273 F. Supp. 3d 1360
J.P.M.L.2017Background
- Fifteen federal PPI (proton pump inhibitor) cases and 24 related tag-along actions were proposed for centralization under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (MDL) by plaintiffs; plaintiffs alleged PPIs cause various kidney injuries (AIN, chronic kidney disease, ESRD, kidney failure).
- Plaintiffs (in six lead actions) sought transfer to the Middle District of Louisiana (and alternatively several other districts); responding plaintiffs supported centralization but disagreed on the transferee district.
- Responding defendants (AstraZeneca, Takeda, P&G, Pfizer, McKesson) opposed centralization and, if ordered, proposed the Central District of California (some proposed Delaware) as transferee.
- The Panel recognized shared factual themes but identified substantial differences among cases: varying defendant participation (AstraZeneca in most, others in far fewer), competing defendants, and drug-specific differences (prescription vs OTC, distinct development/labeling histories, staggered FDA approvals).
- The Panel concluded anticipated future filings could be substantial but declined to base the decision on speculative future filings given the long market history of PPIs and the relatively small current motion group.
- Order: Motion to centralize denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cases should be centralized under § 1407 | Centralization will promote efficiency and coordinated pretrial proceedings | Oppose centralization; centralization burdens defendants and is unnecessary | Denied — efficiency gains insufficient given case differences |
| Whether a single transferee district is appropriate | Middle District of Louisiana (or other plaintiff-preferred districts) | If centralization ordered, propose Central District of California (or Delaware) | Not reached because centralization denied; district selection contested and material to decision |
| Impact of multiple/competing defendants | Plaintiffs: common issues across PPIs justify single MDL | Defendants: competing manufacturers increase need for protective measures and separate tracks | Held against centralization — competition and confidentiality concerns weigh heavily against MDL |
| Extent of common discovery vs defendant-specific discovery | Plaintiffs: common issues regarding PPI risks support consolidated discovery | Defendants: discovery will be largely defendant- and drug-specific (different drugs, labels, approvals, OTC vs Rx) | Denied — significant defendant-specific discovery undermines efficiency of centralization |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ambulatory Pain Pump-Chondrolysis Prods. Liab. Litig., 709 F. Supp. 2d 1375 (J.P.M.L. 2010) (denying centralization where most defendants were named in only a minority of actions)
- In re Table Saw Prods. Liab. Litig., 641 F. Supp. 2d 1384 (J.P.M.L. 2009) (denial where no defendant was sued in all actions and several were named in very few)
- In re Yellow Brass Plumbing Component Prods. Liab. Litig., 844 F. Supp. 2d 1377 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (hesitancy to centralize litigation against multiple competing defendants)
- In re Watson Fentanyl Patch Prods. Liab. Litig., 883 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (centralization complicated by trade-secret and confidentiality issues among competitors)
- In re Invokana (Canagliflozin) Prods. Liab. Litig., 223 F. Supp. 3d 1345 (J.P.M.L. 2016) (multi-defendant MDL may prolong pretrial due to separate discovery and motion tracks)
- In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 959 F. Supp. 2d 1375 (J.P.M.L. 2013) (Panel declines to rely on speculative future filings in centralization analysis)