Williams et al v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al

Filing 103

TRANSFER ORDER by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation TRANSFERRING CASE to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, MDL No. 2809. (tnS) (Filed on 2/13/2018) [Transferred from cand on 2/14/2018.]

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: ONGLYZA (SAXAGLIPTIN) AND KOMBIGLYZE
XR (SAXAGLIPTIN AND METFORMIN) PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2809

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in a Northern District of California action (Williams) move
under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize actions involving heart failure and other injuries arising from
the use of two drugs that are used in the treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the Northern
District of California. The litigation currently consists of 41 actions1 pending in 23 districts, as listed
on Schedule A. Since the filing of the motion for centralization, the parties have notified the Panel
of 43 additional actions2 pending in 26 districts.
Plaintiffs in five actions support the Section 1407 motion in its entirety. Plaintiff in the firstfiled Eastern District of Kentucky action (Taylor) supports centralization in the Northern District of
California or, alternatively, the Eastern District of Kentucky. Defendants Astrazeneca
Pharmaceuticals LP, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., and McKesson Corp. oppose centralization and,
alternatively, suggest that the Southern District of California be selected as the transferee district.
If that district is not available, then the defendants suggest centralization in the Eastern or Western
Districts of Kentucky or the Northern District of Georgia.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Eastern District
of Kentucky will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions share numerous factual questions, inasmuch as
plaintiffs allege that the use of Onglyza or Kombiglyze XR caused them or their decedent to develop
heart failure or other conditions such as congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction and/or
cardiovascular injury. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent
pretrial rulings (particularly on such matters as preemption of plaintiffs’ claims and Daubert rulings);
and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

*

Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle took no part in the decision of this matter.

1

Three actions were dismissed during the pendency of the motion for centralization.

2

These actions, and any other related actions, are potential tag-along actions. See Panel
FILED AND CERTIFIED
Rules 1.1(h), 7.1 and 7.2.
ROBERT R. CARR, CLERK
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
Date:
By:

02/09/18

Michelle Sliter
Deputy Clerk

-2Defendants oppose transfer by arguing that plaintiffs’ allegations are supported by a single
study (the SAVOR study), which itself supports only claims regarding heart failure – not the various
other injuries (congestive heart failure, acute hypoxic respiratory failure, coronary artery disease and
cardiovascular injury) plaintiffs allege. They argue that, as a consequence, these cases likely will
turn on unique issues that are applicable to, at most, a small subset of other cases. Defendants also
assert that informal coordination among the actions is a feasible alternative to centralization. These
objections are insufficient to overcome the significant advantages that centralization will afford. To
date, there are 84 cases pending in over 30 districts. Informal coordination among 84 cases scattered
across the nation does not seem feasible (even if, as defendants argue, there are a dozen cases
pending in the District of New Jersey that are ripe to be dismissed for failure to serve defendants).
Defendants concede that most cases involve allegations of heart failure, which is squarely in line
with the results of the SAVOR study and the subsequent label change for Onglyza and Kombiglyze
XR in April 2016. If defendants are convinced that plaintiffs’ claims regarding heart failure or other
injuries lack scientific support, then centralization affords them a single forum in which to seek
summary judgment, which might be applied to other similar cases. Centralization also will provide
a single forum where disputes about the sufficiency of defendants’ past and any supplemental
document productions, as well as about expert discovery, can be handled in a streamlined fashion.
Given that the drugs at issue here were marketed nationwide, and no action or group of
actions is significantly advanced, any number of potential transferee districts would be appropriate.
We select the Eastern District of Kentucky, a relatively accessible district that is supported by
defendants and certain plaintiffs, as transferee district for this litigation. The longest-pending action
(Taylor) is proceeding apace in this district. We are confident that Chief Judge Karen K. Caldwell
will steer this litigation on a prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on
Schedule A and pending outside the Eastern District of Kentucky are transferred to the Eastern
District of Kentucky and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Karen K.
Caldwell for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that district
and listed on Schedule A.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan
Catherine D. Perry

Charles R. Breyer
R. David Proctor

IN RE: ONGLYZA (SAXAGLIPTIN) AND KOMBIGLYZE XR
(SAXAGLIPTIN AND METFORMIN) PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2809

SCHEDULE A

Middle District of Alabama
VALLENTINE v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:17!00265
Northern District of Alabama
PEOPLES v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17!00101
District of Arizona
SETTLE v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!01269
Northern District of California
WILLIAMS, ET AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:16!07152
MARTIN v. BRISTOL!MYERS COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!00661
Northern District of Georgia
REID v. BRISTOL!MEYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01503
TURNER v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!02782
YORK v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!02915
JOHNSON v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17!02916
District of Idaho
CHRISTENSEN v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17!00321
Northern District of Indiana
MILLER v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!00330

- A2 Southern District of Indiana
COUSINS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!02607
Eastern District of Kentucky
BARNES v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!00124
TAYLOR, ET AL. v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 5:16!00260
Western District of Kentucky
TUCKER v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!00268
Eastern District of Louisiana
ROSS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!00443
LESTER SPEIGHTS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17!07884
Middle District of Louisiana
BROWN v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!00039
Western District of Louisiana
LETELL v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB CO., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!00553
District of New Jersey
YOUNG v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!00347
REEVES, ET AL. v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:17!03024
MITCHELL v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:17!03026
BINNS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03028
TALTON v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03029
MCAFEE v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03030
GREEN v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03032
ISHMAN v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03033
ATKINS, SR. v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:17!03034
DAY v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03035

- A3 ASENCIO v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03036
SECHLER, ET AL. v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:17!03037
Middle District of North Carolina
HOLLAND v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17!00710
Southern District of Ohio
CARPENTER v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17!00262
Eastern District of Oklahoma
HULBERT v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 6:17!00327
District of South Carolina
DUBOSE v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!01695
Eastern District of Tennessee
CAMPBELL v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17!00219
Middle District of Tennessee
WILCOX v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!01202
Eastern District of Texas
WARE v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!00111
Northern District of Texas
BOLLER v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!00050
Southern District of Texas
DAVILA v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!00145
CHESTER v. BRISTOL!MEYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!00316