Opinion ID: 2823817
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lone Pine Orders

Text: Â¶16Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Lone Pine orders evolved from an unpublished order of the Superior Court of New Jersey. See Lone Pine, 1986 WL 637507. Under the Federal Rules, such orders are designed to manage complex issues and mitigate potential burdens on defendants and the court during the course of litigation. Acuna, 200 F.3d at 340. Colorado appellate courts have never authorized their use. In contrast, federal courts rely on Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(L) as authority to âadopt[] special procedures for managing potentially difficult or protracted actions that may involve complex issues, multiple parties, difficult legal questions, or unusual proof problems.â See, e.g., In re Digitek Prod. Liab. Litig., 264Â F.R.D. 249, 255 (S.D. W. Va. 2010); In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 388 F. Appâx 391, 397 (5th Cir. 2010); McMunn v. Babcock & Wilcox Generation Grp., Inc., 896 F. Supp. 2d 347, 351 (W.D. Pa. 2012); McManaway v. KBR, Inc., 265 F.R.D. 384, 385 (S.D. Ind. 2009). The federal courts have discretion to use such orders in complex cases when discovery would likely be challenging, protracted, and expensive. See Roth v. Cabot Oil & GasÂ Corp., 287 F.R.D. 293, 297 n.3 (M.D. Pa. 2012); see, e.g., Acuna, 200 F.3d at 340 (authorizing Lone Pine orders in a case involving 1600 plaintiffs suing over 100 defendants for a range of injuries occurring over a forty-year period). Â¶17Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Federal courts considering whether to issue Lone Pine orders seek to balance efficiency and equity. A court may decline to issue a Lone Pine order even in a complex case when other procedural devices can accommodate the unique issues of the litigation. See, e.g., Digitek, 264 F.R.D. at 259 (âGiven a choice between a âLone Pine orderâ created under the courtâs inherent case management authority and available procedural devices such as summary judgment, motions to dismiss, motions for sanctions and similar rules, [we find] it more prudent to yield to the consistency and safeguards of the mandated rules . . . .â). Or it may decide to issue a Lone Pine order after extensive discovery. See Vioxx, 388 F. Appâx at 397 (noting that after ten years and millions of pages of discovery, âit is not too much to ask a plaintiff to provide some kind of evidence to support [his or her] claimâ).Â Â¶18Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Only a handful of state courts have issued Lone Pine or similar orders, citing to various sources of authority. 3 Even in jurisdictions where state courts have authority to issue Lone Pine orders, their use at an early stage of discovery may constitute an abuse of discretion. Simeone v. Girard City Bd. of Educ., 872 N.E.2d 344, 351â52 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion by entering a Lone Pine order before giving plaintiffs âthe full range and benefit of discoveryâ).