2015 WL 880628
M.D. Pa.2015Background
- Plaintiffs are multiple landowners/residents in Bradford County, PA, alleging nuisance and negligence from defendants’ natural-gas operations.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in state court on Dec. 27, 2013; defendants removed on Jan. 28, 2014.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, to sever plaintiffs, and for a pre-discovery "Lone Pine" case-management order; the Court previously denied severance and Lone Pine without prejudice.
- Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint; defendants renewed motions to sever and for a Lone Pine order.
- Defendants argue plaintiffs’ claims arise from different wells/events and seek early severance or a Lone Pine order requiring prima facie proof of exposure, injury, and causation before discovery.
- Court denied both motions without prejudice, finding joinder permissible at this early stage and a Lone Pine order inappropriate given the posture and lack of a strong showing by defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joinder of multiple plaintiffs should be severed under Rules 20/21 | Plaintiffs say injuries stem from a single, systematic pattern of defendants’ operations in the area, creating common factual questions | Defendants say each family alleges different injuries from different wells at different stages, so joinder is improper and prejudicial | Denied without prejudice — joinder permissible now; severance can be renewed later if discovery shows prejudice or misjoinder |
| Whether a pre-discovery "Lone Pine" order should require plaintiffs to make prima facie evidentiary showings of exposure, injury, and causation | Plaintiffs contend Lone Pine would impose a summary-judgment-like evidentiary burden before discovery and is premature | Defendants argue discovery would be burdensome and plaintiffs should be required to present initial evidence of exposure, causation, and damages | Denied — Court finds Lone Pine extraordinary and unnecessary at early stage; defendants made no strong evidentiary showing to justify it; standard discovery tools suffice |
Key Cases Cited
- Mosley v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1974) (sets out Rule 20 joinder standards and policy favoring broad joinder for convenience)
- Xerox Corp. v. SCM Corp., 576 F.2d 1057 (3d Cir. 1978) (directs detailed analysis whether claims are same transaction/series by assessing overlap of factual and legal issues)
- Gruening v. Sucic, 89 F.R.D. 573 (E.D. Pa. 1981) (finding a "systematic pattern" among events can satisfy the series-of-transactions requirement)
- McManaway v. KBR, Inc., 265 F.R.D. 384 (S.D. Ind. 2009) (discusses limited, exceptional use of Lone Pine orders and that they amount to case-management tools akin to imposing an early prima facie showing)
- Roth v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., 287 F.R.D. 293 (M.D. Pa. 2012) (survey of Lone Pine usage in complex toxic-tort litigation and factors courts consider before issuing such orders)