UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

Case No. 3:19md2885

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

Brandon Adkins, 7:20cv012

Michelle Blum, 7:20cv122

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion Regarding Scheduling 

of Group B Bellwether Trials. See Blum, ECF No. 28. On consideration, 

Defendants’ request is denied. 

Taylor, the first Group B case set for trial beginning on September 20, 2021

was recently dismissed. See Joint Stip., Taylor, ECF No. 23. Defendants argue that 

the Taylor case should not be replaced with that of the Group B alternate, Brandon 

Adkins, and instead should be replaced by the Blum case, which is scheduled for 

trial on October 18, 2021. Plaintiffs have not yet filed a response, but according to 

Defendants, they rejected Defendants’ proposal to move Blum to the September trial 

date and try Adkins in October. Defendants argue—without citing any authority—

that they would suffer “significant prejudice” from trying the Adkins case in 

September because the “time-consuming” process of preparing deposition 

Case 7:20-cv-00122-MCR-GRJ Document 29 Filed 07/28/21 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Page 2 of 3

designations, exhibit lists, and a pretrial stipulation has not yet started in Adkins, 

whereas that process has already begun for Blum. The Court disagrees. The Court 

and the parties have anticipated from the beginning of the bellwether process that 

there would be instances where a bellwether alternate plaintiff would necessarily 

take the place of a bellwether plaintiff. Accordingly, Adkins, the Group B alternate,

has been on the same pretrial schedule as the rest of Group B. Discovery and expert 

discovery deadlines were identical across Group B, and Daubert and dispositive 

motions for all of Group B are due on the same day, August 6, 2021. See Pretrial 

Order No. 70, Case No. 319md2885, ECF No. 1666. Thus, both sides already have 

all of the information they need to designate deposition testimony and create exhibit 

lists, and should have anticipated the possibility that Adkins would go to trial.

1

 

Moreover, in the Group A trials, the majority of the admitted evidence, 

including deposition video and exhibits, was not plaintiff-specific. The Court 

acknowledges that some of the “general” evidence may change depending on a 

plaintiff’s claims, but here, the parties have agreed that both Taylor and Adkins are 

governed by Washington law, and as far as the Court is aware, both plaintiffs allege 

that they suffer from hearing loss and tinnitus, and both assert the same claims under 

Washington law. In other words, much of the evidence already identified by the 

1 Indeed, this possibility was contemplated less than a month ago when Plaintiffs filed a 

motion to dismiss in Blum.

Case 7:20-cv-00122-MCR-GRJ Document 29 Filed 07/28/21 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Page 3 of 3

parties for Taylor, aside from the plaintiff-specific evidence, is likely applicable to 

the Adkins case as well. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Adkins is an appropriate substitute for 

Taylor, and the case will go to trial on September 20, 2021. The pretrial deadlines

previously set in Taylor will not apply to Adkins, however. Instead, the parties must

meet and confer with Judge Herndon on Friday, July 30, 2021 on new proposed 

pretrial deadlines for Adkins. Those proposed deadlines must be submitted to the 

Court no later than 12PM (central) on Tuesday, August 3, 2021. 

SO ORDERED, on this 28th day of July, 2021.

M. Casey Rodgers M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00122-MCR-GRJ Document 29 Filed 07/28/21 Page 3 of 3