1. Home
  2. |Experience
  3. |Mass Tort, Product, and Consumer Litigation
  4. |National Coordinating Counsel and Complex Litigation

National Coordinating Counsel and Complex Litigation

Overview

We have served as national coordinating counsel (NCC) in some of the highest-profile matters in the U.S. court system and represented some of the nation’s largest companies.

Our practice is built upon experience in six key areas:

  • Trial Depth. In many of our NCC representations, our trial lawyers serve as lead counsel in cases pending around the country. In other representations, our trial lawyers develop trial strategy, identify and prepare key fact and expert witnesses, and serve as lead counsel in certain trials, while developing and overseeing jurisdictional firms to implement our clients' national trial strategy.
  • Lead Class or MDL Counsel. We often serve as lead counsel in national class actions and multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceedings. We have an extensive class action practice and regularly appear in before the JPML and in MDL proceedings that are core components of national dockets.
  • Amicus and Appellate Experience. We have substantial party and amicus appellate experience within our NCC team, and we have developed important precedents in each of our NCC representations. 
  • Coordination and Preparation of Experts. We strive to match the best testifying experts with the geography and specific case needs and ensure the presentation is geared to the judges and lay jurors we encounter.
  • Regulatory Depth and Breadth. Many large, national litigations have significant related regulatory issues that must be carefully coordinated with litigation objectives. With more than 100 lawyers who have held significant government positions both federally and at the state level, we have unique perspective and first-hand knowledge of how regulatory agencies work and how they think.
  • Media Relations, Public Affairs, and Crisis Management. When unforeseen crises arise, we can rapidly assemble and deploy teams of crisis management professionals to help avert negative publicity and take appropriate action to identify and resolve issues. 

We also provide a host of complimentary services, including: the development, administration and management of claims processes; e-discovery and information management; and attorney-led internal investigations into causation.

 

We develop a recommended NCC structure in consultation with our clients, based upon an upfront strategic assessment, the unique needs of the litigation, existing in-house and outside counsel resources and relationships, and our clients' present and long-term objectives.

— Dan Campbell, Partner

Focus Areas

|

  • Establishing and managing a sophisticated claims process is instrumental to effective resolution of complex issues involving claims. In many instances, the claims process mitigates litigation risk while fairly resolving disputes outside the courtroom, where litigation costs and awards often exceed the value of the claim. At Crowell & Moring, we have significant experience helping clients with their claims administration program. We have developed, implemented and administered numerous claims processes to successfully resolve hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of claims for our clients, which include Fortune 100 multinational corporations.

    Designing a Process to Value and Evaluate Claims

    Crowell & Moring works closely with clients and third parties to develop the necessary elements of a successful claims process. At the outset, claims must be valued, which often requires input from the client, experts, and other third parties. For fixed-fund settlements, part of the valuation process is determining how the funds will be fairly allocated to maximize the number of participating claimants.

    In addition to determining how to value claims, we have significant experience developing an appropriate methodology to evaluate each claim. Claims may be evaluated in a myriad of ways depending on the source of the alleged damage. While some claims may require property inspection – either onsite or at a specific location – others may be evaluated via documents, including review of records, photographs, and other relevant information.

    Implementing a Claims Process

    Our extensive experience implementing claims processes includes:

    • Drafting and providing notice to potential claimants and related entities.
    • Developing communication materials for use on social media and claims websites.
    • Coordinating with public relations and corporate business units to ensure a consistent message and to provide claimants with accurate information about the claims process.

    In many instances, permitting claims to commence or be processed through online claims submission can be an efficient option.

    In addition to communications, we understand the variety of documents needed to successfully implement and manage the claims process, including requests for information, documentation of claim deficiencies, and release agreements. As with any legal process, certain ancillary issues must be considered, including insurance and subrogation claims, establishing of effective and fair appeal mechanisms, and ensuring proper communications with represented claimants.

    Successfully Administering a Cost-effective Claims Process

    We administer claims processes to ensure the mitigation of legal risks and the efficient settlement of claims. This includes ensuring that the settlement is administered according to agreed-upon policies and guidelines and remains cost effective. We work closely with vendors to maintain budgets and, when necessary, to adjust the process to address legal risk and litigation concerns as they develop.

    Representative Matters

    • Herbicide Product Litigation and Claims Process. Crowell & Moring assisted a Fortune 100 company in responding to allegations that its herbicide resulted in damage, including analysis of difficult challenges and decisions involving product withdrawal, selection of independent consultants and experts, defense of litigation, and implementation of a complex claims resolution system. In the early phases, we coordinated the causation and investigative work and implemented the process that continues today to resolve successfully thousands of claims. Those efforts bore fruit on the litigation front as well – together with co-counsel, Crowell & Moring obtained an early settlement and final approval in June 2014 of the Imprelis® MDL in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. That approval was based in part on the claims process already in use, which had eliminated the value of litigation by removing from the class over 30,000 property owners. Crowell & Moring and co-counsel counseled the company, a team of experts, and consulting firm in creating the system by which the claims were valued and resolved, including the creation of release agreements and other documents. Creative strategy minimized the litigation risk and provided the company’s customers a fair resolution.
    • Gulf Coast Refinery Work. Working with a real estate appraisal firm, we assisted with a property buy-out plan to create a green space between the refinery and neighboring residents. The purchase of homes resolved class action claims for property devaluation allegedly caused by ground water contamination and air emissions. We have also defended claims alleging community exposures to chemicals as a result of refinery explosion releasing hydrofluoric acid. The defense team tried a series of bellwether cases to defense verdicts and settled the remaining cases. In settling the cases, a fund was administered to over 10,000 people to settle personal injury and property damage claims. A claims administrator allocated the funds based on a predetermined formula after extensive negotiations with plaintiffs' counsel.
    • Hazardous Materials Site Litigation. Together with Louisville co-counsel, we defended thousands of claims brought by workers and neighbors at a Superfund site in southeastern Kentucky over the course of 17 years. After a month-long jury trial, the team won a defense verdict against three coal mining companies that sought $140 million in lost profits as a result of their proximity to the site. The National Law Journal recognized the victory in its annual list of the country’s top defense verdicts. The next year, the team defended bellwether plaintiff claims of multiple myeloma, childhood leukemia, and other illnesses in a 52-day jury trial that led to a mass settlement of more than 550 plaintiffs' cases. Later, they won a week-long arbitration of a tort of outrageous conduct action, achieved decertification of a state court class action, and, in another bellwether plaintiff case, won summary judgment after excluding all of the causation experts under Daubert. In addition to successfully litigating claims, the team also assisted in settling claims, which included setting up a process to allocate a settlement fund. Under this process, pre-determined criteria were used to create a matrix to value claims. The criteria selected ensured that settlement funds were appropriately allocated.
    • Fungicide Litigation and Claims. Crowell & Moring handled a 10-year birth defect litigation involving allegations of serious eye defects and other conditions from use of a home fungicide product. We litigated multinational (England, Wales, Scotland, New Zealand) cases through full discovery and ultimately prevailed on Daubert motions in two courts. In addition to successfully handling the birth defect litigation, Crowell & Moring helped develop a settlement claims process to resolve blocks of cases in the related crop litigation. Crowell & Moring valued the crop litigation claims based on a pre-determined matrix of damage categories.
    • Plumbing Litigation. We represent a Fortune 100 chemical company in national litigation attacking plumbing products. The litigation spans over 20 years in both state and federal courts and at all appellate levels, including the U.S. Supreme Court, and in the lower and appellate courts of Canada and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These cases include multi-plaintiff actions, as well as attempted national, statewide, and province-wide class actions. We provide national strategy, class action strategy, coordination of all discovery (including the management and production of over two million documents) and management of a network of local firms. We defeated class certification in two attempted national class actions and obtained full faith and credit in a statewide collateral attack on the company’s earlier national class settlement, which was upheld on appeal. A claims process was developed early on before class actions were brought, which resulted in the settlement of hundreds of thousands of claims. The claims process would evaluate each claim and, if it met the criteria, offer retrofitting and/or compensation. After a national class action settlement in the United States, we coordinated the administration of a national class settlement claims facility. After a national and two province-wide settlements in Canada, we coordinated the administration of the Canadian settlement claims facility.

    Establishing and managing a sophisticated claims process is instrumental to effective resolution of complex issues involving claims. In many instances, the claims process mitigates litigation risk while fairly resolving disputes outside the courtroom, where litigation costs and awards often exceed the value of the claim. At Crowell & Moring, we have significant experience helping clients with their claims administration program. We have developed, implemented and administered numerous claims processes to successfully resolve hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of claims for our clients, which include Fortune 100 multinational corporations.

    Designing a Process to Value and Evaluate Claims

    Crowell & Moring works closely with clients and third parties to develop the necessary elements of a successful claims process. At the outset, claims must be valued, which often requires input from the client, experts, and other third parties. For fixed-fund settlements, part of the valuation process is determining how the funds will be fairly allocated to maximize the number of participating claimants.

    In addition to determining how to value claims, we have significant experience developing an appropriate methodology to evaluate each claim. Claims may be evaluated in a myriad of ways depending on the source of the alleged damage. While some claims may require property inspection – either onsite or at a specific location – others may be evaluated via documents, including review of records, photographs, and other relevant information.

    Implementing a Claims Process

    Our extensive experience implementing claims processes includes:

    • Drafting and providing notice to potential claimants and related entities.
    • Developing communication materials for use on social media and claims websites.
    • Coordinating with public relations and corporate business units to ensure a consistent message and to provide claimants with accurate information about the claims process.

    In many instances, permitting claims to commence or be processed through online claims submission can be an efficient option.

    In addition to communications, we understand the variety of documents needed to successfully implement and manage the claims process, including requests for information, documentation of claim deficiencies, and release agreements. As with any legal process, certain ancillary issues must be considered, including insurance and subrogation claims, establishing of effective and fair appeal mechanisms, and ensuring proper communications with represented claimants.

    Successfully Administering a Cost-effective Claims Process

    We administer claims processes to ensure the mitigation of legal risks and the efficient settlement of claims. This includes ensuring that the settlement is administered according to agreed-upon policies and guidelines and remains cost effective. We work closely with vendors to maintain budgets and, when necessary, to adjust the process to address legal risk and litigation concerns as they develop.

    Representative Matters

    • Herbicide Product Litigation and Claims Process. Crowell & Moring assisted a Fortune 100 company in responding to allegations that its herbicide resulted in damage, including analysis of difficult challenges and decisions involving product withdrawal, selection of independent consultants and experts, defense of litigation, and implementation of a complex claims resolution system. In the early phases, we coordinated the causation and investigative work and implemented the process that continues today to resolve successfully thousands of claims. Those efforts bore fruit on the litigation front as well – together with co-counsel, Crowell & Moring obtained an early settlement and final approval in June 2014 of the Imprelis® MDL in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. That approval was based in part on the claims process already in use, which had eliminated the value of litigation by removing from the class over 30,000 property owners. Crowell & Moring and co-counsel counseled the company, a team of experts, and consulting firm in creating the system by which the claims were valued and resolved, including the creation of release agreements and other documents. Creative strategy minimized the litigation risk and provided the company’s customers a fair resolution.
    • Gulf Coast Refinery Work. Working with a real estate appraisal firm, we assisted with a property buy-out plan to create a green space between the refinery and neighboring residents. The purchase of homes resolved class action claims for property devaluation allegedly caused by ground water contamination and air emissions. We have also defended claims alleging community exposures to chemicals as a result of refinery explosion releasing hydrofluoric acid. The defense team tried a series of bellwether cases to defense verdicts and settled the remaining cases. In settling the cases, a fund was administered to over 10,000 people to settle personal injury and property damage claims. A claims administrator allocated the funds based on a predetermined formula after extensive negotiations with plaintiffs' counsel.
    • Hazardous Materials Site Litigation. Together with Louisville co-counsel, we defended thousands of claims brought by workers and neighbors at a Superfund site in southeastern Kentucky over the course of 17 years. After a month-long jury trial, the team won a defense verdict against three coal mining companies that sought $140 million in lost profits as a result of their proximity to the site. The National Law Journal recognized the victory in its annual list of the country’s top defense verdicts. The next year, the team defended bellwether plaintiff claims of multiple myeloma, childhood leukemia, and other illnesses in a 52-day jury trial that led to a mass settlement of more than 550 plaintiffs' cases. Later, they won a week-long arbitration of a tort of outrageous conduct action, achieved decertification of a state court class action, and, in another bellwether plaintiff case, won summary judgment after excluding all of the causation experts under Daubert. In addition to successfully litigating claims, the team also assisted in settling claims, which included setting up a process to allocate a settlement fund. Under this process, pre-determined criteria were used to create a matrix to value claims. The criteria selected ensured that settlement funds were appropriately allocated.
    • Fungicide Litigation and Claims. Crowell & Moring handled a 10-year birth defect litigation involving allegations of serious eye defects and other conditions from use of a home fungicide product. We litigated multinational (England, Wales, Scotland, New Zealand) cases through full discovery and ultimately prevailed on Daubert motions in two courts. In addition to successfully handling the birth defect litigation, Crowell & Moring helped develop a settlement claims process to resolve blocks of cases in the related crop litigation. Crowell & Moring valued the crop litigation claims based on a pre-determined matrix of damage categories.
    • Plumbing Litigation. We represent a Fortune 100 chemical company in national litigation attacking plumbing products. The litigation spans over 20 years in both state and federal courts and at all appellate levels, including the U.S. Supreme Court, and in the lower and appellate courts of Canada and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These cases include multi-plaintiff actions, as well as attempted national, statewide, and province-wide class actions. We provide national strategy, class action strategy, coordination of all discovery (including the management and production of over two million documents) and management of a network of local firms. We defeated class certification in two attempted national class actions and obtained full faith and credit in a statewide collateral attack on the company’s earlier national class settlement, which was upheld on appeal. A claims process was developed early on before class actions were brought, which resulted in the settlement of hundreds of thousands of claims. The claims process would evaluate each claim and, if it met the criteria, offer retrofitting and/or compensation. After a national class action settlement in the United States, we coordinated the administration of a national class settlement claims facility. After a national and two province-wide settlements in Canada, we coordinated the administration of the Canadian settlement claims facility.

  • National coordination and related toxic tort and product liability matters handled by Crowell & Moring frequently involve significant science and health issues. These cases require considerable sophistication to handle the Daubert and Frye discovery and expert work, to deconstruct plaintiffs' expert approaches, and to establish the credibility of the defense position.

    In the context of these cases, we have retained and developed teams of world-leading experts; integrated their testimony into hearings and trials; conducted aggressive discovery of plaintiffs' experts; and created tools such as testimony videos and CD compendia of expert materials for cross-case use by different firms. In addition, our firm has substantial experience representing scientists themselves through our extensive portfolio of scientific integrity defense litigation. We often draw upon this history and knowledge in developing our expert cases in national coordination representations.

    Some of the keys to our approach include the following:

    • Expert development. Because these cases frequently turn on the quality of the science presented, we identify and recruit the best national and international experts available to support the defense. To do this, we frequently utilize our counsel at Crowell & Moring who defend scientists and universities, from which they have developed a wealth of contacts among the scientific community. We routinely draw from top universities such as Stanford, Harvard, the University of Michigan, and the University of London for our expert pools, and often retain high-level former government regulators to address regulatory health perspectives.
    • Scientific knowledge. In the course of these cases and through our expert work, we have developed our own base of knowledge in a wide array of health-related disciplines such as genetics, teratology, oncology, hematology, immunology, epidemiology, pharmacokinetics, occupational medicine, exposure calculations, toxicology, and the like. Although the issues in each case are always somewhat unique, many of the concepts are readily transferable and vastly enhance our ability to handle novel science cases.
    • Deconstructing plaintiffs' science. In our experience, the plaintiffs' expert opinions and methodology in these cases are marginal and unscientific, but to the untrained layperson may nevertheless appear persuasive. We have developed discovery techniques, based on extensive work with Daubert case law and the health fields mentioned above, to expose the methodological errors, the absence of true peer review, and similar problems that underlie the plaintiffs' expert work and that will provide the basis for a successful Daubert/Frye defense.

    A unique aspect of our expert work includes the key role the firm has played in important Daubert decisions. On behalf of associational clients, we prepared a leading amicus brief in the Daubert case that proposed the "gatekeeper" concept and the use of the scientific method in this manner. We likewise filed amicus briefs in the Supreme Court Kumho case and in other appellate matters. Our lawyers have also written extensively on science and Daubert issues, including as co-authors of a leading text, Expert Evidence: A Practioner's Guide to Law, Science, and the FJC Manual. Two of our lawyers recently published an article in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform on the appropriate Daubert analysis of scientific studies generated and paid for by litigants to support novel science. ("Daubert's Backwash: Litigation-Generated Science," 34:4 Mich. J. L. Ref.)

    National coordination and related toxic tort and product liability matters handled by Crowell & Moring frequently involve significant science and health issues. These cases require considerable sophistication to handle the Daubert and Frye discovery and expert work, to deconstruct plaintiffs' expert approaches, and to establish the credibility of the defense position.

    In the context of these cases, we have retained and developed teams of world-leading experts; integrated their testimony into hearings and trials; conducted aggressive discovery of plaintiffs' experts; and created tools such as testimony videos and CD compendia of expert materials for cross-case use by different firms. In addition, our firm has substantial experience representing scientists themselves through our extensive portfolio of scientific integrity defense litigation. We often draw upon this history and knowledge in developing our expert cases in national coordination representations.

    Some of the keys to our approach include the following:

    • Expert development. Because these cases frequently turn on the quality of the science presented, we identify and recruit the best national and international experts available to support the defense. To do this, we frequently utilize our counsel at Crowell & Moring who defend scientists and universities, from which they have developed a wealth of contacts among the scientific community. We routinely draw from top universities such as Stanford, Harvard, the University of Michigan, and the University of London for our expert pools, and often retain high-level former government regulators to address regulatory health perspectives.
    • Scientific knowledge. In the course of these cases and through our expert work, we have developed our own base of knowledge in a wide array of health-related disciplines such as genetics, teratology, oncology, hematology, immunology, epidemiology, pharmacokinetics, occupational medicine, exposure calculations, toxicology, and the like. Although the issues in each case are always somewhat unique, many of the concepts are readily transferable and vastly enhance our ability to handle novel science cases.
    • Deconstructing plaintiffs' science. In our experience, the plaintiffs' expert opinions and methodology in these cases are marginal and unscientific, but to the untrained layperson may nevertheless appear persuasive. We have developed discovery techniques, based on extensive work with Daubert case law and the health fields mentioned above, to expose the methodological errors, the absence of true peer review, and similar problems that underlie the plaintiffs' expert work and that will provide the basis for a successful Daubert/Frye defense.

    A unique aspect of our expert work includes the key role the firm has played in important Daubert decisions. On behalf of associational clients, we prepared a leading amicus brief in the Daubert case that proposed the "gatekeeper" concept and the use of the scientific method in this manner. We likewise filed amicus briefs in the Supreme Court Kumho case and in other appellate matters. Our lawyers have also written extensively on science and Daubert issues, including as co-authors of a leading text, Expert Evidence: A Practioner's Guide to Law, Science, and the FJC Manual. Two of our lawyers recently published an article in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform on the appropriate Daubert analysis of scientific studies generated and paid for by litigants to support novel science. ("Daubert's Backwash: Litigation-Generated Science," 34:4 Mich. J. L. Ref.)

  • Coordination of complex mass tort litigation requires a unique set of management skills. Three important components of effective management include (1) development of appropriate resource allocation between and among firms, (2) integrated use of technology in all phases of the defense effort, and (3) application of cost-management strategies to track, control, and project litigation costs.

    Resource Allocation

    Fundamentally, networks of law firms in national litigation provide significant opportunities to leverage resources beyond that which is possible in single-case litigation. For example, firms that have experience in core scientific issues may be very effective in cases beyond their region or jurisdiction. Similarly, certain firms may be better suited to assume trial responsibilities for a particular region or type of case. But an important part of overall resource allocation — and in developing an effective overall defense — is a willingness of individual firms to act cooperatively in the context of a particular litigation. We have extensive experience working with clients to develop the right structure to meet the needs of particular litigation.

    Appropriate Use of Technology

    In today's environment, it is imperative to bring the best possible technology skills to bear on mass tort litigation. Complex litigation frequently involves multiple law firms working in many jurisdictions, a situation fraught with potential for miscommunication and wasteful duplication of effort if communications technology is inadequate or absent. Likewise, these cases typically involve the most difficult and complex discovery and case management of any form of litigation.

    Crowell & Moring has expended substantial effort and resources to place itself among the leaders in national law firms who regularly apply technology to the unique needs of national litigation. Among other areas, we have extensive experience in the following:

    • Client extranets. We have worked with our clients to develop secured extranet sites designed to permit easy transmittal of case information, draft briefs, document productions, litigation calendars, etc. The use of software such as PDF formatting and other imaging and viewing technology can be a key part of these projects. In some instances, the systems we created were faster than traditional dial-in approaches. These extranets, created on behalf of Caterpillar Inc, UTC, CSX Transportation, and others, allow for a centralized Internet-based repository of all case information. These secured extranets provide online access to all of this information day or night in a format that is as easy to learn and use as some of the most popular web sites. For Caterpillar, we are hosting case information, key documents, and litigation calendars for over 2,000 individual matters. Every member of the litigation team has easy and timely access to these information resources. Each of our extranets, though customizable for each case or client, offers the same core functionality and features, including a document repository, event tracking, and contact management. In some instances, we have developed applications specific to a client's particular requirements. 
    • Development of DuPont KnowledgeBase. We helped DuPont develop its Knowledgebase (KB), a Lotus Notes-based intranet linking outside law firms and in-house counsel of DuPont. We served on the task force that designed the DuPont KnowledgeBase, and participated as a pilot firm for application of the KnowledgeBase to litigation.
    • Case management and communication tools. We have worked with our clients to develop case-specific electronic connection networks designed to permit exchange of case information, draft briefs, document productions, and calendars. The use of software such as PDF formatting and other imaging and viewing technology can be a key part of these projects.
    • Online document review. We have overseen a number of massive, online electronic document and privilege review projects. In one case, the company had literally millions of emails subject to discovery, many involving communications with company lawyers. We organized the privilege review entirely online, working with the vendor to develop the software and accomplishing an overwhelming project in a timely and successful fashion.
    • Big-case document management. In another product litigation, we are assisting the client in managing over five million documents on a fully electronic system, from which we conduct discovery searches and make all productions in electronic formats.
    • Integrating document management with trial technology. In a series of consumer fraud class actions involving a pharmaceutical product, we teamed with our co-defense counsel and FTI to create and utilize an imaged document database to which all defense firms had access for reviewing and analyzing documents produced in litigation across the country. We routinely used technology tools such as TrialDirector® to display pertinent documents in court during motions hearings and in mock trials that we utilized to develop discovery and trial themes.
    • In-house "paperless" file management. We have devoted considerable resources to making our in-house operation state of the art, including creating our own 10,000 square foot in-house imaging and "paperless" case management system and implementing the use of document management software on many of the firm's cases.
    • Electronic case compilations. In several of our cases, we developed electronic case compilations, either in CD format or online, containing key case pleadings, expert materials, briefs, and the like that our trial counsel regularly use to avoid reinventing the wheel.

    Cost Control and Management

    We have occasionally undertaken the cost-management role for certain clients in national litigation, typically in collaboration with in-house counsel. We seek (1) to eliminate duplication in the overall defense effort by leveraging resources across a range of firms as described above, (2) to define staffing structure based on the highest and best use of each firm, and (3) to track costs and review staffing — on a nearly real-time basis — in accord with an agreed-upon structure. We have worked closely with our clients to develop systems designed to address the issues.

    Coordination of complex mass tort litigation requires a unique set of management skills. Three important components of effective management include (1) development of appropriate resource allocation between and among firms, (2) integrated use of technology in all phases of the defense effort, and (3) application of cost-management strategies to track, control, and project litigation costs.

    Resource Allocation

    Fundamentally, networks of law firms in national litigation provide significant opportunities to leverage resources beyond that which is possible in single-case litigation. For example, firms that have experience in core scientific issues may be very effective in cases beyond their region or jurisdiction. Similarly, certain firms may be better suited to assume trial responsibilities for a particular region or type of case. But an important part of overall resource allocation — and in developing an effective overall defense — is a willingness of individual firms to act cooperatively in the context of a particular litigation. We have extensive experience working with clients to develop the right structure to meet the needs of particular litigation.

    Appropriate Use of Technology

    In today's environment, it is imperative to bring the best possible technology skills to bear on mass tort litigation. Complex litigation frequently involves multiple law firms working in many jurisdictions, a situation fraught with potential for miscommunication and wasteful duplication of effort if communications technology is inadequate or absent. Likewise, these cases typically involve the most difficult and complex discovery and case management of any form of litigation.

    Crowell & Moring has expended substantial effort and resources to place itself among the leaders in national law firms who regularly apply technology to the unique needs of national litigation. Among other areas, we have extensive experience in the following:

    • Client extranets. We have worked with our clients to develop secured extranet sites designed to permit easy transmittal of case information, draft briefs, document productions, litigation calendars, etc. The use of software such as PDF formatting and other imaging and viewing technology can be a key part of these projects. In some instances, the systems we created were faster than traditional dial-in approaches. These extranets, created on behalf of Caterpillar Inc, UTC, CSX Transportation, and others, allow for a centralized Internet-based repository of all case information. These secured extranets provide online access to all of this information day or night in a format that is as easy to learn and use as some of the most popular web sites. For Caterpillar, we are hosting case information, key documents, and litigation calendars for over 2,000 individual matters. Every member of the litigation team has easy and timely access to these information resources. Each of our extranets, though customizable for each case or client, offers the same core functionality and features, including a document repository, event tracking, and contact management. In some instances, we have developed applications specific to a client's particular requirements. 
    • Development of DuPont KnowledgeBase. We helped DuPont develop its Knowledgebase (KB), a Lotus Notes-based intranet linking outside law firms and in-house counsel of DuPont. We served on the task force that designed the DuPont KnowledgeBase, and participated as a pilot firm for application of the KnowledgeBase to litigation.
    • Case management and communication tools. We have worked with our clients to develop case-specific electronic connection networks designed to permit exchange of case information, draft briefs, document productions, and calendars. The use of software such as PDF formatting and other imaging and viewing technology can be a key part of these projects.
    • Online document review. We have overseen a number of massive, online electronic document and privilege review projects. In one case, the company had literally millions of emails subject to discovery, many involving communications with company lawyers. We organized the privilege review entirely online, working with the vendor to develop the software and accomplishing an overwhelming project in a timely and successful fashion.
    • Big-case document management. In another product litigation, we are assisting the client in managing over five million documents on a fully electronic system, from which we conduct discovery searches and make all productions in electronic formats.
    • Integrating document management with trial technology. In a series of consumer fraud class actions involving a pharmaceutical product, we teamed with our co-defense counsel and FTI to create and utilize an imaged document database to which all defense firms had access for reviewing and analyzing documents produced in litigation across the country. We routinely used technology tools such as TrialDirector® to display pertinent documents in court during motions hearings and in mock trials that we utilized to develop discovery and trial themes.
    • In-house "paperless" file management. We have devoted considerable resources to making our in-house operation state of the art, including creating our own 10,000 square foot in-house imaging and "paperless" case management system and implementing the use of document management software on many of the firm's cases.
    • Electronic case compilations. In several of our cases, we developed electronic case compilations, either in CD format or online, containing key case pleadings, expert materials, briefs, and the like that our trial counsel regularly use to avoid reinventing the wheel.

    Cost Control and Management

    We have occasionally undertaken the cost-management role for certain clients in national litigation, typically in collaboration with in-house counsel. We seek (1) to eliminate duplication in the overall defense effort by leveraging resources across a range of firms as described above, (2) to define staffing structure based on the highest and best use of each firm, and (3) to track costs and review staffing — on a nearly real-time basis — in accord with an agreed-upon structure. We have worked closely with our clients to develop systems designed to address the issues.

  • Large-scale, multi-state litigation often involves publicity. Plaintiffs' counsel have become increasingly adept at generating one-sided and potentially damaging media activity as a means of advancing their cases and putting pressure on defendants. In this type of litigation, a sophisticated media strategy (large or small) is often important to a successful defense effort.

    We are familiar with plaintiffs' media tactics and have worked with clients and media firms to address plaintiffs' media initiatives. Initially, these mechanisms involve media management in the context of case coordination to ensure that media efforts are consistent with litigation goals and do not interfere with the lawsuits. We highlight our experience in both areas, below.

    Representative Matters

    • Lead paint litigation communications. We act as chief counsel for DuPont with respect to all communications on its lead paint cases, coordinating the company's activities with inside counsel and public relations professionals, as well as with counsel for other defendants and an outside communications firm. We develop strategy and activities to counter the sophisticated use of media by adversaries ranging from Ness Motley to Peter Angelos and assorted public interest groups.
    • Ritalin press activity. As mentioned above, tobacco lawyers Dickie Scruggs and John Coale, in filing the Ritalin lawsuits against our client the American Psychiatric Association and Novartis, initiated a flurry of media activity. They have continued to seek maximum press coverage to define the parameters of public debate on many of the core issues in the litigation. An important part of our role is to coordinate our litigation strategy with an aggressive, ongoing media debate.
    • Fungicide health effects cases. In fungicide birth defect cases in which we represent the manufacturer, sensational media articles alleging an association with the company's product have been a regular feature now for seven years. Programs have aired on major British and New Zealand television, on CNN, and in many newspapers. We have assisted the company in developing dozens of press statements, "Qs & As," and similar materials to set forth the company's position on these issues without negatively affecting the company's litigation position.
    • DuPont product and toxic tort cases. In our series of DuPont national coordination representations, we likewise have regularly advised the company on its media strategy involving publications from the Wall Street Journal to small, local newspapers in Florida and elsewhere. We provide media statements and materials to address negative publicity arising out of the lawsuits and helped the company's media managers develop appropriate strategy.
    • National agricultural environmental cases. In a series of lawsuits alleging pollution from livestock facilities, we have taken the lead in providing a media response that has included, among other things, appearances on National Public Radio and local radio broadcasting and extensive work with the industry trade association's public relations arm.

    In these and numerous other matters, we either work with in-house counsel and media personnel to develop a public relations approach, or we assist outside media management firms if the matter merits outside resources and experience.

    Large-scale, multi-state litigation often involves publicity. Plaintiffs' counsel have become increasingly adept at generating one-sided and potentially damaging media activity as a means of advancing their cases and putting pressure on defendants. In this type of litigation, a sophisticated media strategy (large or small) is often important to a successful defense effort.

    We are familiar with plaintiffs' media tactics and have worked with clients and media firms to address plaintiffs' media initiatives. Initially, these mechanisms involve media management in the context of case coordination to ensure that media efforts are consistent with litigation goals and do not interfere with the lawsuits. We highlight our experience in both areas, below.

    Representative Matters

    • Lead paint litigation communications. We act as chief counsel for DuPont with respect to all communications on its lead paint cases, coordinating the company's activities with inside counsel and public relations professionals, as well as with counsel for other defendants and an outside communications firm. We develop strategy and activities to counter the sophisticated use of media by adversaries ranging from Ness Motley to Peter Angelos and assorted public interest groups.
    • Ritalin press activity. As mentioned above, tobacco lawyers Dickie Scruggs and John Coale, in filing the Ritalin lawsuits against our client the American Psychiatric Association and Novartis, initiated a flurry of media activity. They have continued to seek maximum press coverage to define the parameters of public debate on many of the core issues in the litigation. An important part of our role is to coordinate our litigation strategy with an aggressive, ongoing media debate.
    • Fungicide health effects cases. In fungicide birth defect cases in which we represent the manufacturer, sensational media articles alleging an association with the company's product have been a regular feature now for seven years. Programs have aired on major British and New Zealand television, on CNN, and in many newspapers. We have assisted the company in developing dozens of press statements, "Qs & As," and similar materials to set forth the company's position on these issues without negatively affecting the company's litigation position.
    • DuPont product and toxic tort cases. In our series of DuPont national coordination representations, we likewise have regularly advised the company on its media strategy involving publications from the Wall Street Journal to small, local newspapers in Florida and elsewhere. We provide media statements and materials to address negative publicity arising out of the lawsuits and helped the company's media managers develop appropriate strategy.
    • National agricultural environmental cases. In a series of lawsuits alleging pollution from livestock facilities, we have taken the lead in providing a media response that has included, among other things, appearances on National Public Radio and local radio broadcasting and extensive work with the industry trade association's public relations arm.

    In these and numerous other matters, we either work with in-house counsel and media personnel to develop a public relations approach, or we assist outside media management firms if the matter merits outside resources and experience.

  • Caterpillar Welding Fumes Litigation

    Crowell & Moring has served as Caterpillar's national coordinating counsel in welding fume litigation since 2003. At its height, this litigation spanned the country, with thousands of individual and class action suits filed in both federal and state courts from Pennsylvania to California. Crowell & Moring also acted as counsel of record for Caterpillar in the federal welding rod multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding established in Cleveland, Ohio. Plaintiffs in these cases typically assert claims against manufacturers and sellers of welding consumables (such as welding rods), alleging actual or potential neurological injury as a result of exposure to components of welding fumes. Caterpillar is not a manufacturer of welding products, but primarily was sued for its involvement in a trade association, through which plaintiffs alleged Caterpillar and various other defendants conspired to conceal the potential dangers of exposure to welding fumes. Through an aggressive motions practice strategy, the Crowell & Moring team achieved numerous successes on motions to dismiss in individual cases, culminating in a global summary judgment order from the MDL court dismissing with prejudice all claims against Caterpillar in every pending federal lawsuit. Following the summary judgment order, the vast majority of the state court claims against Caterpillar have been voluntarily dismissed, and Caterpillar remains a defendant in only a few cases.

    CSX Solvent Litigation

    We have been retained by CSX as national coordinating counsel for litigation arising out of alleged exposure to several chemical substances, including cases arising under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), state-law-based tort claims, and class actions. Our representation includes advising CSX on its overall litigation strategy, developing CSX's expert case, coordinating discovery, briefing key legal issues such as removal and class certification, and preparing dispositive motions. We also serve as counsel of record in a pending FELA medical monitoring class action case filed in a Florida state court, two environmental exposure cases pending in Florida and Michigan courts, and a recent class action suit filed in an Illinois state court. Within the past several months, we also successfully represented CSX in a putative class action filed in New Orleans, which involved a residential evacuation resulting from a leaking tank car. Recently, in a FELA case brought in West Virginia state court by former railroad workers who alleged that they suffered neurological injuries stemming from exposure to chlorinated solvents, we represented CSX in a four-day Daubert hearing. Our flexible approach to coordinating these dockets has allowed us to tailor our response — and involvement — to each particular litigation, maximizing our effectiveness as well as that of CSX's network of local counsel.

    Ritalin Consumer Fraud Class Actions

    We represented one of the principal defendants, the American Psychiatric Association, in a highly publicized series of class actions alleging fraud in developing criteria for the diagnosis of a childhood mental disorder (ADHD) and the marketing of Ritalin as the treatment. Initially, the litigation consisted of five class actions pending in five state or federal courts, variously alleging state or national classes of up to six million Ritalin users and their families. These cases were pursued by the same plaintiffs' lawyers (Dickie Scruggs and John Coale) responsible for the tobacco, gun, and HMO litigation, who touted the Ritalin cases as their next initiative in targeting a major industry.

    As national coordinating counsel in the five class actions, we anticipated a risk of multiple additional lawsuits around the country if the momentum behind the initial filings was not slowed. Our coordination strategy thus focused on a series of early strike dismissal motions designed to attack the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs' complaints and obtain dismissals in one or more cases. Ultimately, we were successful in securing the dismissal of all five class actions. No new Ritalin cases have been filed.

    Delrin Litigation

    We act as national coordinating counsel for DuPont in polybutylene plumbing litigation involving its plastic Delrin. The litigation consists primarily of property damage claims. The current cases are pending in state and federal courts in the United States, as well as in the courts of three Canadian provinces and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These cases include attempted national, statewide, and providence-wide class actions.

    We provide national strategy, class action strategy, coordination of all discovery (including the management and production of over two million documents), and management of a network of local firms. We coordinate and advise the administration national class settlement claims facility of DuPont. We defeated class certification in two attempted national class actions and obtained full faith and credit in a statewide collateral attack on an earlier national class settlement of DuPont.

    UTA Ignition Switch Litigation

    We represented a major automobile parts manufacturer in litigation arising out of what was at the time the largest automotive recall in history. We coordinated the defense of over a dozen class actions and scores of individual actions, most of which originated in state courts around the country. Our defense included (1) a case removal and consolidation strategy that ultimately resulted in the removal of most of the cases to federal court and their transfer through MDL proceedings to a single federal court in New Jersey; (2) in tandem with counsel for Ford, successful efforts to obtain the dismissal of most of the products liability, breach of contract, warranty, and consumer fraud claims against our client; and (3) coordination with law firms across the country and extensive work with engineering experts to build the expert case that enabled us to defeat class certification three separate times. Ultimately, we obtained dismissal of all of the original putative class actions.

    Bridgeton/Firestone Recall Litigation

    We were part of a group of law firms representing Bridgestone/Firestone in the leading recall case in the country and the litigation that grew out of that recall. Crowell & Moring previously worked extensively as national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in automotive rollover cases and other major automotive product liability litigation. We were hired by Firestone to develop and present the case that defects in the Ford Explorer, not tire failure, acted as the primary cause of the rollovers and other accidents alleged to be associated with tire tread separation of Firestone tires. We were responsible for trial theme, expert, and evidence development and worked closely with the trial teams around the country in these high-profile, "bet-the-company" cases.

    Caterpillar Friction Products Asbestos Litigation

    We were retained by Caterpillar in 2002 to serve as national coordinating counsel for the company's asbestos litigation. The cases against Caterpillar principally involve products liability claims arising out of alleged exposure to friction products and gaskets in heavy equipment and engines. In conjunction with Caterpillar, we are responsible for formulating long-term strategy, developing a stable of "national experts" for use across the country, centralizing written discovery and document management, and working with the company's regional counsel to implement trial strategy. Finally, we are working with Caterpillar to develop long-term solutions to the company's asbestos litigation.

    Coumadin Consumer Fraud Cases

    We represented a major pharmaceutical company, DuPont Pharmaceuticals (now Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma), as coordinating counsel for a series of consumer fraud and antitrust class actions directed at the company's promotion and marketing of Coumadin®, one of its leading drugs. Plaintiffs, which included consumers, insurers, and the major generic competitor, filed 15 actions in 12 state and federal courts, all but one of which were class actions. We obtained dismissal of several of the state cases based upon First Amendment and Noerr-Pennington protections accorded to the petitioning and related speech of DuPont. In Alabama, we won summary judgment on the basis that the Alabama antitrust statute did not apply to goods shipped in interstate commerce. In Tennessee, we defeated a motion for certification of a nationwide class of consumers. DuPont ultimately settled with its generic competitor through a business deal that proved favorable to the company, and concluded the litigation with an MDL settlement of all consumer and insurer class claims, which settlement was recently affirmed by the Third Circuit. In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litigation, 212 F.R.D. 231 (D. Del. 2002), aff'd, ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir., Dec. 8, 2004).

    DuPont Premises Liability Litigation

    Since 1992, we have served as national coordinating counsel for DuPont with regard to its asbestos litigation. The bulk of the cases involve premises liability claims brought against DuPont by employees of contractors that worked on DuPont sites, although we also handle product liability claims. The cases are filed largely in state court in nearly 20 states and litigated as individual cases and through large-scale consolidations or class actions. Many of the cases are brought by nationally known plaintiff firms such as Peter Angelos, Ness Motley, and Provost Umphrey.

    As national counsel, we are responsible for developing long-term national strategy, legal issue development, class strategy, coordinating a centralized discovery effort, overseeing trial strategy, and managing a large network of firms. We also participate directly in the key joint defense groups and are counsel of record for all cases pending in the federal asbestos MDL proceeding in Philadelphia, all class actions, and selected appeals. We also serve as co-trial counsel for all asbestos cases against DuPont in Baltimore.

    Liberty Mutual Silica Litigation

    We were retained by Liberty Mutual in 2003 to serve as national strategic counsel to advise Liberty and its principal policyholders on developing long-term strategies to collapse the burgeoning docket of silica and mixed-dust claims. We work directly with the national counsel of key policyholders on big-picture initiatives, including the federal MDL proceeding, expert development, and applying recent tort reform initiatives to the litigation.

    Air Crash Disaster Cases

    We represented DuPont in two major air crash disaster cases, the 1998 crash of Swissair Flight 111 off the coast of Nova Scotia and the 1999 crash of EgyptAir Flight 990 off the coast of Nantucket. These two mass litigations, involving over 100 separate lawsuits against our client, included product liability claims such as negligence, strict product liability, and breach of warranty. We served as co-trial counsel and coordinated the various cases in MDL proceedings and in state and federal courts. In Swissair, we filed a motion to dismiss on behalf of DuPont and the court granted the motion late last year. In EgyptAir, in response to a similar motion, plaintiffs' counsel voluntarily dismissed all claims.

    Luzenac Talc Litigation

    We serve as national strategic counsel for Luzenac in claims arising from the company's talc products. Our role is largely strategic, although we have worked with the company on expert development, discovery management, and various technology issues. We have also worked with jurisdictional counsel on developing case-specific strategies.

    Building Product/Property Damage Litigation

    We were retained by a major asbestos manufacturer, Eagle-Picher Industries, to supervise all litigation nationwide regarding claims of property damage filed by states, cities, and school districts. Prior to the company's bankruptcy, we achieved one of the most successful win-loss records in the litigation, obtaining dismissal of 108 of 150 cases filed. We also successfully tried and won the first case brought by a state attorney general. At the height of the litigation, we coordinated cases in over 16 states involving 20 law firms.

    Caterpillar Welding Fumes Litigation

    Crowell & Moring has served as Caterpillar's national coordinating counsel in welding fume litigation since 2003. At its height, this litigation spanned the country, with thousands of individual and class action suits filed in both federal and state courts from Pennsylvania to California. Crowell & Moring also acted as counsel of record for Caterpillar in the federal welding rod multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding established in Cleveland, Ohio. Plaintiffs in these cases typically assert claims against manufacturers and sellers of welding consumables (such as welding rods), alleging actual or potential neurological injury as a result of exposure to components of welding fumes. Caterpillar is not a manufacturer of welding products, but primarily was sued for its involvement in a trade association, through which plaintiffs alleged Caterpillar and various other defendants conspired to conceal the potential dangers of exposure to welding fumes. Through an aggressive motions practice strategy, the Crowell & Moring team achieved numerous successes on motions to dismiss in individual cases, culminating in a global summary judgment order from the MDL court dismissing with prejudice all claims against Caterpillar in every pending federal lawsuit. Following the summary judgment order, the vast majority of the state court claims against Caterpillar have been voluntarily dismissed, and Caterpillar remains a defendant in only a few cases.

    CSX Solvent Litigation

    We have been retained by CSX as national coordinating counsel for litigation arising out of alleged exposure to several chemical substances, including cases arising under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), state-law-based tort claims, and class actions. Our representation includes advising CSX on its overall litigation strategy, developing CSX's expert case, coordinating discovery, briefing key legal issues such as removal and class certification, and preparing dispositive motions. We also serve as counsel of record in a pending FELA medical monitoring class action case filed in a Florida state court, two environmental exposure cases pending in Florida and Michigan courts, and a recent class action suit filed in an Illinois state court. Within the past several months, we also successfully represented CSX in a putative class action filed in New Orleans, which involved a residential evacuation resulting from a leaking tank car. Recently, in a FELA case brought in West Virginia state court by former railroad workers who alleged that they suffered neurological injuries stemming from exposure to chlorinated solvents, we represented CSX in a four-day Daubert hearing. Our flexible approach to coordinating these dockets has allowed us to tailor our response — and involvement — to each particular litigation, maximizing our effectiveness as well as that of CSX's network of local counsel.

    Ritalin Consumer Fraud Class Actions

    We represented one of the principal defendants, the American Psychiatric Association, in a highly publicized series of class actions alleging fraud in developing criteria for the diagnosis of a childhood mental disorder (ADHD) and the marketing of Ritalin as the treatment. Initially, the litigation consisted of five class actions pending in five state or federal courts, variously alleging state or national classes of up to six million Ritalin users and their families. These cases were pursued by the same plaintiffs' lawyers (Dickie Scruggs and John Coale) responsible for the tobacco, gun, and HMO litigation, who touted the Ritalin cases as their next initiative in targeting a major industry.

    As national coordinating counsel in the five class actions, we anticipated a risk of multiple additional lawsuits around the country if the momentum behind the initial filings was not slowed. Our coordination strategy thus focused on a series of early strike dismissal motions designed to attack the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs' complaints and obtain dismissals in one or more cases. Ultimately, we were successful in securing the dismissal of all five class actions. No new Ritalin cases have been filed.

    Delrin Litigation

    We act as national coordinating counsel for DuPont in polybutylene plumbing litigation involving its plastic Delrin. The litigation consists primarily of property damage claims. The current cases are pending in state and federal courts in the United States, as well as in the courts of three Canadian provinces and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These cases include attempted national, statewide, and providence-wide class actions.

    We provide national strategy, class action strategy, coordination of all discovery (including the management and production of over two million documents), and management of a network of local firms. We coordinate and advise the administration national class settlement claims facility of DuPont. We defeated class certification in two attempted national class actions and obtained full faith and credit in a statewide collateral attack on an earlier national class settlement of DuPont.

    UTA Ignition Switch Litigation

    We represented a major automobile parts manufacturer in litigation arising out of what was at the time the largest automotive recall in history. We coordinated the defense of over a dozen class actions and scores of individual actions, most of which originated in state courts around the country. Our defense included (1) a case removal and consolidation strategy that ultimately resulted in the removal of most of the cases to federal court and their transfer through MDL proceedings to a single federal court in New Jersey; (2) in tandem with counsel for Ford, successful efforts to obtain the dismissal of most of the products liability, breach of contract, warranty, and consumer fraud claims against our client; and (3) coordination with law firms across the country and extensive work with engineering experts to build the expert case that enabled us to defeat class certification three separate times. Ultimately, we obtained dismissal of all of the original putative class actions.

    Bridgeton/Firestone Recall Litigation

    We were part of a group of law firms representing Bridgestone/Firestone in the leading recall case in the country and the litigation that grew out of that recall. Crowell & Moring previously worked extensively as national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in automotive rollover cases and other major automotive product liability litigation. We were hired by Firestone to develop and present the case that defects in the Ford Explorer, not tire failure, acted as the primary cause of the rollovers and other accidents alleged to be associated with tire tread separation of Firestone tires. We were responsible for trial theme, expert, and evidence development and worked closely with the trial teams around the country in these high-profile, "bet-the-company" cases.

    Caterpillar Friction Products Asbestos Litigation

    We were retained by Caterpillar in 2002 to serve as national coordinating counsel for the company's asbestos litigation. The cases against Caterpillar principally involve products liability claims arising out of alleged exposure to friction products and gaskets in heavy equipment and engines. In conjunction with Caterpillar, we are responsible for formulating long-term strategy, developing a stable of "national experts" for use across the country, centralizing written discovery and document management, and working with the company's regional counsel to implement trial strategy. Finally, we are working with Caterpillar to develop long-term solutions to the company's asbestos litigation.

    Coumadin Consumer Fraud Cases

    We represented a major pharmaceutical company, DuPont Pharmaceuticals (now Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma), as coordinating counsel for a series of consumer fraud and antitrust class actions directed at the company's promotion and marketing of Coumadin®, one of its leading drugs. Plaintiffs, which included consumers, insurers, and the major generic competitor, filed 15 actions in 12 state and federal courts, all but one of which were class actions. We obtained dismissal of several of the state cases based upon First Amendment and Noerr-Pennington protections accorded to the petitioning and related speech of DuPont. In Alabama, we won summary judgment on the basis that the Alabama antitrust statute did not apply to goods shipped in interstate commerce. In Tennessee, we defeated a motion for certification of a nationwide class of consumers. DuPont ultimately settled with its generic competitor through a business deal that proved favorable to the company, and concluded the litigation with an MDL settlement of all consumer and insurer class claims, which settlement was recently affirmed by the Third Circuit. In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litigation, 212 F.R.D. 231 (D. Del. 2002), aff'd, ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir., Dec. 8, 2004).

    DuPont Premises Liability Litigation

    Since 1992, we have served as national coordinating counsel for DuPont with regard to its asbestos litigation. The bulk of the cases involve premises liability claims brought against DuPont by employees of contractors that worked on DuPont sites, although we also handle product liability claims. The cases are filed largely in state court in nearly 20 states and litigated as individual cases and through large-scale consolidations or class actions. Many of the cases are brought by nationally known plaintiff firms such as Peter Angelos, Ness Motley, and Provost Umphrey.

    As national counsel, we are responsible for developing long-term national strategy, legal issue development, class strategy, coordinating a centralized discovery effort, overseeing trial strategy, and managing a large network of firms. We also participate directly in the key joint defense groups and are counsel of record for all cases pending in the federal asbestos MDL proceeding in Philadelphia, all class actions, and selected appeals. We also serve as co-trial counsel for all asbestos cases against DuPont in Baltimore.

    Liberty Mutual Silica Litigation

    We were retained by Liberty Mutual in 2003 to serve as national strategic counsel to advise Liberty and its principal policyholders on developing long-term strategies to collapse the burgeoning docket of silica and mixed-dust claims. We work directly with the national counsel of key policyholders on big-picture initiatives, including the federal MDL proceeding, expert development, and applying recent tort reform initiatives to the litigation.

    Air Crash Disaster Cases

    We represented DuPont in two major air crash disaster cases, the 1998 crash of Swissair Flight 111 off the coast of Nova Scotia and the 1999 crash of EgyptAir Flight 990 off the coast of Nantucket. These two mass litigations, involving over 100 separate lawsuits against our client, included product liability claims such as negligence, strict product liability, and breach of warranty. We served as co-trial counsel and coordinated the various cases in MDL proceedings and in state and federal courts. In Swissair, we filed a motion to dismiss on behalf of DuPont and the court granted the motion late last year. In EgyptAir, in response to a similar motion, plaintiffs' counsel voluntarily dismissed all claims.

    Luzenac Talc Litigation

    We serve as national strategic counsel for Luzenac in claims arising from the company's talc products. Our role is largely strategic, although we have worked with the company on expert development, discovery management, and various technology issues. We have also worked with jurisdictional counsel on developing case-specific strategies.

    Building Product/Property Damage Litigation

    We were retained by a major asbestos manufacturer, Eagle-Picher Industries, to supervise all litigation nationwide regarding claims of property damage filed by states, cities, and school districts. Prior to the company's bankruptcy, we achieved one of the most successful win-loss records in the litigation, obtaining dismissal of 108 of 150 cases filed. We also successfully tried and won the first case brought by a state attorney general. At the height of the litigation, we coordinated cases in over 16 states involving 20 law firms.

Contacts

See All Professionals

Insights

View All Insights

Representative Matters

Benzene, Solvents, and Welding Fumes

  • Class I Freight Railroad Diesel, Benzene and Solvent Litigation. Crowell & Moring was retained by a Class I Freight Railroad as NCC for litigation arising out of alleged exposure to benzene and several other chemical substances, including cases arising under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), state-law-based tort claims, and class actions. Our representation includes advising the Class I Freight Railroad on its overall litigation strategy, developing its expert case, coordinating discovery, monitoring legal and scientific developments, briefing key legal issues such as removal and class certification, and preparing dispositive motions. We also served as counsel of record in a FELA medical monitoring class action case filed in a Florida state court, two environmental exposure cases pending in Florida and Michigan courts, and a class action suit filed in an Illinois state court. We successfully represented the Railroad in a putative class action filed in New Orleans, which involved a residential evacuation resulting from a leaking tank car. In a FELA case brought in West Virginia state court by former railroad workers who alleged that they suffered neurological injuries stemming from exposure to chlorinated solvents, we represented the Railroad in a four-day Daubert hearing.  Our flexible approach to coordinating these dockets has allowed us to tailor our response—and involvement—to each particular litigation, maximizing our effectiveness as well as that of the client's network of local counsel. 
  • Welding Fumes Litigation. We served as NCC for a Fortune 100 construction and engine manufacturer in welding fume litigation involving thousands of individual and class action suits filed in both federal and state courts from Pennsylvania to California. Plaintiffs in these cases typically asserted claims against manufacturers and sellers of welding consumables (such as welding rods), alleging actual or potential neurological injury as a result of exposure to components of welding fumes. Plaintiffs sued the company for its involvement in an alleged conspiracy with a trade association to conceal the potential dangers of exposure to welding fumes. The Crowell & Moring team achieved numerous successes on motions to dismiss in individual cases, culminating in a global summary judgment order from the MDL court dismissing all claims against the company in every pending federal lawsuit.  In addition, one of our partners served as national coordinating and trial counsel in this MDL for another company charged by plaintiffs with a civil conspiracy to conceal and suppress historical knowledge about the purported link between welding fumes and disease, ultimately obtaining summary judgment and dismissal from all MDL cases. That attorney also served in an identical capacity for the company in its national asbestos and silica litigation.

Asbestos

  • Multinational Telecommunications Company Litigation. We have served as national coordinating and trial counsel to a Fortune 100 multinational telecommunications company in asbestos litigation since 2008. In the past eight years, we have managed asbestos cases for the company's entities in more than 25 states. In collaboration with our client, we have built a network of state counsel and identified and prepared a new team of industrial hygiene, state-of-the-art and medical experts, in addition to corporate designee witnesses on a variety of topics. Because of the size and complexity of the company, we have defended the company against a number of novel parent company and successor liability claims (in addition to more traditional premises liability claims), such as "assumption of duty" and "direct participant" liability. In our capacity as coordinating counsel, we manage strategic issues, investigate historical products and work practices, coordinate all discovery responses, prepare or oversee the preparation of all significant motions, take or defend many of the key expert and fact witness depositions, and serve as co-trial counsel.
  • Heavy Equipment Manufacturer Litigation. We have represented this Fortune 100 manufacturer and its related entities since 2002 as national coordinating and strategic counsel for the company's asbestos litigation, including premises matters.  We assist the company in developing long-term strategy, managing a stable of "national experts" for use across the country, and working with the company's regional counsel to implement trial and motions strategy. Our strategic effort has focused in part on defeating the "any exposure" theory plaintiffs use to support current litigation; our successes include the first ruling excluding well-known plaintiff expert Dr. Sam Hammar in 2007. We have pursued other plaintiff experts aggressively, and we know the law and defenses needed to litigate the spontaneous mesothelioma, take-home, and incidental exposure cases that dominate today's docket.
  • Chemical Company Litigation. Since 1992, we have served as NCC for a major chemical company in its asbestos litigation. The bulk of the cases involve premises liability claims by employees of contractors that worked on the company's sites, although we also handle a number of product liability claims. The cases are filed largely in state court in nearly 20 states and litigated as individual cases or, in some instances, as large consolidations. As national counsel, we are responsible for developing long-term national strategy, overseeing a large network of firms, and serving in a lead, co-trial counsel role.  We are also responsible for identifying and preparing experts, developing legal issues (including sophisticated motions and appellate practice), managing discovery, conducting factual investigations and fact witness development, and developing trial strategy. Over the years the company has tried 15 cases, and has won seven defense verdicts, with dismissals during trial in four cases.

Groundwater Contamination and Air Emissions

  • Hazardous Material Site Litigation. Together with Louisville co-counsel, we defended thousands of claims brought by workers and neighbors at a Superfund site in southeastern Kentucky over the course of 17 years.  After a month-long jury trial, the team won a defense verdict against three coal mining companies that sought $140 million in lost profits as a result of their proximity to the site. The National Law Journal recognized the victory in its annual list of the country's top defense verdicts. The next year, the team defended bellwether claims of multiple myeloma, childhood leukemia, and other illnesses in a 52-day jury trial that led to a mass settlement of more than 550 plaintiffs' cases.  Later, they won a week-long arbitration of a tort of outrageous conduct action, achieved decertification of a state court class action, and, in another bellwether plaintiffs' case, won summary judgment after excluding all of the causation experts under Daubert. In addition to successfully litigating claims, the team also assisted in settling claims, which included setting up a process to allocate a settlement fund. Under this process, pre-determined criteria were used to create a matrix to value claims. The criteria selected ensured that settlement funds were appropriately allocated.
  • Tallevast Litigation. We represented a leading defense contractor in five high-profile lawsuits in state and federal court in Florida involving groundwater contamination with chlorinated solvents and occupational and environmental exposure to beryllium. In two cases, more than 300 plaintiffs asserted personal injury, emotional distress, and diminution of property values as a result of alleged exposure to groundwater contaminated with TCE, vinyl chloride, and 1,4-dioxane. Related cases sought damages for chronic beryllium disease from occupational, environmental, and "take-home" exposure, as well as medical monitoring for the neighboring community's alleged exposure to airborne beryllium. We defeated class certification in the medical monitoring case, after a four-day evidentiary hearing; that decision was affirmed on appeal and ultimately resulted in voluntary dismissal of the named plaintiffs' claims. In a related case that went to trial for 11 days before an administrative law judge, we successfully defended the client's site investigation and remediation plan against a challenge brought by a community group. That decision was recently affirmed per curiam on appeal. The site and the litigation were the subject of more than 550 articles in Florida newspapers, approaches to then-Governor Jeb Bush, and environmental justice claims to EPA Region 4.
  • Gulf Coast Refinery Work. Working with a real estate appraisal firm, we assisted with a property buy-out plan to create a green space between the refinery and neighboring residents. The purchase of homes resolved class action claims for property devaluation allegedly caused by ground water contamination and air emissions. We have also defended claims alleging community exposures to chemicals as a result of refinery explosion releasing hydrofluoric acid.  The defense team tried a series of bellwether cases to defense verdicts and settled the remaining cases. In settling the cases, a fund was administered to over 10,000 people to settle personal injury and property damage claims. A claims administrator allocated the funds based on a predetermined formula after extensive negotiations with plaintiffs' counsel.
  • Climate Change Litigation. Crowell & Moring led the defense effort on behalf of ten coal companies in the highly publicized global climate change litigation. Two appellate wins in 2013 crown the remarkable success in stopping this litigation. Crowell & Moring obtained one key appellate win in 2013 in the Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. litigation involving a group of Mississippi property owners. Those owners claimed that damages from Hurricane Katrina were caused by the greenhouse gas emissions of over 50 oil, energy, coal, and chemical companies. Crowell & Moring obtained dismissal on lack of standing and political question doctrine in the district court, and the case proceeded through years of appellate reviews, including in the U.S. Supreme Court, concluding when the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court's dismissal on res judicata grounds. In the other appellate win, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in an appeal by the plaintiffs, an Alaskan village, in Kivalina v. Exxon, on May 20, 2013. The village claimed that its loss of Arctic sea ice was caused by the greenhouse gas emissions of the defendant companies. After the district court granted a motion to dismiss on standing and political question grounds, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal in 2012. 

Products Liability

  • Fungicide Litigation and Claims. Crowell & Moring handled a 10-year birth defect litigation involving allegations of serious eye defects and other conditions from use of a home fungicide product.  We litigated multinational (England, Wales, Scotland, New Zealand) cases through full discovery and ultimately prevailed on Daubert motions in two courts. In addition to successfully handling the birth defect litigation, Crowell & Moring helped develop a settlement claims process to resolve blocks of cases in the related crop litigation.  Crowell & Moring valued the crop litigation claims based on a pre-determined matrix of damage categories.
  • Plumbing Litigation. We represent a Fortune 100 chemical company in national litigation attacking plumbing products. The litigation spans over 20 years in both state and federal courts and at all appellate levels, including the U.S. Supreme Court, and in the lower and appellate courts of Canada and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These cases include multi-plaintiff actions, as well as attempted national, statewide, and province-wide class actions. We provide national strategy, class action strategy, coordination of all discovery (including the management and production of over two million documents) and management of a network of local firms. We defeated class certification in two attempted national class actions and obtained full faith and credit in a statewide collateral attack on the company's earlier national class settlement, which was upheld on appeal. A claims process was developed early on before class actions were brought, which resulted in the settlement of hundreds of thousands of claims. The claims process would evaluate each claim and, if it met the criteria, offer retrofitting and/or compensation. After a national class action settlement in the United States, we coordinated the administration of a national class settlement claims facility. After a national and two province-wide settlements in Canada, we coordinated the administration of the Canadian settlement claims facility.
  • iPhone/iPad Litigation. We have represented a multinational telecommunications provider in various consumer class actions, including two MDL proceedings, with allegations ranging from product defects, to marketing misrepresentations about service features, data plans, product performance, and improper billing practices. Many of these cases include claims under state consumer protection laws, including CLRA and unfair competition law (§ 17200 and 17500). In the original "3G" MDL filed in the Northern District of California, we defended against claims arising from the advertisement of the company's network as "twice as fast" in connection with the introduction of the first iPhone. In the multimedia messaging service (MMS) cases, we defended against claims arising from the advertisement of the availability of the MMS feature on iPhones. In cases involving claims about the iPhone 4 antennas, we steered the cases to an MDL centralizing over a dozen putative consumer class action cases, and achieved voluntary dismissals for the company.  

Health Care and Pharmaceuticals

  • Antitrust Class Action Attack on Blue Cross Blue Shield System. Crowell & Moring represents eight Blue Cross Blue Shield companies in an antitrust MDL proceeding centralizing over 20 class action cases across the country. The MDL class action cases are brought by physicians and other health care providers as well as plan members asserting claims that the Blue Cross Blue Shield association and the companies conspired to violate antitrust laws by limiting competition through exclusive service areas and other restraints. The cases are centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
  • Medicaid Overpayment Actions. Served as lead trial and national coordinating counsel for a major international generic pharmaceutical company in nationwide federal and state court litigation against the industry, alleging Medicaid overpayments for prescription drug reimbursements. Crowell & Moring coordinated litigation in 15 states. We were selected as lead trial counsel about five months before a three-week jury trial in Texas against the Texas Attorney General's office. The case resulted in a verdict for plaintiffs but the defense case was sufficiently strong that plaintiffs settled for significantly less than initial settlement demand while appeal was pending. The strong trial performance in Texas led to very favorable settlements in the remaining 14 states.
  • Medical Device Hip Implant Litigation. Crowell & Moring represents a manufacturer of a metal-on-metal hip implant system against claims and lawsuits in the U.S. By using the product's regulatory approval, strong performance and the statutory protection afforded to certain medical device manufacturers, we have built a successful national defense strategy that, to date, has protected the company from any liability in the United States.
  • Pharmaceutical Consumer Fraud Class Actions. The firm's product liability and torts attorneys represented one of the principal defendants, a medical association, in a highly publicized series of class actions alleging fraud in developing criteria for the diagnosis of a childhood mental disorder (ADHD) and the marketing of a pharmaceutical as the treatment. The litigation consisted of five class actions pending in five state or federal courts, variously alleging state or national classes of up to six million pharmaceutical users and their families. As NCC in the five class actions, we focused on a series of early-strike dismissal motions designed to attack the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs' complaints. We were successful in securing the dismissal of all five class actions.

Advertising and Marketing

  • Food Manufacturer Advertising Litigation. Crowell & Moring represents a food manufacturer in defending several lawsuits related to the advertising of their products. One suit brought by the National Consumers League, a consumer advocacy organization, is currently ending in the District of Columbia. The case alleges deceptive and improper marketing practices with respect to the whole wheat content of certain products in order to deceive consumers and drive up sales. The second case, a class action recently filed in California state court, makes similar claims regarding wheat content and also alleges the products were marketed as "All Natural" and contained artificial ingredients. We serve as lead counsel on the cases.
  • "Hackability" Litigation. In a case at the intersection of cybersecurity and product liability, our Crowell & Moring lawyers won dismissal of a nationwide class action alleging that computerized hotel locks were vulnerable to hacking and were therefore defective and in breach of warranty. Crowell & Moring also represents a major automobile manufacturer in a lawsuit alleging that a defect exists in motor vehicles because the vehicles are purportedly "susceptible" to being "hacked." Five consumer plaintiffs filed the putative class action lawsuit under California, Washington, and Oregon law, asserting consumer protection, false advertising, fraudulent concealment, warranty, and invasion of privacy claims.

Contacts

See All Professionals

Insights

View All Insights

Insights

Firm News | 2 min read | 09.30.20

Labor & Employment Lawyer Sadina Montani Joins Crowell & Moring

Press Coverage | 06.28.16

The 24 Firms GCs Love the Most

Firm News | 2 min read | 01.19.16

Crowell & Moring Releases Fourth Annual Litigation Forecast Report and Second Annual Regulatory Forecast

Speaking Engagement | 06.23.15

"Corporate Counsel Litigation Forum: Strategies & Trends in Effective Value-Based Billing," Crowell & Moring's Corporate Counsel Litigation Forum Webinar Series
|

View All Insights

Professionals

View All Professionals

Insights

View All Insights