956 F.3d 838
6th Cir.2020Background
- Two Ohio counties (Cuyahoga and Summit) sued opioid manufacturers/distributors in the N.D. Ohio MDL; they initially added twelve national pharmacy chains (the Pharmacies) as distributors but expressly disavowed dispensing claims.
- The MDL judge set an amendment deadline of April 25, 2018; discovery proceeded (hundreds of depositions, tens of millions of documents) and the Pharmacies moved for summary judgment on distribution claims.
- After severances and settlements of other defendants, the district court—nearly 19 months after the amendment deadline and over 10 months after discovery closed—allowed the Counties to amend in November 2019 to add dispensing claims and reopened discovery on those claims.
- The district court also (1) told defendants not to file non‑jurisdictional 12(b) motions and (2) ordered nationwide prescription‑fill data production back to 2006 (13 years); the Pharmacies sought a writ of mandamus and a stay of discovery.
- The Sixth Circuit granted mandamus: it held the district court abused its discretion by permitting the late amendment without showing Rule 16(b) good cause, struck the November 2019 amendments, and explained that MDL efficiency cannot override the Federal Rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could allow a 19‑month‑late amendment after the scheduling‑order deadline without showing Rule 16(b) good cause | Efficiency of MDL and need to try dispensing and distribution claims together justified late amendment | Counties waived dispensing claims and failed to show diligence required by Rule 16(b); amendment prejudices defendants | Court: Abuse of discretion; no good cause shown; amendments stricken (mandamus granted) |
| Whether the court could refuse to adjudicate timely Rule 12(b)(6) motions on the amended dispensing claims | Order directing no non‑jurisdictional motions promoted MDL efficiency | Rule 12(b) motions are mandatory procedural rights; court must rule on properly filed motions | Court: A district court may not refuse to adjudicate properly filed Rule 12(b) motions (observation; relief moot after striking amendments) |
| Whether the MDL court could compel expansive nationwide prescription data (13 years) in these Ohio county cases | Nationwide discovery is needed for MDL efficiency and future bellwether trials | Discovery must be proportional to the needs of the particular case; nationwide data is overbroad and prejudicial | Court: Proportionality under Rule 26(b)(1) must be determined case‑by‑case; MDL efficiency does not eliminate that limit (observation; relief moot after striking amendments) |
| Whether mandamus was available | N/A | Extraordinary relief warranted because of clear abuse, prejudice, and lack of adequate alternative remedies | Court: Mandamus appropriate here given clear abuse of discretion and prejudice; granted relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998) (MDL transferee courts limited to pretrial proceedings)
- Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 574 U.S. 405 (2015) (cases in MDL retain separate identities)
- Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888 (6th Cir. 2003) (Rule 16(b) fixes parties and pleadings; good‑cause requirement explained)
- In re Korean Air Lines Co., 642 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2011) (MDL courts must apply ordinary standards for dispositive motions and amendments)
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004) (mandamus standard: exceptional circumstances; usurpation/clear abuse)
- John B. v. Goetz, 531 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2008) (factors for assessing mandamus relief)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (waiver doctrine and intentional relinquishment of claims)