Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
*423 Before ANDREW A. CAFFREY, Chairman, ROBERT H. SCHNACKE, FRED DAUGHERTY, SAM C. POINTER, Jr.,[*] S. HUGH DILLIN, MILTON POLLACK,[*] and LOUIS H. POLLAK, Judges of the Panel.
PER CURIAM.
Presently before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, filed by plaintiffs in one action pending in the Eastern District of Michigan in this docket, to centralize in the Southern District of Ohio for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings the 27 actions[1] listed on the attached Schedule A.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, we find that Section 1407 transfer would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Although we recognize that the actions in this litigation involve some common questions of fact, we are not persuaded that these common questions of fact will, in the future course of this litigation, predominate over individual questions of fact present in each action. We note that 1) plaintiffs in actions that are concluded or well advanced have conducted extensive discovery of defendant Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly) in areas of common factual inquiry; and 2) at oral argument in this matter, counsel for Lilly stated his willingness to make this common discovery applicable in those actions that are not far advanced, in order to eliminate the possibility of duplicative discovery in this litigation. We further note that one related action has already been tried in the Middle District of Georgia, another action has been settled in the Eastern District of Virginia, and several other actions have been scheduled for trial within the next six months. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that centralization of the actions in this litigation under Section 1407 will further the purposes of the statute. See In re Asbestos and Asbestos Insulation Material Products Liability Litigation, 431 F. Supp. 906, 910 (J.P.M.L.1977).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
Audria Barker, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83H-0610-S
Roderick P. Donnelly, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. CV-83-1517S
Glenda Nelms, etc. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. CV-83-PT-0891S
Austin Pettaway v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 82-0818-C
Charlene Lastra v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83-1668
Adele Hellman, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 82-6614
Angela M. Buchanan, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83-0002
Sara Ray v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83-0023-ALB
Louis B. Bradley v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. C-83-1349-A
Carolyn Hammet v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83-2645
Hazel B. Pizani, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83-2551
Carolina L. Polozola, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83-751A
Mary Fertitta, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83-1414
Maxine Hart, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Co., C.A. No. C-1-83-1765
Rose Butler v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83-2915
Robert Maier v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83-2605
Louis N. Domiano, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. CV-82-0982
Roselyn Espey v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 82-1184
Jimmie N. Rodgers, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83-2491-GA
Theodore Crumby, Jr., et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. G-82-525
Doris E. Scales, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83-0073-CA
Dortha M. Wolf, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 82-399-CA4
Frederick Domanski, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83CV0499DT
Larry See, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83CV4223DT
Velma Phillips v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83CV1686
Janet Kapala v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83CV8356FL
Alyce LeRoy, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83CV7320B
[*] Judge Milton Pollack recused himself and took no part in the decision of this matter. In addition, Judge Sam C. Pointer, Jr. took no part in the decision of this matter.
[1] The motion, as amended, seeks centralization of 30 actions. The schedule of actions, however, included one actionLottie Seltzer v. Eli Lilly & Company, S.D. Alabama, C.A. No. 83-0335 that was dismissed on October 31, 1983. Another action included on the scheduleClarence Borom v. Eli Lilly & Company, M.D. Georgia, C.A. No. 83-0038-COLwas tried in November, 1983, resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. A third action included on the scheduleChong Ho Kim, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, E.D. Virginia, C.A. No. 83-0695-A has been settled. Thus the Section 1407 motion, as amended, encompasses a total of 27 actions presently in pretrial in federal district courts.