MEMORANDUM ORDER

RAYMOND A. JACKSON, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant General Nulls Sates. Motion to Sever and for an Expedited Trial Schedule, filed on April 24, 2014. ECF No. 88. Plaintiff DietGoal Innovations filed its Opposition on May 9, 2014, ECF No. 93, and General Mills filed a Reply on May 15. 2014. ECF No. 97. The motion is accordingly ripe for disposition.

On March 25, 2014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas transferred this action to this district. Case No. 2:12cv761. ECF No. 388 (ED. Tex.), On April 21, 2014, the Court entered a sua sponte order consolidating the transierred action for pretrial purposes with three other consolidated actions pending in this district pursuant [o Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, See Civil Actions No. 2:13cv154 (DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.), 2:13cv401 (DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Dunkin' Brands Group, Inc.), and 2:13cv430 (DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Domino's Pizza, Inc.). See Bess v. Cty. of Cumberland, N.C., 5:11cv388, 2011 WL 4809879, at *9 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 22, 2011) ("District courts have the inherent authority to order consolidation snot sponte.") (quotation omitted). The Court noted that consolidation was proper because the central claim in all four actions was infringement of the same patent through defendants' use of a computerized menu planning interfaces, and because the defendants raised overlapping, defenses and counterclaims.

General Mills then filed the instant motion, which effectively asks the Court to reconsider and vacate the consolidation order.1 General Mills notes that before the action was transierred from the Eastern District of Texas, the parties had already finished Markman proceedings, had nearly finished discovery and were scheduled for trial on June 2, 2014. The case was therefore far more advanced than the cases in this district with which the General Mills action was consolidated, as discovery had not yet commenced in those cases and a trial date had not yet been selected. Accordingly, General Mills argues that consolidation will cause it significant hardship and prejudice.

Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of-Civil Procedure reads, in relevant part: "If actions before the court involve a common question aim or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). "[A] district court must consider the interest a judicial economy as well as the interest of the parties in a fair mid impartial procedure. In re MicroStrategy Sec. Litigation, 110 F.Supp.2d 427, 431 (E.D. Va. 2000) (citing Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1285 (2d Cir.1990)). "In that regard, courts considering whether to order consolidation must determine whether `the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion [from consolidation are] overborne by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues, the burden on parties, witnesses and available judicial resources posed by `multiple lawsuits, the length of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one, and the relative expense to ail concerned:" Id. (quoting Arnold v. Eastern Air Lines Inc., 681 F.2d 186, 193 (4th Cir.1982)). District courts enjoy wide discretion under Rule 42(a) to consolidate actions pending in the sane district. A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Constr. Corp., 559 Fat 928, 933 (4th Cir. 1977): see generally Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, et al., 9A Federal Practice and Procedure Civil § 2384 (3d ed.).

The Court concludes that balancing the interests a the parties with the interests of judicial efficiency indicates that consolidation remains appropriate, Cell considering the relatively advanced nature of the General Mills case as compared to the other three actions brought by DietGoal. Any argument that General Mills will be prejudiced purely by a delayed resolution of the case is contradicted by its repeated and belated attempts to transfer the case to this district. General First moved for transfer on July 3. 2013, over a year after the action was first filed. See Memorandum Order, Case No. 2:12cv761 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2014) ("General Mills did not diligently pursue its effort to transfer, waiting over a year alter tiling and only doing so after this Court had extensively familiarized itself with this case and issued several key rulings.'"). It then filed an additional supplemental brief' re-urging transfer in March 2014, only three months prior to the. June trial date. These actions belie General Mills' assertions that it has a strong interest in an expeditious trial date.

However, the Court does find that having to conduct a Markman hearing and discovery for the second time will cause General Mills great prejudice and needlessly waste judicial resources. But because much, if not all, of the prior rulings in the Eastern District of Teas are law of the case as to the action between General Mills and DietGoal, matters [hat have already concluded will not be re-addressed and the parties will have to expend few, if any, resources on duplicative matters. See Sejman v. Warner-Lambert Co., Inc., 845 F.2d 66, 69 (4th Cir. 1988) (a decision that is law of-the case" must be followed in subsequent proceedings in the same case unless, among other exceptions, "the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice"). Moreover, the Court will not permit additional discovery between General Mills and DietGoal, beyond exchanging the rebuttal expert reports.

Therefore, the Court concludes that the consolidation or these cases for pretrial purposes results in little prejudice to General Mills. Arid consolidation will also serve to enhance judicial economy and fairness. For example, addressing any summary judgment motions in the same timeframe Will be advantageous to the Court. Although the Court is aware that any such motions may very well involve two different sets of claim construction, depending on the result of the Markman hearing for the other three defendants, many issues raised in future summary judgment motions are nonetheless likely to overlap. Similarly, even if the Court ultimately holds four separate trials in light of the America Invents Act, 35 § 299, the Court concludes that it would be efficient to have those trials close in time rather than separated by a year or more, as many pre-trial motions might involve similar issues. See Norman IP Holdings, lie v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 6:12CV508, 2012 WL 3307942 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2012) (discussing the advantages of pretrial consolidation in a patent infringement action). Moreover, having a consolidated schedule ill minimize prejudice to DietGoal, who opposed the belated transfer to this district.

Accordingly, Defendant General Mills' Motion to Sever and for an Expedited Trial Schedule is DENIED. General Mills will be excluded from all deadlines provided in the Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order that occur prior to the deadline for Dispositive Motions.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.