Camp Lejeune Lawsuit Updates & News (2025)

Lawyers for a seriously ill plaintiff are seeking to remove his case from the priority trial pool, citing concerns about his declining health and the strain of a high-stakes trial. Despite acknowledging the plaintiff's condition, the government opposes the request, citing a stronger chance of a favorable verdict. Critics argue this approach prioritizes legal defenses over the intent of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, which aims for timely and compassionate resolution, contrasting it with corporate litigation strategies.

A recent order in the Lejeune case outlines procedures for expert medical examinations of plaintiffs, aiming to ensure fairness and transparency in assessing claimed injuries. Key points include:

1. Scope of Exams: Plaintiffs must notify the government when a retained expert performs an evaluation, allowing the government to request its own independent exam if desired.
2. Examination Notifications: If an expert is expected to testify, plaintiffs must inform the government in advance. Should a non-testifying expert later become a witness, the government has 45 days to conduct an exam.
3. Procedural Standards: Exams will generally be remote, limited to claimed injuries, and can be recorded with consent. Plaintiffs may have a family member or representative present.
4. Testing Restrictions: Invasive procedures like blood tests and MRIs are prohibited, and expert reports must comply with Federal Rule 26(a)(2)(B) for detailed findings.
5. Reciprocal Rights: The government retains the right to conduct similar examinations, ensuring balanced medical evidence in court.

The Camp Lejeune Claims Unit (CLCU) is rolling out new measures to expedite settlements by addressing key challenges:

1. Simplified Documentation: The CLCU will now accept basic proof of a single 30-day stay at Camp Lejeune, though additional documents can still be provided to boost settlement potential.
2. Automatic Advancement of Claims: Starting January 13, 2025, the CLCU will review pending claims directly, skipping the validation step for law firms, which currently impacts 480,000 out of 550,000 claims.
3. Duplicate Claim Management: With around 100,000 duplicate claims identified, the CLCU aims to streamline the caseload for efficiency.

Progress in the litigation has been slow, with initial promises of transparency not yet fully realized. The next status conference is scheduled for November 6.

As of now, there are 2,185 filed lawsuits and over 550,000 administrative claims with the Department of Navy. While some of these may be duplicates, the exact number remains unclear.

In the Camp Lejeune cases, a pivotal dispute is unfolding over what evidence can prove contamination. Plaintiffs want to include water quality, vapor intrusion, and emissions to show the full extent of exposure risks, while the government argues for limiting the focus to chemical levels in drinking water. The outcome of this debate will play a crucial role in the upcoming bellwether trials for leukemia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

The court has directed the government to provide timely updates on administrative settlements directly to the Settlement Masters, Settlement Liaison, and Plaintiffs' Leadership Group. This information, previously included in joint status reports, must now be emailed on the same day as the joint status report submissions. The updates will detail the number of settled CLJA administrative claims and outstanding offers. While this shift increases transparency within the litigation, public access to these details remains limited, despite calls for greater openness in government-involved cases.

Following the government's agreement with Settlement Masters on information-sharing, the court has decided to hold off on altering Case Management Order No. 14. The judges received the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) detailing this agreement and will evaluate its impact on streamlining the settlement process. The court's focus remains on resolving cases efficiently and removing any barriers to reaching a settlement.

On September 24, 2024, Magistrate Judge Jones, Jr. conducted a status conference in Wilmington, NC, addressing discovery disputes between the parties. The next hearing is scheduled for October 22, 2024. With the focus on preparing for individual trials and ongoing confidential settlement discussions, notable updates remain limited at this stage of the litigation.

Over 550,000 administrative claims have been filed with the Department of the Navy, though the exact number is unclear due to ongoing data entry and duplicate claim processing. As of September 2024, 2,089 lawsuits have been filed under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, with 66 cases dismissed so far.

The court ruled on motions for partial summary judgment filed by four plaintiffs. Three successfully met administrative and legal requirements under the CLJA, establishing both the exhaustion of remedies and their standing as legal representatives. The fourth plaintiff, unable to prove legal representative status, was given time to correct the issue. The court declined to clarify what defines a "legal representative" under the CLJA, citing the lack of an actual controversy to resolve.

The government has requested a one-week extension to respond to Magistrate Judge Gates's September 3, 2024, order concerning potential changes to Case Management Order No. 14. They are working with Settlement Masters to finalize procedures for collaboration while protecting sensitive information, anticipating an agreement soon.

A University of California, San Francisco study has confirmed a link between volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and faster progression of Parkinson's disease. The study examined over 172,000 Marines stationed at Camp Lejeune between 1975 and 1985. Of the 270 Parkinson’s cases, 65.6% were tied to VOC exposure above safe levels, showing faster disease progression and higher risks of psychosis, fractures, and falls. Backed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the study highlights the environmental risks tied to the base’s contaminated water supply.

The court denied the Plaintiffs' Leadership Group’s request for additional documents related to contamination. The request, aimed at ten government employees, was deemed overly broad. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs had earlier agreed not to seek electronic searches for this information.

Status Conference Set for September 17, 2024.

Around 546,500 administrative claims have been submitted to the Department of Navy under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act. While this figure is substantial, concerns have been raised about its accuracy, with speculation that it may include duplicates and non-viable claims, given the population size and the lengthy period over which the contamination occurred.

A total of 546,500 administrative claims have been filed, surpassing the earlier estimate of over 400,000. The next steps involve the government reviewing and verifying the claims to determine the number of eligible cases related to Camp Lejeune.

The final count of administrative claims is expected next week, likely exceeding 400,000. We estimate that over half may be duplicate or non-compensable claims. The final breakdown of Track 1 and Track 2 claims will also be revealing.

Plaintiffs' lawyers criticized the DOJ for failing to produce requested documents from key government agencies, causing delays in discovery and depositions. Despite witnesses confirming the existence of relevant records, these materials have not been provided. Plaintiffs are seeking a court order to compel the release of all non-privileged documents.

A congressperson recently compared the government's defense tactics to those used by tobacco companies, arguing that the government should be facilitating justice for Camp Lejeune victims, not obstructing it.

As of Tuesday, 1,945 lawsuits have been filed under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act. Additionally, the Department of the Navy is handling about 323,135 pending administrative claims.

A Magistrate Judge has ordered a gag on public statements regarding the Camp Lejeune litigation's global settlement negotiations. This order also prevents parties from discussing settlement progress in their monthly status reports on PACER. This restriction may suggest meaningful progress in the discussions.

Plaintiffs' Proposal:

• Expert Discovery: Complete promptly with deadlines for expert discovery, dispositive motions, and trial by spring 2025.
• DOJ Response Time: Reduce from 45 to 30 days for water contamination phase experts.
• Briefing Schedule: 14 days for reply briefs for non-discovery motions, deviating from Local Rule.
• Specific Causation Experts: Disclose by November 19, 2024, with DOJ responding within 30 days for each plaintiff.

Government's Proposal:

• Discovery Deadlines: Retain all previously negotiated deadlines.
• Residual Expert Phase: To avoid reopening expert discovery, addressing judges' concerns.
• Phased Discovery: Start with water contamination and general causation, then move to specific causation and damages.

Key Differences:

• Timelines: Plaintiffs push for accelerated timelines to expedite trials.
• Approach: Government aims for a more measured pace to ensure thorough discovery.

The court has denied the government's motion to reconsider the opt-out provision in Case Management Order No. 2, maintaining the current structure for Track 2 plaintiffs.

Key Points:

Original Motion by Government:

1. Filed seven months ago to amend Case Management Order No. 2.
2. Mandating every plaintiff file a short form complaint.
3. Removal of the opt-out provision for Track 2 and future track plaintiffs.
4. Extending Track 1 fact discovery by 90 days.
5. Prompt notification of any plaintiff undergoing expert examination.

Court's Initial Decision (February):

• Issued Case Management Order No. 10.
• Required all plaintiffs to file a short form complaint.
• Retained the opt-out provision for Track 2 and future plaintiffs.
• Declined to extend Track 1 discovery.
• Deferred ruling on expert examination notification requirement.

Government's Reconsideration Request (April):

• Sought to remove the opt-out provision.
• Argued that many Track 2 plaintiffs opting out skewed the representative sample.

Court's Recent Ruling:

• Denied the motion for reconsideration.
• Judges stated the Track 2 pool still has enough cases for a representative sample.
• No new compelling evidence was found to change the order.
• Court noted accommodations could be made for plaintiffs unable to participate fully in discovery or trial without removing the opt-out provision.

Lawyers Thomas Perrelli of Jenner & Block and Christopher Oprison of DLA Piper have been named special masters to oversee the settlement of Camp Lejeune lawsuits. The current settlement process, known as the Elective Option, has been challenging and has frustrated all parties involved, including the Department of Justice. Despite typically representing large firms, both Perrelli and Oprison were chosen by attorneys from both sides. Oprison, a former Marine Corps captain, brings a unique appeal to the role.

The latest joint status report reveals that 93 Camp Lejeune cases qualify for the government's elective early settlement program. Out of these, 37 cases have accepted settlements, with payouts ranging from $100,000 to $450,000. Nine cases have rejected the settlement offers, while 26 offers are still pending.

Beyond the elective program, the government has extended offers to 111 individual plaintiffs. Of these, 58 offers have been accepted, three rejected, and $20 million has been disbursed to 81 plaintiffs, averaging $246,000 each. Bladder cancer claims have received the highest payouts.

The government's early elective settlement program has not significantly reduced the number of Camp Lejeune cases in litigation. Of the 1,800 pending cases, only 93 have received offers, with just 37 accepted. Plaintiffs’ lawyers are now advocating for a settlement master to expedite the process. Meanwhile, 111 plaintiffs have settled outside the early elective program, with $20 million already paid out.

North Carolina judges will address two critical issues before the first trials in the Camp Lejeune cases: toxic chemical exposure and general causation for Track I Illnesses.

1. Chemical Exposure: Plaintiffs must prove the presence and levels of chemicals like benzene, TCE, PCE, and vinyl chloride in Camp Lejeune's water from 1953 to 1987, despite the government's refusal to stipulate this.
2. General Causation: Plaintiffs must establish a causal link between these chemicals and Track I Illnesses (bladder cancer, kidney cancer, leukemia, Parkinson’s disease, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma).

The court will expedite expert discovery on these issues, followed by potential Daubert and dispositive motion briefings. Parties must submit a joint proposed pretrial schedule by July 12, 2024, detailing timelines for expert discovery and briefings. This streamlined process aims for shorter, consecutive trials.

A status conference announced that the next meeting will be on July 16. The current focus is on preparing the individual bellwether case for trial.

Lawyers and government representatives have established a protective order to safeguard victims' privacy in Camp Lejeune litigation. This order, part of proposed Case Management Order No. 13, applies to all cases under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022. It mandates that sensitive information, including trade secrets and personal data protected by laws like HIPAA, be labeled "Confidential" and disclosed only to authorized litigation personnel for litigation purposes. The order also outlines procedures for handling and challenging confidential information, with specified channels for resolving disputes, potentially involving court intervention. Judges are expected to approve this proposal.

There are currently 1,800 filed lawsuits and 261,293 filed administrative claims related to Camp Lejeune.

Plaintiffs in the Camp Lejeune water contamination case have taken legal action to compel the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to release its findings on the connection between the tainted water and the health issues faced by exposed individuals. The NAS has so far declined to provide the report, prompting this motion.

Concurrently, plaintiffs have disclosed a list of proposed bellwether trials, which are initial test cases to be presented to a jury, categorized by the related illness:

Bladder Cancer:

• Criswell v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-01482-BO-BM
• Dyer v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-00357-D-RJ
• Cagiano v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-00569-BO-RN

Kidney Cancer:

• Mousser v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-00667-D-RN
• Howard v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-00490-FL
• Fancher v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-00275-M-BM

Leukemia:

• Gleesing v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-01486-FL
• Connard v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-01557-M-RN
• Hill v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-00028-M-KS

Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma:

• Carter v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-01565-M-KS
• Kidd v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-01489-FL
• Davis v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-00043-BO-BM

Parkinson’s Disease:

• Peterson v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-01576-M-RJ
• McElhiney v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-01368-BO-RJ
• Rothchild v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-00858-D-KS

As of the first week of June, there have been 1,813 lawsuits filed related to Camp Lejeune, with an additional 232,892 administrative claims pending with the Department of the Navy.

During yesterday's Status Conference, parties agreed to withdraw several motions, including:

• Plaintiffs’ Leadership Group’s Motion to Compel Document Production
• United States’ Cross-Motion for Protective Order
• Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider Order Denying Production of Certain Digitized Muster Rolls
• Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider Order on ATSDR Water Modeling Project File Production in Native Format

Predicting the settlement timeline for these lawsuits is challenging. However, mass tort history suggests defendants often wait until after the statute of limitations to avoid triggering more claims. With the August 10 deadline approaching, it's unlikely the government will offer a global or semi-global settlement to resolve these claims beforehand.

North Carolina judges approve the protocol for selecting Track 1 Trial Plaintiffs in the Camp Lejeune case. Plaintiffs with kidney cancer, bladder cancer, leukemia, Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, or Parkinson’s Disease will be chosen from the Discovery Pool, with fact discovery concluding 45 days after securing waivers.

Estate openings for Camp Lejeune wrongful death lawsuits are taking longer than expected. With a filing deadline in less than two months, it's crucial to act now. If you have a Camp Lejeune wrongful death claim, contact a lawyer immediately. Our firm will soon stop accepting new wrongful death cases.

The government is hopeful that appointing a settlement master will help lawyers progress toward a settlement. Despite discussions, the court has shown little urgency in making this appointment.

There are now 1,813 toxic water lawsuits pending. Administrative claims have reached 232,892 as of Tuesday.

Because multiple government entities are processing Camp Lejeune claims, settlements are coordinated by the Torts Branch, DOJ, and Navy. As of Tuesday:

The Torts Branch verified 72 cases for settlement, with 31 offers accepted.

DOJ approved 93 claims, with 33 offers accepted.

Settlement checks totaling $14.4 million have been issued.

Breakdown by Disease:

Bladder Cancer: $4,050,000 (16 cases)

Kidney Cancer: $3,900,000 (14 cases)

Leukemia: $2,100,000 (8 cases)

non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: $1,950,000 (8 cases)

Parkinson’s Disease: $1,100,000 (5 cases)

Kidney Disease: $1,050,000 (6 cases)

Multiple Myeloma: $250,000 (1 case)

The Senate passed an amendment to the CLJA, offering more protection to veterans concerned about their benefits. This aims to ensure veterans and their families receive accurate and comprehensive information.

Five plaintiffs will be chosen from a pool to be the first to go to trial (bellwether trials). These plaintiffs claim the contaminated water caused specific illnesses (leukemia, kidney cancer, etc.). This selection helps streamline the lawsuit process for a faster resolution.

In the Camp Lejeune lawsuit, a motion seeks to compel a plaintiff's testimony about his former employment at a Sheriff's Office, despite a confidentiality agreement from a previous settlement. The plaintiff claims lost wages due to a 2009 kidney cancer diagnosis linked to exposure at Camp Lejeune. Both parties agree a court order is necessary for the plaintiff to testify without breaching the prior agreement.

In a recent ruling, Camp Lejeune judges denied a motion for immediate appellate review regarding a previous decision that rejected the plaintiffs' request for a jury trial. The court cited historical precedents that limit interlocutory appeals to extraordinary circumstances, generally deferring such reviews until after a final judgment.

This decision implies that for most plaintiffs, the ruling might be final, as Camp Lejeune lawsuits are unlikely to conclude before an appellate court reviews the jury trial issue. Settlement offers, which are influenced by potential trial outcomes, will now likely reflect the assumption that plaintiffs cannot demand a jury trial. This effectively finalizes the judges' ruling for any plaintiff who settles before the issue reaches an appellate court, a decision criticized by many as unfair and premature.

Recent updates reveal that while the number of Camp Lejeune lawsuits remains relatively stable at 1,764, there has been a substantial rise in administrative claims filed with the Navy, now totaling 227,309. This exceeds the initial projection of 150,000 claims. It is estimated that around 150,000 of these claims may receive compensation, indicating a significant acknowledgment of affected parties.

Following a status conference on April 24, 2024, plaintiffs' attorneys have submitted a list of key topics for discussion aimed at two primary goals: achieving a comprehensive resolution through trials and streamlining case preparation. The discussions include refining the Camp Lejeune Justice Act's foundational issues such as proof standards, specifics of water contamination, required base presence duration, and establishing causation for diseases in Track 1 proceedings.

They recommend exploring trial formats like single or multi-plaintiff trials, disease-specific trials, and innovative approaches such as reverse bifurcation or advisory jury trials. The proposal also suggests separate Daubert hearings to address scientific evidence issues and prioritizing trials for severely ill plaintiffs.

Additionally, logistical considerations for trial scheduling involving multiple judges, courtroom technology usage, and trial duration were put forward for discussion.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has identified priority conditions for Track 3: esophageal cancer, general medical monitoring, miscarriage, dental issues, and hypersensitivity skin disorders.

As of Friday, settlements totaling $9.6 million have been reached in 40 Camp Lejeune lawsuits. The Torts Branch confirmed 60 cases are in litigation, fitting the Elective Option criteria. These cases include: 16 bladder cancer, 16 kidney cancer, 12 non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, 6 kidney disease, 4 Parkinson’s Disease, 4 leukemia, and 2 multiple myeloma cases.

Of these, 22 settlement offers were accepted, covering various illnesses: bladder cancer (5 cases), end-stage renal disease (4 cases), kidney cancer (5 cases), non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (4 cases), multiple myeloma (1 case), Parkinson’s Disease (2 cases), and leukemia (1 case). Additionally, 9 offers were rejected and 17 expired, with 12 still pending.

The Department of Justice, using data from the Navy, has approved settlements for 62 claimants. So far, 29 offers have been accepted, 2 rejected, and 25 have expired, leaving 6 still pending. Payments disbursed include: $300,000 and $150,000 for bladder cancer, $300,000 and $100,000 for leukemia, $400,000 for Parkinson’s Disease, and similar amounts for other conditions, contributing to the total payout of $9,600,000.

Last month, attorneys for Camp Lejeune plaintiffs issued several discovery requests to the U.S. government, including 20 Requests for Production, 20 Interrogatories, and 129 Requests for Admission, targeting various federal agencies like ATSDR, EPA, Navy, USMC, VA, NOAA, NWS, and USGS. The government, having already supplied over 12 million pages of documents, is seeking a 30-day extension to respond to the new requests due to their complexity.

Plaintiffs' lawyers are reluctant to grant this extension, only open to considering delays for specific, emerging issues. They argue that any delay, such as the proposed extension to May 28, risks slowing the entire litigation process by disrupting pretrial discovery, potentially delaying depositions, motion filings, and ultimately extending the case's resolution time and increasing costs.

To qualify for a Camp Lejeune settlement, claims or lawsuits must be filed by August 10, 2024.

To date, the Navy has received 1,662 lawsuits and 176,662 administrative claims related to Camp Lejeune. According to the Department of Justice, only 51 of these cases are eligible for an early settlement program. This includes 26 cases of bladder and kidney cancer. So far, 21 settlement proposals have been accepted, comprising various conditions: 5 bladder cancer, 4 kidney disease, 5 kidney cancer, 3 non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, 1 multiple myeloma, 2 Parkinson’s disease, and 1 leukemia case. Meanwhile, 9 settlement offers were rejected by the plaintiffs.

The Camp Lejeune litigation has seen a significant increase in legal actions, with the total number of lawsuits reaching 1,633 and administrative claims filed soaring to 174,891.

Preliminary discussions regarding a global resolution of claims continue, with parties negotiating a resolution questionnaire and roadmap.

Plaintiffs argue for a specific causation standard under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA), distinct from common law, to address the difficulty of proving specific causation due to the time elapsed since exposure. They criticize the government's reliance on a general causation standard, which doesn't align with the CLJA's intent or the practical challenges of lost evidence and unavailable witnesses. The motion emphasizes Congress's intent to streamline litigation for veterans, urging the court to adopt a causation standard that simplifies proving claims.

Recent updates in the Camp Lejeune water contamination litigation show a substantial rise in legal actions, with 170,502 administrative claims and 1,530 lawsuits now filed. This increase follows the lifting of the bankruptcy stay. Additionally, the court has announced a move to a Track 2 plan, strategically concentrating on lawsuits related to specific illnesses, including prostate cancer, kidney disease, lung cancer, liver cancer, and breast cancer. This approach aims to streamline the litigation process by focusing on cases with common health issues linked to the contamination.

On February 15, 2024, plaintiffs' lawyers faced a dilemma following the court's decision on jury trials, as detailed in our February 7th update. Believing in the potential for success on appeal, they've devised a clever strategy:

• To maintain the momentum of trials, which is crucial for serious settlement negotiations, the attorneys are limiting their appeal to just two cases.
• This approach keeps the majority of the litigation on track, while also challenging the ruling in hopes of a favorable appellate decision.

Ongoing battles for the full production of muster rolls at Camp Lejeune highlight the challenges in documenting the presence of military personnel during the contamination period.

Judges ruled against jury trials for Camp Lejeune lawsuits, interpreting the CLJA as not granting an unequivocal right to a jury trial, a decision that has sparked controversy and debate.

Focus intensifies on specific cancers in the Camp Lejeune litigation, including laryngeal, lung, pharyngeal, thyroid, and colon cancers, following a new ATSDR study.

The ATSDR releases a study highlighting the increased risk of several types of cancer among Marines, Navy personnel, and civilian workers at Camp Lejeune compared to Camp Pendleton, with significant findings for acute myeloid leukemia, myeloid cancers, and more.

The Navy has begun evaluating claims, with over 164,000 claims filed. From the initial 29,000 claims processed, a distribution of claims by disease has been provided, showing a wide range of conditions, with "Other Diseases" being the largest subgroup:

• Kidney Cancer: 1,090 cases (3.76%)
• Liver Cancer: 501 cases (1.73%)
• Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: 750 cases (2.59%)
• Bladder Cancer: 1,447 cases (5.00%)
• Leukemias: 634 cases (2.19%)
• Multiple Myeloma: 790 cases (2.73%)
• Parkinson’s Disease: 1,120 cases (3.87%)
• Kidney Disease: 2,970 cases (10.25%)
• Systemic Scleroderma: 502 cases (1.73%)
• Other Diseases: 6,809 cases (23.51%)

The government has made significant updates in the selection of bellwether cases involving serious health conditions, with a potential trial commencement in the near future:

• Updated Bellwether Cases: The focus is on cases related to leukemia, Parkinson’s disease, bladder cancer, kidney cancer, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
• Potential Trial Date: The first trial in this series could begin as early as April, marking a crucial phase in the litigation process.

A status conference is scheduled for February 6, 2024, to address numerous outstanding issues, including whether the first trial in April will be a bench or jury trial, and whether it will involve one or multiple plaintiffs. The attorneys’ fees question also remains unresolved.

Department of Justice expressed concerns about the Track 1 Discovery Pool in the Camp Lejeune lawsuit, noting it mainly consists of claimants with longer exposure to contaminated water. The court recognized this issue but also observed that these claimants had self-selected into the federal litigation after exhausting their administrative claims.

• 1,483 Camp Lejeune lawsuits.
• 158,252 Administrative claims filed.
• There are four settlements Camp Lejeune cases.
• The average settlement amount is $242,000.
• Prostate cancer is most common – 14% of the claims. Kidney disease – 10%. Based on 29,000 claims the Navy has received

A crucial status conference has been set for January 23, 2024, at 11:00 AM, to be presided over by Judge Jones in Wilmington. Key points to note:

• Potential for Insightful Developments: These status conferences often reveal important information and developments in the litigation process.
• Opportunity for Progress Assessment: The conference will provide a platform to assess the current status and future direction of the ongoing legal proceedings.

The Justice Department and the Department of the Navy have issued an important warning about fraudulent activities aimed at individuals filing claims under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA) of 2022. Key points of this alert include:

Beware of Scams: The warning emphasizes the need for claimants to be vigilant against deceptive tactics used to extract personal information or money.

Reporting Fraudulent Contacts: If claimants receive dubious phone calls or emails, they should report these incidents:

Those with attorneys should inform their legal representatives.

Those without legal counsel should contact the Navy’s Camp Lejeune Claims Unit (CLCU).

Attorney Represented Claimants: For those with legal representation, all official communications from the Justice Department and Navy will be conducted through their attorney.

This alert is crucial in ensuring the security and protection of Camp Lejeune claimants from potential scams and fraudulent activities.

In an ongoing legal matter, the plaintiffs have served extensive document requests on the United States, targeting a wide array of files from various federal agencies. Key developments include:

Extensive Document Requests: The plaintiffs have issued five sets of requests, encompassing a broad spectrum of documents.

Response by the United States: In reaction to these requests, the U.S. government has produced a substantial volume of documents, totaling over 415,000 files, which equate to 307,486 pages.

Ongoing Negotiations: The parties are currently engaged in discussions to finalize the terms for the discovery of electronically stored information (ESI).

This significant document production reflects the scale and complexity of the case, with ongoing negotiations indicating a continued effort to comprehensively address the information needs of the litigation.

The process of addressing claims related to Camp Lejeune has seen significant developments:

High Volume of Claims: The Navy has received approximately 147,428 administrative claims, indicating a substantial response to the call for submissions.

Claim Assessment System: To manage this influx, the Navy has implemented a system for the intake and analysis of claims, incorporating both a manual review process and utilizing data from the Veterans Administration (VA).

DOJ's Settlement Initiative: As of a week before Christmas, the Department of Justice (DOJ) identified 26 cases as eligible for settlement. Settlement offers have been extended, leading to a mix of acceptances, rejections, and expirations.

Settlement Payments Distributed: So far, payments totaling $1,450,000 have been made across six cases, averaging $241,667 per settlement.

These steps mark an important phase in the resolution process for the Camp Lejeune claims, as efforts continue to address the needs and rights of those affected by the water contamination incident.

In the ongoing Camp Lejeune matter, significant strides have been made in addressing the numerous claims filed:

• Administrative Claims: Approximately 147,500 administrative claims have been filed with the Navy, prompting the development of a structured system for their evaluation and processing, which includes a manual review and the use of data from the Veterans Administration (VA).
• DOJ's Recent Determinations: As of a week before Christmas, the Department of Justice (DOJ) identified 26 cases eligible for settlement under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA). Settlement offers have been extended, leading to a mix of acceptances, rejections, and expirations.
• Settlement Payouts: To date, payments totaling $1,450,000 have been issued across six cases. This puts the average settlement at approximately $241,667 per case.

These developments mark an initial phase of resolution for some of the claims associated with the Camp Lejeune water contamination issue, indicating a move towards justice for affected individuals.

The Camp Lejeune litigation, initially envisioned as a collaborative effort to rectify an injustice, is unfolding differently than expected. Despite the intention of the law passed to address these injustices, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is adopting a stance typical of defendants in mass tort cases:

• Denying Evidence: The DOJ is challenging evidence from its own agencies regarding the link between water contamination at Camp Lejeune and certain diseases.
• Contesting ATSDR Findings: The DOJ disputes the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's (ATSDR) conclusions, deeming them overly cautious and unsupported by sufficient water sample data.
• Disregarding Expert Opinions: Statements from Dr. Frank Bove, an ATSDR expert asserting widespread exposure to contaminated water, are being dismissed by the government on grounds that he wasn't 'officially' representing the government's view.

This approach sharply contrasts with what Congress envisioned while passing the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA), intended to facilitate justice rather than prolong disputes and denials.

In the ongoing Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA) litigation, the government's stance on the role of estate representatives has sparked debate. Key points include:

• Government's Position: Estate representatives appointed outside North Carolina must establish additional estates within the state to pursue CLJA relief. This is seen as a burdensome process for plaintiffs, yet the government insists it's legally necessary.
• Shifting Rationale: Initially, the government argued for using North Carolina law to define “legal representative” under the CLJA, suggesting the Federal Tort Claims Act as a gap-filler. However, faced with opposition, the government shifted its argument, citing the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 to justify its stance. Plaintiffs challenge this, noting that North Carolina law already recognizes any executor, administrator, or legally authorized individual as having the capacity to sue.
• Legal and Ethical Concerns: This evolving argument raises questions about the imposition of unnecessary burdens on victims. Plaintiffs question how this approach serves the interests of anyone involved, including the government, given its questionable legal basis and the additional hardships it imposes on those seeking justice.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones recently ruled against granting plaintiffs access to a crucial draft report by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a decision that has stirred debate in the Camp Lejeune case. Key points of the ruling include:

• Reason for Denial: The draft report hasn't undergone the required external peer review, a process deemed vital for its completion. The government expressed concerns that an early release might disrupt this review and possibly mislead the public, especially if the final report differs significantly from the draft.
• Court’s Stance: The decision aims to preserve the integrity of the peer review and deliberative process. However, it has been perceived by many, including our lawyers, as prioritizing procedural formalities over the urgent informational needs of affected victims.
• Impact on Plaintiffs: As the deadline for filing Camp Lejeune claims approaches in August, and settlements begin, this ruling may critically affect plaintiffs. Without access to evolving scientific insights, attorneys might prematurely dismiss potentially valid Tier III cases.

The legal team believes that the public interest served by upholding the peer review process is outweighed by the necessity for victims to access information crucial to their claims. The denial of access to these documents could significantly impact the outcomes for many victims, raising concerns about the balance between procedural rules and the pressing needs of those impacted by the Camp Lejeune water contamination.

Since October 1, 2023, the Eastern District of North Carolina has seen a notable rise in legal activity with 257 new civil lawsuits filed related to Camp Lejeune. This marks an increase in the volume of new cases compared to those filed over the summer and in September, indicating a growing trend in litigation concerning Camp Lejeune.

In response to perceived non-compliance by the government with Case Management Order No. 2 (CMO-2), the Plaintiffs’ Leadership Group (PLG) in the Camp Lejeune case has requested court intervention. Key issues raised include:

• Government’s Selection of Plaintiffs: PLG highlights two instances of the government's failure to adhere to CMO-2's eligibility criteria for plaintiff selection. Firstly, the selection of 29 plaintiffs who missed the deadline for filing Short Form Complaints and secondly, choosing 16 plaintiffs who were formally withdrawn from the Discovery Pool.
• PLG’s Request for Fairness: To ensure process integrity, PLG urges the court to enforce the guidelines and ensure the government selects only eligible plaintiffs.

Additionally, the PLG addresses concerns regarding a lawyer representing some Camp Lejeune plaintiffs:

• Concerns Over Professional Conduct: The PLG questions this lawyer's ability to collaborate effectively and criticizes his approach towards the leadership’s strategy.
• Proposed Exclusion: Due to these concerns, the PLG suggests excluding plaintiffs represented by this lawyer from the Track 1 Discovery Pool, emphasizing the need for unity and professional conduct in their collective pursuit of justice.

A new study by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), not yet publicly released, reveals elevated cancer rates among military and civilian personnel at Camp Lejeune. Submitted in April, the study correlates these increased cancer rates to the base's contaminated drinking water between 1953 and 1987, providing substantial evidence of causation.

The postponement in publishing the report has sparked frustration and allegations of evidence suppression. This sentiment is shared not only by Camp Lejeune lawyers but also by Frank Bove, a senior epidemiologist involved in the study. The study's significance is heightened by its comprehensive approach, utilizing data from every U.S. cancer registry and making comparative analyses with Camp Pendleton, where water contamination was not an issue.

Despite having access to a draft, government lawyers seem to be treating the document as privileged, leading to further legal contention. This critical dispute is now in the hands of North Carolina judges for resolution.

This week, plaintiffs in an ongoing case have scheduled 30(b)(6) depositions for the United States Marine Corps, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

A 30(b)(6) deposition is a legal procedure in civil lawsuits where organizations, as opposed to individuals, are deposed. It requires the organization to designate representatives to testify on its behalf. These depositions are integral for plaintiffs to obtain comprehensive testimony from these agencies.

• Jurisdiction: Managed by four judges in the Eastern District of North Carolina.
• Total Complaints: 1433 filed under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA).
• Dismissals:
• 11 voluntary dismissals.
• 3 dismissals of cases filed by self-represented litigants.
• Total Dismissed Cases: 14.

These latest figures highlight the ongoing legal process and case management for the Camp Lejeune lawsuits in this district.

In a surprising move, the U.S. government has requested federal judges in North Carolina to disallow jury trials for the water contamination cases at Camp Lejeune. Their rationale hinges on the argument that the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, which forms the legal foundation of these lawsuits, does not explicitly grant the right to a jury trial in claims against the federal government. This interpretation aligns with the government's view of how cases would proceed under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

However, there appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding, as the Camp Lejeune cases are distinctly separate from the Federal Tort Claims Act claims. This oversight by the Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG) suggests a high likelihood that the government's motion to prevent jury trials in these cases will be unsuccessful.

Yesterday, Judge Dever conceded additional time for the U.S. government to respond to the ongoing debate over the definition of "legal representative" as per the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA) and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The government maintains that for FTCA cases, legal representatives must be officially court-appointed outside of North Carolina and must establish an ancillary estate within the state, aligning with North Carolina's legal framework. This stance has resulted in a complex and burdensome process for plaintiffs, prompting them to challenge this interpretation. They have filed a motion arguing that the CLJA's more flexible standards should be favored over the FTCA's rigorous criteria, a contention that is now under further consideration due to the granted extension.

Plaintiffs involved in the Camp Lejeune litigation are pushing back against a cumbersome legal requirement. They have filed a motion requesting the court to waive the necessity for each plaintiff to establish an estate in North Carolina.

This debate stems from the U.S. government's interpretation of the law governing Camp Lejeune lawsuits. According to the government, under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), anyone acting as a “legal representative” for claims must not only be appointed by a court outside of North Carolina but also must set up an ancillary estate within the state. This requirement, based on North Carolina law, is deemed essential for determining the eligible representative in wrongful death cases under the FTCA, but plaintiffs argue it's an excessive administrative burden.

Plaintiffs contend that their claims are governed by the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA), not the FTCA. According to Section 804(b) of the CLJA, a “legal representative” is authorized to file a lawsuit. The term, they argue, typically refers to someone managing a decedent’s estate and is not specifically tied to North Carolina law or conditions for initiating a CLJA lawsuit.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs assert that even if there is any ambiguity in the CLJA regarding the term “legal representative,” it would still be inappropriate to impose FTCA criteria. The scope of the FTCA, they argue, does not extend to federal actions like those under the CLJA or to injuries suffered by servicemembers in the line of duty, thereby distinguishing CLJA claims from FTCA requirements.

The outcome of this motion, filed on behalf of one plaintiff, is poised to significantly influence every other lawsuit in this extensive litigation, potentially streamlining the legal process for numerous plaintiffs.

November has seen a notable uptick in legal activity regarding Camp Lejeune, with around 100 lawsuits being filed. This significant number underscores the growing concerns and legal actions related to this case.

The scheduled Camp Lejeune Status Conference for Tuesday, November 6, 2023, has been canceled. The following session has been rescheduled and is now set to take place on November 21, 2023.

Efforts to advance settlements in the Camp Lejeune water contamination lawsuits are gaining momentum, with plaintiffs' attorneys and the government actively working together. A critical step in this process involves the development of a questionnaire designed to gather essential details from the affected parties. This tool will be instrumental in evaluating individual cases and formulating fair compensation strategies. Alongside, there's an ongoing initiative to establish a highly secure database, specifically for storing and managing the sensitive information collected.

While some claims appear to be on the verge of reaching settlement agreements soon, a considerable number of cases still demand and deserve their day in court. This duality underscores the necessity of not only negotiating settlements where feasible but also persistently advocating for trial dates to be set at the earliest, ensuring justice is thoroughly served for all involved.

A recent court directive outlines the protocol for managing privileged information in the Camp Lejeune cases against the government. The directive emphasizes the preservation of privileges, such as attorney-client communications, even if disclosed unintentionally during the lawsuit. Should privileged content be inadvertently shared, the recipient must notify the sender and promptly return or discard the materials. While parties have the right to refrain from presenting certain documents based on legal privileges, any disagreements over the confidentiality of documents can be referred to the Court for resolution.

The EPA is stepping forward with a recommendation to entirely ban the industrial solvent trichloroethylene (TCE), citing significant health risks, including cancer. Notably, TCE was a main contaminant in the drinking water supply at Camp Lejeune. This move by the EPA underscores the alarming toxicity levels the residents of Camp Lejeune were exposed to.

A month has passed since the Navy and the Department of Justice (DOJ) initiated the early settlement program at Camp Lejeune, a promising development that allows qualifying claimants to access immediate settlement payouts. There was substantial curiosity regarding the potential effects this new program might have on the influx of new civil cases under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA).

However, early indications suggest that the program has not deterred Camp Lejeune victims from filing new civil cases. In fact, since the settlement offer program's introduction in early September, the courts have seen 193 new CLJA civil cases. This number is not just a mere continuation of previous trends; it's a significant escalation. To put it in perspective, the month preceding the program's announcement witnessed only around 50 new civil cases, making the recent spike in filings all the more noteworthy.

Recent developments have emerged in the ongoing Camp Lejeune litigation, with North Carolina judges introducing modifications to Case Management Order #2 shortly after its initial issuance last week. This order, pivotal in guiding discovery procedures, requires both parties to engage in monthly meetings to discuss potential agreements and mandates consistent updates to the Court on the progress of these discussions. Additionally, it sets the stage for anticipated trial dates in the coming year for Lejeune cases.

Details of Amendments in Case Management Order:

Despite a halt on all individual dockets under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA), a key update in Section IV.D. necessitates that defense attorneys continue to formally acknowledge their participation in specific CLJA cases. This acknowledgment is achieved by submitting a Notice of Appearance upon receiving a Notice of Service, conforming to the protocols established in Standing Order 23-SO-1.

Clarifications in Section VI emphasize the obligation for any attorney representing a plaintiff in individual CLJA litigation to officially register their involvement with the court. This formal introduction entails filing a Notice of Appearance or Notice of Special Appearance, in strict adherence to Local Civil Rule 5.2(a). For attorneys not previously authorized to practice in this jurisdiction, compliance with the Court’s directive dated April 24, 2023, is compulsory. This includes the submission of a distinct request (pro hac vice motion) for each individual CLJA case they undertake.

The federal court in North Carolina, responsible for the Camp Lejeune lawsuits, has proclaimed that the inaugural set of trials will commence next year. These trials will be organized into different "Tracks," each corresponding to the primary health condition or disease cited by the plaintiff. The initial track for trial will encompass cases involving plaintiffs afflicted with Tier 1 diseases as per the early settlement program, including Parkinson’s disease, leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, kidney cancer, and bladder cancer.

In a decisive ruling last Friday, the North Carolina judges rejected an attempt to overthrow the established attorney leadership structure for the Camp Lejeune cases. This decision is perceived positively, as it maintains stability for the victims and allows legal teams to concentrate on advancing settlements and preparing remaining cases for trial.

Comprehensive insights into the specifics of the Camp Lejeune settlement proposal have been compiled and are accessible on a dedicated page for those seeking more in-depth information.

The Navy is currently seeking an extension until October 2, 2023, to formulate responses to the ongoing Camp Lejeune lawsuits, a move that might not come as a surprise to observers. This development is not causing any contention, as the main plaintiffs' attorneys have not objected to the motion. Background discussions on a case management plan involving the DOJ and other parties culminated in a submission to the court for approval on August 28, 2023. It's important to note that while the court previously granted the DOJ an extension until October 2, 2023, for responding to certain cases, this did not apply to cases where responses were already filed. In a bid to ensure consistency with the proposed case management plan, the DOJ has requested this additional extension.