When we last visited MDL 2418, In re Plavix Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (No. II), imPaneled was making light of plaintiffs’ counsels’ excessive respect for one another’s written work product, which resulted in their submitting to Their Honors several largely repetitive briefs. Unfortunately, the straight arrows at Arnold & Porter chose not to reference that in their reply brief.
They did, however, affix an “®” to their every use of the word “Plavix.” Never having had reason to consider doing that, imPaneled is at a loss as to its purpose. Is it so important to remind the world that “Plavix” is a registered trademark that a footnote at the beginning of the brief would not suffice? More importantly, is there an associate or paralegal specifically charged with proofing briefs to make sure every “Plavix” is accounted for? Someone missed a few in defendants’ opening brief. Is that person still with A & P? Have they been excommunicated from the defense bar? Anyone who can offer imPaneled any insight will get a free plug in a subsequent post.
Anyhow, Their Honors spared little effort in tipping their hands at Thursday’s hearing (more on that soon), as Judges Breyer and Furgeson subjected plaintiffs’ counsel to focused–nay, withering–questioning as to why the pending actions should not be centralized. They responded in part to Judge Furgeson by claiming that the “major” plaintiffs’ firms are coordinating their discovery efforts, and that common facts “do not predominate.” Oy vey. imPaneled humbly suggests that certain judges should anticipate making room in their dockets for an MDL proceeding.