In re Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Prods. Liab. Litig.

SARAH S. VANCE, Chair Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in fifteen of the actions listed on Schedule A pending in seven districts move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Southern District of Ohio or, alternatively, the Western District of Missouri. Plaintiffs in more than 30 actions support centralization in one or both of these districts. Plaintiffs' motion involves 53 actions pending in 21 districts, as listed on Schedule A.1 The Panel also has been notified of 69 potentially-related actions ("potential tag-along actions") pending in 27 districts.2 Movants take the position that the MDL should not include cases involving the Bard Composix Kugel Hernia Patch ("CK Patch"). Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol Inc. do not oppose centralization of litigation involving their polypropylene hernia repair products, but only if all such products (including the CK Patch) are included in centralized proceedings. Defendants suggest the District of New Jersey or the Southern District of New York or, alternatively, the Eastern District of New York, the District of Rhode Island, or the Eastern District of Louisiana as transferee district. Plaintiff in one potential tag-along action opposes inclusion of the CK Patch cases.3 In reply, movants argue that the transferee court should determine whether the MDL should include CK Patch cases. On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Southern District of Ohio will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All of the actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that defects in defendants' polypropylene hernia mesh products can lead to complications when implanted in patients, including adhesions, damage to organs, inflammatory and allergic responses, foreign body *1381rejection, migration of the mesh, and infections. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Whether to include the CK Patch cases in centralized proceedings is a question not currently before the Panel, as none of the cases on the motion involve the CK Patch. We will address this question in due course through the conditional transfer order process. We find that the Southern District of Ohio is an appropriate transferee district. It is centrally located geographically, making it a convenient forum for this nationwide litigation. Eight actions are pending in this district, six of them before Judge Edmund A. Sargus, an experienced transferee judge who will steer these cases on a prudent course. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the Southern District of Ohio are transferred to Southern District of Ohio and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Edmund A. Sargus for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. SCHEDULE A MDL No. 2846 - IN RE: DAVOL, INC./C.R. BARD, INC., POLYPROPYLENE HERNIA MESH PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION District of Arizona BOURLOKAS v. DAVOL INCORPORATED, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-00615 Eastern District of California SILBER, ET AL. v. DAVOL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:18-00479 GRESCHNER v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:15-01663 HANSEN v. DAVOL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-00495 Southern District of Florida DAWSON-WEBB v. DAVOL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 0:17-62012 BARBAREE v. DAVOL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 9:18-80243 Central District of Illinois MCGINNIS v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-01255 Northern District of Illinois COLEMAN v. DAVOL, INC., C.A. No. 1:18-01706 Eastern District of Kentucky MOORE v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 0:17-00132 Western District of Kentucky WHITEHOUSE v. DAVOL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:18-00020 Eastern District of Louisiana STIPELCOVICH v. C.R. BARD, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-09656 MCMANUS v. C.R. BARD, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-11836 BAPTIST v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-12718 ROBERTS, SR., ET AL. v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-13657 Eastern District of Louisiana (Cont.) SANDERS, ET AL. v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-02884 Southern District of Mississippi DOVE v. DAVOL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:18-00003 *1382Eastern District of Missouri GREENWOOD v. DAVOL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00039 BROYLES v. DAVOL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:18-00513 Western District of Missouri COUSSAS v. DAVOL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-04015 POWELL v. DAVOL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:18-05019 LYON v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:18-00039 ELI v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:18-00116 ELLIOT v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:18-00125 HEILI v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:18-00130 MANUEL v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:18-00131 POWELL v. DAVOL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:18-00156 SCHAPELER v. DAVOL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:18-00169 CHRISSAN v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:18-00171 ROWE v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 6:18-03019 LEE v. C.R. BARD, ET AL., C.A. No. 6:18-03075 District of New Jersey OGLE v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-00819 BURGESS v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-01390 SPENCER v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-01692 GALLOW v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-02533 VOLPE v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-02602 ZEMKO v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-02742 NEWLAND, ET AL. v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-02915 District of New Mexico NANCE v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:18-00003 Eastern District of New York FURLEITER v. DAVOL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-01229 Northern District of Ohio KNAUSS, ET AL. v. DAVOL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:18-00316 Southern District of Ohio LANE v. DAVOL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-00164 CURREY v. DAVOL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-00222 ABSHIRE, ET AL. v. DAVOL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-00268 Eastern District of Pennsylvania WROTEN, ET AL. v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-04546 GORDON v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-04553 District of South Carolina BROWN v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-00580 CAMPBELL, ET AL. v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-00581 ADAMS v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-00582 BRUGGER, ET AL. v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-00228 Middle District of Tennessee TERRELL v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-01575 *1383Eastern District of Texas WILLIAMS v. DAVOL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:18-00151 Southern District of Texas BECERRA v. C.R. BARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:18-00023 Southern District of Texas (Cont.) WADE v. DAVOL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:18-01112 Footnotes [*] Judge Lewis A. Kaplan and Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle took no part in the decision of this matter. [1] Two additional actions included in the motion for centralization have been dismissed. [2] See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1, and 7.2. [3] Plaintiffs in two additional potential tag-along actions initially opposed inclusion of the CK Patch cases but withdrew their opposition and now support centralization of all actions in the Southern District of Ohio.