The Lessons of Lone Pine

75 Pages Posted: 11 Nov 2019

Date Written: October 29, 2019

Abstract

Over the past three decades, Lone Pine orders have become a fixture of the mass- tort landscape. Issued in large toxic-tort cases, these case-management orders require claimants to come forward with prima facie injury, exposure, and causation evidence by a date certain — or else face an early and unceremonious dismissal. So far, the orders have been mostly heralded as an inventive and efficient way to streamline and expedite the resolution of complex cases. They are, many believe, an antidote to the assertion of dubious filings. Yet it’s not so simple. This Article identifies and analyzes various drawbacks associated with Lone Pine orders, including their inconsistent application, incompatibility with formal procedural rules, and insistence on using a binary screen to address a question that is, at bottom, insusceptible to a binary resolution. Given these problems, it ultimately concludes that courts ought to scale back their use of this potent procedural device.

But that’s just the half of it. Lone Pine orders are not just important because of what they do. They are also important because of where they sit: squarely at the intersection of broader currents that are quietly transforming contemporary civil litigation. These currents include the rapid and seemingly insatiable growth of multidistrict litigation, the durable embrace of managerial judging, the counterrevolution against federal litigation, the ever-more-preliminary disposition of claims, and both the formal and informal customization of procedural mechanisms. Weaving these seemingly disparate currents together, this study offers fresh insights to deepen — and, in places, complicate — our understanding of these profoundly influential phenomena.

Keywords: complex litigation, Lone Pine, mass tort, fraudulent claiming, ad hoc proceduralism, MDLs

Suggested Citation

Engstrom, Nora Freeman, The Lessons of Lone Pine (October 29, 2019). Yale Law Journal, Vol. 129, 2019. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3478849

Nora Freeman Engstrom (Contact Author)

Stanford Law School ( email )

559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
United States
6507368891 (Phone)

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
55
Abstract Views
167
rank
380,481
PlumX Metrics