Case Name: In re TEMPOROMANDIBULAR JOINT (TMJ) IMPLANTS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1994-02-25
Citations: 844 F. Supp. 1553
Docket Number: No. 1001
Parties: In re TEMPOROMANDIBULAR JOINT (TMJ) IMPLANTS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Judges: Before JOHN F. NANGLE, Chairman, MILTON POLLACK, ROBERT R. MERHIGE, Jr., WILLIAM B. ENRIGHT; CLARENCE A. BRIMMER, JOHN F. GRADY, and BAREFOOT SANDERS, Judges of the Panel.
Reporter: Federal Supplement
Volume: 844
Pages: 1553–1559

Head Matter:
In re TEMPOROMANDIBULAR JOINT (TMJ) IMPLANTS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
No. 1001.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
Feb. 25, 1994.
Before JOHN F. NANGLE, Chairman, MILTON POLLACK, ROBERT R. MERHIGE, Jr., WILLIAM B. ENRIGHT; CLARENCE A. BRIMMER, JOHN F. GRADY, and BAREFOOT SANDERS, Judges of the Panel.
Judges Pollack, Merhige and Enright did not participate in the decision of this matter.

Opinion:
TRANSFER ORDER
JOHN F. NANGLE, Chairman.
This litigation presently consist of the 173 actions listed on the following Schedule A and pending in eleven federal districts as follows:
District of Minnesota 144 actions
District of Kansas 11 actions
Western District of Virginia 4 actions
Southern District of Ohio 3 actions
District of South Carolina 3 actions
Eastern District of Wisconsin 3 actions
Southern District of Florida 1 action
Northern District of Georgia 1 action
District of New Jersey 1 action
Eastern District of Pennsylvania 1 action
Western District of Pennsylvania 1 action
Before the Panel are three separate motions by various groups of plaintiffs for an order of the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, centralizing all actions in a single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Moving plaintiffs suggest one of the following districts as the transferee court: the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the District of New Jersey or the District of Kansas. All non-moving plaintiffs in the actions before the Panel have filed responses in support of centralization in one of these three districts. Defendants E.I. du Pont de Nem-ours and Company (DuPont), Dow Corning Corporation, Dow Corning Wright Corporation, The Dow Chemical Company and Corning Incorporated oppose centralization. If the Panel nevertheless orders centralization, some of these defendants suggest the following districts as alternative transferee forums: the Northern District of California, the District of Arizona, the District of Minnesota, the District of Connecticut or the Eastern District of Michigan.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the Panel finds that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact and that centralization under Section 1407 in the District of Minnesota will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All actions before the Panel are personal injury actions brought by individuals who have been implanted with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) implants. Common factual questions arise in these actions with respect to, inter alia, i)- whether the TMJ implants are defective and unreasonably dangerous, ii) whether defendants failed to adequately test the implants and constituent materials or warn of possible risks to TMJ implant recipients, and iii) whether the implants' various constituent materials are prone to break down in recipients' bodies. Centralization under Section 1407 is necessary in order to eliminate dupli-cative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (especially with respect to class certifications and summary judgments), and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
None of the eight federal districts suggested as transferee forums by various parties could be characterized as the center of gravity for this litigation. On balance, however, we are persuaded that the District of Minnesota is the appropriate transferee forum. We note that 1) well over 100 TMJ implant actions have been commenced in that district during the past five years; 2) Judge Paul A. Magnuson, to whom we are assigning this litigation, has presided in a number of these actions, has entered important pretrial rulings, and is therefore familiar with the issues in this docket; and 3) Minnesota is a geographically central and accessible location for this nationwide litigation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on the following Schedule A and pending in districts other than the District of Minnesota be, and the same hereby are, transferred to the District of Minnesota and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Paul A. Magnuson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.
SCHEDULE A
MDL-1001 — In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Products Liability Litigation
Southern District of Florida
Barbara Jacobs Corente v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 1:92-729
Northern District of Georgia
Linda Greene v. Dow Corning Corp., C.A. No. 1:93-2647
District of Kansas
Paula Powers v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:93-1398
Bonnie Dyess v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:93-1399
Gynile Grigg v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:93-1400
Joan Tholen v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:93-1401
Wanda Perry v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:93-1402
Lois Allin v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:93-1407
Deborah A. Yeamans v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:93-1414
Daniel Bender v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:93-1417
Rosetta A Almon v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:93-1442
Mary Luckeroth v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:93-1443
Mary Margaret Booth v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:93-1444
District of New Jersey
Constance Greco, et al. v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 2:93-1587
District of Minnesota
Barbara Monsaas v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-385
Karen Anderson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-439
Colleen Sacco v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-440
Eileen Bentzen v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-595
Julia Carey v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-596
Denise Hedlund v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-597
Ann Dietz v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-711
Angela T. Johnson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-713
Ruth Greengo v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-714
Karen Polnau v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-715
Joan Stainbrook v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-716
Ellen Hart-Shegos v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-717
Patricia Jo Mingus v,. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-131
Melania Barnes v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-132
Brenda Gnette v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-197
Don Doty v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-198
Elizabeth Birk v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-307
Aarah Aizman v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-399
Ann O'Phelan v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-402
Natalie Krick v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-484
Mary Tvedt v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-573
Colleen Lindabauer v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-592
Susan Stevens v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-593
Charlotte Copiskey v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-594
Marsha Thaldorf v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-595
Kelly Dickinson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-596
Barbara Dembroski v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-633
Kathleen Connolly v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-641
Lisa Parenteau-Houlton v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-642
Paula Russell v. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-643
Lorna Graf v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-666
Sandra Brandtner v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-667
Kathy Dockendorf v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-693
Joann Hovde v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-695
Mary Ann Henderson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-696
Rachel Anthony v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-698
Rosemary Rust v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-699
Mary Beth Lemke v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-700
Yvonne Haengi v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-728
Michelle S. Vandenheuvel v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-10
Rose Svoboda v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-26
Charlene Foltz v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-27
Susan Falvey Howe v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-28
Marcia Herman v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-29
Melba Honebrink v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-30
Marilyn J. Humphrey v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-31
George Clemens v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-33
Trudy Rudd v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-34
Denise Stritesky v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-36
Betty McConnell v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-146
Melanie Humenansky v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-147
Sharon Sneen v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-190
Karen Wallraf v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-192
Angela Pederson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-193
Janet Sward v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-194
Georgia Lambert v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-226
Susan Johnson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-350
Mick Gapay v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-352
Lori Rangas v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-353
Melissa Crews v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-354
Candace Carman v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-356
Debra Kannel v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-357
Judy Kokorendz v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-358
Camella Festa v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-360
Dave Shinnick v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-373
Jenie Mohr v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-374
Susan Marie Hartfiel v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-784
Kathleen Gauss v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:92-497
Kathy Heim v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:93-279
Angela Sele v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:93-754
Linda Groen v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-383
Trudy Lamb v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-395
Donald Benson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-473
Gary Kittleson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-494
Linda Klima v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-495
Karen Holicky v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-521
Carol Barnhart v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-522
Susan Pohl v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-607
Margaret Knox v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-608
Bonnie Brazil v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-633
Colleen Jefferson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-634
Susan Halverson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-635
Debra Ettle v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-636
Arlene Bernstein v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-708
LaVon Whalen v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-711
Dorothea Hayes-Hanson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-714
Mary Jo Baker v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-742
Janette Schull v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-773
Barbara Olson v. E.I. Du, Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-774
Terri Engh v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-787
Laurie Anderson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-838
Gertrude Rau v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-839
Nancy Rojas v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-840
Shirley Donahue v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-909
Julie Bloomquist v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-910
Karen Dziuk v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-911
David Walczak v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-912
Melba Gamble v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-918
Dorothy Dragich v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-919
Virginie Grenges v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-920
Mary Ann Joyce v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-921
Catherine Steele v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:90-938
Barbara Garey v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-40
Mary Baringer v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-41
Carol Fetzer v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-42
Trudy Day v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-43
Mary G. Lamirande v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Go., C.A. No. 4:91-45
Linda Courteau v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-46
Jan Redenius v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-47
Dianne Zivilling v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-48
Ronald Mechura v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-^49
Kathy Wallack v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-51
Mary Anundson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-52
Carolyn Wasley v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-57
Edna Domfeld v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-184
Beverly Hosea v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-185
Linda Gilligan v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-250
Richard Schade v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-253
Sheila Grover v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-254
Debra Giles v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-255
Kimberly Cody v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-256
Priscilla Betsinger v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-257
Heloise Poye v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-258
June Arent v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-259
Joyce Albert v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-260
Edward Bramlage v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-261
Delores Parrott v. E.I. Du Pont De Nem-ours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-262
Donna Leland v. E.I. Du Pont De Nem-ours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-263
Patricia Jotblad v. E.I. Du Pont De Nem-ours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-264
Pamela Endreson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-265
Marleme Goligowski v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-430
Joyce Halligan v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-431
Lori Warme v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-432
Tawnia McKennon v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-433
Lillian Davis v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-434
Mary Kay Kenney v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-435
Ann Becker v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-436
Thomas Carlson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-449
Joy M. Elicerio v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-850
Rhonda Amon v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-987
Kathleen M. Schwartzbauer v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91—988
Mary Ann Caroline v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:92-91
Karen Foss v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:92-92
Donna Carlson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours Co., C.A. No. 4:92-99
Southern District of Ohio
Susan Hanigan v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:93-786
Regina Usenick v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:93-787
Terry L. Hergenrather v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:93-788
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
S.C. Kulp v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:93-2723
Western District of Pennsylvania
Catherine Bebko v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:93-319
District of South Carolina
Anita J. Lee v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 2:93-3006
Dorothy Campbell v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 2:93-3007
Debbie Hinshaw v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 2:93-3008
Western District of Virginia
Louise M. Hodor v. Dow Corning Corp., C.A. No. 3:93-68
Christopher M. Murphy v. Dow Corning Corp., C.A. No. 3:93-69
Deborah K. Shupe v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:93-70
Julie Young v. Dow Corning Corp., C.A. No. 3:93-71
Eastern District of Wisconsin
Mary Beth Pince v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 2:93-1211
Monica Barrett, et al. v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 2:93-1212
Terrie Cowley, et al. v. Dow Corning Corp., C.A. No. 2:93-1213
. The Section 1407 motions included one additional action — Mary E. Baker v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., M.D. Pennsylvania, C.A. No. 4:92-1126 — that was closed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania on February 7, 1994. Accordingly, the question of Section 1407 transfer of that action is now moot.
. The Panel has also been notified that more than 50 additional related actions are pending in more than 20 federal districts. These actions, and any other actions that come to the Panel's attention, will be treated as potential tag-along actions. See Rules 12 and 13, R.P.J.P.M.L., 147 F.R.D. 589, 596-97 (1993).
. In addition to the three Section 1407 motions that are the subject of this transfer order, two other motions are before the Panel in this docket. The first motion, by plaintiffs in certain Northern District of California actions for Section 1407 centralization in that district, was filed too late to be considered by the Panel at its hearing on January 21, 1994. Any actions included in that motion and not presently before the Panel will be treated as potential tag-along actions (see note 2, supra). The second motion, filed by defendant DuPont, seeks an order of the Panel 1) striking from public records and sealing two allegedly confidential documents included as exhibits in two pleadings (identified in Panel official files as Pleadings No. 15 and No. 27) filed with the Panel by the law firm of Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole (Ness Motley) on behalf of plaintiffs in thirteen actions; and 2) directing the return to DuPont of all copies of the documents in possession of counsel on the Panel Attorney Service List, parties or persons to whom the documents may have been provided, unless those individuals have executed a confidentiality agreement with DuPont. This motion is opposed by Ness Motley on the ground that the documents were in the public domain when obtained by Ness Motley. The Clerk of the Panel has maintained the two documents under seal from the date of filing of DuPont's motion, and she will continue to do so. Any further request for relief by DuPont in this matter should be directed to the court from which Ness Motley obtained the documents (the Middle District of Tennessee), the MDL-1001 transferee court (the District of Minnesota), or any other appropriate court.