Full opinion text
TRANSFER ORDER WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman. This litigation presently consists of 148 actions pending in 41 federal districts and listed on the attached Schedule A. Before the Panel are two motions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, that taken together seek centralization for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of all but one of these actions. Plaintiff in one Eastern Louisiana action seeks centralization of this litigation in the Eastern or Western Districts of Louisiana. Defendant Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck) moves for centralization of this litigation in either the District of Maryland, the Southern District of Indiana, or the Northern District of Illinois. Merck also agrees with some plaintiffs that the District of New Jersey would be an appropriate transferee district. Am-erisourceBergen Corp., a wholesaler defendant, supports centralization in the Maryland district. Most responding plaintiffs agree that centralization is appropriate, although some plaintiffs suggest alternative transferee districts, including the Northern District of Alabama, the Central or Northern Districts of California, the District of Delaware, the Southern District of Illinois, the District of Minnesota, the Eastern District of Missouri, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern or Southern Districts of New York, the Northern or Southern Districts of Ohio, the Western District of Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the Southern or Western Districts of Texas. The three arguments in opposition to Section 1407 centralization can be summarized as follows: plaintiffs in two actions oppose inclusion of their actions in MDL-1657 proceedings, because motions to remand their actions to state court are pending; plaintiffs in some Southern Texas actions along with plaintiffs in one third-party payor action pending in the Southern District of New York oppose these actions’ inclusion in MDL-1657, arguing that individual questions of fact in their actions predominate over any common questions of fact and/or that discovery is already underway in these actions; and plaintiffs in one action pending in the Eastern District of New York oppose inclusion of their action in 1407 proceedings, since it involves additional claims relating to a different prescription medication not involved in other MDL-1657 actions. On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Eastern District of Louisiana will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All actions focus on alleged increased health risks (including heart attack and/or stroke) when taking Vioxx, an anti-inflammatory drug, and whether Merck knew of these increased risks and failed to disclose them to the medical community and consumers. Centralization under Section 1407 is necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery, avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. The pendency of a motion to remand to state court is not a sufficient basis to avoid inclusion in Section 1407 proceedings. We note that motions to remand in two actions, one action each in the District of Kansas and the Eastern District of Missouri, as well as in any other MDL-1657 actions can be presented to and decided by the transferee judge. See, e.g., In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7 (2d Cir.1990); In re Prudential Insurance Company of America Sales Practices Litigation, 170 F.Supp.2d 1346, 1347-48 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.2001). Nor are we persuaded by the arguments of some opposing Texas plaintiffs and the New York third-party payor plaintiffs. We point out that transfer under Section 1407 has the salutary effect of placing all actions in this docket before a single judge who can formulate a pretrial program that: 1) allows discovery with respect to any non-common issues to proceed concurrently with discovery on common issues, In re Joseph F. Smith Patent Litigation, 407 F.Supp. 1403, 1404 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1976); and 2) ensures that pretrial proceedings will be conducted in a manner leading to the just and expeditious resolution of all actions to the overall benefit of the parties. We note that the MDL-1657 transferee court can employ any number of pretrial techniques — such as establishing separate discovery and/or motion tracks — to efficiently manage this litigation. In any event, we leave the extent and manner of coordination or consolidation of these actions to the discretion of the transferee court. In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, 310 F.Supp.2d 1359 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.2004). It may be, on further refinement of the issues and close scrutiny by the transferee judge, that some claims or actions can be remanded to their transferor districts for trial in advance of the other actions in the transferee district. But we are unwilling, on the basis of the record before us, to make such a determination at this time. Should the transferee judge deem remand of any claims or actions appropriate, procedures are available whereby this may be accomplished with a minimum of delay. See Rule 7.6, 199 F.R.D. at 436-38. We are confident in the transferee judge’s ability to streamline pretrial proceedings in these actions, while concomitantly directing the appropriate resolution of all claims. The Panel is persuaded, however, that claims involving a prescription drug other than Vioxx in one Eastern District of New York action do not share sufficient questions of fact with claims relating to Vioxx to warrant inclusion of these nonVioxx claims in MDL-1657 proceedings. Given the geographic dispersal of constituent actions and potential tag-along actions, no district stands out as the geographic focal point for this nationwide docket. Thus we have searched for a transferee judge with the time and experience to steer this complex litigation on a prudent course. By centralizing this litigation in the Eastern District of Louisiana before Judge Eldon E. Fallon, we are assigning this litigation ■ to a jurist experienced in complex multidistrict products liability litigation and sitting in a district with the capacity to handle this litigation. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending outside the Eastern District of Louisiana are transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Eldon E. Fallon for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending there and listed on Schedule A. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that claims in Dominick Cain, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., E.D. New York, CA. No. 1:01-3441, against Pharmacia Corp., Pfizer Inc., and G.D. Searle & Co. relating to a prescription medication other than Vioxx are simultaneously separated and remanded to the Eastern District of New York. SCHEDULE A MDL-1657—In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation Middle District of Alabama Paul Turner, Sr. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-999 Danny M. Wilson v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:03-844 Northern District of Alabama Carolyn O. Hensley, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:03-906 William Cook v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:02-2710 Sharon Scott Jones v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-3079 Southern District of Alabama Carolyn Younge, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:03-125 Eastern District of Arkansas Linda Sue Otts v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-57 Western District of Arkansas Bobby Brown, et al. v. Merck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 4:04-4140 Arthur Fulton, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 6:03-6107 Central District of California Charles Ashman v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-8225 Janet Briggs v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-9275 Northern District of California Kathy Tokes v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-4435 Patricia A. Taylor v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-4510 Jeffrey Brass v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-4521 Middle District of Florida Frances Dunleavey, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-539 Northern District of Florida Benjamin Burt, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-388 Southern District of Florida Ellen B. Gerber, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 0:04-61429 Josefa Abraham, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-22631 Sidney Schneider v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al, C.A. No. 1:04-22632 Clara Fontanilles v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-22799 Stanley Silber, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 9:04-80983 Northern District of Georgia Richard Zellmer v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al, C.A. No. 1:03-2530 Edna Strickland v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-3231 Northern District of Illinois Linda Grant, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-6407 Constance Oswald v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-6741 Anita Ivory v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-7218 Southern District of Illinois Roberta Walson, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-27 John Ellis v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-792 Bilbrey v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-836 Southern District of Indiana Estate of Lowell D. Morrison v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:03-1535 Kimberly Van Jelgerhuis, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-1651 District of Kansas Vicky Hunter v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-2518 Betty S. Smith v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 6:04-1355 Eastern District of Kentucky Daniel K Williams v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-235 Richard J. Getty, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-452 Eastern District of Louisiana Salvadore Christina, Sr. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-2726 Angelis Alexander v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-2845 Leonce Davis v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-2937 Mary V. Gagola v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-3053 Christine L. Parr v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-3054 Clifton Adam Savage, Sr. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-3055 Delores Thomas Robertson v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-3056 Howard Mark Falick v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-3060 Warren L. Gottsegen, M.D. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-3065 Middle District of Louisiana Michael Wayne Russell v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-712 Linda Kay Hudson v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-776 Jesse Wilkinson v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-800 Wilson Brown v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-801 Dorothy Bracken v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-802 James Edward Benoit v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-803 Clarence Chiszle v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-804 Western District of Louisiana Anthony J. Mallet, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:02-2304 Calvin Warren, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-2110 Vicki White v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-2126 Norma Merrit, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:03-1401 Herchial Wright, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-2268 Leroy Bates, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-2269 Vaughn McKnight v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-2270 Josephine Harper v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-2271 Lendell Burns, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-2272 Leona Sadler v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-2273 William Tice, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-2274 Maynard Butler, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-2275 Marion Evans, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-2276 Donna Lavergne v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 6:04-2174 District of Maryland Lindsey Edler, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:03-3612 Melvin Biles v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-975 David Morris, Jr. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 8:04-3024 Daniel Martin Jeffers, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 8:04-3604 District of Massachusetts Frank R. Saia v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-12166 District of Minnesota Carolyn Y. Glover v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 0:03-5166 Lowell Burris, Jr. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 0:04-4375 Shirley Homister v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 0:04-4754 Northern District of Mississippi Frances Shannon, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al, C.A. No. 2:03-105 Southern District of Mississippi Leona McFarland, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:03-247 Bettye J. Magee, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:03-249 Jerry Melton v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:04-372 Janet Sue Morgan, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:03-435 Brenda Price, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-866 Eastern District of Missouri Deyonne E. Whitmore v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:03-1354 Janice Perkins v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:04-1446 Jurhee Bench v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:04-1447 Western District of Missouri Caroline Nevels v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:04-952 Russell Young, etc. v. Merck & Co., C.A. No. 6:04-5117 District of New Jersey Patrick Besaw v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-5178 Brenda Aguero, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-5341 Eastern District of New York Dominick Cain, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:01-3441 William Hanson v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-2949 Jerome Covington v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-4439 Alan Mell v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-4606 Lorraine Fialo v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-4686 Lawrence Wright, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-4485 William Fontanetta, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-4486 Southern District of New York Laney C. Davis v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-8082 Elizabeth Aiken v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-8085 Walter McNaughton v. Merck & Co. Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-8297 Carmen M. Pagan, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-8959 Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04—9248 Anna Quick v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 7:04-8169 Northern District of Ohio Marjory Knoll v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-2209 Danford K Jones, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-2217 Meadows, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-2229 9 Wanda Moldovan, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-2245 Janet Dauterman, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:03-7623 Western District of Oklahoma Paul E. House v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 5:04-1235 Eastern District of Pennsylvania Henry Smith, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-4713 Michelle Donovan v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-4882 Gwendolyn L. Carr v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-4900 Fred S. Engle v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-5077 Merrick Sirota, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-5130 District of Puerto Rico Rafael Gonzalez-Arias, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-2263 District of South Carolina Bridget Elaine Michaud, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:03-3083 Eastern District of Texas Arthur Clifford Hall, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-684 Brenda Lewis, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-685 Billie Painton, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-686 Lovincy Richard, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-703 Bill Jolley, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-376 Marian Williamson, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-406 Deborah Daley, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6:03-509 Northern District of Texas Dellas Staples, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:03-180 Michael R. Leonard v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-2157 Jack A. Register, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-2259 Southern District of Texas Heirs of the Estate of Pablo Flores v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:03-362 Audona Sandoval v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-544 Jeffrey L. Denny, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-526 Kimberly D. Stubblefield, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:02-3139 John P. Eberhardt v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:03-1380 Myrtle Louise Bell, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:03-3448 Thomas Joseph Pikul, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:03-3656 Opalene Stringer, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:03-3657 Reginald K. Fears v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:04-4187 Peggy J. Balch v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:04-4201 John R. Stout v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:04-4205 Charles C. Gilmore v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:04-4206 Johnny White v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:04-4207 Donna Hale v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:04-4208 Bernadette Young v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No.. 4:04-4209 William B. Gregory, Jr. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 4:04-4327 Patricia Benavides, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5:03-134 Patricia Benavides, etc., v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5:04-153 Olga Sanchez v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 7:04-352 Maria Emma Hinojosa v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 7:04-373 Western District of Texas Joe Hopson, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-485 Larry Lee Bauman, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-707 Carolyn Reed, etc. v. Minor, et al., C.A. No. 1:04-731 District of Utah Della Jo Salt, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 2:01-794 District of Vermont Sara Cheeseman v. Merck & Co., Inc., C.A. No. 1:04-261 Western District of Virginia Catherine Wheatley, etc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:04-20 . Included in the Section 1407 motions were eleven additional actions pending in the Central District of California (2), the Southern District of California (1), the Southern District of Illinois (2), the Southern District of Indiana (1), the Western District of Missouri (1), the Southern District of New York (1), the Northern District of Texas (1), and the Southern District of Texas (2). These actions have been either remanded to their respective state courts, voluntarily dismissed, or otherwise closed. Accordingly, inclusion of the actions in Section 1407 proceedings is moot. One other action—Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., S.D. New York, C.A. No. 1:04—9248—was not in-eluded on either MDL-1657 motion and is now included in this transfer order. All parties to this action had notice of the proceedings before the Panel relating to Section 1407 centralization and had an opportunity to participate in those proceedings by stating their respective positions in writing and during the Panel’s hearing session. The Panel has been notified of nearly 300 potentially related actions pending in multiple federal districts. In light of the Panel’s disposition of this docket, these actions will be treated as potential tag-along actions. See Rules 7.4 and 7.5, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001).