In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation

Full title: In re

Court: United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Date published: Aug 25, 1982

95 F.R.D. 191 (E.D.N.Y. 1982)

Opinion

95 F.R.D. 191 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) In re " AGENT ORANGE" PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION. MDL No. 381. United States District Court, E.D. New York. August 25, 1982

         In products liability action defendant requested verification of court's order denying its motion to implead seven component manufacturers. The District Court, George C. Pratt, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation, held that denial of the motion was without prejudice to renewal at a future date, since the initial decision was based on facts that litigation had reached the stage where parties were actively involved with discovery and that defendant could pursue its claim for indemnification against component manufacturers when the suit was completed, but court could not presume to know what conditions would prevail following completion of the first phase of trial.

         Order accordingly.

                    PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 40

          GEORGE C. PRATT, Circuit Judge.^*

* Of the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, sitting by designation.

         By letter dated August 20, 1982, counsel for defendant Uniroyal, Inc., (Uniroyal) requests clarification of the court's Pretrial Order # 38 with respect to the portion which denied Uniroyal's motion to implead seven component manufacturers. Specifically, counsel wishes to know whether the court's denial of the motion is without prejudice to renewal following completion of the trial of the Phase I issues.

         An examination of Pretrial Order # 38 indicates that the court based its decision on (1) the fact that this complex litigation has reached the stage where the parties are actively involved in discovery and (2) that Uniroyal may pursue its claim for indemnification against the component manufacturers when this lawsuit is completed. These factors may still be present after completion of the Phase I trial, but there may also be additional factors which would warrant impleader at that time. The court cannot presume to know now what conditions will prevail at that time. Consequently, with this motion as with many other pretrial motions, denial is without prejudice to renewal at a future date if changed circumstances would warrant a changed result.

         SO ORDERED.