ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR A SUGGESTION OF REMAND

CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.

The ECF Nos. 3597, 3611, 3641, and 3653 motions were filed on behalf of certain plaintiffs who, for the most part, initiated cases against Volkswagen in federal courts outside of the Northern District of California and who had their cases transferred to this Court as part of the above-captioned MDL. In their motions, these plaintiffs have asked this Court, as the transferee district court, to issue a suggestion of remand to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.1

The Court declines to issue a suggestion of remand at this time. In multidistrict litigation, remand to transferor district courts is appropriate "when centralized pretrial proceedings have run their course." In re Brand-Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig., 264 F.Supp.2d 1372, 1376 (J.P.M.L. 2003) (citing Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg, 523 U.S. 26, 34 (1998)). The centralized pretrial proceedings here have not yet reached that point. To the contrary, continued consolidation will "eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary," all of which are factors that counsel against remand. Diaz v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., No. 05-C-7097, 2014 WL 26265, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 2, 2014) (quoting In re Heritage Bonds Litig., 217 F.Supp.2d 1369, 1370 (J.P.M.L. 2002)). The Court will issue one or more scheduling orders governing further proceedings in these cases in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.