Here’s our conundrum: On the one hand, we try to be completely transparent in our blog posts, linking to cases wherever possible. On the other hand, we try to steer clear of issues that colleagues or clients might not want to have publicized. So we’re cloaking today’s post in anonymity — but we do both have copies of the relevant order; if you need a copy, just e-mail us.

Hypothesize this: Defendant files a motion for coordination with the MDL Panel. Some plaintiffs file briefs in favor of coordinating. Another plaintiff group (we’ll call them the cons) file a joint brief opposing coordination. (That’s “con” as in the opposite of “pro,” not as in the short-form of “convict.” We’ll have no one suing us for group libel.)

Before the MDL Panel has its hearing, federal courts remand to state court all — 100 percent — of the cases in the “con” group. Does a representative of the con group, which has no pending federal cases that could be affected by the MDL Panel’s ruling, have the right to argue before the Panel?

We would have guessed no. If you don’t have any cases that could be affected by the decision, you lack standing. Why would you get to speak?

Shows (yet again) what we know.

Faced with this situation, the MDL Panel ruled that a representative of the con group would be permitted to argue, even though the group had no pending federal cases. (This is not a published order. It’s just a notation on the top of a page granting a request to argue despite not having any pending federal cases. You surely can’t find the order on-line. But, as we said, if you need a copy for some reason, just whistle. Since Bexis is in Philadelphia and Herrmann’s in Chicago, whistle real, real loud.)