Valesta Collins v. Sanofi S.A. et al

Filing 18

TRANSFER ORDER re: pldg. ( 2 in MDL No. 2740), ( 3 in MDL No. 2740), ( 1 in MDL No. 2740) Transferring 28 action(s) to Judge Lance M. Africk in the E.D. Louisiana.Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 10/4/2016. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2740 et al. (DP)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: TAXOTERE (DOCETAXEL)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2740

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Louisiana Veronica Smith and District
of Colorado Gahan actions, listed on Schedule A, move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial
proceedings in this litigation in the Eastern District of Louisiana or, alternatively, the Southern
District of Illinois. This litigation consists of thirty-three actions pending in sixteen districts, as
listed on Schedule A. The Panel also has been notified of fifty-six related actions pending in twentyfive districts.1
All parties agree that centralization is warranted, but disagree as to the most appropriate
transferee district. Plaintiffs in ten actions and potential tag-along actions have responded to the
motion, and they variously argue in support of centralization in the Eastern District of Louisiana, the
Southern District of Illinois, the District of Minnesota, the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern
District of Mississippi, or the Northern District of California. Responding defendant Sanofi-Aventis
U.S. LLC (Sanofi-Aventis) suggests centralization in the District of Colorado or the District of New
Jersey or, alternatively, supports centralization in the Eastern District of Louisiana, the District of
Minnesota, or the Northern District of Illinois.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these actions involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of Louisiana will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
All the actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Taxotere (docetaxel),
a chemotherapy drug, causes permanent hair loss, that defendants were aware of this possible side
effect and failed to warn patients, and that defendants marketed Taxotere as more effective than other
chemotherapy drugs when other drugs were equally effective without the associated permanent hair
loss. Plaintiffs in these actions each allege that they experienced permanent hair loss as a result of
using Taxotere. All actions will require discovery regarding the design, testing, manufacturing,
marketing, and labeling of Taxotere. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the
judiciary.

1

These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h),
7.1, and 7.2.

-2Given the geographic dispersal of the pending actions and the widespread nature of this
litigation, no particular district or region emerges as a clear focal point. We are persuaded that the
Eastern District of Louisiana is an appropriate transferee forum. Plaintiffs in six actions and
potential tag-along actions and responding defendant support centralization in this district, in the first
instance or in the alternative, and ten actions and potential tag-along actions already are pending
there. The Eastern District of Louisiana is an easily accessible and reasonably central district.
Additionally, Judge Lance M. Africk is a seasoned jurist who is willing and able to handle this
litigation, but who has not yet had the opportunity to preside over an MDL.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the Eastern District of Louisiana are transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Lance M. Africk for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

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

Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

IN RE: TAXOTERE (DOCETAXEL)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2740

SCHEDULE A

Central District of California
COLLINS v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-05418
Northern District of California
DODSON v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:16-01251
District of Colorado
GAHAN v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:15-02777
LEITH v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-00741
Northern District of Illinois
SPANN v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-03038
PISTONE v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-04028
TRAYLOR v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-05651
JOHNSON v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-06754
WYSOCKI v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-07059
Southern District of Illinois
CHASE v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00588
DALTON v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00718
KOONTZ v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00805
District of Kansas
DETRIXHE v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-02250
Eastern District of Louisiana
BEMISS v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-06425
SMITH v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-07794
WEBB v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-10763
WALTER v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-12706
SMITH v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-12943

-A2MDL No. 2740 Schedule A (Continued)
Middle District of Louisiana
BURNEY v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00388
District of Minnesota
TOUCHI-PETERS v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 0:16-02464
Southern District of Mississippi
JONES v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00288
CARPENTER v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00289
CHASE v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00404
TOLEFREE v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00412
GRINES v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00488
Western District of North Carolina
MOTTOLA v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00255
WOOD v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00261
Northern District of Ohio
CARSON v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-00165
District of South Carolina
MEYERS v. SANOFI SA, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-02536
CLINKSCALES v. SANOFI SA, ET AL., C.A. No. 6:16-02376
Eastern District of Tennessee
ADAMS v. SANOFI-AVENTIS, S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00365
Northern District of Texas
FREE v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-00074
Western District of Texas
GORNIAK v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-00637