
844 F.Supp. 1553 (1994)
In re TEMPOROMANDIBULAR JOINT (TMJ) IMPLANTS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
No. 1001.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
February 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.

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[1] in a single district *1554 for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.[2] 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 Nemours 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.[3]
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 duplicative 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.
*1555 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

*1556 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 Kangas 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

Carmella 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

*1557 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 & Co., 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 Zwilling 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 Dornfeld 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

*1558 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 Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-262

Donna Leland v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 4:91-263

Patricia Jotblad v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & 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 Harrigan 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

*1559 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
NOTES
[*]   Judges Pollack, Merhige and Enright did not participate in the decision of this matter.
[1]  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.
[2]  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).
[3]  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.
