In Re Eli Lilly & Co. "Oraflex" Products Liability Litigation

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER 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. *424 SCHEDULE A Middle District of Alabama Audria Barker, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83H-0610-S Northern District of Alabama 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 Southern District of Alabama Austin Pettaway v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 82-0818-C Central District of California Charlene Lastra v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83-1668 Southern District of Florida Adele Hellman, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 82-6614 Middle District of Georgia 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 Northern District of Georgia Louis B. Bradley v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. C-83-1349-A Eastern District of Louisiana 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 Middle District of Louisiana Carolina L. Polozola, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83-751A District of New Jersey Mary Fertitta, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83-1414 Southern District of Ohio Maxine Hart, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Co., C.A. No. C-1-83-1765 Eastern District of Pennsylvania Rose Butler v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83-2915 Robert Maier v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83-2605 Middle District of Pennsylvania Louis N. Domiano, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. CV-82-0982 Western District of Tennessee 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 Southern District of Texas Theodore Crumby, Jr., et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. G-82-525 Eastern District of Texas Doris E. Scales, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 83-0073-CA Western District of Michigan Dortha M. Wolf, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, C.A. No. 82-399-CA4 Eastern District of Michigan 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 Footnotes [1] The motion, as amended, seeks centralization of 30 actions. The schedule of actions, however, included one action —Lottie 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 schedul e—Clar ence Borom v. Eli Lilly & Company, M.D. Georgia, C.A. No. 83-0038-COL—was tried in November, 1983, resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. A third action included on the schedule —Chong 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.