In re Zimmer

Counsel

Plaintiffs in seven actions submitted a collective response in support of centralization in the District of Minnesota (or, in the alternative, the District of Maine). Common Zimmer defendants (Zimmer) oppose centralization.2 If the Panel orders centralization over Zimmer's objections, Zimmer argues for either the Southern District of Indiana or the Northern District of Illinois as the transferee district., In opposing centralization, Zimmer argues that (1) there are insufficient common factual issues and discovery will not overlap, because the three components (M/L Taper, Kinectiv, and VerSys Head) are distinct products with different development and regulatory histories; (2) individual, plaintiff-specific issues (e.g. , application of the learned intermediary doctrine) overwhelm any common issues; and (3) given the number of actions and involved plaintiffs' counsel, informal coordination and cooperative efforts by the parties are preferable to formal centralization. These arguments are not convincing. First, plaintiffs' allegations do not concern each component in isolation, but rather, the use of either the M/L Taper *1381or Kinectiv in combination with the VerSys Head. Second, the presence of some individual factual issues is true of most products liability cases and, in particular, medical device cases. See In re: Cook Med., Inc., IVC Filters Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig. , 53 F.Supp.3d 1379, 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2014). Such differences are not an impediment to centralization where there are substantial factual issues in common. See In re: Benicar (Olmesartan) Prods. Liab. Litig. , 96 F.Supp.3d 1381, 1382 (J.P.M.L. 2015) (rejecting argument that each of the involved injury cases would turn on "unique, plaintiff-specific issues, including, for example, the subject plaintiff's medical history and the treatment decisions made by that plaintiff's physician"). Third, with twenty-eight related actions pending in eleven districts, we do not believe that informal coordination or other alternatives to centralization are workable. Indeed, the representations made by counsel at oral argument left us with considerable doubt concerning the parties' cooperative efforts to date., We conclude that the Southern District of New York is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Two constituent actions are pending in that district, including Shaw , which is one of the most advanced cases (commenced in March 2017). Judge Paul A. Crotty, to whom we assign the litigation, is presiding over Shaw . He is an experienced transferee judge, having previously handled three other MDLs. We are confident he will steer this litigation on a prudent course., IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the Southern District of New York are transferred to the Southern District of New York and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Paul A. Crotty for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.