In Re: Depo-Provera Products Liability Litigation

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

In Re: Depo-Provera Products Liability Litigation

499 F. Supp. 2d 1348, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62479, 2007 WL 2301928

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedAugust 6, 2007

DocketMDL-2856

StatusPublished

This text of 499 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (In Re: Depo-Provera Products Liability Litigation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re: Depo-Provera Products Liability Litigation, 499 F. Supp. 2d 1348, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62479, 2007 WL 2301928 (jpml 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the entire Panel: Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California actions have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the District of New Jersey. This litigation currently consists of three actions listed on Schedule A, two actions in the Northern District of California and one action in the District of New Jersey. 1 Defendants oppose centrali *1349 zation, but if the Panel deems centralization to be appropriate, support the selection of the District of New Jersey as transferee district.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we are not persuaded that Section 1407 centralization would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. This motion involves only three actions. One action is a medical monitoring putative class action, while the other two actions are personal injury actions, which have already been consolidated before one judge in the Northern District of California. The proponents of centralization have failed to convince us that any common questions of fact among these three actions are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer at this time. Alternatives to transfer exist that may be able to minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these three actions is denied.

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of California

Cindy Winward v. Pfizer Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:07-878

Kimberly Cable v. Pfizer Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:07-879

District of New Jersey

Priscilla D. Riddell, et al. v. Pfizer Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:06-5418

1

. The Panel also has been notified that at least seven other related actions have been filed in multiple districts.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the entire Panel: Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California actions have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the District of New Jersey. This litigation currently consists of three actions listed on Schedule A, two actions in the Northern District of California and one action in the District of New Jersey. 1 Defendants oppose centrali *1349 zation, but if the Panel deems centralization to be appropriate, support the selection of the District of New Jersey as transferee district.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we are not persuaded that Section 1407 centralization would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. This motion involves only three actions. One action is a medical monitoring putative class action, while the other two actions are personal injury actions, which have already been consolidated before one judge in the Northern District of California. The proponents of centralization have failed to convince us that any common questions of fact among these three actions are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer at this time. Alternatives to transfer exist that may be able to minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these three actions is denied.

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of California

Cindy Winward v. Pfizer Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:07-878

Kimberly Cable v. Pfizer Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:07-879

District of New Jersey

Priscilla D. Riddell, et al. v. Pfizer Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:06-5418

1

. The Panel also has been notified that at least seven other related actions have been filed in multiple districts.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

499 F. Supp. 2d 1348, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62479, 2007 WL 2301928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-depo-provera-products-liability-litigation-jpml-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack