IN RE PLUM BABY FOOD LITIGATION

Background

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation considered a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize federal baby-food cases in one court for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The motion was filed by plaintiffs in the Albano action and proposed centralizing the litigation in the Eastern District of New York on an industry-wide basis.

The Panel stated that the litigation initially consisted of 38 actions in 10 districts and that it had been notified of 48 related federal actions in 12 districts. The plaintiffs alleged that baby-food manufacturers knowingly sold products containing arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury while marketing the products as healthy and as not containing harmful ingredients.

The responses varied. Some plaintiffs supported industry-wide centralization, while others opposed it or proposed centralization on a defendant-by-defendant basis. The defendants identified in the opinion—including Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, Campbell Soup Company, Plum, PBC, Gerber Products Company, The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Nurture, Inc., and Sprout Foods, Inc.—opposed centralization. Walmart Inc. also opposed centralization, and Safeway, Inc. took no position but suggested possible transferee districts.

The Panel’s reasoning

The Panel concluded that centralization was not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or for the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Although the cases shared general allegations about heavy metals and marketing, each defendant manufactured, marketed, and distributed its own products using different processes, suppliers, and quality-control procedures.

The Panel therefore expected many important issues to depend on defendant-specific facts, such as the amount of heavy metals in a product, the results of any internal testing, and the defendant’s marketing strategies. It also found that much of the discovery and pretrial practice would be specific to individual defendants. The common congressional investigation that prompted the cases was not expected to produce significant common discovery because it relied mainly on internal testing conducted by defendants and obtained by subpoena.

The Panel further observed that most of the 73 single-defendant actions had been filed or transferred to districts where the defendant was or had been headquartered. Some actions had already been consolidated, and other transfer or severance motions were pending. The Panel stated that transfer under other procedures, including 28 U.S.C. § 1404 or the first-to-file doctrine, was preferable to broad centralization under § 1407 in these circumstances.

Disposition

The Panel denied the motion for centralization. It did not centralize the industry-wide litigation or create defendant-specific multidistrict proceedings. The Panel said that the parties could pursue a more focused centralization request later if cases involving a particular defendant were not consolidated in one district and other coordination methods proved ineffective.

The case metadata identifies Judge Yvonne Rogers, but the opinion text identifies the deciding body as the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and does not state that Judge Rogers issued this order.