WILLIAM LAWRENCE, Magistrate Judge
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Suggestion-of-Remand Order (Docket No. 143). In support of their motion, Plaintiffs correctly note that this cause is comprised solely of Plaintiffs' case, that all discovery matters have been resolved, and that the only other pending motions before the Court relate to the admissibility of expert testimony or the validity of a Treasury regulation. Plaintiffs believe that the pending matters would be best adjudicated by the court that ultimately will decide the merits of the case, i.e., the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas ("the transferor court").
In contrast, Defendant would have this Court decide the pending matters. Defendant argues that this Court is in the best position to decide the pending matters based on its experience with the litigation to date. Defendant contends that a remand would be an inefficient use of judicial resources and that the transferor court would be required "to play catch-up" in order to resolve those matters.
The Court's discretion to issue a suggestion for remand turns on "whether the case will benefit from further coordinated proceedings as part of the MDL." In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 128 F. Supp. 2d 1196, 1197 (S.D. Ind. 2001). Having considered the instant motion and response thereto, the Court concludes that the motion should be granted. In making this decision, the Court is unpersuaded by Defendant's arguments. It is the Court's view that the pending motions in limine on the admissibility of expert testimony would be best resolved by the court that ultimately tries this case. Moreover, the Court does not have particular experience with the case that is relevant to the resolution of any of the pending motions. Indeed, the discovery issues resolved by this Court have not been administratively complex or novel. As such, this Court is no better position than the transferor court to decide the pending matters. Consequently, the Court finds that no efficiency would be gained by keeping this case.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs' Motion for Suggestion-of-Remand Order (Docket No. 143) is GRANTED. Pursuant to Rule 7.6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the Court hereby suggests to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that Case No. 1:06-cv-8000 be remanded to the transferor court. The Clerk of this Court is ORDERED to provide copies of this Order to the Clerk of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and the clerk of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
IT IS SO ORDERED: