Case Name: In re: TABLE SAW PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-06
Citations: 641 F. Supp. 2d 1384
Docket Number: MDL No. 2079
Parties: In re: TABLE SAW PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Judges: Before ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., Acting Chairman, JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman , KATHRYN H. VRATIL, DAVID R. HANSEN, W. ROYAL FURGESON, JR. and FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR., Judges of the Panel.
Reporter: Federal Supplement 2d
Volume: 641
Pages: 1384–1386

Head Matter:
In re: TABLE SAW PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
MDL No. 2079.
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
Aug. 6, 2009.
Before ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., Acting Chairman, JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman , KATHRYN H. VRATIL, DAVID R. HANSEN, W. ROYAL FURGESON, JR. and FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR., Judges of the Panel.
Judge Heyburn look no part in the disposition of this matter.

Opinion:
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., Acting Chairman.
Before the entire Panel *: Plaintiffs in 42 actions pending in the Central District of California, Eastern District of California, Northern District of California, Northern District of Illinois (six actions), District of Massachusetts (23 actions), District of Nevada, District of New Jersey (five actions), Eastern District of New York, District of South Carolina, Eastern District of Texas, and Southern District of Texas, as listed on Schedule A, have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to centralize those actions in the District of Massachusetts. Responding defendants all oppose centralization.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we will deny plaintiffs' motion. The 42 constituent actions all arise from accidents in which the subject plaintiffs were injured by table saws, and all plaintiffs advance a theory that those saws are defective because, inter alia, they lack "flesh detection" technology (also known as "SawStop" technology). These common issues, however, are overshadowed by the non-common ones. Each action arises from an individual accident that occurred under necessarily unique circumstances. Multiple different saws made by multiple different manufacturers were involved in the various accidents. No defendant is sued in all actions, and several entities, including Emerson Electric Co., Hitachi Koki USA, Ltd., Sears Roebuck & Co., and Woodstock International, Inc., are named in, at most, two or three of them. A significant number of the actions are substantially advanced, and, indeed, the fact discovery period will soon close in many of them. Other actions were only recently commenced. The proponents of centralization have failed to persuade us that, given these circumstances, transfer under Section 1407 would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation at the present time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). Alternatives to transfer exist that may minimize whatever possibilities could arise of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L.1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these 42 actions is denied.
SCHEDULE A
MDL No. 2079 — IN RE: TABLE SAW PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Central District of California
Vitaly Petrenko v. One World Technologies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5:08-758
Eastern District of California
David DeCristoforo, Jr. v. Rexon Industrial Corp., et al., C.A. No. 2:08-933
Northern District of California
Brendan Schmidt, et al. v. Pentair, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:08-4589
Northern District of Illinois
Jaroslaw Wielgus v. Ryobi Technologies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:08-1597
Brandon Stollings v. Ryobi Technologies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:08-4006
Ruslan Lebedev v. Ryobi Technologies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:08-4484
Zdzislaw Ptak v. Black & Decker Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:08-6212 Henrichas
Sinkevicius v. Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 1:09-1738
Konrad Mielcarek v. Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 1:09-2379
District of Massachusetts
Carlos Osorio v. One World Technologies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:06-10725
Michael P. Staruski v. Black & Decker Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:06-10735
Eduardo Olivera v. Makita USA, Inc., C.A. No. 1:06-10736
Riccardo DiBona v. Pentair, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:06-10737
Ross MacDonald v. Emerson Electric Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:06-10925
Andrew Bidgood v. Ryobi Technologies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:06-12040
John Padre, Jr. v. Emerson Electric Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:07-11294
Thomas White v. Pentair, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:07-12043
Ian Eddery v. Black & Decker Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:08-10849
Neil Resca v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:08-11142
Martin Santos v. Ryobi Technologies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:08-11700
Shaun Maloney v. Techtronic Industries North America, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:08-11888
James Miles v. WMH Tool Group, Inc., C.A. No. 1:08-12017
Jeremiah Bernier v. One World Technologies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:08-12083
Matthew Beers v. One World Technologies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:09-10010
Glenn Robert White v. One World Technologies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:09-10011
Walter F. Bellaconis, Jr. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp., C.A. No. 1:09-10091
Sujan Khadge v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp., C.A. No. 1:09-10092
Luis Santiago v. One World Technologies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:09-10768
Michael Burke v. Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 1:09-10797
Robert Grey v. Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 1:09-10799
Roger Gallant v. WMH Tool Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:09-10821
Omar Rosolis v. WMH Tool Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:09-10822
District of New Jersey
Carl Fransen v. One World Technologies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:08-5101
Mamady Sangare v. Ryobi Technologies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:09-303
Lawrence A. Strelec v. Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 2:09-742
Christopher Helmes v. Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 2:09-883
Osbaldo Martinez v. Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 2:09-2167
District of Nevada
Steven Hildebrand v. Black & Decker Corp., et al., C.A. No. 2:09-871
Eastern District of New York
Mario Lopez v. Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 1:09-1270
District of South Carolina
Deusdete Cuhna Barbosa v. Hitachi Koki USA, Ltd., C.A. No. 2:09-1285
Eastern District of Texas
Lloyd Frazier v. Woodstock International, Inc., C.A. No. 6:09-227
Southern District of Texas
Thomas Ortega v. Black & Decker Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:09-1550
. Although the motion, as filed, encompassed 43 actions, one action pending in the District of South Carolina was dismissed. The parties have notified the Panel of nine additional related actions.
. Black & Decker Corp.; Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc.; Delta Machinery Corp.; DeWalt Industrial Tool Co.; Emerson Electric Co.; Hitachi Koki USA, Ltd.; Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.; One World Technologies, Inc.; Power Tools Specialists, Inc.; Rexon Industrial Corp.; Robert Bosch Tool Corp.; Ryobi Technologies, Inc.; Sears Roebuck & Co.; Techtronic Industries North America, Inc.; WMH Tool Group, Inc.; and Woodstock International, Inc.
. The record indicates that the parties have already reached a number of discovery-sharing agreements covering most, if not all, of the subject actions.