TRANSFER ORDER

SARAH S. VANCE, Chair.

Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in the action listed on Schedule A (Smilow) move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate our order that conditionally transferred Smilow to the Northern District of California for inclusion in MDL No. 2617. Defendants Anthem, Inc., Anthem Life & Disability Insurance Company, Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc., and Empire HealthChoice HMO, Inc. (collectively, Anthem) oppose the motion to vacate.

Plaintiffs base their arguments against transfer primarily on the pendency of a motion to remand the action to state court, suggesting that the transferor court should decide this motion. We have held repeatedly, however, that a motion for remand alone is generally an insufficient basis to vacate a conditional transfer order.1 Plaintiffs can present their motion for remand to the transferee judge. See, e.g., In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7, 9 (2d Cir. 1990); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practices Litig., 170 F.Supp.2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L. 2001).2

Plaintiffs also argue that transfer should not take place because Smilow involves "localized" claims, facts, and parties. This argument, too, is unconvincing. Plaintiffs' claims, like those in the actions pending in MDL No. 2617, arise from a data security breach that allegedly occurred sometime between December 10, 2014, and February 4, 2015 (the Anthem data breach), and resulted in the electronic theft of personally identifiable information and personal health information of, by one estimate, some 80 million current and former health insurance plan members and employees of Anthem or its affiliated health insurance companies. Smilow thus will involve similar, if not identical, discovery relating to the Anthem data breach. Moreover, the putative class asserted by plaintiffs in Smilow overlaps significantly with the putative classes asserted in the actions in the MDL. Absent transfer, there will be a significant risk of inconsistent pretrial rulings.

In our order centralizing this litigation, we held that the Northern District of California was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising from the Anthem data breach. See In re Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., MDL No. 2617, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2015 WL 3654627 (J.P.M.L. Jun. 8, 2015). We find that Smilow shares factual questions with those actions, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action listed on Schedule A is transferred to the Northern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Lucy H. Koh for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

SCHEDULE A

Eastern District of New York

SMILOW, ET AL. v. ANTHEM LIFE & DISABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:15-02380