{"id":30455,"date":"2024-03-21T16:56:44","date_gmt":"2024-03-21T16:56:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/?p=30455"},"modified":"2024-03-22T00:02:55","modified_gmt":"2024-03-22T00:02:55","slug":"camp-lejeune-lawsuit-joint-case-status-update-november-28th","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/camp-lejeune-lawsuit-joint-case-status-update-november-28th\/","title":{"rendered":"Camp Lejeune Lawsuit Joint Case Status Update (March 12th)"},"content":{"rendered":"
  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\r\n                   FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA\r\n                                SOUTHERN DIVISION\r\n                                 Case No. 7:23-cv-897\r\n\r\nIN RE:                                          )\r\n                                                )\r\nCAMP LEJEUNE WATER LITIGATION<\/a>                   )            JOINT STATUS REPORT\r\n                                                )\r\nThis Document Relates To:                       )\r\nALL CASES                                       )\r\n                                                )\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n         The Plaintiffs\u2019 Leadership Group<\/a> (the \u201cPLG\u201d), together with the Defendant United States\r\n\r\nof America (\u201cDefendant\u201d or the \u201cUnited States\u201d) (collectively, the \u201cParties\u201d), jointly file this Joint\r\n\r\nStatus Report pursuant to the Court\u2019s Minute Entry of March 5, 2024. [D.E. 154]. The matters\r\n\r\nrequired to be addressed in a Joint Status Report pursuant to Case Management Order No. 2\r\n\r\n(\u201cCMO-2\u201d) (D.E. 23) are set forth below:\r\n\r\n         (1) An update on the number and status of CLJA actions filed in the Eastern District\r\n             of North Carolina\r\n\r\n         From February 11, 2023 to March, 12 2024, 1,633 Camp Lejeune Justice Act (\u201cCLJA\u201d)\r\n\r\ncomplaints have been filed in this district. Seventeen cases have been dismissed; thirteen of those\r\n\r\nwere voluntary dismissals and the four others were pro se cases. The cases are divided as follows:\r\n\r\nJudge Dever \u2013 401 cases; Judge Myers \u2013 425 cases; Judge Boyle \u2013 392 cases; and Judge Flanagan\r\n\r\n\u2013 415 cases.\r\n\r\n         (2) An update on the number and status of administrative claims with the\r\n             Department of Navy\r\n\r\n         There are approximately 174,891 administrative claims on file with the Department of\r\n\r\nNavy (\u201cNavy\u201d). The Navy opened the CLJA claims intake portal to the public on March 1, 2024\r\n\r\nand will begin actively messaging this to the claimant population during the week of March 11,\r\n\r\n                                                    1\r\n\r\n          Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 160 Filed 03\/12\/24 Page 1 of 16\r\n\f2024, after a round of initial additions and enhancements to the portal. The Navy has loaded\r\n\r\napproximately half of the existing CLJA claims inventory into the claims management system and\r\n\r\nis currently making those claims available to law firms and pro se claimants to review and validate\r\n\r\nas Navy personnel complete initial data quality checks on those claims. The remaining half of the\r\n\r\nexisting inventory of CLJA claims inventory will be loaded into the system over the coming\r\n\r\nweeks. The Navy continues to utilize two pathways for assessing CLJA claims. Under one\r\n\r\npathway, the Navy receives fully developed claims from law firms for manual review. To date,\r\n\r\nthe Navy has received approximately 411 fully substantiated CLJA claims for review under this\r\n\r\npathway. Under the other pathway, the Navy accesses information developed through benefits\r\n\r\ndeterminations by the Veterans Administration to substantiate and settle CLJA claims. Between\r\n\r\nthe two pathways, the Navy has extended approximately 56 CLJA claim settlement offers<\/a> so far\r\n\r\nunder the Elective Option program. To date, 24 of the CLJA claim settlement offers extended by\r\n\r\nthe Navy have been accepted.\r\n\r\n       (3) An update on stipulations entered into between the Parties since the last status\r\n           conference\r\n\r\n       In an effort to facilitate the efficient production of documents, the PLG is providing the\r\n\r\ngovernment, on behalf of every Track 1 Discovery Pool Plaintiff, with a Health Insurance\r\n\r\nPortability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliant authorization form for the release of patient\r\n\r\ninformation from private third-party medical providers pursuant to 45 CFR \u00a7 164.508 (the\r\n\r\n\u201cHIPAA form\u201d). The Parties expect that a similar arrangement will be consummated for future\r\n\r\ndiscovery tracks. The government is using the HIPAA form to obtain private third-party medical\r\n\r\nrecords for discovery pool plaintiffs (the \u201cMedical Records\u201d). In addition, for every plaintiff\r\n\r\ndeposed by the government, the PLG is providing the government with a completed Social\r\n\r\nSecurity Administration SSA-7050-F4 form requesting and authorizing the release of social\r\n\r\n                                                2\r\n\r\n         Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 160 Filed 03\/12\/24 Page 2 of 16\r\n\fsecurity earning information (\u201cSocial Security Records\u201d). The Parties have engaged in\r\n\r\nnegotiations concerning the terms of a stipulation which would require the government to provide\r\n\r\nthe PLG with all Medical Records and Social Security Records generated as a result of the above-\r\n\r\ndescribed authorization forms. The Parties have not achieved an agreement on this stipulation yet.\r\n\r\n       (4) A summary of the discovery conducted since the last status conference:\r\n\r\n        The Parties have agreed to file separate summaries of the discovery conducted since the\r\n\r\nlast status conference. The Parties\u2019 respective summaries appear below:\r\n\r\n       The PLG\u2019s Position:\r\n\r\n       The PLG continues to dedicate significant time and resources to conducting discovery in\r\n\r\nthis matter, and the PLG is committed to taking all actions necessary to meet the deadlines set\r\n\r\nforth in the Court\u2019s various scheduling orders. There are several discovery disagreements that the\r\n\r\nParties are actively discussing in an effort to avoid motions practice. While the PLG is hopeful\r\n\r\nthat these issues can be resolved informally, these various disagreements are identified below.\r\n\r\nATSDR Health Effects Project File\r\n\r\n       During prior Status Conferences, the Parties have discussed the PLG\u2019s Motion to Compel\r\n\r\nDocument Production in Response to Corrected First Set of Request for Production [D.E. 81] and\r\n\r\nthe government\u2019s Cross-Motion for Protective Order. [D.E. 93]. In an effort to resolve this\r\n\r\ndiscovery dispute, the Parties engaged in multiple meet-and-confer videoconferences and\r\n\r\nexchanged several letters. The Parties\u2019 discussions resulted in material, constructive progress.\r\n\r\nHowever, there were three issues upon which the Parties could not reach agreement: (a) the\r\n\r\nATSDR\u2019s water modeling project file, (b) certain digitized muster rolls, and (c) the ATSDR\u2019s\r\n\r\nhealth effects project file. The final issue, involving the ATSDR\u2019s health effects project file, has\r\n\r\nnot been briefed with the Court yet.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                                 3\r\n\r\n         Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 160 Filed 03\/12\/24 Page 3 of 16\r\n\f       As to the health effects project file, the ATSDR studied the impacts to human health of the\r\n\r\nchemicals identified in the groundwater at Camp Lejeune. As a result, the ATSDR created a health\r\n\r\neffects project file. Some data that makes up the health effects project file may be subject to\r\n\r\ncontractual or statutory confidentiality protections. During a meet and confer on March 6, 2024,\r\n\r\nthe PLG indicated that it will provide the government with written inquiries concerning this health\r\n\r\neffects project file along with a request that the inquires be forward to the ATSDR for response.\r\n\r\nThe PLG hopes that the ATSDR will respond to these inquiries, and further, the PLG believes that\r\n\r\nsuch responses may assist the Parties with finding a solution to the production of the health effects\r\n\r\nproject file. Unfortunately, however, the government has not committed to sharing responses by\r\n\r\nthe ATSDR to these inquiries.\r\n\r\nDepositions\r\n\r\n       The Parties are presently engaged in depositions related to Track 1. Several issues have\r\n\r\narisen during these depositions, and the Parties are engaged in discussions to resolve these issues.\r\n\r\n       The government has requested dates for the depositions of numerous treating providers for\r\n\r\nthe Track 1 Plaintiffs. In several instances, the government has requested the depositions of\r\n\r\nmultiple treating providers for each Track 1 Plaintiff. In at least one prominent example, the\r\n\r\ngovernment requested the depositions four separate treating providers for a single Track 1 Plaintiff.\r\n\r\nThe volume of these depositions is unnecessary. In general, Case Management Order No. 2\r\n\r\nprovides that \u201c[a]ny medical records from an individual Plaintiff\u2019s private health care providers\r\n\r\nare self-authenticating and admissible.\u201d [D.E. 23, at p 8]. Since the government has access to these\r\n\r\nmedical records, there should be little need to take the depositions of such a vast number of treating\r\n\r\nproviders. This is an especially important issue because of the numerous complexities involved\r\n\r\nwith arranging depositions for treating providers. During a meet and confer on March 5, 2024, the\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                                  4\r\n\r\n         Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 160 Filed 03\/12\/24 Page 4 of 16\r\n\fPLG indicated that many of these treating physician depositions may be unnecessary, and the\r\n\r\nParties tentatively agreed to a procedure whereby the PLG will raise concerns about treating\r\n\r\nphysician depositions and the government will consider these concerns and, where appropriate,\r\n\r\nwithdraw the request for the treating physician deposition.\r\n\r\n        The government has requested the depositions of several third-party witnesses, such as the\r\n\r\nspouses of Track 1 Discovery Pool Plaintiffs. The government has issued several subpoenas that\r\n\r\npotentially request communications subject to the spousal privilege, would require extensive\r\n\r\nsearches for electronically stored information, or may otherwise be objectionable. The Parties held\r\n\r\na meet and confer on March 5, 2024 to discuss these issues, and the PLG hopes that this dispute\r\n\r\ncan be resolved without intervention by the Court.\r\n\r\nThe Government\u2019s Failure to Produce Plaintiffs\u2019 Own Documents\r\n\r\n        The PLG has learned that, in preparing for Track 1 Discovery Pool Plaintiff depositions,\r\n\r\nthe government is relying upon the VA medical records of individual plaintiffs, yet these medical\r\n\r\nrecords have not been produced by the government to the PLG. Indeed, the government possesses\r\n\r\nseveral categories of records which should be freely produced to Track 1 Plaintiffs, including (a)\r\n\r\nVA medical records, (b) Social Security records, and (c) military records. The PLG has addressed\r\n\r\nthe unfairness of this situation during several meet and confers with the government. The PLG\u2019s\r\n\r\nposition is that these documents have been requested in discovery, these are the plaintiffs\u2019 own\r\n\r\nrecords, and that it is neither fair nor consistent with the discovery rules for the government to craft\r\n\r\ndeposition examinations of individual plaintiffs using the plaintiffs\u2019 own records that have already\r\n\r\nbeen requested but not produced in discovery.\r\n\r\n        In response to the PLG\u2019s stated concerns, the government sent an email stating that, where\r\n\r\nplaintiffs have signed certain consent forms, the government will produce these documents on the\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                                   5\r\n\r\n         Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 160 Filed 03\/12\/24 Page 5 of 16\r\n\fWednesday during the week before an individual plaintiff\u2019s deposition. The PLG requested that\r\n\r\nthis commitment be included in a formal stipulation. Surprisingly, the government initially refused,\r\n\r\nalthough the government has now indicated an openness to a formal stipulation on this issue, and\r\n\r\nthe Parties will work toward formal agreement.\r\n\r\n       Further, the PLG believes that it should not be necessary for individual plaintiffs to execute\r\n\r\nconsent forms to receive their own documents that have been requested by the plaintiff\u2019s own\r\n\r\nlawyers. While some plaintiffs can easily execute a consent form, many plaintiffs are elderly and\r\n\r\nstruggle with the procedures required by the government for execution of a consent form. This\r\n\r\nissue has significant practical implications. For example, during a recent Track 1 Plaintiff\r\n\r\ndeposition, a government lawyer possessed the plaintiff\u2019s VA documents but refused to provide\r\n\r\nthe same at the deposition because the plaintiff\u2019s consent form was not properly executed. When\r\n\r\nthe PLG\u2019s lawyer handed the government\u2019s lawyer a properly executed consent form, the\r\n\r\ngovernment\u2019s lawyer nonetheless refused to produce the VA documents during the deposition.\r\n\r\n       Hence, in due course, the PLG intends to seek relief from the Court to ensure that plaintiffs\u2019\r\n\r\nown files, which are possessed by the government and have been formally requested in discovery,\r\n\r\nare produced without need for further unnecessary authorizations.\r\n\r\nPrivilege Logs\r\n\r\n       On January 8, 2024, the PLG inspected certain physical documents possessed by the\r\n\r\nATSDR in Chamblee, Georgia (the \u201cATSDR Inspection\u201d). During the ATSDR Inspection, the\r\n\r\ngovernment withheld documents on the basis of privilege. To date, the government has not\r\n\r\nprovided a privilege log as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.\r\n\r\n       During meet and confer videoconferences held on March 1 and 6, 2024, the PLG raised\r\n\r\nthis privilege log issue with the government. On March 6, 2024, the government took the position\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                                 6\r\n\r\n         Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 160 Filed 03\/12\/24 Page 6 of 16\r\n\fthat the PLG waived its request for a privilege log related to the ATSDR Inspection due to a\r\n\r\nproposal set forth in the PLG\u2019s letter of January 8, 2024. However, the PLG\u2019s letter of January 8\r\n\r\nexplicitly reserved all objections to privilege log issues: \u201cFor clarity, this arrangement would not\r\n\r\nobviate the government\u2019s production of documents responsive to the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth\r\n\r\nSets of Request for Production, and other ongoing supplementations already agreed too. For\r\n\r\ninstance, the production of muster rolls would still be expected, and the PLG would still contend\r\n\r\nthat the government\u2019s privilege logs are deficient.\u201d (The PLG\u2019s Letter of 1\/8\/24, at p 7\r\n\r\n(emphasis added)).\r\n\r\nDocument Repository\r\n\r\n       During a videoconference on March 11, 2024, the PLG indicated that it believes that a\r\n\r\ncentral repository should be created at which discovery pool plaintiffs\u2019 original documents should\r\n\r\nbe stored. This repository would be used to store unique original items such as photographs, year\r\n\r\nbooks, etc. The PLG anticipates proposing an Order for the Court\u2019s consideration.\r\n\r\nPretrial Conference on Discovery\r\n\r\n       On March 7, 2024, the PLG filed a Notice of Filing of the PLG\u2019s Proposed Track 2\r\n\r\nScheduling Order (the \u201cNotice\u201d). [D.E. 155]. In that Notice, the PLG requested a Fed. R. Civ. P.\r\n\r\n16 pretrial conference for purposes of discussing procedures that would significantly reduce the\r\n\r\nscope and expense of discovery and trials and thereby speed up this litigation and promote a global\r\n\r\nresolution.\r\n\r\n       The PLG has dedicated substantial time and resources to the discovery process, including\r\n\r\nboth paper discovery and depositions. The PLG believes that discovery is progressing at a\r\n\r\nreasonable pace and that the Parties will be able to meet all deadlines set forth in Case Management\r\n\r\nOrder No. 2.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                                 7\r\n\r\n         Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 160 Filed 03\/12\/24 Page 7 of 16\r\n\f       United States\u2019 Position:\r\n\r\n       The United States continues to provide rolling productions of documents in response to\r\n\r\nPlaintiffs\u2019 discovery requests. Just this week, the United States will be producing more than 1\r\n\r\nmillion pages of documents to Plaintiffs. The United States is continuing to produce any agency\r\n\r\nrecords the Department of Justice possesses relating to individual Plaintiffs by Wednesday of the\r\n\r\nweek prior to any individual Plaintiff\u2019s deposition, so long as the Plaintiffs have provided the\r\n\r\nUnited States with properly executed releases.\r\n\r\nMuster Rolls:\r\n\r\n       As noted in the Court\u2019s March 8, 2024 Order denying Plaintiffs motion to compel\r\n\r\nproduction of the digitized muster rolls and database at issue in that motion, the United States\r\n\r\nremains \u201ccommitted to producing the existing digitized muster rolls and related database in its\r\n\r\npossession by the end of March 2024.\u201d ECF No. 157 at 1.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nATSDR Water Modeling Project Files:\r\n\r\n       The United States continues to produce water modeling project files pursuant to the ESI\r\n\r\nProtocol on a rolling basis. The United States is still on track to complete production of these files\r\n\r\nby March 27, 2024 and will comply with the Court\u2019s Order of March 12, 2024 [D.E. 159].\r\n\r\nATSDR Health Effects Studies Project Files:\r\n\r\n       The Parties continue to work toward agreement regarding the production of the ATSDR\u2019s\r\n\r\nhealth effects studies project files. Some of the health effects studies project files are subject to\r\n\r\nstringent statutory and contractual prohibitions against production of certain data within the project\r\n\r\nfiles. The Parties are working on reaching an agreement regarding these files. The United States is\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                                  8\r\n\r\n         Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 160 Filed 03\/12\/24 Page 8 of 16\r\n\fsimultaneously working to process and produce non-implicated health effects project files pursuant\r\n\r\nto the ESI Protocol on a rolling basis.\r\n\r\nProduction of Plaintiff Documents\r\n\r\n          The United States has committed to making reasonable efforts to producing documents of\r\n\r\nindividual plaintiffs within its possession by the Wednesday before the week of the individual\r\n\r\nPlaintiff\u2019s deposition, assuming the United States has the proper releases from the individual\r\n\r\nPlaintiff. The United States is prioritizing production of these documents pursuant to the document\r\n\r\nproduction protocol, along with all of the other agency records that the United States is producing\r\n\r\nto PLG in response to PLG\u2019s expansive discovery requests. The United States has represented to\r\n\r\nPLG that it would be willing put language to this effect in a stipulation, and has provided a revised\r\n\r\nstipulation to PLG. The parties also agreed documents can be produced in native format, to be\r\n\r\ncured in a later production compliant with ESI procedures, in the event of unforeseen technical\r\n\r\nissues.\r\n\r\n          The United States is further committed to producing documents to PLG pursuant to an\r\n\r\nappropriately executed Department of Veteran Affairs\u2019 (VA) release. Title 38, Section 7332 of the\r\n\r\nUnited States Code covers the confidentiality of VA health records relating to drug abuse,\r\n\r\nalcoholism or alcohol abuse, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), or sickle cell anemia. On\r\n\r\nDecember 8, 2023, the PLG agreed to provide the United States with VA 10-5345 medical releases\r\n\r\nsigned by the patient, or if the patient is deceased, the representative of the patient\u2019s estate. This\r\n\r\nsignature can be an electronic \u201c\/s\/patient name\u201d so long as it is accompanied by an affidavit\r\n\r\nverifying the veracity of the signature on the VA 10-5345 form. In late January of 2024, the United\r\n\r\nStates identified for PLG the handful of VA 10-5345 medical releases that were improperly\r\n\r\nexecuted with attorney signatures. In fact, in the example PLG apparently cites, the United States\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                                  9\r\n\r\n           Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 160 Filed 03\/12\/24 Page 9 of 16\r\n\fgave PLG notice of the defective release on two occasions in advance of the deposition. When\r\n\r\nplaintiff\u2019s attorney finally presented a proper release on the morning of the deposition, he expected\r\n\r\nthe Department attorney to stop the deposition and immediately arrange for a production. The\r\n\r\nDepartment attorney proceeded with the deposition pursuant to the deposition notice and protocol.\r\n\r\nThe United States cannot agree to PLG\u2019s request to amend the process that the VA requires for\r\n\r\nreleasing medical records in accordance with 38 U.S.C. \u00a7 7332. PLG should be able to easily\r\n\r\nremedy the few releases that were improperly executed by providing the \u201c\/s\/ patient name\u201d in the\r\n\r\npatient signature box in place of the \u201c\/s\/ attorney name\u201d in that box.\r\n\r\nDepositions\r\n\r\n       As of March 12, 2024, the United States has requested dates for 99 depositions of Track 1\r\n\r\nDiscovery Plaintiffs, scheduled 95 of those depositions, and taken 66 of those depositions. The\r\n\r\nUnited States has also requested dates for 51 fact witness and treating physician depositions, has\r\n\r\nscheduled 24 of those depositions, and taken 2 of those depositions. We have assigned detailees to\r\n\r\ntake many of these fact witness depositions.\r\n\r\n       Plaintiffs have raised a general objection to the scope of third-party subpoenas the United\r\n\r\nStates has serving for third-party witness depositions. Plaintiffs express their position that certain\r\n\r\ntopics are appropriate for questioning, but not appropriate from a subpoena standpoint. Plaintiffs\r\n\r\nagreed to circulate proposed language limiting the scope of third-party subpoenas for the United\r\n\r\nStates to consider. While seeking this resolution, the United States agreed it will not argue that a\r\n\r\nfailure to object within deadlines of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by Plaintiffs is a waiver\r\n\r\nof the objections to third-party subpoenas served thus far.\r\n\r\n       The parties also discussed the United States\u2019 requests for depositions of plaintiff\u2019s treating\r\n\r\nphysicians. Plaintiffs raised concerned about the number of treating physician depositions being\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                                 10\r\n\r\n         Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 160 Filed 03\/12\/24 Page 10 of 16\r\n\frequested and sought a limit of such requests. The parties agreed that, if the United States seeks to\r\n\r\ndepose a treating physician that plaintiffs believe that the physician does not to be deposed,\r\n\r\nPlaintiffs will notify the United States, explain why, and seek agreement. Plaintiffs also stated a\r\n\r\nwillingness to stipulating that a treating physician will not be called at trial if Plaintiffs request a\r\n\r\nphysician need not be deposed. With respect to the example PLG provided in which the United\r\n\r\nStates initially requested four treating physician depositions, the United States subsequently\r\n\r\nwithdrew two of those requests. The United States expressed its position that it is within the United\r\n\r\nStates\u2019 discretion within the limits of the Federal Rules, local rules, and applicable case\r\n\r\nmanagement orders, to take the depositions deemed appropriate for this litigation. The United\r\n\r\nStates has a need to prepare these cases fully with the assumption that any one of the Track 1 cases\r\n\r\ncould be selected for a bellwether trial. No defendant would limit itself to relying on plaintiff\r\n\r\nmedical records without witness testimony in defending a toxic tort personal injury case.\r\n\r\n        Plaintiffs expressed concern about the United States\u2019 deposition questions regarding the\r\n\r\nElective Option and any fees and suggested that they are barred by the attorney-client\r\n\r\nprivilege. The United States will reserve its right to seek appropriate relief from the Court over\r\n\r\nwhether the information is privileged if the plaintiff is instructed not to answer.\r\n\r\n        Privilege Log\r\n\r\n        PLG had asked the United States to provide a privilege log for documents that the\r\n\r\ngovernment withheld on the basis of privilege during an inspection at ATSDR offices. The United\r\n\r\nStates understood that PLG agreed that this ATSDR production had been superseded by an\r\n\r\nagreement of the parties. On January 8, 2024, the same day of the inspection, PLG proposed to\r\n\r\nthe United States by letter that the United States produce the ATSDR\u2019s \u201cwater modeling\u201d and\r\n\r\n\u201chealth effects\u201d complete project files, logging any documents removed from those files for\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                                  11\r\n\r\n         Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 160 Filed 03\/12\/24 Page 11 of 16\r\n\fprivilege. PLG represented that \u201cIf the government commits to making such a production within\r\n\r\na reasonable period of time, the PLG will agree that the said production satisfies Request No. 8\r\n\r\nwithin the Corrected First Set of Request for Production and Request Nos. 1-7 within the Second\r\n\r\nSet of Request for Production.\u201d The United States has committed to producing the water modeling\r\n\r\nproject files and the health effects project files in their entirety, save for any privileged documents\r\n\r\nthat are identified prior to production. The United States will be providing privilege logs for any\r\n\r\nsuch documents. The reference to the alleged \u201cdeficient privilege logs\u201d from PLG\u2019s January 8,\r\n\r\n2024, letter refers to those produced as part of the FTCA litigation, which the parties have\r\n\r\ndiscussed with the Court previously, not any new privilege log to which PLG claims it is entitled\r\n\r\nto as a result of the January 8, 2024 inspection at ATSDR\u2019s offices. Accordingly, the United States\r\n\r\nis complying with PLG\u2019s proposal, and further production of documents from ATDSR, or any\r\n\r\nrelated privilege logs, is therefore unnecessary.\r\n\r\n       Pretrial Conferences\r\n\r\n       The United States welcomes further conferences with the Court at the appropriate time to\r\n\r\ndiscuss motions practice and trial procedure. One issue that the United States believes should be\r\n\r\naddressed soon is how to handle Track 1 trials for plaintiffs alleging multiple injuries. The United\r\n\r\nStates has expressed concern to PLG about trying cases of plaintiffs with multiple injuries,\r\n\r\nparticularly those alleging that other (non-track 1) injuries were independently caused by the\r\n\r\nalleged contaminated water at issue. Plaintiffs agreed to collect and circulate data showing how\r\n\r\nmany plaintiffs are in this category and the parties agreed to discuss this issue further. The United\r\n\r\nStates does not believe that any individual cases should be expedited to trial, but that cases should\r\n\r\nprogress through the procedures established by the Court\u2019s orders for fact and expert discovery.\r\n\r\n       (5) Update on individual and global settlement efforts:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                                    12\r\n\r\n         Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 160 Filed 03\/12\/24 Page 12 of 16\r\n\f       As of March 12, 2024, the Torts Branch has determined that fifty (50) cases in litigation\r\n\r\nmeet the Elective Option (\u201cEO\u201d) criteria through documentary verification. The case breakdown\r\n\r\nby injury includes: 14 Bladder Cancer, 12 Kidney Cancer, 10 non-Hodgkin\u2019s Lymphoma, 5\r\n\r\nKidney Disease, 4 Parkinson\u2019s Disease, 3 Leukemia and 2 Multiple Myeloma. Eighteen\r\n\r\n(18) offers have been accepted by plaintiffs on 5 cases of Bladder Cancer ($150,000; $150,000;\r\n\r\n$300,000; $300,00; $450,000), 3 cases of Kidney Disease (End Stage Renal Disease) ($250,000;\r\n\r\n$100,000; $100,000), 5 cases of Kidney Cancer ($300,000; $300,000; $300,00; $300,000;\r\n\r\n$150,000), 2 cases of non-Hodgkin\u2019s Lymphoma ($150,000; $150,000), 1 case of Multiple\r\n\r\nMyeloma ($250,000), and 2 cases of Parkinson\u2019s Disease ($400,000; $100,000). Nine (9) offers\r\n\r\nwere rejected by plaintiffs, including 4 cases of Bladder Cancer, 2 cases of Kidney Cancer, 1 case\r\n\r\nof Multiple Myeloma, 1 case of Kidney Disease, and 1 case of Parkinson\u2019s Disease. Ten (10)\r\n\r\noffers have expired, including 3 cases of Kidney Cancer, 3 cases of non-Hodgkin\u2019s Lymphoma, 3\r\n\r\ncases of Bladder Cancer and 1 case of Leukemia. The other thirteen (13) settlement offers are\r\n\r\npending.\r\n\r\n       Further, the DOJ has approved offers for fifty-nine (59) claimants in reliance on\r\n\r\ninformation provided by the Navy. Twenty-four (24) settlement offers have been accepted. Two\r\n\r\n(2) offers have been rejected. Nineteen (25) offers have expired, and the other eight (8) offers are\r\n\r\npending.\r\n\r\n       Payments have been sent for eight accepted settlements offers made by the Navy and seven\r\n\r\naccepted settlement offers from DOJ, totaling $3,600,000. Five cases of Bladder Cancer resulted\r\n\r\nin two payments of $300,000 and three payments of $150,000. Four cases of Leukemia resulted in\r\n\r\nthree payments of $300,000 and one payment of $150,000. Two cases of non-Hodgkin\u2019s\r\n\r\nLymphoma resulted in a $300,000 payment and a $150,000 payment. Two cases of Parkinson\u2019s\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                                13\r\n\r\n        Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 160 Filed 03\/12\/24 Page 13 of 16\r\n\fDisease resulted in a $400,000 and a $250,000 payment. One case of Kidney Cancer resulted in a\r\n\r\n$300,000 payment. One case of Kidney Disease resulted in a $100,000 payment.\r\n\r\n       The Parties have had several preliminary discussions regarding the possibility of a global\r\n\r\nresolution of claims that remain in the administrative and legal processes. The Parties continue to\r\n\r\nnegotiate a resolution questionnaire and resolution roadmap. On January 16, 2024, the parties\r\n\r\njointly recommended Tom Perrelli of Jenner & Block to serve as Special Settlement Master. The\r\n\r\nparties are awaiting further direction from the Court regarding appointment of a Special Settlement\r\n\r\nMaster.\r\n\r\n       (6) Any other issues that the parties wish to raise with the Court:\r\n\r\n       At present, the Parties have filed the following motions that are ripe for decision: (a) the\r\n\r\nPLG\u2019s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Specific Causation [D.E. 110], and\r\n\r\n(b) the PLG\u2019s Motion to Certify for Appeal the Order Granting Defendant\u2019s Motion to Strike the\r\n\r\nDemand for a Jury Trial [D.E. 137].\r\n\r\n                                [Signatures follow on next page]\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                                14\r\n\r\n          Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 160 Filed 03\/12\/24 Page 14 of 16\r\n\fDATED this 12th day of March 2024.\r\n\r\nRespectfully submitted,\r\n\r\n\/s\/ J. Edward Bell, III                            BRIAN M. BOYNTON\r\nJ. Edward Bell, III (admitted pro hac vice)        Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General\r\nBell Legal Group, LLC                              Civil Division\r\n219 Ridge St.\r\nGeorgetown, SC 29440                               J. PATRICK GLYNN\r\nTelephone: (843) 546-2408                          Director, Torts Branch\r\njeb@belllegalgroup.com                             Environmental Torts Litigation Section\r\nLead Counsel for Plaintiffs\r\n                                                   BRIDGET BAILEY LIPSCOMB\r\n\/s\/ Zina Bash                                      Assistant Director, Torts Branch\r\nZina Bash (admitted pro hac vice)                  Environmental Torts Litigation Section\r\nKeller Postman LLC\r\n111 Congress Avenue, Ste. 500                      \/s\/ Adam Bain\r\nAustin, TX 78701                                   ADAM BAIN\r\nTelephone: 956-345-9462                            Special Litigation Counsel\r\nzina.bash@kellerpostman.com                        Environmental Torts Litigation Section\r\nCo-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs                     U.S. Department of Justice\r\nand Government Liaison                             P.O. Box 340, Ben Franklin Station\r\n                                                   Washington, D.C. 20044\r\n\/s\/ Robin Greenwald                                E-mail: adam.bain@usdoj.gov\r\nRobin L. Greenwald (admitted pro hac vice)         Telephone: (202) 616-4209\r\nWeitz & Luxenberg, P.C.\r\n700 Broadway                                       LACRESHA A. JOHNSON\r\nNew York, NY 10003                                 HAROON ANWAR\r\nTelephone: 212-558-5802                            DANIEL C. EAGLES\r\nrgreenwald@weitzlux.com                            NATHAN J. BU\r\nCo-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs                     Trial Attorneys, Torts Branch\r\n                                                   Environmental Torts Litigation Section\r\n\/s\/ Elizabeth Cabraser                             Counsel for Defendant United States of\r\nElizabeth Cabraser (admitted pro hac vice)         America\r\nLIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &\r\n  BERNSTEIN, LLP\r\n275 Battery Street, Suite 2900\r\nSan Francisco, CA 94111\r\nPhone (415) 956-1000\r\necabraser@lchb.com\r\nCo-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                              15\r\n\r\n        Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 160 Filed 03\/12\/24 Page 15 of 16\r\n\f\/s\/ W. Michael Dowling\r\nW. Michael Dowling (NC Bar No. 42790)\r\nThe Dowling Firm PLLC\r\nPost Office Box 27843\r\nRaleigh, North Carolina 27611\r\nTelephone: (919) 529-3351\r\nmike@dowlingfirm.com\r\nCo-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs\r\n\r\n\/s\/ James A. Roberts, III\r\nJames A. Roberts, III (N.C. Bar No.: 10495)\r\nLewis & Roberts, PLLC\r\n3700 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 410\r\nP. O. Box 17529\r\nRaleigh, NC 27619-7529\r\nTelephone: (919) 981-0191\r\nFax: (919) 981-0199\r\njar@lewis-roberts.com\r\nCo-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs\r\n\r\n\/s\/ Mona Lisa Wallace\r\nMona Lisa Wallace (N.C. Bar No.: 009021)\r\nWallace & Graham, P.A.\r\n525 North Main Street\r\nSalisbury, North Carolina 28144\r\nTel: 704-633-5244\r\nCo-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                              16\r\n\r\n        Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 160 Filed 03\/12\/24 Page 16 of 16<\/pre>\n
 <\/p>\n
 <\/p>\n
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<\/p>\n
gov.uscourts.nced.201345.60.0<\/a><\/pre>\n
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\r\n                    FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA\r\n                                 SOUTHERN DIVISION\r\n                                  Case No. 7:23-cv-897\r\n\r\nIN RE:                                           )\r\n                                                 )\r\nCAMP LEJEUNE WATER LITIGATION                    )             JOINT STATUS REPORT\r\n                                                 )\r\nThis Document Relates To:                        )\r\nALL CASES                                        )\r\n                                                 )\r\n\r\n         Plaintiffs\u2019 Lead and Co-Lead Counsel (\u201cPlaintiffs\u201d), together with the Defendant United\r\n\r\nStates of America (\u201cDefendant\u201d or the \u201cUnited States\u201d) (collectively, the \u201cParties\u201d), jointly file\r\n\r\nthis Joint Status Report pursuant to Case Management Order No. 2, where the Court ordered the\r\n\r\nParties to submit a joint status report five days before any status conference. (D.E. 23). The matters\r\n\r\nrequired to be addressed prior to each status conference are set forth below:\r\n\r\n         (1) An update on the number and status of CLJA actions filed in the Eastern District\r\n             of North Carolina\r\n\r\n         From February 11, 2023 to November 27, 2023, 1433 CLJA complaints have been filed in\r\n\r\nthis district. Fourteen cases have been dismissed; eleven of those were voluntary dismissals and\r\n\r\nthe three others were pro se cases. The cases are divided as follows: Judge Dever \u2013 357 cases;\r\n\r\nJudge Myers \u2013 370 cases; Judge Boyle \u2013 343 cases; and Judge Flanagan \u2013363 cases.\r\n\r\n         (2) An update on the number and status of administrative claims with the\r\n             Department of Navy\r\n\r\n         There are approximately 131,697 administrative claims on file with the Navy. The Navy is\r\n\r\nsetting up a database that it says will significantly expedite efforts and will allow it to intake claims,\r\n\r\norganize claims, and analyze claims for purposes of making decisions on claims. The Navy has\r\n\r\nentered a Memorandum of Understanding with the Veterans Administration (VA) that will allow\r\n\r\nthe Navy to gain access to the VA database to obtain information to evaluate claims. The Navy\r\n\r\n                                                     1\r\n\r\n           Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 60 Filed 11\/28\/23 Page 1 of 12\r\n\fintends to continue communications with Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel to coordinate procedures for obtaining\r\n\r\ninformation to evaluate claims. While the Navy has not yet shown progress on this front, a call\r\n\r\nwith counsel from a firm representing a substantial number of claimants is scheduled for\r\n\r\nNovember 30, 2023.\r\n\r\n       (3) An update on stipulations entered into between the Parties since the last status\r\n           conference\r\n\r\n       The parties have not proposed or entered any stipulations since the last status conference.\r\n\r\nThe United States will be proposing stipulations based on its Answer to Plaintiffs\u2019 Master\r\n\r\nComplaint, filed on November 20, 2023. [D.E. 50] Plaintiffs are also evaluating which additional\r\n\r\nstipulations to propose in light of that Answer.\r\n\r\n       (4) A summary of the discovery conducted since the last status conference\r\n\r\n       The Parties have agreed to file separate summaries of the discovery conducted since the\r\n\r\nlast status conference. The Parties\u2019 respective summaries appear below:\r\n\r\n       Plaintiffs\u2019 Position:\r\n\r\nDocument Production\r\n\r\n       Plaintiffs\u2019 First Set of Requests for Production was served on September 30, 2023 (the\r\n\r\n\u201cFirst Requests\u201d).1 On October 29, 2023, Defendant\u2019s Response to the First Requests was served\r\n\r\n(the \u201cResponse to First Requests\u201d). Defendant produced certain documents in response to\r\n\r\nPlaintiffs\u2019 First Requests on October 31, November 6, November 17, November 20 and November\r\n\r\n21, 2023. Additionally, Defendant produced certain privilege logs on November 1, 2023.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n1\r\n For purposes of correcting a few typographical errors, Plaintiffs served a Corrected First Set of\r\nRequests for Production on October 4, 2023. The corrections were non-substantive, and the Parties\r\nagreed that the deadline for Defendant\u2019s responses would be calculated based upon the service\r\ndate of the initial discovery requests.\r\n                                                   2\r\n\r\n          Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 60 Filed 11\/28\/23 Page 2 of 12\r\n\f       Unfortunately, Defendant\u2019s document production in response to the First Requests is far\r\n\r\nfrom complete. For instance, Defendant has not produced all documents in response to at least the\r\n\r\nfollowing individually numbered requests within the First Requests: Request Nos. 2, 11, 13, 15,\r\n\r\n16, and 17. In addition to the foregoing, substantial categories of electronically stored information\r\n\r\n(\u201cESI\u201d) will be produced by Defendant only after the parties complete a meet-and-confer\r\n\r\nconference.\r\n\r\n       Defendant has failed to indicate that it will produce all documents and ESI responsive to\r\n\r\nthe First Requests within a reasonable time. In fact, Defendant has projected that the production\r\n\r\nof responsive documents and ESI may not occur until \u201cthe completion of fact discovery.\u201d Plaintiffs\r\n\r\ncontend that this projection that documents and ESI will be produced at some indefinite time before\r\n\r\n\u201cthe completion of fact discovery\u201d fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It\r\n\r\nprejudices Plaintiffs\u2019 efforts to select individual plaintiffs for the Discovery Pool and prepare cases\r\n\r\nfor trial. In fact, at the most recent Status Conference on November 21, 2023, Plaintiffs provided\r\n\r\nthe Court with case law establishing that Defendant\u2019s refusal to provide a concrete document-\r\n\r\nproduction timeline fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). See NOA, LLC v. Khoury,\r\n\r\nNo. 5:14-CV-114, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112108, at *17 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 23, 2016).\r\n\r\n       Plaintiffs are concerned that Defendant has declined to produce a new, unpublished Agency\r\n\r\nfor Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (\u201cATSDR\u201d) report related to cancer rates on Camp\r\n\r\nLejeune, which was referenced in a recent article published by Reuters on November 10, 2023,\r\n\r\nand which Defendant has acknowledged.2 If this study is not produced promptly, Plaintiffs will\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n2\r\n  M.B. Pell, Unpublished Study Finds Elevated Cancer Rates at US Military Base, Reuters,\r\navailable at https:\/\/www.reuters.com\/world\/us\/unpublished-study-finds-elevated-cancer-rates-us-\r\nmilitary-base-2023-11-10 (accessed on November 27, 2023).\r\n                                                  3\r\n\r\n          Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 60 Filed 11\/28\/23 Page 3 of 12\r\n\flikely initiate the protocol for discovery disputes established by the Court on November 21, 2023.\r\n\r\n[D.E. 55]\r\n\r\n       In addition to the above-discussed First Requests, Plaintiffs have issued the following\r\n\r\nadditional document production requests: (a) Plaintiffs\u2019 Second Set of Requests for Production\r\n\r\nwas served on October 29, 2023, and Defendant\u2019s response is due on November 28, 2023; (b)\r\n\r\nPlaintiffs\u2019 Third Set of Requests for Production was served on November 3, 2023, and Defendant\u2019s\r\n\r\nresponse is due on December 4, 2023; (c) Plaintiffs\u2019 Fourth Set of Requests for Production was\r\n\r\nserved on November 24, 2023, and Defendant\u2019s response is due on December 27, 2023; and (d)\r\n\r\nPlaintiffs\u2019 Fifth Request for Production was served on November 28, 2023, and Defendant\u2019s\r\n\r\nresponse is due on December 28, 2023.\r\n\r\nStatus of ESI\r\n\r\n       On November 21, 2023, the Court entered a Stipulated Order Establishing Protocol for\r\n\r\nDocument Collection and Production (Case Management Order No. 8), which included an ESI\r\n\r\nProtocol. [D.E. 52] Pursuant that that Order, the parties exchanged lists of proposed ESI custodians\r\n\r\nand search terms on November 27, 2023, and the parties scheduled a meeting concerning the\r\n\r\nproduction of ESI for December 4, 2023. After ESI custodians and search terms are identified, the\r\n\r\nparties agree that Defendant will be producing ESI in response to several of Plaintiffs\u2019 discovery\r\n\r\nrequests, including the First Requests.\r\n\r\nNotices of Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions\r\n\r\n       Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), Plaintiffs have noticed the following depositions of the\r\n\r\nUnited States\u2019 agencies: (1) United States Marine Corp for November 30, 2023; (2) Agency for\r\n\r\nToxic Substances and Disease Registry for December 5, 2023; and (3) Department of Veterans\r\n\r\nAffairs for December 6, 2023.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                                 4\r\n\r\n            Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 60 Filed 11\/28\/23 Page 4 of 12\r\n\f        Defendant has objected to certain examination topics identified by Plaintiffs. However,\r\n\r\nPlaintiffs fully complied with the Stipulated Rule 30 Deposition Protocol (Case Management\r\n\r\nOrder No. 3) approved by this Court on October 23, 2023. [D.E. 28] In that protocol, the parties\r\n\r\nagreed as follows:\r\n\r\n                No Party shall serve a notice of deposition until after the scheduling\r\n                of the deposition has been discussed during the weekly call and the\r\n                parties have reached agreement, or exhausted reasonable efforts to\r\n                reach agreement, o the location, date and time for the deposition.\r\n\r\n[D.E. 28, at \u00b6 3.b.]\r\n\r\n        As required, Plaintiffs and Defendant agreed to the dates, times and locations for these\r\n\r\ndepositions. Furthermore, Plaintiffs actually exceeded the requirements of the Stipulated Rule 30\r\n\r\nDeposition Protocol by providing draft deposition notices with examination topics on October 20\r\n\r\nand October 27, 2023. Defendant claims, however, that Plaintiffs\u2019 final notices of deposition\r\n\r\ncontain deposition topics which are different from the draft notices. Nothing in the Stipulated Rule\r\n\r\n30 Deposition Protocol or Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(b)(6) required that the parties agree to all examination\r\n\r\ntopics prior to service of a deposition notice, furthermore, the topics in the final notices of\r\n\r\ndeposition are substantially similar to the drafts provided to Defendant on October 20 and October\r\n\r\n27, 2023. In any event, the parties held a meet-and-confer on November 28, 2023. During that\r\n\r\nmeet-and-confer, Plaintiffs agreed that to the extent Defendant\u2019s witness-designee is not able to\r\n\r\naddress topics which were not agreed to in advance, that designee can simply testify that he\/she\r\n\r\ndoes not possess responsive knowledge, and the parties can address the subject in a subsequent\r\n\r\ndeposition or bring the matter to the Court\u2019s attention for resolution.\r\n\r\nPlaintiff Records\r\n\r\n        In the present Status Report, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have failed to provide\r\n\r\nsufficient information (i.e., Social Security Numbers, dates of birth and releases) to enable\r\n\r\n                                                  5\r\n\r\n          Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 60 Filed 11\/28\/23 Page 5 of 12\r\n\fDefendant to produce individual plaintiff medical and service records. Defendant\u2019s argument is\r\n\r\npremature, inaccurate, and should be disregarded.\r\n\r\n       As an initial matter, the records requested are contained in databases of individuals tied to\r\n\r\nCamp Lejeune. It is these general databases that the Plaintiffs have sought through their requests\r\n\r\nfor production. This is in keeping with Case Management Order No. 2, in which this Court\r\n\r\nauthorized Plaintiffs to begin generalized discovery on September 26, 2023. [D.E. 23, at p. 8].\r\n\r\nPlaintiffs have not sought individualized records from Defendant. Indeed, to do so would be\r\n\r\npremature since the parties have not yet selected which individual plaintiffs will proceed to\r\n\r\ndiscovery and trial. Rather, Defendant appears to conflate individual plaintiff-specific discovery\r\n\r\nwith general discovery the Plaintiffs have sought through their requests which, as this Court has\r\n\r\npreviously observed, is protected under a Stipulated Protective Order and thus, the Plaintiffs\r\n\r\ncontend, do not require individualized authorizations. Therefore, Defendant\u2019s argument is both\r\n\r\nflawed and premature.\r\n\r\n       In the present Status Report, Defendant also argues that Plaintiffs have failed to provide\r\n\r\nreleases permitting the production of plaintiff-specific health information. Such releases should be\r\n\r\nunnecessary because the Court previously entered a Stipulated Protective Order that covers\r\n\r\nprecisely the type of information for which Defendant argues the government needs these releases.\r\n\r\n[D.E. 36] Defendant, therefore, is fully authorized and required to produce generalized datasets\r\n\r\nwhich happen to contain information about specific plaintiffs.\r\n\r\n       United States\u2019 Position:\r\n\r\nPlaintiff Records\r\n\r\n       The United States has sought to work with Plaintiffs to collect individual plaintiff medical\r\n\r\nand service records, but have been unable to collect records for many plaintiffs, including many in\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                                 6\r\n\r\n          Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 60 Filed 11\/28\/23 Page 6 of 12\r\n\fthe Track 1 Disease pool, without the necessary identifying information, including date of birth\r\n\r\nand social security number, as well as necessary releases. Without dates of birth and social security\r\n\r\nnumber for individual plaintiffs, the United States is unable to retrieve an individual plaintiff\u2019s\r\n\r\nmilitary service and VA records.\r\n\r\n       Furthermore, despite the Stipulated Order for Document Collection providing that\r\n\r\nPlaintiffs will complete and return to the Government any forms or releases necessary to collect\r\n\r\ninformation, Plaintiffs have not agreed to provide a HIPPA release needed for the United States to\r\n\r\ncollect records from private health providers.\r\n\r\nRequests for Production\r\n\r\n       As of the date of this Joint Statement, Plaintiffs have served the United States with five\r\n\r\nsets of document requests: (1) Plaintiffs\u2019 First Request for Production was served on September\r\n\r\n28, 2023; (2) Plaintiffs\u2019 Second Request for Production was served on October 29, 2023; and (3)\r\n\r\nPlaintiffs Third Request for Production was served on November 3, 2023 (4) Plaintiffs\u2019 Fourth\r\n\r\nRequest for Production was served on November 24, 2023; (5) Plaintiffs\u2019 Fifth Request for\r\n\r\nProduction was served on November 28, 2023. Collectively, Plaintiffs have served the United\r\n\r\nStates with 39 document requests seeking electronic and hardcopy information and documents,\r\n\r\nincluding historical documents, from multiple federal government agencies spanning several\r\n\r\ndecades in time, beginning August 1, 1953.\r\n\r\n       The United States has made enormous efforts to respond in good faith and produce\r\n\r\ndocuments and information in a timely manner responsive to Plaintiffs\u2019 Requests. The United\r\n\r\nStates served its written Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs\u2019 First Requests for Production on\r\n\r\nOctober 30, 2023 and began producing documents shortly thereafter. The United States will serve\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                                 7\r\n\r\n          Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 60 Filed 11\/28\/23 Page 7 of 12\r\n\fits written Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs\u2019 Second Requests for Production on November\r\n\r\n29, 2023.\r\n\r\n       To date, the United States has produced numerous documents in response to Plaintiffs\u2019\r\n\r\nCorrected First Request for Production and directed Plaintiffs to several public repositories of\r\n\r\ndocuments with information relevant to this litigation. As of Tuesday, November 28, the United\r\n\r\nStates has produced 5,449 documents consisting of 43,160 pages to Plaintiffs. In addition to these\r\n\r\nproductions, the United States has provided Plaintiffs with an additional 10 documents consisting\r\n\r\nof 2,196 pages of publicly available records and reports, in addition to 8,787 files accessible via\r\n\r\nthe supplied URL\u2019s.\r\n\r\n       The United States has also produced several databases used by the Agency for Toxic\r\n\r\nSubstances Disease Registry to perform its studies. In addition to the documents already produced,\r\n\r\nthe United States continues its efforts to collect and produce responsive documents and\r\n\r\ninformation. These efforts include working with the relevant agencies to gain access to historic\r\n\r\ndocuments, some of which are contained in inactive and\/or decommissioned historic legacy\r\n\r\nsystems.\r\n\r\n       The parties are scheduled to meet and confer on December 4, 2023, regarding custodians\r\n\r\nand search terms for the collection and production on electronically stored information that would\r\n\r\nbe responsive to Plaintiffs\u2019 document requests. The parties have exchanged lists of government\r\n\r\ncustodians for negotiation. In particular, Plaintiffs proposed a list of over 60 custodians from\r\n\r\nATSDR, some of whom do not appear to be current or former ATSDR employees.\r\n\r\nRequests for Depositions\r\n\r\n       In addition to the five sets of document requests request for production of documents, the\r\n\r\nPlaintiffs sent three draft notices seeking 30(b)(6) depositions from three separate federal agencies:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                                  8\r\n\r\n            Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 60 Filed 11\/28\/23 Page 8 of 12\r\n\fthe Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) on October 31, 2023; ( the United\r\n\r\nStates Marine Corps (USMC) on October 27 2023; and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)\r\n\r\nalso on October 27, 2023. Additionally, on November 20, 2023, Plaintiffs indicated an intent to\r\n\r\ntake a 30(b)(6) deposition of the National Archives and Records Administration. Since receiving\r\n\r\nthe notices, the United States has been coordinating with the agencies to identify appropriate\r\n\r\nagency witnesses and their availability. The United States has expressed concern about the topics\r\n\r\nidentified in the 30(b)(6) notices and the appropriateness of the topics for the organizations\r\n\r\nidentified. Nevertheless, the USMC, VA, and ATSDR have identified possible 30(b)(6) witnesses\r\n\r\nand coordinated with the witnesses on their availability for deposition.       Depositions were\r\n\r\nscheduled for November 30 (USMC), December 5 (ATSDR), and December 6 (VA).\r\n\r\n       The parties held meet and confers about the aforementioned document requests and\r\n\r\n30(b)(6) notices on November 1, 2023, and November 2, 2023, and the United States sent follow-\r\n\r\nup correspondence on November 9, 2023, and November 13, 2023, again raising concerns about\r\n\r\nthe topics, requesting clarification, and offering to meet and confer. The United States followed-\r\n\r\nup again on November 17, 2023, providing dates for the requested 30(b)(6) depositions based on\r\n\r\nits understanding of the topics from prior discussions and proposed modified topics to reflect the\r\n\r\nUnited States\u2019 concerns about the original proposed topics. In response to the United States\u2019\r\n\r\nNovember 17 letter proposing modified topics and dates for the 30(b)(6) depositions, on November\r\n\r\n21, 2023, Plaintiffs confirmed dates for the modified 30(b)(6) depositions offered by the United\r\n\r\nStates, and the United States confirmed the same on November 22, 2023. However, when the\r\n\r\nUnited States received the final 30(b)(6) notices of deposition on November 24, 2023, the notices\r\n\r\nincluded topics not previously identified and retained topics that the United States has explained\r\n\r\nwere not within the knowledge of the agency identified. For that reason, the parties met and\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                                9\r\n\r\n          Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 60 Filed 11\/28\/23 Page 9 of 12\r\n\fconferred on November 28, 2023 and agreed to go forward with the depositions with the\r\n\r\nunderstanding that the witness would not be speaking on behalf of the agency with respect to topics\r\n\r\nnot agreed to in advance.\r\n\r\n       (5) Update on individual and global settlement efforts:\r\n\r\n       As of November 27, 2023, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has determined that sixteen\r\n\r\n(16) cases in litigation meet the EO criteria for settlement through documentary verification. The\r\n\r\ncase breakdown by injury includes: 5 Kidney Cancer, 4 Bladder Cancer, 3 non-Hodgkin\u2019s\r\n\r\nLymphoma, 2 Kidney Disease, 1 Leukemia, 1 Multiple Myeloma. Of the 16 offers, two (2) offers\r\n\r\nwere rejected by plaintiffs, six (6) offers have expired, and the other eight (8) offers remain\r\n\r\npending.\r\n\r\n       Further, the Department of the Navy sent sixty-two (62) administrative claims to DOJ for\r\n\r\nsettlement approval pursuant to the EO. Forty-four (44) are pending review with the DOJ. Of the\r\n\r\nremaining eighteen (18) administrative claims, DOJ determined that thirteen (13) claimants met\r\n\r\nthe criteria of the EO in reliance on the information provided by the Navy, and offers were made\r\n\r\nfor those claims. Of the 13 offers, four (4) offers were accepted, one (1) offer was rejected, and\r\n\r\nthe other eight (8) claims remain pending.\r\n\r\n       For the four accepted offers, payments have been made in all four cases, totaling one\r\n\r\nmillion dollars. One case alleging Parkinson\u2019s Disease resulted in a $250,000 payment. One case\r\n\r\nof non-Hodgkin\u2019s Lymphoma resulted in a $300,000 settlement. Two cases of Leukemia resulted\r\n\r\nin payments of $300,000 and $150,000.\r\n\r\n       The parties have had several preliminary discussions regarding the possibility of a global\r\n\r\nresolution of claims that remain in the administrative and legal processes. The Parties continue to\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                                10\r\n\r\n           Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 60 Filed 11\/28\/23 Page 10 of 12\r\n\fnegotiate a resolution questionnaire and resolution roadmap. The parties most recently discussed\r\n\r\nthese matters on November 17, 2023.\r\n\r\n        (6) Any other issues that the parties wish to raise with the Court\r\n\r\n        Plaintiffs\u2019 Leadership anticipates that by the time of the next Status Conference, Defendant\r\n\r\nwill have formally rejected Plaintiffs\u2019 request that Defendant produce the latest, still-unpublished\r\n\r\nATSDR study related to the water on Camp Lejeune. Defendant has indicated that the government\r\n\r\nintends to assert that the study is privileged. If this happens, Plaintiffs will likely file a motion to\r\n\r\ncompel and might ask the Court for an expedited briefing schedule, given the importance to this\r\n\r\nlitigation of any ATSDR study relating to Camp Lejeune.\r\n\r\nDATED this 28th day of November 2023.\r\n\r\nRespectfully submitted,\r\n\r\n\/s\/ J. Edward Bell, III                                 BRIAN M. BOYNTON\r\nJ. Edward Bell, III (admitted pro hac vice)             Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General\r\nBell Legal Group, LLC                                   Civil Division\r\n219 Ridge St.\r\nGeorgetown, SC 29440                                    J. PATRICK GLYNN\r\nTelephone: (843) 546-2408                               Director, Torts Branch\r\njeb@belllegalgroup.com                                  Environmental Torts Litigation Section\r\nLead Counsel for Plaintiffs\r\n                                                        BRIDGET BAILEY LIPSCOMB\r\n\/s\/ Zina Bash                                           Assistant Director, Torts Branch\r\nZina Bash (admitted pro hac vice)                       Environmental Torts Litigation Section\r\nKeller Postman LLC\r\n111 Congress Avenue, Ste. 500                           \/s\/ Adam Bain\r\nAustin, TX 78701                                        ADAM BAIN\r\nTelephone: 956-345-9462                                 Senior Trial Counsel, Torts Branch\r\nzina.bash@kellerpostman.com                             Environmental Torts Litigation Section\r\nCo-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs                          U.S. Department of Justice\r\nand Government Liaison                                  P.O. Box 340, Ben Franklin Station\r\n                                                        Washington, D.C. 20044\r\n\/s\/ Robin Greenwald                                     E-mail: adam.bain@usdoj.gov\r\nRobin L. Greenwald (admitted pro hac vice)              Telephone: (202) 616-4209\r\nWeitz & Luxenberg, P.C.\r\n700 Broadway                                            LACRESHA A. JOHNSON\r\nNew York, NY 10003                                      HAROON ANWAR\r\n\r\n                                                  11\r\n\r\n         Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 60 Filed 11\/28\/23 Page 11 of 12\r\n\fTelephone: 212-558-5802                            DANIEL C. EAGLES\r\nrgreenwald@weitzlux.com                            NATHAN J. BU\r\nCo-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs                     Trial Attorneys, Torts Branch\r\n                                                   Environmental Torts Litigation Section\r\n\/s\/ Elizabeth Cabraser                             Counsel for Defendant United States of\r\nElizabeth Cabraser (admitted pro hac vice)         America\r\nLIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &\r\n  BERNSTEIN, LLP\r\n275 Battery Street, Suite 2900\r\nSan Francisco, CA 94111\r\nPhone (415) 956-1000\r\necabraser@lchb.com\r\nCo-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs\r\n\r\n\/s\/ W. Michael Dowling\r\nW. Michael Dowling (NC Bar No. 42790)\r\nThe Dowling Firm PLLC\r\nPost Office Box 27843\r\nRaleigh, North Carolina 27611\r\nTelephone: (919) 529-3351\r\nmike@dowlingfirm.com\r\nCo-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs\r\n\r\n\/s\/ James A. Roberts, III\r\nJames A. Roberts, III (N.C. Bar No.: 10495)\r\nLewis & Roberts, PLLC\r\n3700 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 410\r\nP. O. Box 17529\r\nRaleigh, NC 27619-7529\r\nTelephone: (919) 981-0191\r\nFax: (919) 981-0199\r\njar@lewis-roberts.com\r\nCo-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs\r\n\r\n\/s\/ Mona Lisa Wallace\r\nMona Lisa Wallace (N.C. Bar No.: 009021)\r\nWallace & Graham, P.A.\r\n525 North Main Street\r\nSalisbury, North Carolina 28144\r\nTel: 704-633-5244\r\nCo-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                              12\r\n\r\n         Case 7:23-cv-00897-RJ Document 60 Filed 11\/28\/23 Page 12 of 12<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION Case No. 7:23-cv-897 IN RE: ) ) CAMP LEJEUNE WATER LITIGATION ) JOINT STATUS REPORT ) This Document Relates To: ) ALL CASES ) ) The Plaintiffs\u2019 Leadership Group (the \u201cPLG\u201d), together with the Defendant United States of America (\u201cDefendant\u201d… View Article<\/a>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":27980,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[501],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30455"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30455"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30455\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":44968,"href":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30455\/revisions\/44968"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/27980"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30455"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30455"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsuitlegit.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30455"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}