Full opinion text
TRANSFER ORDER D. LOWELL JENSEN, Acting Chairman. Before the entire Panel *: Plaintiffs in four actions have separately moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation. No party opposes centralization. The parties variously urge the selection of the following districts to serve as the transferee forum: the Northern District of California, the Southern District of Florida, the District of Kansas, the District of Minnesota, the Western District of Missouri, the Eastern District of New York, the Northern District of Ohio, the District of Puerto Rico, or the Southern District of West Virginia. This litigation currently consists of 27 actions listed on Schedule A and pending in eight districts as follows: eight actions in the District of Puerto Rico, five actions each in the Southern District of Florida and the District of Minnesota, three actions in the Western District of Louisiana, two actions each in the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Louisiana, and one action each in the District of Kansas and the Western District of Missouri. On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these 27 actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the District of Minnesota will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions share factual questions concerning similar allegations relating to injuries arising from the implantation of Sprint Fidelis leads, which are small wires attached at one end to an implantable cardiac device and at the other end directly to heart tissue that allow the device to monitor and, when necessary, deliver the shocks necessary to correct various heart arrhythmias. Defendant Medtronic, Inc. (Medtronic) recalled all non-implanted Sprint Fidelis leads in October 2007. Centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including those with respect to certification of class actions; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. We are persuaded that the District of Minnesota is an appropriate transferee forum for this litigation. Because Medtronic has its headquarters within the District of Minnesota, relevant discovery may be found there. Transfer to this district also provides a centrally located forum for actions filed in several locations nationwide. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the District of Minnesota are transferred to the District of Minnesota and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Richard H. Kyle for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending there and listed on Schedule A. SCHEDULE A MDL No. 1905. — IN RE MEDTRONIC, INC., SPRINT FIDELIS LEADS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION Northern District of California Jeneane Baque v. Medtronic, Inc., C.A. No. 3:07-5352 Willie West, et al. v. Medtronic, Inc., et. al., C.A. No. 3:07-5697 Southern District of Florida John North v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:07-22764 Eugene Clasby v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:07-22768 Mary M. Wardwell, etc. v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9:07-81034 Doug Venning v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9:07-81056 Leroy Coffee v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9:07-81094 District of Kansas Phillip S. Brown v. Medtronic, Inc., et d., C.A. No. 2:07-2542 Eastern District of Louisiana Keith Paul Trosclair v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:07-7565 Henry J. Theriot, et al. v. Medtronic, Inc., et al, C.A. No. 2:07-8441 Western District of Louisiana Randall Stone v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:07-1902 Mattie Ley Johnson Londo v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6:07-1809 Dianna Sonnier v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6:07-1889 District of Minnesota Kelly Luisi, et al. v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:07-4250 Harvey Lee Conway, Jr., et al. v. Med-tronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:07-4270 Linda J. White v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:07-4412 Rodney C. Kesti v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:07-4442 Jesse Noonan v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:07-4528 Western District of Missouri Kenneth R. Carlile v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5:07-6110 District of Puerto Rico Russell Nelson, et al. v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:07-1969 David Wood v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:07-1971 Frederick Santitoro, et al. v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:07-1972 Norman Black v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:07-2014 Gilberto Colortr-Perez, et al. v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:07-2021 William E. Storms v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:07-2049 Gerald Phawp, Jr. v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:07-2050 Carlos Milan, et al. v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:07-2064 . In addition to the 27 actions now before the Panel, the parties have notified the Panel of 60 related actions pending in various districts across the country. These actions and any other related 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).