in Re Washburn Ranch Well-Site Fire Litigation, 14-1030

Background

Five personal-injury wrongful-death and injury suits arose from a single flash fire at the Washburn Ranch well site on October 24, 2014; cases were filed in multiple Texas counties and involve overlapping plaintiffs, witnesses, and defendants.
Pioneer Natural Resources Company and Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. (collectively "Pioneer") moved the MDL Panel to transfer (consolidate) the related cases to a single pretrial court under Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 13 for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
Pioneer argues the suits share common-event causation and liability issues (who or what caused the flash fire) and will rely on substantially the same fact and expert witnesses and duplicate discovery.
Respondents (various plaintiffs) and some defendants contested relatedness and venue, arguing differences in parties/venues and that certain counties (e.g., Hidalgo) are proper venues for some suits.
Pioneer maintained venue/dominant-jurisdiction disputes are irrelevant to the MDL transfer question and that consolidation is needed to preserve and inspect evidence, avoid duplicative discovery, and prevent inconsistent rulings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the cases "related" under Rule 13 (common questions of fact) to justify MDL transfer?	Some plaintiffs argue differences in named defendants and localized facts mean cases are not related.	Pioneer argues all suits arise from the same common event (the flash fire) and share core causation/liability issues and common witnesses, satisfying Rule 13.	The Panel concludes the cases are related: common-event causation and overlapping witnesses/expert issues justify consolidation.
Is dominant jurisdiction/first-filed venue outcome determinative of MDL transfer?	Plaintiffs contend dominant jurisdiction or first-filed status in particular counties matters.	Pioneer contends dominant jurisdiction or venue challenges are irrelevant to the MDL transfer decision under Rule 13.	The Panel treats dominant-jurisdiction/venue disputes as irrelevant to the MDL transfer inquiry; MDL transfer focuses on relatedness and efficiency.
Does the presence of different defendants (non-identical parties) defeat relatedness?	Plaintiffs point to non-identical defendant lists to argue dissimilarity and individualized issues.	Pioneer counters that strict identity of parties is not required; common factual and liability questions suffice.	Held that strict party identity is not required; shared causation/liability issues are sufficient for relatedness.
Will consolidation promote convenience and efficiency (minimize witness inconvenience, duplicative discovery, preserve evidence)?	Plaintiffs offered a limited discovery-sharing plan but argued county venue/control matters.	Pioneer argues consolidation will prevent duplicative discovery, coordinate inspections/testing of physical evidence, reduce conflicting orders and travel, and better preserve evidence.	Held consolidation will minimize inconvenience and promote just and efficient handling; centralized inspection/testing protocols and discovery control favor MDL transfer.

Key Cases Cited

In re Wellington Ins. Co. Hailstorm Litig., 427 S.W.3d 581 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2014) (distinguishing common natural events from common actionable events for Rule 13 relatedness)
In re Hurricane Rita Evacuation Bus Fire, 216 S.W.3d 70 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2006) (common-event personal-injury suits held related despite non-identical defendants)
In re Continental Airlines Flight 1404, 387 S.W.3d 925 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2009) (airplane-fire suits related where liability and expert issues overlap)
In re Cano Petroleum, Inc., 283 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2008) (wildfire cases related because negligence and causation issues overlapped)
In re Delta Lloyds Ins. Co., 339 S.W.3d 383 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2008) (cases from a natural weather event not necessarily related where event is an undisputed fact and not the basis for defendant liability)
In re Deep South Crane & Rigging Co., 339 S.W.3d 395 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2008) (identification of overlapping fact witnesses supports consolidation)
In re Digitek Litig., 387 S.W.3d 115 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2009) (consolidation promotes efficiency where discovery burdens are duplicative)
In re Ad Valorem Tax Litig., 216 S.W.3d 83 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2006) (movant need not show prior inconvenience but must make inconvenience plausible to support MDL)
In re Kone, Inc., 216 S.W.3d 68 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2005) (denial of transfer where underlying facts were substantially local and individualized)