Case CAS/3:13-cv Document 10 Filed 04/29/13 Page 1 of 18 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Transcription

1 Case CAS/3:13-cv Document 10 Filed 04/29/13 Page 1 of 18 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION : : IN RE: INCRETIN MIMETICS : MDL No PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION : : : RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT NOVO NORDISK INC. TO AMENDED MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS FOR TRANSFER OF ACTIONS TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C FOR COORDINATED OR CONSOLIDATED PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the Panel ), and the Panel s Notice of Filing dated April 8, 2013, defendant Novo Nordisk Inc. ( NNI ) submits this Response to the Amended Motion of Plaintiffs for Transfer of Actions to the Southern District of California ( Motion ). While NNI is only involved in three cases subject to the Motion, NNI does not oppose transfer of these three cases, along with the remaining cases listed in the Motion s Schedule of Actions, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the form of an MDL. NNI also joins in the request to limit the MDL to cases in which Plaintiffs allege pancreatic cancer as an injury. Further, NNI agrees that the Southern District of California is the appropriate transferee forum and specifically 1

2 Case CAS/3:13-cv Document 10 Filed 04/29/13 Page 2 of 18 that Judge Anthony J. Battaglia is best suited to handle the litigation. Judge Battaglia already presides over at least 29 cases, plaintiffs continue to file a majority of cases in his district, and he and Magistrate Judge Mitchell Dembin have been actively involved in coordinating the litigation much as the Panel would contemplate in a formally assigned MDL. Alternatively, in the event the Panel determines transfer to the Southern District of California and Judge Battaglia is not appropriate for any reason, NNI suggests the Panel transfer the actions to either Judge Marcia S. Krieger in the District of Colorado or Judge Joe Heaton in the Western District of Oklahoma. BACKGROUND I. Summary of Plaintiffs Actions To date, Plaintiffs in approximately 53 cases filed in federal courts nationwide assert personal injury claims alleging one or more of the type 2 diabetes treatments at issue Byetta, Januvia, Janumet, and, to a lesser extent, Victoza ( diabetes medications ) caused pancreatic cancer (only three of which name NNI). 1 Of these cases, at least 45 are filed in the Southern District of California and at least 29 are pending before Judge Battaglia. The cases not currently before Judge Battaglia are expected to be transferred pursuant to the Low-Number Rule. 2 1 See Schedule of Actions (Exhibit A). Exhibit A includes the same cases as Plaintiffs Schedule of Actions, but has been updated to reflect the judge currently assigned to each case. Notably, since Plaintiffs filed their motion, twelve additional pancreatic cancer cases have been filed in the Southern District of California. NNI is not involved in these cases but anticipates the Panel will be notified of them as potential tag-along cases. 2 Southern District of California Local Rule 40.1(e-j) provides for transfer of a civil action which is deemed to be related to another pending action. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of judicial effort, such cases are reassigned to the district and magistrate judge to whom the lowest numbered case was assigned. See S.D. Cal. Local Rule 40.1(i). An action or proceeding is related to another action or proceeding where both of them (1) involve some of the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims; (2) involve the same property, transaction, or event; or (3) involve substantially the same facts and the same questions of law. Id. at 40.1(g). 2

3 Case CAS/3:13-cv Document 10 Filed 04/29/13 Page 3 of 18 NNI is only named in three federal court cases, all pending in the Southern District of California, involving its product, Victoza. 3 One case involving Victoza was recently transferred to Judge Battaglia pursuant to the Low-Number Rule. See Report of Clerk Pursuant to Low Number Rule, Duhon v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv (S.D. Cal.) (Exhibit C). NNI also has been named in two additional cases currently pending in California state court. 4 There are no cases in which NNI is the only defendant. Every case involving Victoza is a multi-defendant case in which the plaintiff alleges use of more than one diabetes medication. The remainder of the cases involve one or both of Merck s products, Januvia and Janumet, or Amylin Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly s product, Byetta, or a combination thereof. The 53 cases subject to Plaintiffs Motion are products liability actions in which the essential claims are based on theories of strict product liability, design defect and/or failure to warn. Plaintiffs allege that the diabetes medications are defective and caused Plaintiffs to develop pancreatic cancer. NNI, like other Defendants, denies these allegations. If the Panel grants transfer of the actions, the transferee Court will face threshold legal questions concerning medical causation (likely including Daubert challenges to certain expert opinions) and other elements of Plaintiffs claims. 3 Duhon v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv (S.D. Cal.); Stevenson v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv (S.D. Cal.); and Sponaugle v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv (S.D. Cal.). NNI was initially named in Reed v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv (S.D. Cal.), but subsequently voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiff. See Plaintiff s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Defendants Novo Nordisk Inc. and Novo Nordisk A/S Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) (Exhibit B). 4 Moore v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., et al., Case No. BC (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Co.) and Smith v. Amylin Pharmaceuticals, LLC, et al., Case No (Cal. Super., San Diego Co.). Both cases currently lack diversity among the parties and therefore have not been filed in or removed to federal court. 3

4 Case CAS/3:13-cv Document 10 Filed 04/29/13 Page 4 of 18 II. Brief History of NNI s Victoza Victoza (liraglutide) is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. While differences exist between the Defendants products, Victoza, Byetta, Januvia, and Janumet all are incretin-based therapies intended to help manage type 2 diabetes. 5 On January 25, 2010, Victoza was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ). Victoza is the most recent of the diabetes medications at issue to receive FDA approval. Only five Victoza cases are pending in both federal and state court nationwide, and they all name other Defendants that are subject to Plaintiffs Motion. Plaintiffs Motion indicates that 500 additional cases may be filed in the near future, but does not indicate the number that involve NNI s product. Because Victoza was not approved until 2010, it appears likely that a meaningful percentage of future cases against NNI will continue to involve other diabetes medications and Defendants that are subject to Plaintiffs Motion. As such, NNI recognizes the need for a coordinated MDL. III. Procedural Status of the Actions The cases subject to Plaintiffs Motion are in their preliminary stages. NNI has not responded to a complaint to date. Earlier filed cases not involving NNI are slightly more advanced; the other Defendants have responded to complaints, and Plaintiffs in 16 cases pending in the Southern District of California before Judge Battaglia have issued 30(b)(6) deposition notices to each of the other Defendants. Judge Battaglia and Magistrate Judge Dembin have worked with the Plaintiffs and the other Defendants to develop a case management order that covers all of the pending cases on their docket. Upon information and belief, discovery has not 5 A more appropriate term for an MDL proceeding would be In re Incretin-based Therapies Products Liability Litigation. 4

5 Case CAS/3:13-cv Document 10 Filed 04/29/13 Page 5 of 18 commenced and the parties have not appeared before the judge and/or magistrate judge in any jurisdiction other than the Southern District of California. ARGUMENT I. NNI Supports Transfer of the Pancreatic Cancer Actions For Coordinated or Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings. Transfer for pretrial coordination and consolidation is appropriate under Section 1407 where (1) one or more cases raising common questions of fact are pending in different districts; (2) transfer would further the convenience of the parties and witnesses; and (3) transfer would promote the just and efficient conduct of the actions. 28 U.S.C. 1407(a). Based on these criteria, the Panel should create an MDL for the 53 actions subject to Plaintiffs Motion and any other pancreatic cancer tag-along cases. A. Transfer will satisfy the purpose of Section NNI does not dispute that there is sufficient factual and legal similarity among the related federal cases to qualify for pretrial coordination and consolidation under Section While each medication is based on different science and each case will have unique facts, all Plaintiffs allege they developed pancreatic cancer as a result of ingestion of one or more of the diabetes medications and assert claims for strict liability, breach of warranty, and negligence, among others. All Plaintiffs generally allege that the diabetes medications at issue were defectively designed and/or manufactured and that Defendants failed to adequately warn consumers of the alleged risks associated with their respective products. A transfer will further serve the convenience of parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions by ensuring centralized oversight of pretrial discovery and, in the process, minimize judicial waste and inefficiency. See 28 U.S.C. 1407(a); see also In re Mirapex Prods. Liab. Litig., 493 F. Supp. 2d 1376, 1377 (J.P.M.L. 2007) (transfer and 5

6 Case CAS/3:13-cv Document 10 Filed 04/29/13 Page 6 of 18 coordination appropriate to avoid duplicative discovery); In re Bausch & Lomb Inc. Contact Lens Solution Prods. Liab. Litig., 444 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1338 (J.P.M.L. 2006) (same). Plaintiffs advance similar scientific theories and support in the complaints, which suggests the need for a coordinated, staged evaluation of proposed expert testimony. In addition, coordinated discovery against each Defendant will avoid the unnecessary use of judicial resources in multiple federal courts, prevent inconsistent rulings on critical pretrial discovery motions, eliminate the burden of duplicate discovery, and promote the just and efficient conduct of the actions. B. The MDL should consist of pancreatic cancer cases only. All Plaintiffs claim one or more of Defendants medications caused pancreatic cancer and that Defendants failed to warn of the risk of developing pancreatic cancer from their products. Plaintiffs, throughout their Motion, suggest that their claims are limited to pancreatic cancer. See, e.g., Plaintiffs Brief in Support at p. 1 ( All related actions... involve common questions of law and fact and arise from Plaintiffs development of pancreatic cancer from ingestion of one, or often a combination of, the diabetic drugs.... ), p. 10 (explaining the actions are focused on the connection between the diabetes medications and an increased risk for pancreatic cancer ), p. 11 ( Plaintiffs in the Actions have raised common factual questions by focusing their claims against the Defendants on a singular injury, pancreatic cancer.... ). Because all of the cases subject to Plaintiffs Motion are based on an allegation that the diabetes medications caused pancreatic cancer, the Panel should limit the scope of the MDL to cases in which Plaintiffs allege pancreatic cancer as a result of ingestion of one or more of the diabetes medications at issue. See, e.g., In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig., 444 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1349 (J.P.M.L. 2006) (creating MDL for actions involving allegations that use of Fosamax 6

7 Case CAS/3:13-cv Document 10 Filed 04/29/13 Page 7 of 18 caused osteonecrosis of the jaw); In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. II), 787 F. Supp. 2d 1355, 1356 (J.P.M.L. 2011) (creating MDL for actions involving allegations that use of Fosamax caused femur fractures or similar bone injuries). II. NNI Does Not Oppose Transfer To The Southern District Of California And Judge Anthony J. Battaglia. When deciding to which district to transfer an MDL, the Panel considers (1) the parties wishes and the number of actions pending in the proposed district; (2) the centrality and convenience of the location; (3) the transferee forum s docket and its ability to manage the MDL; and (4) and the judges familiarity with the actions and interest in serving as the transferee forum. See In re Teflon Prods. Liab. Litig., 416 F. Supp. 2d 1364, 1365 (J.P.M.L. 2006); In re Accutane Prods. Liab. Litig., 343 F. Supp. 2d 1382, 1383 (J.P.M.L. 2004); In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig., 771 F. Supp. 415, (J.P.M.L. 1991). Based on these factors, NNI agrees that these actions should be transferred to Judge Battaglia in the Southern District of California. A. All parties consent to transfer to the Southern District of California, where the majority of cases are pending. The Panel often transfers a case to the district that is favored by a majority of the litigants. See In re Brown Co. Sec. Litig., 325 F. Supp. 307, 308 (J.P.M.L. 1971); In re Sugar Indus. Antitrust Litig., 395 F. Supp. 1271, 1274 (J.P.M.L. 1975) (transferring to forum that was the preference of most of the parties ); In re Braunwald-Cutter Aortic Heart Valve Prods. Liab. Litig., 465 F. Supp. 1295, 1298 (J.P.M.L. 1979) (choosing forum that a majority of the parties favor ). The Panel also regularly transfers subject cases to a jurisdiction in which a large number of cases have been brought. See In re Zimmer Durom Hip Cup Prods. Liab. Litig., 717 F. Supp. 2d 1376, (J.P.M.L. 2010) (transferring litigation to district where substantial 7

8 Case CAS/3:13-cv Document 10 Filed 04/29/13 Page 8 of 18 majority of actions were pending); In re Mid-Air Collision, 309 F. Supp. 621, 621 (J.P.M.L. 1969) (explaining that number of actions pending in a potential transferee district is relevant to the selection of the most appropriate district ). Here, Plaintiffs request the Panel transfer the cases to the Southern District of California and Defendants do not dispute the request. 6 The majority of cases have been brought in the Southern District of California; of the 53 cases subject to Plaintiffs Motion, 43 are pending in the District. B. The Southern District of California is reasonably convenient for all parties. The Panel favors transfer to venues that are relatively accessible by parties and witnesses and will also consider whether the transferee district is centrally located. See In re Gen. Motors Corp. Dex-Cool Prods. Liab. Litig., 293 F. Supp. 2d 1381, 1382 (J.P.M.L. 2003); see also In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., 493 F. Supp. 2d 1365, 1367 (J.P.M.L. 2007). The geographical location of the transferee court is especially relevant when counsel must travel from distant parts of the country. In re Air Fare Litig., 322 F. Supp. 1013, 1015 (J.P.M.L. 1971); see also In re Metoprolol Succinate Patent Litig., 329 F. Supp. 2d 1368, 1370 (J.P.M.L. 2004) (finding that Eastern District of Missouri was accessible). Because the key witnesses and evidence in the cases are not centralized in any one particular location, there is no natural hub for this MDL. Due to the individual nature of the claims, the most important witnesses may be the plaintiffs themselves. Likewise, many important documents and witnesses will be found where each individual plaintiff lives and receives medical care. Further, Defendants are not centrally located. Amylin Pharmaceuticals is headquartered in San Diego, while the remaining Defendants including NNI are not based in 6 At the time of this filing, NNI does not know of any party which opposes coordination in the Southern District of California. 8

9 Case CAS/3:13-cv Document 10 Filed 04/29/13 Page 9 of 18 California. The Southern District of California, however, is a logical forum due to the volume of cases filed in the Court. NNI agrees with Plaintiffs that San Diego is a major transportation center and reasonably accessible for all of the parties. Additionally, Defendants each are involved in other related cases pending in California state court, making potential coordination between the federal and state courts possible and convenient. See In re Fosamax (No. II), 787 F. Supp. 2d at 1357 (noting transfer to District of New Jersey could facilitate coordination with state cases pending in state court in Atlantic City, New Jersey). C. The Southern District of California and Judge Anthony J. Battaglia are wellequipped to handle this MDL. The Southern District of California and Judge Anthony J. Battaglia are best suited to handle this MDL. Currently, eight MDLs are pending in the District. See MDL Statistics Report Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets as of March 5, 2013, available at (Exhibit D). Additionally, the Panel has previously expressed its confidence in the Court and Judge Battaglia as appropriate to handle an MDL. See In re Sony Gaming Networks and Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., MDL 2258, Transfer Order, Aug. 8, 2011 (Exhibit E). The Panel consistently considers judicial experience to be an important factor in its transfer decisions. In re Vioxx Prods. Litig., 360 F. Supp. 2d 1352, 1354 (J.P.M.L. 2005) (transferring litigation to a jurist experienced in complex multidistrict products liability litigation and sitting in a district with the capacity to handle this litigation ); In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig., 314 F. Supp. 2d 1380, 1382 (J.P.M.L. 2004) (assigning MDL to an experienced transferee judge who can steer this litigation on a steady and expeditious course ); In re Paxil Prods. Liab. Litig., 296 F. Supp. 2d 1374, 1375 (J.P.M.L. 2003) (transferring litigation to a seasoned jurist in a district with the capacity to handle the litigation ). In 9

10 Case CAS/3:13-cv Document 10 Filed 04/29/13 Page 10 of 18 addition, the Panel considers whether the transferee forum and assigned judge are familiar with the facts and litigants, as well as that court s resources, readiness, and willingness to assume responsibility for the MDL. See, e.g., In re Aircraft Accident at Barrow, 474 F. Supp. 996, 1000 (J.P.M.L. 1979); In re Peruvian Road Litig., 380 F. Supp. 796, 798 (J.P.M.L. 1974). Judge Battaglia has the experience necessary to oversee the litigation. He served as a magistrate judge in the Southern District of California from 1993 until 2011 and now serves as a district judge. Further, Judge Battaglia and the magistrate judge overseeing the litigation, Magistrate Judge Dembin, are familiar with and appear willing to oversee the coordination of this litigation. To date, 29 of the 45 cases pending in the Southern District of California are assigned to Judge Battaglia pursuant to the Court s Low-Number Rule. See Exhibit A. No series of cases comprising more than ten in number may be transferred to a single judge under the Rule without the consent of the transferee judge. See S.D. Cal. Local Rule 40.1(j). Judge Battaglia has consented and continues to consent to transfer of related cases involving the diabetes medications at issue, indicating his willingness to oversee the litigation. See Exhibit C. As noted above, Judge Battaglia also has taken an active role along with Magistrate Judge Dembin in managing the existing cases. III. Alternatively, The Panel Should Consider Transferring The Actions To The District of Colorado or the Western District of Oklahoma. As explained above, NNI agrees with Plaintiffs that the Southern District of California is the appropriate transferee forum and Judge Battaglia the appropriate judge to proceed over the MDL. However, should the Panel disagree for any reason, NNI suggests transfer of the action to 10

11 Case CAS/3:13-cv Document 10 Filed 04/29/13 Page 11 of 18 either Judge Marcia S. Krieger in the District of Colorado or Judge Joe Heaton in the Western District of Oklahoma. Each judge currently presides over one case subject to Plaintiffs Motion. 7 A. Both Districts are reasonably convenient for all parties. Both the District of Colorado and the Western District of Oklahoma are centrally located and accessible to all parties and counsel, who are located throughout the country. The District of Colorado courthouse in Denver is approximately 25 miles from Denver International Airport, which services nonstop flights to approximately 170 destinations by 25 passenger airlines. The Western District of Oklahoma courthouse in Oklahoma City is approximately 10 miles from Will Rodgers World Airport, which has approximately 150 arrivals and departures daily. Each city has a public transportation system and numerous hotels within a one mile radius of the courthouse. B. Both Districts and Judges are well-suited to handle the litigation. Judge Krieger, Chief Judge of the District of Colorado, has served on the federal bench since 2002 and has considerable experience with products liability and pharmaceutical cases. Judge Heaton, who has served on the federal bench since 2001, previously presided over MDL 1600, In re General Motors Piston Slap Products Liability Litigation, as well as numerous other products liability and pharmaceutical cases. Both are experienced jurists with the capacity to oversee an MDL. Likewise, both district courts have the ability and resources to manage an MDL. Currently, only one MDL is pending in the District of Colorado and only two MDLs are pending in the Western District of Oklahoma. See Exhibit D. As of the fiscal year ending September 30, 7 Graham v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al., Case No. 1:13-cv (D. Colo.) is pending before Judge Krieger and Wickware v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. et al., Case No. 5:13-cv (W.D. Okla.) is pending before Judge Heaton. 11

12 Case CAS/3:13-cv Document 10 Filed 04/29/13 Page 12 of , neither district had any judicial vacancies and, out of 94 district courts nationally, both ranked in the top 50 percentile in efficiency categories. See Federal Court Management Statistics, available at district-courts-september-2012.aspx (Exhibit F). The District of Colorado ranked 5th nationally in median time from filing of a civil case to disposition (5.5 months) and 32nd nationally in median time from filing of a civil case to trial (23.6 months). See Exhibit F, Colorado. The Western District of Oklahoma ranked 38th nationally in median time from filing of a civil case to disposition (8.3 months) and 24th nationally in median time from filing of a civil case to trial (20.8 months). See Exhibit F, Oklahoma Western. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, NNI respectfully requests that this Panel enter an Order transferring the actions listed in Exhibit A to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, before the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, for coordinated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C In the alternative, NNI respectfully requests transfer to either the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, before the Honorable Marcia S. Krieger, or the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, before the Honorable Joe Heaton. Respectfully submitted, DLA PIPER LLP (US) /s/ Raymond M. Williams Raymond M. Williams 1650 Market Street, Suite 4900 Philadelphia, PA Tel: Fax: raymond.williams@dlapiper.com 12

13 Case CAS/3:13-cv Document 10 Filed 04/29/13 Page 13 of 18 Loren H. Brown Heidi L. Levine 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor New York, NY Tel: Fax: Attorneys for Defendant Novo Nordisk Inc. 13

14 Case CAS/3:13-cv Document 10 Filed 04/29/13 Page 14 of 18 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION : : IN RE: INCRETIN MIMETICS : MDL No PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION : : : PROOF OF SERVICE I, Raymond M. Williams, hereby certify that on April 29, 2013, I served a copy of the foregoing Response of Defendant Novo Nordisk Inc. to Amended Motion of Plaintiffs for Transfer of Actions to the Southern District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C for Coordinated or Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings and this Proof of Service upon all interested counsel and/or parties via First Class Mail in accordance with the attached Service List. /s/ Raymond M. Williams Raymond M. Williams

15 Case CAS/3:13-cv Document 10 Filed 04/29/13 Page 15 of 18 PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL: Mikal C. Watts Ryan L. Thompson Christopher V. Goodpastor WATTS GUERRA LLP 5250 Prue Road, Suite 525 San Antonio, Texas SERVICE LIST Counsel for Plaintiffs Francisca Anderson; Mary Jo Andrews; Lucian Baker; Juanita A. Benton, as the Successor-in-Interest of the Estate of Robert E. Benton; Christopher Borden, as the Administrator of the Estate of Ruby Borden; Betty Garber, as Successor-in-Interest of the Estate of Clyde Garber; Marlene Crowell, as the Executor of the Estate of Fredric Crowell; Heidie Skinner, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Peter Ditlevsen; Rosalie Duhon; Hamid Haqq, as Administrator of the Estate of Athaniel Abdul Saboor Haqq; Jeanette Herbel; Ann Jay, as Executrix of the Estate of Jerry Jay; Moses Scott, as Administrator of the Estate of Regina Kelly; Joyce Kovelman, as Successor-in-Interest of the Estate of Gilbert Kovelman; Vickie Lankford; Barbara Lenyard, as Successor-in-Interest of the Estate of James Lenyard; John McGerald; Mollie McLin, as Successor-in-Interest of the Estate of M.C. McLin; Beverly Mitchell, as Successor-in-Interest of the Estate of Erma Mitchell; Dawn Mooney, as Heir at Law of Ruth Nash; Linda Raines, as Successor-in-Interest of the Estate of Reese Raines; Guy Riley, as Successor-in-Interest of the Estate of Kathleen Riley; Marion Ross; James Skazis; Clara Smith, as Successor-in-Interest of the Estate of Charles Smith; Regina Sponaugle, as Successorin-Interest of the Estate of Kenneth Sponaugle; Darrell Stevenson, as Successor-in-Interest of the Estate of Debra Stevenson; Robin Raesky, as Successor-in-Interest of the Estate of Delphia Swaney; Ralph Thibodeaux; Fayette Thomas; Angela McMurren, as Administrator of the Estate of Karon Tooley; Roy Wickward, as Representative of the Estate of Nancy Wickware; Jan Wright, as Administrator of the Estate of Michael Wright; Vernie Young Hunter J. Shkolnik Marissa C. Langhoff NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK & ASSOCIATES LLP 111 Corporate Drive, Suite 225 Ladera Ranch, California Counsel for Plaintiffs Rebecca Aldridge, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Oakley Aldridge; Alan S. Burstein and Margery G. Burstein; Ronald Cacossa; Angelo Consilvio, as Representative of the Estate of Angelina Consilvio; Wayne Cser,, as Representative of the Estate of Carol A. Cser; Jeannie M. Donelan, as Administratrix of the Estate of John T. Donelan; Cheryl Ostman, as Successor-in-Interest of the Estate of Ingrid Farha; James Gray Gilbert, Jr., as Successor-in-Interest of the Estate of Candace Nance Gilbert; Jerome Goldwire and Sharon Goldwire; George Haray and Susan Haray; Ann Jay, as Executrix of the Estate of Jerry Jay; Marty Ward, as Representative of the Estate of Viola Mosbey; Edward Naufel and Lucille Naufel; Reita Noe, as Representative of the Estate of

16 Case CAS/3:13-cv Document 10 Filed 04/29/13 Page 16 of 18 Thomas Noe; Dorothy Panko, as Administratrix of the Estate of Steven M. Panko; Benny Verania, as Administrator of the Estate of Karen Verania Jonathan V. O Steen O STEEN & HARRISON, PLC 300 W. Clarendon Avenue Phoenix, Arizona Farha Counsel for Plaintiff Cheryl Ostman, as Successor-in-Interest of the Estate of Ingrid Thomas P. Cartmell Thomas J. Preuss WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, Missouri Counsel for Plaintiffs Ronald Cacossa; James Gray Gilbert, Jr., as Successor-in-Interest of the Estate of Candace Nance Gilbert; Dawn Mooney, as Heir at Law of Ruth Nash; Vernie Young Steven D. Davis Tor A. Hoerman Jacob W. Plattenberger TORHOERMAN LAW LLC 101 West Vandalia Street, Suite 350 Edwardsville, Illinois Counsel for Plaintiff Marie Reed, as Successor-in-Interest of the Estate of Edgar Reed Ramon Rossi Lopez Matthew Ramon Lopez LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600 Newport Beach, California Counsel for Plaintiffs Francisca Anderson; Juanita Benton, as Successor-in-Interest of the Estate of Robert E. Benton; Jeanette Herbel; Joyce Kovelman, as Successor-in-Interest of the Estate of Gilbert Kovelman; Robert Loftus and Rosemarie Loftus; Marie Reed, as Successorin-Interest of the Estate of Edgar Reed; Regina Sponaugle, as Successor-in-Interest of the Estate of Kenneth Sponaugle; Darrell Stevenson, as Successor-in-Interest of the Estate of Debra Stevenson; Nancy Sylvainus and Joseph Sylvainus; Angela McMurren, as Administrator of the Estate of Karon Tooley

17 Case CAS/3:13-cv Document 10 Filed 04/29/13 Page 17 of 18 Michael S. Berg LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL S. BERG 401 W. A Street, Suite 2600 San Diego, California Counsel for Plaintiffs Rebecca Aldridge, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Oakley Aldridge; Angelo Consilvio, as Representative of the Estate of Angelina Consilvio; Edward Naufel and Lucille Naufel Stanley J. Marks Serena C. Montague BEGAM & MARKS, P.A. 111 West Monroe Street, Suite 1400 Phoenix, Arizona Counsel for Plaintiff Jackie Ruiz Michael K. Johnson Timothy J. Becker JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South 6th Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, Minnesota Counsel for Plaintiffs Theresa Graham; Jackie Ruiz Seth A. Katz BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH & JARDINE, P.C. 40 Inverness Drive East Denver, Colorado Counsel for Plaintiff Theresa Graham DEFENDANTS AND DEFENDANTS COUNSEL: Merck & Co., Inc ( Merck ) One Merck Drive P.O. Box 100 Whitehouse Station, NJ Merck Sharp & Dohme (Italia) S.P.A., Inc. ( MSDI ) Via Emilia, Pavia, Italy Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd. ( MSDL ) Cramlington, Northumberland UK NE23 3JU

18 Case CAS/3:13-cv Document 10 Filed 04/29/13 Page 18 of 18 Counsel for Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Douglas R. Marvin Williams & Connolly LLP 725 Twelfth Street N.W. Washington, DC Counsel for Amylin Pharmaceuticals, LLC: Richard B. Goetz O'Melveny and Myers LLP 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA Counsel for Eli Lilly and Company: Nina Gussack Pepper Hamilton LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Philadelphia, PA 19103