulation is filed by the Defendant, Eon, which was appeared in the above-captioned matter that being United Research Labs., Inc and Qualitest Pharm. Corp., Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^3-16-2000

¹¹⁹⁸

^{Re: Betty Diane Wright V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20038)}

^{It appearing to the Court that:}

^{1. This stipulation of Dismissal has been signed by all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii) and Pretrial Order No. 445.}

^{2. This Stipulation of Dismissal has been filed by the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matters with the endorsement of one or more of the co-chairs of the PMC attesting that it satisfies all applicable requirements of the Court as mandated in PTO No. 680 and 19(2)(F)(2)(e).}

^{3. This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiffs and all Defendants who have appeared of record, as evidenced by the signature of counsel for the respective parties, including American Home Products Corp. and its Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. division, Interneuron Pharm., Inc. and Geneva Pharm., Inc.}

^{4. The above-captioned matter does not involve any class allegations so as to trigger the requirements of PTO No. 266.}

^{5. All parties agree that the Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of PTO No. 22 by producing a fact sheet, medical authorizations and a list of medical providers to Defendants; and}

^{6. Plaintiff further agrees that she must file any case for personal injuries related to diet drug litigation that she might institute in the future in federal court and that such claim must be presented so that the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332.}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 419a)(1)(ii), that:}

^{1. The Court approves the Stipulation of Dismissal.}

^{2. The Plaintiff is dismissed without prejudice as to all named Defendants;}

^{3. The claim against the Defendants in the above-captioned matter is dismissed in its entirety.}

^{4. Plaintiff must file any case for personal injuries related to diet drug litigation that she might institute in the future in federal court and must present such claims so that the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332;}

^{5. Each party is to bear its own costs and legal fees associated with the above-captioned matter; and}

^{6. The foregoing conditions must be satisfied or the dismissal included herein will be deemed to be Awith prejudice@}

^3-16-2000

¹¹⁹⁹

^{Re: Mary Quirit and Michael Quirit V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20574)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO no. 22 by producing completed Fact Sheet, list of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms.}

^{This stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, that being A.H. Robins Co., Inc.; Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co.; American home products Corp., SmithKline Beecham Corp., Abana Pharm., Inc., Richwood Pharm., Co., Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc.; Interneuron harm., Inc., and Camall Co. and against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^3-16-2000

¹²⁰⁰

^{Re: Jeanette L. Lawrence V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20585)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO no. 22 by producing completed Fact Sheet, list of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms.}

^{This stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, that being A.H. Robins Co., Inc.; Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co.; American home products Corp, Gate Pharm., SmithKline Beecham Corp., Abana Pharm., Richwood Pharm., Co., Ion Labs.,, Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc., Zenith Goldline Pharm., Inc., Camall Co. and Interneuron Pharm., Inc., and against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this stipulation.}

^3-16-2000

¹²⁰¹

^{Re: Adam Ross V. American Home Prod., et al. (99-20254)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Adam Ross as alleged in the Complaint against all named Defendant sin the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees,}

^{Plaintiff has complied with PTO 22 by producing a Fact Sheet, Medical Authorizations and a list of Medical Providers to Defendants.}

^{Further, the Plaintiffs agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{This stipulation is filed on behalf of the following Defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp., A.H. Robins Co. Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Division of American Home products Corp., SmithKline Beecham Corp. and Eon Labs Manufacturing Inc., against who the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^3-17-2000

¹²⁰²

^{Re: Sharon Adair V. Gate Pharm.,(div. of Teva Pharm., USA) et al. (98-20081)}

^{Order approving stipulation of dismissal, dismissing all of plaintiffs= claims against Rugby Labs. Inc., without prejudice and dismissing the cross-claim of rugby Labs, Inc. against Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., without prejudice.}

^{Upon the motion of Defendant Rugby Labs., Inc., to approve the stipulation for voluntary dismissal of all claims asserted by Plaintiff against it in the above-captioned action, to dismiss all claims asserted against it without prejudice, and to dismiss the cross-claim of Rugby Labs., Inc., against Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., without prejudice, and there being no opposition by any party who has appeared, it is hereby:}

^{ORDERED that: (1) the Stipulation of Dismissal of all Plaintiff=s claims in this action against Rugby Labs., Inc. be and hereby is approved; (2) Rugby Labs., Inc., be and here is DISMISSED fro this action without prejudice; and (3) the cross-claim of Rugby Labs., Inc., against Eon Labs Manufacturing Inc. be and hereby is DISMISSED from this action without prejudice. Except as specifically set forth herein, this Order shall not affect the remaining parties to this action. Should any claim dismissed herein be re-filed, it shall be re-filed in federal court. The parties shall bear their own costs.}

^3-17-2000

¹²⁰³

^{Re: Baldwin (98-20411); Christopher (98-20231); Doris (98-20404); Eklund (98-20371); LaMacchia (98-20407); Maddi (98-20412); Maira, Joe (98-20147); Maira, Maria (98-20406); Migliozzi (98-20435); Miller, Kalikhia (98-20366); Moss (98-20302); Myers (98-20409); Oliva (98-20410); Pastore (98-20405); Pearson (98-20403); Robinson, (98-20045); Saccone (98-20402); Serina (98-20367). V. American Home Products Corp., et al.}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned counsel, that the time for defendant American Home Products Corp. To respond to plaintiffs= cross-motion for partial summary judgment and remand or alternatively an enlargement of time to provide case specific expert disclosure, is hereby extended for fourteen (14) days, through and including March 9, 2000. No such prior extension has been requested and/or granted.}

^3-17-2000

¹²⁰⁴

^{Re: Barbara J. Oatman V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20729)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a), that the claims of Plaintiffs Barbara J. Oatman in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE}

^{The parties to this case, pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby stipulate that this action as against defendants American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Div. Of American Home products Corp. and A.H. Robins Company, Inc., be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff and Defendant American Home products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Div. Of American Home Proudcts Corp. and A.H. Robins Company, Inc. each shall bear their own costs.}

^3-17-2000

¹²⁰⁵

^{Re: Linda Colvin and Clarence Colvin V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20441)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint of the Plaintiffs, Linda Colvin and Clarence Colvin, in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named Defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{This Stipulation does not preclude the plaintiff from participating in the national settlement.}

^{The above-listed Plaintiffs hereby certify that they have each complied with PTO 22 by producing to Defendants a fact sheet, medical authorization and list of medical providers.}

^{Further, the above-listed Plaintiffs agree that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation. Plaintiffs shall file such case in federal court.}

^{IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Third-Party Complaint of the Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs, American Home Products Corp. and Wyeth Labs., Inc., in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed in their entirety without prejudice as to the remaining Third-Party Defendants., Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc. and United Research Labs., Inc., with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees. A Stipulation of Dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(ii) was previously filed by all parties dismissing SmithKline Beecham Corp.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiffs/Third-Party Plaintiffs and all remaining Defendants/third-Party Defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being Linda Colvin, Clarence Colvin, American Home Products Corp., Wyeth Labs., Inc., A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., and United Research Labs., Inc.,}

^3-17-2000

¹²⁰⁶

^{Re: Janet Birnkrant V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20459)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., (AEon@), with both Eon and Plaintiff to bear their own costs and counsel fees. It is further agreed by all parties that this stipulation shall have no effect on the rights of any remaining defendant to seek contribution and/or indemnification from Eon.}

^{This Stipulation is filed by the Plaintiff on behalf of Eon, which has appeared in the above-captioned matter, and against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s}

^cont...

¹²⁰⁶

^{approval of the stipulation. Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executing Authorization forms. All parties who have appeared in this action agree to this stipulation of dismissal and have signed below.}

^3-17-2000

¹²⁰⁷

^{Re: Lee Anne Burger and Michael Failing V. American Home Prod. Corp., et al. (99-20256)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Lee Anne burger and Michael Failing as alleged in the Complaint against all named Defendants in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to these defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Plaintiff have complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a Fact Sheet, Medical Authorizations and a list of Medical Providers to Defendants.}

^{Further, the Plaintiffs agree that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiffs shall file said case in federal court.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the following Defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp., A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Division of American Home Products Corp., and SmithKline Beecham Corp., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^3-21-2000

¹²⁰⁸

^{Re: Sheila Borwn, et al. V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of Plaintiffs= Motion to Modify Pretrial Order No. 997 (Document #20146), defendant American Home Products Corp.=s (AHP) response thereto, the law firm of Atchison, Crosby, Saad & Beebe, P.C.=s Motion for Authorization to Sign Opt-Out Form on behalf of Client (document #201530) and the law firm of Levin, Middlebrooks, Thomas, Mitchell, Green, Echsner, Proctor & Papantonio, P.A.=s Motion for Authorization to Sign Opt-Out form on behalf of Client (document #201531), IT IS ORDERED that:}

^{1. Plaintiffs= Motion to modify PTO No. 997 (document #201463) is DENIED;}

^{2. The law firm of Atchison, Crosby, Saad & Beebe, P.C.=s Motion for Authorization to Sign Opt-Out form on behalf of Client (Document #201531), is DENIED; and}

^{3. The law firm of Levin, Middlebrooks, Thomas, Mitchell, Green, Echsner, Proctor & Papantonio, P.A.=s Motion for Authorization to Sign Opt-Out Form on behalf of Client (Document #201531) is DENIED.}

^{Plaintiffs= motion to modify PTO No. 997 seeks to extend the initial opt out dat of the settlement in Brown until after the court holds its fairness hearing, scheduled to commence on May 1, 2000. Upon consideration of the motion and the briefs opposing the motion filed by class counsel and AHP, the court denies the motion. Extending the opt out period would modify the terms and conditions of the settlement, especially as it regards AHP=s walkaway rights. IN addition, the court finds that the current opt out period is adequate and complies with due process.}

^{Plaintiffs= motion to modify PTO No. 997 also seeks an order that expressly permits attorneys for case members to opt them out in a single correspondence or notice. The motions filed by the law firms of Atchison, Crosby, Saad and Beebe, P.C. and Levin, Middlebrooks, Thomas, Mitchell, Green, Echsner, Proctor & Papantonio, P.A. seek similar relief. The court denies these motions. Opting out is an individual right and it must be exercised individually. See Hanlon V. Chrysler Corop., 150 F. 3d 1011, 1024, (9th Cir. 1998) (stating that Athere is no class action rule, statute, or case that allows a putative class plaintiff or counsel to e4xercise class rights en masse, either by making a class-wide objection or by attempting to effect a group-wide exclusion from a existing class@); Georgine V. Amchem Prods., Inc., 160 F.R.D. 478, 501 n.43 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (stating that Ait is improper for counsel to file an opt out form on North Texas Attorneys. Any answers in response to said petition shall be filed within thirty days thereof.}

^3-21-2000

¹²⁰⁹

^{Re: Sheila Brown, Sharon Gaddie, Vivian Naugle, Quintin Layer, and Joby Jackson-Reid V. American Home Prod. Corp. (99-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of the Motion to Allow Filing of Petition in Intervention of Certain Texas Attorneys for the Purpose of Establishing a claim to Entitlement of Common Benefit Attorneys Fees and Expenses and the oppositions in response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED pursuant to Rule 24(b).}

^{Within twenty days of this Order, Kip A. Petroff, Robert Kisselburgh, Petroff & Kisselburgh, Michael McGartland, MdDonald, Clay, Crow & McGartland, C.L. Mike Schmidt and the Schmidt Firm shall file of record their Petition in Intervention of Certain behalf of their present or future clients@). Thus, the court denies these motions.}

^3-23-2000

¹²¹⁰

^{Re: Sheila Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of the joint motion of defendant American Home Proudcts Corp. and plaintiffs for a Temporary Restraining Order, the motion is hereby granted.}

^{Counsel in the case of Gonzalez V. Medeva Pharm., Inc., et al. Hildago County, TX 93rd Judicial District, No. C-4223-97B, and all those acting in active concert with them are hereby enjoined from taking any further action to effect or secure any purported classwise opt out, on behalf of the unnamed absent members of any class which may have been certified in Gonzalez, from the class action settlement which this Court has conditionally certified and preliminarily approved. See PTO No. 997.}

^{The grounds for this Order are the same as those set forth in Carlough V. Amchem Products, Inc., 10 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 1993):}

^{Injunction of the portion of the Gore suit seeking a ruling from the portion of the Gore suit seeking a ruling from the West Virginia court permitting a mass opting out of all West Virginia plaintiffs is also necessary in aid of the district court=s jurisdiction .... A mass opting out of all West Virginia plaintiffs clearly would be disruptive to the district court=s ongoing settlement management and would jeopardize the settlement=s fruition. In addition, a mass opting out presents a likelihood that the members of the West Virginia class will be confused as to their membership status in the dueling lawsuits .... A declaration by the West Virginia court .... that all West Virginia members of the federal class are now in the West Virginia suit ... could cause havoc.}

^{10 F.3d at 204}

^{It is further ordered that any purported classwide, or other non-individual, opt-out from the class action settlement pending before this Court arising out of the Gonzalez action or proceedings related to C-4223-97B, shall be null and void and of no effect. See Pretrial Order 997 and 1208 (AOpting out is an individual right and it must be exercised individually@). See Hanlon V. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1024 (9th Cir. 1998) (there is no class action rule, statute, or case that allows a putative class plaintiff or counsel to exercise class rights en masse, either by making a class-wide objection or by attempting to effect a groupwise exclusion from an existing class@).}

^{This Order shall remain in effect for 10 days or until further Order of the Court.}

^{A hearing shall be held on whether to make the injunction permanent on Wednesday, March 29, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. in the United States Courthouse, 2110 First Street, Ft. Myers, Florida, 33901.}

^3-24-2000

¹²¹¹

^{Re: Frank Azoy v. AHP, et al. (98-20502) Bonnie Davis V. AHP., et al. (98-20596) Dockter V. Wyeth-Ayerst, et al. (98-20628) Kathern Farr V. AHP., et al. (98-20597) Teri Feaker V. AHP, et al.(989-20690)}

^{Shaina Gaines V. AHP, et al. (98-20647) Gloriastene Morrison V. AHP, et al. (98-20651) Ondrejko-Venezia, et al. V. AHP, et al. (98-20595) Mary Quirit V. AHP, et al. (98-20574) Richardson V. AHP, et al. (98-20691) Schwartz V. AHP, et al. (98-20695) Elizabeth Seibe V. AHP, et al. (98-20649)}

^{Upon consideration of the attached Motion f the Phentermine Defendants and supporting memorandum of law, it is hereby ORDERED that each plaintiff in the above-captioned actions is precluded from presenting evidence at trial that phentermine was the cause of contributing factor to the injury alleged by each plaintiff.}

^3-24-2000

¹²¹²

^{Re: Twenty Second Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation}

^{Upon consideration of the 22nd application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (1-1-00 through 1-31-00), 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 $32,630.92 for the period from 1/1/00 through 1/31/00 in accordance with the procedure established by the Court.}

^3-24-2000

¹²¹³

^{Re: Second Application by the Escrow Agent for Interim Compensation}

^{Upon consideration of the Second Application by Escrow Agent for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (1/1/00 through 1/31/00), 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 $2,224.04 for the period from 1/1/00 through 1/31/00, in accordance with the procedure established by the Court.}

^3-24-2000

¹²¹⁴

^{Re: First Application by Escrow Agent for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses}

^{Upon consideration of the First Application by Escrow Agent for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (12/1/99 through 12/31/99), 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 $8,273.04 for the period from 12/1/99 through 12/31/99, in accordance with the procedure established by the Court.}

^3-24-2000

¹²¹⁵

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation N. 42}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation No. 42 of the Special Master (as to Dismissal of Various Defendants from Cases for Lack of Product ID) is AFFIRMED.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the noted plaintiffs shall file conforming captions within thirty (30) days; and}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants listed on Exhibit A are DISMISSED from the cases listed on Exhibit B through M of Decision and Recommendation N. 42.}

^3-24-2000

¹²¹⁶

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation No. 43}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation No. 43 of Special Discovery Master (as to Non-Complaint Plaintiffs) is AFFIRMED.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs listed on Exhibit A appear before this Court to show cause why their cases should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution on May 16, 2000}

^3-24-2000

¹²¹⁷

^{Re: PMC=s motion fr Release and use of funds from MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account}

^{Upon consideration of the PMC=s Motion for Release and Use of Funds from the MDL 1203 Fee and Costs Account, established by Gregory Miller, Esq. Escrow Agent, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED and Gregory Miller, Esq. is directed to make payment on invoices totaling One Hundred Fifty Four Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Four Dollars and Twenty Nine Cents ($154,264.29) to the PMC Fen-Phen Litigation Account, by wire transfer using the following routing number #031000503 and account number: #2030000337576}

^3-24-2000

¹²¹⁸

^{Re: Fleming Objectors motion to quash oral depos and subpoenas duces tecum}

^{It is ORDERED that the Fleming Objectors motion to quash oral depos and subpoenas duces tecum and motion for a protective order are DENIED, as set forth at the Special Discovery Court held on March 22, 2000.}

^3-24-2000

¹²¹⁹

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation No. 44}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation N. 44 of Special Discovery Master (as to the designation of Drs. Lapuma, Guerigian and Sears as PMC-sponsored generic experts) is AFFIRMED.}

^3-24-2000

¹²²⁰

^{Re: Janette C. Nixon and Robert M. Nixon (00-20265)}

^{The court having reviewed the motion of Defendant American Home Products Corp. in the above-titled action for an Order Granting Leave to File Amended Answer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), and good cause appearing therefor;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant=s Motion fr Leave to File Amended Answer is granted and that the Amended Answer is deemed filed.}

^3-24-2000

¹²²¹

^{Re: Sheila Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of the Blue Cross Subrogation Objectors= Uncontested Amended Motion to Intervene Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) for the purpose of Asserting Objections and Protecting Their Right to Pursue the Objections in Connection with the Fairness Hearing and Any Appeal (Document #201505), IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, Blue Cross and Blue Shield f New Jersey and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Wisconsin shall be intervenors in the above-captioned matter for the purpose of asserting objections and protecting their right to pursue the objections in connection with the fairness hearing and any appeal.}

^3-24-2000

¹²²²

^{Re: A hearing held on March 22, 2000}

^{At a hearing held on 3-22-2000, the court ruled as follows:}

^{1. Defendant=s cross motion for a suggestion of remand in Pearson, 98-20403 is DENIED.}

^{2. Phentermine defendants= motion (#201464) for sanctions for plaintiffs= failure to serve case specific expert reports is GRANTED. A proposed PTO was given to the court.}

^{3. Plaintiff Mallot=s motion (#201430) for voluntary dismissal without prejudice of 98-20091 is Denied.}

^{4. Plaintiff Ondrejko-Venezia=s motion (#2012498) for voluntary dismissal of 98-20595 is DENIED. Plaintiff shall provide full disclosure within 15 days or the case will be dismissed.}

^{5. Plaintiffs= motions (#201480) for extension of date to disclose generic expert witnesses until 3/31/00 in Brosten, 99-20222, Miller (99-20221) and Graham, 99-20223}

^{6. AHP=s Motion (#201243) to Strike the Designation of Andrew Buda, M.D. as Untimely is WITHDRAWN.}

^{7. AHP=s Motion (#201371) to Dismiss Based on Non-Compliance with PTO No. 999 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 in Smith, 98-20575 is WITHDRAWN}

^{8. HMO Louisiana=s Motion for Remand and Additional Motion to Relieve the Plaintiff from Paying the 9% Discovery Assessment in Civ. No. 00-20242 (Document #201482) is continued.}

^{9. Plaintiff=s Motion (#201469) for Extension of Time to Accept Settlement in Williams (Moreno), Civ. N. 98-20357 is GRANTED.}

^{10. Class Counsel=s Motion (#201429) for Leave to Take Discovery of Counsel Associated with the Phen-fen-legal.com Website in Brown, Civ. No. 99-20593 is WITHDRAWN}

^3-24-2000

¹²²³

^{Re: Sheila Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{Upon consideration f the Third Joint Motion for an Order Supplementing PTO No. 997 (the AThird Joint Motion@), it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED.}

^4-3-2000

¹²²⁴

^{Re: Fairness Hearing for May 1, 2000 is rescheduled}

^{IT IS ORDERED that the Fairness Hearing previously scheduled to begin on May 1, 2000 is rescheduled. The hearing will begin on Tuesday, May 2, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. in the Ceremonial Courtroom, 1st Floor, United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.}

^4-5-2000

¹²²⁵

^{Re: Marian Askegren (98-20321), et al., (Extension of Time to Respond to Interneuron Pharm. Inc.,=s Motion for Leave to Amend Answers to Assert Cross-Claims)}

^{SEE PT FOR LIST OF NAMES (5 PAGES)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED AND AGREED , by and between the undersigned counsel, that the time for Defendant American Home Products Corp. to respond to Interneuron=s Pharms., Inc. Motion fr Leave to Amend Answers, is hereby extended for one week, through and including April 10, 2000. No prior extensions has been given.}

^4-5-2000

¹²²⁶

^{Re: Hearing held before Magistrate Judge Diane Welsh}

^{1. The motions filed by the Phentermine Defendants for sanctions for plaintiffs= failure to serve case specific expert reports are GRANTED. Plaintiffs= Christopher (98-20301); Pearson (98-20403); and Serina (98-20367); are precluded from presenting case specific experts in their cases.}

^{2. Depositions of Napoli and Fleming objectors shall be taken prior to April 15, 2000.}

^{3. Class Counsel=s request to take the deposition of withdrawn objectors is DENIED.}

^{4. The Youngdahl objectors have until April 7, 2000 to respond in writing to the issue regarding depositions of objectors.}

^{5. The court will entertain a motion to quash or a motion to compel at the discovery court scheduled for April 12, 2000 at 9:30- a.m. if counsel cannot resolve the dispute regarding the depositions of counsel for objectors.}

^4-6-2000

¹²²⁷

^{Re: Sheila Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of the joint motion of defendant American Home products Corp. and plaintiffs for a permanent injunction and a declaration regarding purported class-wide opt-outs, the opposition thereto, and the evidence and arguments of counsel presented to the Court at a hearing held on March 29, 2000, the motion is granted and the following Order is hereby entered:}

^{1. Counsel fr the named plaintiffs in Gonzalez V. Medeva Pharm., Inc., et al., originally filed in Hidalgo County, TX 93rd Judicial District, No. C-4223-97B and removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of TX on March 28, 2000, and all those acting in concert with them, are hereby permanently enjoined from taking any action to effect, secure, or issue notice of any purported class opt out, on behalf of the unnamed absent members of any class which may have been certified in Gonzalez, fr the class action settlement which this Court has conditionally certified and preliminary approved in PT No. 997 (hereafter Athe MDL - 1203 class@).}

^{Enjoined counsel include Keith M. Jensen and John W. MacPete of the Law Office of Keith M. Jensen, P.C.; Francisco I. Pena and Jaime Pena of the Pena Law Firm; Frank Rodriguez of the law firm of Rodriguez, Pruneda, Tovar, Calvillo & Garcia, P.L.L.C.= and Michael B. Hyman and Carol Gilden of the law firm of Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament, Bell & Rubenstein, P.C. The Court has personal jurisdiction over such persons by virtue of the fact that they purport to act on behalf of members of the MDL 1203 class and based on their actions interfering with the Court=s administration of the MDL 1203 class See, e.g. Carlugh V. Amchem Products, 10F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 1993).}

^{2. The order captioned AOrder Opting-Out the Class From the Proposed Natioanl Settlement entered on March 23, 2000 by the Honorable Fernando manias in the District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, which purports to partially opt-out members of the Gonzalez class from the MDL 1203 class, interferes with this Court=s authority to determine the means and methods by which members of such class may elect to opt out of the MDL 1203 class. See, e.g. Carlough, supra.; Hanlon V. Chrysler Corp., 150 F. 3d 1011, 1024 (9th Cir. 198). The Hidalgo County order is in direct conflict with tow orders previously entered by this Court specifying the method by which class members may opt out from the MDL 1203 class (PTO 997 and PT 1208), both f which were presented to the state court prior to the entry of its March 23 Order. Insofar as the Hidalgo County order purports to affect or determine the opt out status of any member of the MDL 1203 class it is null and void and of no effect. The Hidalgo County=s order is also null and void and of no effect insofar as it purports to authorize or effect a partial opt-out on behalf of any member of the MDL 1203 class. Neither the Settlement Agreement nor PTO 997 make any provision for class members to stay in the MDL 1203 class for some purposes but to opt-out of the class fr other purposes. In Rule 23(b)(3) class actions Athe judgment shall include all those found to be members of the class who have received notice and who have not requested exclusion.@ American Pipe and Const. Co V. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 548 (1974). Those within the scope of the class as certified Aare either nonparties to the suit and ineligible to participate in a recovery or to be bound by a judgment, or else they are full members who must abide by the final judgment....@ Id. at 549. See Muldrow V. H.K. Porter Co., 20 Fair Emply. Parc. Cas. (BNA) 938, 10 Emply. Prac. Dec. 10,423, 1975 WL 237, at * 4 (N.D. Ala. 1975).}

^{This Order is issued under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651 and pursuant to the Court=s authority under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.}

^4-6-2000

¹²²⁸

^{Re: Laurie A. Johnson (Steinmetz) V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. (div. of AHP)}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs= Motion to Substitute Counsel is hereby GRANTED, and that Shriver & O=Neill shall be removed as the attorneys of record for plaintiff in the above-captioned action, and that Williams Merrick Dailey & O=Leary, P.C. shall be substituted as attorneys of record for Plaintiff, and that Michael L. Williams and Leslie W. O=Leary shall be designated as the attorney in charge.}

^4-6-2000

¹²²⁹

^{Re: PMC=s Motion for Release and use of Funds from Fee and Cost Account}

^{Upon consideration of the PMC=s Motion for Release and use of funds from the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account, established by Gregory Miller, Esq., Escrow Agent, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED and Gregory Miller, Esq., is directed to make payment on an invoice totaling Two Hundred Fourteen Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($214,940.98) to the PMC fen-phen Litigation Account, by wire transfer using the following routing number #031000503 and account number #2030000337576.}

^4-7-2000

¹²³⁰

^{Re: Kathleen Dahlquist V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20734)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that claims in the Complaint of the Plaintiff, Kathleen Dahlquist, in the above-captioned matter are by hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named Defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{The above-listed Plaintiff hereby certifies that she has complied with PTO 22 by producing to Defendants a fact sheet, medical authorization and list of medical providers.}

^{Further, the above-listed Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiff shall file such case in federal court.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiff and all Defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Division of American Home Products Corp.; Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., and A.H. Robins Co., Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^4-7-2000

¹²³¹

^{Re: Grant W. Fisk, Annette L. Fisk V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (99-20046)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all remaining defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiffs GRANT W. FISK and ANNETTE L. FISK agree that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiffs shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiffs certify that they have complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms. This Stipulation is filed on behalf f all remaining defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Eon Labs. Manufacturing, Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., (Div. of AHP) , against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^4-7-2000

¹²³²

^{Re: Pamela Anderson and Danny Anderson V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20727)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41 (a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees. Further, the plaintiffs have complied with the provisions f PT No. 22 and they agree that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiffs shall file the said case in Federal Court.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, that being, American Home Products Corp.; Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co.; A.H. Robins Co.; Camall Company; Rugby Labs., Inc.; and Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^4-7-2000

¹²³³

^{Re: Susan H. Farfour V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. (div. of AHP), et al. (98-20102)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41 (a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as the putative class is encompassed in class certification motions pending before this Court.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries, or otherwise, relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO N. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed authorization forms.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of A.H. Robins Co., Inc., American Home Products Corp. and its Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Division, Interneuron Pharm., Inc., Teva Pharm., USA, Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corp., Abana Pharm., Inc., Richwood Pharm., Co., Inc., In Labs., Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc. and Fisons Corp. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc., does not apply to stipulations f dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270. This Stipulation and PTO moots any motion to dismiss pending with respect to any of the named defendants.}

^4-7-2000

¹²³⁴

^{Re: Julia r. Madole V. Gate Pharm (Div. of Teva), et al. (98-20205)}

^{It is hereby stipulated, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a091)(ii) that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice only as to defendant, ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{FURTHER, the plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to the diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in Federal Court.}

^{This stipulation is filed on behalf of said defendant, ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARM., INC., who has appeared in the above-captioned matter against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of the stipulation.}

^4-7-2000

¹²³⁵

^{Re: Denise Louise Parker and John Matthew Parker V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20539)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to defendants Eon Labs Manufacturing Inc. (AEon@) and Zenith Goldline (AZenith@), with all parties to bear their own costs and counsel fees. It is further agreed by all parties that this application shall have no effect on the rights of any remaining defendant to seek contribution and/or indemnification from Eon.}

^{This stipulation is filed by the Plaintiffs, Eon, and Zenith which have appeared in the above-captioned matter, and against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of the stipulation.}

^{All parties who have appeared in this action agree to this stipulation of dismissal and have signed below. Plaintiffs certify that they have complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization Forms.}

^4-7-2000

¹²³⁶

^{Re: Elaine Ball, Melissa Tijerina, Maria S. Rodriquez, Mary W. Atkinson and Colleen Merrill V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20623)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), that the Complaint of Plaintiff Elaine Ball [APlaintiff@] is dismissed without prejudice as to all named Defendants in the above-captioned matter, with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Plaintiff has complied with the provisions of PTO number 22, by producing a fact sheet, medical authorizations, and a list of medical providers to Defendants.}

^{Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event that federal jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{It is further STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that all applicable statutes of.}

^cont...

¹²³⁶

^{limitations with respect to Plaintiff=s dismissed claims shall be tolled for a period of one year from the date on which this order is entered.}

^{All parties to this action that have entered an appearance and that remain in this action, including those against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice, have executed this dismissal through the undersigned counsel of record. This stipulation does not affect the status f any other party. This stipulation may be signed in counterparts.}

^4-7-2000

¹²³⁷

^{Re: Sheila Brown, et al. V. American Home Products, et al. (99-20593)}

^{Objectors= motions for admission pro hac vice of Kearney D. Hutsler and Charles M. Thompson (#201565 and #201566) are DENIED. These motions are unnecessary under Rule 6 of the Rules f Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.}

^4-11-2000

¹²³⁸

^{Re: Sheila Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{Upon the agreement of Class Counsel and counsel for American Home Products Corp. and with the approval f the Interim Claims Administrators (AICAs@) and in accordance with PTO N. 97, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that all complete Initial Opt-Out notices (ANotices@) received by the ICAs on or before March 30, 2000, are timely and valid. For the purposes of determining the timeliness and validity of Notices received by the ICAs after March 30, 2000, the following rules shall apply to notices filed by Class Members using the United States Postal Service:}

^{1. Notices postmarked on or before March 30, 2000, are timely and valid.}

^{2. Notices postmarked after March 30, 2000, are untimely and invalid.}

^{3. Notices without postmarks and containing a signature by the Class Member made after March 30, 2000, are untimely and invalid.}

^{4. Notices without postmarks and containing a signature by the Class Member made on or before March 30, 2000, are timely and valid if received by the ICAs on or before April 10, 2000; such Notices shall be presumed to be untimely and invalid if received by the ICAs after April 10, 2000. This presumption may be rebutted by evidence of timeliness which is satisfactory to the Court.}

^{Notices transmitted to the ICAs by means other than the United States Postal Service are timely and valid if received by the ICAs on or before March 30, 2000, or if placed in the custody of an overnight delivery service on or before March 30, 2000.}

^4-11-2000

¹²³⁹

^{Re: Judy L. Sisneros and Robert Sisneros V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20135)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc. (AEon@), with all parties to bear their own costs and counsel fees.}

^{This stipulation is filed by the Defendant, Eon, which has appeared in the above captioned matter, and against which the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the completion of this Stipulation. The Plaintiffs agree that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiffs shall file said case in federal court.}

^{All parties who have appeared in this action agree to this stipulation of dismissal and have signed below. Plaintiffs certify that they have complied with PTO No. 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms.}

^4-11-2000

¹²⁴⁰

^{Re: Gloriastene Morrison V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20651)}

^{THIS MATTER, being before the Court on Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice by Plaintiff, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, find that Defendant shall be dismissed with prejudice.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all causes of action contained therein are hereby dismissed with prejudice and costs taxed to the party incurring same.}

^4-11-2000

¹²⁴¹

^{Re: George Michael camail for admission pro hac vice}

^{Motion (#201596) of George Michael Jamail for admission pro hac vice is DENIED. The motion is unnecessary under Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on MDL.}

^4-11-2000

¹²⁴²

^{Re: Ruby Tippey V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20400)}

^{ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF=S MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs= Motion to Substitute Counsel is hereby GRANTED, and that Arthur C. Johnson and Derek C. Johnson and the law firm of JOHNSON, CLIFTON, LARSON & CORSON, P.C. shall be removed as the attorneys of record for Plaintiff in the above-captioned action, and that WILLIAMS, MERRICK, DAILEY & O=LEARY, P.C. shall be substituted as attorneys of record for Plaintiff, and that Michael L. Williams shall be designated as the attorney in charge.}

^4-11-2000

¹²⁴³

^{Re: Judy Torkelson V. American Home Products Corp.,et al. (99-20401)}

^{ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF=S MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs= Motion to Substitute Counsel is hereby GRANTED, and that Arthur C. Johnson and Derek C. Johnson and the law firm of JOHNSON, CLIFTON, LARSON & CORSON, P.C. shall be removed as the attorneys of record for Plaintiff in the above-captioned action, and that WILLIAMS, MERRICK, DAILEY & O=LEARY, P.C. shall be substituted as attorneys of record for Plaintiff, and that Michael L. Williams shall be designated as the attorney in charge.}

^4-11-2000

¹²⁴⁴

^{(2 were assigned this number)}

^{Re: Special Discovery Court Hearing before Diane Welsh}

^{At a Special Discovery Court Hearing held this day before Magistrate Judge Diane Welsh, the court ruled as follows:}

^{1. The Fleming objectors shall, by close of business April 13, 2000, file responses to AHP=s and Class Counsel=s interrogatories and request for production of documents.}

^{2. The Fleming objectors motion to compel the Deposition of Mr. Stafford is DENIED at this time.}

^{3. Mr. Napoli shall submit to a two hour deposition regarding Sheila Brown and Sharon Gaddie.}

^{4. Every Objectors= counsel shall, within five business days, provide class counsel with an affidavit setting forth the number of plaintiffs that counsel represents. This number shall then be broken down to specify the number of clients to be included in the propose settlement, the number of objectors, the number of clients wh have opted out of the settlement, and the number who have applied for AIO=s. This is without prejudice to class counsel of file a motion for additional information at a future date if relevance for the information can be shown.}

^{5. All objectors shall file answers to interrogatories and requests for production of documents, including medical records, within five days of service of the interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Each objector shall submit to a deposition prior to April 20, 2000, said deposition not to exceed three hours.}

^{6. The objections to depositions and requests for protective orders filed by law firms Youngdahl & Sadin and Robles & Gonzalez are DENIED.}

^4-18-2000

¹²⁴⁴

^{(2 were listed)}

^{Re: Sheila Brown, Sharon Gaddie, Vivian Naugle, Quintin Layer, and Joby Jackson-Reid V. American Home Products (99-20593)}

^{It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that those parties to these proceedings who have availed themselves of the Special Discovery Court as established by PTO No. 1071 may file as a matter of record all status correspondence sent to the Court, prior to the close of business on May 1, 2000.}

^{(SEE PTO 1257)}

^4-18-2000

¹²⁴⁵

^{Re: Robyn Ostberg V. Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., et al. (98-20458)}

^{Order Approving Stipulation of Dismissal, Dismissing all Plaintiffs= claims against Geneva Pharm., Inc., without prejudice.}

^{Upon the Motion of Defendant Geneva Pharm., Inc. to approve the stipulation for voluntary dismissal of all claims asserted by Plaintiff against it in the above-captioned action, to dismiss all claims asserted against Geneva Pharm., Inc. without prejudice, and there being no opposition by any party who has appeared, it is hereby, ORDERED that: (1) the stipulation of dismissal of all plaintiff=s claims in this action against Geneva Pharm., Inc. is approved; and (2) Geneva Pharm., Inc. is DISMISSED from this action w/o prejudice. Except as specifically set forth herein, this Order shall not affect the remaining parties to this action. Should any claim dismissed herein be re-filed, it shall be re-filed in federal court. The parties shall bear their own costs.}

^4-18-2000

¹²⁴⁶

^{Re: Danielle Pelletier V. Geneva Pharm., Inc., et al. (99-20460)}

^{Order Approving Stipulation of Dismissal, Dismissing all Plaintiffs= claims against Geneva Pharm., Inc., without prejudice.}

^{Upon the Motion of Defendant Geneva Pharm., Inc. to approve the stipulation for voluntary dismissal of all claims asserted by Plaintiff against it in the above-captioned action, to dismiss all claims asserted against Geneva Pharm., Inc. without prejudice, and there being no opposition by any party who has appeared, it is hereby, ORDERED that: (1) the stipulation of dismissal of all plaintiff=s claims in this action against Geneva Pharm., Inc. is approved; and (2) Geneva Pharm., Inc. is DISMISSED from this action w/o prejudice. Except as specifically set forth herein, this Order shall not affect the remaining parties to this action. Should any claim dismissed herein be re-filed, it shall be re-filed in federal court. The parties shall bear their own costs.}

^4-18-2000

¹²⁴⁷

^{Re: Janice Dunkley V. Eon Labs. Manufacturing, Inc., et al. (99-20664)}

^{Order Approving Stipulation of Dismissal, Dismissing all Plaintiffs= claims against Geneva Pharm., Inc., without prejudice.}

^{Upon the Motion of Defendant Geneva Pharm., Inc. to approve the stipulation for voluntary dismissal of all claims asserted by Plaintiff against it in the above-captioned action, to dismiss all claims asserted against Geneva Pharm., Inc. without prejudice, and there being no opposition by any party who has appeared, it is hereby, ORDERED that: (1) the stipulation of dismissal of all plaintiff=s claims in this action against Geneva Pharm., Inc. is approved; and (2) Geneva Pharm., Inc. is DISMISSED from this action w/o prejudice. Except as specifically set forth herein, this Order shall not affect the remaining parties to this action. Should any claim dismissed herein be re-filed, it shall be re-filed in federal court. The parties shall bear their own costs.}

^4-18-2000

¹²⁴⁸

^{Re: Linda Birchell V. Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., et al. (99-20026)}

^{Order Approving Stipulation of Dismissal, Dismissing all Plaintiffs= claims against Geneva Pharm., Inc., without prejudice.}

^{Upon the Motion of Defendant Geneva Pharm., Inc. to approve the stipulation for voluntary dismissal of all claims asserted by Plaintiff against it in the above-captioned action, to dismiss all claims asserted against Geneva Pharm., Inc. without prejudice, and there being no opposition by any party who has appeared, it is hereby, ORDERED that: (1) the stipulation of dismissal of all plaintiff=s claims in this action against Geneva Pharm., Inc. is approved; and (2) Geneva Pharm., Inc. is DISMISSED from this action w/o prejudice. Except as specifically set forth herein, this Order shall not affect the remaining parties to this action. Should any claim dismissed herein be re-filed, it shall be re-filed in federal court. The parties shall bear their own costs.}

^4-18-2000

¹²⁴⁹

^{Re: Darlene Steele V. Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., et al. (99-20666)}

^{Order Approving Stipulation of Dismissal, Dismissing all Plaintiffs= claims against Geneva Pharm., Inc., without prejudice.}

^{Upon the Motion of Defendant Geneva Pharm., Inc. to approve the stipulation for voluntary dismissal of all claims asserted by Plaintiff against it in the above-captioned action, to dismiss all claims asserted against Geneva Pharm., Inc. without prejudice, and there being no opposition by any party who has appeared, it is hereby, ORDERED that: (1) the stipulation of dismissal of all plaintiff=s claims in this action against Geneva Pharm., Inc. is approved; and (2) Geneva Pharm., Inc. is DISMISSED from this action w/o prejudice. Except as specifically set forth herein, this Order shall not affect the remaining parties to this action. Should any claim dismissed herein be re-filed, it shall be re-filed in federal court. The parties shall bear their own costs.}

^4-18-2000

¹²⁵⁰

^{Re: Carol Hess V. Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., et al. (99-20673)}

^{Order Approving Stipulation of Dismissal, Dismissing all Plaintiffs= claims against Geneva Pharm., Inc., without prejudice.}

^{Upon the Motion of Defendant Geneva Pharm., Inc. to approve the stipulation for voluntary dismissal of all claims asserted by Plaintiff against it in the above-captioned action, to dismiss all claims asserted against Geneva Pharm., Inc. without prejudice, and there being no opposition by any party who has appeared, it is hereby, ORDERED that: (1) the stipulation of dismissal of all plaintiff=s claims in this action against Geneva Pharm., Inc. is approved; and (2) Geneva Pharm., Inc. is DISMISSED from this action w/o prejudice. Except as specifically set forth herein, this Order shall not affect the remaining parties to this action. Should any claim dismissed herein be re-filed, it shall be re-filed in federal court. The parties shall bear their own costs.}

^4-18-2000

¹²⁵¹

^{Re: Marcia Foulger V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20075)}

^{Order Approving Stipulation of Dismissal, Dismissing all Plaintiffs= claims against Geneva Pharm., Inc., without prejudice.}

^{Upon the Motion of Defendant Geneva Pharm., Inc. to approve the stipulation for voluntary dismissal of all claims asserted by Plaintiff against it in the above-captioned action, to dismiss all claims asserted against Geneva Pharm., Inc. without prejudice, and there being no opposition by any party who has appeared, it is hereby, ORDERED that: (1) the stipulation of dismissal of all plaintiff=s claims in this action against Geneva Pharm., Inc. is approved; and (2) Geneva Pharm., Inc. is DISMISSED from this action without prejudice. Except as specifically set forth herein, this Order shall not affect the remaining parties to this action. Should any claim dismissed herein be re-filed, it shall be re-filed in federal court. The parties shall bear their own costs.}

^4-18-2000

¹²⁵²

^{Re: Carol Noreen Laws V. American Home Products Corp., et al.}

^{Order Approving Stipulation of Dismissal, Dismissing all Plaintiffs= claims against Geneva Pharm., Inc., without prejudice.}

^{Upon the Motion of Defendant Geneva Pharm., Inc. to approve the stipulation for voluntary dismissal of all claims asserted by Plaintiff against it in the above-captioned action, to dismiss all claims asserted against Geneva Pharm., Inc. without prejudice, and there being no opposition by any party who has appeared, it is hereby, ORDERED that: (1) the stipulation of dismissal of all plaintiff=s claims in this action against Geneva Pharm., Inc. is approved; and (2) Geneva Pharm., Inc. is DISMISSED from this action without prejudice. Except as specifically set forth herein, this Order shall not affect the remaining parties to this action. Should any claim dismissed herein be re-filed, it shall be re-filed in federal court. The parties shall bear their own costs.}

^4-18-2000

¹²⁵³

^{Re: Sally Ann Grant, et ux. V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20280)}

^{The purpose of this Order is to suggest to the Judicial Panel on MDL (AJPMDL@) that the case of Sally Ann Grant, et ux V. AHP be remanded to the United States District Curt for the District of MD, from which it was transferred to this district under 28 U.S.C. 1407. All pre-trial proceedings have been completed as respects pleadings, discovery and motions that the transferee courts determined could and should be considered in the transferee court. The motions that remain to be considered, when filed in the transferor court, are those that are both case and fact specific as opposed to motions that would effect the issues that apply to either substantial numbers of cases in the MDL no 1203.}

^{The court=s reference in this Order to discovery being Acompleted@ should be understood to mean that discovery is concluded except for the continuation of Dr. Rubin=s deposition with regard to the SNAPH study and Dr. Rubin=s deposition with regard to his review of an Echocardiogram and x-ray, which is scheduled for April 20, 2000. It is the opinion f the transferee court that these remaining discovery tasks can be completed within thirty (30) days from the date that the civil action is docketed in the transferor curt following remand. Whether any additional discovery will be permitted will, f curse, be left for determination by the transferor court.}

^{Accordingly, this court suggests that the JPML remand the above captioned case, to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, under civil action no. MJG97-4054.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:}

^{1. Any case specific motions related to this case, in this transferee court, are hereby DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and may be reasserted in the appropriate transferor district court; and}

^{2. Motion practice in regard to this case is hereby STAYED in this transferee court.}

^{So ORDERED}

^4-18-2000

¹²⁵⁴

^{Re: Veronica Meler V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (00-20240)}

^{Pursuant to the stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants American home Products Corp.; Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Division of American Home Products Corp.; Wyeth-Ayerst Pharm, Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., and A.H. Robins Co. and extension to April 19, 2000 to answer the complaint.}

^4-18-2000

¹²⁵⁵

^{Re: Case-Specific Expert Discovery Relating to the American Home Products Corp Defendants and Voluntary Dismissal Procedures applicable to All MDL 1203 Civil Actions.}

^{I. INTRODUCTION}

^{The American Home Products Corp. Defendants (the AAHP@ defendants@) have filed several motions seeking dismissal of certain plaintiffs= cases fr failure to provide case-specific expert disclosures in accordance with F.R.Civ.P. 26 and the deadlines established by PTO No. 992. In addition to the motions filed with the Curt, the AHP Defendants also have requested the assistance of the Special Discovery Master=s office in reviewing case-specific expert disclosures they deemed deficient pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 26 and PT No. 417. In response to these motions, several plaintiffs have requested relief from the requirements of F.R.Civ.P. 26 and 417, asserting that they should not have to incur the expenses associated with retaining an expert because they intend to participate as class members in the National Diet Drug Settlement with AHP (the AAHP Settlement@).}

^{After consideration the parties= concerns, it is the Courts decision that partial relief should be afforded to any plaintiff who intends to register for the AHP Settlement. This order is not intended and shall not apply to or affect the MDL 1203 discovery obligations established by existing Court Orders, Special Discovery Decisions and Recommendations, and Special Discovery Master Memoranda for parties in MDL 1203 civil actions where plaintiff has timely submitted a properly executed Opt-Out form in accordance with the requirements of the AHP Settlement.}

^{II. CASE WITH A DISCOVERY INITIATION DATE (DID) ON OR BEFORE MARCH 1, 1999}

^{For those cases with DID=s n or before March 1, 1999, any plaintiff wh has not opted out of the AHP Settlement and registers for the AHP Settlement by June 1, 2000 is relieved from providing complete Rule 26 case-specific expert disclosures against the AHP Defendants. Each such plaintiff, however, shall provide no later than June 1, 2000 a modified disclosure for each case-specific expert consisting of : (1) the identity of the expert; (2) a statement by plaintiff=s attorney regarding the expert=s discipline and testimony; (3) te expert=s curriculum vitae; and (4) a list of the expert=s publications (the Amodified expert disclosures@). The AHP Defendants are relieved from providing any case-specific expert disclosures in response to a plaintiff=s modified expert disclosure until complete Rule 26 disclosures are provided by the plaintiff in the transferor court, at which time depositions of case-specific experts may proceed in accordance with a schedule to be established by the transferor court.}

^{For cases with a DID on or before March 1, 1999 where a plaintiff who has not opted out of the AHP Settlement fails to register for the AHP Settlement on or before June 1, 2000, he or she must provide on June 1, 2000 ( to the extent plaintiff has not already done so) complete Rule 26 case-specific expert disclosures, and the AHP Defendants may file with the Court aan appropriate motion against any plaintiff who fails to comply with this requirement.}

^{III. CASES WITH A DID OF APRIL 1, 1999 AND THEREAFTER}

^{For cases with DID=s f April 1, 1999 and thereafter, a plaintiff who has not opted out of the AHP Settlement may receive relief from providing complete Rule 26 case-specific expert disclosures by registering for the AHP Settlement n later than the date established in PTO No. 992 as the deadline for plaintiffs= case-specific expert disclosures under F.R.Civ.P. 26 and providing a modified expert disclosure no later than that date.}

^{For cases with DID of April 1, 1999 and thereafter where a plaintiff who has not opted out of the AHP Settlement fails to register for the AHP Settlement by the date established in PTO No. 992 as the deadline for plaintiffs= case-specific expert disclosures under F.R.Civ.P. 26, he or she must provide on that date (to the extent plaintiff has not already done so) complete Rule 26 case-specific expert disclosures, and the AHP Defendants may file with the Court an appropriate motion against any plaintiff who fails to comply with this requirement.}

^{IV. OBLIGATION TO COMPLETE FACT AND GENERIC EXPERT DISCOVERY}

^{The partial relief provided in this Order for plaintiffs who timely register fr the AHP Settlement does not relieve these plaintiffs r the AHP Defendants of their obligation to complete all other fact and generic expert}

^{discovery in accordance with the deadlines set forth in PT No. 992 prior to remand to the transferor court,}

^cont...

¹²⁵⁵

^{except that plaintiffs who sign an Accelerated Implementation Option (AAIO@) Form during the period in which AHP offers the AIO and the AHP Defendants shall be relieved of all discovery obligations with respect to plaintiffs= claims against the AHP Defendants.}

^{V. THE PARTIAL RELIEF PROVIDED BY THIS ORDER IS APPLICABLE ONLY To PLAINTIFFS WH REGISTER FOR THE SETTLEMENT AND THE AHP DEFENDANTS.}

^{The provisions of this Order pertaining to plaintiffs= registration fr the AHP Settlement and the obligation to supply modified expert disclosures apply only to plaintiffs and the AHP Defendants, and shall not operate to relieve plaintiffs of their obligation to make complete Rule 26 case-specific expert disclosures as to all other defendants in accordance with the discovery deadlines established by PTO No. 992 and any amendment or supplement thereto.}

^{VI. PROCEDURES FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE}

^{Nothing contained in this Order shall prohibit plaintiffs from exercising their rights pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to seek voluntary dismissal of the AHP Defendants, any other defendant, or an entire civil action in MDL 1203. To facilitate the prompt, efficient, and just disposition of requests for voluntary dismissal, the Court has determined that the Decision and Recommendation process, which the Special Master effectively utilized in conjunction with PTO No. 418 to dismiss defendants because of a lack of product identification, will also be used for plaintiffs seeking voluntary dismissal under F.R.Civ.P. 41 in lieu of a stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared in the action.}

^{Any plaintiff who wishes voluntarily to dismiss the AHP Defendants, any other defendant(s), or an entire civil action in MDL 1203 shall submit such request in writing to the Special Discovery Master, with a copy served upon counsel as required by PTO No. 19. Each such voluntary dismissal shall be conditioned upon the following requirements, which must be set forth in plaintiffs= written submission to the Special Discovery Master:}

^{1. The dismissal shall be without prejudice}

^{2. Plaintiffs= seeking voluntary dismissal must comply with the requirements of PTO 22;}

^{3. In the event any plaintiff who voluntarily dismisses his or her entire civil action decides to initiate a future lawsuit against all or any of the defendants wh have been voluntarily dismissed, they shall do so in a United States District Court and their claim must be presented s that the United States District Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332; and}

^{4. If plaintiff seeks a voluntary dismissal of less than his or her entire civil action, the plaintiff shall specifically identify in the written submission to the Special Discovery Master each defendant not being dismissed and against whom plaintiff intends to prosecute his or her claim, if any.}

^{Unless each of the foregoing conditions (2)(3) and (4) is satisfied, the voluntary dismissal will be deemed to be Awith prejudice@}

^{Upon consideration of a request for voluntary dismissal, the Special Master shall issue in accordance with PTO 26 an appropriate Decision and Recommendation for consideration and adjudication by the Court.}

^4-18-2000

¹²⁵⁶

^{Re: Russell Z. Skoller, M.D. V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20042)}

^{Upon consideration of the parties= stipulation in the above captioned civil action, IT IS ORDERED that said stipulation is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that the parties may resubmit the stipulation in compliance with PTO Nos. 445 and 680.}

^4-19-2000

¹²⁵⁷

^{Re: Sheila Brown, Sharon Gaddie, Vivian Naugle, Quintin Layer, & Joby Jackson-Reid V. AHP (99-20593)}

^{It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that those parties to these proceedings who have availed themselves of the Special Discovery Court as established by PTO No. 1071 may file as a matter of record all status correspondence sent to the Court, prior to the close of business on May 1, 2000.}

^4-19-2000

¹²⁵⁸

^{Re: Special Discovery Court Hearing on April 19, 2000 Before Magistrate Judge Diane Welsh}

^{At a Special Discovery Court Hearing on 4-19-2000 before Magistrate Judge Diane Welsh, the court ruled the following:}

^{1. The uncontested oral motion by Class Counsel to take the deposition of Mr. Borque on April 24, 2000 is GRANTED}

^{2. Cummins & Cronin=s motion to extend time to take the depositions of objectors is DENIED. The depositions of the objectors shall be taken in the objectors= home states of AZ, MI and IL. N r before April 20, 2000.}

^{3. AHP and class counsel shall provide answers and/or objections to Fleming Objectors interrogatories within 10 days.}

^{4. Fleming objectors= motion to compel AHP=s answers to interrogatories regarding settlements is DENIED; however, AHP must submit the information regarding settlements to Judge Bechtle in camera.}

^{5. Fleming Objectors= motion to compel the deposition of J. Stafford is DENIED.}

^{6. Objectors Weintraub=s motion for reconsideration of PT 1244 is DENIED. Objector Weintraub shall produce discovery on or before April 21, 2000 and submit to a deposition on or before Tuesday, April 25, 2000.}

^{7. AHP=s motion to strike experts is withdrawn as it relates to Mr. Gildie with the understanding that Mr. Gildie will only be called as a rebuttal witness.}

^4-24-2000

¹²⁵⁹

^{Re: Final Special Discovery Court Hearing}

^{It is ORDERED that the a final Special Discovery Court Hearing will be held on May 1, 2000 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 17-B.}

^4-24-2000

¹²⁶⁰

^{Re: Sheila Brown, et al. V. American Home Products (99-20593)}

^{Upon consideration of the Unopposed Motion of the Blue Cross Plans, requesting confidentiality of all claims information these Blue Cross Plans submit to any party in this action, trustee or claims administrator pursuant to the Nationwide Settlement Agreement, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED.}

^4-25-2000

¹²⁶¹

^{Re: Dinah Borros and Dianne Solsky V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20076)}

^{It is ORDERED that Linda Adams be substituted for Dianne J. Solsky as class representative in the above captioned matter.}

^{It is ORDERED that leave be granted to file a First Amended Complaint to reflect this substitution.}

^4-25-2000

¹²⁶²

^{Re: Sarah Allen and rion Allen V. American Home Products, et al. (98-20682)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Plaintiffs Sarah Allen and Orion Allen in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to defendant American Home Products Corp. and all other defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, Plaintiffs Sarah Allen and Orion Allen agree that should either decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drugs, plaintiffs shall file said case in federal court. Plaintiffs have compile with the requirements of PT #22 by completing a Plaintiffs= Fact Sheet and providing the List of Medical Providers and executed Medical Authorization forms.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all named defendants against whom the claims of Sarah Allen and Orion Allen in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^4-25-2000

¹²⁶³

^{Re: Lisa Phillips (next of kin and personal rep. of) Linda Faye Murphy Cooper V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20742) Penny L. Herman V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20389) Marla D. Meyer V. AHP, et al. (99-20272) James Carter V. Abana Pharm., Inc., et al. (99-20054) Sylvia Hunter V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co. (99-20742)}

^{Upon consideration of the parties= stipulations and notices f dismissal in the above captioned civil actions, IT IS ORDERED that said stipulations and notices of dismissal are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that the parties may resubmit them in compliance with PTO Nos. 445 and /or 680}

^4-25-2000

¹²⁶⁴

^{Re: Patricia A. Kubinski, james Kubinski, Matthew Joseph Kubinski, Patrick R. Kubinski, and Thmas Edward Kubinski V. Medeva Pharm., Inc., et al. (00-20192)}

^{The parties to this case, pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby stipulate that this action as against defendants American Home Products Corp., Medeva Pharm., Inc., United Research Labs., Inc., be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs and Defendants American Home Products Corp., Medeva Pharm., Inc., and United Research Labs., Inc. each shall bear their own costs. Defendant Camall Co., having not been served, Plaintiffs stipulate that their claims against said Defendant Camall Co. are dismissed with prejudice.}

^4-25-2000

¹²⁶⁵

^{Re: Debra J. Nelson V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., et al. (99-20169)}

^{Upon consideration of Paul L. Whiteside=s and Rory Seidens=, Trustees and Fiduciaries of the Wisconsin UFCW Unions and Employers Health Plan, Motion to Intervene (docket #201443), IT IS ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows. To the extent that the motion seeks intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b) for the limited purpose of asserting objections in connection with the fairness hearing in Brown, Civ. No. 98-20593, and any appeal following therefrom, the motion is GRANTED. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Paul L. Whiteside and Rory Seidens, Trustees and Fiduciaries f the Wisconsin UFCW Unions and Employers Health Plan, shall be intervenors in the above-captioned matter fr the purpose of asserting objections and protecting their right to pursue the objections in connection with the Fairness Hearing and any appeal.}

^4-25-2000

¹²⁶⁶

^{Re: Elizabeth D. Goddard-Lucero (99-20679), Stephanie Galindo (99-20681), Mary Doss (99-20682); Mary Erbes (99-20683); Sandi Krenzer (99-20684); Mary Sue Saucedo (99-20685); Margaret Balaes (99-20686); Fruma Itzkovitz (99-20687); Joyce Lopez (99-20688); Michael Scott Embry (99-20689); Shirley Patrick (99-20690) Ivana Kuthanova (99-20692); Vanessa Williams (99-20693); Barbara N. McFee (99-20694); Matthew J. Sullivan (99-20696); Roxanne Maltese (99-20698); Lorie Long (99-20704); Donna Lee Wildt (99-20707); Suzette Smith (99-20709); Kathryn Ann Yorgensen (99-20710); Linda Wilson (99-20711); Aysel Richards (99-20713); Myrna Denise Burnett (99-20714); Margaret Mendez (99-20719); Ronnie Dettmer (99-20720); Andrea Lima (99-20721); William Morganstern (99-20722); Lori Fry (99-20723); Antoinette Sullivan and Brian Sullivan (99-20724); Joanne Forbes (99-20725); Esther Tauber (99-20726); sylvia Kpka (99-20727); Iris Johnson (99-20728); Gloria Ann Sanchez (99-20729); Gary Emery (99-20730); Cassandra Parker (99-20731); Dana S. Horton (99-20732); Eddie Wormwood, Jr. (99-20733); James Fitzpatrick and Mary Fitzpatrick (99-20734); Dave Paulson (99-20735); Lis Marie Webb (99-20736); Valerie Dunlap (99-20737); Kris Emery (99-20738); Frances Monticello (99-20740);}

^{AND NW, TO WIT, Upon consideration of the above-captioned plaintiffs= motions to remand and defendants American Home Products Corp.=s, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co.=s, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Division of American Home Products Corp.=s and Wyeth Labs. Inc.,=s responses thereto, IT IS ORDERED that said motions are denied..}

^{Memorandum attached.}

^4-26-2000

¹²⁶⁷

^{Re: Sheila Brown, Sharon Gaddie, Vivian Naugle, Quintin Layer, and Joby Jackson-Reid V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{(Order authorizing reimbursement of certain Notice Related Expenses)}

^{Upon consideration of the Joint Motion for an Order Authorizing Reimbursement f Certain Notice Related Expenses, it is hereby,}

^{ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED, that class counsel and counsel for American Home Products Corp. Are authorized and directed to cause the interim escrow agent to pay the following bill for services in connection with providing notice to the class pursuant to PTO No. 997: Invoice f Smith-Edwards Dunlap Co. dated April 7, 2000 in the amount of $13,852.29 for the costs of printing materials in connection with the settlement notice.}

^4-26-2000

¹²⁶⁸

^{Re: Richard Brown, et al. V. American Home Products, et al. (00-20400)}

^{It is ORDERED that the above captioned case is marked closed. This case was remanded to the Eighth Judicial Circuit in Alachua County, FL on March 7, 2000}

^4-26-2000

¹²⁶⁹

^{Re: Jimmie Fenton, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20454)}

^{Upon consideration of the motion of Jeffrey Oliveira & Associates, by Jeffery Oliveira to withdraw as counsel for Jimmie Fenton and Steven Fenton (docket #201615), IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions:}

^{see PTO for conditions.}

^4-26-2000

¹²⁷⁰

^{Re: Lawrence H. Ludwig and Linda M. Ludwig (minors by and through their Father and next friend) Mark A. Ludwig, (and individually) (98-20601)}

^{Order Appointing Guardian AD Litem}

^{The Court having considered the Petition for the Appointment of Guardian ad Litem for the minor petitioners, LAWRENCE HENRY LUDWIG and LINDA MARCHELLE LUDWIG, and good cause appearing therefor,}

^{IT IS SO ORDERED that MARK A. LUDWIG be and hereby is appointed Guardian ad Litem for the minor Plaintiffs in the above action.}

^4-26-2000

¹²⁷¹

^{Lawrence H. Ludwig and Linda M. Ludwig (minors by and through their Father and next friend) Mark A. Ludwig, (and individually) (98-20601)}

^{Order Approving Compromise of Minors= Claim and Award of Attorneys= Fees}

^{The Petition for Compromise of Minors= Claim of LAWRENCE HENRY LUDWIG and LINDA MARCHELLE LUDWIG, through Petitioner and Guardian ad Litem MARK A. LUDWIG came on regularly for hearing before this Honorable Court. The Court finding that good cause exists fr granting the Petition,}

^{IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that:}

^{1. The proposed compromise of the claims of the minor plaintiffs, LAWRENCE HENRY LUDWIG and LINDA MARCHELLE LUDWIG, be, and the same hereby is approved for the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars $300,000.00}

^{2. In consideration of this settlement described above, defendants AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORP (AAHP@) and WYETH-AYERST LABS. INC., Division of AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS (AWYETH-AYERST@) shall be discharged from all further liability to Plaintiffs on all claims arising ut f the wrongful death of decedent CONNIE LYNN LUDWIG, in November 26, 1995, and Petitioner MARK A. LUDWIG is authorized and directed to execute and deliver to said defendants the accompanying release of all claims and Order Approving Compromise Settlement.}

^{3. Pursuant to PTO N. 467, the sum f $27,000.00 f the total settlement (9%), shall be withheld by defendants AHP and WYETH and paid to the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account. The Law Firm of Hersh & Hersh shall deposit the remaining sum of Two Hundred Seventy-Three Thousand Dollars $273,000.00, in its trust account and make the following disbursements therefrom:}

^{A. To MARK A. LUDWIG as trustee for LAWRENCE HENRY LUDWIG, a minor, and to Key Bank, 1130 Haxton Drive, Ft. Collins, CO, the sum of One Hundred Nine Thousand, Two Hundred Seventy-Two Dollars and sixty-seven cents ($109,272.67) which funds are to be deposited in account no. 76001820166047, an account intended to ensure maximum interest for long-term deposits. Said funds subject to withdrawal only upon presentation of an order of this Court authorizing the same until the minor child attains the age of eighteen years (18).}

^{B. To MARK A. LUDWIG as trustee for LINDA MARCHELLE LUDWIG, a minor, and to Key Bank, 1130 Haxton Drive, Ft. Collins, CO, the sum of One Hundred Nine Thousand, Two Hundred Seventy-Two Dollars and sixty-seven cents ($109,272.67) which funds are to be deposited in $87,418314, which funds are to be deposited in account no. 76001820166039, an account intended to ensure maximum interest for long-term deposits. Said funds subject to withdrawal only upon presentation f an Order of this Curt authorizing the same until the minor child attains the age f eighteen years}

^cont...

¹²⁷¹

^{C. To the Law Office of HERSH & HERSH, as and for reimbursement of costs incurred and/or expended on behalf of said minors, the sum of $8,606.21.}

^{D. To the Law Firm of HERSH & HERSH, as and for fees fr the representation f the Plaintiffs herein the sum of $45,848.45 which represents a 25% fee less the 9% ($27,000.00) made payable to the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account.}

^{4. Petitioner shall deliver a copy of this Order to the Key Bank of Ft. Collins, Colorado and receive therefrom a receipt and acknowledgment of deposits, a copy of which Petitioner shall forthwith deliver to this Court by filing.}

^{The same with the Clerk hereof. IT IS SO ORDERED.}

^4-26-2000

¹²⁷²

^{Re: Becky L. Blankenship V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (99-20677)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for Plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint. The Complaint did not contain any class allegations, therefore, n additional notice is necessary.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{To date, Plaintiff has not produced a completed Fact Sheet, List f Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms.}

^{This stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CRP. Fna A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Eon labs, Inc., and Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this stipulation.}

^4-26-2000

¹²⁷³

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation No. 45}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation No. 45 of the Special Discovery Master (as to Dismissal of Various Defendants from Cases for Lack of Product ID) is AFFIRMED.}

^{It is further Ordered, that the noted plaintiffs shall file conforming captions within thirty (30) days and}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants listed on Exhibit A are DISMISSED from the cases listed n Exhibits B through H of Decision and Recommendation No. 45}

^4-26-2000

¹²⁷⁴

^{Re: Twenty Third Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation}

^{Upon consideration of the 23rd Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (2/01/00 through 2/29/00), 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 $41,456.36 for the period from 2/1/00 through 2/29/00, in accordance with the procedure established by the Court.}

^4-26-2000

¹²⁷⁵

^{Re: PMC=s Motion for Release and Use f Funds from the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account}

^{Upon consideration of PMC=s motion for release and use f Funds from the MDL 1203 Fee and Costs Account established by Gregory Miller, Esq. Escrow Agent, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED and Gregory Miller, Esq. is directed to make payment n invoices totaling Ninety-Three Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy-One Dollars and Seventy-Two Cents (93,871.72) to the PMC Fen-Phen Litigation Account, by wire transfer using the following routing number : #03100503 and account number #2030000337576.}