Last week, Teva Pharmaceuticals and The Cooper Companies, Inc. filed a motion asking the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to reject the consolidation of all ParaGard IUD lawsuits, requested by plaintiffs last month, claiming attorney's advertising resulted in the rise, and it is not a “genuine mass tort.”
On September 24, the plaintiffs involved in the IUD defects lawsuits filed a motion asking the JPML to consolidate the cases before one judge in California federal court for coordinated pretrial proceedings to avoid conflicting pretrial rulings from different courts, avoid duplicative discovery, and serve the convenience of common witnesses, parties, and the judicial system.
In response to the motion, the manufacturers said that allegations made by plaintiffs would require the discovery of particular manufacturing lots along with depositions of their individual physicians, which limits the consolidation of lawsuits. They also stated that the need for common discovery or depositions could be done through informal coordination, as several plaintiffs are represented by the same law firm.
The manufacturers also asserted that the attorneys representing the plaintiffs do not want the judge to take a close look at each individual case as several cases have been dismissed or granted summary judgment on the merits.
The companies have also suggested that if the JPML finds consolidation feasible, then the cases should be sent to the Southern District of New York, which is closer to multiple defendants with locations in Ohio, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Alternately, the Middle District of Florida or the Southern District of California was also suggested if the panel plans to send the cases to the West Coast. The reason stated for the suggestion was U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Battaglia, who has experience with ParaGard cases, as he has heard two suits filed by the counsel who is requesting consolidation.
Currently, at least 55 actions are pending in 29 different judicial districts, each claiming misconduct on the part of the defendants, which resulted in injuries and painful complications when the fractured or broken device was being removed.
