TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel:
Mentor Worldwide LLC (Mentor), which is a defendant in eleven of the thirteen actions, states that it does not oppose the motion for centralization. Plaintiffs in nine of the thirteen actions oppose the motion,
On thе basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these thirteen actions involve common questions of fact, аnd that centralization in the Southern District of West Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties 'and witnesses and promоte the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The subject actions share factual issues arising from allegations that defects in Coloplast’s pelvic surgical mesh products cause various and serious injuries to women who are treated with the products to address certain medical conditions (e.g., pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence). Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the рarties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Centralization is consistent with our recent decision creating separate pelvic repair product MDLs involving defendants American Medical Systems, Inc., Boston Scientific Corp., and Ethicon, Inc. (and entities related thereto), see In re: American Med. Sys., Inc., Pelvic Repair Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig.,
In opposing inclusion of the White action in the centralized proceedings, TEI argues that the TEI product (Surgimend) at issue in White differs significantly from the Coloplast products in that, inter alia, it is not a synthetic mesh product, and it was not manufactured or sold for use in pelvic floor reconstruction procеdures. TEI contends that the use of Surgimend in treating the subject plaintiff in White was inappropriate and off-label, and that, as a result, the action will require substantial unique discovery involving the individual physicians and facilities involved in the plaintiffs treatment. After reviewing the First Amеnded Complaint in White, however, we are not persuaded that either White or the claims in White against TEI should be excluded from the MDL. That pleading indicates that the plaintiffs alleged injuries from the use of Surgimend аnd the Coloplast product are indivisible, and that the two products were used in surgical procedures on the plaintiff that were performed back-to-back On the same day. To the extent that White involves issues unique to TEI, the transferee judge can structure pretrial proceedings so that discovery with respect to such issues can proceed concurrently with discovеry on common issues. See In re: Method of Processing Ethanol Byproducts & Related Subsystems (’858) Patent Litig.,
We conclude that the Southern District of West Virginia is an appropriate transferee district for prеtrial proceedings in this litigation. According to Coloplast, nine of the 24 federal actions in which it is named are already in оne or the other of the four pelvic repair product MDLs presently pending in that district before the Honorable Joseph R. Goodwin — as those nine actions involve not only a Coloplast product but also one or more products at issuе in those MDLs.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the Southern District of West Virginia, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to
SCHEDULE A
MDL No. 2387 — IN RE: COLOPLAST CORP. PELVIC SUPPORT SYSTEMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Middle District of Florida
Denise Jean D’Agaro Jacobs, et al v. Mentor Corporation, еt al, C.A. No. 8:10-02429
Rhonda Lariscy, et al v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC, C.A. No. 8:11-02377 Mary Joe White, et al v. Coloplast Corporation, C.A. No. 8:12-00061
Northern District of Illinois
Gladys Marrero, et al v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC, et al, C.A, No. 1:12-01829 Martha Gustafson, et al. v. Coloplast, Inc., et al, C.A. No. 1:12-03292
Southern District of Illinois
Ann M. Williams, et al. v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC, et al, C.A. No. 3:12-00321
District of Kansas
Patricia Purvis v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC, et al, C.A. No. 2:12-02212
Eastern District of Missouri
Lois Wolz, et al. v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC, et al, C.A. No. 4:12-00698
Western District of Missouri
Melissa M. Renaud, et al. v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC, et al, C.A. No. 4:12-00465
Mildred C. Watts, et al. v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC, et al, C.A. No. 4:12-00466
Alvonia B. Fisher, et al. v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC, et al, C.A. No. 4:12-00467
Western District of Oklahoma
Connie Waldrop, et al. v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC, et al, C.A. No. 5:12-00532
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
June C. Hess v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC, et al, C.A. No. 2:12-01919
Notes
Judge Charles R. Breyer took no part in the decision of this matter.
. Coloplast states that it is aware of a total of 24 fеderal actions in which it has been sued. These actions and any other related actions are potential tag-alоng actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7. 1, and 7.2.
. The nine actions are one of the three Middle District of Florida actions (Lariscy), one of the two Northern District of Illinois actions (Marrero), the Southern District of Illinois action, the District of Kansas action, the Eastern District of Missouri action, the three Western District of Missouri actions, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania actions.
. For the reasons set forth in a separate order that we are issuing in that docket, we are denying that motion. We note that at oral argument, counsel for plаintiffs moving to expand the scope of MDL No.2004 acknowledged that creation of a separate Coloplast MDL might bе warranted, but argued that in that event, the litigation should be centralized in the Middle District of Georgia, where MDL No.2004 is pending.
. The four MDLs arе MDL No. 2187, In re: C.R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2325, In re: American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Litigation, MDL No. 2326, In re: Boston Scientific Corp. Pelvic Repair System Products Litigation, and MDL No. 2327, In re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Litigation.