In re: Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) Products Liability Litigation

          [PROPOSED] PRETRIAL ORDER No. 5: PROCEDURES FOR DIRECT FILING, MASTER PLEADINGS, AND SERVICE OF PROCESS

          HONORABLE RICHARD, SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. SCOPE OF ORDER

         1. Applicability of Order. This Order applies to all cases pending against Defendant Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer”) in MDL No. 2691 and to all actions against Pfizer that have been or will in the future be originally filed in, transferred to, or properly removed to this Court and assigned thereto as part of this MDL No. 2691.

         II. DIRECT FILING OF CASES IN MDL NO. 2691

         2. Direct Filing Permitted. To promote judicial efficiency and eliminate delays associated with the transfer to this Court of cases filed in or removed to other federal district courts, any Plaintiff whose case would be subject to transfer to MDL No. 2691 may file his or her case directly into MDL No. 2691 in the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

         3. Pfizer Shall Not Challenge Venue for Pretrial Purposes. Each case filed directly into MDL No. 2691 by a Plaintiff who resides in a federal district other than the Northern District of California will be filed into MDL No. 2691 for the purposes of pretrial proceedings, consistent with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s April 7, 2016 Transfer Order. Pfizer will not challenge the venue of any action filed directly into MDL No. 2691 for purposes of pretrial proceedings.

         4. No Lexecon Waiver. For cases filed directly into MDL No. 2691, the Parties preserve and do not waive any and all rights under Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss, 523 U.S. 26 (1998) to have each case remanded to the district of traditional venue for trial set forth in paragraph 10(e) herein.

         5. No Determination Regarding Jurisdiction or Venue. The inclusion of any case in MDL No. 2691, whether such case was or will be filed originally or directly in the Northern District of California, or transferred or removed to the Northern District of California, shall not constitute a determination by this Court that jurisdiction or venue is proper in this district.

         6. No Impact on Choice of Law. The fact that a case was filed directly in MDL No. 2691 pursuant to this Order will have no impact on choice of law, including the statute of limitations that otherwise would apply to an individual case had it been filed in another court and removed and/or transferred to this Court.

         III. MASTER COMPLAINT

         7. Purpose of Master Pleadings. In light of the number of Complaints filed to date and likely to be filed in the future in MDL No. 2691, and the inefficiencies of drafting those Complaints and individual Answers to those Complaints, the Parties have agreed to the following procedures for the use of Master Pleadings. Nothing in this Order is intended to (or does) alter the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of this Court, except as otherwise provided herein or in any subsequent Order.

         8. Deadline for Master Complaint. On or before September 9, 2016, the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (“PSC”) shall file in MDL No. 2691 a Master Complaint on behalf of all Plaintiffs asserting claims in MDL No. 2691.

         IV. SHORT FORM COMPLAINTS

         9. Content of Short Form Complaints. At the same time the PSC files the Master Complaint, the PSC also shall file as Exhibit 1 thereto a Master Short Form Complaint, which shall be an abbreviated form that future Plaintiffs will complete in lieu of filing new standalone Complaints. All Short Form Complaints shall adopt the ...