Redden et al v. Mentor Corporation et al

Filing 120

ORDER denying 116 Motion for Suggestion of Remand. The scheduling/discovery order entered on March 25, 2011 (ECF No. 115 in 4:09-cv-5042, ECF No. 401 in 4:08-md-2004) is amended to apply to the Redden Plaintiffs as Phase III plaintiffs. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 05/23/2011. (CGC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
IN RE MENTOR CORP. OBTAPE

* MDL Docket No. 2004
4:08-MD-2004 (CDL)
*
Case No.
* 4:09-cv-05042 (Redden et al.)

TRANSOBTURATOR SLING PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION

O R D E R
Plaintiffs Janie Katherine Redden and Danny Wayne Redden
(“Redden Plaintiffs”) filed a motion for suggestion of remand to
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”).

The

Redden Plaintiffs seek to have the JPML transfer their case back
to the Eastern District of Arkansas.

As discussed below, the

motion (ECF No. 116 in 4:09-cv-5042) is denied.
Only

the

JPML

has

the

power

to

transferor court. 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a).

remand

a

case

to

the

In determining whether

to issue a suggestion for remand to the JPML, the transferee
courts are “guided by the standards for remand employed by the
Panel.” In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 128 F. Supp. 2d 1196,
1197 (S.D.

Ind.

2001).

transferor

court

“has

remand is warranted.”

The
the

party

burden

of

seeking

remand

establishing

to

that

the
such

E.g., In re Integrated Res., Inc. Real

Estate Ltd. P’ships Sec. Litig., 851 F. Supp. 556, 562 (S.D.N.Y.
1994).

The JPML will remand an action “„prior to completed

pretrial proceedings only upon a showing of good cause.‟” Id. In

re S. Cent. States Bakery Prods. Antitrust Litig., 462 F. Supp.
388, 390 (J.P.M.L. 1978).
Even though common discovery here is complete, that does
not

mean

that

the

remaining

cases

will

not

benefit

continued coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

from
The

issues in the Redden Plaintiffs‟ case overlap with the issues in
the MDL cases that have already concluded and those that are
currently pending.

Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that

good cause exists to remand the Redden Plaintiffs‟ case.
The Redden Plaintiffs‟ main argument for remand is that
“MDL practice is slow” compared to a “regular case.”

Pls.‟ Mem.

in Supp. of Mot. for Suggestion of Remand 4, ECF No. 116-1 in
4:09-cv-5042.

The Redden Plaintiffs argue that it would be more

efficient for the transferor court to oversee the remainder of
discovery, any settlement negotiations, and dispositive motions.
It

is

unclear

position.

why

the

Redden

Plaintiffs

would

take

this

Under the scheduling/discovery order entered on March

25, 2011, discovery in all Phase III cases is to be complete by
January

13,

2012.

Dispositive

motions

briefed on or before March 12, 2012.

are

due

to

be

fully

The Court is not inclined

to grant any extensions to these deadlines.
Moreover, the Court is intimately familiar with the complex
issues in this case, and the Court has not been slow in handling
key

dispositive

motions

in

this

2

MDL.

On

January

15,

2010,

Mentor filed motions seeking (1) summary judgment as to certain
claims

brought

by

all

Phase

I

Plaintiffs,

(2)

exclusion

of

several of Plaintiffs‟ experts, and (3) summary judgment as to
the claims of each of the eleven Phase I ObTape patients and
their husbands.

Those motions were fully briefed by the parties

in early March 2010, and the Court issued rulings on them before
the end of April 2010.

The issues in the Redden Plaintiffs‟

case overlap with those Phase I cases.

Based on all of this

history, the Court doubts that the resolution of the Redden
Plaintiffs‟ claims will be “slow” if their case remains part of
the MDL.
For all of the reasons discussed above, the Court concludes
that the Redden Plaintiffs have failed to establish that remand
is warranted.

Accordingly, the Redden Plaintiffs‟ motion for

suggestion of remand (ECF No. 116 in 4:09-cv-5042) is denied.
The scheduling/discovery order entered on March 25, 2011
(ECF No. 115 in 4:09-cv-5042, ECF No. 401 in 4:08-md-2004) is
hereby amended to apply to the Redden Plaintiffs as Phase III
plaintiffs.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of May, 2011.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3