Alexis v. Combe Incorporated

Background

The plaintiffs sought a stay of the Alexis action while the court determined class certification in a related putative class action, Du Boc Ali, et al. v. Combe, Inc., No. 19 Civ. 6187 (CS) (PED). The opinion states that the same lawyers represented the parties in both actions, that the operative complaints asserted the same claims against the same defendant, and that the Alexis plaintiffs were potential members of the proposed class in the related case. The court described the actions as plainly duplicative.

The Alexis action originally involved approximately 133 plaintiffs. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims of 19 plaintiffs on July 15, 2020, leaving 114 plaintiffs addressed in the court’s discovery analysis. Counsel said the individual action had been filed as a protective measure in response to statements by Combe about the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs opposed individualized discovery while hoping their claims could be handled more efficiently through the related class action.

Arguments and analysis

The court explained that it had discretion to stay a duplicative federal action as part of its authority to manage its docket. It considered the competing interests of the plaintiffs, Combe, the courts, nonparties, and the public.

The plaintiffs believed their interests were adequately protected in the related class action. Combe argued that class certification was unlikely and that delaying the Alexis case could impair its ability to gather evidence. Combe also predicted that the Alexis plaintiffs might try to use favorable liability rulings from the related case. The court declined to predict whether class certification would be granted or to address hypothetical consequences of certification.

The court concluded that proceeding immediately with individualized discovery for the 114 Alexis plaintiffs would tend to eliminate the efficiency benefits of the class procedures sought in the first-filed related action. At the same time, it accepted Combe’s concern that delay could impair the collection of pertinent medical records.

Ruling

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to stay to the extent stated in the order. It stayed plenary discovery in the Alexis action. Combe was permitted to use an interrogatory or another efficient method agreed on by the parties to learn whether each Alexis plaintiff had sought medical attention or treatment for a condition allegedly caused by Combe’s products. If a plaintiff disclosed such treatment, that plaintiff was required, upon request, to sign a release complying with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act so defense counsel could obtain the records. The court noted that plaintiffs’ counsel had said information, including medical records, had already been informally provided, and directed the parties to confer about whether those disclosures could substitute for the procedure outlined in the order.

Judge Paul E. Davison also directed the clerk to close docket entries 22, 23, and 26.