Plaintiffs: Defendants Should Have Filed to Lift Seal Earlier
February 15, 2006
DOCUMENTS
- Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions
- Defendants’ Motion to Lift Seal
- Defendants’ Opposition
- Plaintiffs’ Motion for Inquiry & Memorandum in Support
- Plaintiffs’ Response
CLEVELAND - The Welding Fume MDL plaintiffs have responded to a defense opposition to their motion for inquiry into the publication of a sealed plaintiffs' opposition brief, saying the defendants should have filed their motion to lift the seal prior to allegedly 'leaking' it to the press. In re: Welding Fume Products Liability Litigation. MDL No. 1535. Case No. 1:03-cv-17000 (N.D. Ohio).
The plaintiffs filed their response on Feb. 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, saying the defendants defied the court's protective order by allegedly 'leaking' to HarrisMartin Publishing a sealed plaintiffs' response to …
UPCOMING CONFERENCES
HarrisMartin’s Artificial Stone Silicosis Epidemic Litigation Conference
January 10, 2025 - Long Beach, CA
The Westin Long Beach