One More Merck Federal MDL Winding Down: NuvaRing® Remand Suggestion -- From The Able USDC Judge Rodney W. Sippel, In Missouri

Except for a few opt-out cases, it would seem likely that the legacy Organon/Schering-Plough (i.e. inherited by Merck, almost a decade ago -- thanks, Fred!) NuvaRing^® birth control injury federal putative class action is about to be dissolved, and the remaining individual cases returned to the districts from which they arose. This would spell the effective end of this blog's ability to timely monitor the matter -- effectively leaving only quarterly periodic updates, in Kenilworth's SEC filings as a means of learning more about the litigation generally.

This litigation was lengthy, massive and involved some rather astonishing efforts -- on all sides -- to arrive at the $100 million settlement (an excellent compromise given that Merck never lost a bellwether trial in this MDL). Here is the entire order, an 11 page PDF file -- and a bit:

. . . .In total, 3,825 plaintiffs and claimants enrolled in the national settlement program and dismissed and released their claims related to NuvaRing. . . .

Certain plaintiffs chose to opt out of the national settlement program to pursue litigation of their claims. Additionally, some new plaintiffs filed cases alleging injuries related to NuvaRing after the last date of the enrollment period under the Master Settlement Agreement. These cases have been transferred to, and are currently pending in, MDL 1964. Currently, there are 76 cases pending in, or expected to be transferred to, MDL 1964. . . .

During the pendency of MDL 1964, this Court presided over 76 in-person and telephonic Case Management Conferences, which were attended by lead counsel for defendants and by lead counsel for plaintiffs, which included members of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, as well as by other plaintiffs’ counsel. This Court issued approximately 30 orders on case management, covering a variety of topics including the organization of plaintiffs’ counsel, plaintiffs’ common benefit fund, pleadings and challenges thereto, removal and remand, plaintiffs’ initial discovery obligations, defendants’ initial discovery obligations, electronic discovery, general and case specific discovery, mediation and settlement, and postsettlement orders for preservation of records and production of discovery information. . . .

More than 2.4 million pages of documents were produced by defendants in discovery and made available to all plaintiffs, including documents related to the research and development, FDA regulatory approval and oversight, sales and marketing, pharmacovigilance reporting, and scientific studies of NuvaRing.

Plaintiffs took 25 depositions of defendants’ company witnesses, many of them in the Netherlands, on the above topics related to NuvaRing. Approximately 87 depositions of plaintiffs, prescribing physicians, and other fact witnesses were conducted in selected cases in MDL 1964. Additionally, the parties conducted discovery of defendants’ and plaintiffs’ general experts and of some case specific experts. Following the national settlement program, the Court ordered the supplementation and completion of general fact discovery, which included the supplemental production of defendants’ regulatory documents and additional company witness depositions related to the label update for NuvaRing approved by the FDA in October 2013. . . .

The claims of individual plaintiffs were selected for bellwether trials in both this MDL case and in the coordinated NuvaRing® mass tort litigation proceeding in the New Jersey Superior Court, Bergen County. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment and motions to exclude plaintiffs’ experts in those cases. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment were granted in the following New Jersey cases: Bozicev v. Organon, BER-L-2869-09; Mariconda v. Organon, BERL-2692-09; Barrow v. Organon, BER-L-2707-09; Fields v. Organon, BER-L-2793-09; Wilson-Johnson v. Organon, BER-L-597-10; Namack v. Organon, BER-L-2831-09; Ziwange v. Organon, BER-L-2829-09; Millian v. Organon, BER-L-2848-09; and Marino v. Organon, BER-L-3081-09. . . .

In addition, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Prather v. Organon, 4:08 CV 558 RWS was granted in part and denied in part. Defendants’ unopposed motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds was granted in James v. Organon, 4:09 CV 216 RWS. . . .

Now the MDL awaits a concurrence from a supervising panel of judges; but the newsworthy portions of this matter have concluded. We are not likely to mention it again.

[This post was auto-generated, by an experimental algorithm, invented by the Condor. It was not reviewed for content or context by any human. If it is in error, it will be corrected, rewritten or retracted in due course. Copy-left 2017.] It's been a wild ride. Travel light.

नमस्ते