Filed: Dec. 10, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 10, 2014
Summary: ORDER DENYING TRANSFER SARAH S. VANCE , Chair . Before the Panel: * Plaintiffs in the 25 actions listed on the attached Schedule A move under 28 U.S.C. 1407 to centralize those actions in the Central District of California, or, in the alternative, the Western District of Wisconsin, the Southern District of California, or the District of Oregon. 1 Plaintiffs in three potential tag-along actions, two in the Eastern District of Missouri, and one in the Northern District of California, sup
Summary: ORDER DENYING TRANSFER SARAH S. VANCE , Chair . Before the Panel: * Plaintiffs in the 25 actions listed on the attached Schedule A move under 28 U.S.C. 1407 to centralize those actions in the Central District of California, or, in the alternative, the Western District of Wisconsin, the Southern District of California, or the District of Oregon. 1 Plaintiffs in three potential tag-along actions, two in the Eastern District of Missouri, and one in the Northern District of California, supp..
More
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
SARAH S. VANCE, Chair.
Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in the 25 actions listed on the attached Schedule A move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize those actions in the Central District of California, or, in the alternative, the Western District of Wisconsin, the Southern District of California, or the District of Oregon.1 Plaintiffs in three potential tag-along actions, two in the Eastern District of Missouri, and one in the Northern District of California, support centralization in the Central District of California. Common defendant Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly) opposes centralization. If the Panel orders centralization over its objections, then Lilly favors centralization in the Middle District of Florida, the Northern District of Ohio, or the Northern District of Georgia.
The actions in this docket are highly similar. Plaintiffs allege that they suffered a variety of withdrawal symptoms after discontinuing use of Cymbalta, a Lilly prescription drug used to treat depression, generalized anxiety disorder, diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, and chronic musculoskeletal pain. Plaintiffs contend that the label for Cymbalta fails to adequately warn of the risk of such symptoms, and that Lilly's promotional campaigns for the drug have overstated its efficacy while understating, downplaying, or failing altogether to state its withdrawal side effects.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we deny plaintiffs' motion. Unquestionably, these actions share factual issues concerning Cymbalta's development, marketing, labeling, and sale. Nevertheless, we are not convinced that centralization under Section 1407 is warranted in these circumstances. First, the procedural posture of the actions varies significantly. The three earliest-filed cases were commenced between April and June 2013, and the other 22 actions were commenced in August 2014. In the two earliest-filed Central District of California actions (Hexum and Herrera), the discovery cutoff is December 13, 2014. In the District of Arizona Seagroves action, the cutoff is December 12, 2014.2 In contrast, the more recently-filed actions are still in their infancy. See, e.g., In re: Lloyds Bank PLC Int'l Mortg. Serv. Loan Litig., 997 F.Supp.2d 1352, 1353 (J.P.M.L.2014) (denying centralization, in part because of the "widely varying procedural postures" of the subject actions).
Second, and relatedly, the record shows that most, if not all, of the common discovery has already taken place in those earlier-filed actions. Indeed, Lilly represents that it already has produced corporate representatives for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions in the areas of drug safety, sales training and labeling. Lily also states that it has produced to plaintiffs' counsel nearly two million pages of documents. Although moving plaintiffs dispute the adequacy of Lilly's production, there is no doubt that the discovery that has occurred to date has been substantial.
Third, only a limited number of plaintiffs' counsel are involved in these cases. In fact, just two firms represent plaintiffs in all the constituent actions, and Lilly is represented in all actions by a single law firm. This overlap suggests that informal coordination with respect to the remaining common discovery, as well as other pretrial matters, should be practicable.3 See In re: Eli Lilly & Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litig., 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L.1978).
For all the above reasons, we conclude that Section 1407 centralization would not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.
SCHEDULE A
District of Arizona
SEAGROVES, ET AL. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:13-01183
Central District of California
HEXUM, ET AL. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:13-02701
HERRERA, ET AL. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:13-02702
CAPORALE, ET AL. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:14-01662
HOLLOWELL, ET AL. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:14-01663
BARRETT, ET AL. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:14-01675
O'SHEA, ET AL. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 8:14-01274
Eastern District of California
CHESHIER v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:14-01265
WOODRUFF, ET AL. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:14-01890
Southern District of California
WHEELER, ET AL. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 3:14-01882
District of Colorado
CHENEY, ET AL. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:14-02249
Middle District of Florida
LAICA-BHOGE, ET AL. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 6:14-01286
Southern District of Florida
GOLLIN, ET AL. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 0:14-61810
Northern District of Georgia
COUCH v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-02564
Western District of Louisiana
FAIRBANKS v. ELI LILLY & CO., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-02469
District of Maryland
BOLING, ET AL. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 8:14-02554
District of Minnesota
McCABE v. ELI LILLY & COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:14-03132
Eastern District of North Carolina
WHITWORTH, ET AL. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:14-00459
WILLIAMS, ET AL. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:14-00460
Middle District of North Carolina
HARRIS v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-00682
Northern District of Ohio
MAYES v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 4:14-01759
District of Oregon
LOUX, ET AL. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 3:14-01287
Western District of Pennsylvania
ROSSERO, ET AL. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:14-01084
Eastern District of Washington
WAGNER, ET AL. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:14-00270
Western District of Wisconsin
STREETER v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 3:14-00555
