In re Dept. of Veterans Affairs (Va) Data Theft, MDL-1796.

• Citation: 461 F.Supp.2d 1367
• Decision Date: 03 November 2006
• Docket Number: No. MDL-1796.,MDL-1796.
• Parties: In re DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA) DATA THEFT LITIGATION Vietnam Veterans Of America, Inc., et al. v. R. James Nicholson, et al., D. Dist. of Columbia, C.A. No. 1:06-1038 Paul Hackett, et al. v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs, et al., E.D. Kentucky C.A. No. 2:06-114 Michael Rosato, et al. v. R. James Nicholson, et al., E.D. New York, C.A. No. 1:06-3086
• Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

461 F.Supp.2d 1367

In re DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA) DATA THEFT LITIGATION

Vietnam Veterans Of America, Inc., et al. v. R. James Nicholson, et al., D. Dist. of Columbia, C.A. No. 1:06-1038

Paul Hackett, et al. v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs, et al., E.D. Kentucky C.A. No. 2:06-114

Michael Rosato, et al. v. R. James Nicholson, et al., E.D. New York, C.A. No. 1:06-3086

No. MDL-1796.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

November 3, 2006.

Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Before WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman, D. LOWELL JENSEN, J. FREDERICK MOTZ, ROBERT L. MILLER, Jr., KATHRYN H. VRATIL, DAVID R. HANSEN and ANTHONY J. SCIRICA, Judges of the Panel.

TRANSFER ORDER

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation currently consists of one action each in the District of District of Columbia, the Eastern District of Kentucky, and the Eastern District of New York. Defendants¹ move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the District of District of Columbia. Plaintiffs in the District of District of Columbia action support defendants' motion. Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Kentucky action and the Eastern District of New York action oppose the motion and, alternatively, support transfer to the Eastern District of Kentucky.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that these three actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the District of District of Columbia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions are putative nationwide class actions that share allegations concerning a May 3, 2006, theft of a laptop computer and external hard drive from the home of an employee of the VA. The computer, and/or accompanying external hard drive, contained the names, dates of birth, and social security numbers of approximately 26 million veterans and active duty military personnel. Plaintiffs bring, inter alia, claims under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, against defendants. Centralization under Section 1407 is necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

Plaintiffs argue in opposition to Section 1407 centralization that there are a minimal number of actions involved and that...