Camp Lejeune Lone Pine Order: DOJ Asks Court to Make Plaintiffs Prove Exposure, Diagnosis and Causation

The Justice Department has asked the federal court handling every Camp Lejeune water case for a Lone Pine order: in a memorandum filed on Friday, October 23, 2026, the government urged the Eastern District of North Carolina to require plaintiffs to produce evidence of exposure, diagnosis and causation, arguing that more than three-quarters of claimants have failed to submit sufficient documentation in the four years since the Camp Lejeune Justice Act took effect. If the court grants a Camp Lejeune Lone Pine order, plaintiffs who cannot assemble that proof by a deadline would face dismissal, which would shrink the inventory that any global settlement has to price.

The filing, reported on October 26 by Law360 and by Public Radio East, arrived as the first Camp Lejeune trial, Mousser v. United States, opened in Elizabeth City and four business days before the court's October 30 target for a Global Settlement. It sets up a direct contest of case management tools. The government wants claimants to prove their claims individually and early. The Plaintiffs' Leadership Group wants the court to count claimants by disease through a 25-condition census so that a deal can be built from the totals. Which tool the court adopts, and in what order, will decide how many of roughly 408,000 administrative claimants and 3,796 filed plaintiffs are still in the case when the money is allocated.

No ruling on the request had been reported as of October 28, 2026, and the proposed deadlines in the government's papers have not been published. What follows explains what the government is asking for, where Lone Pine orders come from, what they have done in other mass tort dockets, and why this one is unusual.

What is the Camp Lejeune Lone Pine order?

The Camp Lejeune Lone Pine order is a case management order the Justice Department has asked the court to enter, requiring plaintiffs to come forward early with basic evidence that they were exposed to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, that they have the disease they claim, and that the exposure caused it. It has been requested, not granted. A Lone Pine Order, in general, is a pretrial order in a Mass Tort or toxic tort case that directs each plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of injury, exposure and causation by a date certain or risk having the claim dismissed.

The name comes from Lore v. Lone Pine Corp., a 1986 New Jersey Superior Court case over a landfill alleged to have polluted nearby property and water. The trial court there ordered the plaintiffs to provide basic facts and expert support for their claims before the litigation went further, and dismissed the claims when they did not. Since then the device has become a standard defense request in large exposure cases, from uranium mining to pharmaceuticals to hydraulic fracturing.

In the Camp Lejeune docket, the request has a specific shape. Public Radio East reported that the government's memorandum seeks an order requiring plaintiffs to "provide evidence supporting basic elements of their claims, including their exposure, diagnosis and causation." The Lawsuit Information Center, a litigation tracker run by the plaintiffs' firm Miller & Zois, described the request as one that could require thousands of plaintiffs to produce medical records and proof of exposure, and, for diseases outside those addressed in the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's 2017 assessment of the evidence, formal expert reports establishing causation. That last element is the one with teeth, because expert reports are the most expensive thing a plaintiff's lawyer can be asked to produce for an individual claimant.

Why does the government want a Lone Pine order in Camp Lejeune?

The government's stated reason is manageability: it says additional documentation is necessary to manage the thousands of lawsuits and hundreds of thousands of administrative claims arising from the contaminated water, and that most claimants still have not supplied it. According to Law360's account of the filing, more than three-quarters of claimants have failed to submit sufficient documentation for their claims over the past four years.

Three strategic reasons sit beneath the manageability argument, and practitioners should read the motion with all three in mind.

It narrows the denominator. A Global Settlement is priced by multiplying a per-claim value by the number of claims that will be paid. The government's Elective Option already pays a fixed amount per qualifying claim. If a Lone Pine order removes claimants who cannot document exposure or diagnosis, the government's exposure in any deal falls without anyone having to negotiate the per-claim number down.

It shifts cost to the plaintiffs' side. Gathering service records, housing records, pathology reports and expert opinions for thousands of individuals is labor-intensive. A Lone Pine order puts that cost on claimants' counsel now, on the court's schedule, rather than leaving it for some later claims process. For firms holding large inventories built through advertising, the cost may exceed the expected value of the weakest claims, which is part of the point.

It tests diseases outside the core list. The Camp Lejeune Justice Act does not limit the diseases a plaintiff may claim. The government's Elective Option, by contrast, covers only nine conditions. A requirement that plaintiffs claiming other diseases produce a formal expert report on causation, as the tracker describes, would force the litigation over those diseases into the open before any deal, rather than allowing them to ride along in a settlement framework.

The timing also matters. The filing came the business day before the first trial opened and a week before the settlement target. A pending Lone Pine request gives the government leverage at the negotiating table: plaintiffs' leadership must consider not only what a trial judge might find in Mousser but how many of their clients' claims might not survive an evidence deadline.

Do 75% of Camp Lejeune claims lack documentation?

The government says yes, at least among the claims it has reviewed: a joint status report states that more than three-quarters of the claims the Justice Department has reviewed so far lack the documentation required to qualify for an Elective Option settlement, and the October 23 memorandum, as described by Law360, puts the share of claimants who have not submitted sufficient documentation at more than three-quarters over four years. That is the government's characterization, not a court finding, and it is a rate applied to a reviewed subset rather than an audited count of every claim.

The underlying numbers, as relayed by litigation trackers from government status reporting, show why the government thinks the point is strong.

Measure	Approximate figure	Share of administrative claims
Administrative claims filed with the Department of the Navy	~408,000	100%
Claims with at least one supporting document	~185,000	~45%
Claims with three or more documents and a potentially qualifying injury	~13,000	~3%
Lawsuits filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina	3,796	n/a
Settlement offers made (as of Sept. 18, 2026)	more than $1.1 billion	n/a
Settlement payments made (as of Sept. 18, 2026)	more than $879 million	n/a

Two cautions apply. First, "documentation" in the Elective Option context means the specific proof the program requires to issue an offer: evidence of presence on the base for at least 30 days during the statutory window, and medical evidence of a qualifying diagnosis. A claim that lacks those papers today is not necessarily a claim that lacks merit; many claimants filed administrative claims before the August 10, 2024 filing deadline with little more than a form, because the deadline arrived before records could be gathered. Second, government officials have said in the status reporting that the documentation figure does not mean automatic denial.

Still, the gap between 408,000 claims and roughly 13,000 well-documented, potentially qualifying ones is the single most important fact in the litigation's economics. It explains why the government is asking for a Lone Pine order and why the plaintiffs want a census first.

What would Camp Lejeune plaintiffs have to produce under a Lone Pine order?

Based on the public descriptions, a Camp Lejeune Lone Pine order would require plaintiffs to produce three categories of proof: evidence of exposure (that they lived or worked at Camp Lejeune for at least 30 days between August 1, 1953 and December 31, 1987), evidence of diagnosis (medical records establishing the claimed disease), and evidence of causation, which for diseases outside ATSDR's 2017 assessment would reportedly mean a formal expert report. The exact deadlines, formats and sanctions in the proposed order have not been published.

Each category maps onto an element the statute already requires.

Exposure. The Act covers any individual, including a veteran or a family member, who resided, worked or was otherwise exposed for not less than 30 days to water at Camp Lejeune supplied by or on behalf of the United States, between August 1, 1953 and December 31, 1987. Proof typically comes from military personnel files (DD-214s and assignment records), base housing records, civilian employment records, and, for family members, birth certificates, school records or dependent identification. For in utero claimants, the mother's presence is the relevant fact.

Diagnosis. A Lone Pine order would likely require medical records showing the diagnosed condition and its date. In cancer cases that means pathology reports, which matter more than they might seem. In the Mousser trial, the government has argued that the plaintiff's kidney cancer is a urothelial carcinoma rather than the renal cell carcinoma most strongly associated with trichloroethylene. A diagnosis requirement that calls for histology would surface the same dispute across the inventory.

Causation. The statute's causation standard is relaxed, but it still requires evidence. Under Section 804(c), a plaintiff must show that the relationship between exposure to the water and the harm is sufficient to conclude that a causal relationship is at least as likely as not. For diseases where ATSDR's 2017 review found strong or at-least-equipoise evidence, a plaintiff may be able to rely on that review and general literature at an early stage. For other diseases, the government's position, as described, is that a case-specific expert report is needed. That is a demand for Specific Causation evidence in a form usually not required until expert discovery.

Where do Lone Pine orders come from?

Lone Pine orders come from judges' case management authority rather than any rule written for them: federal courts issue them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, including Rule 16(c)(2)(L), which allows special procedures for managing potentially difficult or protracted actions, and under their inherent power to manage their dockets. No federal rule mentions them by name, which is why their use varies sharply by judge and jurisdiction.

The leading cases show the range.

Lore v. Lone Pine Corp. (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1986) is the origin. A New Jersey trial court, facing claims by residents near a landfill, required plaintiffs to document their exposure, injuries and causation with expert support before proceeding, and dismissed the claims when the showing failed.

Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335 (5th Cir. 2000), is the leading federal appellate decision. Roughly 1,600 plaintiffs alleged injuries and property loss from uranium mining and processing in Texas. The district court required each plaintiff to provide expert affidavits identifying the injury, the substance, the circumstances of exposure, and the scientific basis for a causal link, then dismissed claims that did not comply. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that such orders "are issued under the wide discretion afforded district judges over the management of discovery," and observing that the orders essentially require information plaintiffs should have had before filing.

The Vioxx litigation in the Eastern District of Louisiana made the device a fixture of the post-settlement phase of a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL). After a global deal, the court used Lone Pine requirements to force plaintiffs who did not enroll to come forward with case-specific expert support or face dismissal. That pattern, a Lone Pine order aimed at the holdouts after a settlement, has been repeated in other pharmaceutical dockets.

Antero Resources Corp. v. Strudley, 2015 CO 26, marks the outer limit. The Colorado Supreme Court held that Colorado's rules of civil procedure did not permit a trial court to require a prima facie showing of causation before discovery in a fracking exposure case, describing the order as a summary-judgment-like filter the rules did not authorize. Strudley binds only Colorado state courts, but it is routinely cited by plaintiffs in federal court as the strongest statement of the objection.

The academic literature is skeptical. Nora Freeman Engstrom's empirical study of Lone Pine orders, published through Stanford's Center on the Legal Profession, catalogued how differently courts craft and time these orders and argued that they can operate as a merits filter without the procedural protections that accompany summary judgment. Defense commentators answer that the orders weed out claims that should never have been filed and speed resolution of those that should.

The federal rules have recently moved partway toward the idea. Rule 16.1, effective December 1, 2025, is the first rule written for MDL proceedings. It invites the court and parties at the initial management conference to address how and when the parties will exchange information about the factual bases for their claims and defenses. Rule 16.1 does not authorize dismissal for failure to make that exchange, and the Camp Lejeune docket is not an MDL, but the rule reflects a consensus that early claim vetting is a legitimate management goal.

How a Camp Lejeune Lone Pine order would sit with Section 804

A Camp Lejeune Lone Pine order would operate against a statute that differs from ordinary tort law in three ways, and each of them changes the analysis.

The causation standard is lower. Most Lone Pine orders demand expert support for a "more likely than not" causation theory. Section 804(c) requires only that a causal relationship be at least as likely as not. Plaintiffs can be expected to argue that a demand for case-specific expert reports, at the outset, imposes a burden the statute was written to lighten. The government can be expected to answer that a lower standard of persuasion does not eliminate the need for evidence, and that the court has already held, in rulings on expert testimony, that the statutory standard does not relax the requirements of Rule 702.

There is no jury. The court has held that Camp Lejeune Justice Act claims are tried to the bench, which is why Mousser is being heard by Judge Terrence W. Boyle alone. One traditional objection to Lone Pine orders is that they let a judge decide fact questions that belong to a jury. That objection carries less weight where the judge will be the factfinder at trial anyway. It does not disappear, however: the objection to deciding the merits on a paper record before discovery is about timing, not only about who decides.

The defendant controls the records. In most toxic tort cases, the defendant is a private company and exposure evidence is in the plaintiff's hands or scattered across third parties. Here the defendant is the United States, and much of the exposure evidence, including service records, base housing assignments and civilian personnel files, is held by the Department of the Navy and the National Archives. Plaintiffs have already litigated over access to Marine Corps records and water modeling data. Any Lone Pine order that requires proof of exposure will raise the question of whether the government can demand records from claimants that it holds itself, and whether deadlines must account for the time it takes the government to produce them.

That third point may matter most in practice. A court weighing a Camp Lejeune Lone Pine order is likely to ask what each claimant can realistically obtain, from whom, and how fast, before setting any deadline.

Does the Lone Pine order apply to administrative claims or only lawsuits?

As publicly described, the Lone Pine request is directed at plaintiffs in the litigation, but the government's memorandum justifies it by reference to both the thousands of lawsuits and the hundreds of thousands of administrative claims, so its reach to the administrative inventory is the central open question. A federal court's case management order binds the parties before it; an administrative claimant who has not filed suit is not a party.

The structure of the Act explains the distinction. Every Camp Lejeune claimant had to file an administrative claim with the Department of the Navy first. A claimant may sue in the Eastern District of North Carolina only after the Navy denies the claim or six months pass without a decision. That is why there are roughly 408,000 administrative claims but only 3,796 lawsuits.

The court has drawn the line before. The government has taken the position in this litigation that the court's authority does not extend to deciding what records the Navy must accept in the administrative claims process, and the court has declined to hear individual challenges to the government's Elective Option pricing, directing program-wide disputes to the Master Docket. A Lone Pine order would most naturally reach the filed plaintiffs. But it could still shape the administrative pool indirectly. A claimant whose administrative claim is later denied and who then sues would arrive in a docket where a Lone Pine regime already applies, and a court-approved list of required proof would likely become the practical standard in any settlement claims process.

Census versus Lone Pine: the two tools on the table

The Plaintiffs' Leadership Group has proposed a different first step: a census of claimants with any of 25 specified diseases and conditions, reporting each claimant's name, the last four digits of the Social Security number, the administrative claim number and the diagnosis, to support negotiations toward a global resolution. The two proposals are not mutually exclusive, but they reflect opposite theories of how to get to a deal.

Feature	Plaintiffs' 25-condition census	Government's Lone Pine request
Proposed by	Plaintiffs' Leadership Group	Justice Department
Purpose	Count claimants by disease to size a deal	Require proof of claim elements to cull the inventory
Information required	Name, last four SSN digits, claim number, diagnosis	Evidence of exposure, diagnosis and causation; reportedly medical records and, for some diseases, expert reports
Who bears the cost	Low per claimant; data entry	High per claimant; records retrieval and expert fees
Consequence of non-compliance	Not public	Dismissal risk, the defining feature of a Lone Pine order
Effect on settlement	Builds a Settlement Matrix denominator	Shrinks the denominator before a matrix is built
Analog in MDL practice	Census Registry	Post-settlement or pre-discovery Lone Pine order

Practitioners will recognize the census as the Camp Lejeune version of an MDL Census Registry and the Lone Pine order as a more demanding version of a Plaintiff Fact Sheet (PFS) regime. In most MDLs, courts move from census to fact sheets to case-specific expert work in stages. The question here is whether the court skips straight to the last stage for some or all claimants, and whether it does so before or after a settlement framework is announced.

Sequencing matters because a census conducted after a Lone Pine deadline counts only the survivors, while a census conducted first gives both sides a picture of the full inventory, including the portion likely to fall away. The government benefits from culling first; the plaintiffs benefit from counting first.

Has the court granted the Camp Lejeune Lone Pine order?

No. As of October 28, 2026, no ruling on the Justice Department's Lone Pine request had been reported, and no published account described a response from the Plaintiffs' Leadership Group. The motion is pending on the Master Docket, In re Camp Lejeune Water Litigation, No. 7:23-cv-00897, before the four judges of the Eastern District of North Carolina who share the litigation: Chief Judge Richard E. Myers II, Judge Terrence W. Boyle, Judge Louise W. Flanagan and Judge James C. Dever III.

Several dates will shape when and how the court acts. Public Radio East reported that the next in-person hearing in the litigation is set for November 16, 2026 in Wilmington. The second kidney cancer bench trial, Fancher, is scheduled for the week of November 9. And the court's October 30 settlement target will either produce a framework or prompt the court to evaluate next steps, which the judges have said could include changes in leadership or other action.

The court's own recent conduct offers hints in both directions. It has been willing to impose structure on claimants, sending program-wide disputes to the Master Docket and requiring weekly sessions with settlement masters. It has also rejected government efforts it viewed as excessive: in December 2025 it refused a government bid to exclude ATSDR evidence, noting that the government itself had relied on that work. A partial order, for example one limited to filed plaintiffs, or one that requires records but defers expert reports, would be consistent with that pattern.

Can a Lone Pine order get Camp Lejeune cases dismissed?

Yes, if it is entered and a plaintiff fails to comply: dismissal is the enforcement mechanism that gives any Lone Pine order its force, and in Acuna the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of claims that did not meet the court's requirements. But the form of dismissal matters, and for Camp Lejeune claimants it may matter more than usual.

Courts enforcing Lone Pine orders have chosen between dismissal with prejudice, which ends the claim, and dismissal without prejudice, which allows refiling. Many courts give notice and an opportunity to cure before dismissing, and appellate courts generally review those choices for abuse of discretion, often under the framework that applies to dismissals for failure to comply with court orders under Rule 41(b) or for discovery sanctions under Rule 37(b).

For Camp Lejeune plaintiffs, a dismissal without prejudice may be worth little. The Act's limitations provision required administrative claims to be filed within two years of enactment, by August 10, 2024, and requires suit to be brought within the later of that two-year period or 180 days after the Navy denies the administrative claim. A plaintiff who sued long ago and is dismissed now may find that the time to refile has run, which would convert a without-prejudice dismissal into a final one in practice. Plaintiffs' counsel can be expected to press that point in arguing for longer deadlines, cure periods, or a tolling mechanism in any order. The Statute of Limitations question is the hidden stake in the motion.

How does the Lone Pine request affect the Camp Lejeune global settlement?

The Lone Pine request strengthens the government's hand in settlement talks without requiring a ruling: as long as it is pending, plaintiffs' leadership has to price the risk that a large share of the inventory will be required to produce proof it does not yet have. The court has asked both sides to use their best efforts to reach a Global Settlement by October 30, 2026, and a motion filed a week earlier is plainly part of that negotiation.

The government's framework already pays on a fixed grid. Under the Elective Option, Tier 1 conditions (kidney cancer, liver cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, leukemia and bladder cancer) pay $150,000, $300,000 or $450,000 depending on whether the claimant was present for 30 to 364 days, one to five years, or more than five years. Tier 2 conditions (multiple myeloma, Parkinson's disease, end-stage renal disease, and systemic sclerosis or scleroderma) pay $100,000, $250,000 or $400,000 across the same bands, and a qualifying death adds $100,000. Any global deal is widely expected to build on a grid of that kind.

A grid makes the per-claim price predictable; the open question is the count and the diseases. A Lone Pine order, or even the credible threat of one, addresses both. It would reduce the number of eligible claims to those that can be documented, and it would require expert proof for diseases outside the core list before they could be paid or tried. A global deal announced while the motion is pending may include its own documentation requirements, with a Claims Administrator applying a standard similar to the one the government has asked the court to impose. That is the usual sequence in mass tort settlements, where enrollment requires proof of use or exposure and proof of injury.

Conversely, if no framework emerges by October 30, the Lone Pine request becomes the government's preferred path to reduce the docket through litigation. The Mousser findings, when they come, will feed into both scenarios.

Timeline: the Camp Lejeune Lone Pine request in context

Date	Event
January 13, 2017	ATSDR issues its assessment of the evidence for Camp Lejeune contaminants and specific diseases (16 diseases evaluated)
August 10, 2022	Camp Lejeune Justice Act enacted as Section 804 of the Honoring our PACT Act
August 10, 2024	Two-year deadline for administrative claims closes; roughly 408,000 claims on file
December 2025	Court rejects government bid to exclude ATSDR evidence
June 30, 2026	Court sets October 30, 2026 as the target for a global settlement
September 18, 2026	Government reports more than $1.1 billion offered and more than $879 million paid
September 29, 2026	Order (Dkt. 925) reappoints plaintiffs' leadership and continues weekly settlement-master sessions
October 1, 2026	Chief Judge Myers denies individual hearing on Elective Option pricing
October 2026	Plaintiffs' Leadership Group proposes 25-condition census
October 23, 2026	Justice Department files memorandum supporting Lone Pine order
October 26, 2026	First bench trial, Mousser v. United States, opens before Judge Boyle
October 30, 2026	Court's global settlement target
Week of November 9, 2026	Second kidney cancer trial, Fancher, scheduled
November 16, 2026	Next in-person hearing in Wilmington, per Public Radio East

What documents prove Camp Lejeune exposure and diagnosis?

The documents that prove Camp Lejeune exposure are records placing the claimant on the base for at least 30 days between August 1, 1953 and December 31, 1987, and the documents that prove diagnosis are medical records, ideally including pathology, showing the claimed disease and when it was diagnosed. A Lone Pine order, if entered, would likely specify the acceptable forms; until then, the categories below reflect what the statute requires and what the Elective Option has asked for.

• Military personnel records, including the DD-214 and assignment or unit records showing service at Camp Lejeune or a unit stationed there, typically obtained from the National Personnel Records Center.
• Base housing records showing residence in areas served by the Tarawa Terrace or Hadnot Point water systems, which matter because the most contaminated supplies were not base-wide.
• Civilian employment records for workers, including personnel files and payroll records.
• Family member records, such as birth certificates for children born on base, school enrollment, dependent ID cards and the service member's orders.
• Medical records showing the diagnosis, including pathology and histology reports for cancers, treating physician notes, and dates of diagnosis.
• Death certificates and estate documents for claims brought on behalf of deceased individuals.

For diseases outside the conditions covered by ATSDR's 2017 assessment and the Elective Option tiers, the tracker's description of the request indicates that a case-specific expert report would be required. That is the category in which claimants' counsel should expect the most attrition.

What it means for claimants' counsel, the government, funders and the mass tort bar

For claimants' counsel. The Lone Pine request is a reason to triage now rather than after a ruling. Firms holding Camp Lejeune inventories should sort each claim by the three elements the government has named: whether presence for 30 days is documented, whether the diagnosis is documented with pathology, and whether the disease is a Tier 1 or Tier 2 condition or something outside the list. Records requests to the National Personnel Records Center and treating facilities take time, and any order will likely set deadlines that run from entry. Firms whose clients rely on general assertions of presence, or on diagnoses outside the core list, should evaluate expert costs against expected value before a court forces the question. Counsel should also preserve the limitations argument: if dismissal is threatened, the record should show why refiling would be time-barred.

For the Justice Department. The motion is a credible lever, but it carries risk. Courts that have rejected Lone Pine orders, or narrowed them, have often cited the defendant's control of relevant information. Here the government holds much of the exposure evidence. A court may respond by conditioning any order on the government's production of records, or by limiting the order to diagnosis and leaving exposure to be resolved from government data. The government's best case is an order targeted at diseases outside the Elective Option and at filed plaintiffs who have produced nothing.

For litigation funders and lien holders. A Lone Pine order would reprice portfolios. Funders that advanced money against Camp Lejeune claims, and lenders to firms with large inventories, should expect attrition concentrated in undocumented and off-list claims. Medical Lien holders, including government payers that may claim reimbursement, have an interest in which claims survive, because the lien attaches only to a recovery.

For the broader mass tort bar. The Camp Lejeune docket is the largest single-district exposure litigation against the United States, managed without the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) and without juries. If the court enters a Lone Pine order before a global deal rather than after, it will be a notable data point for defendants seeking early claim vetting in MDLs under Rule 16.1. If it declines, or sequences the census first, plaintiffs will cite that choice in every docket where a Lone Pine request precedes settlement.

Frequently asked questions

What is the Camp Lejeune Lone Pine order?

It is a case management order the Justice Department asked the court to enter on October 23, 2026, requiring Camp Lejeune plaintiffs to produce evidence of exposure, diagnosis and causation early in the case. It has been requested, not granted.

Why does the government want a Lone Pine order in Camp Lejeune?

The government says more than three-quarters of claimants have not submitted sufficient documentation in four years, and that more proof is needed to manage thousands of lawsuits and hundreds of thousands of administrative claims. The request also strengthens its position ahead of the October 30 settlement target.

Has the court granted the Camp Lejeune Lone Pine order?

No ruling had been reported as of October 28, 2026. The request is pending on the Master Docket, No. 7:23-cv-00897, in the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Can a Lone Pine order get Camp Lejeune cases dismissed?

Yes, if one is entered and a plaintiff fails to comply by the deadline. Because of the Act's filing deadlines, even a dismissal without prejudice could end a claim in practice if the time to refile has passed.

Does the Lone Pine order apply to administrative claims or only lawsuits?

As described, it targets plaintiffs in the litigation, who number 3,796. The roughly 408,000 administrative claimants who have not sued are not parties, though a court-approved proof standard would likely shape any settlement claims process.

How does the Lone Pine request affect the Camp Lejeune global settlement?

It gives the government leverage by putting the size of the claimant pool at risk, and a global deal may include similar documentation requirements. If no deal is reached, the motion becomes a litigation path to shrink the docket.