Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-00822/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-00822-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

1

Doc. No. 14.

2

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).

3

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

MARY JANE CAMPBELL

v.

WYETH, INC., et al.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

MDL Docket No. 4:03CV1507-WRW

 4:04CV00822

PLAINTIFF

 

 

 DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pending is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Doc. No. 6). 

Defendants have responded.1

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

argument, briefing, and cerebrating,2 has been in place for several years, and is effective. 

Although Plaintiffs have repeatedly sought to tweak3 -- 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, so I’ll stand pat.

Case 4:04-cv-00822-BRW Document 15 Filed 03/25/08 Page 1 of 2
4

See Loewen v. Wyeth, et al., No. 4:03-CV-00892-WRW (E.D. Ark. filed Nov. 7, 2003),

Doc. No. 5.

2

As mentioned in a February 13, 2008 Letter, Plaintiff’s suggested changes would “torque

our long established procedure out of shape.”4

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Doc. No. 6) is

DENIED. 

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

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

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:04-cv-00822-BRW Document 15 Filed 03/25/08 Page 2 of 2