Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_03-cv-00892/USCOURTS-ared-4_03-cv-00892-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

1

Doc. No. 6.

2

Doc. No. 7.

3

See In re Prempro, 4:03-CV-1507 (Doc. Nos. 90, 91, 94, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 118,

122, 124, 135, 162, 177, 199, 207, 216, 227, 364, 787). See also the transcripts from the MDL

Status Conferences held on 2/13/04, 12/10/04, 3/4/05, 6/24/05, 7/22/05, 8/19/05, 9/16/05

(addressing the issue of costs and the document depository).

4

See In re Prempro, 4:03-CV-1507, Doc. No. 787 (“Frankly, I’m frustrated. We spent a

tremendous amount of time hashing out the cost allocation and document depository. It now

appears to me that this was a bootless effort, if Plaintiffs’ counsel can obtain these documents

free of charge in New Jersey or in any other state proceeding involving the same drugs.”). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

In re: 

PREMPRO PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION

DORIS P. LOEWEN, et al.

v.

WYETH, INC., et al.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

MDL Docket No. 4:03CV1507-WRW

 4:03CV00892

PLAINTIFFS

 

 

 DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pending is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery and for Protective Order (Doc. No.

4). Defendants have responded1 and Plaintiffs have replied.2

The document production process in this MDL, which was developed after much

argument, briefing, and cerebrating,3 has been in place for several years, and is effective. 

Although Plaintiffs have repeatedly sought to tweak4 -- both in front of this Court and in

state courts -- the document depository and cost orders more to their liking, I believe this MDL’s

uniform discovery process is working as it was designed to, and I’m sticking with it.

Case 4:03-cv-00892-BRW Document 8 Filed 03/25/08 Page 1 of 2
5

Doc. No. 5.

2

As I mentioned in the February 13, 2008 Letter, Plaintiffs’ suggested changes would

“torque our long established procedure out of shape.”5

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery and for Protective Order (Doc. 

No. 4) is DENIED. However, the parties should “meet and confer” to find an agreeable date for

deposing the physician -- I think it would be entirely reasonable for Plaintiffs to have time to

review the sales representatives files before deposing physicians.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of March, 2008.

 /s/ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr._________

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:03-cv-00892-BRW Document 8 Filed 03/25/08 Page 2 of 2