UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT HNC □ eyes “AJ □□□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (DOC Ree ATS

Alexis, et al., ee Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM - against - | AND ORDER 19 Civ. 10358 (CS) (PED)

Combe, Inc., Defendant. PAUL E, DAVISON, U.S.MLJ.: Plaintiffs seek a stay of this action [the “Alexis action” or “Alexis” | “pending the determination of the class certification” in Du Boc Ali, et al. v. Combe, Inc., 19 Civ, 6187 (CS\PED) [Du Boc Ali”), a putative class action filed by the same counsel against the asserting the same claims against the same defendant on behalf of a putative class that includes the Alexis plaintiffs.' [Dkt.26.] Defendant opposes any stay. [Dkt. 30.] The Court heard argument on

July 20, 2020, Familiarity with the record in both cases is assumed. Subject to the conditions

set forth below, plaintiffs’ application is GRANTED. This Court has discretion to stay an action which is duplicative of another federal court

suit as “part of its general power to administer its docket.” Curtis v. CitiBank, N_A.,

(2d Cir. 2000). “The complex problems that can arise from multiple federal filings do

not lend themselves to a rigid test, but require instead that the district court consider the equities of the situation when exercising its discretion.” Jd. Courts typically consider such factors as

“(1) the private interests of the plaintiffs . . .as balanced against the prejudice to the plaintiffs if

delayed; (2) the private interests of and burden on the defendants; (3) the interests of the courts;

'The Alexis action was filed on-behalf of approximately 133 plaintiffs, On July 15, 2020, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Alexis claims of 19 plaintiffs. [Dkt. 29.]

(4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest.” Volmar

Distributors, Ine. vy. New York Post Co.,

(S.D.N.Y. 1993). Here, a close sibling relationship between the Alexis and Du Boc Ali actions is readily apparent. Plaintiffs and defendant in both cases are represented by the same lawyers, and the

operative complaints in both cases advance the same claims in mirror image fashion, According

to plaintiff's counsel, the Alexis plaintiffs are all potential class members in Du Boc Ali. The

cases are plainly duplicative. Plaintiffs believe their interests are adequately protected in Du Boc Ali, and counsel filed

the Alexis action, on an individual basis, “out of an abundance of caution in response to

[djefendant’s statements about the statute of limitations.” [Dkt. 26, p. 1.] Plaintiffs therefore

resist individualized discovery in the “protective” Alexis action in hopes that their claims can be

resolved more efficiently in Du Boe All. Defendant, on the other hand, argues that class certification in Du Boe Ali is unlikely, and

asserts that if Alexis is stayed but then ultimately goes forward defendant’s ability to gather relevant evidence will have been prejudiced by the delay. [Dkt. 30.] Defendant also predicts

that plaintiffs in d/exis may seek to make to make improper use of any favorable rulings on

liability issues that may be forthcoming in Du Boc Ali.

This Court will not prognosticate regarding the prospects for class certification in Du Boe

Ali, nor will the Court address the hypothetical consequences which might flow from such

certification, The Court is persuaded, however, that proceeding now with individualized discovery concerning the 114 Alexis plaintiffs would tend to nullify any economies associated

with the class action procedures plaintiffs seek to invoke in their first-filed Du Boe Ali action. In

the interest of achieving a just, spcedy, and inexpensive determination of plaintiffs’ claims, the

Court will stay plenary discovery in the Alexis action. However, the Court is also persuaded by defendant’s argument that further delay my adversely affect defendant’s ability to gather pertinent medical records regarding the Alexis plaintiffs. Accordingly, defendants may discover — via an interrogatory or such other efficient

means as the parties may agree upon ~ whether each Alexis plaintiff sought medical attention or

treatment for any condition which is alleged to have been cause by defendant’s products. To the

extent that plaintiffs disclose such medical attention or treatment, those plaintiffs shall upon request sign HIPAA-compliant releases (which defense counsel must prepare) authorizing defense counsel to obtain the records.’ Plaintiffs’ motion to stay is GRANTED to the extent set forth above. The clerk shall close Dkts. 22, 23, 206. Dated: July 30, 2020 White Plains, New York

f eee □□□□ + 2- Paul E. Davison, U.S.M.J.

Plaintiff's counsel represents that plaintiffs have informally provided defendant with information concerning each plaintiff, including medical records. {Dkt. 26, p.4.} The Court has no information concerning the adequacy or comprehensiveness of those disclosures, The parties should confer to determine whether these disclosures — perhaps accompanied by an appropriate stipulation — are an effective substitute for the procedure outlined in this paragraph.