A salesman reaches for a Juul Labs Inc. device kit for a customer at Discount Cigarettes and Cigars store in San Francisco, California, on June 26, 2019. Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg

The federal judge overseeing a batch of cases against e-cigarette maker Juul has chosen four plaintiffs lawyers to lead the case in its early stages.

At the end of a marathon hearing Friday where more than 40 lawyers gave two-minute pitches for leadership positions in the multidistrict litigation, U.S. District Judge William Orrick III of the Northern District of California appointed four lawyers to handle preliminary matters for plaintiffs: Sarah London, a partner at San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein; Dena Sharp, of Girard Sharp in San Francisco; Ellen Relkin of Weitz & Luxenberg in New York; and Dean Kawamoto of Keller Rohrback in Seattle.

Orrick indicated in an order issued in the run-up to Friday's initial case management conference that he wanted to have an interim team in place to handle logistics until he can complete an "initial census" of the cases before him in the multidistrict litigation. An "initial census" refers to the idea, increasingly floated by the defense bar, that judges should vet cases early on in multidistrict litigation in order to weed out meritless claims and to determine the different sorts of plaintiffs and claims within a particular MDL.

"I feel a great sense of urgency to deal with the issues in this case because of the seriousness of the allegations and the need for us to be collectively involved to search for truth and resolution in this matter," Orrick told a packed courtroom at the top of Friday's hearing.

Orrick has called on Jaime Dodge, the founding director of Emory University School of Law's Institute for Complex Litigation and Mass Claims, for help with the initial census.

Orrick indicated in his pre-hearing order that appointment to the initial team would not be a guarantee of inclusion on the final leadership structure of the cases, which focus on Juul's marketing, particularly to children, and alleged injuries caused by its products—including addiction, pulmonary disease and seizures. Juul faces a mix of personal injury and addiction cases as well as proposed class actions brought on behalf of consumers, school districts and state and local governments, as well as cases seeking medical monitoring for Juul users going forward.

Judge Orrick to the crowd: "There are so many people here I assume that many of you will want to speak to me about … something"

— Ross Todd (@Ross_Todd) November 8, 2019

A line of lawyers trailed outside the courtroom door ahead of the hearing. Orrick allowed most attorneys only two minutes to express why they or their firm should be chosen for leadership and to pitch ways to expedite a resolution to the case. Lieff Cabraser's London, whom Orrick had previously tapped to coordinate some preliminary issues with defendants, spoke first and was allowed about five minutes to outline the universe of 163 cases in the MDL so far.

London encouraged the judge to ultimately pick a slate of 22 lawyers on a proposed leadership team that pitches alongside proposed co-lead counsel at San Francisco's Gutride Safier and New York's Douglas & London.

"We need a sizable group of lawyers who can work well together," said London, whose group had proposed that class actions, personal injury cases, and the municipal cases proceed together, rather than on separate tracks. London said that plaintiffs needed to be able to adapt to developing circumstances.

Friday's hearing came as Juul in October agreed to stop selling fruit-flavored e-cigarettes. The company also reached a legal settlement with California's Center for Environmental Health that limits how the company can market its product to minors.

"We need be able to take our formation and direct it in the direction to get the job done," London said.

Girard Sharp name partner Dena Sharp, who had backed a rival leadership structure advocating for separate tracks for different types of cases, said Friday that it was obvious that there "was not a whole lot of difference" between the groups and that everyone on the plaintiffs side of the room had a shared interest.

"It surely is if nothing else a public health emergency at this point," Sharp said. She said that the proposal for different tracks was directed at giving clients and the court someone specific they could call on and hold accountable.

Orrick indicated in his pre-hearing order that the group chosen Friday would "address preliminary discovery issues, such as the Protective Order, ESI Protocol, selection of necessary vendors, and discovery planning that can occur before the final leadership team is in place."

Orrick said Friday that he wanted to make sure to get the structure of the case right and to get the results of the case census would help him do that.

"I want this case to move forward in a speedy and collaborative and efficient way," Orrick said.

Read More:

In Juul MDL, Judge Wants an 'Initial Census' of Cases

Diverse Set of Lawyers Wants to Lead Juul Lawsuits. For Some, It's Personal