In Re: Gardasil Products Liability Litigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:22-md-03036-RJC-DCK
IN RE: GARDASIL PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MDL No. 3036
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO
ALL CASES
)
)
SECOND PRETRIAL ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court following the first pretrial conference in this
MDL, held on October 11, 2022 (the “First Pretrial Conference”). At the First Pretrial Conference,
counsel indicated that they reached agreement, or are in the process of reaching agreement, on a
number of important issues. The Court commends counsel for their efforts on resolving these
important issues and encourages counsel to continue in these efforts.
The Court having fully considered the parties’ filings before the First Pretrial Conference
and the arguments made by counsel at the First Pretrial Conference, IT IS, THEREFORE,
ORDERED that:
1. SECOND PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND AGENDA FOR CONFERENCE
This matter is set for a second pretrial conference on November 9, 2022, at 1:00 P.M.,
Courtroom 8, at the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
401 West Trade Street, Charlotte, NC 28202. The Parties shall confer and file on or before
November 2, 2022: (1) a joint status report on the status of all matters to which they are ordered
to meet and confer, as described herein, plus any additional issues the parties wish to raise with
the Court; (2) any motions the parties wish to be heard at the Second Pretrial Conference; (3) any
Case 3:22-md-03036-KDB Document 27 Filed 10/13/22 Page 1 of 6

proposed consent orders for the Court’s consideration; and (4) a joint proposed agenda for the
Second Pretrial Conference.
Any parties that wish to appear by Microsoft Teams must contact Brittany Lynch,
Courtroom Deputy, in the Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours before the hearing. The phone number
for the Clerk’s Office is 704-350-7400, and Ms. Lynch can be reached at 704-350-7409 or via
email at Brittany_lynch@ncwd.uscourts.gov.
2. LEAD COUNSEL, LIAISON COUNSEL, AND OTHERS
At the First Pretrial Conference, the Court considered the Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’
recommendation for co-lead and liaison counsel. Without objection, the Court approves
Defendants’ recommendation for Defendants’ co-lead and liaison counsel. The following are
APPOINTED to serve as Defendants’ co-lead and liaison counsel:
Allyson M Julien
Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP
200 South Wacker Drive, Ste 22nd Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
312-681-6000
ajulien@goldmanismail.com
Co-lead Counsel
David Eidson Dukes
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough
1320 Main St., 17th Floor
Meridian Bldg
Columbia, SC 29201
803-255-9451
david.dukes@nelsonmullins.com
Co-lead Counsel
David Calep Wright , III
Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson,
101 N. Tryon Street, Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
704-377-8322
dwright@robinsonbradshaw.com
Liaison Counsel
Case 3:22-md-03036-KDB Document 27 Filed 10/13/22 Page 2 of 6

Without objection, the Court approves Plaintiffs’ recommendation for Plaintiffs’ co-lead
and liaison counsel. The following are APPOINTED to serve as Plaintiffs’ co-lead and liaison
counsel:
Bijan Esfandiari
Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman
10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
310-207-3233
vadlivankina@baumhedlundlaw.com
Co-lead Counsel
K. Rachel Lanier
The Lanier Law Firm
21550 W Oxnard St 3rd Floor,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
713.659.5200
rachel.lanier@lanierlawfirm.com
Co-lead Counsel
Paul J. Pennock
Morgan & Morgan
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6705
New York, NY 10118
813-225-6747
ppennock@forthepeople.com
Co-lead Counsel
Allison Mullins
Turning Point Litigation
Mullins Duncan Harrell & Russell PLLC
300 N. Greene St., Suite 2000
Greensboro, NC 27401
336-645-3321
amullins@turningpointlit.com
Liaison Counsel
The duties of the Court appointed co-lead and liaison counsel are set forth in the Manual for
Complex Litigation, Fourth.
3. PLAINTIFFS’ COMMITTEE(S)
Prior to the Second Pretrial Conference, counsel for the Plaintiffs shall, to the extent they
have not already done so, confer and seek consensus on the need for any Plaintiffs’ committees.
If needed, Plaintiffs must file a request for appointment of the specific committee(s) on or before
November 2, 2022. Plaintiffs’ request shall include Plaintiffs’ recommendations for the committee
Case 3:22-md-03036-KDB Document 27 Filed 10/13/22 Page 3 of 6

members, including each proposed members’ resume or curriculum vitae, educational background,
licensing status, a list of relevant experience with cases in similar areas including prior similar
appointments, and how and at what rates members will expect to be compensated or reimbursed
for services rendered. The court will give substantial weight to the recommendations submitted
for committee members.
4. CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN
a. Pleadings
The parties agreed at the First Pretrial Conference that there is no need for a master or form
complaint at this time. As to the outstanding matters, the parties shall meet and confer on the
following:
 Deadline for amending pleadings;
 Deadline for filing counterclaims, crossclaims, and third-party complaints;
 Deadline for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 motions;
 Answer deadlines, including consideration of Defendants’ proposal at the First Pretrial
Conference for a single answer deadline after the Court rules on any Rule 12 motions; and
 Whether Defendants’ answer shall be filed as a general denial and affirmative defenses or
an answer to each individual complaint.
As noted above, the Parties shall set forth the status of these matters in their joint status
report filed on or before November 2, 2022, in anticipation of the Second Pretrial Conference.
b. Discovery Plan
At the First Pretrial Conference, the parties represented that they agree generally on a
timeline for this MDL, but propose differing discovery plans. Defendants propose phased
discovery, prioritizing discovery for certain alleged injuries on what they characterize as two
Case 3:22-md-03036-KDB Document 27 Filed 10/13/22 Page 4 of 6

threshold issues: general causation and implied preemption. In addition, Defendants propose a
limited workup of “core discovery” for certain Plaintiffs, but not on specific causation. On the
other hand, Plaintiffs propose more traditional and complete discovery, including on general and
specific causation, for a limited number of Plaintiffs.
The parties are ordered to continue to meet and confer on this issue. The parties shall set
forth the status of their efforts on this issue in their joint status report filed on or before November
2, 2022. If the parties cannot reach agreement, each party may provide a statement on their position
in the joint status report, and the Court will rule on this issue at the Second Pretrial Conference.
c. Discovery Disputes and Coordination
In order to achieve the full benefits of the MDL proceedings, this Court may coordinate
with state courts presiding over related cases. Similarly, the Court expects the parties to coordinate
on discovery and other appropriate pretrial proceedings with any related state court litigation to
avoid unnecessary duplication and inconsistency to the extent possible. The parties shall meet and
confer on the existing discovery disputes before the hearing on discovery in state court set for
November 4, 2022, discussed at the First Pretrial Conference. While the Court cannot command
Plaintiffs’ counsel’s actions as to November 4, 2022 state court hearing, the Court reiterates that
it expects full coordination on discovery among this MDL and state court proceedings, to the extent
possible. The parties shall set forth the status of their efforts on discovery disputes and
coordination in their joint status report filed on or before November 2, 2022.
d. Fact Sheets
Defendants suggest, and Plaintiffs did not oppose at the First Pretrial Conference, the early
use of fact sheets for certain information. The parties shall meet and confer on terms of these fact
sheets, related order, and the procedures to efficiently address: (1) failing to produce a Plaintiff
Case 3:22-md-03036-KDB Document 27 Filed 10/13/22 Page 5 of 6

Fact Sheet; (2) producing a deficient Plaintiff Fact Sheet; (3) failing to produce a Defendant Fact
Sheet; (4) producing a deficient Defendant Fact Sheet; and (5) assertions that a Plaintiff did not
timely file and/or exhaust her or his claims in Vaccine Court as required by law. The parties shall
set forth the status of their efforts on the fact sheets in their joint status report filed on or before
November 2, 2022.
5. ADDITIONAL MATTERS
At the First Pretrial Conference, the parties informed the Court that they are in various
stages of agreement on the below issues. The parties shall meet and confer on the following:
 Proper party order
 Wavier of service
 Direct filing order
 Protective order
 ESI order
The Parties shall set forth the status of these matters in their joint status report filed on or
before November 2, 2022.
The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation.
Signed: October 13, 2022
Case 3:22-md-03036-KDB Document 27 Filed 10/13/22 Page 6 of 6