The U.S. Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has already finished its work from the January 21st session in New Orleans.

See the results:

Granting Transfer

S.D. Fla.

In re Enfamil LIPIL Mktg. & Sales Prac. Litig., MDL No. 2222 

N.D. Ga.

In re Camp Lejeune, North Carolina Water Contamination Litig., MDL No. 2218

N.D. Ill.

In re Discover Card Payment Protection Plan Mktg. & Sales Prac. Litig., MDL No. 2217

D. Mass.

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. SGLI/VGLI Contract Litig., MDL No. 2208

S.D. Miss.

In re Regions Bank ATM Fee Notice Litig., MDL No. 2202

E.D.N.Y.

In re Gaceau VitaminWater Mktg. & Sales Prac. Litig. (No. II), MDL No. 2215

In re Am. Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litig. (No. II), MDL No. 2221

S.D.N.Y.

In re Commodity Exchange, Inc., Silver Futures & Options Trading Litig., MDL No. 2213

N. D. Ohio

In re Kaba Simplex Locks Mktg. & Sales Prac. Litig., No. 2220

Denying Transfer

In re Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Programs Litig., MDL No. 2203

In re Schneider Nat'l Carriers, Inc., Wage & Hour Empl. Prac. Litig., MDL No. 2204

In re Webloyalty.com, Inc., Mktg. & Sales Prac. Litig (No. II), MDL No. 2206

In re Hungarian Holocaust Litig., MDL No. 2207

In re Equinox Fitness Wage & Hour Empl. Prac. Litig., MDL No. 2209

In re Abbott Labs., Inc., Similac Prod. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2211

In re Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Litig., MDL No. 2212

In re Crystal Poole IRS Summons Litig., MDL No. 2216

In re Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Litig., MDL No. 2219

Blawgletter wonders whether the fact that the Panel rejected motions to centralize cases in fully half of the MDL matters — nine out of 18 — made for quicker decisions.  We doubt it.  But we do think the denials fit with a trend we've spotted with this newish Panel.  

Panel members now seem more skeptical about the desirability in general of centralization.  Perhaps it reflects their collective concern that section 1407 transfers tend to favor certain kinds of outcomes or certain types of parties or lawyers.  As Chairman Heyburn noted in March 2010, the Panel has undertaken a study whether "centralization decisions may have the (unintended) tendency of benefitting certain groups of lawyers over others".  We'd guess that the Panel felt a need to test that hypothesis because, well, their honors already tended to believe it.

Or maybe parties and lawyers have just started filing weaker centralization motions.  

What do you think?