Associacao Brasileira de Medicina de Grupo v. Boston Scientific Corporation et al

Filing 27

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER re: pldg. (12 in DE/1:16-cv-01184, 9 in ILN/1:16-cv-11326, 23 in MDL No. 2780, 13 in MIW/1:16-cv-01366), ( 1 in MDL No. 2780) The motion to transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, is DENIEDSigned by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 5/31/2017. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2780, DE/1:16-cv-01184, ILN/1:16-cv-11326, MIW/1:16-cv-01366 (DP)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: BRAZILIAN PROSTHETIC DEVICE
BRIBERY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2780

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel:* Plaintiff Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Grupo d/b/a ABRAMGE
moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Northern
District of Illinois or, alternatively, in the District of Delaware or the Western District of Michigan.
This litigation consists of three actions—one pending in each of the District of Delaware, the
Northern District of Illinois, and the Western District of Michigan—as listed on Schedule A. The
defendants in all three actions oppose centralization.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,1 we conclude that centralization
is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation. Where only a minimal number of actions are involved, the proponent of
centralization bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that centralization is appropriate. See In re
Transocean Ltd. Sec. Litig. (No. II), 753 F. Supp. 2d 1373, 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2010). Plaintiff has not
met that burden here.
These three actions share a common factual backdrop—a January 2015 Brazilian television
news program featured a series of reports regarding pervasive bribery, kickbacks, and fraud in the
sale of medical devices in Brazil, which spawned a Brazilian governmental investigation and these
three lawsuits by plaintiff, an association of 142 private group health insurers in Brazil. That,
however, is the only commonality among these actions. Different defendants are sued in each action,
and there is no allegation that these defendants conspired or coordinated with one another. Indeed,
plaintiff’s allegations that each defendant used improper means to capture a higher share of the
Brazilian market for medical devices are inconsistent with any such overarching conspiracy. The
factual issues presented in each action thus will be primarily case-specific, and any overlapping
discovery likely will be limited to discovery of the common plaintiff. There also is no significant
risk of inconsistent pretrial rulings, as these actions are brought on an individual (not a class) basis
against different defendants.
Significantly, both plaintiff and defendants state that they are willing to cooperate with one
another to coordinate any potentially duplicative discovery. Thus, informal coordination among the
*

Judges Lewis A. Kaplan and Ellen Segal Huvelle took no part in the decision of this matter.

1

The parties waived oral argument.

-2involved courts and cooperation by the parties appear eminently feasible and preferable to
centralization. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly & Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litig., 446 F. Supp.
242, 244 (J.P.M.L. 1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

__________________________________________
Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
R. David Proctor

Charles R. Breyer
Catherine D. Perry

IN RE: BRAZILIAN PROSTHETIC DEVICE
BRIBERY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2780

SCHEDULE A

District of Delaware
ASSOCIACAO BRASILEIRA DE MEDICINA DE GRUPO v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC
CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-01184
Northern District of Illinois
ASSOCIACAO BRASILEIRA DE MEDICINA DE GRUPO D/B/A ABRAMGE v.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., C.A. No. 1:16-11326
Western District of Michigan
ASSOCIACAO BRASILEIRA DE MEDICINA DE GRUPO v. STRYKER
CORPORATION, C.A. No. 1:16-01366