IN RE: A.H. Robins Co., Inc., "Dalkon Shield" IUD Products Liability Litigation

— Case MDL No. 211 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 24
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL co So
ON :
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IA
IN RE A.H. ROBINS CO., INC. "DALKON SHIELD" ) DOCKET NO, 211 , so
IUD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION ) 017 1M _—) . Pp
volovski, et al. v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc., ) Cry Co
D. New Jersey, C.A. No. 76-6390 ) re =
Kennedy, et al. v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc., ) = ppg
D. New Jersey, C.A. No. 77-183 ) oo 3 EE
Martone, et al. v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc., ) BL Co _
S.D. Florida, C.A. No. 77-173-SMA ) == 3 Es a
mI Pei
OPINION AND ORDER ny 5 FHSome Tim Im cy . :
[EERIE 57003 ma .= 2
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD,
EDWIN A. ROBSON, JOSEPH S. LORD, III, STANLEY A. WEIGEL,
ANDREW A. CAFFREY AND ROY W. HARPER, JUDGES OF THE PANEL. :
PER CURIAM TE
The Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, previously has a
transferred several actions in this litigation toc the
District of Kansas and, with the consent of that court,
assigned them to the Honorable Frank G. Theis for coor- Bb :
dinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. In re A. H.
Robins Co., Inc. "Dalkon Shield" IUD Products Liabilit
Litigation, 406 F. Supp. 540 (J.P.M.L. 1975); 419 F. Supp. | So
710 (J.P.M.L. 1976). Since Volovski, Kennedy and Martone - oo : co
appeared to share factual questions with the previously
transferred actions, the Panel entered orders conditionally
transferring these three actions to the District of Kansas
for inclusion in the pretrial proceedings under Section 1407. B -
Plaintiffs in these actions have filed motions to vacate the Co

. E Case MDL No. 211 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 24
. ,
® conditional transfer orders. Defendant Robins favors transfer
of all actions to the District of Kansas.
We find that these three actions raise questions of fact
common to the previously transferred actions and that trans-
fer of the three actions to the District of Kansas pursuant
to Section 1407 will best serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
volovski was filed in the District of New Jersey as
a class action on behalf of all women in New Jersey who have
had a Dalkon Shield inserted. The complaint in this action
alleges that Robins' advertising concerning the Dalkon
Shield violated New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act. Like
9 many of the complaints in the actions in the transferee
district, the complaints in Kennedy and Martone allege,
inter alia, that defendant Robins was negligent in manu-
facturing, testing and marketing the Dalkon Shield.
During oral argument before the Panel, plaintiffs in
volovski conceded that this action shares questions of
fact with the actions in the transferee district. Tran-
script at 3. These plaintiffs nonetheless contend that
transfer of their action is inappropriate mainly because
the theory of liability upon which Volovski is based differs
1/ Allparties in Kennedy and Martone waived their right
to oral argument and, accordingly, the question of transfer
in those two actions was submitted for decision on the
® ree: See Rule 14, R.P.J.P.M.L., 65 F.R.D. 253, 264

. RB Case MDL No. 211 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 24
. ’ _ 3 _
® from the theories of liability in the actions in the transferee dis-
trict. Plaintiffs maintain that since this action involves
solely New Jersey law, the district court in New Jersey
is in the best position to interpret that law.
Plaintiffs in Kennedy and Martone assert that the
majority of their witnesses reside in the respective
districts wherein these actions were filed and that
these witnesses would be inconvenienced by a Section 1407
transfer to Kansas. Plaintiffs in Kennedy also contend
that transfer of their action would be unfair because
plaintiffs will be unable to travel to Kansas in order
to participate in pretrial proceedings there.
@ In our two earlier opinions in this litigation, we
have considered and rejected arguments very similar to those
now made by all movants. See In re A. H. Robins Co., Inc.
"Dalkon Shield" IUD Products Liability Litigation, supra,
419 F. Supp. at 711-12; 406 F. Supp. at 542. Thus, under our
previous opinions and orders, Voleocvski, Kennedy and Martone
clearly should be included in the coordinated or con-
solidated pretrial proceedings in the District of Kansas.
We note that it is not peculiar for a federal
district judge to be faced with applying law of a state
other than the one wherein his or her district is
located, and thus the presence of foreign state law in
® multidistrict litigation is of no particular consequence.

. - Case MDL No. 211 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	4 of 24
® - 4 -Moreover, since the parties and witnesses usually do
not personally participate in pretrial conferences or
hearings, it is unlikely that these individuals will
ever have to travel to the transferee forum for pretrial
under Section 1407. Depositions of witnesses, of course,
will probably occur in proximity to where they reside.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d) (2). And in the event defendant
Robins seeks to depose a plaintiff in a location not in
proximity to where the plaintiff resides, the plaintiff
may seek a protective order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (2)
to have the deposition taken in a more convenient place.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
® §1407, the actions entitled Volovski, et al. v. A. H. Robins
Co., Inc., D. New Jersey, C.A. No. 76-690; Kennedy, et al.
v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc., D. New Jersey, C.A. No. 77-183;
and Martone, et al. v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc., S.D. Florida,
C.A. No. 77-173-sMA, be, and the same hereby are, transferred
to the District of Kansas and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Frank G. Theis for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending
there.
®

| - Case MDL No. 211 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 24
BEFORZ THE JUDICIAL PANZL FLED oo .
ULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION HL	-7 0n oo 2)
IN RE A.H. ROBINS CO., INC. "DALKON ) DOBRERL ib yaa i 21 * CoSHIELD" IUD PRODUCTS LIABILITY ) CLEAb+ 1 ~A22/,
| LITIGATION ) 227.
OPINION AND ORD:iR 0
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDCM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD, a. -
EDWIN A. ROBSON, JOSEPH S. LORD, III, STANLEY A. WEIGEL,
ANDREW A. CAFFREY, AND ROY W. HARPER*, JUDGES OF THE PANEL.
PER CURIAM | :
The Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, previously
has transferred several actions in this litigation to the oo :
District of Kansas and, with the consent of that court, wt
assigned them to the Honorable Frank G. Theis for coordinated Co
or consolidated pretrial proceedings. In re A.H. Robins :
Co., Inc. "Dalkon Shield" IUD Products Liability Litigation,
438 F. Supp. 942 (J.P.M.L. 1977); 419 F. Supp. 710 (J.P.M.L. - N
1976); 406 F. Supp. 540 (J.P.M.L. 1975). All the actions :
in this litigation involve claims for injuries allegedly a
incurred as the result of using the '"Dalkon Shield" intra- |
uterine device. Defendant A.H. Robins Co., Inc. (Robins) So ~
acquired all rights to the '"Dalkon Shield" in June, 1970. I |
F Judge Harper took no part in the decision of this matter. So oo

Case MDL No, 211 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 6 of 24
Upon the suggestion of Judge Theis, the Panel issued = iE i
an order on February 17, 1978, as amended February 22, 1978, B
to show cause why the actions listed on the following Schedule
al’ should not be remanded to their transferor districts.2/
See Rule 1ll(c), R.P.J.P.M.L., 65 F.R.D. 253, 261 (1975). oo | Ce
Plaintiff in one of the actions makes a qualified objection
to remand. Robins does not object to remand but requests :
that the Panel's order of remand include suggestions to
the transferor judges concerning the further conduct of EB :
the remanded actions. Lead and liaison counsel for the : EE EE
plaintiffs and one other counsel representing several plaintiffs | I
oppose any qualifications on remand. Co BE
We find that remand of the actions on Schedule A is -
appropriate at this time and, accordingly, we order the a
actions remanded to their respective transferor courts.
We decline to make any suggestions or include any qualifications -
that could be perceived as attempts to direct the transferor
judges or to make any suggestions to them in the discharge of SEE =
duties and responsibilities committed solely to those judges. Te oo
I7 ThePanel's order to show cause originally included BEE a REadditional actions which have since been terminated in the RE
transferee district. Accordingly, the question of remand : :
concerning these actions is now moot. Co Co
2/ Because the Panel anticipated opposition to remand ooof these actions, a show cause order was issued instead
of a conditional remand order. Compare Rule 11(f), R.P.J.P.M.L., :
65 F.R.D. 253, 262 (1975) with RUTETOTH) | id. at 260.

. . Case MDL No. 211 Docyment 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	7 of 24
® The actions that Judge Theis has recommended for remand
are actions that name Robins as the sole defendant. Judge
Theis states that while all pretrial proceedings have not
been completed in these actions, all pretrial proceedings
of a general nature have been concluded. Judge Theis considers
remand of these actions appropriate at this time because
the objectives of centralized pretrial proceedings under
Section 1407 have been achieved, and because completion
of the remaining discovery and resolution of the remaining
issues can most expeditiously be effectuated by the transferor
courts.
. ® Plaintiff in one action supports remand of her actiononly if the Panel's order of remand expressly requires the
transferor courts to allow the parties to continue local
discovery. Similarly, Robins also desires that the remand
order protect the right of the parties to continue pretrial
proceedings. Additionally, Robins requests the Panel to
suggest that all transferor courts consider Robins's national
trial calendar in setting actions for trial.
In considering remand of actions, the Panel is greatly
influenced by the transferee judge's suggestion that remand
is appropriate. In re Evergreen Valley Project Litigation,
435 F. Supp. 923, 924 (J.P.M.L. 1977). When actions are
transferred pursuant to Section 1407, it is recognized
@® 37 The matter of further pretrial proceedings in the trans-feror courts is discussed in Judge Theis's pretrial order
dated November 28, 1977.

Case MDL No. 211 Denar 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	8 of 24 . .
that in some cases situations exist where the purpose of Cthe statute has been satisfied and areas of discovery remain
that more properly can be concluded in the original transferor
district. The statute contemplates that the transferee judge
will conduct the common pretrial proceedings with respect to
the actions and any other pretrial proceedings as the trans-
feree judge considers appropriate. Id. Judge Theis's suggestion
that remand of the actions on Schedule A is appropriate is
obviously an expression that he perceives his role under Section
1407 to be completed regarding those actions. We adopt his
recommendation and order remand of the actions.
| The Panel is neither empowered nor inclined to direct,
or suggest to, a transferor judge how he or she should conduct
further proceedings in actions after remand. The questions C
regarding continuing pretrial proceedings and trial coordination
raised by some parties to this litigation, to the extent
not already addressed by the pretrial orders of the transferee
court, will be, upon remand, within the province of the
respective transferor courts. See generally In re Air Crash
Disaster at Greater Cincinnati Airport (Constance, Kentucky)
on November 20, 1967, 354	F. Supp. 275 (J.P.M.L. 1973).
See also In re Equity Funding Corporation of America Securities
Litigation, 375 F. Supp. 1378, 1384 (J.P.M.L. 1974); In
re Plumbing Fixture Cases, 298 F. Supp. 484, 489 (J.P.M.L.
1968).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all actions on the following CSchedule A be, and the same hereby are, remanded to the
districts from which they were transferred.

. . Case MDL No. 211 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 9 of 24
| Gost aT NG. 211 SCHEDULY OA
Dg R1ST OF HALIAS
“iorma Sacks Vv. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
NLD. Call, C75-0%2C-SaW) No. 76-46-C6
i Peggy Tarty v. A. H. fobhins Co. Civil Action
(D. Colo., 77-M-346) No. 77-1261-C6
Janette Allyn Hawkinson v. AL Ho robins civil Action
co. (D. Colorado, 75-wW-714) No. 76-82-Cé
mary Ikaza v. A. H. rRoins Co. civil Acticn
(p. Colorado, 76-w-103) No. 76-121-Cé
arie Meland v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc. Civil Action
{b. Colo., 7E-¥-1212) No. 77-108¢2-Ce
Rosalyn fader v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
(D. Conn., H/75-281) No. 76-123-C6
Joan Cart v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
(D.D.C., 77-0533) No. 77-1188-Cé
Randy Medoff v. A. H. Rcbins Co. Civil Action
iD.D.C., 77-0265) : No. 77-1136-Cé
Patricia Morse v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
(D.D.C., 76-1034) No. 76-363-C6
imcille Rebinson v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
(D.D.C., 76-0097) No. 76-122-C6
Rena Hutcheson v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
(M.D. Fla.,77-0274-Civ=BK) No. 77-1189-Cé
carol Ann McLester v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
~ (M.D.Fla., 77-294-Civ-J-S) No.77-1259-C6
Sharyn Frisbie v. A. BH. Robins Co. Civil Action
(M.D. Florida, 76-525-Civ-T-H) No. 76-365-C6
Gloria Koenig, et al. v. A. H. Rcbins Co. Civil Action
(S.D. Florida, 76-1681-Civ=CF) No. 76-479-C6
Shelia Howard v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
(S.D.Fla., 76-1522-Civ-JLK) No. 76-478-C6
lorraine Schwartz, et al. v. A.H.Robins Co. Civil Action
(S.D.Fla., 77-2036-Civ-WMH) No. 77-1327-Cé6
Sherrill Marie Little v. A. H. Robins Co., Civil Action
Inc., (N.D.Ga., C74-62-G) No. 75-337-Cé
Rebecca S. Hooker v. A. H. Robins Co., Civil Action
(N.D.Ga., C75-26-G) No. 75-329-C6
Phyllis Ann McGregor, et al. v. A. H. Civil Action
Robins Co., (N.D.Ga., C75~1933a) No. 76~50-Cé6

Case MDL No. 211 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 10 of 24 . .
Soe 0. P11 - Ton innad CDistrict of Fancas -- Continued p-2
vayne ings, et ux, EBronda rings ve. ER, Hl Civil Action
fohinsg Co. [(MN.D.Ga.,C75-03ClA) No. 7€-345-C6
“azdelon Y. Venn, et ai. v. A. H. Fobins Civil action
Co. (N.D. Ga., C76-87%ZR) No. 76-302-C6
Emilia N. Xelley v. 2A. H. Rcbins Co. Civil 2cticn
(N.D.Ga., C77-530A) No. 7£-1191-C6
Linda 3S. Szot v. A. H. "chins Co. Civil Action
(N.D. Ind., 75-167) NO. 75-51-C6
varilyn L. MacDougal, et al. v. A. H. Civil Action
Robins Co. !(S.D. Iowa, 7€-18:-2) No. 76-368-C6
Patricia Elizabeth Junkin v. A.H.Fobins Co. Civil Action
(N.D.Iowa, C77-2009) No. 77-1137-Cé
Carita M. Curtis, et al. v. A. H, Civil Rection
Robins Co. (W.D.Xy., CT7E€-C28C-L{3)) No. 7e£-26%-C6
¥orma R. And Eric Lee v. A. H.Robins Co. Civil Action
(D. Md. ,H-76-350) No. 76-~170-Co
Sherry S. Atkinson v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
(D. Md., HB-77-1213) No. 77-1371-C6
Catherine and Donald Gaffney v. A. H. civil Action
Robins Co. (D. Md., ¥~76-313) No. 76-171-Ce
Kristine and Pierce Michael v. A. E. civil Action
* Robins Co. (D. Md., H~74-1158) No. 75-319-C6 C	Theresa Anne Buchanan, et al. v. A. H. Civil Action
Robins Co. (D. Md., E-75-1336) No. 7€-84-Cé
Jeanne E. Gugino v. A. H. Rebins Co. Civil Action
(D. Mass., 77-1877-T) No. 77-1325-C6
Diane R. Plosia v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
(D. Mass., 77-2627-M) No. 76-373-Cé6
Ellen A. Pollack v. A. H. Robins Co. civil Action
(D. Mass., 77-1759-T) No. 77-1312-C6
Barbara & John Kelly v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
(D. Mass., 77-1122-8) No, 77-1264-C6
James P. & Mary E. Corcoran v. A. H. Civil Action
Robins Co. (D. Mass., 77-665~T) No. 77-1138-C6
Kathleen A. & Daniel J. Holt v. A. H. Civil Action
Robins Co. (D. Mass., 77-255-5) No. 77-1121-Cé6
Andrea Bachner v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc. Civil Action i
(D. Mass., 76-4304) No. 76-521-C6
Cynthia G. & Charles Griffin v. A. H. Civil Action
Robins Co. (D. Mass., 75-4841-5) No. 76-127-C6
Emily A. Samuels v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
{D. Massachusetts, CA74-5344-S) No. 75-321-Cé6

. . Case MDL No. 211 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 11 of 24
LOR RET NO, 211-Zontinesed
’ District of runcus -- Zontinued p.3
Serna M. & Vichael A. Molormack ve. A. He Civil Action
Robins Co., Inc. {D. Mass. 75-4242-T) No. 76-128-C6
S.san Johns v. A. BE. Fobins Co., Inc. Civil Action
{D. Mass., 75-2240-G) No. 76-124-C6
Flaine & David Samick v. A. H. Fobins Civil Action
Co., Inc. (D. Macs., T3-2%55-G) Ne. 76-3-Cé
aura Bliven vo. A. H. Folins Col, Inc. Civil actien
(D. aes., 75-G8{E€-3) Yio. 75-232-CB
Norma & Tric Tse v. A. H. Robins Co., Civil Action
Ine. (D. Mass., 76-891~C) Ko. 76-222-Ck
Mary & Anthony Shimaensky v. A. H. Civil Action
Robins Co., Inc. {(D. Mass., 76-4302-G) No. 77-1090~Cé
. Patricia J. and Gecrge Motta v. A. H. Civil Action
Robins Co. (D. !ass., CA75-3884-S) No. 76-125-C6
Janet Sheppard, et al. v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
(D. Mass., 76-1187-F) No. 76-269-C6
Gilda Katz, et 2l. v. A. H. Rcbins Co. Civil zction
(D. Mass., 75-2964-S) No. 76-64-C6
Carolyn Jones v. A. H. Robins Co.., Inc. Civil Action
(E.D.Mo., 76-670C3) No. 76-417-Cé
Julia Menapace Vv. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
(W.D. Mo., 77-5026-CV-SW) No. 77-1324-C6
Judith B. and Michael J. McAloon v. Civil Action
A. H. Robins Co., (W.D.Mo., 77-0572-CV-W4) No. 77-1373-C6
Theresa A. and Jack E. Troupe v. A. H. Civil Action
Robins Co. (W.D.Mo., 77-0161-CV-W2) No. 77-1260-Céb
Christine Mills v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
(E.D.Mich., 770527) No. 77-1139-C6
Ariste N. and James P. Mimkos v. A. H. Civil Action
Robins Co. (E.D.Mich., 570582) No. 75-345-Cé
Deborah Moore v. A. H. Robins Co. Tivil Action
(E.D.Mich., 670898) No. 76-524-C6
Margaret A. Talburtt v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
(E.D.Mich., 672385) No. 77-1026-C6
Judith and Sheldon Levin v. A. H. Robins Civil Action
Co. (E.D.Mich., 571853) No. 76-146-~C6
Suzanne and Daniel Conley v. A.H.Robins Civil Action
Co. (W.D.Mich., G77-144-CAl) No. 77-1192~Cé6

Case MDL No. 211 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 12 of 24 . .
LERT NG. 213 ~= Tonmiinled
Tislrict of Fohrovos Ton.) o.4
Judith x. Miller v. A, 4, Fobins, Co. civil Action
DoMinn., 2-76-3101) No. TE-317-05
Carvl A. and Karl R. Tare v. A. H, ~obins, Civil xction
Co., iD. Minn., 2-7¢-102) No. TE-21E-CB
R aren RR. Harscehnik vv. A. H. "chins Co. Civil Action
{p. Minn., 2-7£-1C3) No. T7£-220-C6
Nancy E. @ndé Doune A. Xiatt va A. H. Civil Lction
zobins Co. {(D.Mirn., 2-7£-103) No. T2-271-C5
Joyvee XK. and Daryl A. znderson v. A. H. Civil Action
Pobins Co. (D. Minn., 2-7£-212) No. 76-245-C6
Bonnie Anderson, a/k/a Bonnie Fletcher v. Civil Action
A. H. x2bins Co. (D.Minn., 2-76-3211) No. 76-444-C6
Elizabeth C. znd John L. Zeiswanger v. A. Civil Xetion
H. Robins Co. {D. Minn., 2-77-2772) No. 77-1287-C6
Sugenia K. and Edward C. Brown Vv. A. H. Civil Action
Robins Co. (D. Minn., 4-76-411) No. 76-481-C6
Pamela J. and John H. Cameron v. A, H, Civil Action
Robins Co. (D. Minn., 3-77-189) No. 77-1207-C6
Nancy J. Chase v. A. H., Robins Co. Civil Action
(D. Minn., 2-77-4) No. 77-1042-C6
Susan E. Czapiewski v. A. H. Robins Co. civil Action ’
(D. Minn., 2-77-14) No. 77-105%-C6
Gail Pons and Richard Charles Dodge v. A. Civil Zction
H. Robins Co. (D. Minn., 4-76-81) No. 76-173-C6
Donna J. and Lester R. Drankwalter v. A. H. Civil Action
Robins Co. (D. Minn., 2-77-275) No. 77-1290-C6
Connie C. and Mark A. Enstad v. A. H. Civil Action
Robins Co. (D. Minn., 2-76-310) No. 76-413-Cé
Phyllis and Michael Fair v. A. H. Robins civil Action
Co. (D. Minn., 4-77-162) : No. 77-1258-C6
Deloris A. and David M. Fix v. A. H. Robins Civil Action
Co. (D. Minn., 2-77-276) No. 77-1291-Cé
Ann L. Long v. A, H. Robins Co. Civil action
(D. Minn., 2-77-284) No. 77-1299-Cé
Joan M. Miller v. A. H. Robins Co. civil Action
(D. Minn., 2-77-2285) No. 77-1300-C6
Christine E. and Thomas K. Morrison v. Civil Action .
A. H. Robins Co. (D. Minn.,3-76-401) No. 76-505-C6
Susan E. Ode v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
(D. Minn., 2-77-286) No. 77-1301-Cé6

. . Case MDL No. 211 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 13 of 24
DUSTET NO. 211 -- Zintinued
Sistrict of Kansas Cont.) 2. 3
Claudia E. and Donald L. Goodrich v. Civil Action
A. H. Fobins Co. (D. Minn., 2-76-3114) No. TE-347-C6
MM. Denise Hatton v. A, H. Pobins Co. Civil Action
(D. Minn., 2-77-278) No. 77-1293-C6
Eileen E. and Peter S. Heno v. A. H. Civil Action
Robins Co. (D. Minn., 2-77-279) No. 77-1294-C6
Rochelle and William B. Itman v. A. H. Civil action
Robins Co. (D. Minn., 2-77-280) No. 77-1293-C6
Teresa G. and Peter A. Ivanca v. A. H, Civil Action
Robins Co. (D. Minn., 2-77-281) No. 77-1296-C6
Margaret A. Jchansen v. A, H. Robins Co. Civil action
(D. Minn., 4-77-278) No. 77-1372-C6
Nora E. ané Kenneth J. Jost v. A. H. Civil zction
Robins Co. (D. Minn., 4-77-217) No. 77-1286-C6
Deanna and Neil Kreeck v. A. H. Robins Civil action
Co. {b. Minn., 2-77-6) No. 77-1051-Cé
Darlene R. and Gerald D. Krenzke v. A H. Civil Action
Robins Co. (D. Minn., 2-76-98) No. 76-224-C6
Marcaret L. and Richard C. Litchfield v. Civil zction
A.H. Robins Co. (D. Minn., 2-77-283) No. 77-1298-Cé
Renee X. Stoltzman v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
{(D. Minn., 2-77-5) No. 77-1050-C6
Arline B. Sweeney v. A. H, Robins Co. Civil Action
(D. Minn., 2-77-8) No. 77-1053-Cé
pamela §. and Richard S. Olek v. A. H. civil Action
Robins Co. (D. Minn., 2-77-287) No. 77-1302-C6
Mae M. and Gordon R. Panitzke v. A. H. Civil Action _.
Robins Co. (D. Minn., 2~77-288) No. 77-1302-C6
Wendy J. and Norman E. Peterson v. A. H. Civil Action
Robins co. (D. Minn., 2-77-15) No. 77-1060-C6
sandra L. and Allan E. Pint v. A, H. Civil Action
Robins Co. (D. Minn., 4-76-3396) No. 76-454-C6

Case MDL No. 211 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 14 of 24 . .
DOOEAT M0. 211 ~~ Continued -
District of Manoas (Cent.) z.5
Judith M. and Gary M. Thompson Vv. Civil newien
a, H. Robins Co. (D. Minn.,2-76-103) Yo. FL-II0-76
¥aren E. and John A. Torgerson v. A, H. ~ivil notion
Robins Co. (D. Minn., 2-77-1252) No. 77-1207-C6
’ Diane Voeller v. A, H, Fcbins Co. Civil Action
(D. Minn., 2-77-2693) No. 77-13C&-C8
Glcria E. and Alan Weinblat: v. A. H. Civil Acticn
rozins Co. (D. Minn., 2-77-2944) No. 77-1320¢-C5
Barbara J. and Dennis G. Woodward v. Civil Acticn
A. H. Robins Co. (D. Minn., 2-77-2935) No. 77-131C-C6
Cheryl J. and David J. Wezniak v. A, H, Civil Action
Rebins Co. (D. Minn., 2-77-2938) No. 77-1311-c6
Marilyn M. and Ronald L. Zeed v. A_H, Civil Acticn
Robins Co. (D. Minn., 2-77-2829) No. 77-1305-CH
Susan R. and Stephen J. Stedman v. A.H, Civil action
Rebins Co. (D. Minn., 2-77-7) No. 77-1032-C6
nancy and David Feuguier v. A. H. Robins Civil Action
Co. (D. New Jersey, CA74-1408) No. 75-225-C6
’ Alida Naeder v. A. H., Robins Co. Civil Action ’
(E.D.N.Y., 75C-1818) Nc. 76-4835-C6
Reka Fertenberry v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil action
(W.D.N.C. SE~C-75-201) No. 76-244-C6
David Joe Fortenberry v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
(W.D.N.C. SH-C-76-153) No. 76-487-C6
Bonnie S. Lazarus v. A. HE. Robins Co. Civil Rction
(W.D.N.C. Cc-C-76-99) No. 76-221-C6
Phyllis M. Fowler v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
(D.N.D. A-77-3002) No. 77-1063-C6
Lynn Ellen and Larry Foster Jones v. Civil Action
A. H. Robins Co. (S.D.CH C-3-76-90) No. 76-311-C6
Nora G. Barton v. A. H, Robins Co. Civil action
(S.D. OH C-2-74~344) No. 76-12-C6
Debra and Allen Nichol v. A. H. Robins Civil Action
Co. (S.D. Ohio, C-2-75-304) No. 75-332-C6

- - Case MDL No. 211 Doc	: ument 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 15 of 24
CooET no. 211 -- Tontineed
Shes rpgoe nf Yarsas I nt.y 2.7
Edith Euline Baston v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
“w.D. OK, Civ-76-0023) No. 76-93-C6
Soan E. Moore v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc. Crwil ATTZICH
.D. oregon, 75-836) No. 78-:134-C6
Maiorie DeBcer v. A. a, rFohins Co. Civil Acoticn
{D. Mont. CcV77-55-2U0) No. 77-1%07-C6
Cardancae West Vv. A. H. zobins Co. Civil Zction
{D. webr., 75-0-322) vo. TE-+33-C6
patricia W. Kennedy, =t al. V. A. H. Civil Action
rRopins Co. (DR. N.J., 77-0945) No. 77-126E€-Cé
Lynda Denise and James Sutheriand Vv. Civil Action
A. H. Robins Co., (D. N.J., 77-0750) No. 77-1062-C6
andrea Lagana, et al. Ve A. H. Robins Ce. civil Action
(E.D.N.Y., 75C1413) No. 7€-8E-C6
Emily Malin, et al. v. A. H.Rebins Co. Civil Action
{E.D.N.Y.,76C344) No. 7€-457-C6
. Plizabeth Parbst, et al. Vv. A. H. Rebins Civil Action
Co. (E.D.N.Y., 75C386) No. 76-68-C6
: faura Reifman, et al. Vv. A. E.Robins Civil Action
Co. (E.D.N.Y., 75C698) No. 75-327-C6
Janyce H. wziontka v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Actions
(N.D. N.Y., 76CV345) No. 76-456-C6
Denise Gelberg and Charles Wilson Vv. Civil Action
A. H. Robins Co. (N.D.N.Y., 76 CV11l) No. 76-191-C6
Mary L. and Cleveland Brooks v. A. He. civil Action
Robins Co. (W.D.N.Y., Civ 76-21) No. 76-190-C6
Noreen and Philip Mancini v. A. H. Civil Action
Robins Co. (W.D.N.Y., Civ 76-502) No. 76-519-C6
Mary Ellen Olds v. A. H. RoLins Co. Civil Action
(W.D.N.Y., Civ 76-275) No. 7€-461-C6
Gaik Sim Taylor v. A. H. Robins Co. civil Action
(E.D.N.C., 75-23-Civ-3) No. 76-70-C6
Janet H. Faltz v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
(M.D.N.C., €76-85-D) No. 76-147-C6

Case MDL No. 211 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 16 of 24 - .
DOCHET NO. 211 -- Continued
pistyrict of Kansas (Cont.) n.8
nlice and Kenneth Dolan v. A. H. Robins Civil Action
Co. (N. D. OH C-75-37) No. 75-320-C6
Joanne and Sheldon J. Donner v. A, H. Civil Action
robbins Co. (N. D. CH C-75-708) No. 76-34-C6
Lynda L. and Benjamin P., Jr., Fisco v. Civil Action
A, H. rRchbins Co. (N. D. OB C-7£-187) No. 76-10-C6
et al. v., A. HB. Robins Civil Action
Cao. (N. D. CH (C-76-21Aa) No. 76-156-C6
Elizabeth A. Myers v. A. E. Rchins Co.. Civil Action
(N, D. OH C75-1111) No. 7€-91-C6
Carolyn A. and Terry E. ¥iemann v. A. H. Civil Action
Robins Co. (N. D. OH (C-75-1112) No. 76-%2-C6
Marcia M. and William R. Fazekas Vv. Civil Action
A, H. robins Co. (N, D. OH (C75-740) No. 76-52-C6
patrice and Mark Jones v. A. H. Xcbins Co. Civil Action
(Ww. D., PA. 77-235) No. 77-1194-C6
valerie A. Steinmetz v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
{(D. OR. 76-716) No. 76-133-C6
Melodee A. and Daniel R. Taylor v. A. H. Civil Action
Robins Co. (M. D. PA. 75-739) No. 76-63-C6
Delight Howard v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
(b. R.I. 77-0187) No. 77-1211-C6
Stella Louise and William G. Jones Vv. Civil Action
A. H. Robins Co. (E. D. TN 2-75-77) No. 76-137-C6
Rosemary Lane v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
(E.D.Pa., 77-2073) No. 77-1326-C6
Margaret and Allan Ott v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
(E.D.Pa., 75-2765) No. 7€-135-Cé6
Diann and Robert Camgbell v. A. H. Robins Civil Action
. co. (E.D. Pa., 77-350) No. 77-1143-C6

. . Case MDL No. 211 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 17 of 24
® SOCFET NO. 211 o-- Onnvinuad :Sistrics of Yarsazs (Corn. s. 2
Shree Taer€, =v 21. vv, h.H. Rabins Tivil Acticn
.2.7a., TA-1aLl} Ng. Té-:iCl-C8
Margaret Faslee v. A. H. Zchins Co. Civil Action
(E.D.Pa., 73-223%) No. 76-133-C6
Zandra Yeoli, =t al, v. A. H., Rcoins Co. Civil Action
(E,D.P2., 74-2289) Ne. 75-328-Ce
~arsl Lan Eluckwsod, ez al. wv. A. H. Robins Civil Actiern
cs. 0. =hoisz Island, 73-37%) No. Te-1Zc-06
Ietty Darlene Bonnette Vv. 2, 2, =obins Civil ction
Co. !D.S.Car., 76-478) Ne. 76-2Z5-C8
Robert H., Garrison, Jr. v. A. H. Robins Civil Action
Co. !D.S.Car., 77-1151) No. 77-1323-C6
©1va and Jason Folk v. A. HE. Fobins Co. Civil Action i
(E.D. Tex., S75-102-C3) No. TE-138-C6
rarguerite Irene Donsky v. A. H.Robinrs Civil Action
co. (E.D. Tex., S76-31-CA) No. 76-196-Cé6
mashorah and Larry Brooks v. A. H. Robins Civil Action
co. (N.D, Tex., CA-3-77-14%5-F) Ko. 77-112£4-C6
wanda Carol Hauk, ex vir. v. A. H. Robins Civil Action
Co., Inc. (N.D. Texas, CA3-75-1574-F) No. 76-99-C6
Rosamond Wilhite v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
(W.D. Texas, A-76-Ca-71) No. 76-245-Cé6
Catherine and Gary Keller v. A. H. Robins Civil Action
Co. (D. Utah, C76-221) No. 76-381-C6
Mary Aube v. A. H. Robins Co. Civil Action
(D. Vt., C76-263) No. 77-1030-C6
Jean J. & Mufti Akhtar v. A. H. Robins Civil Action
Co. (W.D.Wisc., 77C40) No. 77-1125-Ce
Susan Stephens, et al. v. A. H. Robins Civil Action
co. (D. Minn., 76-205) No. 76-299-C8
Ada M. Parrilo, et al. v. A. H. Robins Civil Action
co. (D. R.I., 76-0075) No. 76-174-C6
Wanda Lasher, et al. v. A. H. Robins Civil Action
co. (M.D.Pa., 77-100) No. 77-1123-C6-
LuAnn Stephens v. A. H. Robins Co. civil Action
(D. Nebr., 76-0-297) No. 76-375-C6

Case MDL No. 211 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 18 of 24 |
JUDICIAL PANEL :
MULTIO!S FRICT £7 bio i : oo
| FILED 0 Lo
JBH-8 [98] /f2/81) ue
PATRICIAD, HOWARD oo ha
CLERK OF THE FANEL .BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL -_
ON |
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE A. H. ROBINS CO., INC. "DALKON SHIELD" )
IUD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION . )
Susan Costello v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc., ) Co RE
D. Nebraska, C.A. No. 80-0-460 ) .
Carol Soucy, et al. v. A, H. Robins Co., Inc., )
D. New Hampshire, C.A. No. C80-384-D ) DOCKET NO. 211
Jo Ann Cowan v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc., et al., ) }
N.D. California, C.A. No. C-80-3086-SW )
Claire C. Sharpe v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc., et )
al., N.D. California, C.A. No. C-80-3099~SW )
Angela Gallop v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc., ) Co
et al., N.D. California, C.A. No. 80-3138-SW ) Ce
OPINION AND ORDER Co
BEFORE ANDREW A. CAFFREY, CHAIRMAN, AND ROY W. HARPER, -
HARLES R. WEINER, EDWARD S. NORTHROP, ROBERT H. SCHNACKE,
FREDERICK A. DAUGHERTY, AND SAM C. POINTER, JR., JUDGES :
OF THE PANEL. . : or
PER CURIAM :
The Panel has previously transferred, pursuant to : oo
28 U.S.C. §1407, actions in this litigation to the District oo
of Kansas and, with the consent of that court, assigned . Co
them to the Honorable Frank G. Theis for coordinated or SERN :
consolidated pretrial proceedings.’ This litigation has
grown to include over 971 actions of which about 300 have
been settled and dismissed in the transferee district and : : EE :
approximately 441 have been remanded by the Panel to their | Lo
Ii In re A. H. Robins Co., Inc. "Dalkon Shield" IUD Products :
Liability Litigation, 406 F. Supp. 540 (J.P.M.L. 1975);
19 F. Supp. 710 (J.P.M.L. 1976); 438 F. Supp. 942 (J.P.M.L.
L977). »
FP{~MAR=—3.27.79-6M-1781 } : } : }

- “ Case MDL No. 211 Document	2 _ Filed 05/01/15 Page 19 of 24
1 respective transferor courts following receipt of suggestions
0. of remand from Judge Theis .2/ The complaints in the actions
hl 3 in the transferee district basically allege that: 1) defendant
A. H. Robins Company, Inc., (Robins) promoted and labeled :
* an intrauterine device known as the Dalkon Shield in a
> manner that was misleading and that failed to warn the
6 prospective wearer of the dangers of the Dalkon Shield;
7 and 2) Robins was negligent in the design, testing, manufacture,
8 inspection and/or distribution of the Dalkon Shield. Additional
9 defendants in the actions in the transferee district include
10 plaintiffs' personal physicians, hospitals and/or clinics,
and two physicians who have served as medical consultants
H to Robins and who at one time held proprietary rights and
12 interests in the Dalkon Shield.
®: The transferee judge has reported to the Panel that
14 common discovery relating to product liability has been
15 completed in the transferee district. Three months ago
16 the Panel considered the objections of Robins to the transfer :
17 of nineteen potential tag-along actions that were pending
18 in the Northern District of California. The Panel denied
transfer with respect to those nineteen actions, holding
19 in relevant part as follows:
20
21
22
23 2/ See, €.g9., In re A.H. Robins Co., Inc. "Dalkon Shield"
IUD Products Liability Litigation, 453 F. Supp. 108 (J.P.M.L.
24 1978).
@.
FPI—HAR——3-27-79-6M-1781

. ar Case MDL No. 211 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 20 of 24
-3-
1 On the basis of the papers filed, the Panel is
persuaded that transfer of these actions would neither
-— 2 serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
nor promote the just and efficient conduct of the
3 litigation. Robins stresses that pretrial proceedings
are no longer active in the MDL-211 transferee district
4 and that the primary purpose for transfer of new tag-along
actions has been limited to obtaining the benefits
and restrictions deriving from the pretrial orders
5 entered by the transferee judge. Robins urges that
this purpose can be accomplished, with respect to
6 Northern District of California actions, without transfer
under Section 1407 because 1) the court in the Northern
7 District of California has consolidated, pursuant
to local rules, all Dalkon Shield actions in that
8 district (including actions already remanded from
the transferee district and newly filed actions),
and 2) voluntary coordination between the Kansas and
9 California courts, parties and counsel can secure
the benefits of Section 1407 transfer while avoiding
10 the frustration of the local consolidation in the
Northern District of California which transfer of
11 these nineteen actions would generate. In view of
the unanimous agreement by the parties to the nineteen
actions that transfer should be denied, and considering
12 the framework for processing Dalkon Shield actions
established by the court in the Northern District
3 of California, we agree that transfer of the nineteen
actions is inappropriate. [Footnote omitted.]
14
In re A. H. Robins Co., Inc. "Dalkon Shield" IUD Products
15 Liability Litigation, Docket No. 211 (J.P.M.L., Oct. 7,
16 1980) (unpublished order).
17 The first above-captioned action (Costello) was brought
18 against Robins in July, 1980. Plaintiff is a woman who
19 alleges that she suffered injuries from using the Dalkon
Shield which required her to undergo a hysterectomy. Plaintiff20
seeks recovery under theories of negligence, fraud and
21
malice, failure to warn, and breach of warranties.
22
| The second above-captioned action (Soucy) was brought
23 posine Robins in August, 1980. Plaintiffs are a husband
" } and wife who allege that the wife suffered permanent injuries	25
FPI~MAR—3.27.79.6M.1781

. ~~ Case MDL No. 211 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 21 of 24
1 as a result of using the Dalkon Shield. Plaintiffs seek
® 2 recovery under theories of negligence, gross negligence,
3 strict liability, and breach of express and implied warranties.
The remaining three above-captioned actions (the Northern
4 District of California actions) also incorporate allegations
> against Robins based on theories of negligence, breach
6 of warranties, and/or strict liability in tort.
7 Because Costello, Soucy and the Northern District
8 of California actions appeared to share questions of fact
9 with the actions in this docket previously transferred
10 to the District of Kansas, the Panel, pursuant to Rule
9, R.P.J.P.M.L., 78 F.R.D. 561, 567-68 (1978), entered
tH orders conditionally transferring the actions to that district
12 for inclusion in the centralized pretrial proceedings occurring
@: there. Plaintiffs in Costello and Soucy oppose transfer
14 of their respective actions. Robins favors transfer of
15 Costello and Soucy and opposes transfer of the Northern
16 District of California actions.
17 We find that transfer of Costello, Soucy and the Northern
18 District of California actions at this time would not serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses or promote
19 the just and efficient conduct of the Dalkon Shield litigation.
20 Accordingly, we vacate the conditional transfer orders
21 entered with respect to the five actions.’
22
23
3/ The parties to these five actions waived their opportunity
24 for oral argument and therefore the question of transfer
® of the five actions under 28 U.S.C. §1407 was submitted	55 on the briefs. Rule 14, R.P.J.P.M.L., 78 F.R.D. 561, 572
(1978).
FPI—MAR—3.27.70.6M.1781

SIN Case MDL No. 211 Document? Filed 05/01/15 Page 22 of 24
1 Although we recognize that these actions share questions
@. of fact with actions previously transferred in this litigation,
3 we are not persuaded that transfer under Section 1407 remains
4 appropriate for newly filed actions in this docket. This
5 litigation has been pending for over five years and discovery
of common issues has been completed in the transferee district.
° This completed discovery can be made available to the parties
7 in the actions before the Panel without recourse to Section
8 1407. For example, the judges to whom the five actions
9 are assigned could issue orders to show cause why all discovery
10 heretofore completed in the transferee district should
11 not be made applicable to the actions. See Manual for
12 Complex Litigation, Parts I and II, §§3.11 (rev. ed. 1977).
Judge Theis, as transferee judge, has also prepared a final
@- pretrial order?’ which has been entered in the actions
14 which have already been remanded in this docket. That
15 order is available to the parties, counsel and judges involved
16 in these five actions, can provide a convenient expression
17 of the conclusions of the transferee judge which have been
18 reached through his familiarity with the litigation, and
19 can serve as an aid in avoiding duplication of discovery
20 and preventing inconsistent pretrial rulings. See In re
Seeburg-Commonwealth United Merger Litigation, 415 F. Supp.
21 393, 396 (J.P.M.L. 1976).
22
23 See In re A.H. Robins Co., Inc., "Dalkon Shield" IUD
roducts Liability Litigation, Docket No. 211 (D. Kan. ,
24 ov. 28, 1977) (unpublished order).
@.
FPI~MAR—3-27.78.6M-1781

. far Case MDL No. 211 Document	24 Filed 05/01/15 Page 23 of 24
1 Finally we note that the use of alternatives to transfer
0. under Section 1407 will eliminate the problems of coordination
3 faced by courts that have been attempting to structure
proceedings in their respective districts which encompass
* both remanded Dalkon Shield actions and newly filed Dalkon
> Shield actions.3’
6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the conditional transfer
7 orders concerning the actions entitled Susan Costello v.
8 A. H. Robins Co., Inc., D. Nebraska, C.A. No. 80-0-460;
9 Carol Soucy, et al. v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc., D. New Hampshire,
10 C.A. No. C80-384-D; Jo Ann Cowan v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc.,
et al., N.D. California, C.A. No. C-80-3086-SW; Claire
H C. Sharpe v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc., et al., N.D. California,
12 C.A. No. C-80-3099-SW; and Angela Gallop v. A. H. Robins
¢: Co., Inc., et al., N.D. California, C.A. No. 80-3138-SW,
14 be, and the same hereby are, VACATED.
15
16
17
18
19
20 5/ As a consequence of the Panel's decision herein, the
21 Panel will no longer issue conditional transfer orders
in this docket. Accordingly, the parties to this litigation
are relieved of their responsibility, pursuant to Rule
22 10(e), R.P.J.P.M.L., supra, 78 F.R.D. at 568-69, to notify
the Clerk of the Panel of the pendency of any potential
23 tag-along actions in which they are named.
24
@.
FPI-MAR—3-27.79.6M.1781

Case MDL No. 211 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 24 of 24 |
pu FECL Pham a \ | ~, CHE| CHET LE oo
A	CN DI @ 9/74 SE olDOCKET NO. 211 J 79 Cn
UK 24 jog, if ol
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION OF SE
CLERK oF SAW idRD i
IN RE A. H. ROBINS COMPANY, INC., "DALKON SHIELD" IUD PROBYUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION : ’
ORDER DEEMING MOTION WITHDRAWN
This matter isbefore the Panel pursuant to a motion oo
by the lead and liaison counsel for plaintiffs in the transferee I Co
district in the above-captioned litigation for an order ’
to reopen discovery and to clarify procedures for newly-filed
actions, and for an order pertaining to attorney fees and :
expenses. Movant now desires to withdraw the motion, and :
no other party to the litigation has responded in support
of the motion. :
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the movant'sg request to : A
withdraw the motion be granted and that the motion be, Coe
and the same hereby is, DEEMED WITHDRAWN. EEE RE
FOR THE PANEL: } Ce
Andrew A. Caffrey - oo
Chairman :