
    IN RE: E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY C-8 PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION.
    MDL No. 2433.
    United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
    April 8, 2013.
    Before KATHRYN H. VRATIL, Acting Chairman, W. ROYAL FÚRGESON, JR., PAUL J. BARBADORO, MARJORIE O. RENDELL, CHARLES R. BREYER, and LEWIS A. KAPLAN, Judges of the Panel.
   TRANSFER ORDER

KATHRYN H. VRATIL, Acting Chairman.

Before the Panel: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, defendant E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) moves to centralize this litigation in the Southern District of Ohio or, alternatively, in the Southern District of West Virginia. This litigation currently consists of twenty-six actions pending in the Southern District of Ohio and the Southern District of West Virginia, as listed on Schedule A.

All of the responding parties agree that centralization is appropriate. In addition to DuPont, plaintiffs in twenty-five actions support centralization in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs in four potential tag-along actions in the Southern District of Ohio and the Southern District of West Virginia request centralization in the Southern District of West Virginia. Plaintiffs in another four potential tag-along actions seek centralization in the Eastern District of New York. Notably, every party supports centralization in the Southern District of Ohio, at least in the alternative, and several parties also suggest the Southern District of West Virginia as an alternative transferee forum.

On the basis of the papérs filed and the hearing session held, we find' that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Southern District of Ohio will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All the actions are personal injury or wrongful death actions arising out of plaintiffs’ alleged ingestion of drinking water contaminated with a chemical, C-8 (also known as perfluorooctoanoic acid (PFOA) or ammonium peífluorooctanoate (APFO)), discharged from DuPont’s Washington Works Plant near Parkersburg, West Virginia. All of the plaintiffs in this litigation allege that they suffer or suffered from one or more of six diseases identified as potentially linked to C-8 exposure by a study conducted as part of a 2005 settlement between DuPont and a class of approximately 80,-000 persons residing in six water districts allegedly contaminated by C-8 from the Washington Works Plant. See Leach v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., No. 01-C-608 (W.Va.Cir.Ct.). Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources, of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

Weighing all factors, we have selected the Southern District of Ohio as the transferee district for this litigation. All the parties agree — at least in the alternative— that transfer to the Southern District of Ohio is appropriate. The majority of the related actions are pending in this district, including the first-filed and most advanced action. The Southern District of Ohio - is both accessible .and convenient for parties and witnesses. Four of the six water districts allegedly contaminated by C-8 are in the Southern District of Ohio, as are the majority of potential plaintiffs. Further, centralization in this district permits the Panel to assign the litigation to a less-utilized district with an experienced judge who is not presently overseeing a multidistrict litigation.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the Southern District of Ohio are transferred to the Southern District of Ohio and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., for .coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending there. ■

SCHEDULE A

MDL No. 2433 — IN RE: E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY C-8 PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION

Southern District of Ohio

Thomas Yakubik V. E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company, C.A. No. 2:12-00815

John Borman v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, C.A. No. 2:12-01180

Betty Bragg v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, C.A. No. 2:12-01181

Lotie Cline v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, C.A. No. 2:12-01182

Elmer A. Grites v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, C.A. No. 2:12-01183

Linda Davis v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, C.A. No. 2:12-01184

Crystal Forshey v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, C.A. No. 2:12-01185

Melinda Gibson v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, C.A. No. 2:12-01186

Vicky Lightfritz v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, C.A. No. 2:12-01187

Willard Lightfritz v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, C.A. No. 2:12-01188

Kathi Lowe v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, C.A. No. 2:12-01189

Kit McPeekr-Stálnaker v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, C.A. No. 2:12-01190 .

Thomas Eugene Molden v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, C.A. No. 2:12-01191

Jack Offenberger v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, C.A. No. 2:12-01192

Terry Pugh v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and'Company, C.A. No. 2:12-01193

Kay Sheridan v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours.and Company, C.A. No. 2:12-01194

Herbert Short v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, C.A. No. 2:12-01195

John Wright v. E.I. du Pont ’ de Nemours and Gompany, C.A. No. 2:12-01196

Amber Wriston v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, C.A. No. 2:13-00002

Southern District of West Virginia

Summer Mitchell v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company,. C.A. No. 3:12-09572

Thomas Deryl Northup v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, C.A. No. 3:12-09574

Kathy Selby v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, C.A. No. 3:12-09576

Mary Harper v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, C.A. No. 3:12-09577

Virginia Morrison, et al. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, C.A. No. 6:12-07053

Scott Blackwell v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, C.A. No. 6:12-07054 Sandra Tennant v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, C.A. No. 6:12— 07055 
      
       Judge John G. Heyburn II took no part in the decision of this matter.
     
      
      . The parties have notified the Panel of eleven additional related actions pending in the same two districts. These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rule 7.1.
     