Coleman et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation

Filing 78

ORDER Relating and Reassigning Matters and ORDER for Parties to Submit Status Report signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 05/11/2020. New Case Number 1:10-cv-1968 AWI-SAB. Twenty-One Day Deadline. (Flores, E)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

PAMELA COLEMAN, MAY BOWER,
and KATHLEEN PAISON,
Plaintiffs

6
7
8

v.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
and DOE MANUFACTURERS 1-100,

9
10

_____________________________________
OLD CASE NO. 2:12-CV-0005 JAM CKD
NEW CASE NO. 2:12-CV-0005 AWI SAB
SHERRY HERKAL,
Plaintiff

13
14
15
16

ORDER RELATING AND
REASSINGNING MATTERS AND
ORDER FOR PARTIES TO SUBMIT
STATUS REPORT

Defendants

11
12

OLD CASE NO. 1:10-CV-1968 AWI SKO
NEW CASE NO. 1:10-CV-1968 AWI SAB

v.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
and DOE MANUFACTURERS 1-100,
Defendants

17
18

Examination of the above entitled cases reveal that they are related within the meaning of

19 Local Rule 123(a) to Jackson v. Boston Scientific Corp., 1:19-cv-574 AWI SAB (among other
20 cases). Each of the actions involve the same defendants, are based on similar claims, and present
21 similar questions of law and fact. These cases would entail substantial duplication of effort and
22 resources if heard by different judges. Because reassignment of these actions to a single district
23 judge and magistrate judge would be convenient to the parties and affect a savings of judicial
24 effort and economy, it is appropriate to reassign this case. See Local Rule 123.
25

Additionally, a review of the docket for the above cases raises a number of questions. To

26 resolve those questions, the Court will order the parties to submit a status report for both cases.
27 The status reports shall be filed jointly. To the extent that the parties disagree on a matter, the
28 status reports shall note that a disagreement exists and have separate sections that describe each

1 side’s position. Otherwise, if no disagreement is expressly noted, the Court will assume that a
2 representation is being made jointly on behalf of all parties. Once the status reports are received,
3 the Court will set a date for a telephonic status conference. At the telephonic status conference,
4 the Court will utilize the status reports and discuss how to proceed with these cases, including
5 resolving any outstanding motions, possible discovery issues, and possible pre-trial conference,
6 trial, or settlement conference settings.
7

As part of the status report for each of the above cases, the parties shall address the

8 following matters:
9

1.

Identify any outstanding motion that requires resolution by this Court;

10

2.

To the extent that a motion is outstanding, and to the extent that the parties agree

11

that a motion should be granted, the parties should file a stipulation to grant that

12

motion (again to the extent that the parties agree);

13

3.

14

Identify any discovery issues that remain, including the need for any additional
discovery;

15

4.

Identify any motions that may need to be filed (apart from motions in limine);

16

5.

Identify any relevant motions, including Daubert related motions, that were

17

resolved by the MDL court prior to transfer;

18

6.

Identify every cause of action that the Plaintiffs will be pursuing in this Court;

19

7.

Identify every affirmative defense that the Defendant will be pursuing in this Court;

20

8.

Discuss whether the parties intend to request a settlement conference with a

21
22

Magistrate Judge or a private mediator;
9.

23
24

estimates for the length of time that each trial may last;
10.

25
26

Discuss procedures for resolving the above cases through trial and provide

Discuss the possibility of consolidating any of the above cases for trial, including
an identification of all products at issue;

11.

Provide a best estimate as to the number and timing of any additional cases that

27

might be transferred from MDL 2326 back to the Eastern District of California

28

(both the Fresno and Sacramento Divisions);
2

1

12.

2

Any other matter that the parties believe is relevant to the efficient resolution of the
above cases; and

3

13.

4

Provide several dates in which the parties will be available for a telephonic status
conference.

5

As the parties are well aware, both this Court and the general public have been affected by

6 restrictions put in place to combat the spread of, and harm from, COVID-19. These restrictions
7 directly impact the ability of the Court to resolve matters through jury trials. The parties should
8 familiarize themselves with all general orders from the Eastern District of California regarding
9 COVID-19.
10

ORDER

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12 1.

These matters, Coleman et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp. and Herkal v. Boston Scientific

13

Corp., are REASSIGNED to Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii and Magistrate Judge

14

Stanley A. Boone for all further proceedings;

15 2.

All further filings in the above cases shall use the following case numbers:

16

1:10-CV-1968 AWI SAB

17

2:12-CV-0005 AWI SAB

18 3.

Upon the transfer of any further cases from MDL No. 2326 to the Eastern District of

19

California, counsel shall promptly file a notice of related cases pursuant to Local Rule 123;

20 4.

As soon as possible, but no later than twenty-one (21) days from service of this order, the

21

parties shall submit a joint status report that contains all information requested above; and

22 5.

Upon receipt of the status information in this matter, the Court will set a telephonic

23

status/scheduling conference for all related cases.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: May 11, 2020

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
3