In re: Heparin Products Liability Litigation, 1:08-hc-60000

MDL in the Northern District of Ohio centralized to handle Heparin products liability claims against Baxter, SPL and ACAS.
Defendants moved to bifurcate bellwether trials, separating causation from liability issues, arguing economy, settlement, and fairness benefits.
Plaintiffs oppose, arguing causation and liability are interrelated, with overlap in evidence such as product identification and contamination sources.
Contaminated Baxter Heparin was linked to Over-Sulfated Chondroitin Sulfate (OSCS) after FDA reports and recalls in 2007–2008.
The litigation timeline includes Baxter recalls beginning January 17, 2008, and February 29, 2008, followed by extensive investigation and MDL transfer on June 6, 2008.
The court must decide whether bifurcation would enhance judicial economy and fairness or cause duplicative proof and prejudice, given that liability evidence is largely generic across cases.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are causation and liability separable for bifurcation?	Causation and liability are inseparable; product identification evidence affects both.	Causation is distinct; bifurcate to address process in phases and reduce prejudice.	Not separable; bifurcation denied.

In re Bendectin Litigation, 857 F.2d 290 (6th Cir. 1988) (bifurcation not favored when issues are not clearly separable; general causation context)
In re Beverly Hills Fire Litigation, 695 F.2d 207 (6th Cir. 1982) (bifurcation generally disfavored; separate issues must be distinct)
Gasoline Prods. Co. v. Champlin Ref. Co., 283 U.S. 494 (1931) (illustrates that separate issues must be distinct and severable)