CALVIN BENSTON VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS B*P, AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al, CGC-05-441789, No. 02348903 (California State, San Francisco County, Superior Court Dec. 18, 2008) (2024)

`

`
`

`

`
`
`Ty puMMETIZE:
`"The court properly held that Texport wes
`Jing entitled to the-fate miaiket value of the
`pastiine but was pvititled to incidentel costs.
`The epuré erred in denying Texpori’s retest
`for # detleratory jndgment that jb 1s entitled
`ip indenmifieation ofthe flemurtege expennes
`causedhy the delay. TedRAwpP. Keys)is
`a rile of practiva that may be srezarded,
`the Antolynton is permitted. to pekort its
`croma-appeal despite Fling ih one day late,
`che eourt, however, properly hala hab the
`gaadiine wes delivered im a demeged ptatey
`¢het the collateral source rule applies in a
`COGHA. cane; enti that theAmolyrios dhorild
`aot renover conts under WedRiy.P. UB,
`Affirmedin part, revergedl and‘vemanded
`
`11 FUDERALBEPORTER, 8] SERIES
`368
`ns 0, Zouk; LindeE. Hughes; Arthur 6,
`exons, Ehe Amelynton cannot ravovercosta
`Beles; Locraine ‘Nieves; Maryland
`suniier Prile 68, As to this, we sift
`Jaton Bush; Carol,Jamieson; Thom-
`an Jamiesnn; Carol Wiizel: Edward 8,
`Wiize Hunice A, Chaftiman; Ronzli
`W. Chattman; Pamete J. Holsen; Terry
`Agdemiak; Carmelita ‘Tachads Mario
`Tadbad; Belinda Wawards} Earen Mi.
`Lawrence; William BR. ‘Lawrence; Elea-
`jor TM. Kelly; Robert ML Belly; Joann
`Wy, Richmond; Adelle Mextiny Robert D.
`Martin; Anna ML Burroughs; Reymond
`Bysronghs; Margaret Johnson; James
`Johnzon; Margaret Depacio; Hlizabeth
`2D, Movre; Gerald FR. Moore; Gladys
`Green; Amy 1, Trentine, Helen
`Comnigonros; Anthony Cowstsourob;
`Groyery Thoma athleen -W. Tree
`jay Jane Teubouty Prancet Manop;
`| Bhaxon Wselings Barbara Day; Maria
`Parnclo;
`Josephine Beposite; Denise
`* weaAllesamiro; Joon B, Bartels; Jolins
`Tarte Lorraine Jabkowsliy Viebor L,
`Jabhoowetay ‘Prance# Diene Pollacky Al
`exonder Pollaely Poresey Rede; Bago
`Raises Donne Seatiaes; Perrence Bow
`fero; Dorathy Debinse; Fodith Shee
`maker; Benjamin Hotoinsyer; Axgelia
`‘Ruiz, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
`Ve
`WATIONAL AMAACONDOCEOR CORPO.
`RATION; Btenvgraph Corps Quixate
`Corporation; Atex, Tnny ‘askaan Ko-
`dak Company; Globe Bood ‘Hygudipment
`+ Company; Northern
`Pelecom Bi)
`Hercthern Telecom Lids Bell Ganaiey
`PellNorthern Research Ltd; Bainsal
`Special USA, Corp; Pata Point Corpora:
`fionj Prine Compitier Jue; Systern In-
`topsaiers,
`“Sney
`gonith
`‘Bleetronice
`Corps Zehith Data Systema, Iney Para
`sonic Gompany; Flore Inilustries Ine;
`‘Lockheed Corporation; Ontel Corpora-
`ion;
`‘Visual ‘Tacknolegy Yacorporatedy
`NCH Coxporation, WMemorkx Corporae
`Hien; Memorex Telex Corps Apple Cora-
`puter, Ine; American Telephone and
`Telegraph Comparyy Apalio Computers
`Ines Hewlett Packard Corepany; Data
`General Corp. anti as sueckartr to Dete-
`fhecker Systems, Tne., Defendants,
`
`re
`
`Inve REPSUIEIVS SURUSE
`TNIURY LITIGATION,
`
`Peler De»
`Marguerite DERROINE;
`Janves Binaries}
`bruyne; Gayle Simms:
`' Madeline ‘Bernite Strange; Robin A.
`Bailey] TorysMobrij CathyMeveanti>
`niy Shirley Bedon; James Badon Kar
`en Matebnilky Deborels %, Zool Thom
`
`in. perk.
`
`»
`
`»
`
`om
`
`-
`
`

`

`IN BD REPOTIFIVE. STRERS DYURY LITIGATION
`Citags 1 rad 368 {20d Cl, 1993)
`Audrey HULSH, Lewis R. Hulse,
`‘Wang Laboratories; ‘Inc. and, Iuternalion-
`Plaintiffz—Appellees,
`al Business Mechines Corporation,
`Defendants~Appellonia.
`'
`Ww
`>
`APPLE COMPUTERS INC, Defendant,
`Bony Corporation of Ameried,
`.*
`Defendant-Appollant, '
`
`TAISAL SPECIAL OBA COEP,,
`Third-Party Plaintiff, °
`th
`
`any
`
`LEOW LEVIN SONS, INC,
`Third-Party Defendant,
`
`—
`
`Compay Computer orp: Zenith
`Data Systems, Intervensra.
`Mortha GAYLOR, Flaintif?Appetles,
`vs
`'
`YOROK CORPORATION,
`Dafendant-Appollant,
`'
`International Bosinage Machines,
`Inc, and Prime, Computer,
`'oo
`Ine, Defendant,
`
`|
`
`Youn TANEN, PlaintiffAppelles,
`Wy
`
`BTENOGRAPH CORP, Quizote
`_Cornoration, Defenilanta~
`Apyellants,
`
`“
`
`Ferma Mac HOLLEY, Donalil Holley, Dox
`othy Tarmel, Lucille Dattieli, George
`Denis, Linds G. Gimasi, Nicholas So-
`viere, Caxel Soviero, Mainitiis-dppel-
`lees,
`
`7 Tt
`'
` MiA-
` EVEONERS
`ITURNATIONAL
`CHINES CORPORATION, NCE Corpo-
`xation, Memorex, Comporation, Memorex
`Pelex Corp. America Telephone and
`Telegraph Company, Defendants,
`
`.
`
`Moargareb CARR, Pleintifft-Appellee,
`“oy,
`| DATA GUNERAL CORP,
`Defendant-Appollant.
`Nos. G50, 716, 728, 719, 126 and 733,
`Doclsota 92-7782, D27962, 92-UD06,
`HeDHA, P2-H00G and 92-9008,
`‘Dnlied Btates Court of Appruls,
`Barend Cirevit
`
`Avpuedl May 21, 2908,
`Decided Des. 0) 2GR8,
`'
`
`r
`
`‘Worty-four onaex’ abaerting elaim for
`"|
`daranges for repetitive streseinjuries against
`manuizcinrars of yariome dlectronle..crruip:
`ment teed in offices and retell stores were
`comaplideted by the’ United States Districk
`‘Court for tha Maske Dintriet of New York,
`Jack 'B,Weinstein nnd Dewls B. Huvley, 27,
`142 BED, 684, Manuiaturera appualed,
`TheCourt ofAupesis, Winter, Cirenlt Padge,
`‘held that:
`(1) consulidation orders were not
`reviewsble wider cullaieral order exception
`to fine) jadgmené rule, bub (2) consclidating *
`cases without required evramonelity ef fact
`und Tepel ieunen wae, clear ebuae.ot diseration
`justifying’ mandamus relief,
`Vathted,
`
`1, Vetioral Courts 672
`Nonfinel order may be reviewedon ap.
`NEC America, Ine, alan known as Nippon
`peal qnder euDateral order exception to final
`Blevizic Nev, MHC Business Cormmni-
`judgment ‘ule if order, fully dieppses of
`cations Syatems, Int, formerly, known
`question, razdlves isene completely eplsterel
`as MT Business Coramnnication Sy
`. tema, Ine, NEC Blectronica, Inc)-NEG--
`to"mierite;"andinvolves right"tat Word"bs"
`industries,
`Inc; NEO. Technologies,
`effectively unreviewsbla aiter final judgment.
`28 ULB.0.A. § 1202,
`.
`Ines formerly Inown as NEC Blechror-
`jeg, USA, Inc, Defendants—Appellants,
`
`.
`
`.
`
`

`

`.
`
`4,FEDERAL REPORTER, 8¢ SURTES
`370
`'
`Slaven J, Phillips, New York Gity (Aland
`2, Federal Courts 708%
`Golmstd, Denislle M. Goodman, Lavy Phil-
`Collateral oxiler exeephion to find judge
`Bps & Tonigaberg,New Fork City, Michael
`‘A. Ponterio, Lipsite Green Fabringer Feil
`ment rile Gd not apply to order eonsolidat-
`Bulisbury & Cambria, ‘Buitdlo, MY, Arnold 6.
`ing 44 emits alleging that repebifive siqess
`‘Lalind, Sanfarman Leiind Blumatein Wetter
`injuries suffered by ‘varioua ‘WUEKENe WEB
`& Bleder, Lawrenceville, Nu, Alsing 8.
`caused by electronie office soughinest consyl-
`‘Wiliams, Wig Willams & ‘Davidson, Phila-
`defen order opald be motified er revieed a8
`delphin, PA, of counsel}, for pleinttifs-appel-
`Hiigation proceeded, merits pf consolidation
`leas.
`prders were enmeshed withfactual and legal
`Joseph A. DiAvanzo, White Plains,’ WY
`issues, and eonsdidation order could be re-
`(Micheal «A. .Cernzel, x. ‘Mark 0, Dilton,
`viewed on appeel of fine judgment,
`28
`Tathioon 5.Mengle, Cerasel & Bpring, of
`TSCA. § 1201; FeiRules Oiy-Proe.Balen
`eonmsel), for defendant-appellant ‘Interuation-
`9B, BBE), 42, 28 TEA. *
`il Business Machines Corp.
`(leotge ML Neweumbe, Hew York City
`4, Mendomnd o154(2)
`Cinta ‘L, Mahoney, Blospbon Thacher &
`Comt of Appoils may ment atbentpted
`Bartlett, of dounnel), for defendenie-appel-
`appedl, as patition for Jenve to Ta weit of
`Linta MISO Amatien, Ine, WEO Business
`Communication Systems
`(entre,
`Inc.
`roendemma,
`SOG Weetvonies Inc, NEC Tuduptries, Tne,
`and WHO Techologies, Toe.
`Charles B, Upéike, Michael 1, Sehoewen,
`MarktD.Miller,Buhpeman, ‘Mesh & Upile,
`New ‘Vouk City, of counsel, for defendant
`-ppnellant Zeros. Corp.
`Gugene H. Lieber, Daniel B.Bedker, Lie-
`ber & Lasher, NewZork City, of counsel, for
`Getondante-zppaitants Stenperaph Corp. aa
`Quixote, Cex.
`Dinos 8. Winer, Lee 8.Gayer, Joel B,
`Hoth, Wilner & Ansocietes, P.O, Mew
`York City, of comsel, for fefendant-appel-
`Ient Sopy Corp, of Ameries.
`Mare 8, Dreler, Margaret ML Herding,
`Falleight & Jaworeli, New York City, of
` guaneel, for dbfondantuppellast Data Geno
`al Oorp,
`John 8. Kiernan, Debevoise & Pinpton,
`Sew York City, of conmadl, for defentinnt-
`intervenor Onmpaty Computer Qurp.
`Mark Z Anewh, ELNiches! O'Brien, Larry
`H,Lamm, Wilson, Hiner, Muskewiiz, Hdebinan,
`& Dicker, New.York City, of counsel, for
`Hofaidentintervenor Zenith Data Systems,
`Tae.
`Robert D, Owdn, James 1, Wesle, Owen6
`Davis, Mew Tork City, of counsel, for defen-
`dant-appellant Wang Laboratories, Ine.
`
`'
`4, Manianns 1
`Sonningweit of snendasn ta exbraortl-
`navy measore end phiould ba done aparing}y,
`-opspeiipoer-aeclem Bbuse of aovatiin or te
`eonfineinferior épari ty Jowial'exereive ofite
`presdribed ‘authority,
` g spodorel Civil Provera O81" |
`Pavty ving for condelidetion mast
`hore burden of chowkiy cmmmenslity wf Sat
`tas! aud Jdgel issues in different aetione, and
`district eouxt raat"exeonine epecizl mrdexly
`ing faels with close aktentionbefors ordering
`conedlidation. Fed.Bules CirProcBrile 42,
`2B U.B0.4. “ :
`6. Fedeval Civil Procedare 9d
`Conuvlidatiog 44 sults agabast roareafaee
`turers of office wduipment by sgikers of
`various oveapations alleging zepelltive stress
`injuries was dbuse of discretion justifying
`mandamus relief, even though many of plain-
`tifa were represented by sane eowmael and
`discovery had got yet begs; plaintiEis Were
`employed ab differentwork: ites, in different
`oeeupations end yeported,differentinjuries,
`eauh of which might have cemse other than
`¢ortions conductof #defendant. “Fed-Rules
`Civ-ProwRule 42, 28 0.8.0.4.
`
`‘
`
`

`

`
`
`371
`
`WEITER, Olreait Judge
`Defendants-spnsllants International Busi-
`nesh Machines Oorporation (EBM") and
`Wang Laboratories, Ine,
`("Wang") appesl
`from Judge Weinstein's order ("Weinstein
`Order"), Ix ret Hepelitive Stress Injury
`Cases, 142 ER.D, 584 (E.D.NY.1908), erant-
`ing fhe plainfiffa-appellees’ motion to consoll-
`date the forty-four cases in the Western Dis-
`triet of Mew York thot nsserb a claim for
`damages Jor “repetitive ctrasainjuries.” De-
`fentlants-appellante
`the NHC companiey
`(NHE"), Zerox Gorporation (Kerox”), Bony
`Corporation ofAmerica ('Bany"), Stenograph
`Corporativa, Qaixeta Corporation, and Duta
`Generel Oorporation and defendant-interre-
`ney Compaq Computer Ovrpovation apporl
`from Judge Hurley's
`subsequent order
`CHimley Order"), In ra: Repetitive Atress
`Infoy Lite, Ho, S-OV-2070 (RDN,
`Aug, 10, 1992), that, extended the.Welngtain
`Order to include all actions Hed thereafter in
`the Basten District claiming “repetitive
`giress dyes” Defendantiniervenor Ze-
`nith Deta Systeme,
`Incorporated appeals
`from both tha Weinstein, Order and the Hur~
`ley Orde,
`Plaintifife-nppelles move to dismiss these
`appeals for lack of-jurisdiction. We grant
`he motion ond disraips-the spperls, Hower
`ex, we trent the attempted’ appends ne -yatl-
`tons for wells of mmnilewius anil grant the
`petitions, We vacate tha consclidation or-
`ders ead remend, to tha Getricé courl for
`further proceedings voneisteut with this decl-
`Blan,
`‘
`
`IN RE REPOTIVE ATRESS INJURY LISIGATION
`Ciinps £1 F3d 368 (2nd Oir, 1923)
`condylitis, commonly known 2s “tenuis el-
`Before: MESEILL, WOTEOR and
`bow" Some gleintiifs plo allese thet they
`*PRATE, Cironit Judges,
`puffer from rotator cuff tears, lumbrosacal
`sprain, degenerative dise disease, cervical
`aprain, musdle speims, “trigger finger,” nepk
`pain, end back pam, The claimed afflictions
`de not bave a clngle case and, defendants
`argue, mayTesh, deter alte, fepm heretitery
`factors, vastaer disorders, obesity, metabolic
`disorders, high blovd cholesterol levels, eon-
`nective Hepes disorders, primary pulmonary
`hypertension, and prior travina,,
`Defendants are companies that mannfae-
`ture, andin apme cased distribute, yarlpus
`types of equipment,
`including keyboards,
`heypunckes, alphanvmepric machines, video
`dlaplay terminnls, nash regislats, aupermin-
`lreb-worketations, stonogeaphle machines, end
`computer “mowe’ devices, ech plalutif?
`alleges that a deviee of this sort canell bis of
`hee injury,
`,
`(m Mey 12, 1952, pleinflifs applied to
`dudge ‘Welnateln, piiting as Miscalaneous
`Port Fade, for an Order to Show Onnee why
`their foridunr eeparete potions pending ba-
`fore paven judges of the, Bashers District
`ahtald not be eonsulidaied. On dime 2, 1902,
`Judge Welnsteln eonunliiiated the forty-four
`pending, "REI" caves before Fudge Hurley as
`the judge with the euligstdiled REL ease on
`his dockel, pursuant te the wavel panties of
`fhe Babich eourk, Jn ver Repettkiee Sbreas
`Injury Cow, 142 ERD. Bt GDN
`1992), Although Juilge Welnatein'a opinion
`seumed at times to reangnize that the facto
`or logal jeunes of the verions ceses were nob
`identical andmight mbrequently Jaed to the
`aibdividingof procesdings by classes of ix-
`gues, he ordered fail vonveliduiton with tha
`vert that,.os matters presently stand, all
`cuensel, mart eltend all discovery and all
`c*nt pronseilings,
`,
`On duly 24, 1992, Judge Horley estebliche
`_pretiminary Giscpvery procedures and selic-
`itetl from the parties their suggestions for
`composingtelevant “arbgroupe” for pinuaes
`of discovery, ai suggested by Judge Wein-
`goin, Jn rat Repetitive Shrese Injury Litig,
`No, Bl-CV-2079, slip op, ab 4 G.D.NLY, July
`14, 1992), On Angust 10, 1982,dudge Hurley
`jsoued am order extending the Weinstein Or-
`derto all subsequent RBI ectiona, The Hur-
`
`BACKGROUND
`Plaintifis are individeels who have brought
`uttions alleging injuries rewulling from “re-
`pstiiye stress” encountered in the was- of
`aqaipment manviaetured or distribnted by
`vasions defendants, There, so-called “repett-
`tive elrese injuries” (“REF”) include "carpal
`fonnel” syndrome, e malady of the hands and
`. Aisi, and a diverse array of other ailmanta
`including de Quervéln’s disease, Reynanil's
`Byndreme, pynovitis, stenpaing tenosynovitis
`crepiians, tendinitis, tenosynovitis, and epi-
`
`’
`
`

`

`11 FEDURAL EEPORTER, 84 SMRTES
`872
`Cohen to require thet. the order: () idly
`ley Order gave Jeave to the defendants in the
`dispose of the question, (2) resolve en isnae
`newly conevlidated actions tp ile letter mo-
`eompletdly evllatardl to the moriis, and (By
`ons ‘with the court cesking severance, out
`involve Bright thatwould be ‘effectively wnre-
`threntened movents who made “Srivelons ‘or
`viswable uiter final
`judgment. Abnay 2
`fi-conceived" appitrations with Rule 11. sanc-
`United States, 431 T.8. 51, 658, 97 5.Ot.
`finns,
`:
`'
`#084, 20B9, 62 Lwd2d 66h (1977).
`Appellants appealed from the consolidation
`[2]
`‘We believe the jocindictlonel zane ia
`urders, Boon after both seta of appellants
`governed hy Coopers & Labrond v. Livery,
`‘Ted eppads, pppelleas raoved to,dimes the
`4207 TLS, 468, 469, 98 B.Ct. e4pd, BABB, BT
`gppedls for lack of jurisdiction becemse the
`1,Wadd BBL (108), which denied jurindiction
`Interloentory eppews had not been cortitiall
`over am appeal from the denial of clas earti-
`by the dinizict esub onder 28 1.8.0.
`Sieation pursuant to Fed.B.CvP, 28, Mast,
`5 1982(b).
`‘Other pancls referréd' the mo-
`tha Coord reasoned thet the Wstrlet cout
`tons to ug, fie panel hearing the “appeal.
`might yeviss such an order tader Foi.
`Frrsuant to 28 UBC. § 140%, appellens
`BCP, BOUL). Seeonll, the epusiderations
`have also moved before the dydietal Panel on
`nti Bteke in the’ class cexttlicution japne exe
`iulGlajeteletLitigation (MEDL") for ao oiler
`Stenmeshed in the faetnal end Jegel ismes
`coniprising the plaintiifs cane of aciton!”
`ropbolidating ‘all WEL cases pending nalion-
`wide in the ashen Districtof Now York
`Tes eb 460, 9B BC, ab R458 {yooting Maerua
`fila Nak’ Bowl v, Longiocet, gil ULB. BBG,
`thé MDL Panel denied sppelless’, motion
`BBB, 28 S.%b, 620, B22, 8 7,BiG,2d bee (LOGE).
`herause ib was nob persuaded flvat "the de-
`gan of commun questions of fact amine
`“Third, eh en order can. be effentively re-
`fouse neHons rises to the Jevel that tranaler
`‘vlamed after fine] judgment.
`ander Seetlon 1407 would best nerve the
`‘As was the vase with the clas gertification
`overall eonventance of the partias und wit-
`isvue in Coupers & Lapbroned,
`tonwotidation
`nesses anil promote the just and effislent
`orilers may be modified ur revined ap the
`eondaet of this entice litigation.” Inve He
`' Ytigetion proceeda, Theat indeed, appears ty
`metiting Sbraes Eajwry Prodicta Tanhility Li-
`heave been contemplated by both disteteb
`tig, G1, U.E.LW, 2876, 2870, LopeWL AUBUEB-
`jodges, Moreover, he merits of the eoncoll-
`dation orders ars thorongiily "ormenhed ia
`(PILE1992).
`vey Jacknal and legal feenea? For exsnugle,
`Gefendants ‘deny conmmunality ever in the
`dain, of vepphitive stranesyndrome, which,
`they say, is 2 Tabet epplied to robladies “with
`verydifferent: cymptome' and ceukea. Final-
`}y, the conzalidetion orders eed be reviewed
`on appeal to the extent thai conaplidetton
`affocis substantive rights, We thus decline
`to expand the colisteral onder docking to
`aneompass vongolidation prdere,
`Tn asying fils, we recognize that we way
`be siveasing the theoretical ab the expense vf
`sho practical, Defendants pagertthat copanl:
`fdation unneresceriy.
`increnbea their Gk
`penses by foreing them ty participate in Gis-
`covery awd other proceedings irrelevant fo
`their partivdlur actions. These costs, they
`apy, Will force therm to pottle what they xe,
`pord asbaseless cleime. Ifo, the efeobot a
`nonatlidation order rey nob ‘pe redresagble
`on apperl. However, the disposition of thin
`
`DISCUSSION
`1, Appathdta Juriaiiction
`TEE Title 28 U.B.0, § 1251 eoniera jutik-
`diction over appesia “Grom ell fioel decisions
`of the district courts of the ‘Tnited States.’
`‘A conscikiution otder is condedadly nob a
`final judgment, Appellants therefore agua
`that this appedl fills within the “eollateral
`ovdar® exeeptiod to the final judgment rile,
`Bae Cohen v. Bonaficiet Fndusttlet Lown
`Corp, 207 TS.B4l, 69 B.0b 1821, 88 Lid.
`1528 (1949). The:Cohen volefavora-a "prac
`deal rather, thon a tedhnieal construction”
`allowing aypesis from Hevisions thet “nally
`determine claime of xight separable from,
`and collateral tn, rights poperted in tha ae-
`“tion, too important to be denied review and
`tonindependant of the cause itself,” te defer
`eppellate consideration. Td. ab846, 69 6.08,
`at 1p28-26, Later decigions have conabraed
`
`a
`
`

`

`
`
`,
`
`873
`IN RE REPETECIVH STRESS INJURY LITIGATION
`Citaae IE Fad 368 (2ndCte, 1998)
`[8]
`‘We believe that consolidation here
`matter tivelf should ease euch fears, ond we
`‘wes a oufdidiently clear sbnoe of diseretion to
`aoniinue to believe that the Colen rile amet
`warrant mendmmug valisi, At tlds ptage of
`_he narrowly eonstraed, “levi this excaption
`the ligetion, fhe sole common fart mong
`swallow -the selutary ‘nel judgment? ule,”
`thoge coves 38 B claim of injury of such genex-
`Weight Wotohers of Phila, Inc. v. Weight
`plity that ib covers a mumber of ditterent
`Watohers Int, Ino, 4565 F.2d 770, TBR (ad
`ailments for each of whieh there pre mumer-
`(Cir,1972) (citetions omibted); ase plea Ouited.
`ons possibie causes other than the tortious
`Sintes Tour Operators Ass'n v. Trans Works
`conduct of one of tha defendants, Ax a elise,
`Airlines, Ino, 550 F.2d 125, 128 (2d Oir.1877)
`tha pluintifiis presumably have the usual wide
`(opposing “expansive reading” of Cohen ex-
`qariety of individual health eonditions ant
`ception); UAW 2 National Qnucen ofLebor
`problems that are fonnd in-eny ehmilay sana-
`Conemp, B25 Fad 828, 820 @d *Chr.1978)
`ple of persons and that Tight be relevant to
`(same),
`te
`SO
`the claifned injuries. The defendants manu-
`focturd ov distribute a.varlaty of mechanical
`.
`°
`2, Montane
`a
`Gevices with differing propensities, if arty, to
`(3,41 We mey, however,
`imei an al.
`cause tha harm pllegod.
`‘With regard to
`tempted, appeal es w petition for leave to dle
`japnes of Jew, the plaintitis come from p
`a virit of mendes. fn rer Hooker nueat-
`variéiy of juvisiictiona and xely for their
`qnerta, Ino, OBT F.2d B38, BBY (2a Cix.1081);
`dats on the laws of different states. fn
`Risherdson Greensiields Seowrtites, Inc. v
`‘order fet merges oH discovery anil court
`Law, 825 Wad way, G62 (2a Cir.1687). The
`proveedings and vequites the participation of
`granting of a welt of mandamus js Bu OR
`all eosel simply has 20 basis Jn Rule 42,
`traondinay measie and dhonld -be done
`“ARhough consolidation may enhance jadi
`aparingly, to redresd a “clear abuse of digere-
`dial efficiency, “Telonsiderations
`bE conve
`ton,” Richurdaon Greensbighte, 82 PBA ab
`rognee end cemnomy mont yield to a pana
`age, ov Peta confine an inferior eek to
`ont concern for e fale end ienpertial trial,”
`lewial exerciée of ita proscribed: enthor-
`Jolmeon v. Celotes Corp, Baa Pad 1281,
`fs. t.? Movoa , Cone Memavial Hospital
`1286 (2d Cin), card, dented, 498 1.8, 880, 111
`v, Meroury Conaty. Corp, 480 TS, 4, 18, 108
`B,0t, 207, 112 Lald.ad 250 (ron), Ag we
`B.C, O27, 9H, 74 Laika 705 (1883). See
`have recentlyeautionad, "The eystemie urge
`‘glee Chase Monkton Barly M.A, v. Turner
`to apgrapate Mtigation aust not ba allowed to
`& Mowall, PLG, 094 F.2d 150, 163 (2d Che.
`tromp our dadigation to ‘Sndividual justices,
`1892) (overtrening 8 discovery order vidlat-
`and we umut take eave theb each individual
`ine ntnney-dllent privilege); Zn ra vor a
`pliintiif's-—-andl ‘defendentie—causa nob be
`lou, £28, Fed O4 (2d Cird8B7) (came).
`Jost in the shadow of B towering zaxse Titiga-
`fe] A porty moving for consolidation
`Kon! Fn re: Brooklyn Nowy Tord Asbestos
`Smust bear the burden of showing ths com-
`Yity, OTL F.2d B81, 868 (2 Chr1992), +
`rannality of factual and legal issues in iter.
`Tn Folmaon, we enumerated the factors to
`ett actions, Wenddister a Cutermen, 208 Fed.
`consider in ofdexing toosblidation in the con-
`65, 70 (ad ChEPH), and a Hatrietpuck must
`text of daelogeus Unina involving asbestos,
`exarnine “kha speclél underlying facts" with
`They are, in relevan’ parti
`"4(t) pummemott
`“glove ettentiod” befare ordering 4 consoliday .
`sworkeite;
`(2) similar oconpation; {8} similar
`ton, Kote x Realty Hqulties Corp, ll
`fimof exposure; (4) type of disvose ...3 (8)
`Fiza 1854, (862 (2d Ciri078),
`‘The allega-
`statue of discdvery in exch casey‘ (7) whether
`’ Hons of the complaints afford no support to
`all plaintiff wera represented by the same
`the Gisizict concise’ conclusion thot
`thega
`counsel, ...?" Johwow, BOD I-20 ab 1265,
`cages ave swilctently related to warrant eon-
`quoting Zn rar Al Asbestos Coses Pending
`aolidation:
`Indeed, the district eomct substi-
`dy the United States Dtabrict Court for the
`_ fnted.adiscassion of so-called mazs.torts ar ..
`Distrtot ofMaryland, (D.Ma, Des, 16, 1088)
`precisy findings asto whet are the "epramon
`fon bene). (nareported), Although the mujor-
`question{s] of lew or fact"justifying enpoli-
`ity of ‘the plalntifix: pre represented by the
`dation porsumt to PedR.Giv-P. 22.
`
`ee
`
`ee
`
`ensee
`
`

`

`CONCLUSION,
`We dismiss the appedis. We treat the
`attempted sppesia as petitions for wriks of
`mandamus,
`‘We grant the petitions end ve-
`tate the eondoldation eriera,
`
`,
`
`"
`
`|. 7 FEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES
`B74
`{ion BS amethod of ineresping, the conta ofits
`pame ovunael and discovery had not yeb be-
`nfiversuvies—whellier plaintifiy or defen-
`gan in apy of the cases, the other factors
`.donta—by foreing them ta participate in dis
`pitongly militate against eonggidation, The
`epyery or other proceedings thet are terele-
`plaintiffsare employed ab different worksites
`vant io thelr cass.
`it muy be that such
`and in different ocmmpetinns, ranging from
`jngrentedl eoaks would muke setHement easter
`sword processor, to key pancher, to stenogra-
`io achieve, bat that would oveur only ab the
`phen‘They report iifferent vouditions relat
`nosh of dlementel Eatrness,
`ing to fhe alleged silmenta sud disparate
`ailments themselves, Moreover, gach of the
`afimants.allegad may have a caape other than
`the tortions eondoct of an individnsl defen-
`dant mach lees all the defendants, Finally,
`factors 1-4 are fax mors importantthan den-
`fity of comnadl and progress of disabvery.
`Jonni factors 1-£ go.to the eontral ised of
`eonmmonelity, while, fachora 7 go wolely to
`convenience, and bere the couventenea of
`only one pide, AB ve Faventiy stated, “it is
`péssible to go ton fax in the interests of
`axpedieney and to sonrffies panic fairness in
`the provens” Maton %, Netlonul Gypsum
`Co, 90 Bad 846, S88 (2a Cir.1o2y)..
`When entering the eonasildation orders,
`the district court eonteraplated the mibakivid *
`ing of Masovery of other proceedings wo.
`even. the severance of aome chaee BS the
`Tiigation procaeda, Becnaa thequeetion of
`whether Ehera ara voromon iasuep of Jaw or
`foobin these eases is open, there ia a0 donbt
`ome discovery Ehat ia applicable ta eroup
`ef, or all, canes,
`‘The distxich Jndges’ ape
`proach, however, reversed ithe preper pro
`gest
`‘The borden 3s on the party sealing
`agevepation io whow common faanad oflew of
`fact, daa burdends not on the party opposing
`appragation to chow iivergences. Miwadlis-
`fer, 208 Td at 7B, This de ao wyen in the
`nese of tho so-called mage tock, where a ghift-
`ing ofthis burdenis Hhely to render the label
`rues tork into @ self-fdlfilling ‘propheny,
`‘Weeumhasize, however, that-we see noth
`ing weong with srelguing all RAT cases in &
`district to a ingle district judge who may
`order that particular proceadings oF certain
`discovery requests galate to defined groups
`of HSL cases or, when appropriate, wl the
`ANT cases’ ih the Gishriet, Our differences
`with the @ettiet comet sre.more then philo-
`-gophical,
`‘Theburden is on the party secking
`aggregation of Gscovery Ur other procesd-
`inga 40 Bhow comma actual or legal issnes
`cwarrannglt. Aperiy may not ade ABEraee-
`
`Perry Lee BEBRING, ‘Petitionen~
`'
`| Appellant,
`‘Ve
`Lary RB. MEACHOM, Comrissivoer of
`Corrections, Resporident-Appellee.
`No. 1871, Dacket 92-2087.
`sGiniteil Biatas Court of Appeals,
`Heconil Cireult,
`Arpaad Aug. T1, 1908.
`Decided Dee, 9, 1998.
`Following aiffemanes, 210 Comm, 78, sed
`" A,Bd 686, of convinniona for two reuriera,
`potitioner-sougintwaitofhabeas eopoe.
`‘The
`Tnited Blates Dinbeit Court for tha Disizieti
`of Connecticut, Petar 0. Dorsey,J, denied *
`petition, and patliiones appealed, The Qourk
`of Appeuls, Walker, Cireult Saige, held that:
`(1) pelttiongr was nob deprived of das pro-
`cena by joinder of. twa worelated murder
`charges for tie; (2) trink eparts decision to
`"Yoel: eourbroom Goers during fory juebraction
`Adnob vivlntepetitioner's rightin public
`trial; and (8) petidinersclaiet‘thataie
` Blangbter dnatroction would ave been jill
`fiedby evidencetetvicisi was Wedduring
`
`|
`
`,
`
`'
`
`

`

`
`

`

`Westlaw.
`
`202 S.W.3d 286
`202 S.W.3d 286
`
`rH
`In re Shell Oil Co,
`Tex,App.-Beanmont,2006.
`
`Court of Appeals of Texas,Beaumont,
`In re SHELL OIL CO., Shell Chemical LP, United
`States Steel Corp., American Chemistry Council,
`Exxon Corp., ExxonMobil Oil Corp., Mobil Chem-
`ical Co., Inc., Ethyl Corporation and Union Carbide
`Corporation,
`No, 09-06-195 Cv.
`
`Submitted on June 29, 2006,
`Delivered Sept. 14, 2006,
`
`Background: Former employers filed petition for
`writ of mandamus compelling trial court to vacate
`its order to consolidate occupational exposure claim
`of former ormployee and his wife and claim of per-
`sonal
`representative of estate of deceased former
`employee,
`
`Holding: The Court of Appeals held that consolid-
`ation of was not warranted,
`
`Petition conditionally granted.
`
`West Headnotes
`
`[2] Mandamus 250 €-4(1)
`
`250 Mandamus
`2501 Nature and Grounds in General
`250k4 Remedy by Appeal or Writ of Error
`250k4(1) k, In General. Most Cited Cases
`
`Mandamus 250 €-=-28
`
`250 Mandamus
`2500 Subjects and Purposes of Relief
`2500(A) Acts and Proceedings of Courts,
`Judges, and Judicial Officers
`250k28 k. Matters of Discretion. Most
`Cited Cases
`An appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus —
`
`Page 2 of 8
`
`Page |
`
`when the trial court has abused its discretion and
`the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal.
`
`[2] Mandamus 250 €=->28
`
`250 Mandamus
`2501] Subjects and Purposes of Relief
`2501(A) Acts and Proceedings ‘of Courts,
`Judges, and Judicial Officers
`250k28 k. Matters of Discretion. Most
`Cited Cases
`A trial court has no discretion in determining what
`the Jaw is ot applying the law to the facts; thus, a
`clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply
`the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discre-
`tion, and may result
`in appellate reversal by ex-
`traordinary writ.
`
`[3] Mandamus 250 €->4(1)
`
`250 Mandamus
`2501 Nature and Grounds in General
`250k4 Remedy by Appeal or Writ of Error
`250k4(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases
`With respect to whether an appellate remedy is ad-
`equate for purposes of determining whether manda-
`mus relief is warranted, “adequate” has no compre-
`hensive definition; it is simply a proxy for the care-
`ful balance of jurisprudential considerations that
`determine when appellate courts will use original
`mandamus proceedings to review the actions of
`lower courts.
`
`j4] Mandamus 250 Cl
`
`250 Mandamus
`'
`2501 Nature and Grounds in General
`250k1 k. Nature and Scope of Remedy in
`General, Most Cited Cases
`inter-
`Mandamus review of trial courts’ incidental
`locutory rulings unduly interferes with tia! court
`proceedings, diverts appellate courts’ attention to
`unimportant
`issues, and adds to the expense and
`delay of civil
`litigation; however, mandamus re-
`view of significant rulings in exceptional cases may
`
`© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. U5 Gov, Works.
`
`http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?prfit=HTMLE&destination=atp&sv=Split...
`
`10/7/2008
`
`

`

`202 8,.W.3d 286
`202 §.W.3d 286
`
`be essential to preserve important substantive and
`procedural
`rights from impairment or loss, allow
`the appellate courts to give needed and helpful dir-
`ection to the law that would otherwise prove elu-
`sive in appeals from final
`judgments, and spare
`private parties and the public the time and money
`utterly wasted enduring eventual
`reversal of im-
`properly conducted proceedings.
`
`[5] Mandamus 250 €--4(4)
`
`250 Mandamus
`2501 Nature and Grounds in General
`250k4 Remedy by Appeal or Writ of Error
`“250KA4(4)
`kk. Modification or Vacation of
`Judgment or Order. Mast Cited Cases
`
`Mandamus 250 €2732
`
`:
`- 250 Mandamus
`2501) Subjecta and Purposes of Relief
`250A) Acts and Proceedings of Courts,
`Judges, and Judicial Officers
`250k32 k. Proceedings in Civil Actions in
`General. Most Cited Cases
`Because a consolidation order usually does pot
`threaten a defendant's substantial rights, mandamus
`typically does not lie from a trial court's consolida-
`tion order; however, if an ordinary appeal
`is inad-
`equate because extraordinary circ*mstances exist,
`mandamus relief may be appropriate.
`
`[6] Action 13 €-55
`
`13 Aation
`13H Joinder, Splitting, Consolidation, and Sey
`erance
`
`13k54 Consolidation of Actions
`13k55 k. In General. Most Cited Cases
`The express purpose of the rule allowing consolida-
`tion of certain actions is to further convenience and
`avoid prejudice, and thus promote the ends of
`justice. Vernon's Ann.Texas Rules Civ.Proc., Rule
`174,
`
`[7] Action 13 €=257(5)
`
`Page 3 of 8
`
`Page 2
`
`13 Action
`1311 Joinder, Splitting, Consolidation, and Sev-
`erance
`‘
`13k54 Consolidation of Actions
`13k57 Actions Which May Be Consolid-
`
`ated
`
`13k57(5) k. Tort Actions. Most Cited
`,
`Cases
`When considering plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate
`actions alleging occupational exposure to toxins
`and carcinogens, court would consider the Mary-
`land factors,
`including: (1) common worksite;
`(2)
`similar occupation; (3) similar tinie of exposure; (4)
`type of disease; (5) whether plaintiffs were living or
`deceased, (6) status of discovery in each case; (7)
`whether plaintiffs were represented by the same
`counsel; and (8) type of canceralleged.
`
`{8] Action 13 C256
`
`13 Action
`1311 Joinder, Splitting, Consolidation, and Sev-
`erance
`13k54 Consolidation of Actions
`13k56 k. Power
`io Consolidate, Most
`Cited Cages
`Although the trial court has broad discretion to con-
`solidate cases, when all of the facts and circum-
`stances of a case unquestionably require a separate
`trial
`to prevent manifest injustice, and there is no
`fact or circ*mstance supporting or t