IN RE: "Neo-Mull-Soy" and/or "Cho-Free" Baby Formula Products Liability Litigation

Case MDL No. 415 Document 2 = Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 4
SNE CT LE .
DOCKET NO. 415 RE
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION 7 : i. elFARE [eon Co eT .
IN RE "NEO-MULL-SOY" AND/OR "CHO-FREE" BABY FORMULA PRODUCES =: . “A 2 , boLIABILITY LITIGATION REECE 7/50, RI	. Tein f & i
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER.
Because the actions listed on the following Schedule : EE
A appeared to raise common questions of fact, the Panel, FE	RO ETI
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, issued an order to show cause EE
why the actions should not be transferred to a single district Co
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. See ES
Rule 8, R.P.J.P.M.L., 78 F.R.D. 561, 566-67 (1978). OE
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held,
the Panel finds that these actions involve considerable
questions of fact individual to each action and that transfer i -
of these actions to a single district pursuant to Section a. Co
1407 would not necessarily serve the convenience of the .
parties and witnesses or promote the just and efficient - oo
conduct of the actions. We note that all parties except
plaintiffs in two actions before us oppose transfer; and |
that defendant Syntex and several plaintiffs agree, and
no other party has denied, that Syntex has made an admission
in the first-filed Tennessee action that reduces the common
questions of fact among all actions. We also observe that
defendant Syntex had demonstrated a willingness to avoid Co
duplicative discovery among the actions. For example, Syntex Co on
and several plaintiffs have agreed to make discovery undertaken Lo
in the first-filed Tennessee action available for use in :
other actions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. : Co
§1407, the order to show cause regarding the actions listed Lo
on the following Schedule A be, and the same hereby is, Co )
VACATED. : : :
~ FOR THE PANEL: |
Lo Bs on {effin
, Chairman :

- Case MDL No. 415 Document2 Filed 05/20/15 Page	2 of 4
DOCKET NO. 415
Schedule A
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA Civil Action No.
Jeffrey Michael Bolt, etc., et al. C79-2054A
eo v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc.
DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Kyle R. Henry, etc., et al. v. 79-2223
Syntex Laboratories, Inc., et al.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Allison Stiegelmaier, etc., et al. 79C-2364
v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc.
Michael Grey, etc., et al. v. 79-3039
Syntex Laboratories, Inc.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Amber Rose Stewart, etc. v. Syntex C-1-79-573
Laboratories, Inc.
DISTRICT OF OREGON }
Joseph David Carmichael, etc., et al. 79-1170
v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc.
0 EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Tracy Lyn Kane, etc., et al. v. 79-3666
: Syntex Laboratories, Inc.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Craig McKown Brock, etc., et al. 79-50
v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc.
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Mark Hagewood, etc., et al. wv. 79-3427
Syntex Laboratories, Inc.
Raymond Eric Argo, etc., et al. v. 79-3426
Syntex Laboratories, Inc.
Mary Elizabeth Najar, etc., et al. 79-3425
v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc.
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Roy W. Thurmond, et al., etc. wv. 79-1172-M
Syntex Laboratories, Inc.
® Douglas A. Hill, et al. v. Syntex 79-2563-MLaboratories
Mary L. Ditto, et al., etc. v. 79-2642-M
Syntex Laboratories,	Inc.

= TT eT	aT— - oe ra
Case MDL No. 415 Document 2 Filed 05/20/15 Page 3 of 4
A INES RRR1} poe . CL	Pa ~.. Pe Cl IN
li, © ey ARE
DOCKET NO. 415 RES 2/4 fo	hE Sh
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION vo ESL
IN RE "NEO-MULL-SOY" AND/OR "CHO~FREE" BABY FORMULA PRODUCT
LIABILITY LITIGATION
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SEE
You and each of you are hereby ORDERED to show cause So EE
why the actions listed on the attached Schedule A should SATIRAL SRC
not be transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 to a single SE
district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Responses to this order shall conform with the requirements :
of Rule 8, of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on . co
Multidistrict Litigation, 78 F.R.D. 561, 566-67. .
You are further notified that the issuing of this order Lo a
by the panel does not affect or suspend orders and discovery Co
proceedings in the district courts in which said multidistrict
litigation is pending. RPJPML (Rule 16).
' FOR THE PANEL: 7 SEA	i #2 &% 7 oo
A 7 4 3 27	p i AL a gi Lp da :
Andrew A. Caffrey oo
Acting Chairman

1 .
PICEA Case MDL No. 415 Document 2 Filed 05/20/15 Page 4 of 4
MDL-415 Schedule A
A-1 Amber Rose Stewart, etc. v. Syntex S.D.Ohip C-1-79-573 BN
Laboratories, Inc. Rubin
A-2 Joseph David Carmichael, etc., et D. Oregl79-1170
al. v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc. Skopil
A-3 Allison Stiegelmaier, etc., et al. E.D.N.Y} 79C 2364
v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc. Weinstein
A-4 Roy W. Thurmond, et al., etc. wv. W.D.Tenh.79-1172-M
Syntex Laboratories, Inc., et al. McRae
A-5 Douglas A. Hill, et al. v. Syntex W.D.Tenh.79-2563-M
] Laboratories McRaeA-6 Mary L. Ditto, et al., etc. wv. W.D.Tenh.79-2642-M
Syntex Laboratories, Inc. McRae