While an increasingly important mass tort litigation mainstay since their creation in 1986, "Lone Pine" orders remain in relative scholarly obscurity. In Lone Pine Orders: A Critical Examination and Empirical Analysis, Nora F. Engstrom (Stanford) and Amos Espeland (Stanford-grad student) set out to "pull back the curtain." They do just that as it relates to Lone Pine orders in a brief essay and, in so doing, their paper demonstrates, once again, how the creation of new original data sets, combined with basic descriptive analyses, can add helpful information. The paper's abstract follows.
"Invented in 1986 and now a prominent feature of the mass tort landscape, Lone Pine orders require plaintiffs to provide to the court prima facie evidence of injury, exposure, and specific causation — sometimes early, and usually on pain of dismissal. Though they’ve taken root in a hazy space outside of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, these case management orders are frequently issued, and they play an important role in the contemporary litigation and resolution of mass torts. But although Lone Pine orders are common, potent, and increasingly controversial, they have mostly fallen under the academic radar. Even their key features are described inconsistently by commentators and courts. This Essay pulls back the curtain. Drawing on a unique hand-coded data set, this Essay describes the origin and evolution of Lone Pine orders, sketches poles of the debate surrounding their use, and offers empirical evidence regarding their entry, content, timing, and effect."
Comments