Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
*1368 Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
Before WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman, D. LOWELL JENSEN, J. FREDERICK MOTZ, ROBERT L. MILLER, Jr., KATHRYN H. VRATIL, DAVID R. HANSEN and ANTHONY J. SCIRICA, Judges of the Panel.
WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.
This litigation currently consists of one action each in the District of District of Columbia, the Eastern District of Kentucky, and the Eastern District of New York. Defendants[1] move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the District of District of Columbia. Plaintiffs in the District of District of Columbia action support defendants' motion. Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Kentucky action and the Eastern District of New York action oppose the motion and, alternatively, support transfer to the Eastern District of Kentucky.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that these three actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the District of District of Columbia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions are putative nationwide class actions that share allegations concerning a May 3, 2006, theft of a laptop computer and external hard drive from the home of an employee of the VA. The computer, and/or accompanying external hard drive, contained the names, dates of birth, and social security numbers of approximately 26 million veterans and active duty military personnel. Plaintiffs bring, inter alia, claims under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, against defendants. Centralization under Section 1407 is necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
Plaintiffs argue in opposition to Section 1407 centralization that there are a minimal number of actions involved and that alternatives to centralization, such as transfer under the "first to file" rule, are preferable to Section 1407 centralization. We disagree. Transfer under Section 1407 will offer the benefit of placing all actions in this docket before a single judge who can structure pretrial proceedings to accommodate *1369 all parties' legitimate discovery needs while ensuring that the common parties and witnesses are not subjected to discovery demands that duplicate activity that will or has occurred in other actions. Discovery with respect to any case-specific issues can also proceed concurrently with discovery on common issues. In re Smith Patent Litigation, 407 F. Supp. 1403, 1404 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1976).
We are persuaded that the District of District of Columbia is a preferable transferee forum for this litigation. The District of District of Columbia is where likely relevant documents and witnesses may be found, inasmuch as many of the defendants are located in this district and the theft occurred in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions pending outside the District of District of Columbia are transferred to the District of District of Columbia and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable James Robertson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action already pending in that district.
[1] The motion is made on behalf of defendants Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), VA Secretary R. James Nicholson, Deputy Secretary Gordon G. Mansfield, and VA employee John Doe, in their official capacities only.
