Dobina v. Weatherford International Ltd.

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, defendants Weatherford In*1371ternational, Ltd. and affiliated individuals (collectively Weatherford) move for centralized pretrial proceedings of the two above-captioned actions in the Southern District of Texas.1 The Southern District of New York Dobina lead plaintiff (American Federation of Musicians and Employers’ Pension Fund) opposes the motion, but if the Panel centralizes the litigation, suggests the Southern District of New York as transferee district. In the wake of the appointment of lead counsel in the Dobina action and the dismissal of the Central District of California Kanchanapoom action, plaintiff in the Southern District of Texas derivative action (Weddle) now supports centralization in the Southern District of New York.2

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we are not persuaded that Section 1407 centralization would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions do share factual questions that arise from alleged misrepresentations or omissions in Weatherford financial statements relating to foreign taxes, and allegations by investor plaintiffs that, as a result, Weather-ford’s stock price was artificially inflated. There are, however, only two remaining actions in this docket. The New York court recently appointed lead plaintiff in the Dobina action and the parties have been directed to mediation in the Southern District of New York. As we have stated in the past, where only a minimal number of actions are involved, the moving party generally bears a heavier burden of demonstrating the need for centralization. See In re Transocean Ltd. Sec. Litig. II., 753 F.Supp.2d 1373 (J.P.M.L 2010); In re Scotch Whiskey Antitrust Litig., 299 F.Supp. 543, 544 (J.P.M.L. 1969). Movants have not met that burden. At oral argument, the parties stated a willingness to voluntarily cooperate in order to avoid duplication. We encourage them to pursue alternatives to Section 1407 transfer to minimize whatever possibilities may arise of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and 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, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these actions is denied.