Legal Opinion
Lilley v. Dow Chemical Co.
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided April 17, 1985No. MDL No. 381; Nos. CV-80-2284, CV-81-0991PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
WEINSTEIN, Chief Judge:
Defendant chemical companies have appealed from the Magistrate’s Order that defendants produce Drs. Emil J. Bardana, Rolf Hartung and James S. Taylor for deposition by plaintiffs in the Lilley and Hogan cases, part of the complex “Agent Orange” multidistrict litigation. Lilley v. Dow Chemical Co., CV-80-2284 (E.D.N.Y.); Hogan v. Dow Chemical Co., CV-81-0991 (E.D.N.Y.). For the reasons indicated below, the Magistrate’s Order is affirmed as modified; discovery is conditioned on plaintiffs’ payment of reasonable experts’ fees and expenses incurred in…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Marvin Jones, on His Own Behalf and on Behalf of Those Similarly Situated v. Fred R. DiamondCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
- In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1984
- Henkel v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Roesberg v. Johns-Manville Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
- Kaufman v. EdelsteinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1985
- Magee v. Paul Revere Life InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1997
- Employer's Reinsurance Corp. v. Clarendon National InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2003
- New York v. Solvent Chemical Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 2002
- In Re Agent Orange Product Liability LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2005
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.