2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52774
J.P.M.L.2017Background
- Plaintiff Rochester Drug Cooperative moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to transfer ten direct-purchaser antitrust actions (involving six generic drugs) into MDL No. 2724, and to expand/rename the MDL to cover broader generic-drug pricing claims.
- The contested actions allege price-fixing and other anticompetitive conduct tied to sharp price increases for various generics between 2012 and 2015, often linked to trade association meetings (notably the Generic Pharmaceutical Association).
- Some plaintiffs and many defendants opposed expansion, arguing different drugs/products and different manufacturers produce distinct liability issues, discovery needs, and expert issues that would undercut MDL efficiencies.
- Supporters (including the U.S. as amicus and some defendants/plaintiffs) urged centralization, citing overlapping defendants, witnesses, and a single government investigation into generic-drug pricing misconduct.
- The Panel found significant factual, party, and claim overlap (shared meetings, overlapping defendants, same government probe) making coordinated discovery necessary to avoid duplication, inconsistent rulings, and interference with the criminal investigation.
- The Panel ordered transfer of the listed actions to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, expanded and renamed MDL No. 2724 to “In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation,” and set criteria for inclusion of other actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1407 centralization/expansion of MDL No. 2724 to include additional generic-drug cases is warranted | Centralization will promote efficiency because complaints arise from the same alleged industry-wide conspiracy and government investigation with overlapping witnesses and discovery | Different drugs and defendants create distinct markets, discovery, and expert issues; expansion would be unwieldy and inefficient | Granted: Panel expanded MDL No. 2724, finding common questions of fact, overlapping parties, and same government investigation justify transfer |
| Whether informal coordination can replace formal MDL centralization | Informal cooperation may be insufficient given many actions across multiple courts and diverging schedules | Formal MDL is preferable to avoid duplication and inconsistent rulings | Held: Informal coordination inadequate; risk of inconsistent rulings and duplicative discovery supports transfer |
| Whether multiple-product/multiple-defendant centralization is appropriate absent a single overarching conspiracy | Plaintiffs argued overlapping conspiracies and shared conduct/witnesses make single MDL efficient even if conspiracies differ by product | Defendants argued the Panel typically resists centralizing distinct products/defendants and such expansion would confuse proceedings | Held: Panel acknowledged usual caution but found overlap in defendants, government probe, and counsel justified MDL expansion |
| Whether transferee court should retain or remand product-specific issues after common discovery | Plaintiffs favored keeping actions centralized for consistent pretrial rulings | Defendants favored early remand to home courts for product-specific issues | Held: Panel permitted initial centralization but encouraged transferee court to remand product-specific matters after common discovery when appropriate (Panel Rule 10.1(b)) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Invokana (Canagliflozin) Prods. Liab. Litig., 223 F. Supp. 3d 1345 (J.P.M.L. 2016) (Panel generally cautious about centralizing actions involving separate products and defendants)
- In re Automotive Wire Harness Sys. Antitrust Litig., 867 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (approved centralizing price-fixing actions across multiple products where conspiracies overlap)
- In re Capital One Tel. Consumer Prot. Act Litig., 908 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (discusses remand suggestion after completion of common pretrial proceedings)