In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

ANNE ABBOTT, * 

on behalf of her minor child, R.A., * No. 14-907V 

 * Special Master Christian J. Moran 

 Petitioner, * 

 * 

v. * Filed: July 9, 2018 

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Measles, mumps, and rubella 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“MMR”) vaccine; encephalitis; 

 * Table claim. 

 Respondent. * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Andrew D. Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for petitioner; 

Jennifer L. Reynaud, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

respondent. 

PUBLISHED RULING REGARDING ON-TABLE CLAIM1

 Anne Abbott filed a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury 

Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012), on September 26, 2014, on 

behalf of her minor child, R.A. Ms. Abbott’s petition alleged that R.A.’s June 12, 

2012 measles, mumps, and rubella (“MMR”) vaccine caused her to develop 

Rasmussen’s encephalitis. The petition claimed compensation via both as an onTable and off-Table cause of action. 

 

1

 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and 

Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this ruling on its 

website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing 

redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). 

Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website. 
2

 For the on-Table claim alone, Ms. Abbott filed a Motion for Decision on the 

Record Regarding Table Claim. Ms. Abbott’s pending motion is based upon the 

following basic chronology. When R.A. was just under two years old on June 12, 

2012, she received an MMR vaccination.2 Exhibit 1, ¶ 2; exhibit 4 at 17-18. On 

June 28, 2012, 16 days later, R.A. became unresponsive at home. R.A. was taken 

to the hospital where doctors confirmed that she had suffered a seizure and had a 

temperature of 101.5°F. Exhibit 2 at 66. R.A. was eventually diagnosed with 

Rasmussen’s encephalitis in February 2014. Exhibit 6 at pdf 5245 (internal page 

4061). 

The Secretary opposed Ms. Abbott’s motion, arguing that Ms. Abbott did 

not satisfy the time range requirement for an on-Table claim. The Vaccine Table 

associates the measles vaccine with encephalitis that occurs only 5-15 days after 

vaccination. Because R.A.’s first seizure happened 16 days after vaccination, the 

Secretary argues that Ms. Abbott cannot prevail on her on-Table claim. 

 For the reasons explained below, Ms. Abbott has not presented persuasive 

evidence that R.A. suffered an encephalitis within the time required by the Table. 

Ms. Abbott, however, might cure this deficiency in her evidence by obtaining a 

report from an expert. Therefore, although her motion for a decision in her favor is 

denied, she may continue her pursuit of compensation as an on-Table claim. 

I. Facts3

 If the assertions in the affidavits are accepted as accurate, Ms. Abbott’s onTable claim hinges on whether various symptoms are manifestations of an 

encephalitis. Thus, the fact recitation draws mostly from the affidavits and is 

limited to the relevant time period from vaccination to initial seizure. 

 

 

2

 R.A. also received the diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccination at the 

same appointment, exhibit 4 at 17-18, but Ms. Abbott has not claimed compensation based on 

the DTaP vaccination in the present motion. 

3 For purposes of responding to the pending motion only, the Secretary assumed the 

accuracy of the facts presented in the text. Resp’t’s Rep. at 5. The Secretary could make this 

assumption because the remainder of the Secretary’s response argued that even with the affiants’ 

assertions accepted as facts, Ms. Abbott cannot establish that R.A. suffered an on-Table injury 

within the time set forth in the Table. 
3

R.A.’s June 12, 2012 vaccination was in the middle of her Bible school, June 

11-15, 2012, and the Abbotts stated that volunteers at the Bible school observed 

that R.A. “didn’t play much.” Exhibit 28 ¶2, exhibit 29 ¶2. For a few days 

following the vaccination, R.A. had a red, sore area at the injection site, her thigh. 

Id. 

 About one week after the vaccination, the Abbotts commented generally that 

R.A. seemed “off,” not as responsive, more fussy, and lethargic. Exhibit 1 ¶4, 

exhibit 29 ¶2. At R.A.’s birthday party on June 17, 2012, family members 

commented that R.A. was sluggish and not very active. Exhibit 28 ¶3, exhibit 29 

¶4. The Abbotts were surprised when R.A. fell asleep around 4 P.M., causing 

them to end the party early, and she essentially slept until the next morning. Id. 

 Over the next few days, Ms. Abbott stated that R.A. stayed inside because it 

was extremely hot outside, and generally observed that R.A. was “a little spacey at 

times and lethargic on and off” and was not talking as much. Exhibit 28 ¶4. After 

spending the day at her grandparents’ house on June 22, 2012, the Abbotts were 

told that R.A. did not do her “normal” things, did not play, and did not eat much. 

Exhibit 28 ¶5, exhibit 29 ¶5. 

 At a wedding reception on June 23, 2012, the Abbotts observed that R.A. did 

not eat or play much and seemed irritable and tired. Exhibit 28 ¶6, exhibit 29 ¶6. 

The Abbotts dropped R.A. and her brother off at their grandparents’ house around 

6 P.M. Id. When picking up R.A. later that evening, Mr. Abbott heard that R.A. 

had been asleep since she had been dropped off, and Ms. Abbott heard that R.A. 

had been acting tired and dazed. Id. 

 On June 27, 2012 (15 days from the MMR vaccination), Mr. Abbott came 

home from work and played with R.A. outside until he noticed her being sluggish. 

Exhibit 29 ¶7. Due to the heat outside, Ms. Abbott took R.A.’s temperature and 

stated initially that “she had a fever.” Exhibit 1 ¶4. Later, Mr. Abbott and she 

stated her temperature was “around 100 degrees.” Exhibit 28 ¶7, exhibit 29 ¶7. 

 After playing outside on another hot day on June 28, 2012, Mr. Abbott 

brought R.A. inside to take a shower. Exhibit 29 ¶8. Following the shower, Mr. 

Abbott set R.A. down on a chair, left the room briefly, and came back to find R.A. 

unresponsive. Id. He then immediately took R.A. to the Wilson Memorial 

Hospital emergency room where she was found to have a fever of 101.5 and to be 

in a full tonic clonic seizure. Exhibit 2 at 66. 
4

 At the emergency room, Ms. Abbott reported that R.A. had “felt a little bit 

hot earlier in the day” on June 28, 2012. Exhibit 2 at 66. After her transfer to 

Dayton Children’s Hospital late that night, Ms. Abbott reported a tactile fever 

before R.A.’s seizure. Exhibit 5 at 35. Elsewhere in Dayton’s records, there are 

notes that prior to her seizure R.A. “had not been ill-acting or febrile” and “there 

has been no fevers, no cold symptoms ... no ill contacts at home.” Id. at 40, 44. 

II. Procedural History 

Ms. Abbott filed the petition on September 26, 2014, and with it her first 

affidavit. The initial affidavit sets forth a series of assertions that are not 

corroborated in medical records from June 2012. Exhibit 1. Ms. Abbott later 

added details to her first affidavit by filing her second affidavit, exhibit 28, and an 

affidavit from her husband, Matt Abbott, exhibit 29. 

After Ms. Abbott had filed R.A.’s medical records and a statement of 

completion, the Secretary determined that the record was complete and was 

ordered to file his Rule 4 report. Order, issued Dec. 16, 2014. Before the Rule 4 

report was filed, Ms. Abbott filed an expert report from Dr. David Axelrod on 

January 5, 2015. Exhibit 12. Dr. Axelrod generally opined that the MMR and 

DTaP vaccinations were the cause-in-fact of R.A.’s seizures. 

The Rule 4 report deadline was suspended, and the Secretary was ordered to 

address three of Ms. Abbott’s assertions that support her Table claim. Order, 

issued Jan. 9, 2015.4 In a status report, the Secretary denied that there was a 

preponderance of evidence to support any of the three assertions. Over the next 

few status conferences, the parties agreed to develop the record further, and Ms. 

Abbott was ordered to file additional affidavits and other evidence. Orders, issued 

Feb. 5, 2015; Mar. 10, 2015; Apr. 16, 2015. Ms. Abbott and her husband 

submitted affidavits dated February 20, 2015. Exhibits 28, 29. 

 

4 The Secretary was ordered to respond to these assertions: 

1. Ms. Abbott claims that [R.A.] suffered a fever on June 27, 2012, which is 15 days after 

vaccination. Exhibit 1 (affidavit) at ¶4. 

2. This fever begins a process that led to [R.A.] having seizures on June 28, 2012. 

3. The seizures and [R.A.]’s behavior on June 28, 2012 satisfy the definition of “acute 

encephalopathy” (setting aside the day of onset). 
5

The parties continued to develop evidence, primarily related to the off-Table 

claim.5

 Ms. Abbott filed an expert report from Dr. David Seigler on June 29, 2015. 

Exhibit 30 (corrected version, court document no. [31]). On October 16, 2015, the 

Secretary filed expert reports from Dr. Thomas Forsthuber and Dr. John Zemple. 

Exhibits A, C. Ms. Abbott filed a second expert report from Dr. Seigler on January 

4, 2016. Exhibit 47. She later stated that she believed that Dr. Seigler’s report was 

adequately responsive to the Secretary’s expert reports. Status Rep., filed Feb. 5, 

2016. 

On February 9, 2016, an entitlement hearing and a briefing schedule were 

set. The hearing was later cancelled due to scheduling issues, and Ms. Abbott 

advised that she would retain a new neurology expert to file another report. Order, 

issued July 15, 2016. Due to the new expert’s schedule, Ms. Abbott did not file an 

expert report from Dr. Lawrence Steinman until February 15, 2017. Exhibit 51. 

On May 8, 2017, the Secretary filed a responsive expert report from Dr. 

Forsthuber. Exhibit S. On May 16, 2017, the parties were ordered to coordinate 

on scheduling an entitlement hearing and were also ordered to file briefs regarding 

Ms. Abbott’s Table claim.

On July 12, 2017, Ms. Abbott filed the pending Motion for Decision on the 

Record Regarding Table Claim and a status report on hearing logistics. In the 

status report, Ms. Abbott also stated that a favorable ruling on the Motion for 

Decision would obviate the need for an entitlement hearing on the causation-in-fact 

claim. 

The Secretary filed a response to the Motion for Decision on August 14, 

2017. Ms. Abbott then filed a reply. Accordingly, the Ms. Abbott’s motion for 

decision is now ready for adjudication. 

III. Analysis 

Ms. Abbott’s present motion seeks to prove entitlement to compensation 

under the Program for a “Table injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine 

Injury Table – corresponding to R.A.’s MMR vaccination. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-

 

5 One aspect of an off-Table claim is determining when a vaccinee experienced the first 

sign or symptom of the injury for which compensation is claimed. Bazan v. Sec'y of Health & 

Human Servs., 539 F.3d 1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Thus, in the context of presenting 

causation-in-fact opinions, some experts discussed onset. 
6

13(a)(1)(A). Pending resolution of this motion on the Table claim, Ms. Abbott is 

reserving her causation-in-fact claim for a possible entitlement hearing. 

To establish a Table injury under the Act, a petitioner must prove that (1) 

that the vaccinee received a vaccine listed on the Table, (2) the vaccinee suffered 

an injury corresponding to that vaccine, and (3) the vaccinee suffered the injury 

within the time range listed. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) (2011); Hellebrand v. Sec'y of 

Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 999 F.2d 1565, 1569-70 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 

As noted above, it is not disputed that R.A. received an MMR vaccination 

on June 12, 2012, which is listed on the Vaccine Table. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(III) 

(2011). Thus, for Ms. Abbott to prevail on her Table claim, she must establish the 

second and third elements listed above: that R.A.’s injury was a Table encephalitis 

and that R.A. suffered the “first symptom or manifestation of onset” of the Table 

encephalitis within the applicable time frame. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(III)(B). 

The Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation for the 2011 Table do not 

contain a definition for “encephalitis.” 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(b).6 In absence of a 

regulatory definition, Ms. Abbott offered that “encephalitis” simply means 

“inflammation in the brain.” Pet’r’s Mot. at 4. The Secretary maintained that 

“inflammation in the brain” as a definition of encephalitis was “too broad for 

program purposes” because that definition does not describe clinical symptoms 

that Ms. Abbott would have to establish to demonstrate that R.A. actually 

experienced brain inflammation. Resp’t’s Resp. at 8-9 (citing Nuttall v. Sec'y of 

Health & Human Servs., No. 07-0810V, 2015 WL 691272, at *10 (Fed. Cl. Spec. 

Mstr. Jan. 20, 2015), mot. for rev. denied, 122 Fed. Cl. 821 (2015), aff’d, 640 F. 

App'x 996, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (per curiam)). Ultimately, the Secretary did not 

propose a definition for encephalitis.7 

 

6 Because Ms. Abbott filed her petition on September 26, 2014, the Vaccine Table in 

effect at that time, the 2011 Table, is the correct Table to use to evaluate her claim. 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa-14(c)(4); Revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table, 76 Fed. Reg. 36367-68 (June 22, 2011) 

(effective July 22, 2011). As Ms. Abbott noted, using the current (2017) Table to evaluate her 

claim would be legal error. Pet’r’s Reply at 4-5. 

7 The Secretary argued that because R.A’s particular type of encephalitis is known 

(Rasmussen’s), then Ms. Abbott should be required to demonstrate the initial symptom/onset that 

is specific to Rasmussen’s encephalitis, not the initial symptoms of encephalitis when more 

generally defined. Resp’t’s Resp. at 9-10. Ms. Abbott countered that the Secretary’s proposed 

distinction between encephalitis generally and Rasmussen’s encephalitis does not matter because 

the both injuries share the same pattern of onset with the distinguishing trait for Rasmussen’s 

encephalitis being that it leads to more severe outcomes. Pet’r’s Reply at 7. 
7

While the term “encephalitis” appears in the 2011 version of the Vaccine 

Table, the term “encephalitis” first appeared in the initial Vaccine Table that 

Congress created. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-14(a)(II)(B) (1988); National Childhood 

Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99–660, 100 Stat 3743, 3764 (1986). 

“Congress intended this statute to be understood — and to be applied — as it 

would be by a medical professional.” Abbott v. Secʼy of Health & Human Servs., 

27 Fed. Cl. 792, 794 (1993), aff'd on this point, rev'd on other grounds and 

remanded, 19 F.3d 39 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Table) (Text in Westlaw, 1994 WL 

32656).8 

A medical professional’s understanding of “encephalitis” can be found in a 

medical dictionary. See Munn v. Secʼy of Health & Human Servs., 970 F.2d 863, 

867 n.5 (1992) (citing the American Heritage Dictionary and Dorland’s Illustrated 

Medical Dictionary to define the term “sequela”). Here, a medical dictionary 

defines “encephalitis” as “inflammation of the brain.” Dorland’s Illustrated 

Medical Dictionary 436 (26d ed. 1981). 

This definition matches the definition that Special Master Hastings used in 

Nuttall. In Nuttall, the petitioners attempted to establish that either a DTaP or an 

MMR vaccine caused their son to suffer encephalitis under the Vaccine Table. 

2015 WL 691272, at *1. The petitioners in Nuttall, like Ms. Abbott here, put 

forward the definition of “brain inflammation.” The Secretary proposed that the 

 

The Secretary has not provided any authority for why petitioner would have to establish 

the initial symptom/onset for a sub-set of encephalitis (Rasmussen’s) rather than the initial 

symptom/onset for “encephalitis,” the injury listed in the Vaccine Table. Without any authority 

in support, requiring petitioner to establish a more specific initial symptom/onset would add to 

petitioner’s burden. The undersigned declines to require Ms. Abbott to establish initial 

symptom/onset specific to Rasmussen’s encephalitis.

8 Congress authorized the Secretary to modify the Vaccine Table administratively. See 

Terran v. Secʼy of Health & Human Servs., 195 F.3d 1302, 1312-15 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (rejecting 

argument that administrative changes to a statute were unconstitutional). In 2017, the Secretary 

exercised his authority to define “encephalitis.” Revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table, 82 Fed. 

Reg. 6294, 6302 (Jan. 19, 2017); Delay of Effective Date, 82 Fed. Reg. 11321, (Feb. 22, 2017) 

(changing effective date of revisions to Mar. 21, 2017). However, the 2017 changes do not 

establish the definition of encephalitis in Ms. Abbott’s case. See footnote 6, above. 
8

special master adopt a draft of a proposed rule. Id. at *10.9 Special Master 

Hastings accepted “brain inflammation” as a definition of “encephalitis.” Id.10 

Having defined “encephalitis” as “brain inflammation,” Special Master 

Hastings evaluated opinions from experts as to whether the vaccinee in Nuttall 

suffered brain inflammation. The key to the experts’ opinions were MRIs because 

the child’s clinical symptoms were not dispositive. Id. at *11. Ultimately, the 

special master found that the petitioners did not carry their burden to show an 

encephalitis happened in their child. Id. at *11-20. 

Consequently, the undersigned holds that “inflammation in the brain” is an 

adequate definition for “encephalitis.” The ensuing question is how do petitioners, 

such as Ms. Abbott, present preponderant evidence that the vaccinee suffers from 

inflammation in the brain. An easy way would be to present the results of imaging 

such as MRIs that can detect inflammation in the brain. However, R.A. did not 

have any imaging in the relevant time period. 

In lieu of direct evidence of brain inflammation, Ms. Abbott is relying upon 

circumstantial evidence, including a medical article, affidavits, and expert’s

reports. To begin, Ms. Abbott cited a medical reference book for the proposition 

that “phase one [of Rasmussen’s encephalitis] is a ‘prodromal state’ during which 

seizures are infrequent.” Pet’r’s Mot. at 4 (citing exhibit 15 (Tiziana Granata & 

Frederick Andermann, Rasmussen encephalitis, in Handbook of Clinical 

Neurology, Vol. III, Pediatric Neurology Part I (O. Dulac, M. Lassonde, and H.B. 

Sarnat, eds., 3rd Series 2013)) at 1); Pet’r’s Reply at 7. While this reference to a 

“prodromal state” seems to offer Ms. Abbott some support, the authors of this 

article also report “the onset [of Rasmussen’s encephalitis] is marked, in almost all 

cases by focal or secondarily generalized seizures.” Exhibit 15 at 1. Testimony 

from an expert could help explain the connection between “prodromal state” and 

“onset.” 

 

9 Unlike in Nuttall, the Secretary here has not put forward a definition of “encephalitis.” 

Although the Secretary did eventually propose and adopt a regulatory definition of encephalitis, 

the parties agree that the 2017 regulatory definition does not define “encephalitis” for Ms. 

Abbott’s case. 

10 The Secretary’s brief does not cite Nuttall accurately. The Secretary states that 

defining encephalitis as brain inflammation is “‘too broad for Program purposes.’” Resp’t’s 

Resp. at 9. However, the phrase “too broad for Program purposes” comes from an unpublished 

order a different special master issued earlier in Nuttall. The Secretary’s brief fails to note that 

Special Master Hastings resolved the case based upon the definition of “brain inflammation.” 
9

Ms. Abbott further relies upon assertions contained in affidavits from her 

husband and herself. See Pet’r’s Mot. at 8, citing exhibits 1, 28, and 29. As noted 

earlier, the Secretary has accepted such assertions for the limited purpose of 

determining whether these assertions are material. 

It appears that the assertions about R.A.’s behavior in the days shortly before 

her first seizure are material because one expert, Dr. Siegler, seems to accept that 

within 5-15 days of the MMR vaccination, R.A. was fussy, not responsive, 

lethargic, and tired. Exhibit 30 at 1-2. From this starting point, Dr. Siegler opines 

that R.A.’s “symptoms that appeared within 5 to 15 days of her MMR vaccination 

were the first onset of her symptoms” of Rasmussen’s encephalitis. Id. at 2. 

Dr. Siegler’s analysis, however, does not quite hit the mark, at least for the 

on-Table claim. As explained above, the critical question is whether preponderant 

evidence establishes that R.A. had inflammation in the brain by 5-15 days after the 

MMR vaccination. Dr. Siegler’s report, which refers to the “defined requirements 

of encephalopathy/encephalitis found in the Aids to Interpretation,” id. at 1, 

confuses the issue because the 2011 Aids to Interpretation do not define 

“encephalitis.” Because the present ruling has defined “encephalitis,” Ms. Abbott 

should have an opportunity to present an opinion from Dr. Siegler as to when R.A. 

first displayed a symptom of brain inflammation. 

Similarly, reports from other experts are also not as precise as they could be. 

Respondent’s expert, Dr. Zemple, stated that the “[t]iming of the vaccination and 

onset of neurological symptoms is also clear.... [R.A.’s] first clear neurological 

symptom occurred with seizure on June 28, 2012.” Exhibit C at 3.11

 In light of the 

Granata article’s description of both a “prodromal stage” and “onset” of 

Rasmussen’s encephalitis, Dr. Zemple’s characterization of R.A.’s June 28, 2012 

seizure as the “first clear neurological symptom” leaves open the question as to 

“unclear” neurological symptoms. And the question that Dr. Zemple should 

address is whether the constellation of R.A.’s behaviors reported by the affiants is, 

more-likely-than-not, a manifestation of brain inflammation. 

 

11 One of petitioner’s experts, Dr. Steinman, quoted the above statement from Dr. 

Zemple’s report and agreed with his conclusion about R.A.’s first symptom or onset. Exhibit 51 

at 4, 21. 
10

 Obtaining further reports from experts about brain inflammation is 

appropriate. First, this ruling defines “encephalitis” and provides new information 

for an expert to consider. Second, when the contemporaneously created medical 

records do not establish that a vaccinee suffered an on-Table injury, the petitioner 

must present expert testimony. See Paterek v. Secʼy of Health & Human Servs., 

No. 02-411V, 2008 WL 2485159, at *14 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 22, 2008) 

(“The cases hold uniformly that if an injured person’s medical records do not 

disclose a diagnosis that the injured person’s symptoms constitute a Table injury, 

then the petitioner must submit a medical expert’s opinion interpreting the injured 

person’s symptoms as a Table injury”), mot. for rev. denied in relevant part and 

granted in non-relevant part, 84 Fed. Cl. 19, 46 (2008), on remand, 2009 WL 

3288295 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 16, 2009), mot. for review granted and decision 

reversed, 88 Fed. Cl. 178 (2009), rev’d, 527 Fed. App’x 875 (Fed. Cir. 2013); 

Carter v. Secʼy of Health & Human Servs., No. 04-1500V, 2007 WL 415185, at 

*12 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 19, 2007) (in resolving the pending on-Table claim, 

“an expert is needed to interpret the information in the medical records and the 

statements in the mother's affidavit”). 

In presenting opinions from experts about whether the behaviors described 

in the affidavits are manifestations of brain inflammation, the parties are ordered to 

direct their experts to assume that the allegations in the affidavits are correct. 

However, Ms. Abbott still bears the burden of establishing the accuracy of the 

affidavits. See Burns v. Secʼy of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. 

Cir. 1993). Thus, Ms. Abbott and the other percipient witnesses are likely to be 

called to testify at any hearing. 

Accordingly, Ms. Abbott’s motion is DENIED. She may seek a ruling in 

her favor regarding the on-Table claim after the parties submit additional evidence. 

A status conference is set, sua sponte, for Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:00 

P.M. Eastern Time. During this status conference, a deadline for simultaneous 

submission of expert reports will be set. Given the length this case has been 

pending and the narrowness of the issues for the experts to address, the deadline is 

likely to be within 60 days of the status conference and unlikely to be extended. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 s/Christian J. Moran 

 Christian J. Moran 

 Special Master