In Re: Prempro Products et al

Filing 2235

ORDER denying #2210 #2214 #2223 Motions to Remand. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson, Jr on 3/19/10. (mkf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION IN RE: PREMPRO PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION : : : : MDL DOCKET NO. 4:03-CV-1507-WRW ALL CASES

ORDER First and foremost, the stars fell on Alabama on November 12-13, 1833. Now, on to the law: Plaintiffs' Motions to Remand Cases (Doc. Nos. 2210, 2214, 2223) are DENIED without prejudice. At this time, I believe that the appropriate way to move forward is to designate additional cases under PPO-9. Starting out, I intend to designate 200 cases for PPO-9 discovery each month, and see how the process works. If things move smoothly, I may increase the number. Additionally, I intend to lift the restrictions on PPO-9 eligibility. In the past, PPO-9 discovery was limited to cases with Wyeth and Pfizer as the only defendants and claims for only breast cancer injuries. I see no reason why these restrictions continue to be necessary. Accordingly, some time next week, I intend to designate additional PPO-9 cases. Finally, if I recall correctly, it took the parties well over a year to complete PPO-9 depositions in the first round of cases. This is too slow. I expect all parties to cooperate in expeditiously scheduling and taking these PPO-9 depositions. It seems to me that, generally, the PPO-9 discovery should be completed within six months of the date on which a case is designated a PPO-9 case. However, when scheduling the depositions, the parties should be careful not to load one firm's wagon with more poles than a mule can pull, i.e., I expect all parties to be reasonable in this regard. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of March, 2010. /s/ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.__________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE