In Re Qwest Communications International, Inc.

395 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25951, 2005 WL 2756082

• Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
• Decided: October 19, 2005
• Docket: 1719
• Status: Published

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation currently consists of 22 actions in the District of Colorado, most of which have been consolidated, and one action in the Southern District of Florida, as listed on the attached Schedule A. Before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, brought by defendants Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. f/k/a Salomon Smith Barney Inc., Sandy Weill, Jack Grubman and Arthur Andersen LLP for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of these actions in the District of Colorado. The two pro se plaintiffs in the Southern District of Florida action do not oppose coordination, but object to any consolidation, of their action with the litigation in the District of Colorado. All responding defendants oppose the motion. 1

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that Section 1407 centralization would not necessarily serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Mov-ants have failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact are sufficiently complex, unresolved and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer in this docket in which pretrial proceedings have been ongoing in the District of Colorado for over four years and only one action is pending outside that district. Given the more advanced stage of proceedings in the District of Colorado and the limited number of districts involved, alternatives to transfer exist that can minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly in light of the discovery protocol already in place to coordinate discovery between the District of Colorado actions and related state court litigation. 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 the actions listed on Schedule A is denied.

SCHEDULE A

MDL-1719 — In re Qwest Communications International, Inc., Securities & “ERISA” Litigation

District of Colorado

New England Health Care Employees Pension Fund v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:01-1451

Stanton Discount Pharmacy, et al. v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:01-1472

Douglass Urquhart, et al. v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:01-1527

Tyler Del Valle Grady, et al. v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:01-1616

Robert Cline, et al. v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al, C.A. No. 1:01-1799

David Tanner, et al. v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:01-1930

Herbert S. Cohen Trust v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:02-333

Adele Brody, et al. v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:02-374

Valerie J. Brooks, et al v. Qwest Communications International Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:02-464

Janice Dudley, et al. v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:02-470

Rod Coyle, et al. v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:02-482

Brian Barry v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:02-507

James Rooney, et al. v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:02-602

Laila Abdelnour v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:02-658

Paula Smith, et al. v. Qwest Communications International Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:02-714

Stuart Wollman v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:02-755

Seymour Tabacoff, et al. v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:02-798

Mary Stuhr v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:02-2120

Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP v. Qwest Communications International Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-238

Shriners Hospitals for Children v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-781

Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-782

New York City Employees Retirement System, et al. v. Qwest Communications International Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-1964

Southern District of Florida

William M. Rogers, et al. v. Joseph P. Nacchio, et al., C.A. No. 0:05-60667

1 . Responding defendants are Philip F. An-schutz, Anschutz Co., Craig D. Slater, Cannon Y. Harvey, Joseph P. Nacchio, Linda G. Alvarado, Craig R. Barrett, Thomas J. Donohue, Jordan L. Haines, Peter S. Heilman, Vinod Khosla, Hank Brown, W. Thomas Stephens, and Frank Popoff.