IN RE: Oral Contraceptives Products Liability Litigation

Case MDL No. 62 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 5
THE JUDICIAL PANEL JIS par oo B
» ON MULTE Sparel on : DACREMULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Ey EL
RE ORAL CONTRAC y FEB 18 17) Cn	IN RAL CONTRACEPTIVES PRODUCTS : Hl ES : to	PATE { Se
LIABILITY LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO. STA ean SE	| Ee \ |- : OPINION AND ORDER oo Ab /
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN*, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM,
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH — oo
S. LORD, III*, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL a i Ee ERE
PER CURIAM Ce
The House Judiciary Committee Report recommending the
passage of S. 159, which established the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation and added Section 1407 to Title 28 EE a
of the United States Code, noted that CL
« « + The types of cases in which massive filings
of multidistrict litigation are reasonably certain :
to occur include not only civil antitrust actions oo
but ‘also, common disaster (air crash) actions,
patent and trademark suits, products liability Le
actions, and securities law violations actions, : :among others.1/ [Emphasis Added]
Although the Panel has known of the existence of several groups
of product liability litigation during the past two years, none
.. has seemed appropriate for transfer under Section 1407.2/ RE
* Judges Murrah and Lord were unable to attend the hearing
} but with the consent of all parties they have participated in :
this decision on the basis of the transcript of the hearing
and the pleadings filed in this matter.
1/ House Report No. 1130, p. 3 (February 28, 1968).
2/ For example, the Panel was aware of the existence of the So .
multidistrict litigation involving Aralen and MER 29 but since Lo Co
many of these cases had been commenced long before the Panel Co )was created, it did not appear that the benefits of Section _ : ’
1407 would result from the transfer of these cases.

Case MDL No. 62 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	2 of 5
- 2 - : )
. The Panel recently became aware of the extensive
0 litigation involving the use and alleged side effects of oral
contraceptives. The statistics compiled by the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts revealed that there were
more than twenty recent actions brought against one manufac- .
turer, G. D. Searle & Company, resulting from the use of
. . 3
one of more of its oral contraceptive products. The Panel
therefore entered an order directing the parties to show
cause why the cases listed on the attached Schedule A should
not be transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407.4/ A second order was entered
setting this matter for hearing in San Francisco on January 22,
1971.
Fy In their written responses and at the hearing, the parties	unanimously contend that there are few if any common questions
of fact among these cases and that transfer of any of these
cases would not serve the convenience of the parties and their
witnesses. In the absence of a showing that there are common
37 Tf transfer of these cases was found to be appropriate, the
Panel would have considered similar actions now pending against
manufacturers of other oral contraceptives.
4/ Although some of these cases had been started more than a
. year ago, it appeared that the bulk of them had been commenced
within the past year, possibly as a result of the adverse pub-
) licity the Pill has received in recent months. The Panel
attempted to exclude the older cases from its order to show
cause.
5/ We are not unaware that other drug cases have involved common
questions of fact relating to dangerousness, duty to warn, and
method of notice. See Basko v. Sterling Drug, 416 F.24 417 (24d
Cir. 1969); Kershaw v. Sterling Drug, 415 F.2d 1009 (5th Cir.
1969); Schenbeck v. Sterling Drug, F.2d (8th Cir. 1970);
® and Sterling Drug v. Yarrow, 408 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1969).

Case MDL No. 62 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	3 of 5
\ . = 3 -
® questions of fact among the cases to be transferred and that
such a transfer would serve the convenience of the parties
and their witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct
of the entire litigation, there can, ofcourse, be no transfer
under Section 1407. Our decision not to transfer any of these
actions at the present time is without prejudice to the right
of any party to later move for transfer of any or all of these
cases or of the Panel to reconsider transfer on its own
initiative.
TRANSFER DENIED. :
®
® |

Case MDL No. 62 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 4 of 5
DOCKET NO. 62 SCHEDULE A
® EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Audrey L. Brush & James Brush v. G. D. Searle CIVIL ACTION
: & Co. No. Civ. S5-1644
" Consuelo Ramirez & Juan Ramirez v. G. D. CIVIL ACTION
Searle & Co., et al No. Civ. S-1764
Patricia Carter McCoy & Freddie McCoy v. CIVIL ACTION
G. D. Searle & Co. No. Civ. S-1771
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Norbert W. St. Martin, etc. v. G. D. Searle CIVIL ACTION
& Co. (Est. of Phyllis Seaton) No. 13909
Ruth Jean Olsen v. G. D. Searle & Co. CIVIL ACTION
: ’ B-138
Cynthia O'Hara v. G.D. Searle & Co. CIVIL ACTIONB-155
DISTRICT OF KANSAS |
Amelia Ramsey Vv. G. D. Searle & Co. CIVIL ACTION
[ | oo No. W-4206
: EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN :
“Sandra Jame Pennanen & Allan Pennanen Vv. CIVIL ACTION
G. D. Searle & Co. No. 30765
Rosemary Fitzpatrick & James Fitzpatrick v. ~ CIVIL ACTION
G. D. Searle & Co. . No. 35325
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA :
Juanita Jo McCartney v. G. D. Searle &Co. CIVIL ACTION
- No. Civ. 03153
Nancy J. Searcy v. G. D. Searle & Co. CIVIL ACTIONNo. Civ. 03602
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Marilyn Tabatchnick & Jay Tabatchnick v. CIVIL ACTION
G. D. Searle & Co., et al No. 758-70
Willie Gray, Sr., etc. v. G. D. Searle CIVIL ACTION
J & Co., et al No. 1133-70=~ .

Case MDL No. 62 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 50f 5
DOCKET NO. 62 : SCHEDULE A CONT.
EEN <
® WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Edward F. Urban & Camille C. Urban v. CIVIL ACTION
G. D. Searle & Co. No. Civ.-1970-39
Edward C. Cranford & Beverly Cranford v. CIVIL ACTION
G. D. Searle & Co., et al No. Civ. =-1970-195
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Harry Seyfang v. G. D. Searle & Co., CIVIL ACTION
et al No. Civil 3684
Marvene A. Seyfang v. G. D. Searle & Co., CIVIL ACTION
et al ’ No. 3683
Sadie Hotchkiss v. G. D. Searle & Co. CIVIL ACTION
¢ No. Civil 7205
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
Sandra Oresman & Richard Oresman v. G. D. CIVIL ACTION
Searle & Co. No. Civil 4205
[ WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Gary L. Hancock & Nancy Hancock v. G. D. CIVIL ACTION
._ Searle & Co. ~ No. SA 70 CA 130
ol |