In Re Darvocet, Darvon & Propoxyphene Products Liability Litigation
780 F. Supp. 2d 1379
J.P.M.L.2011Background
- MDL panel consideration of centralization under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for Darvocet/Darvon/Propoxyphene actions; Esposito plaintiff moved for centralization in EDNY; panel heard arguments and deferred pending merits discussion; defendants oppose centralization citing individualized causation and product-identification issues; plaintiffs largely support centralization with various proposed districts; panel favors centralization maintaining a transferee court to coordinate pretrial proceedings.
- Panel authorizes transfer to a single district to streamline discovery and pretrial issues while accommodating case-specific issues via concurrent or remand tracks.
- Eastern District of Kentucky (Covington Division) identified as preferred transferee due to accessibility and nexus to defendant Xanodyne’s headquarters; Judge Danny C. Reeves noted suitability and lack of existing pending cases in that district would not impede transfer.
- Schedule A lists 17 actions across multiple districts to be transferred to Kentucky for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
- Notes indicate some actions later dismissed or not included; panel maintains potential for tag-along actions and lists participating defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether centralization under §1407 is appropriate for these actions. | Plaintiffs argue common factual issues warrant centralization. | Defendants contend individualized causation and product-identification issues predominate. | Yes; centralization appropriate to manage common issues while handling individual ones. |
| What should be the transferee district and division? | Location should minimize disruption and leverage common nexus. | Preserve efficiency and access; transfer to Kentucky preferable though no current MDL case there. | Eastern District of Kentucky (Covington) chosen as transferee. |
| Can transfer preserve both common and individual discovery tracks without delaying resolution? | Dual approach viable to consolidate common discovery and permit case-specific discovery. | Concerns about delay due to centralized process. | Yes; transferee can coordinate concurrent tracks and use plaintiff fact sheets or separate tracks. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Yasmin and Yaz (Drospirenone) Mktg., Sales Practices and Prods. Liab. Litig., 655 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (J.P.M.L. 2009) (recognition of dual-track approach in centralized MDLs)
- In re Chantix (Varenicline) Prods. Liab. Litig., 655 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (J.P.M.L. 2009) (dual-track centralization viable for common and case-specific issues)
- In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 360 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (J.P.M.L. 2005) (centralization benefits and pretrial management in MDLs)
- In re Denture Cream Prods. Liab. Litig., 624 F. Supp. 2d 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2009) (single judge can resolve common issues and remand for individual discovery as needed)
- In re Yamaha Motor Corp. Rhino ATV Prods. Liab. Litig., 597 F. Supp. 2d 1377 (J.P.M.L. 2009) (viable dual-track approach to centralized MDLs)