In Re VIOXX PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
No. 1657.Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
February 16, 2005.Before WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman, JOHN F. KEENAN, D. LOWELL JENSEN, J. FREDERICK MOTZ,[*] ROBERT L. MILLER, Jr., KATHRYN H. VRATIL and DAVID R. HANSEN, Judges of the Panel.
*1353 TRANSFER ORDER
WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.
This litigation presently consists of 148 actions pending in 41 federal districts and listed on the attached Schedule A. Before the Panel are two motions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, that taken together seek centralization for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of all but one of these actions.[1] Plaintiff in one Eastern Louisiana action seeks centralization of this litigation in the Eastern or Western Districts of Louisiana. Defendant Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck) moves for centralization of this litigation in either the District of Maryland, the Southern District of Indiana, or the Northern District of Illinois. Merck also agrees with some plaintiffs that the District of New Jersey would be an appropriate transferee district. AmerisourceBergen Corp., a wholesaler defendant, supports centralization in the Maryland district. Most responding plaintiffs agree that centralization is appropriate, although some plaintiffs suggest alternative transferee districts, including the Northern District of Alabama, the Central or Northern Districts of California, the District of Delaware, the Southern District of Illinois, the District of Minnesota, the Eastern District of Missouri, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern or Southern Districts of New York, the Northern or Southern Districts of Ohio, the Western District of Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the Southern or Western Districts of Texas.
The three arguments in opposition to Section 1407 centralization can be summarized as follows: plaintiffs in two actions oppose inclusion of their actions in MDL-1657 proceedings, because motions to remand their actions to state court are pending; plaintiffs in some Southern Texas actions along with plaintiffs in one third-party payor action pending in the Southern District of New York oppose these actions' inclusion in MDL-1657, arguing that individual questions of fact in their actions predominate over any common questions of fact and/or that discovery is already underway in these actions; and plaintiffs in one action pending in the Eastern District of New York oppose inclusion of their action in 1407 proceedings, since it involves additional claims relating to a different prescription medication not involved in other MDL-1657 actions.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Eastern District of Louisiana will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and *1354 promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All actions focus on alleged increased health risks (including heart attack and/or stroke) when taking Vioxx, an anti-inflammatory drug, and whether Merck knew of these increased risks and failed to disclose them to the medical community and consumers. Centralization under Section 1407 is necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery, avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
The pendency of a motion to remand to state court is not a sufficient basis to avoid inclusion in Section 1407 proceedings. We note that motions to remand in two actions, one action each in the District of Kansas and the Eastern District of Missouri, as well as in any other MDL-1657 actions can be presented to and decided by the transferee judge. See, e.g., In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7 (2d Cir.1990); In re Prudential Insurance Company of America Sales Practices Litigation, 170 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1347-48 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.2001).
Nor are we persuaded by the arguments of some opposing Texas plaintiffs and the New York third-party payor plaintiffs. We point out that transfer under Section 1407 has the salutary effect of placing all actions in this docket before a single judge who can formulate a pretrial program that: 1) allows discovery with respect to any non-common issues to proceed concurrently with discovery on common issues, In re Smith Patent Litigation, 407 F. Supp. 1403, 1404 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1976); and 2) ensures that pretrial proceedings will be conducted in a manner leading to the just and expeditious resolution of all actions to the overall benefit of the parties. We note that the MDL-1657 transferee court can employ any number of pretrial techniques such as establishing separate discovery and/or motion tracks to efficiently manage this litigation. In any event, we leave the extent and manner of coordination or consolidation of these actions to the discretion of the transferee court. In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.2004). It may be, on further refinement of the issues and close scrutiny by the transferee judge, that some claims or actions can be remanded to their transferor districts for trial in advance of the other actions in the transferee district. But we are unwilling, on the basis of the record before us, to make such a determination at this time. Should the transferee judge deem remand of any claims or actions appropriate, procedures are available whereby this may be accomplished with a minimum of delay. See Rule 7.6, 199 F.R.D. at 436-38. We are confident in the transferee judge's ability to streamline pretrial proceedings in these actions, while concomitantly directing the appropriate resolution of all claims.
The Panel is persuaded, however, that claims involving a prescription drug other than Vioxx in one Eastern District of New York action do not share sufficient questions of fact with claims relating to Vioxx to warrant inclusion of these non-Vioxx claims in MDL-1657 proceedings.
Given the geographic dispersal of constituent actions and potential tag-along actions, no district stands out as the geographic focal point for this nationwide docket. Thus we have searched for a transferee judge with the time and experience to steer this complex litigation on a prudent course. By centralizing this litigation in the Eastern District of Louisiana before Judge Eldon E. Fallon, we are assigning this litigation to a jurist experienced in complex multidistrict products liability litigation and sitting in a district with the capacity to handle this litigation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions *1355 listed on the attached Schedule A and pending outside the Eastern District of Louisiana are transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Eldon E. Fallon for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending there and listed on Schedule A.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that claims in Dominick Cain, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., E.D. New York, C.A. No. 1:01-3441, against Pharmacia Corp., Pfizer Inc., and G.D. Searle & Co. relating to a prescription medication other than Vioxx are simultaneously separated and remanded to the Eastern District of New York.
SCHEDULE A
MDL-1657 In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation
Middle District of Alabama
Paul Turner, Sr. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-999
Danny M. Wilson v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:03-844
Northern District of Alabama
Carolyn O. Hensley, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:03-906
William Cook v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:02-2710
Sharon Scott Jones v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-3079
Southern District of Alabama
Carolyn Younge, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:03-125
Eastern District of Arkansas
Linda Sue Otts v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-57
Western District of Arkansas
Bobby Brown, et al. v. Merck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 4:04-4140
Arthur Fulton, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 6:03-6107
Central District of California
Charles Ashman v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-8225
Janet Briggs v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-9275
Northern District of California
Kathy Tokes v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-4435
Patricia A. Taylor v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-4510
Jeffrey Brass v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-4521
Middle District of Florida
Frances Dunleavey, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-539
Northern District of Florida
Benjamin Burt, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-388
Southern District of Florida
Ellen B. Gerber, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 0:04-61429
Josefa Abraham, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-22631
Sidney Schneider v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-22632
Clara Fontanilles v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-22799
Stanley Silber, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 9:04-80983
Northern District of Georgia
Richard Zellmer v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:03-2530
Edna Strickland v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-3231
Northern District of Illinois
Linda Grant, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-6407
*1356 Constance Oswald v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-6741
Anita Ivory v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-7218
Southern District of Illinois
Roberta Walson, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-27
John Ellis v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-792
Bilbrey v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-836
Southern District of Indiana
Estate of Lowell D. Morrison v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:03-1535
Kimberly Van Jelgerhuis, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-1651
District of Kansas
Vicky Hunter v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-2518
Betty S. Smith v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 6:04-1355
Eastern District of Kentucky
Daniel K. Williams v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-235
Richard J. Getty, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-452
Eastern District of Louisiana
Salvadore Christina, Sr. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-2726
Angelis Alexander v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-2845
Leonce Davis v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-2937
Mary V. Gagola v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-3053
Christine L. Parr v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-3054
Clifton Adam Savage, Sr. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-3055
Delores Thomas Robertson v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-3056
Howard Mark Falick v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-3060
Warren L. Gottsegen, M.D. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-3065
Middle District of Louisiana
Michael Wayne Russell v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-712
Linda Kay Hudson v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-776
Jesse Wilkinson v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-800
Wilson Brown v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-801
Dorothy Bracken v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-802
James Edward Benoit v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-803
Clarence Chiszle v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-804
Western District of Louisiana
Anthony J. Mallet, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:02-2304
Calvin Warren, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-2110
Vicki White v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-2126
Norma Merrit, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:03-1401
Herchial Wright, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-2268
Leroy Bates, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-2269
Vaughn McKnight v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-2270
Josephine Harper v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-2271
Lendell Burns, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-2272
Leona Sadler v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-2273
William Tice, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-2274
*1357 Maynard Butler, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-2275
Marion Evans, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-2276
Donna Lavergne v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 6:04-2174
District of Maryland
Lindsey Edler, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:03-3612
Melvin Biles v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-975
David Morris, Jr. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 8:04-3024
Daniel Martin Jeffers, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 8:04-3604
District of Massachusetts
Frank R. Saia v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-12166
District of Minnesota
Carolyn Y. Glover v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 0:03-5166
Lowell Burris, Jr. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 0:04-4375
Shirley Homister v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 0:04-4754
Northern District of Mississippi
Frances Shannon, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:03-105
Southern District of Mississippi
Leona McFarland, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:03-247
Bettye J. Magee, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:03-249
Jerry Melton v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:04-372
Janet Sue Morgan, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:03-435
Brenda Price, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-866
Eastern District of Missouri
Deyonne E. Whitmore v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:03-1354
Janice Perkins v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:04-1446
Jurhee Bench v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:04-1447
Western District of Missouri
Caroline Nevels v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:04-952
Russell Young, etc. v. Merck & Co., C.A. No. 6:04-5117
District of New Jersey
Patrick Besaw v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-5178
Brenda Aguero, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-5341
Eastern District of New York
Dominick Cain, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:01-3441
William Hanson v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-2949
Jerome Covington v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-4439
Alan Mell v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-4606
Lorraine Fialo v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-4686 Lawrence Wright, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-4485
William Fontanetta, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-4486
Southern District of New York
Laney C. Davis v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-8082
Elizabeth Aiken v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-8085
Walter McNaughton v. Merck & Co. Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-8297
*1358 Carmen M. Pagan, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-8959
Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-9248
Anna Quick v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 7:04-8169
Northern District of Ohio
Marjory Knoll v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-2209
Danford K. Jones, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-2217
Meadows, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-2229 9
Wanda Moldovan, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-2245
Janet Dauterman, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:03-7623
Western District of Oklahoma
Paul E. House v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-1235
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Henry Smith, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-4713
Michelle Donovan v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-4882
Gwendolyn L. Carr v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-4900
Fred S. Engle v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-5077
Merrick Sirota, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-5130
District of Puerto Rico
Rafael Gonzalez-Arias, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-2263
District of South Carolina
Bridget Elaine Michaud, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:03-3083
Eastern District of Texas
Arthur Clifford Hall, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-684
Brenda Lewis, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-685
Billie Painton, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-686
Lovincy Richard, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-703
Bill Jolley, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-376
Marian Williamson, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-406
Deborah Daley, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6:03-509
Northern District of Texas
Dellas Staples, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:03-180
Michael R. Leonard v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-2157
Jack A. Register, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-2259
Southern District of Texas
Heirs of the Estate of Pablo Flores v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:03-362
Audona Sandoval v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-544
Jeffrey L. Denny, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-526
Kimberly D. Stubblefield, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:02-3139
John P. Eberhardt v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:03-1380
Myrtle Louise Bell, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:03-3448
Thomas Joseph Pikul, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:03-3656
Opalene Stringer, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:03-3657
Reginald K. Fears v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:04-4187
*1359 Peggy J. Balch v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:04-4201
John R. Stout v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:04-4205
Charles C. Gilmore v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:04-4206
Johnny White v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:04-4207
Donna Hale v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:04-4208
Bernadette Young v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:04-4209
William B. Gregory, Jr. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:04-4327
Patricia Benavides, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5:03-134
Patricia Benavides, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5:04-153
Olga Sanchez v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 7:04-352
Maria Emma Hinojosa v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 7:04-373
Western District of Texas
Joe Hopson, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-485
Larry Lee Bauman, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-707
Carolyn Reed, etc. v. Minor, et al., C.A. No. 1:04-731
District of Utah
Della Jo Salt, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:01-794
District of Vermont
Sara Cheeseman v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-261
Western District of Virginia
Catherine Wheatley, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:04-20
NOTES
[*] Judge Motz took no part in the decision of this matter.
[1] Included in the Section 1407 motions were eleven additional actions pending in the Central District of California (2), the Southern District of California (1), the Southern District of Illinois (2), the Southern District of Indiana (1), the Western District of Missouri (1), the Southern District of New York (1), the Northern District of Texas (1), and the Southern District of Texas (2). These actions have been either remanded to their respective state courts, voluntarily dismissed, or otherwise closed. Accordingly, inclusion of the actions in Section 1407 proceedings is moot.
One other action Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., S.D. New York, C.A. No. 1:04-9248 was not included on either MDL-1657 motion and is now included in this transfer order. All parties to this action had notice of the proceedings before the Panel relating to Section 1407 centralization and had an opportunity to participate in those proceedings by stating their respective positions in writing and during the Panel's hearing session.
The Panel has been notified of nearly 300 potentially related actions pending in multiple federal districts. In light of the Panel's disposition of this docket, these actions will be treated as potential tag-along actions. See Rules 7.4 and 7.5, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001).