IN RE: Eli Lilly & Company "Oraflex" Products Liability Litigation

i Case MDL NO. pd AG NMEEH PUBERTY P8H 5 Page 1 of 4
: JUDICIAL PANEL ON
. MULTICISTRICT LITIGATION
FILED
[ | | DOCKET NO. 570 FEB -2 1984
; PATRICIA D. ESV! ARD
oo BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION CLERK OF THE PANEL
IN RE ELI LILLY & COMPANY "ORAFLEX" PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
BEFORE ANDREW A. CAFFREY, CHAIRMAN, ROBERT H. SCHNACKE, FRED
DAUGHERTY, SAM C. POINTER, JR.,%* S. HUGH DILLIN, MILTON POLLACK,® AND
LOUIS H. POLLAK, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
PER CURIAM
Presently before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1407, filed by plaintiffs in one action pending in the Eastern
District of Michigan in this docket, to centralize in the Southern
District of Ohig for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedingsthe 27 actions=’ listed on the attached Schedule A.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, we find
that Section 1407 transfer would neither serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of
the litigation. Although we recognize that the actions in this
litigation involve some common questions of fact, we are not persuaded
that these common questions of fact will, in the future course of this
litigation, predominate over individual questions of fact present in
3 each action. We note that 1) plaintiffs in actions that are concluded
or well advanced have conducted extensive discovery of defendant Eli
Lilly and Company (Lilly) in areas of common factual inquiry; and 2)
at oral argument in this matter, counsel for Lilly stated his
willingness to make this common discovery applicable in those actions
that are not far advanced, in order to eliminate the possibility of
duplicative discovery in this litigation. We further note that one
related action has already been tried in the Middle District of
Georgia, another action has been settled in the Eastern District of
Virginia, and several other actions have been scheduled for trial
within the next six months. Under these circumstances, we cannot
¥ Judge Milton Pollack recused himself and took no part in the
decision of this matter. In addition, Judge Sam C. Pointer, Jr. took
no part in the decision of this matter.
i The motion, as amended, seeks centralization of 30 actions. The
schedule of actions, however, included one action -- Lottie Seltzer v.
E11 Lilly & Company, S.D. Alabama, C.A. No. 83-0335 -- that was
dismissed on October 31, 1983. Another action included on the 4°
schedule -- Clarence Borom v. E11 Lilly & Company, M.D. Georgia, C.A. ©
No. 83-0038~COL -- was tried in November, 1983, resulting in a verdict
C and judgment for plaintiff. A third action included on the schedule .	-- Chong Ho Kim, et al. v. E11 Lilly & Company, E.D. Virginia, C.A.
No. 83-0695-A -- has been settled. Thus the Section 1407 motion, as
amended, encompasses a total of 27 actions presently in pretrial in
federal district courts.

Case MDL No. 570 Document 2 Filed 06/02/15 Page 2 of 4
| N @®
conclude that centralization of the actions in this litigation under
Section 1407 will further the purposes of the statute. See In re
Asbestos and Asbestos Insulation Material Products Liabilit
Litigation, 531 F. Supp. 906, 910 J.P.M.L. 1977). -
: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for transfer, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1407, be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
; oF
| co | |
| ul
[ -
@®} .
t
L :
| . -
}

; Case MDL No. 570 Docgagipurrg	ed 06/02/15 Page	3 of 4
MDL-570 -- In re E11 Lilly & Company "Oraflex" Products Liability
Litigation
i Middle District of Alahama
Audria Barker, et al. v. E11 Lilly & Company, C.A. No. B3H-0610-S
: Northern District of Alabama
Roderick P. Donnell et al. v. E11 Lilly & Company, C.A. No.
CVv-83-1517S
Glenda Nelms, etc. v. E11 Lilly & Company, :
C.A. No. CV-83-PT-0891S ’
Southern District of Alabama
Austin Pettaway v. E11 Lilly & Company,
C.A. No. 82-0818-C
) Central District of California
Charlene Lastra v. Fl1i Lilly & Company,
C.A. No. 83-1668
C Southern District of Florida
h Adele Hellman, et al. v. E11 Lilly & Company,
C.A. Oo. - 1 :
Middle District of Georgia
Angela M. Buchanan, et al. v. E11 Lilly & Company,
C.A. No. 83-0002
Sara Ray v. E141 Lilly & Company, i
Northern District of Georgia
Louis B. Bradley v. E11 Lilly & Company,
C.A. No. C-83-1309-A
Eastern District of Louisiana
Carolyn Hammet v. F111 Lilly & Company
CE No. B3-26i5 ’
Hazel B. Pizani, et al. v. E11 Lilly & Company, I.
C.A. No. 3=-2551 bs
C Middle District of LouisianaCarolina L. Polozola, et al. v. E11 Lilly & Company,
L L Oe - .

Schedule A -- p.2
. Case MDL No. 570 Dqcument2 Filed 06/02/15 Page	4 of 4
District of New Jersey
Mary Fertitta, et al. v. E11 Lilly & Company, )
' C.A. Oe. >=
Southern District of Ohio ®
Maxine Fars, et al. v. F11 Lilly & Co.,	. C.A. Oe. -d=- -
Eastern District of Pennsylvania )
Rose Butler v. Fli Lilly & Company,
C.A. Oe - 1
Robert Maier v. E11 Lilly & Company,
C.A. No. 83-2605
Middle District of Pennsylania
Louis N. Domiano, et al. v. E11 Lilly & Company,
C.A. No. CV-B2-09082 j
Western District	of Tennessee
Roselyn Espey v. E11 Lilly & Company,
C.A. No. 82-118%
Jimmie N. Rodgers, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company,
Southern District of Texas ®	. Theodore Crumb Jr., et al. v. E11 Lilly & Company,
= C.A. No. G-82-525
‘ Eastern District of Texas
Doris E. Scales, et al. v. E11 Lilly & Company,
C.A. No. 83-0073-CA
Western District of Michigan .
Dortha M. Wolf, et al. v. E11 Lilly ¢& Company,C.A. No. 82-399-CA
Fastern District of Michigan
Frederick Domanski, et al. v. 11 Lilly & Corpsn ,
C.A. No. B3CVOL99DT 4
Larry See, et 21. v. F141 Lilly & Company,
C.A. No. 83CVi4223DT
Velma Phillips v. E114 Lilly & Compan ,
C.A. No. B3CV16E6
Janet Kavala v. E11 Lilly & Company,
C.A. No. 3CV 35 FI. i
Alyce LePoy, et al. v. E11 Lilly & Company "
C.A. No. 83CVT7320B