Hines v. Pfizer Inc.

Filing 19

ORDER granting 15 Joint Motion to Coordinate Actions for Pretrial Discovery Proceedings: As explained in the attached Order (and subject to the limitations delineated therein), the Court GRANTS the parties' motion asking to coordinate Lipito r-related cases for pretrial proceedings. The Ehlers and Conner cases will be transferred (via separate Order) from Judge Gilbert to Judge Reagan. District Judge Reagan and Magistrate Judge Wilkerson will be the assigned Judges on all three cases. As to future-filed Lipitor cases, see Order for details (including reminder to Plaintiffs' counsel to clearly flag/list any closely related cases as "Related Actions" on the civil cover sheet for each newly filed complaint). Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 10/7/13. (soh )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
KIMBERLY HINES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PFIZER, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-cv-0404-MJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REGARDING COORDINATED PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS
FOR LIPITOR CASES IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
REAGAN, District Judge:
Before the Court is a September 23, 2013 motion asking to “coordinate” – for
purposes of discovery and pretrial proceedings – the above-captioned case, two similar
lawsuits, Ehlers v. Pfizer, Case No. 13-cv-0468-JPG-SCW, and Conner v. Pfizer, Case No.
13-cv-0635-JPG-DGW, and an undetermined number of cases yet to be filed here. As
described below and with the limitations delineated below, the Court grants the
motion.
Supplemental briefs filed September 27, 2013 by counsel explain that these three
cases, along with additional cases anticipated to be filed in this District, involve similar
claims – specifically, allegations that Defendant Pfizer failed to adequately warn
Plaintiffs of the risk of new-onset type-II diabetes from ingestion of the prescription
drug Lipitor7. The parties ask, in the interests of efficiency and judicial economy, that
all discovery and pretrial issues in the three existing (plus future-filed) cases be
1|Page

coordinated before the undersigned District Judge (and, presumably, Magistrate Judge
Donald G. Wilkerson), who randomly drew the first-filed case here.
As to the number of cases Plaintiffs expect to file in this Court, Plaintiffs’ counsel
explain that they have “hundreds of cases under review, with a significant number of …
cases potentially appropriate for filing in the Southern District of Illinois,” and a
conservative estimate is that several dozen would be filed here and (if Plaintiff’s request
is granted) assigned to the undersigned District Judge for “pretrial discovery
proceedings” (Doc. 17, p. 3).
Fourteen similar Lipitor7/diabetes cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina, and have been coordinated before District Judge Richard
M. Gergel via the parties’ joint stipulation (Doc. 17, p. 2). In August 2013, the Judicial
Panel on MultiDistrict Litigation denied a motion to transfer the above-captioned case
plus three of the South Carolina cases and roughly two dozen other cases, finding, inter
alia, that given “the limited number of involved actions … we do not believe that
creation of an MDL is necessary at this time.” That Order denying MDL treatment also
noted that Pfizer’s counsel had indicated a willingness to work with Plaintiffs’ counsel
to coordinate common discovery and pretrial matters. In that spirit, counsel jointly
move for coordinated pretrial proceedings in this District.
It is worth noting that the parties have not requested consolidation of lawsuits (for
discovery or trial).

Rather, the parties seek coordination of these separate actions “for

purposes of pretrial discovery” – which the Court believes is warranted, will be
efficient, will promote judicial economy, and will avoid inconsistent rulings.
2|Page

Plaintiffs’ brief (Doc. 17, p. 3, emph. added) clarifies that they “seek coordination
of pretrial discovery proceedings at this time, leaving for a later date the determination
of whether all presently pending, as well as subsequently filed cases, would be
retained by the transferee court [i.e., Judge Reagan] for purposes of trial. The parties
did not discuss this issue prior to their joint submission to the Court.”

On the other

hand, defense counsel likes the idea of the three pending cases and all future-filed
related cases being assigned to Judge Regan for “all purposes, including … trial in each
case” (Doc. 18, p. 1).
Assigning a single Magistrate Judge to all cases would accomplish the end of
coordinating discovery in all cases. Clearly, that is prudent here. Of course, “pretrial
proceedings” include not only discovery but also pretrial motions -- motions to dismiss,
motions for summary judgment, motions to exclude witnesses, motions in limine.
Those motions are best resolved by the District Judge who will try the case.
It is straightforward and relatively easy to assign a single Judge to coordinate
pretrial discovery matters (which, here, would be Magistrate Judge Wilkerson).
However, there is no good way to have one District Judge handle non-discovery
pretrial proceedings (i.e., rule on dispositive motions) and another District Judge handle
trial. Stated another way, as to the three current cases and the dozens yet to be filed, it
is logistically cumbersome and inefficient to have one District Judge (Judge Reagan)
handle pretrial dispositive motions on a case and then have the originally-assigned
District Judge (whether that would be Judge Gilbert on Ehlers/Conner or another District
Judge as to future cases) step back in to preside over the trial.
3|Page

The law of this Circuit provides that closely related cases filed within the same
District Court should be handled by a single District Judge. See, e.g., Smith v. Check-NGo of Illinois, 200 F.3d 511, 513 n.1 (7th Cir. 1999); Blair v. Equifax Check Services, 181
F.3d 832, 839 (7th Cir. 1999). As a general rule, it simply makes sense to have cases with
nearly identical allegations and legal issues handled by one District Judge (and one
Magistrate Judge). In the instant case, the undersigned finds that the Hines, Ehlers, and
Conner cases are closely related, involve similar claims for relief and overlapping legal
issues, and should be assigned to a single Magistrate Judge and single District Judge.
Because the first filed of the cases here randomly was assigned to District Judge Reagan
and Magistrate Judge Wilkerson, Ehlers and Conner will be reassigned accordingly.
Counsel should use the suffix “–MJR-DGW” on the Case Number of all future
pleadings in Hines, Ehlers, and Conner.
As to other Lipitor7-diabetes cases to be filed in the future, the Court will not direct
that they be force-assigned to certain Judges. The undersigned Judge believes that
normal protocols of random assignment should be followed. In other words, all new
cases will be put into the computer for random assignment of Judges.

Plaintiffs’

counsel should clearly indicate on the civil cover sheet under “Related Case, If Any”
that the newly-filed case is related to 13-cv-0404-MJR-DGW. If a Lipitor7-diabetes
case is randomly assigned to a District Judge other than Judge Reagan, the reviewing
Judge will see the “Related Case” information flagged on the civil cover sheet and, if
appropriate, enter an Order transferring the case to Judges Reagan and Wilkerson,
pursuant to Smith v. Check-n-Go and this Order.
4|Page

Thus, the Court GRANTS, subject to the limitations set out above, the parties’
joint motion to coordinate actions for purposes of pretrial proceedings (Doc. 15). The
undersigned has consulted Chief Judge Herndon, Judge Gilbert, Judge Wilkerson and
Judge Williams. Judge Gilbert will enter a separate Order transferring Ehlers (13-cv0468-JPG-SCW) and Conner (13-cv-0635-DGW) to District Judge Reagan and
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson. Upon reassignment of the Ehlers and Conner cases to
Judge Reagan, any existing dates and deadlines (including trial dates) will be vacated,
with new tracking and scheduling Orders to follow.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

October 7, 2013.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge

5|Page