In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation

Full title: In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation

Court: Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Date published: Feb 16, 2005

360 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (J.P.M.L. 2005)

Opinion

Docket No. 1657.

February 16, 2005

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION.

BEFORE WM. TERRELL HODGES, CHAIRMAN, JOHN F. KEENAN, D. LOWELL JENSEN, J. FREDERICK MOTZ,^_ ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., KATHRYN H. VRATIL AND DAVID R. HANSEN, JUDGES OF THE PANEL.

_ Judge Motz took no part in the decision of this matter.

TRANSFER ORDER

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Senior District Judge

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.¹ 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. AmerisourceBergen 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.

1 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 included 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).

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 (J.P.M.L. 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 (J.P.M.L. 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 (J.P.M.L. 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 non-Vioxx 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, C.A. 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

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