Docstoc

Coalition For Litigation Justice In Support of Unimpaired - IN THE .doc

Document Sample
Coalition For Litigation Justice In Support of Unimpaired - IN THE .doc Powered By Docstoc
					                                       NO. 2004-03964



IN RE                                     §             IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
                                          §
                                          §
ASBESTOS LITIGATION                       §             HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
                                          §
                                          §
                                          §             11TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT



                             MEMORANDUM OF THE
                   COALITION FOR LITIGATION JUSTICE, INC.
                     IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
                    TO ESTABLISH AN UNIMPAIRED DOCKET
        ******************************************************************




        Of Counsel                               Victor E. Schwartz
                                                 Mark A. Behrens
        Paul W. Kalish                           Philip S. Goldberg
        Mark D. Plevin                           SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
        CROWELL & MORING LLP                     600 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
        1001 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.             Washington, D.C. 20005-2004
        Washington, D.C. 20004                   Tel: (202) 783-8400
        (202) 624-2500
                                                 Manuel López (Texas Bar No. 00784495)*
                                                 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
                                                 JP Morgan Chase Tower
                                                 600 Travis Street, Suite 1600
                                                 Houston, TX 77002-2911
                                                 Tel: (713) 227-8008

                                                 * Counsel of Record
                                                 Counsel to Amicus Curiae
                                                 Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc.
                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                                                               Page

TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES ........................................................................                         iii

STATEMENT OF INTEREST ............................................................................................              1

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .........................................                                              2

ARGUMENT

         I.        ASBESTOS LITIGATION IS A CRISIS
                   THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED ................................................................                      4

                   A.       Mass Filings By The Non-Sick Threaten Payments
                            to the Truly Sick...............................................................................    5

                   B.       Bankruptcies Are Placing A Heavy Toll on Workers
                            And Their Employers .......................................................................         11

                   C.       Peripheral Defendants are Being Dragged Into the Litigation .........                               14

                   D.       Overwhelmed Courts are Not Able to Accurately Filter Out
                            Questionable Cases ..........................................................................       16

         II.       THE ASBESTOS LITIGATION PROBLEMS IN TEXAS ARE
                   REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NATIONAL ASBESTOS CRISIS ............                                                  19

                   A.       Texas Leads the Nation in Asbestos Filings ....................................                     20

                   B.       Unimpaired Claimants are Taking Toll on Sick Plaintiffs and
                            Employers in Texas..........................................................................        21

         III.      A STATEWIDE UNIMPAIRED DOCKET WOULD PROVIDE
                   AN EFFECTIVE AND APPROPRIATE SOLUTION
                   TO THE ASBESTOS LITIGATION PROBLEMS IN TEXAS .................                                               22

                   A.       The Court Should Adopt A Statewide
                            Asbestos Docketing System .............................................................             22

                   B.       Unimpaired Dockets Are Sound and Proven ...................................                         23

                            1.        Boston, Massachusetts .........................................................           24


                                                              -i-
                                2.        Chicago, Illinois ...................................................................    25

                                3.        Baltimore, Maryland ............................................................         25

                     C.         Unimpaired Dockets Are Gaining Momentum Around The Country 26

                                1.        New York City .....................................................................      26

                                2.        Syracuse, New York ............................................................          27

                                3.        Seattle, Washington .............................................................        27

                                4.        Madison County, Illinois .....................................................           28

                                5.        Pending: Michigan Supreme Court .....................................                    28

                     D.         Innovations Used By Federal Courts to Give Priority
                                to the Truly Sick...............................................................................   28

                                1.        The Federal MDL Panel.......................................................             29

                                2.        United States Bankruptcy Court for the
                                          District of Delaware .............................................................       30

                     E.         The American Bar Association
                                Commission on Asbestos Litigation ................................................                 31

CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................    32

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................................                App.




                                                                  - ii -
                                     TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES

CASES                                                                                                                                Page

Amchem Prods. Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) ........................................................                           2,4

Dunn v. Hovic, 1 F.3d 1371 (3d Cir.), modified in part, 13 F.3d 58, cert. denied
      sub nom. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Dunn, 510 U.S. 1031 (1993) ...........                                                4

Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. Am. Employers’ Ins. Co., 718 F. Supp. 1053
       (D. Mass. 1989)........................................................................................................        7

In re All Asbestos Litigation Filed in Madison County, Order Establishing
        Asbestos Deferred Registry (Madison County Cir. Ct., Ill.
        Jan. 23, 2004) ...........................................................................................................    28

In re Asbestos Cases, 586 N.E.2d 521 (Ill. App. 1991) .......................................................                         6

In re Asbestos Cases (Cir. Ct., Cook County, Ill. Mar. 26, 1991)
        (Order to Establish Registry for Certain Asbestos Matters) ....................................                               25

In re Asbestos Pers. Injury and Wrongful Death Asbestos Cases,
        File No. 92344501 (Cir. Ct. Baltimore City, Md. Dec. 9, 1992)
        (Order Establishing an Inactive Docket for Asbestos Personal Injury Cases) .........                                          25

In re Asbestos Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), MDL 875 (J.P.M.L. 1991) ..................................                                29

In re Asbestos Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), MDL 875, Admin. Order No. 3
        (E.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 1992) ...........................................................................................          29

In re Asbestos Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), MDL 875, Civil Action No. 2
        (Maritime Actions) (E.D. Pa. May 1, 1996) ............................................................                        30

In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 1996 WL 539589
        (E. D. Pa. Sept. 12, 1996) ........................................................................................           8

In re Asbestos Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), MDL 875, Order
        (E.D. Pa. Oct. 16, 1997) ..........................................................................................           29

In re Asbestos Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), MDL 875, Admin. Order No. 8
        (E.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2002) ...........................................................................................          8,30

In re Collins, 233 F.3d 809 (3d Cir. 2000), cert. denied sub nom.
       Collins v. Mac-Millan Bloedel, Inc., 532 U.S. 1066 (2001) ....................................                                 8,11
                                                                  - iii -
In re Fifth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig., Am. to Am. Case Mgmt. Order
        No. 1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 31, 2003) .......................................................................               27

In re Haw. Fed. Asbestos Cases, 734 F. Supp. 1563 (D. Haw. 1990) .................................                                6

In re Joint E. & S. Dists. Asbestos Litig., 129 B.R. 710 (E. & S.D.N.Y. 1991),
        vacated, 982 F.2d 721 (2d Cir. 1992) ......................................................................               passim

In re Joint E. & S. Dists. Asbestos Litig., 237 F. Supp. 2d 297 (E. & S.D.N.Y. 2002) .......                                      7

In re New York City Asbestos Litig., Order Amending Prior Case
       Mgmt. Orders (S. Ct. N.Y. City, N.Y. Dec. 19, 2002) ............................................                           26

In re Pers. Injury and Wrongful Death Asbestos Cases, Mem. Op. and Order
        Denying Modification to Inactive Docket Medical Removal Criteria,
        No 24-X-92-344501 (Cir. Ct. Baltimore City, Md. Aug. 15, 2002) ........................                                   26

In re Pet. For An Admin. Order, No. 124213 (Mich. Pet. filed Sept. 11, 2003) ................                                     28

In re USG Corp., No. 01-2094, Mem. Op. and Order (Bankr. Del. Feb. 19, 2003) ............                                         24,31

Larson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 399 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 1986) ..................................                                8

Letter from Judge Sharon S. Armstrong, King County, Wash., to
        Counsel of Record, Moving and Responding Parties (Dec. 3, 2002) ......................                                    27

Mass. State Ct. Asbestos Pers. Injury Litig., Order
       (Commw. of Mass., Middlesex Super. Ct., Sept. 1986). .........................................                             24

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Am. Bar Ass‘n, House of Delegates, ABA Standard for Non-Malignant Asbestos
      Related Disease Claims (resolution adopted Feb. 2003) ........................................                              32

Am. Med. Ass‘n, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (5th ed. 2001) .......                                           32

Am. Thoracic Soc’y, Lung Function Testing: Selection of Reference Values and
      Interpretive Strategies, 144 Am. Rev. Resp. Dis. 1202-1218 (1991) .....................                                     32

Am. Tort Reform Ass‘n, Bringing Justice to Judicial Hellholes (2003)
      available at <http://www.atra.org/reports/hellholes> (last visited
      Mar. 1, 2004) ...........................................................................................................   28

                                                                 - iv -
Asbestos Litigation: Hearing Before the Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary,
       107th Cong. (Mar. 5, 2003) (statement of the Hon. Dennis Archer,
       President-elect, American Bar Ass‘n)......................................................................          32

Asbestos Litigation: Hearing Before the Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary,
       107th Cong. (Mar. 5, 2003) (statement of Steven Kazan, partner,
       Kazan, McClain, Edises, Abrams, Fernandez, Lyons & Farrise) ............................                            9

Assoc. Press, Beaumont Law Firm Must Pay $500,000, Hous. Chron.,
       Nov. 15, 2002, available at 2002 WL 23238273 ....................................................                   21

Patrick Beach, The Bitter Price of a Better Life, Austin Am.-Statesman,
        Aug. 31. 2003, available at 2003 WL 56774561 ....................................................                  20

Mark A. Behrens, Some Proposals for Courts Interested in Helping Sick
      Claimants and Solving Serious Problems in Asbestos Litigation,
      54 Baylor L. Rev. 331 (2002) ..................................................................................      3

Mark A. Behrens & Monica G. Parham, Stewardship for the Sick:
      Preserving Assets For Asbestos Victims Through Inactive
      Docket Programs, 33 Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 1 (2001) .................................................                    passim

Mark A. Behrens & Rochelle M. Tedesco, Two Forks in the Road of Asbestos
      Litigation, Mealey‘s Litig. Rep.: Asbestos, Vol. 18, No. 3, Mar. 7, 2003...............                              11

Hon. Griffin B. Bell, Asbestos Litigation and Judicial Leadership:
      The Courts’ Duty to Help Solve The Asbestos Litigation Crisis,
      Briefly, Vol. 6, No. 6, June 2002) ............................................................................      4,15,18

Hon. Griffin B. Bell, Asbestos & The Sleeping Constitution,
      31 Pepp. L. Rev. 1 (2003) .......................................................................................    17

Alex Berenson, A Surge in Asbestos Suits, Many by Healthy Plaintiffs,
      N.Y. Times, Apr. 10, 2002, available at 2002 WL 18538000 ................................                            5

Matthew Bergman & Jackson Schmidt, Editorial, Change Rules on Asbestos
      Lawsuits, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 30, 2002, available at 2002
      WL-STLPI 5934774 ................................................................................................    9,10

David E. Bernstein, Keeping Junk Science Out of Asbestos Litigation,
       31 Pepp. L. Rev. 11 (2003) ......................................................................................   16

Jennifer Biggs et al., Overview of Asbestos Issues and Trends (Dec. 2001),
       available at <http://www.actuary.org/mono.htm> (last visited Aug. 14, 2003) .....                                   6
                                               -v-
William Booth, Unsettling Forecast For the Bay Area; Chance of
       Big Quake Before 2030 Put at 70%, Wash. Post, Oct. 15, 1999,
       available at 1999 WL 23309261 .............................................................................              14

Lester Brickman, Lawyers’ Ethics and Fiduciary Obligation in The Brave
       New World of Aggregative Litigation, 26 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. &
       Pol‘y Rev. 243 (2001) ..............................................................................................     7

Lester Brickman, On The Theory Class’s Theories of Asbestos Litigation:
       The Disconnnect Between Scholarship and Reality?,
       31 Pepp. L. Rev. 33 (2003) .....................................................................................         16

Stephen Carroll et al., Asbestos Litigation Costs and Compensation:
       An Interim Report (RAND Inst. for Civil Justice, Sept. 2002) ................................                            passim

Stephen Carroll et al., Asbestos Litigation Costs and Compensation
       (RAND Inst. for Civil Justice, Feb. 2004) ..............................................................                 5

George Scott Christian & Dale Craymer, Texas Asbestos Litigation Reform: A Model for
      the States, 44 So. Tex. L. R. 981 (2003) .................................................................                20

Albert B. Crenshaw, For Asbestos Victims, Compensation Remains Elusive,
       Wash. Post., Sept. 25, 2002, available at 2002 WL 100084407 .............................                                10

Eddie Curran, Diagnosing for Dollars, Mobile Reg., Apr. 4, 2004, available at
       <www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/
       1081071995288570.xml> (last visited on Apr. 28, 2004) ......................................                             17

Eddie Curran, Mystery Companies, Massive Payouts, Mobile Register,
       Mar. 28, 2004, at 5A, available at <www.al.com/news/mobileregister/
       index.ssf?/base/news/108046931090410.xml> .......................................................                        17

Eddie Curran, Trial Lawyers Say: If Asbestos Cases Bad, Why Settle Them?,
       Mobile Reg., Mar. 28, 2004, available at <www.al.com/news/mobileregister
       /index.ssf?/base/news/1080585951129600.xml> (last visited
       on Apr. 28, 2004) ....................................................................................................   19

Jesse David, The Secondary Impacts of Asbestos Liabilities
       (Nat‘l Econ. Research Assocs., Jan. 23, 2003) ........................................................                   12

The Diagnosis of Nonmalignant Diseases Related to Asbestos, Am. Thoracic Soc’y
       Official Statement, 134 Am. Rev. Resp. Dis. 363 (Mar. 1986) ..............................                               32


                                                                - vi -
Editorial, ABA Backs Asbestos Reform, Wash. Times, Feb. 16, 2003,
        available at 2003 WL-WATIMES 7706224 ...........................................................                     32

Editorial, Asbestos Bill Reasonable: Seriously Ill Victims Deserve a Day
         in Court More Quickly Than Those Who May or May Not Get Sick,
        San Antonio Express-News, May 13, 2003, available at
        2003 WL 20247629 .................................................................................................   22

Editorial, Asbestos Sense, Hous. Chron., July 7, 2003, available at
        2003 WL 57428391 ................................................................................................    22

Editorial, Lawyers Torch the Economy, Wall St. J., Apr. 6, 2001,
        available at 2001 WL-WSJ 2859560 ......................................................................              14

Editorial, The Asbestos Blob, Cont., WALL ST. J., Apr. 6, 2004,
        available at 2004 WL-WSJ 56925100 ...................................................................                5

Editorial, The Job-Eating Asbestos Blob, Wall St. J., Jan. 23, 2002,
        available at 2002 WL-WSJ 3383766 ......................................................................              14

Christopher Edley, Jr. & Paul C. Weiler, Asbestos: A Multi-Billion-Dollar Crisis,
       30 Harv. J. on Legis. 383 (1993) .............................................................................        11

David Egilman, Asbestos Screenings, 42 Am. J. of Indus. Med. 163 (2002) .....................                                18

The Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1999: Hearing on
       H.R. 1283 Before the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong.
       (July 1, 1999) (statement of Christopher Edley, Jr., Professor,
       Harvard Law School) ...............................................................................................   5,6

The Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1999: Hearing on
       H.R. 1283 Before the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 1999 Leg.,
       106th Cong. (July 1, 1999) (statement of Dr. Louis Sullivan,
       former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) .............                                   6

The Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1999: Hearing on
       S. 758 Before the Subcomm. On Admin. Oversight and the Courts
       of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong. (Oct. 5, 1999)
       (statement of the Hon. Conrad L. Mallett, Jr., former Chief Justice,
       Michigan Supreme Court)........................................................................................       3-4




                                                              - vii -
Richard O. Faulk, Asbestos Litigation in State Court: Why the System is
       Broken and Some Suggestions for Repair, Prod. Safety & Liab. Rptr. (BNA),
       Vol. 30, No. 37, Sept. 23, 2002, also printed in Class Action Litig. (BNA),
       Vol. 3, No. 19, Oct. 11, 2002 ...................................................................................   22

Richard O. Faulk, Dispelling the Myths of Asbestos Litigation: Solutions
       for Common Law Courts, 44 So. Tex. L. R. 945 (2003) ........................................                        20

Federal Judge Is Optimistic About Talks on Asbestos Legislation, Best‘s Ins. News,
      Mar. 26, 2004, available at 2004 WL 61249492 (citing Chief Judge Emeritus
      Edward Becker of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit) ......................                             5

Michael Freedman, The Tort Mess, Forbes, May 13, 2002,
      available at 2002 WL 2214449 ...............................................................................         12

Andrew J. Ghio, M.D., Editorial, Asbestosis: Over Diagnosed?,
      The News & Observer (Charlotte, North Carolina),
      Apr. 12, 2004, available at 2004 WL 56033533 .....................................................                   19

Lisa Girion, Firms Hit Hard as Asbestos Claims Rise, L.A. Times,
       Dec. 17, 2001, available at 2001 WL 28937452 .....................................................                  12

Patrick J. Hagan et al., Totalling Up the Costs of Asbestos Litigation:
        Guess Who Will Pay the Price?, 9 Temp. Envtl. L. & Tech. J. 1 (1990) ................                              12

Paul Hampel & Philip Dine, Asbestos Litigation Deal Could Force Law
       Offices to Find New Specialties; Bill Would Substitute Trust
       Fund for Lawsuits, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 23, 2003,
       available at 2003 WL 3596458 ...............................................................................        11

Steven Hantler, Judges Must Play Key Role in Stemming Tide of Asbestos Litigation,
       Andrews Asbestos Litig. Rptr., Vol. 25, No. 14, May 22, 2003...............................                         8

Steven Hantler, Toward Greater Judicial Leadership in Asbestos Litigation,
       Manhattan Inst. Civil Justice Forum, No. 41, Apr. 2003, available at
       <http://www.manhattaninstitute.org> (last visited Aug. 14, 2003) ........................                           14

James A. Henderson, Jr. & Aaron D. Twerski, Asbestos Litigation Gone Mad:
      Exposure-based Recovery for Increased Risk, Mental Distress, and
      Medical Monitoring, 53 S.C. L. Rev. 815 (2002) ....................................................                  6

Gina Holland, ABA Recommends Curbs on Asbestos Lawsuits,
      Assoc. Press Newswire, Feb. 11, 2003 ....................................................................            32

                                                            - viii -
Stephen Hudak & John F. Hagan, Asbestos Litigation Overwhelms Courts,
       Cleveland Plain Dealer, Nov. 5, 2002, available at 2002 WL 6382801 .................                          10,18

Inactive Asbestos Dockets: Are They Easing the Flow of Litigation?,
        HarrisMartin‘s Columns: Asbestos, Feb. 2002 .......................................................          24,25

Senator Kyle Janek, Editorial, Clearing the Way for the Truly Sick, Austin Am.
       Statesman, Jul. 17, 2003, available at 2003 WL 56773165 ....................................                  20

Quenna Sook Kim, Asbestos Trust Says Assets Are Reduced As the
      Medically Unimpaired File Claims, Wall St. J., Dec. 14, 2001,
      available at 2001 WL-WSJ 29680683 ....................................................................         10

Quenna Sook Kim, Firms Hit by Asbestos Litigation Take Bankruptcy Route,
      Wall St. J., Dec. 21, 2000, available at 2000 WL-WSJ 26620724 .........................                        12

Thomas Korosec, Enough to Make You Sick, Dallas Observer,
     Sept. 26, 2002, available at <www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2002-09-26/
     feature.html/1/index.html> (last visited Apr. 29, 2004) ..........................................              21

Terry Maxon, Balance Sought in Asbestos Bill, Dallas Morning News, Jul. 9, 2003,
       available at 2003 WL 73103258 .............................................................................   21

Mike McClintock, Preparing for High Winds, Wash. Post, May 13, 1999,
      available at 1999 WL 17002587 .............................................................................    14

‘Medical Monitoring and Asbestos Litigation’ — A Discussion with
      Richard Scruggs and Victor Schwartz, Vol. 17, No. 3,
      Mealey‘s Litig. Rep.: Asbestos (Mar. 1, 2002).......................................................           9,15

Letter from Senator Don Nickles, Chairman, Committee on Budget, to
        Hon. Timothy J. Muris, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission and
        Lester M. Crawford, D.V.M., Ph.D., Acting Commissioner, Food
        and Drug Administration 1 (Apr. 28, 2004) (on file with authors) .........................                   16

Dr. John E. Parker, Understanding Asbestos-Related Medical Criteria,
       Vol. 18, No. 10, Mealey‘s Litig. Rep.: Asbestos, June 18, 2003 ............................                   22-23

Roger Parloff, The $200 Billion Miscarriage of Justice; Asbestos Lawyers are
       Pitting Plaintiffs Who Aren’t Sick Against Companies that Never
       Made the Stuff and Extracting Billions for Themselves, Fortune,
       Mar. 4, 2002, available at 2002 WL 2190334 .........................................................          5,7


                                                          - ix -
Mark D. Plevin & Paul W. Kalish, What’s Behind the Recent Wave of
      Asbestos Bankruptcies?, Vol. 16, No. 6, Mealey‘s Litig. Rep.: Asbestos
      (Apr. 20, 2001) .........................................................................................................   11

Letter from Daniel J. Popeo, Chairman and General Counsel, Washington Legal
        Foundation, to Betsy Whitaker, President, State Bar of Texas,
        (Mar. 16, 2004) (on file with author) ......................................................................              21

Eric Roston, The Asbestos Pit, Time, Mar. 11, 2002, available at 2002 WL 8385920.......                                           12

Paul F. Rothstein, What Courts Can Do in the Face of the Never-Ending
        Asbestos Crisis, 71 Miss. L.J. 1 (2001) ...................................................................               2

Hon. Carl Rubin & Laura Ringenbach, The Use of Court Experts in Asbestos Litigation,
      137 F.R.D. 35 (1991) ..............................................................................................         17-18

S. Rep. No. 108-118 (2003) .................................................................................................      13

Richard B. Schmitt, Burning Issue: How Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Have Turned
       Asbestos Into a Court Perennial, Wall St. J., Mar. 5, 2001,
       available at 2001 WL-WSJ 2856111 ......................................................................                    15

Peter H. Schuck, The Worst Should Go First: Deferral Registries in
       Asbestos Litigation, 15 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol‘y 541 (1992) ...................................                             passim

Victor E. Schwartz & Leah Lorber, A Letter to the Nation’s Trial Judges:
       How the Focus on Efficiency is Hurting You and Innocent Victims in
       Asbestos Liability Cases, 24 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 247 (2000) .................................                              15

Victor E. Schwartz & Rochelle M. Tedesco, The Law of Unintended
       Consequences in Asbestos Litigation: How Efforts to Streamline
       The Litigation Have Fueled More Claims, 71 Miss. L.J. 531 (2001) ......................                                    15

David M. Setter et al., Why We Have to Defend Against Screened Cases:
      Now is the Time for a Change, 2-4 Mealey‘s Litig. Rep. Silica 11 (2003) ............                                        19

Pamela Sherrid, Looking for Some Million Dollar Lungs, U.S. News & World Rep.,
      Dec. 17, 2001, available at 2001 WL 30366341 .....................................................                          9,17

Amity Shlaes, The Real-Life Tragedy of the Asbestos Theatre, Fin. Times,
      May 14, 2002, available at 2002 WL 20299748 .....................................................                           12



                                                                 -x-
Solving the Asbestos Litigation Crisis: Hearing on S. 1125, the Fairness in
       Asbestos Injury Act of 2003, Before the Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary,
       107th Cong. (June 4, 2003) (statement of Jennifer L. Biggs, Consulting
       Actuary, Tillinghast-Towers Perrin) .......................................................................   13

Solving the Asbestos Litigation Crisis: Hearing on S. 1125, the Fairness in
       Asbestos Injury Act of 2003, Before the Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary,
       107th Cong. (June 4, 2003) (statement of Dr. James D. Crapo, Professor of
       Medicine at the National Jewish Center and University of Colorado Health
       Sciences Center, former President of the American Thoracic Society, and
       President-elect of the Fleischner Society)................................................................    23

Solving the Asbestos Litigation Crisis: Hearing on S. 1125, the Fairness in
       Asbestos Injury Act of 2003, Before the Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary,
       107th Cong. (June 4, 2003) (statement of Frederick C. Dunbar, Ph.D.,
       Senior Vice President, Nat‘l Econ. Research Assocs.) ............................................             12

Solving the Asbestos Litigation Crisis: Hearing on S. 1125, the Fairness in
       Asbestos Injury Act of 2003, Before the Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary,
       107th Cong. (June 4, 2003) (statement of Scott Kapnick
       Managing Director, Goldman Sachs) ......................................................................      13

Solving the Asbestos Litigation Crisis: Hearing on S. 1125, the Fairness in
       Asbestos Injury Act of 2003, Before the Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary,
       107th Cong. (June 4, 2003) (statement of Dr. John E. Parker, Professor
       and Chief of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Robert C. Byrd
       Health Sciences Center of West Virginia University) .............................................             23

The State of the Economy: Hearing Before the Sen. Comm. on the Budget,
       107th Cong. (Jan. 29, 2003) (statement of Michael Baroody,
       Executive Vice President of the National Association of Manufacturers) ..............                         11

Joseph E. Stiglitz et al., The Impact of Asbestos Liabilities on Workers in
       Bankrupt Firms, 12 J. Bankr. L. & Prac. 51 (2003) ................................................            12

Susan Warren, Asbestos Suits Target Makers of Wine, Cars, Soups, Soaps,
      Wall St. J., Apr. 12, 2000, available at 2000 WL-WSJ 3025073............................                       15

Susan Warren, Competing Claims: As Asbestos Mess Spreads, Sickest See Payouts
      Shrink, Wall St. J., Apr. 25, 2002, available at 2002 WL-WSJ 3392934 ...............                           20

Susan Warren, Plaintiffs Target Companies Whose Premises Contained
      Any Form of Deadly Material, Wall St. J., Jan. 27, 2003,
      available at 2003 WL-WSJ 3957497 ......................................................................        15
                                           - xi -
Susan Warren, Swamped Courts Practice Plaintiff Triage, Wall St. J.,
      Jan. 27, 2003, available at 2003 WL-WSJ 3957498 ...............................................   3

Remarks of the Hon. Jack Weinstein, at a symposium held at the Bar Association of
      the City of New York, Asbestos: What Went Wrong?, Oct. 21, 2002, at 12 ...........                16

Jonathan Weisman & Mike Allen, Officials Argue for Fast U.S. Exit From Iraq,
       Wash. Post, Apr. 21, 2003, available at 2003 WL 18819230 .................................       14




                                                   - xii -
                                            NO. 2004-03964

IN RE                                          §              IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
                                               §
                                               §
ASBESTOS LITIGATION                            §              HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
                                               §
                                               §
                                               §              11TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT


        MEMORANDUM OF THE COALITION FOR LITIGATION JUSTICE, INC.
                  IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
                 TO ESTABLISH AN UNIMPAIRED DOCKET

                                   STATEMENT OF INTEREST

        The Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc. (―Coalition‖) was formed in 2000 as a nonprofit

association to address and improve the asbestos litigation environment. Established by insurers, the

Coalition‘s mission is to encourage fair and prompt compensation to deserving current and future

asbestos claimants by seeking to reduce or eliminate the abuses and inequities that exist under the

current civil justice system.1   The Coalition files briefs in important matters, such as this one, that

that may have a significant impact on the asbestos litigation environment.

        We believe it is critical for this Court to take steps now to: (1) improve the asbestos litigation

environment, and (2) help ensure that resources spent in the litigation are directed at those most

deserving of compensation – the truly sick. The subject Motion presents this Court with a unique




1
        The Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc. includes the following: ACE-USA companies,
        Chubb & Son, a division of Federal Insurance Company; CNA service mark companies,
        Fireman‘s Fund Insurance Company, The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., Argonaut
        Insurance Co., General Cologne Re, Liberty Mutual Insurance Group, the St. Paul Fire and
        Marine Insurance Company, Everest Re, and the Great American Insurance Company.
opportunity to do both. For these reasons, we strongly support the subject Motion as a fair and

workable solution to Texas‘s asbestos litigation problem.

                    INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

       In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that this country is in the midst of an ―asbestos-

litigation crisis.‖ Amchem Prods. Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 597 (1997). Since then, the

litigation has spread like a renewed wild fire, taking on even greater proportions. Claims continue to

pour in at an extraordinary rate, scores of employers have been forced into bankruptcy, and

payments to the sick are threatened. See Paul F. Rothstein, What Courts Can Do in the Face of the

Never-Ending Asbestos Crisis, 71 Miss. L.J. 1 (2001).

       Present trends in asbestos litigation have set off a chain reaction. Payments to individuals

with little or no serious physical illness have encouraged more lawsuits. Recent reports indicate that

as much as ninety percent of new asbestos-related claims are filed by the non-sick. These filings

have forced dozens of so-called ―traditional‖ asbestos defendants into bankruptcy.

       These bankruptcies, in turn, have created ripple effects throughout the entire business

community. When ―traditional‖ defendants are forced into bankruptcy, experience shows that the

asbestos personal injury bar will cast its litigation net wider and sue more defendants. Now, more

than 8,400 defendants have been named in asbestos cases. Many are either household names and

small businesses. These defendants have only very attenuated connections to asbestos, but they

provide fresh ―deep pockets,‖ and that is why they have become targets of litigation.

       Some of the new attenuated class of defendants, the so-called ―peripheral defendants,‖ have

themselves begun to collapse under the great weight of claims against them. The downward spiral

will continue to play out on a broad scale for many more years unless something is done.

                                               -2-
       The current asbestos litigation system is not working for anyone. Clearly, changes are

needed, but federal legislation to solve the problem remains speculative. Therefore, many courts are

now reevaluating the way they handle asbestos claims and working to make improvements. See

Mark A. Behrens, Some Proposals for Courts Interested in Helping Sick Claimants and Solving

Serious Problems in Asbestos Litigation, 54 Baylor L. Rev. 331 (2002).

       In particular, a growing number of jurisdictions have chosen to implement an unimpaired

asbestos docket (also called an inactive docket, pleural registry or deferred docket) or a similar

docket management plan. See Susan Warren, Swamped Courts Practice Plaintiff Triage, Wall St. J.,

Jan. 27, 2003, at B1, available at 2003 WL-WSJ 3957498. Individuals who cannot meet certain

objective medical criteria are placed on an unimpaired docket with statute of limitations being tolled,

and all discovery stayed. Claimants are moved to the active civil docket when they present credible

medical evidence of impairment. See Peter H. Schuck, The Worst Should Go First: Deferral

Registries in Asbestos Litigation, 15 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol‘y 541 (1992) [hereinafter Schuck]. These

plans have existed for many years in some jurisdictions. They have proven to be fair and workable.

See Mark A. Behrens & Monica G. Parham, Stewardship for the Sick: Preserving Assets For

Asbestos Victims Through Inactive Docket Programs, 33 Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 1 (2001) [hereinafter

Behrens & Parham].

       The subject Motion, filed on behalf of defendants in asbestos litigation, presents this Court

with a unique opportunity to adopt an unimpaired docket. The Court should seize this opportunity.

See The Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1999: Hearing on S. 758 Before the Subcomm.

On Admin. Oversight and the Courts of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong. 2 (Oct. 5,

1999) (statement of the Hon. Conrad L. Mallett, Jr., former Chief Justice, Michigan Supreme Court)

                                               -3-
(stating that ―During my tenure on my state‘s highest court I was keenly aware of my responsibility

to be sure the court system functioned efficiently. . . .‖). As Senior Judge Joseph F. Weis, Jr. of the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has stated:

               It is time—perhaps past due—to stop the hemorrhaging so as to
               protect future claimants. . . . [A]t some point, some jurisdiction must
               face up to the realities of the asbestos crisis and take a step that might,
               perhaps, lead others to adopt a broader view. Courts should no longer
               wait for congressional or legislative action to correct common law
               errors made by the courts themselves. Mistakes created by courts can
               be corrected by courts without engaging in judicial activism. It is
               judicial paralysis, not activism, that is the problem in this area.

Dunn v. Hovic, 1 F.3d 1371, 1399 (3d Cir.) (Weis, J., dissenting), modified in part, 13 F.3d 58, cert.

denied sub nom. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Dunn, 510 U.S. 1031 (1993).

                                            ARGUMENT

I.     ASBESTOS LITIGATION IS A CRISIS THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED

       When asbestos product liability lawsuits emerged almost thirty years ago, nobody could have

predicted that courts today would be facing an ever growing ―asbestos-litigation crisis.‖ Amchem,

521 U.S. at 597. Many believed that asbestos litigation would be a serious but diminishing problem

in the years to come.

       Instead of declining, however, ―the crisis is worsening at a much more rapid pace than even

the most pessimistic projections.‖       Hon. Griffin B. Bell, Asbestos Litigation and Judicial

Leadership: The Courts’ Duty to Help Solve The Asbestos Litigation Crisis, Briefly, Vol. 6, No. 6,

June 2002, at 2 (Nat‘l Legal Center for the Pub. Interest monograph), available at

<http://www.nlcpi.org> (last visited Apr. 29, 2003) [hereinafter Bell]. The number of asbestos cases

pending nationwide doubled from 100,000 to more than 200,000 during the 1990s. See The Fairness


                                                -4-
in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1999: Hearing on H.R. 1283 Before the House Comm. on the

Judiciary, 106th Cong. 4 (July 1, 1999) (statement of Christopher Edley, Jr., Professor, Harvard Law

School).

       At least 300,000 asbestos claims are now pending. See Federal Judge Is Optimistic About

Talks on Asbestos Legislation, Best‘s Ins. News, Mar. 26, 2004, available at 2004 WL 61249492

(citing Chief Judge Emeritus Edward Becker of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit).

More than 100,000 new claims were filed in 2003 – ―the most in a single year.‖ Editorial, The

Asbestos Blob, Cont., WALL ST. J., Apr. 6, 2004, at A16, available at 2004 WL-WSJ 56925100.2

The RAND Institute for Civil Justice predicts that as many as one million more claims may be filed.

See Stephen Carroll et al., Asbestos Litigation Costs and Compensation 77 (RAND Inst. for Civil

Justice, Feb. 2004) [hereinafter ―RAND Rep. II‖].

       A.     Mass Filings By The Non-Sick Threaten Payments to the Truly Sick

       In the past, most asbestos claims were filed by ―workers suffering from grave and crippling

maladies. The most common was mesothelioma.‖ Roger Parloff, The $200 Billion Miscarriage of

Justice; Asbestos Lawyers are Pitting Plaintiffs Who Aren’t Sick Against Companies that Never

Made the Stuff and Extracting Billions for Themselves, Fortune, Mar. 4, 2002, at 158, available at

2002 WL 2190334 [hereinafter Parloff].       Today, however, the vast majority of new asbestos

claimants are ―people who have been exposed to asbestos, and who (usually) have some marker of

exposure such as changes in the pleural membrane covering the lungs, but who are not impaired by


2
       Ninety thousand new cases were filed in 2001. See Alex Berenson, A Surge in Asbestos
       Suits, Many by Healthy Plaintiffs, N.Y. Times, Apr. 10, 2002, at A1, abstract available at
       2002 WL 18538000.

                                              -5-
an asbestos-related disease and likely never will be.‖ The Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of

1999: Hearing on H.R. 1283 Before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 106th Cong. at 5

(July 1, 1999) (statement of Christopher Edley, Jr., Professor, Harvard Law School). See also In re

Haw. Fed. Asbestos Cases, 734 F. Supp. 1563, 1567 (D. Haw. 1990) (―In virtually all pleural plaque

and pleural thickening cases, plaintiffs continue to lead active, normal lives, with no pain or

suffering, no loss of the use of an organ or disfigurement due to scarring.‖).

       Recent estimates indicate that up to ninety percent of new claims are filed by plaintiffs with

little or no impairment. See RAND Rep., supra, at 20; Jennifer Biggs et al., Overview of Asbestos

Issues and Trends 1 (Dec. 2001), available at <http://www.actuary.org/mono.htm> (last visited Apr.

29, 2004) [hereinafter Biggs].3

       A primary reason that so many unimpaired individuals are filing claims is the ―fear that their

claims might be barred by the statute of limitations if they wait until such time, if ever, that their

asbestos-related condition progresses to disability.‖ In re Asbestos Cases, 586 N.E.2d 521, 523 (Ill.

App. 1991). See also The Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1999: Hearing on H.R. 1283

Before the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 1999 Leg., 106th Cong. 4 (July 1, 1999) (statement of Dr.

Louis Sullivan, former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) (stating

that there are ―mass filings of cases on behalf of large groups of people who are not sick and may

never become sick but who are compelled to file for remedial compensation simply because of state

statutes of limitation‖), available at 1999 WL 20009757.


3
       See also James A. Henderson, Jr. & Aaron D. Twerski, Asbestos Litigation Gone Mad:
       Exposure-based Recovery for Increased Risk, Mental Distress, and Medical Monitoring, 53
       S.C. L. Rev. 815 (2002).

                                                -6-
       Another reason may be that plaintiffs‘ lawyers are aware that many traditional asbestos

defendants are going bankrupt, and may seek compensation now out of fear that it will not be

available later. Some plaintiffs‘ lawyers also may be aware of huge awards being given to some

unimpaired plaintiffs, and may question ―Why wait for an injury to manifest itself if I can receive

compensation for my clients now?‖

       In addition, the increase in filings by unimpaired claims may result from mass screenings

conducted by plaintiffs‘ law firms and their agents.4 Such screenings are frequently conducted in

areas with high concentrations of workers who may have worked in jobs where they were exposed to

asbestos.5 Regardless of whether one agrees with this practice, there seems to be a consensus that it

fuels new asbestos filings.6 As the manager of the federal asbestos docket, Senior U.S. District

Judge Charles Weiner of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, has noted: ―Oftentimes, these suits

are brought on behalf of individuals who are asymptomatic as to an asbestos-related illness and may

not suffer in the future. Filing fees are paid, service costs incurred, and defense files are opened and



4
       See Parloff, supra, at 154 (―To unearth new clients for lawyers, screening firms advertise in
       towns with many aging industrial workers or park X-ray vans near union halls. To get a free
       X-ray, workers must often sign forms giving law firms 40 percent of any recovery. One
       solicitation reads: ‗Find out if YOU have MILLION DOLLAR LUNGS!‘‖).
5
       See Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. Am. Employers’ Ins. Co., 718 F. Supp. 1053, 1057 (D. Mass.
       1989) (―[M]any of these cases result from mass X-ray screenings at occupational locations
       conducted by unions and/or plaintiffs‘ attorneys, and many claimants are functionally
       asymptomatic when suit is filed.‖); In re Joint E. & S. Dists. Asbestos Litig., 237 F. Supp. 2d
       297, 309 (E. & S.D.N.Y. 2002) (―Claimants today are diagnosed largely through plaintiff-
       lawyer arranged mass screening programs targeting possibly asbestos-exposed workers and
       attraction of potential claimants through the mass media.‖).
6
       See Lester Brickman, Lawyers’ Ethics and Fiduciary Obligation in The Brave New World of
       Aggregative Litigation, 26 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol‘y Rev. 243, 273 (2001) (providing
       detailed account of how the typical ―exposure only‖ case arises and is litigated; stating that
(Footnote continued on next page)
                                             -7-
processed. Substantial transaction costs are expended and therefore unavailable for compensation to

truly ascertained asbestos victims.‖ In re Asbestos Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), MDL 875, Admin.

Order No. 8, at 1-2 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2002) [hereinafter MDL 875, Admin. Order No. 8].

       The problem presented by these claims is self-evident: they create judicial backlogs and

exhaust scarce resources that should go to ―the sick and the dying, their widows and survivors.‖ In

re Collins, 233 F.3d 809, 812 (3d Cir. 2000), cert. denied sub nom. Collins v. Mac-Millan Bloedel,

Inc., 532 U.S. 1066 (2001) (internal citation omitted). See also Larson v. Johns-Manville Sales

Corp., 399 N.W.2d 1, 23 (Mich. 1986) (―We believe that discouraging suits for relatively minor

consequences of asbestos exposure will lead to a fairer allocation of resources to those victims who

develop cancers.‖); Steven Hantler, Judges Must Play Key Role in Stemming Tide of Asbestos

Litigation, Andrews Asbestos Litig. Rptr., Vol. 25, No. 14, May 22, 2003, at 12 (assistant general

counsel for DaimlerChrysler Corp., stating: ―The tragedy is that as plaintiffs‘ lawyers enroll the

healthy into their lawsuits in order to line their own pockets, less money is available for those who

are actually sick and dying.‖).7




       ―the ‗asbestos litigation crisis‘ would never have arisen and would not exist today‖ if not for
       the claims filed by unimpaired).
7
       Judge Weiner has explained that ―[o]nly a very small percentage of the cases filed have
       serious asbestos-related afflictions,‖ but they ―are prone to be lost in the shuffle with pleural
       and other non-malignant cases.‖ In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 1996 WL
       539589, *1 (E. D. Pa. Sept. 12, 1996); see also id. at *3 n.8 (―Pleural disease is most often an
       asymptomatic scarring of the pleura—a tissue thin membrane surrounding the lung . . . . It
       can only be discovered through x-ray and, in and of itself, does not pose a health risk or
       impairment.‖).

                                               -8-
       Indeed, lawyers who represent cancer victims have expressed strong concern that filings by

the unimpaired are threatening payments to their clients. For example, Oakland, California, attorney

Steve Kazan has testified that recoveries by the unimpaired may result in his clients being left

uncompensated.    See Asbestos Litigation:     Hearing Before the Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary,

107th Cong. (Mar. 5, 2003) (statement of Steven Kazan, partner, Kazan, McClain, Edises, Abrams,

Fernandez, Lyons & Farrise); see also Pamela Sherrid, Looking for Some Million Dollar Lungs, U.S.

News & World Rep., Dec. 17, 2001, at 36, available at 2001 WL 30366341 (quoting Mr. Kazan).

Plaintiffs‘ lawyer Matthew Bergman of Seattle, Washington, has written, ―Victims of mesothelioma,

the most deadly form of asbestos-related illness, suffer the most from the current system. As a result

of these bankruptcies, the genuinely sick and dying are often deprived of adequate compensation as

more and more funds are diverted into settlements of the non-impaired claims.‖ Matthew Bergman

& Jackson Schmidt, Editorial, Change Rules on Asbestos Lawsuits, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May

30, 2002, at B7, available at 2002 WL-STLPI 5934774 [hereinafter Bergman].

       Even renowned Mississippi plaintiffs‘ lawyer Richard Scruggs has said, ―Flooding the courts

with asbestos cases filed by people who are not sick against defendants who have not been shown to

be at fault is not sound public policy.‖ ‘Medical Monitoring and Asbestos Litigation’ — A

Discussion with Richard Scruggs and Victor Schwartz, Vol. 17, No. 3 Mealey‘s Litig. Rep.:

Asbestos 39 (Mar. 1, 2002) (quoting Mr. Scruggs) [hereinafter Schwartz & Scruggs].

       Cancer victims have a well-founded fear that they will not receive adequate or timely

compensation unless trends in the litigation are addressed.8 For example, consider Johns-Manville,


8
       See In re Joint E. & S. Dists. Asbestos Litig., 129 B.R. 710, 751 (E. & S.D.N.Y. 1991)
       (―Overhanging this massive failure of the present system is the reality that there is not
(Footnote continued on next page)
                                            -9-
which filed for bankruptcy in 1982. It took six years for the company‘s bankruptcy plan to be

confirmed. Payments to Manville Trust claimants were halted in 1990, and did not resume until

1995. According to the Manville trustees, a ―disproportionate amount of Trust settlement dollars

have gone to the least injured claimants—many with no discernible asbestos-related physical

impairment whatsoever.‖ Quenna Sook Kim, Asbestos Trust Says Assets Are Reduced As the

Medically Unimpaired File Claims, Wall St. J., Dec. 14, 2001, at B6, available at 2001 WL-WSJ

29680683. As a result, the Trust is now paying out just five cents on the dollar to asbestos

claimants. See id.

       Consider also the widow of one man in Washington State who died from mesothelioma. She

has been told that she should expect to receive only fifteen percent of the $1 million she might have

received if her husband had filed suit before the companies he sued went bankrupt. See Albert B.

Crenshaw, For Asbestos Victims, Compensation Remains Elusive, Wash. Post., Sept. 25, 2002, at

E1, available at 2002 WL 100084407. Similarly, the widow of a mechanic in Ohio will recover at

most $150,000 of the $4.4 million dollar award that she received for her husband‘s death. See

Stephen Hudak & John F. Hagan, Asbestos Litigation Overwhelms Courts, Cleveland Plain Dealer,

Nov. 5, 2002, at A1, available at 2002 WL 6382801.

       It is for these reasons that lawyers representing sick and dying plaintiffs have endorsed

unimpaired docket type solutions to the litigation. See, e.g., Bergman, supra (―The solution is

simple: defer the non-sick claims unless and until the claimants actually suffer an asbestos-related




       enough money available from traditional defendants to pay for current and future claims.
       Even the most conservative estimates of future claims, if realistically estimated on the books
(Footnote continued on next page)
                                            - 10 -
disease.‖); Paul Hampel & Philip Dine, Asbestos Litigation Deal Could Force Law Offices to Find

New Specialties; Bill Would Substitute Trust Fund for Lawsuits, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 23,

2003, at A1, available at 2003 WL 3596458 (quoting Randy Bono, a prominent Madison County,

Illinois, asbestos plaintiffs' attorney as saying, ―I welcome change. Getting people who aren't sick

out of the system, that's a good idea.‖).

       B.      Bankruptcies Are Placing A Heavy Toll on Workers And Their Employers

       Asbestos litigation has already forced more than seventy companies into bankruptcy. See

Mark A. Behrens & Rochelle M. Tedesco, Two Forks in the Road of Asbestos Litigation, Mealey‘s

Litig. Rep.: Asbestos, Vol. 18, No. 3, Mar. 7, 2003, at 1. Many of the bankruptcies have occurred

within the past three years. The ―process is accelerating,‖ In re Collins, 233 F.3d at 812, due to the

―piling on‖ nature of asbestos liabilities. See Mark D. Plevin & Paul W. Kalish, What’s Behind the

Recent Wave of Asbestos Bankruptcies?, Vol. 16, No. 6, Mealey‘s Litig. Rep.: Asbestos (Apr. 20,

2001). Each time a defendant declares bankruptcy, ―mounting and cumulative‖ financial pressure is

placed on the ―remaining defendants, whose resources are limited.‖ Christopher Edley, Jr. & Paul C.

Weiler, Asbestos: A Multi-Billion-Dollar Crisis, 30 Harv. J. on Legis. 383, 392 (1993).

       As the Enron debacle illustrated, these bankruptcies represent more than the demise of a

business. They also have a real impact on the job prospects of employees, the retirement savings of

ordinary citizens, and the economy as a whole.9 For instance, a 2002 study by Nobel Prize-winning




       of many present defendants, would lead to a declaration of insolvency--as in the case of some
       dozen manufacturers already in bankruptcy.‖), vacated, 982 F.2d 721 (2d Cir. 1992).
9
       See The State of the Economy: Hearing Before the Sen. Comm. on the Budget, 107th Cong.
       (Jan. 29, 2003) (statement of Michael Baroody, Executive Vice President of the National
(Footnote continued on next page)
                                           - 11 -
economist Joseph Stiglitz and two colleagues on the direct impact of asbestos bankruptcies on

workers found that bankruptcies resulting from asbestos litigation put approximately 52,000 to

60,000 people (many of them union workers) out of work between 1997 and 2000. See Joseph E.

Stiglitz et al., The Impact of Asbestos Liabilities on Workers in Bankrupt Firms 12 J. Bankr. L. &

Prac. 51, 73-74 (2003). Those workers and their families lost $175 million to $200 million in wages.

See id. at 76. Employee retirement assets declined roughly twenty-five percent. See id. at 83. In

addition to the impact on workers, the aggregate direct costs of bankruptcies on the bankrupt firms,

such as the legal, accounting, and other expenses associated with a bankruptcy, are estimated at

between $325 and $625 million. See id. at 86.

       Asbestos-related bankruptcies result in indirect costs as well. See Patrick J. Hagan et al.,

Totalling Up the Costs of Asbestos Litigation: Guess Who Will Pay the Price?, 9 Temp. Envtl. L. &

Tech. J. 1 (1990). A 2002 study by National Economic Research Associates found that workers,

communities, and taxpayers will bear as much as $2 billion in additional costs, due to indirect and

induced impacts of company closings related to asbestos. See Jesse David, The Secondary Impacts

of Asbestos Liabilities (Nat‘l Econ. Research Assocs., Jan. 23, 2003).10 For instance, for every ten



       Association of Manufacturers); Lisa Girion, Firms Hit Hard as Asbestos Claims Rise, L.A.
       Times, Dec. 17, 2001, at A1, available at 2001 WL 28937452; Amity Shlaes, The Real-Life
       Tragedy of the Asbestos Theatre, Fin. Times, May 14, 2002, at 15, available at 2002 WL
       20299748; Eric Roston, The Asbestos Pit, Time, Mar. 11, 2002, Y9, available at 2002 WL
       8385920; Michael Freedman, The Tort Mess, Forbes, May 13, 2002, at 95, available at 2002
       WL 2214449; Quenna Sook Kim, Firms Hit by Asbestos Litigation Take Bankruptcy Route,
       Wall St. J., Dec. 21, 2000, at B4, available at 2000 WL-WSJ 26620724.
10
       See also Solving the Asbestos Litigation Crisis: Hearing on S. 1125, the Fairness in
       Asbestos Injury Act of 2003, Before the Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary,
       107th Cong. (June 4, 2003) (statement of Frederick C. Dunbar, Ph.D., Senior Vice President,
       Nat‘l Econ. Research Assocs.).

                                             - 12 -
jobs lost directly, the community may lose eight additional jobs. See id. at 8. The shutting of plants

and job cuts will decrease per capita income, lead to declining real estate values, and lower federal,

state and local tax receipts.    See id. at 11-13.    Additional costs brought upon workers and

communities include up to $76 million in worker retraining, $30 million in increased healthcare

costs and $80 million in payment of unemployment benefits. See id. at 14-15.

       There is also a staggering loss to the U.S. economy. The RAND Institute for Civil Justice

recently estimated that $70 billion has already been spent in asbestos litigation through the end of

2002. See S. Rep. 108-118, at 59 (2003) (citing RAND‘s Stephen Carroll). A lot of that money has

been spent in transaction costs that could be put to more productive uses, such as job creation and

innovation.11 The remaining future cost of the litigation is an estimated $130 billion. See Solving

the Asbestos Litigation Crisis: Hearing on S. 1125, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Act of 2003,

Before the Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 107th Cong. (June 4,2003) (statement of Jennifer L. Biggs,

Consulting Actuary, Tillinghast-Towers Perrin).

       To put the total past and future cost of asbestos litigation in perspective, consider that

analysts estimate the cost of rebuilding Iraq, a country battered by two wars in two decades and

twelve years of United Nations sanctions, at roughly the same amount.12 Asbestos litigation costs



11
       Goldman Sachs Managing Director Scott Kapnick has also explained that ―the large
       uncertainty surrounding asbestos liabilities has impeded transactions that, if completed,
       would have benefited companies, their shareholders and employees, and the economy as a
       whole.‖ Solving the Asbestos Litigation Crisis: Hearing on S. 1125, the Fairness in
       Asbestos Injury Act of 2003, Before the Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary,
       107th Cong. (June 4, 2003) (statement of Scott Kapnick, Managing Director, Goldman
       Sachs).
12
       See Jonathan Weisman & Mike Allen, Officials Argue for Fast U.S. Exit From Iraq, Wash.
       Post, Apr. 21, 2003, at A1, available at 2003 WL 18819230 (reporting that Yale University
(Footnote continued on next page)
                                             - 13 -
are at least ten times greater than the $20 billion in property damage caused by the massive 6.7

magnitude earthquake that hit Los Angeles in 1994.13 The litigation will also cause far more

economic devastation than Hurricane Andrew, which pounded Florida and Louisiana in 1992 to

become one of the most expensive natural disasters in U.S. history, with a cost of about $30

billion.14 As former U.S. Attorney General Griffin Bell has pointed out, asbestos litigation costs will

exceed the cost of ―all Superfund sites combined, Hurricane Andrew, or the September 11th terrorist

attacks.‖ Bell, supra, at 4.

       C.      Peripheral Defendants Are Being Dragged Into the Litigation

       Now that virtually all former manufacturers of asbestos-containing products have been

forced into bankruptcy, ―the net has spread from the asbestos makers to companies far removed from

the scene of any putative wrongdoing.‖ Editorial, Lawyers Torch the Economy, Wall St. J., Apr. 6,

2001, at A14, available at 2001 WL-WSJ 2859560.15 Plaintiffs‘ attorney Scruggs has remarked that

the litigation has turned into the ―endless search for a solvent bystander.‖ Schwartz & Scruggs,

supra, at 5 (quoting Mr. Scruggs).




       economist William D. Nordhaus has estimated the total postwar cost of rebuilding Iraq at
       between $75 billion and $500 billion).
13
       See William Booth, Unsettling Forecast For the Bay Area; Chance of Big Quake Before
       2030 Put at 70%, Wash. Post, Oct. 15, 1999, at A3, available at 1999 WL 23309261.
14
       See Mike McClintock, Preparing for High Winds, Wash. Post, May 13, 1999, at T23,
       available at 1999 WL 17002587.
15
       See also Steven Hantler, Toward Greater Judicial Leadership in Asbestos Litigation,
       Manhattan Inst. Civ. Just. F., No. 41, Apr. 2003, at 6, available at
       <http://www.manhattaninstitute.org> (last visited Aug. 14, 2003); Editorial, The Job-Eating
       Asbestos Blob, Wall St. J., Jan. 23, 2002, at A22, available at 2002 WL-WSJ 3383766.

                                              - 14 -
       As a result, ―[a] newer generation of peripheral defendants are becoming ensnarled in the

litigation.‖ In re Joint E. & S. Dists. Asbestos Litig., supra, at 747-48. Many of these defendants

never made or used asbestos in their products. They have only an attenuated connection to the

litigation. See Richard B. Schmitt, Burning Issue: How Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Have Turned Asbestos

Into a Court Perennial, Wall St. J., Mar. 5, 2001, at A1, available at 2001 WL-WSJ 2856111. See

also Victor E. Schwartz & Rochelle M. Tedesco, The Law of Unintended Consequences in Asbestos

Litigation: How Efforts to Streamline The Litigation Have Fueled More Claims, 71 Miss. L.J. 531

(2001); Victor E. Schwartz & Leah Lorber, A Letter to the Nation’s Trial Judges: How the Focus on

Efficiency is Hurting You and Innocent Victims in Asbestos Liability Cases, 24 Am. J. Trial Advoc.

247 (2000).

       There are now more than 8,400 asbestos defendants, see Susan Warren, Plaintiffs Target

Companies Whose Premises Contained Any Form of Deadly Material, Wall St. J., Jan. 27, 2003, at

B1, available at 2003 WL-WSJ 3957497, up from only 300 in 1982. See RAND Rep., supra, at 6.

Many of these defendants are household names; many others are small businesses facing potentially

devastating liability. See Susan Warren, Asbestos Suits Target Makers of Wine, Cars, Soups, Soaps,

Wall St. J., Apr. 12, 2000, at B1, available at 2000 WL-WSJ 3025073. Attorney General Bell

predicts that half of the companies in the Dow Jones Index may soon be affected. See Bell, supra, at

24. See also RAND Rep., supra, at 50 (finding that asbestos litigation ―has spread to touch firms in

industries engaged in almost every form of economic activity that takes place in the American

economy.‖).   According to Senior U.S. District Court Judge Jack Weinstein, ―[i]f the acceleration

and expansion of asbestos lawsuits continues unaddressed, it is not impossible that every company

with even a remote connection to asbestos may be driven into bankruptcy.‖ Remarks of the Hon.

                                             - 15 -
Jack Weinstein, at a symposium held at the Bar Association of the City of New York, Asbestos:

What Went Wrong?, Oct. 21, 2002, at 12.

       D.      Overwhelmed Courts Are Not Able to Accurately Filter Out Questionable Cases

       Because of the magnitude of the asbestos-related filings, courts have not been able to

accurately filter out questionable claims. These claims generally result from the practice of mass

litigation screenings, which have come under significant scrutiny recently because of the reported

problem of regular misdiagnosis of unimpaired claimants as having an asbestos-related disease. See

e.g. David E. Bernstein, Keeping Junk Science Out of Asbestos Litigation, 31 Pepp. L. Rev. 11, 12

(2003); Letter from Senator Don Nickles, Chairman, Committee on Budget, to Hon. Timothy J.

Muris, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission and Lester M. Crawford, D.V.M., Ph.D., Acting

Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration 1 (Apr. 28, 2004) (on file with authors) (calling for a

Federal inquiry into the ―widespread use of for-profit mass X-ray screening vans and trucks to

generate lawsuits by claimants, many of whom are not sick‖). Misdiagnosis of asbestos-related

disease occurs when an expert erroneously claims to have found a lung or chest abnormality related to

asbestos exposure. These questionable claims unfairly burden the courts with additional cases and are

costly to both plaintiffs and defendants, as questionable claims usurp valuable resources.

       Some attribute the rise in unimpaired claims to misdiagnosis from plaintiffs‘ law firm-sponsored

screenings for asbestos-related diseases, as some plaintiffs‘ law firms have hired physicians to canvas

workplaces and union halls offering to test workers for asbestos exposure. See Lester Brickman, On

The Theory Class’s Theories of Asbestos Litigation: The Disconnnect Between Scholarship and

Reality?, 31 Pepp. L. Rev. 33, 38 (2003); Sherrid, Looking for Some Million Dollar Lungs, supra, at

36; Eddie Curran, Mystery Companies, Massive Payouts, Mobile Register, Mar. 28, 2004, at 5A,

                                                - 16 -
available    at    <www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/108046931090410.xml>.

Even when plaintiffs‘ attorneys do not arrange mass screenings, they can hire their own physicians

to examine potential claimants. As former U.S. Attorney General Griffin Bell recently pointed out,

―These screenings often do not comply with federal or state health or safety law. There often is no

medical purpose for these screenings and claimants receive no medical follow-up.‖ Griffin B. Bell,

Asbestos & The Sleeping Constitution, 31 Pepp. L. Rev. 1 (2003).

         There is evidence that ―screening companies grossly overdiagnose for asbestosis.‖ Eddie

Curran, Diagnosing for Dollars, Mobile Reg., Apr. 4, 2004 (Citing Dr. Greg Nayden, who worked

for a testing company. Dr. Nayden admitted, ―To be honest with you, I don‘t think many of these

people              had             any                problems‖),            available              at

<www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1081071995288570.xml> (last visited on

Apr. 28, 2004). In one instance, Federal District Judge Carl Rubin of the Southern District of Ohio

studied the merits of sixty-five asbestos bodily injury cases by appointing medical experts to

evaluate their claims. See Hon. Carl Rubin & Laura Ringenbach, The Use of Court Experts in

Asbestos Litigation, 137 F.R.D. 35, 37-39 (1991). All of the plaintiffs had claimed some asbestos-

related condition, but the court-appointed experts found that sixty-five percent of the claimants had

no asbestos-related conditions at all. See id. Of the remaining thirty-five percent of claimants,

approximately fifteen percent had asbestosis, and the rest presented only pleural plaques. See id.

         Two independent scientists appointed by the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust

conducted a similar study to review claims of people with reported asbestos-related diseases. In forty-

one percent of the claims, both experts agreed that the claimant‘s X-ray did not present evidence of

asbestos-related disease. See Bell, supra, at 14. Additionally, in one study of 439 tire workers

                                              - 17 -
diagnosed as having abnormal chest x-rays from inhaled asbestos, an independent panel of three

radiologists confirmed that diagnosis in less than four percent of the cases. See Bernstein, supra, at

13.

       As one expert has explained, ―the chest x-rays are not read blindly, but always with the

knowledge of some asbestos exposure and that the lawyer wants to file litigation on the worker‘s

behalf.‖ Id. Some attorneys reportedly pass an x-ray around to numerous radiologists until they find

one who is willing to say that the x-ray shows symptoms of an asbestos-related disease, a practice

strongly suggesting unreliable scientific evidence. See David Egilman, Asbestos Screenings, 42 Am.

J. of Indus. Med. 163 (2002). See also Stephen Hudak & John F. Hagan, Asbestos Litigation

Overwhelms Courts, Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio), Nov. 5, 2002, at 1 (reporting that one plaintiffs‘

expert medical witness remarked, ―I was amazed to discover that, in some of the screenings, the

worker‘s x-ray had been ‗shopped around‘ to as many as six radiologists until a slightly positive

reading was reported by the last one.‖). The result is ―the epidemic of asbestosis observed . . . in

numbers which are inconceivable and among industries where the disease has never been previously

recognized by medical investigation.‖       Andrew J. Ghio, M.D., Editorial, Asbestosis: Over

Diagnosed?, The News & Observer (Charlotte, North Carolina), Apr. 12, 2004, at A11, available at

2004 WL 56033533.

       These questionable claims burden the courts, as American Bar Association President Dennis

Archer observed, because they are bundled for settlement purposes with cases of people who are

seriously ill from asbestos exposure. See Eddie Curran, Trial Lawyers Say: If Asbestos Cases Bad,

Why      Settle     Them?,       Mobile      Reg.,      Mar.      28,     2004,      available      at

<www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1080585951129600.xml> (last visited on

                                              - 18 -
Apr. 28, 2004) . In order to settle the claims of the truly sick, the defendants are then forced to settle

the ―crap cases, too.‖ Id. But, given the massive number of unimpaired claimants resulting from the

screening process, defendants ―cannot settle their way out of ‗the asbestos litigation crisis.‘‖ David

M. Setter et al., Why We Have to Defend Against Screened Cases: Now is the Time for a Change, 2-

4 Mealey‘s Litig. Rep. Silica 11 (2003).        Requiring actual impairment through an unimpaired

asbestos docket would have the important benefit of filtering out the most questionable of these

claims.

II.       THE ASBESTOS LITIGATION PROBLEMS IN TEXAS ARE REPRESENTATIVE
          OF THE NATIONAL ASBESTOS CRISIS

          Historically, Texas has been a magnet state for asbestos litigation, leading to the same

problems as identified on the national level.

          A.     Texas Leads the Nation in Asbestos Filings

          According to the RAND Rep., more asbestos cases have ―migrated‖ to Texas since 1988 than

any other state. RAND Rep., supra, at 34. By the mid 1990s, Harris, Galveston, and Jefferson

counties in Texas accounted for forty-two percent of all new filings. Id. at 36; see also Senator Kyle

Janek, Editorial, Clearing the Way for the Truly Sick, Austin Am. Statesman, Jul. 17, 2003, at A11,

available at 2003 WL 56773165 (―with only eight percent of the nation‘s population and little

historical connection to asbestos production, Texas has in its state courts half the 200,000 active

asbestos claims pending nationwide.‖).

          Texas is an ―attractive location for plaintiffs‖ for several reasons. George Scott Christian &

Dale Craymer, Texas Asbestos Litigation Reform: A Model for the States, 44 So. Tex. L. R. 981

(2003) (citing the state‘s statute of limitations rules for asbestos cases as well as other general


                                                - 19 -
litigation rules). At the heart of this situation, though, is the ability for unimpaired claimants to

collect large awards and settlements. In one well-known lawsuit involving twenty-two plaintiffs

with only pleural markings, a jury in Beaumont, Texas awarded the plaintiffs $1.6 million each.

Susan Warren, Competing Claims: As Asbestos Mess Spreads, Sickest See Payouts Shrink, Apr. 25,

2002, at A1, available at 2002 WL-WSJ 3392934.          In addition, some trial courts allow ―fear of

cancer‖ claims by unimpaired claimants despite ―clear signals‖ from the Texas Supreme Court that

such claims may be illegitimate – a practice that drives up settlement costs in unimpaired cases.

Richard O. Faulk, Dispelling the Myths of Asbestos Litigation: Solutions for Common Law Courts,

44 So. Tex. L. R. 945 (2003); see also Patrick Beach, The Bitter Price of a Better Life, Austin Am.-

Statesman, Aug. 31. 2003, at A1, available at 2003 WL 56774561 (While fewer than a dozen

asbestos injury trials have been held in Milam County, ―many tens of millions of dollars have been

paid in confidential settlements and at trial‖). The effort by some plaintiffs‘ firms to take advantage

of these case recently led one Corpus Christi judge to take the unusual step of fining a Beaumont law

firm $500,000 for filing cases in a way that threatened ―the integrity of our judicial system.‖ Assoc.

Press, Beaumont Law Firm Must Pay $500,000, Hous. Chron., Nov. 15, 2002, at 38, available at

2002 WL 23238273 (quoting from the judge‘s order and noting that disciplinary action in this regard

is rare).

        B.     Unimpaired Claimants are Taking Toll On Sick Plaintiffs and Employers in
               Texas

        The large verdicts by mass numbers of unimpaired claimants in Texas have resulted in

localized versions of the same trends that have occurred nationally. Mark Iola, a Dallas lawyer who

specializes in representing people who have cancer from asbestos exposure, has said that the

unimpaired claimants in Texas, in effect, are ―stealing money from the very sick.‖ Thomas Korosec,
                                               - 20 -
Enough     to   Make     You    Sick,   Dallas    Observer,   Sept.    26,   2002,    available    at

<www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2002-09-26/feature.html/1/index.html> (last visited Apr. 29,

2004). Peripheral defendants with little or no connection to asbestos are being named defendants at

an increasing rate. Jeff Clark, Texas director of the National Federation of Independent Business,

recently observed, ―I have members all over the state who are being sued even though they have no

relationship with asbestos. . . . They‘re often being sued by people who aren‘t even sick.‖ Terry

Maxon, Balance Sought in Asbestos Bill, Dallas Morning News, Jul. 9, 2003, at 2, available at 2003

WL 73103258. In addition, the Washington Legal Foundation recently petitioned the State Bar of

Texas to investigate ―the conduct and operation of attorney-sponsored screening programs and

related activity that have resulted in the filing of questionable non-malignant asbestos claims‖ in

Texas. Letter from Daniel J. Popeo, Chairman and General Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation,

to Betsy Whitaker, President, State Bar of Texas, (Mar. 16, 2004) (on file with author) (quoting

Professor Lester Brickman describing how claims collected by a Texas attorney are ―sold off to

leading asbestos law firms‖ in the state and elsewhere).

       For these reasons, Texas newspapers have editorialized in favor of an unimpaired docketing

system. See, e.g., Editorial, Asbestos Sense, Hous. Chron., July 7, 2003, at 18, available at 2003 WL

57428391; Editorial, Asbestos Bill Reasonable: Seriously Ill Victims Deserve a Day in Court More

Quickly Than Those Who May or May Not Get Sick, San Antonio Express-News, May 13, 2003, at

B6, available at 2003 WL 20247629 (―Plaintiffs who are well but have been exposed to asbestos are

filing lawsuits claiming damages. This dilutes relief from those suffering serious illness and slows

down the court system for those who need financial assistance.‖).



                                              - 21 -
III.   A STATEWIDE UNIMPAIRED DOCKET WOULD PROVIDE
       AN EFFECTIVE AND APPROPRIATE SOLUTION
       TO THE ASBESTOS LITIGATION PROBLEMS IN TEXAS

       A.      The Court Should Adopt A Statewide Asbestos Docketing System

       This Court has the unique opportunity to address Texas‘s asbestos problems and join other

pioneering courts by implementing a statewide unimpaired asbestos docket. A statewide unimpaired

docketing system would addresses a significant legal crisis in a surgical fashion, narrowly tailored to

deal with the problem of the unimpaired claimants and the ―ripple effects‖ such claims produce. See

Richard O. Faulk, Asbestos Litigation in State Court: Why the System is Broken and Some

Suggestions for Repair, Prod. Safety & Liab. Rptr. (BNA), Vol. 30, No. 37, at 845, Sept. 23, 2002,

also printed in Class Action Litig. (BNA), Vol. 3, No. 19, Oct. 11, 2002, at 658.16

       Importantly, an unimpaired docket would greatly benefit the truly sick as well as asbestos

defendants. It would give trial priority to the sick by allowing them to move ―to the front of the

line‖ and not be forced to wait until earlier-filed claims by unimpaired individuals are resolved.

Removing these delays can be especially important to impaired claimants, particularly if the

individual has a fatal disease, such as mesothelioma, or is an older person, which is frequently the

case. An unimpaired docket also would help unimpaired individuals by protecting their claims from


16
       For a helpful primer on the basic medical issues involved in utilizing objective medical
       criteria to prioritize the treatment of asbestos claims, see Dr. John E. Parker, Understanding
       Asbestos-Related Medical Criteria, Vol. 18, No. 10, Mealey‘s Litig. Rep.: Asbestos, June
       18, 2003, at 45. See also Solving the Asbestos Litigation Crisis: Hearing on S. 1125, the
       Fairness in Asbestos Injury Act of 2003, Before the Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary,
       107th Cong. (June 4, 2003) (statements of Dr. John E. Parker, Professor and Chief of
       Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center of West
       Virginia University, and Dr. James D. Crapo, Professor of Medicine at the National Jewish
       Center and University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, former President of the American
       Thoracic Society, and President-elect of the Fleischner Society).

                                              - 22 -
being time-barred should an asbestos-related disease later develop. This would address a primary

engine driving the filing of many claims by unimpaired claimants. In addition, an unimpaired

docket would conserve scarce financial resources needed to compensate sick claimants – resources

now used up litigating ―claims that are premature (because there is not yet any impairment) or

actually meritless (because there never will be).‖ Schuck, supra, at 555. Finally, adoption of an

unimpaired docket would reduce the specter of more employers being driven into bankruptcy,

thereby helping to ensure that adequate resources remain for impaired claimants in the future. See

Behrens & Parham, supra, at 7.

       B.      Unimpaired Dockets Are Sound and Proven

       In the late 1980s and early 1990s, three major jurisdictions adopted unimpaired docket plans

– Boston, Chicago and Baltimore. Judges from all three courts have stated that they believe the

plans are working well for all parties. See Inactive Asbestos Dockets: Are They Easing the Flow of

Litigation?, HarrisMartin‘s Columns: Asbestos, Feb. 2002, at 2 [hereinafter Columns: Asbestos].

See also In re USG Corp., No. 01-2094, Mem. Op. and Order, at 8 n.3 (Bankr. Del. Feb. 19, 2003)

(―The practical benefits of dealing with the sickest claimants first have been apparent to the courts

for many years and have led to the adoption of deferred claims registries in many jurisdictions.‖).

               1.     Boston, Massachusetts

       Judge Hiller Zobel adopted the Massachusetts Inactive Asbestos Docket in 1986 as part of

his order creating a statewide consolidated asbestos docket. See Mass. State Ct. Asbestos Pers. Injury

Litig., Order (Commw. of Mass., Middlesex Super. Ct., Sept. 1986). The docket was envisioned as a

mechanism to give priority to the claims of the truly sick while tolling statutes of limitations for

claims brought by the non-sick or their families. While on the inactive docket, cases are exempt

                                              - 23 -
from discovery. The Massachusetts Inactive Docket does not specify criteria to be applied in

determining whether a case should be moved from the Inactive to the Active Docket. Over the past

fifteen years, however, the judge overseeing the Inactive Docket has made clear to all litigants that

he expects pleural cases to be placed on the Inactive Docket in order to further the court‘s goal of

reducing expenditures of court time and resources trying purely pleural actions.

       There have been relatively few instances of contested placements on the active docket in

Massachusetts. Indeed, while placement of pleural cases on the Inactive Docket is not mandatory,

most of the primary plaintiffs‘ counsel involved in Massachusetts state court litigation have opted to

file substantially all of their pleural cases on the Inactive Docket. As a result, the number of cases

on the Active Docket and the amount of money spent on settlements with unimpaired claimants have

been significantly reduced. See Behrens & Parham, supra, at 14.17

       Judge Zobel recently commented that the Massachusetts inactive docket has been ―really a

very good system that has worked out. . . .‖ Columns: Asbestos, supra, at 3. Jim Ryan, special

master of the Massachusetts asbestos litigation, has described the inactive docket as ―an extremely

useful tool,‖ saying, ―I don‘t see any downside for creating one anywhere else.‖ Id. at 70.

               2.     Chicago, Illinois

       In 1991, Judge Dean Trafelet in Cook County, Illinois, established an unimpaired docket

system for Chicago. See In re Asbestos Cases (Cir. Ct., Cook County, Ill. Mar. 26, 1991) (Order to

Establish Registry for Certain Asbestos Matters). He did so because a ―substantial number of cases‖



17
       Over the lifetime of the Massachusetts asbestos litigation, plaintiffs‘ counsel has sought
       transfer to ―active‖ status for only a small fraction of the thousands of cases on the
       unimpaired docket. The Massachusetts experience underscores how the vast majority of
(Footnote continued on next page)
                                            - 24 -
involving ―plaintiffs who claim[ed] significant asbestos exposure, but who [were] not. . . physically

ill‖ were presenting ―a serious threat of calendar congestion to the Court.‖ Id. at 3. Moreover,

defendants were seeing ―their available resources severely strained.‖ Id. Judge Trafelet believed

that their resources could be better expended if the Cook County litigation ―focused on those cases

that involve claims of actual and current conditions of impairment.‖ Id.

               3.     Baltimore, Maryland

       An unimpaired asbestos docket was introduced in Baltimore in December of 1992. See In re

Asbestos Pers. Injury and Wrongful Death Asbestos Cases, File No. 92344501 (Cir. Ct. Baltimore

City, Md. Dec. 9, 1992) (Order Establishing an Inactive Docket for Asbestos Personal Injury Cases).

Circuit Court Judge Richard Rombro, who oversees the asbestos litigation in Baltimore, recently

remarked on the success of that court‘s unimpaired docket plan. Since the docket‘s establishment,

he said, ―there have been 14,713 cases filed and placed on the inactive docket; in that same period

6,098 cases have been moved to the active docket, and 71 cases which were removed to the Federal

Court. The number activated from the inactive docket is over 40 percent which would indicate to

this court that the docket is working and that a substantial number of cases have been moved to the

active docket while those without any impairment remain on the inactive docket.‖ In re Pers. Injury

and Wrongful Death Asbestos Cases, Mem. Op. and Order Denying Modification to Inactive Docket

Medical Removal Criteria, No. 24-X-92-344501, at 5 (Cir. Ct. Baltimore City, Md. Aug. 15, 2002).




       asbestos claimants do not have any present impairment, and will not likely develop any
       impairment, as a result of their asbestos exposure.

                                              - 25 -
       C.      Unimpaired Dockets Are Gaining Momentum Around The Country

       The exponential increase in asbestos claims, mostly from unimpaired claimants, recently has

led several other jurisdictions – from New York City and Syracuse in New York to Seattle,

Washington and Madison County, Illinois – to join the list of pioneering courts that have adopted

unimpaired dockets to manage their growing asbestos caseloads.

               1.      New York City

       In December 2002, New York trial court Judge Helen Freedman amended the existing New

York City asbestos case management order to establish a ―deferred docket‖ for claimants with little

or no present physical impairment. See In re New York City Asbestos Litig., Order Amending Prior

Case Mgmt. Orders (S. Ct. N.Y. City, N.Y. Dec. 19, 2002). She had observed that fewer than ten

percent of the 21,000 asbestos-related personal injury or wrongful death claims pending in New

York City involve claimants with asbestos-related malignant diseases; a ―small percentage‖ have

sustained functionally impairing asbestosis.‖ Id. at 1.

               2.      Syracuse, New York

       Judge James McCarthy of New York‘s Fifth Judicial District, which includes Syracuse,

amended his court‘s existing case management order to establish a deferred docket in January 2003.

See In re Fifth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig., Am. to Am. Case Mgmt. Order No. 1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan.

31, 2003). He reported finding that of the more than 200 asbestos-related personal injury cases

pending before his court, ―less than 5% of the claimants or decedents suffer or suffer from asbestos-

related malignant diseases, and a small percentage of the remainder have sustained functionally

impairing asbestosis.‖ Id. at 1.



                                               - 26 -
               3.      Seattle, Washington

       King County (Seattle) Superior Court Judge Sharon Armstrong concluded in December 2002

that the ―increasing volume of asbestos cases‖ had made it ―necessary for the court to give priority to

the cases of plaintiffs who are the most ill.‖ Letter from Judge Sharon S. Armstrong, King County,

Wash., to Counsel of Record, Moving and Responding Parties, 1 (Dec. 3, 2002). The court went on

to hold that ―plaintiffs who are asymptomatic, who suffer from only mild reduction in lung function,

or whose reduced lung function is not attributed by competent medical opinion to asbestos-related

disease shall be placed on an Inactive Status Calendar‖ until such time that the claimant‘s

―symptoms or lung functions reaches the level of significant functional impairment.‖ Id.

               4.      Madison County, Illinois

       As of the time of this writing, the Circuit Court for Madison County, Illinois is the most

recent court to join the ranks of those courts adopting an unimpaired asbestos docket. See In re All

Asbestos Litigation Filed in Madison County, Order Establishing Asbestos Deferred Registry

(Madison County Cir. Ct., Ill. Jan. 23, 2004). In its order, the court noted that ―over 6,000 non-

malignant cases were on the trial docket in Madison County in 2003, many of which involved no

physical impairment.‖ The fact that Madison County considers the inactive docket a workable

solution to some of that jurisdiction‘s asbestos litigation is significant, as its courts have developed a

reputation as a Mecca for asbestos suits. Rulings in that forum have earned it the dubious distinction

as America‘s number one ―judicial hellhole,‖ according to the American Tort Reform Association.

See Am. Tort Reform Ass‘n, Bringing Justice to Judicial Hellholes (2003) available at

<http://www.atra.org/reports/hellholes> (last visited Mar. 1, 2004).



                                                - 27 -
               5.     Pending: Michigan Supreme Court

       As of this writing, the Michigan Supreme Court is considering a petition filed by nearly

seventy companies and numerous amici who are asking the court to adopt a statewide unimpaired

asbestos docket. See In re Pet. For An Admin. Order, No. 124213 (Mich. Pet. filed Sept. 11, 2003).

The court held an administrative hearing on the Petition in January 2004.

       D.      Innovations Used By Federal Courts to Give Priority to the Truly Sick

       The different types of unimpaired docketing used in these jurisdictions, as with the one

proposed to this Court, are consistent with federal judicial public policy. Orders to prioritize the

treatment of asbestos claims have been issued by Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Weiner and

U.S. District Court Judge Alfred Wolin, who oversees the USG Corporation (―USG‖) bankruptcy

proceeding in Delaware.18

               1.     The Federal MDL Panel

       In 1992, Judge Weiner adopted procedures, which although not technically an unimpaired

docket, had the purpose of prioritizing ―malignancy, death and total disability cases where the

substantial contributing cause is an asbestos-related disease or injury.‖ In re Asbestos Prod. Liab.

Litig. (No. VI), MDL 875, Admin. Order No. 3, at 1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 1992) [hereinafter MDL 875,

Admin. Order No. 3]. Under the court‘s order, a select number of cases were identified and placed

18
       In July 1991, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered all federal asbestos
       personal injury and wrongful death actions to be centralized before Judge Weiner. See In re
       Asbestos Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), MDL 875 (J.P.M.L. 1991). At the time of the transfer,
       unimpaired dockets existed in about a dozen federal districts, including some districts with
       ―very large asbestos caseloads.‖ Schuck, supra, at 568. These included a broad and diverse
       number of courts, ranging from the Northern District of California, the Northern District of
       Illinois, the Northern and Southern Districts of Mississippi, the Western District of New York,
       the Northern District of Ohio, to the Districts of Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine,
       Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. See id. at 568 n.109.

                                              - 28 -
into one of four disease categories. See id. at 1.19 In each case, plaintiff‘s counsel was required to

have a written medical opinion by a board-certified specialist indicating that exposure to either

asbestos or products containing asbestos was a contributing cause to the claimant‘s condition. Cases

in which the claimant suffered from mesothelioma or lung cancer were thereafter given priority with

respect to review, settlement, or further litigation. Through utilization of the ordering device,

thousands of cases involving non-impaired claimants were dismissed without prejudice. See In re

Asbestos Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), MDL 875, Order (E.D. Pa.            Oct. 16, 1997) (dismissing

approximately 3,200 non-impairment claims without prejudice with all applicable statutes of limitation

tolled).20

        More recently, in January 2002, Judge Weiner found that ―the filing of mass screening cases

is tantamount to a race to the courthouse and has the effect of depleting funds, some already

stretched to the limit, which would otherwise be available for compensation to deserving plaintiffs.‖


19
        The disease categories were: (1) mesothelioma, living and deceased; (2) lung cancer, living
        and deceased; (3) other malignancies, living and deceased; and (4) asbestosis, total disability
        deceased or total disability living. See MDL 875, Admin. Order No. 3, at 1.
20
        Similarly, with respect to claims brought under the federal Jones Act for asbestos exposures
        during World War II and thereafter, by a May 1996 Memorandum and Order, Judge Weiner
        administratively dismissed without prejudice approximately 20,000 cases filed by the Jaques
        Admiralty Law Firm in Detroit, Michigan. Those orders provided that reinstatement of the
        claims in the MDL would be warranted only if each plaintiff provided the court with, among
        other things, sufficient medical evidence of a present ―manifest injury‖ (rather than
        asymptomatic conditions such as pleural thickening or scarring). See In re Asbestos Prod.
        Liab. Litig. (No. VI), MDL 875, Civil Action No. 2 (Maritime Actions), Order at 9, 13, 15
        (E.D. Pa. May 1, 1996) (finding that with respect to the maritime cases ―only a fraction of the
        recently diagnosed plaintiffs have an asbestos-related condition, and many of these may be
        open to question. Numerous cases have either no diagnosis of an asbestos-related condition, or
        there is scant credible medical evidence…To file cases by the thousands and expect the Court
        to sort out the actionable claims is improper and a waste of the Court‘s time. Other victims
        suffer while the Court is clogged with such filings.‖). Significantly, in the seven years since
        Judge Weiner entered these orders, only a handful of these 20,000 maritime cases have been
        reinstated to active status.

                                               - 29 -
MDL 875, Admin. Order No. 8, supra. Accordingly, Judge Weiner acted to administratively dismiss

without prejudice (and toll the applicable statutes of limitations of) all asbestos cases initiated

through mass screenings. Cases subject to administrative dismissal remain active for the purposes of

settlement and motions to amend pleadings. Any party may request a case to be transferred to active

status by filing a request for reinstatement and providing the court with an affidavit supporting the

reasons for reinstatement. See id.

               2.      United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware

       USG and its major domestic subsidiaries filed petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11

of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in July of 2001. The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Alfred

Wolin.21 In response to USG‘s request to establish procedures to resolve the asbestos personal

injury liability in its bankruptcy case, Judge Wolin has ordered that claimants with legitimate

asbestos-related cancer claims shall be processed and compensated in the bankruptcy proceeding

before other claimants. See In re USG Corp., supra.

       Importantly, Judge Wolin was careful to set standards to help ensure the reliability of claims

submitted. Under his order, claimants are required to provide the court with ―a medical report by a

board-certified internist, pulmonary specialist, oncologist, or pathologist‖ demonstrating a diagnosis

of ―a primary cancer‖ that was ―caused by asbestos exposure.‖ Id. at 10. Each claimant must also

provide additional information regarding his or her claim, including the claimant's occupational

exposure to USG products and smoking history. See id. at 11. Upon the passing of the cancer-only

21
       Judge Wolin is a U.S. District Court Judge for the District of New Jersey in Newark. In
       November 2001, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals appointed him to the U.S. Bankruptcy
       Court for the District of Delaware to oversee five asbestos-related bankruptcy cases,
       including the USG matter.

                                              - 30 -
bar date, or deadline, and processing of claims, the court will hold a hearing to estimate the liability

of USG and its affiliates for these claims. See id. at 9.

       E.      The American Bar Association Commission on Asbestos Litigation

       In February 2003 the American Bar Association‘s (ABA) House of Delegates passed a

resolution calling for Congress to adopt legislation that would defer the claims of unimpaired

plaintiffs and toll all applicable statutes of limitations until such claimants are able to satisfy well-

established medical criteria indicating the presence of an asbestos-related impairing condition.22 See

Asbestos Litigation: Hearing Before the Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 107th Cong. (Mar. 5, 2003)

(statement of Hon. Dennis Archer, President-elect, American Bar Ass‘n). See also Gina Holland,

ABA Recommends Curbs on Asbestos Lawsuits, Assoc. Press Newswire, Feb. 11, 2003. Supporters

of the plan included Chicago personal injury lawyer Terrence Lavin, who said: ―Members of the

asbestos bar have made a mockery of our civil justice system and have inflicted financial ruin on

corporate America by representing people with nothing more than an arguable finding on an x-ray.‖

Editorial, ABA Backs Asbestos Reform, Wash. Times, Feb. 16, 2003, at B2, available at 2003 WL-


22
       The ABA Commission interviewed several nationally recognized pulmonologists and other
       medical specialists with extensive knowledge of asbestos-related non-malignant conditions to
       determine the objective medical criteria that would constitute the threshold level of asbestos-
       related injury that would permit a plaintiff‘s case to be placed on an active docket. Based on
       those interviews the ABA Commission promulgated a Standard for Non-Malignant Asbestos-
       Related Disease Claims (the ―ABA Standard‖). Am. Bar Ass‘n, House of Delegates, ABA
       Standard for Non-Malignant Asbestos Related Disease Claims (resolution adopted Feb.
       2003). The ABA Standard is also based both on guidelines for diagnosing asbestos-related
       conditions which have been published by the American Thoracic Society (a division of the
       American Lung Association) and on guidelines for the evaluation of impairment published
       by the American Medical Association. See The Diagnosis of Nonmalignant Diseases Related
       to Asbestos, Am. Thoracic Soc’y Official Statement, 134 Am. Rev. Resp. Dis. 363-368 (Mar.
       1986); Am. Thoracic Soc‘y, Lung Function Testing: Selection of Reference Values and
       Interpretive Strategies, 144 Am. Rev. Resp. Dis. 1202-1218 (1991); Am. Med. Ass‘n, Guides
       to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (5th ed. 2001).

                                                - 31 -
WATIMES 7706224 (quoting Mr. Lavin). The ABA plan, he added, ―is not tort reform. It‘s scandal

reform.‖ Id.

       While the ABA resolution was directed primarily at encouraging federal legislative action, it

provides the model for the subject motion and is yet another voice providing support for efforts to

prioritize the claims of the truly ill while preserving the legal rights of the non-sick.

                                            CONCLUSION

       For these reasons, the Coalition for Litigation Justice strongly supports the Motion before

this Court to establish an unimpaired docket for asbestos claimants.




                                                 - 32 -
                     Respectfully submitted,



                     ________________________________

                     Manuel López (Texas Bar No. 00784495)*
                     SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
                     JP Morgan Chase Tower
                     600 Travis Street, Suite 1600
                     Houston, TX 77002-2911
                     Tel: (713) 227-8008

                     Victor E. Schwartz
                     Mark A. Behrens
                     Philip S. Goldberg
                     SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
                     Hamilton Square
                     600 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
                     Washington, D.C. 20005-2004
                     Tel: (202) 783-8400

                     * Counsel of Record

                     Of Counsel

                     Paul W. Kalish
                     Mark D. Plevin
                     CROWELL & MORING LLP
                     1001 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
                     Washington, D.C. 20004
                     Tel: (202) 624-2500




Dated: May 3, 2004




                      - 33 -
                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


       I hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing Memorandum of the Coalition for

Litigation Justice, Inc. In Support of the Motion before this Court to Establish an Unimpaired

Docket upon counsel through electronic mail this 3rd day of May, 2004, addressed as follows:


Adams, Kent M.                         kentadams@adamscoffey.com

Adams, Robert L. ("Larry")             ladams@dkapl.com

Akeroyd, Nancy                         nancya@rameyflock.com

Albertson, Raymond B.                  ralbertson@gpalaw.com

Alenik, Dennis R.                      alefirm@aol.com

Allen, Mark                            mallen@tbml.com

Alley, Jeffrey S.                      jall@scotthulse.com

Almquist, Arthur R. ("Art")            artalmquist@mehaffyweber.com

Andarsio, Pedro F. ("Pete")            pfa@andarsio.com

Anderson, Billy D.                     billya@tyler.net

Anderson, Roger W.                     rander@tyler.net

Andis, David P.                        david@gk-lawyers.com

Andrews, Kay                           kandrews@mailbmc.com

Arntz, Jill McCarthy                   jarntz@kasowitz.com

Arredondo, Robert D.                   rarredondo@mga-law.com

Asher, H. Ross                         rasher@rmgattorneys.com

Atha, Cynthia A. ("Cindy")             catha@strongpipkin.com

Atwood, Roy T.                         royatwood@jonesday.com

Bailey, Mel D.                         mbailey@bcklaw.com

Baker, Kenneth                         kbaker@bakpatlaw.com
Baker, Michael L.             mbaker@strongpipkin.com

Baldo, Nicholas S. ("Nick")   baldo@sbf-law.com

Barber, Steven J.             sbarber@steptoe.com

Barrera, Eric I.              ebarrera@gthm.com

Barron, Barbara               barbarabarron@mehaffyweber.com

Bartlett, James W.            jbartlett@kasowitz.com

Bashline, J. D.               jdbashline@mapalaw.com

Bean, Frank M.                tls@beanllp.com

Beason, Ryan A.               ryanb@beasonwillingham.com

Beirne, Martin D.             mbeirne@bmpllp.com

Bell, Trudy                   trudybell@gtbizclass.com

Bennett, Karen R.             krbennett@germer.com

Berlanga, Jose A.             jberlanga@gardere.com

Bissell, John G.              jbissell@strongpipkin.com

Blazek, Paula H.              pblazek@germer.com

Book, William ("Bill")        wbook@tbml.com

Boyd, Ernest W.               boyde@mehaffyweber.com

Boyd, Howard T.               hboyd@shergarner.com

Bridger, John W.              jbridger@strongpipkin.com

Brown, Gregg R.               gbrown@germer-austin.com

Brown, Nancy J.               nbrown@gardere.com

Brown, Russell T.             russ.brown@strasburger.com

Burton, J. Randy              randy@moerer-burton.com

Carlton, George R.            gcarlton@godwingruber.com

Carmack, Kaye                 kcarmack@canteyhanger.com


                                    -2-
Carrington, M. C.             mccarrington@mehaffyweber.com

Carroll, Marcus A.            macarroll@cox-internet.com

Carstarphen, Edward M.        emc@ecdglaw.com

Carter, Cheryl                ccarter@sammons-parker.com

Carter, Julie                 juliecarter@mehaffyweber.com

Chambers, J. Dennis           dchambers@arwhlaw.com

Chambers, Kim                 kchambers@sjdllp.com

Chaney, Lecia L.              ll.chaney@rcclaw.com

Chaves, Douglas E. ("Doug")   dchaves@crrlawfirm.com

Clark, Sandra F.              sandraclark@mehaffyweber.com

Clary, Brian S.               bclary@claryfirm.com

Corona, Jennifer A.           jenniferc@jeanrem.com

Cosculluela, Alex E.          alex.cosculluela@arlaw.com

Cotellesse, David P.          dcotellesse@womco.com

Cotten, Larry E.              lcotten@cottenschmidt.com

Craft, R. Brian               bcraft@rameyflock.com

Crawford, Walter J.           wjc@cyberscope.net

Crockett, Lynn                lcrockett@hplegal.com

Crouch, Hubert A.             hcrouch@crouchfirm.com

Croyle, Robert T.             rcroyle@womco.com

Cummings, Robin               robinc@germer.com

Dacus, Shannon M.             sdacus@rameyflock.com

Daniels, Deidra               deidra@splpc.com

Danish, Teri L.               tl.danish@rcclaw.com

Danysh, Richard C.            rdanysh@bracepatt.com


                                    -3-
Davis, Sarah M.                 sarahdavis@adamscoffey.com

Day, Paul J.                    paul.day@piperrudnick.com

Dettmer, Robin O'Day            robind@cgmlegal.com

Devin, Clayton E.               cdevin@mmdattorneys.com

Dinwiddie, Angela               adinwiddie@strongpipkin.com

Dodson, Richard ("Dick")        dickdodson@dodsondodson.com

Dodson, Robert E. ("Bob")       bobdodson@dodsondodson.com

Dolezal, John R.                dolezal@sbf-law.com

Donnell, Ben A.                 bdonnell@mdacc.com

Duble, Steven M.                sduble@haysmcconn.com

Easter, Laurie B.               leaster@jw.com

Edwards, Brady                  bedwards@edwards-george.com

Egeland, Susan                  segeland@hplegal.com

Ehlinger, Tracy K.              tehlinger@hicks-thomas.com

Elliott, Lori M.                lelliott@hunton.com

Ellis, G. Joe                   gje@ecdglaw.com

Elliston, Gary D.               gelliston@dehay.com

Erwin, R. Harding               herwin@kcelaw.com

Estes, David H.                 destes@hdbdk.com

F. Walter Conrad Jr.            Walter.Conrad@BakerBotts.com

Farrell, William H.             wfarrell@cottonfarrell.com

Faulk, Richard O.               rfaulk@gardere.com

Fay, Laurel Ashley ("Laurie")   lfay@whittenburglaw.com

Feeney, Christi Dickson         cfeeney@godwingruber.com

Fernandez, Kristina             kfernandez@hdbdk.com


                                      -4-
Ferrell, Melissa                    mferrell@smsm.com

Florence, Kirk                      kflorence@crouchfirm.com

Foeh, Debbi K.                      dfoeh@ghf-lawfirm.com

Foley, James T.                     tfoley@tyler.net

Foley, Keith                        keithfoley@mehaffyweber.com

Fox, Crystal A.                     cfox@edwards-george.com

Frase, Laura A.                     lafrase@fpwk.com

Frost, Gwen                         gwenfrost@powersfrost.com

Frost, Sharla J.                    sfrost@powersfrost.com

Fuchs, Karen R.                     kfuchs@womco.com

Fuller, L. Hayes                    fuller@namanhowell.com

Funderburk, Larry                   lfunderburk@ffllp.com

Gauntt, J. Chad                     chad@gk-lawyers.com

Gehres, Michele T.                  michele@andrewshartman.com

Gibson, Shannon G.                  sgibson@crouchfirm.com

Gilbert, Jeffrey R.                 jgilbert@connellybaker.com

Gilbert, John R.                    jgilbert@jrgpc.com

Glazer, Rachelle                    rachelle.glazer@tklaw.com

Godwin, Donald                      dgodwin@godwingruber.com

Goodman, Mark A.                    mgoodman@dgmlegal.com

Gordon, Thomas Patrick ("Trey")     tgordon@canteyhanger.com

Greve, Kurt W.                      kgreve@fpwk.com

Grimaldo, Arthur                    agrimaldo@cmj-law.com

Groves, Charles Christopher ("Chris") cgroves@jonesday.com

Guidry, Stephen K. ("Steve")        skguidry@germer.com


                                          -5-
Guild, John Franklin    jguild@ccsb.com

Gum, Estelee            egum@iwlegal.com

Michael Brem ("Mike")   Michael.Brem@bakerbotts.com

Hall, Alton J.          ahall@ebglaw.com

Hancock, Ronald T.      rhancock@mhn-law.com

Handel, Rodney R.       rod@hunterhandel.com

Harmon, Frank G.        fharmon@ccj-law.com

Harris, James M.        jharrisjr@ev1.net

Harrison, Carrie        harrison@ramseyandmurray.com

Hazen, Scott P.         shazen@godwingruber.com

Heald, Russell W.       russheald@adamscoffey.com

Henderson, John R.      jhenderson@mailbmc.com

Hendryx, Michael        mhendryx@strongpipkin.com

Hennessy, Edward J.     ejh@hgbatty.com

Hernandez, Martha       martha.hernandez@rcclaw.com

Heyburn, Paul Rice      paulheyburn@mehaffyweber.com

Higgins, Sean M.        shiggins@mailbmc.com

Hill, Frank L.          frank.hill@tklaw.com

Hoblit, R. Clay         choblit@ghf-lawfirm.com

Hogan, Timothy J.       thogan@bmpllp.com

Holmgreen, John C.      jholmgreen@gthm.com

Howell, Brad K.         bhowell@womco.com

Howell, Stephen C.      sch@howelldorman.com

Hughes, Beth            beth.hughes@bakerbotts.com

Hunter, Harold H.       hhunter@qsclpc.com


                              -6-
Hurley, R. Bruce                    bhurley@kslaw.com

Hyatt, J                            jhyatt@qsclpc.com

Iiams, Sarah E.                     siiams@abbott-simses.com

Ireson, Lansford O.                 lireson@iwlegal.com

Jackson, Bradley A.                 brad.jackson@roystonlaw.com

Jamison, Josephine H. ("Jody")      josephinej@bellnunnally.com

Jenkins, Gail C.                    gailj@j-mlaw.com

Johnson, Carson W.                  carsonj@hunton.com

Johnson, Ned W.                     johnsonned@jfpplaw.com

Jones, D. Allan                     daj@obt.com

Jordan, J. Michael                  mjordan@gardere.com

Jordan, Kevin M.                    kjordan@sjdllp.com

Jordan, Sean D.                     sjordan@jw.com

Karos, Maria Katina ("Kiki")        mariak@bellnunnally.com

Kevin Jacobs                        Kevin.Jacobs@BakerBotts.com

Kibbe, Christine                    ckibbe1@entergy.com

Kissner, Todd                       tkissner@tbml.com

Klein, Elizabeth                    eklein@germer.com

Knabeschuh, Louis H.                louisk@j-mlaw.com

Knight, Richard Nelson ("Nelson")   nknight@godwingruber.com

Koepke, John A.                     jkoepke@jw.com

Kolber, Monica                      kolber@ramseyandmurray.com

Kugler, Laura Ellis                 lkugler@bcklaw.com

Kyle, Glenna M.                     glenna.m.kyle@exxonmobil.com

Lackey, Doug                        dlackey@mailbmc.com


                                          -7-
Landes, Crystal L.                   crystall@bellnunnally.com

Landin, David                        dlandin@hunton.com

Larson, Scott L.                     scottlarson@dodsondodson.com

Ledyard, David W.                    dledyard@strongpipkin.com

Leone, Frank                         fleone@spriggs.com

Leunes, Christopher Chay             cleunes@bushramirez.com

Levine, Tori S.                      tlevine@mailbmc.com

Lewis-Bullitt, Stephanie             sbullitt@dgmlegal.com

Little, Joseph R.                    jlittle@mcfall-law.com

Little, William T.                   william.little@aig.com

Livingston, Laddie                   llivingston@kcelaw.com

Livingston, Stephen S. ("Steve")     stephen.livingston@tklaw.com

Loftin, Stephen M.                   sloftin@hicks-thomas.com

Luce, Joe E.                         luce@mdjwlaw.com

Lusk, Sheri                          slusk@cbplaw.com

Lynn, Lawrence A. ("Larry")          llynn@coatsrose.com

Maccherone, Amy L.                   amaccherone@abbott-simses.com

Mahley, Frederick William ("Bill")   bill.mahley@strasburger.com

Maloney, Linda L.                    ll.maloney@rcclaw.com

Manning, Jack B.                     jmanning@mga-law.com

Marlow, Roger D.                     rdm@hulsewanek.com

Marshall, R. Todd                    tmarshall@js-llp.com

Martin, John H.                      john.martin@tklaw.com

Martin, Kirk E.                      kirkm@j-mlaw.com

Maston, Karen K.                     kmaston@connellybaker.com


                                           -8-
Mauro, Mary Lou                  mmauro@gjtbs.com

McCall, George S.                gmccall@kern-wooley.com

McCleary, Roger L.               rmccleary@bmpllp.com

McCleery, Stephen E.             smccleery@bakpatlaw.com

Meade, Andrew K.                 ameade@hicks-thomas.com

Meyer, Ralph F.                  ralph.meyer@roystonlaw.com

Mickelsen, Carol A.              camickelsen@dkapl.com

Miller, Jackie                   jmiller@djoalaw.com

Miltenberger, Lewis C. ("Lew")   lewism@cgmlegal.com

Mitchell, Denise Hunter          denisem@beasonwillingham.com

Moir, Peter A.                   pmoir@qsclpc.com

Montgomery, Pamela W.            pmontgomery@rmgattorneys.com

Moore, Alan                      amoore@fhmlaw.com

Moore, Randy E.                  rmoore@moorelaw.us

Morris, Kenneth D.               kmorris@gardere.com

Mosteller, Misti D.              mmosteller@dehay.com

Murphy, Terence M.               tmmurphy@jonesday.com

Murphy, Thomas D.                tmurphy@steptoe.com

Nebel, Roger H.                  nebelrh@fpwk.com

Nettle, Amy E.                   anettle@crouchfirm.com

Neuer, Raymond A.                rneuer@sswpc.com

Newsom, James A.                 newsom@msrnr.net

Nixon, Joseph M.                 joe.nixon@phillipsakers.com

Nolley, Lisa C.                  nolleyl@wemed.com

Odam, John W.                    jodam@ffllp.com


                                       -9-
Ogden, Todd D.                tdogden@fpwk.com

Old, James R. ("Jay")         jrold@germer.com

Olesen, Cheryl Diane          cdolesen@cyberscope.net

Oliver, David A.              doliver@porterhedges.com

Oxford, Hubert (IV)           hoxfordiv@benoxford.com

Panian, Diana                 dpanian@gardere.com

Pappas, George P.             gpappas@sswpc.com

Parker, Jerry C.              jparker@sammons-parker.com

Patterson, Jeffrey S.         jpatterson@hdbdk.com

Pellett, Susan J.             spellett@thompsoncoe.com

Peters, Norman W.             npeters@kasowitz.com

Pevsner, Joseph S.            joseph.pevsner@tklaw.com

Phifer, Elizabeth             ephifer@suplaw.com

Pickett, Leslie D. ("Les")    lpickett@gjtbs.com

Pita, Marina Kraft            marinap@jeanrem.com

Poff, Franklin A. ("Frank")   fpoff@cbplaw.com

Pollard, Bryan D.             bpollard@mailbmc.com

Powell, Lisa A.               lpowell@jw.com

Powers, James H.              jpowers@powersfrost.com

Powers, Sheila                sheila@andrewshartman.com

Quinn, Christi D.             cquinn@porterhedges.com

Quintanilla, Robert L.        rquintanilla@abbott-simses.com

Rabel, John V.                jvrabel@mapalaw.com

Rambin, W. Neil               neil.rambin@sdma.com

Ramirez, Michael John         mramirez@godwingruber.com


                                   - 10 -
Ramsey, Russell               rramsey@ramseyandmurray.com

Ramsey, T                     tramsey@bakpatlaw.com

Rathwell, Lyle R.             rathwell@woodlandslaw.com

Raven, Ricky R.               ricky.raven@tklaw.com

Reynard, David D.             dreynard@j-mlaw.com

Rhodes, Kenneth D. ("Ken")    kdrhodes@dkapl.com

Rice, B. Stephen              srice@haysmcconn.com

Richardson, Tracy             trichardson@strongpipkin.com

Rienstra, M                   mrienstra@bakpatlaw.com

Riley, James M.               jriley@coatsrose.com

Robbins, Lauren Miller        robbins@msrnr.net

Roberts, Jeffrey D.           jroberts@rmgattorneys.com

Robichaux, James H. ("Jim")   jrobichaux@mattbran.com

Rodriguez, Christine M.       crodriguez@jrgpc.com

Rothman, Gaye L.              grothman@mailbmc.com

Samford, Michael L.           msamford@strongpipkin.com

Sams, John G.                 jgs@howelldorman.com

Sanchez, B                    bsanchez@andrewskurth.com

Schirrmeister, Andrew C.      acs@salawfirm.com

Schwager, Candice L.          cschwager@cdzc.com

Schweinle, William E.         wesjrlaw@aol.com

Scott, Robert P.              rscott@asbtexas.com

Scudder, Mark S.              mark.scudder@strasburger.com

Seckel, Robin B.              rseckel@thompsoncoe.com

Shah, Ajay R.                 shahar@fpwk.com


                                   - 11 -
Sharp, David E.                 dsharp@bmpllp.com

Shaver, Jeffery J. ("Jeff")     jshaver@sammons-parker.com

Sheehy, Richard A.              rsheehy@sswpc.com

Shipp, John                     jshipp@crouchfirm.com

Skelton, Scott C.               sskelton@zeleskey.com

Smith, J. Michael ("Mike")      msmith@arwhlaw.com

Smith, James D. ("Jim")         jims@jeanrem.com

Smith, Patrick N.               psmith@ramseyandmurray.com

Snyder, Jennifer J. ("Jenny")   jsnyder@rameyflock.com

Spain, H. Daniel                dspain@spain-law.com

Spardone, Stephanie L.          sspardone@hplegal.com

Stacy, Jessica A.               jstacy@cmj-law.com

Stanton, James D. ("Jim")       jstanton@jstantonlaw.com

Steele, Kyle C.                 kcsteele@fpwk.com

Stell, Michael D.               mste@scotthulse.com

Stephen Tipps                   Stephen.Tipps@BakerBotts.com

Stephens, Cindy B.              cstephens@watsonrossick.com

Sterling, Stephanie R.          stephans@germer.com

Stuart, Kimberly Rose           kstuart@craincaton.com

Suddleson, Todd J.              tsuddleson@dehay.com

Sullivan, Greg                  gregsullivan@andrewskurth.com

Surratt, Donean                 sds@obt.com

Swift, Brian T.                 bswift@mailbmc.com

Tardy, Thomas W.                ttardy@fpwk.com

Tatem, James A.                 jatatem@germer-houston.com


                                     - 12 -
Taylor, David M.               dtaylor@thompsoncoe.com

Taylor, Michele E.             mtaylor@tbml.com

Taylor, Thomas W.              ttaylor@andrewskurth.com

Terry, Michael G.              mterry@hdbdk.com

Thackston, Robert E.           rthackston@hplegal.com

Thomas, W. Miller              wmthomas@fpth-law.com

Tidwell, John L.               jtidwell@texarkanalawyers.com

Tolin, David L.                dltolin@germer.com

Trent, T. Christopher          ctrent@js-llp.com

Tucker, Jack W.                jtucker@ttsslawfirm.com

Ulmer, Gregory C.              gulmer@bakerlaw.com

Unger, John F.                 john.unger@roystonlaw.com

Usery, Susan                   susan.usery@libertymutual.com

Utter, Maggie                  mutter@powersfrost.com

van Rensburg, Jillian J.       jvanrensburg@dehay.com

Volmert, Elizabeth P.          elizabeth.volmert@strasburger.com

Wade, Todd N.                  twade@mailbmc.com

Walker, Worthy W.              worthy@cdhlaw.com

Ward, A C                      acward@ffllp.com

Ward, Kathryn L.               kward@spain-law.com

Ware, James L.                 jware@sswpc.com

Watkins, James R.              james.watkins@roystonlaw.com

Watkins, Walter G.             wwatkins@fpwk.com

Watson, Charles A. ("Chuck")   cwatson@watsonrossick.com

Weaver, Brandon W.             brandonweaver@dodsondodson.com


                                    - 13 -
Wedig, Mary Lou              mlwedig@brownsims.com

Weitzel, Harry               hpweitzel@mayerbrownrowe.com

Welsh, H. Ron                rwelsh@cdzc.com

Werner, Philip A.            pwerner@wernerkerrigan.com

Wetwiska, James R. ("Jim")   jwetwiska@fulbright.com

White, Clay M.               cwhite@sammons-parker.com

Wickes, Paul O.              pwickes@hunton.com

Wiedenfeld, Carolyn          carolynw@germer.com

Wilkinson, Robert            rwilkinson@doganwilkinson.com

Williams, Gene               genewilliams@mehaffyweber.com

Willingham, R. Mark          markw@beasonwillingham.com

Wilson, Lee Ruffin           lwilson@bowersorr.com

Wolter, Mary                 maryw@beasonwillingham.com

Womble, W. T.                wt@womco.com

Work, Jeffery K.             jwork@bmpllp.com

Wright, Dawn M.              dawn.wright@tklaw.com

Wright, Rob W.               rwwright@fpwk.com

Young, Amy                   amy.young@bakerbotts.com

Zeidman, Mark R.             mzeidman@bushramirez.com

Arney, Lance C.              larney@rlclaw.com

B, Joe                       joebrue1@airmail.net

Bailey, K. Camp              cbailey@williamsbailey.com

Bailey, L                    lbailey@hobsonlaw.com

Baldwin, Francis Scott       scott@baldwinlaw.com

Baron, Steven T.             baron@splaw.com


                                  - 14 -
Black, John Milton         jblack@heardrobins.com

Black, Lou Thompson        lou@bcoonlaw.com

Blevins, Bryan O.          bblevins@provostumphrey.com

Bobbitt, Barry Lane        bobbitt@bobbittlaw.com

Bogdan, Eric               bogdanlaw@aol.com

Brown, Russell C.          rb@wellbornhouston.com

Budd, Russell W.           rbudd@baronbudd.com

Burns, Pam                 pamb@oqlaw.com

Campbell, C. Taylor        ctc@lanierlawfirm.com

Carlile, D. Scott          scarlile@carlilelawfirm.com

Carlile, David C.          dcarlile@carlilelawfirm.com

Carlos                     carlos@leibowitzconsumerlaw.com

Carpenter, T               tcarpntr@swbell.net

Chandler, Troy Damon       tchandler@heardrobins.com

Chargois, Damon J.         dchargois@chargoisernsterlaw.com

Cloud, Ian Patrick         icloud@heardrobins.com

Coon, Brent W.             brent@bcoonlaw.com

Cox                        cox@clarkdepew.com

DiMuzio, Gary Martin       dimuzio@clarkdepew.com

Endsley, Russell William   rendsley@smith-gibson.com

Farris, Misty A.           mfarris@baronbudd.com

Ferrell, David W.          dferrell@rmqlawfirm.com

Foster, Ryan A.            ryanf@rfosterlaw.com

Franklin, Ron              franklin@fcj.com

Grubbs, Amie               amie@baldwinlaw.com


                                - 15 -
Guerrero, D              dguerrero@williamsbailey.com

H, P                     ph@wellbornhouston.com

Haines, Patrick N.       pnh@lanierlawfirm.com

Hanners, Michael J.      mikeh@splaw.com

Hartley, Christian H.    chartley@rpwb.com

Hays, Susan              shays@awpk.com

Heygood, Michael E.      heygood@reyeslaw.com

Hossley, D. Allen        allen@hossleylaw.com

Jackson, D. LeAnne       ljackson@baronbudd.com

Kaeske, Mike             mkaeske@kaeskelaw.com

Kanayan, Philip Martin   philip@hkhlaw.com

Kharod, Ketan U.         kuk@hendlerlaw.com

Kherkher, Steven J.      skherkher@williamsbailey.com

Kivett, Lisa R.          lkivett@baronbudd.com

Kraus, Peter A.          pkraus@awpk.com

Langston, Keith L.       klangston@nixlawfirm.com

Lanier, W. Mark          wml@lanierlawfirm.com

Link, Scott Reiter       slink@heardrobins.com

Madeksho, Lawrence       lmadek@aol.com

McCally, Sharon Sue      smccally@aol.com

McCormack, James M.      jim@tomblinlaw.com

McHargue, Kevin D.       kmchargu@baronbudd.com

Meggesin, Laurie J.      lmeggesi@baronbudd.com

Meyer, M. Michael        mikem@oqlaw.com

Moore, Colin David       cmoore@provostumphrey.com


                              - 16 -
Motley, Ronald L.              rmotley@motleyrice.com

Mundy, John Jeffery            jeff@mundysingley.com

Parks, Christopher M.          cparks@parkerparks.com

Parron, David D.               parronfirm@sbcglobal.net

Patrick, Charles W.            cpatrick@rpwb.com

Patronella, Michael B.         mpatronella@williamsbailey.com

Pennington, Janice Robinson    jpennington@kaeskelaw.com

Portner, Christopher Michael   cportner@rmqlawfirm.com

Rosenthal, Brent M.            brosenth@baronbudd.com

Shrader, Justin Hyde           justin@shraderwilliamson.com

Siegel, Charles S.             siegel@awpk.com

Strachan, Mark D.              mstrachan@carlilelawfirm.com

Thelma                         thelma@hossleylaw.com

Tracey, Sean Patrick           sean@clarkdepewtracey.com

Walker, Erik                   erik@hkhlaw.com

Watts, Mikal C.                mcwatts@wattslawfirm.com

Wert, Scott W.                 swert@fostersear.com

Wimberley, James E.            jwimberley@mc-law.net




                                   Manuel López




                                    - 17 -

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:1/23/2011
language:English
pages:63
yan198555 yan198555
About