Recent developments in the Digitek MDL. The presiding judge in the federal Digitek multidistrict litigation has selected five bellwether cases to be tried. Readers of MassTortDefense know that an increasingly common case management technique in consolidated or coordinated litigation is the use of bellwether trials, with the hope that early verdicts will impact the resolution of cases down the line. Judge Goodwin issued Pretrial Order (PTO) No. 47, which assigned the following five cases for trial, in this order:
• David Kelch, et al. v. Actavis Totowa, LLC, et al., 2:08-cv-01282
• William J. Young, et al. v. Actavis Totowa, LLC, et al., 2:09-cv-00498
• Jacquelyn K. Fox, et al. v. Actavis Totowa, LLC, et al., 2:09-cv-00389
• Karen Sheahan, et al. v. Actavis Group, et al., 2:08-cv-01051
• Scottie Vega, et al. v. Actavis Group hf., et al., 2:09-cv-00768
Readers may recall that the federal Digitek product liability cases, alleging that Actavis Totowa LLC, Actavis Inc. and Actavis Elizabeth LLC released Digitek tablets containing more than the appropriate dosage to the public in 2008, were transferred to an MDL last August. The plaintiffs allege that the tablets can cause digitalis toxicity in patients with renal failure. This condition can cause nausea, vomiting, dizziness, low blood pressure, cardiac instability, bradycardia and death.
The MDL court also recently ordered the plaintiffs to file their class certification motion and brief in support of their “economic loss” class by Jan. 20, 2010. Defendants’ response brief shall be filed and served thirty days after the filing of such class certification motion and accompanying brief, said the order.
The court also entered amended PTO #48 (Joint Hearing to Address Challenges to Scientific and Technical Evidence). In the spirit of cooperation and collegiality evident since the inception of this MDL, said the court, several distinguished state judicial officers presiding over certain consolidated Digitek actions have graciously agreed to conduct a joint hearing to address the scientific and technical issues presented in this litigation for resolution pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and its federal and state progeny. Those issues are best addressed, said the MDL court, through coordinated proceedings, albeit with each presiding judicial officer giving separate and individualized attention, and disposition, to the evidence and arguments as they relate to his or her assigned consolidated civil actions. The court recognized that each state may have its own standards and procedures for expert testimony designed to ensure the reliability and relevance of evidence based upon scientific, technical and other specialized knowledge. That joint hearing is scheduled for October, 2010.
This is just the latest step in efforts for such coordination. Pretrial Order (PTO) No. 11 concerned state and federal coordination. It ordered lead and liaison counsel for the plaintiffs and defense to endeavor to coordinate activities between the federal and state litigation. It also ordered the creation of a joint document depository for use by parties in the federal-state litigation. The Order provided a mechanism for cross-noticing depositions. The next status conference is scheduled for Thursday, February 11, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.